Being found dead with a needle in your arm is not a human right

[Renew Deal]

I've read posts today stating that all drugs should be legal, and Philip Seymour Hoffman is the only one to blame for his addiction problems, and that the problem isn't that there are too many addictive fatal drugs, but that there aren't enough.

That's all bullshit. It's RW libertarian Paulist crap. Democrats and liberals are supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to care about each other. This includes protecting each other from being found dead in our homes with needles sticking out of our arms. The irony of it all is that the people arguing for the right to die by needle also argue for soda bans, smoking bans, circumcision bans, plastic bag bans, alcohol bans, and even revoking licenses from the elderly.

Your idealistic "legalize all drugs" rants might feel good to say, but they have consequences that include the deaths of thousands every year.

Heroin Addiction and Overdose Statistics

The following represents a snapshot of the most current statistics available concern heroin addictions and heroin overdose.

In England in 2008, there were 897 overdose deaths that involved heroin. That figure was up dramatically (11%) from the previous year.

Around the world, men and women over the age of 35 have seen their heroin overdose rates grow by double-digits in each of the past two years.

Over 3.5 million people in the United States (over the age of 12) report having a heroin experience at least once in their lives.

Heroin overdose played a role in over 164,000 emergency room visits in 2006 across the United States.

The average heroin addict now spends between $150 – $200 per day to support his or her drug habit.

Men are slightly more likely to develop a heroin addiction than women.

Heroin and morphine accounted for 51% of all drug overdose deaths in the United States in the year 1999. That number has fallen in recent years but the rate remains significant.

http://heroin.net/heroin-effects/heroin-overdose-statistics

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. Step 1

Recognize addiction as a disease and not a criminal act. Putting people in jail for their illness doesn't solve anything. I'm not sure I agree with legalizing heroin, decriminalization would probably be better.

[Renew Deal]

3. Will it be more successful than the decriminalization of alcohol?

Or guns?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

4. What?

It will put people into treatment instead of jails. It will recognize addicts as being sick, and not just criminals. It will take the burden off of law enforcement who aren't equipped to treat an illness like addiction. It will stop feeding the prison industrial complex.



What is your solution? Locking someone up for having a disease? That doesn't work, never will.

[daleanime]

44. +1

[MrScorpio]

108. Damn skippy.

Make addiction a medica/social issue, not a criminal justice one.

[frylock]

128. you know that 80 proof bottle of whiskey you bought at the package store..

is going to be 80 proof, because alcohol production and distribution is regulated. the problem with heroin use is it varies from one dose to the next.

[cinnabonbon]

88. +1

I mean, the model we have now for dealing with people with addictions is clearly not working.

[Javaman]

114. While I completely agree with you...

the reality is that the local cops and the feds make way to much money off the drug trade to ever decriminalize it.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

2. Decriminalization can work.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html

[Historic NY]

109. Thats not their final conclusion......

"We haven't found some miracle cure," Goulão says. Still, taking stock after nearly 12 years, his conclusion is, "Decriminalization hasn't made the problem worse."

They aren't stopping the flow, of illegal substances they just moved the shell on the pea.

"The police still search people for drugs," Goulão points out. Hashish, cocaine, ecstasy -- Portuguese police still seize and destroy all these substances.

Before doing so, though, they first weigh the drugs and consult the official table with the list of 10-day limits. Anyone possessing drugs in excess of these amounts is treated as a dealer and charged in court. Anyone with less than the limit is told to report to a body known as a "warning commission on drug addiction" within the next 72 hours.

Apparently the massive replacement drug methadone isn't filling the void between the legal and illegal supplies. Dealers are still selling and users are still using.

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4554?tab=responses

[neverforget]

5. Some drugs are illegal yet people still get them, become addicted and some die. What else are we

supposed to do? Addiction is a disease yet we treat the users as criminals. Our prisons are overflowing with addicts. We build more prisons and we fill them up with nonviolent addicts. What do you suggest we do?

[NutmegYankee]

6. The intent is to decriminalize drugs.

That way, someone who is abusing them can seek help without fear of criminal charges and without the risk of losing their career. The stigma behind drug use keeps people from getting the care for their medical issue.

There are obviously some drugs that shouldn't be "over the counter", and there are some that almost certainly have no good use like Meth. Overdoses are partially a problem provided by a black market that doesn't allow for regulation of the strength of the drugs (because they are illegal), and partially a result of the underground nature of drug use that doesn't allow for limits/advice on consumption. Marijuana, a low risk drug, has been legalized in some locations and decriminalized in others, based on either the pure recreational value or medical benefits. Main problem with the stuff now is that it is usually smoked, so you inhale smoke into your lungs. Not unlike another legal product...

As for protecting each other - one can only do so much. Despite our best efforts to warn people of the dangers of acetaminophen overdoses, with warnings on packages and in the news, people still die from it. You are after all still in control of your own actions.

[Ghost in the Machine]

101. I agree with you almost 100% on this post, so it saved me from a lot of typing :-) The *only* thing

I disagree about is on marijuana, and this statement:

" Marijuana, a low risk drug, has been legalized in some locations and decriminalized in others, based on either the pure recreational value or medical benefits. Main problem with the stuff now is that it is usually smoked, so you inhale smoke into your lungs. Not unlike another legal product..."

Unlike cigarettes, which people inhale and hold in their lungs also, the cigarettes do not cause a deep, lung-clearing cough like inhaled pot does. When you take a big toke from a joint, and you start coughing hard, it actually draws more fresh air into the lungs, and it also loosens phlegm and other mucous from the airways, thus cleaning the lungs/airways out more. Cigarette smoke just sits in the lungs and collects, as it doesn't really act as an expectorant.

In the new study, which was published in The Journal of the American Medical Association and financed by the National Institutes of Health, roughly 5,100 men and women in four cities – Oakland, Calif.; Chicago; Minneapolis; and Birmingham – were interviewed and given lung function tests repeatedly over 20 years. They were on average about age 25 at the start, and more than half smoked marijuana, cigarettes or both.
The researchers found that for moderate marijuana smokers, an exposure of up to seven “joint years” — with one joint-year equivalent to smoking 365 joints or filled pipes, or an average of one joint a day for seven years — did not worsen pulmonary function. Dr. Kertesz noted that with heavier marijuana use, described as 10 joint-years of exposure or more, lung function did begin to decline. And for a person who smokes both marijuana and cigarettes, “the net effect is going to be continued loss of lung function.”
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Peace,

Ghost

[Bohunk68]

106. You have assumed that

inhaling pot and holding it causes coughing. Just recently, I was visiting friends and the only people that coughed were those who ere tobacco smokers. The two of us that did not smoke tobacco never coughed once and it was decent material. Because I am usually the oldest one in the room, I also usually take the deepest hits and hold it the longest. Need to smoke much less that way. The rest of the post seems to be what I have witnessed over the years.

[Ghost in the Machine]

115. I don't "assume" anything. I speak from 40+ years of my own experience. Oh, and by the way,

the whole 'taking a big toke and holding it as long as you can to get higher' is just a myth. All that happens is that the holding it in deprives your brain of oxygen, making you *think* you're getting higher.

Decent pot is much smoother, in my experience, and doesn't make you cough much because you tend to hit it slower and easier to 'savor the flavor'. I've smoked some of the best weed in the world, as one of my best friends in Miami was a Coptic preacher from Jamaica and grew some stuff out in the Everglades that would blow your mind. I'm talking some "one hitter quitter" stuff. I've also smoked some shit that tasted like it was pulled from a ditch in Kansas or somewhere. I had also been smoking pot for 11 years before I started smoking cigarettes.

I know people who think the more, and harder, you cough the better the weed and I know others who think just the opposite. The bottom line though, is that pot *does* act as an expectorant and clears the lungs from those deep, phlegm-loosening coughs. There's more evidence out there to back that up than the one article I linked to... all you have to do is look!

Peace,

Ghost

[NutmegYankee]

136. I appreciate the information.

I've never smoked the stuff, so I just looked at it like cigarettes.

[Geddy Ringo]

7. It damn well IS a human right

I wouldn't expect a liberal / progressive to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body and life.

I for one don't give a damn who kills themselves with drugs. That is their right, and something that would be more likely avoided with proper regulation.

I am far more concerned with those who destroy lives to make profits off those drugs.

[BainsBane]

10. I guess that must make it a big corpporation's right to dump toxic chemicals

Last edited Tue Feb 4, 2014, 04:59 AM - Edit history (1)

By that logic. Don't tell companies they have to pay a minimum wage. Keep government off their backs. Yeah, that's libertarianism all right.

I agree with the OP. People are irrational on this issue. Some things are extremely dangerous and therefore illegal. Heroin is not marijuana. That libertarian crap is right wing, anti-social, anti-government swill. You all can kill yourselves if you want to, but you aren't taking the next generation of young people with you. I'm not going to stand silently while people promote self-absorbed individualism. That Ayn Rand shit isn't liberal or progressive. It's RW nihilism.

[Egnever]

15. What in the world?

How does does being responsible or not for ones own body equate to the actions of corporations?

[BainsBane]

16. Govt off our backs. It's the same thing

Asserting the absolute right to have access to lethal drugs is the kind of unbridled individualism that underlies arguments that corporations should not be regulated in what they do. It is the same anti-govt regulation ideology. Are you seriously going to assert that absolute rights of the individual to have no interference or regulation from govt doesn't also apply to corporations? That is nonsensical. Either one holds that the govt has a social responsibility for the good of society or one doesn't. There is no theory of government or politics that gives individuals absolute liberty while regulating corporate activity.

[Egnever]

30. So fuck abortion then right?

Because we cant be allowed to control our bodies. Screw that it is nowhere near the same thing. Govt off my back my ass.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

37. Ironically Ayn Rand was all for abortion.

So I guess that makes anyone who is pro choice an Ayn Rand loving libertarian right winger by their idiotic logic.

[Springslips]

127. Good job outing the strawman.

Tools of effective reasoning are desperately needed on DU. Arguing for drug legalization isn't nearly the same as asking for minimum wage.

[BainsBane]

47. So what exactly is it you want?

You want govt to control all corporate activity but allow you to buy and sell lethal drugs? Should you be able to lace drugs and give them to people knowing they will die? Or is it just yourself you want to kill?

Precisely what theory of government is it that allows you to use and profit from lethal chemicals but doesn't allow a corporation the same right?

Truthfully, I don't really care what you do. If you want to go buy heroin laced with fentanyl right now, go for it. Inject it to your hearts content. If that's your idea of freedom, far be it from me to stop you.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

51. I want the Portuguese model.

Prosecute dealers and cartels.

Possession of drugs for personal use is a fine, not prison.

Invest in treatment, not prisons.



Same thing with prostitution, prosecute Johns and pimps, not the workers.



You get nothing out of criminalizing disease and victimhood.

[Egnever]

54. Once again wild leaps from control of ones own body

to harming others.

Awesome hyperbole though

[BainsBane]

63. If you can't be bothered to state your position

Why even start a discussion? Heroin should be legal but not selling it? How exactly does that work? You don't seem to have given much thought to the issue. No wonder you can't comment on a theory of government that would incorporate whatever it is you have in mind.

[Egnever]

84. LOL and another ridiculous response.

[BainsBane]

91. A ridiculous response

beats no response, which is precisely what you have done. All you seem to want to do is attack a complete stranger. What a waste of time and energy.

The only reason you think it ridiculous is you don't understand it because, it appears, you don't even understand your own position and what that might mean for society and government more broadly. From what I can tell, you haven't gotten beyond the "it's all about me" stage. There are several responses in this thread that show why is not simply all about you.

[Egnever]

97. Good lord

You have morphed the conversation from control of ones own body being the same as corporate poisoning of commons to whatever you are going on about now.

Grats!

[Warren DeMontague]

64. The situation we have right now is, even a terminally ill person in crippling pain can't make that

choice, in most states.

Things have been skewed far more towards the authoritarian control of individuals, for a very long time. And in case you haven't noticed, corporations are STILL free to do all sorts of egregious shit to large numbers of other people- witness the water in West Viriginia. Locking up millions of people for doing forbidden things with their own bodies, bloodstreams and neurochemistry has not impacted corporate freedom or personhood in very much of a meaningful sense.

So it's a false dichotomy, and a conflation.

Fentanyl? I tell you what, if I'm terminally ill with some shit like bone cancer-- That's how I'd prefer to go, thanks. We let our pets have peaceful pain-free exits, yet apparently offering that choice to humans is too "libertarian". Ewwww!

[BainsBane]

67. Do you think the 100 people who died in the past couple of months

from Fentanyl laced heroin wanted to go that way? Would you like your kids shooing up that stuff?


It's one thing to propose better drug policy and another to espouse libertarian bullshit about government not controlling anything. Fuck that Ayn Rand shit.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I think the drug war as it stands is NOT working.

So I support harm reduction policies, in whatever form that would take.

For heroin addicts, that might mean medically supervised use with known purity as opposed to taking unknown street drugs. And no, I "wouldn't want my kids" doing a lot of things, like smoking cigarettes or drinking a fifth of jack daniels a night.

Shit, I've seen the ugliness that even a bunch of ill-timed margaritas can cause.

Yet somehow I can hold that idea in my head and not simultaneously support alcohol prohibition. Funny, that.

[BainsBane]

73. You are ignoring my points

as usual.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. No, I'm not.

I told you, I think harm reduction policies might have saved those lives you asked about. Criminalization, the drug war, and the status quo obviously didn't.

[BainsBane]

92. You did so in a mocking tone

As though I don't support change in drug policy, which tells me you didn't even read what I wrote.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. Oh no, not the "tone argument" again!

If one backs the train up the thread and looks, one can see who is tossing out insults, names, ad hominems and labels. It's not me.

"As usual".

[davidpdx]

105. I tend to agree with you

(and I have to remind myself to kick that habit). When I was married to my first wife, her niece had been doing some nutty stuff (She stole a truck and drove it into someone's house. The truck was owned by my wife and driven by her mom, but was insured under my policy) and ended up getting into drugs (I have no idea what the entire story was). She ended up doing something that was laced with bleach and was taken to the hospital, but not soon enough. I think she ended up holding on for several days before dying. She was only 17.

I agree that treatment should be available for people who need it, but it shouldn't be the be all end all excuse for behavior. Again, another relative of my first wife (oh God the stories!), his time her brother. I've told this story 4 or 5 times on DU. He had DUI's in Oregon and moved to the east coast, got more DUI's and ended up killing his girlfriend in a car crash that he lived through. Sentenced to 15 years for manslaughter, wasted two lives.

Thankfully my second wife's family doesn't have these kind of issues.

[MicaelS]

121. Of course there is a philosophy that can allow freedom while strongly regulating business.

You just have to be willing to accept the fact that human personhood can be divorced from corporate personhood. Which you don't seem to accept.

I fully support the movement to Repeal Corporate Personhood.

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

I also support the legalization, regulation and taxation of all drugs. Treat Cannabis like Beer or Wine. You can grow enough for yourself. You can give it away. You can't sell it unless you buy a license and pay heavy taxes to do so. Let corporations produce Cannabis commercially, with all the attendant advertising, trademarking etc. Tax it heavily at the Corporate level. The rest of the harder drugs would only be available in a pharmacies at a fixed price. No branding, advertising or trademarks. Fixed purity levels.

End the efforts by government to prevent people in pain from receiving whatever medicines they need. Free doctors to write whatever they feel they need for the management's of a patient's pain. We're too worried about prescription opiate addiction in this country, so some people go though life in constant pain or are treated like criminals because they're "drug seeking." The price of having opiates is some will get addicted. Just like alcohol and tobacco. The price of having all drugs legal and accessible is some will misuse them.

But then you really don't believe in Personal Freedom. You have made that clear with your posts in this thread. With your posts about Guns and Pornography. You're just another Authoritarian who thinks they know what is best for every other adult.

[freshwest]

21. Also selling stuff to people that will kill them is a perfect Randian eugenics program. n/t

[ForgoTheConsequence]

23. If you decriminalize there are still punishments for dealers.

...

[BainsBane]

26. There seem to be a lot of people on DU of late who hate everything about government

Libertarianism is clearly a right-wing ideology. That they try to pass it off as liberal or Democratic is laughable.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

32. There are right and left libertarians.

The term "libertarian" in itself has been hijacked by neocon tea baggers like Rand Paul.

Again, you speak on which you know nothing about.

[BainsBane]

39. You talk alot and don't bother to find out what people think

Left wing libertarianism is called anarchism. Bachunin, Kropotkin, etc. The term libertarian has been used by the right and anarchism by the left. Neither are part of the Democratic Party.

You clearly have no interest in doing anything but insulting me, so I really have no interest in discussing anything with you. By all means, go buy some heroin mixed with Fentanyl. If that's your conception of freedom, far be it from me to stop you injecting it to your hearts content.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

42. I work with addicts.

They don't belong in jail. Your Love for Reagan's war on drugs is telling. Tell me again how progressive it is to put diseased people in prison?



And left libertarianism is often interchangeable with anarcho communism. Good job Googling though.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Trying to peg someone as a libertarian based on one issue is not a very bright tactic.

Portugal has decriminalized ALL drugs, and after over a decade of downward usage trends in everything but pot, their results are something we could reasonably model new drug policy upon.

[BainsBane]

60. Well, when they admit to being libertarian

It pretty much confirms the point. Besides, it's not based on one subject. Just because you only see the one post doesn't mean I don't remember their positions on a host of other issues.

I'm all for decriminalization or legalization of pot and treating drug addiction as a public health issue. That is not the same as allowing free access to any and all lethal substances just because some people around here hate government. If they want to kill themselves, far be it from me to stop them, but I don't want them taking the nation's children with them.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. There are certainly left-leaning civil libertarians.

Anti-war, anti-crony-capitalism, anti-authoritarian, etc. I don't think they would be too out of place here, on a vast array of issues.

But I find decriminalization agreeable enough.
I think some of the disagreement in this thread has been imprecise language between decriminalization of usage/possession versus distribution/manufacturing/importation.

I'm not going to go down the 'for the children' path here, but for the 'fuck you I'll do what I want' crowd, I would at least point out, fine, but SOMEONE is going to have to scrape up your stinking corpse...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

61. True.

Like I mentioned earlier, Ayn Rand supported abortion rights. That doesn't mean someone who supports abortion rights is a right wing, Ayn Rand fan.

[freshwest]

79. There is an innate libertarianism within all of us. How much we want in politics is up to debate.

We have a range from 'Just let me be myself' seeking the truth of one's self to the sociopathic 'I can do anything I want to anyone, if you don't like it, get out of my way or I'll kill you and keep on doing it.'

The former we have no issue with but the latter, most of us have a lot of issues with.

But as the OP undertands, this is not going to be a rational discussion. TygerBright has the most illuminated and loving response on the thread so far.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

22. Arresting people for being sick is authoritarian right wing nonsense.

"Irrational" is keeping the same policies in place that we have now. Keep feeding the prison industrial complex and throwing sick people jail. Very progressive of you.

[BainsBane]

25. I said nothing about sending people to prision

but by all means, continue your dialogue with yourself. You obviously find it more interesting than anything I say.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. When you actually say something, I'll listen.

You offer nothing. Much easier that way and you feel good for having participated, I get it.

[quakerboy]

98. Your words lack logic

You use the word "logic" but your argument is not based on it, conflating several completely unrelated issues.

If a corporation was a person, then it could arguably be a big corporations right to dump toxic chemicals on its own person, same as it arguably would have a right to inject drugs into its own person.

No one is advocating that anyone has a right to inject drugs into another person. Or dump chemicals on another person.

[MrMickeysMom]

14. I get just as upset about getting behind a wheel buzzed...

or texting, or sleepy drivers… They kill other people.

[TygrBright]

31. What you do with your body and life has consequences for others.

The libertarian fallacy is that your personal decisions affect no one but you.

Which is not true.

Addiction costs ALL of us large amounts of money every year in many ways. Cleaning up the messes after intoxicated drivers, workers, etc., is only the beginning. Families get broken up by addiction, with a whole avalanche of expensive consequences for everyone.

We are all valuable to each other, we are all resources for building healthy communities that allow all of us to thrive. When we choose to damage ourselves, we not only deprive our families and fellow-taxpayers of the resource of ourselves functional and healthy, but we generally cost each other other ways.

The challenge of forming communities (polities, states, etc.) is balancing where we're comfortable allowing each other to inflict damage on the community by giving us the freedom to damage ourselves.

Pretending that the damage doesn't happen is neither "liberal" nor "progressive."

wearily,
Bright

[liberal_at_heart]

33. I have a sister in law who is an addict, and I see the pain it inflicts on my brother and

niece. However, telling others what to do with their own bodies is what conservative fundies do and I will have no part of it. Not to mention that trying to control other people's bodies does not work which is something conservatives have not figured out. I would have thought that liberals would be able to figure this out.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

34. No one is pretending that damage doesn't happen.

It does cost a lot of money and it does hurt a lot of people. That's why we're arguing against the status quo.

The prison industrial complex and drug dealers have gotten wealthy while addicts suffer because of our backwards drug policies. Criminalizing illness doesn't work.

[TygrBright]

56. The poster I was responding to asserted:

>>It damn well IS a human right

I wouldn't expect a liberal / progressive to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body and life.

I for one don't give a damn who kills themselves with drugs. That is their right, and something that would be more likely avoided with proper regulation.<<

My post was a direct response to that.

My post was not:

1) An assertion that the Drug War is acey-dandy groovy public policy that will solve all our problems,
2) A manifesto advocating that we should lock all those filthy drug addict barstids up and throw away the key,
3) A characterization of people suffering from addiction as inferior worthless human beings,
4) A call for draconian restrictions on any personal freedom that might have any costs to society at all.

Merely, I noted that personal choices DO have consequences for others, and that while individuals have personal rights and freedoms, responsible societies also have a right to protect their members from the damage inflicted by each others' exercise of those personal rights and freedoms.

I regret bringing it up now. This is clearly not the time.

That's me bowing out on this issue for now.

wearily,
Bright

[Warpy]

46. The punitive approach doesn't work

Time to try something else.

[TygrBright]

52. I don't think I advocated the "punitive approach," did I?

I've always advocated for treating addiction as the debilitating disease it is, and making treatment freely and readily available.

Nor do I advocate for the stupid, costly Drug War.

Nor do I advocate for treating sick people like criminals.

But claiming that engaging in health-damaging behaviors hurts no one but yourself is hard to justify in a social, interdependent species.

It's possible for a society to discourage people from engaging in behaviors and making "personal choices" that damage everyone and cost all of us, without rushing straight to the "OMG, treating people as criminals taking away personal freedom shaming stigma horror horror horror!" conclusion. Difficult, but possible.

However, apparently not on DU, this 24 hours.

That's me signing out of this discussion.

wearily,
Bright

[DeSwiss]

57. Everything has consequences.

Absolutely EVERYTHANG.

Peace.

[freshwest]

68. You Win the Thread. I'm going to study that post for a while. Thanks. n/t

[TheFrenchRazor]

132. we already have laws against all of those "consequences." there are laws against DUI,

theft, child neglect, etc., and when those laws are broken, the perps should be punished. we don't need an extra layer of laws to "protect people from themselves," as it were.

[DeSwiss]

55. This.

[Kablooie]

8. I just wish the government would mandate soma for everyone.

Then we wouldn't have to argue over these things.


edit:
Egads, there is Soma available now. I don't think it has quite the same effect as the one brought to you by a brave new world.

[LeftyMom]

9. It's mostly the black market that kills people.

In the absence of a black market people know what they're getting and how much. The black market drives the violence.

Experiments in harm reduction models where addicts are given regular access to an uncontaminated dosage tend to find that they taper themselves safely AND they manage to live more complete, functional lives with jobs and responsibilities.

Additionally, the upswing in heroin usage in the US is largely driven by a crackdown on the abuse of prescription pain medications. On what planet is driving people to street drugs "winning" the fight against prescription drug abuse?

[RainDog]

11. My response to the death of PSH is: what a tragedy. what a loss

I don't know the circumstances surrounding his relapse.

He was separated from his long-time lover and their children. He had a history of substance abuse. He seemingly injected heroin and died from that.

I don't think he had any "right" to die that way and I sincerely doubt many people do. The rest of your first two paragraphs don't make much sense to me, either, as far as the things I've read here.

What I have seen, and what I think is a useful way to deal with addiction is harm reduction. That means an addict is not stigmatized. It doesn't mean they're encouraged or that they have a right. It means they struggle with an addiction that has resulted in negative actions.

Decriminalizing drugs in order to be able to approach addicts in this way is not about any "right" to use drugs.

It's about trying to find ways to reduce the human costs of drug addiction.

Something interesting about the recent increase in heroin. Drugs seem to go in cycles. I wonder how those cycles track with economic stress, since that's the biggest stressor in our nation for adults. The 70s, with its economic mess, were also a time when a lot of people used heroin. But it was also coming out of a time when drugs became part of a larger subculture, or that subculture became well known because of mass media.

Anyway, I can't really say what causes this cycle - but heroin use is on the rise at this time and those who are looking at this say it's related to the crackdown on opiod prescription drugs.

Because the prescription drugs are harder to get, those who are addicted turn to heroin because it's available cheaply on the black market.

So, again, there are questions about harm reduction.

Is it better to use a prescription opiod, even with the risk of overdose, because the product is known, or better to have that addiction played out on the street.

I know what I think. In a perfect world, no one would ever be an addict. But we don't live in a perfect world. So how can we try to improve the life of addicts in such ways that they are encouraged to face their own addictions?

Hoffman did not use for two decades. In the last few years he started using again. Unfortunately he died because of this. That's what his death means to me. How sad for his children. How sad for the acting community. How sad for us all who loved his humanity.

[TheKentuckian]

12. Your drug war has failed, wax as moral and high sounding as you please

but you still have unworkable nonsense as your "cure", toxic to democracy and civil liberties by definition.

No thanks. Talking about idealistic! You think because something is "bad" that you can blot it out with a prohibition despite all of human history as a clear example of how unworkable such things are.

[defacto7]

13. What do the chemicals have to do with it?

It's the people we have to get to. It's the people who need help. If they choose not to accept help it's their business, but I would try hard as hell to get a message of hope to them. It is a world wide fact that criminalization and prohibition of drugs do not and have never worked. On the contrary, decriminalization has been a success when the source has been taken out of the hands of organized thugs, killers and promoters of the habit.

Help and support of the people is the answer. Punishment and criminalization feed the habit in a circle of pain that only profits providers and prosecutors.

[delrem]

17. Rat Park experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park#The_Rat_Park_experiments

[Kablooie]

18. I'd say its more of a human wrong no matter what the law says.

[Warpy]

19. Overdoses happen mostly because the drugs are illegal

and the addict never knows what he's getting, even if he tries to go to the same dealer every time. A secondary cause is polydrug abuse, mixing it with cheaper depressants like alcohol to potentiate the drug to cut costs. Suicide is another factor, and many of those overdose deaths reflect years of self medication, loss of hope as the drugs lose effectiveness, and suicide.

Addicts spend so much because of black market prices and that in turn drives street crime.

Legalizing and restricting the drugs would accomplish several things: assuring pure doses at guaranteed potency would cut morbidity and mortality in addicts; making the drugs cheap enough would drive the drug gangs out of business; street crime would decrease (it decreased 80% in a pilot program in the UK in the 80s); the country would save billions in paramilitary operations around the world and consequently make fewer enemies; and inpatient rehab for people who run into problems would cost chump change compared to interdiction and eradication.

In addition, we'd see fewer bathtub drugs like krokodil.

Face it, the drug war has been a dismal failure. People who want the stuff are getting it and the criminal pipeline is wide open to kids. We see the Bill of Rights eroded every year in the name of fighting this futile war on human behavior.

Only crazy people keep repeating the same failures every time, expecting them to succeed. Prohibition has not worked, is not working, will not work.

It's time to try something else.

[Egnever]

100. Well said.

[Rex]

20. You can argue that all you want to, but you have no control over what other people do.

It is a human right to make really horrible decisions. .

[ReRe]

24. I agree...

... addiction is a disease. We all have an addiction to a certain degree. My vices are cigs and Zero Coke, a weakness for foods that are less than healthy for me, and Democratic Underground. It is a constant battle, to control or quit smoking, to drink H2O instead of cola, to moderate my diet. Others have worse addictions, i.e. drug addiction, alcoholism, sexual addiction, money addictions like gambling and shopping! What is the missing element in the lives of the addicted? Chemical(s) in the brain or lack of receptors in our nervous systems? The inability to see anything positive about life? Depression is probably the biggest cause for serious addictions. It's sort of a form of living purgatory, a step between life and death. The emotional pain they feel is too much to bear, so they turn to hard drugs. Life sucks. Some cope better than others. Oh, and there's another thing that might be the cause of drug addiction: a toxic gene-alignment in our DNA. Addiction is a biological/health problem.

[freshwest]

27. Expressed so very well. Thanks, ReRe. n/t

[ReRe]

45. Thanks, freshwest

My Dad was a alcoholic. In my young adulthood, slapped in the face with life (single mother with child), I became very depressed. But rather than go for drugs, I went for help. I marched myself to the nearest hospital and got some psychological counseling. I learned so much on the side, too. Read every book on abnormal psychology I could get my hands on, went back to college and took some psychology and sociology classes with the rest of my studies, That's what I do. If something goes wrong, I do my best to solve the problem. I hit the stacks. Not all people have the ability or desire to do that. They just give up and reach for the drugs. I am very lucky and wish everyone else was the same. But I darn sure don't look down my nose at anyone who is addicted. That's like kicking a dog when it's down. Not me. That's just not me. I really appreciated Philip Seymour Hoffmans as a brilliant actor. His passing really is a loss. So sad.

[liberal_at_heart]

29. +1

[Jamastiene]

135. This part of what you wrote:

"Depression is probably the biggest cause for serious addictions. It's sort of a form of living purgatory, a step between life and death. The emotional pain they feel is too much to bear, so they turn to hard drugs."

really struck home for me. That is EXACTLY how depression feels. I have never heard anyone express it so closely to how it really feels. Thank you.

[TheFrenchRazor]

35. since heroin's illegal, i guess mr. hoffman's not dead. nt.

[Vashta Nerada]

36. If people are stupid enough to kill themselves while doing drugs, that's their business.

He knew the dangers of drug use, yet he kept doing it.

I support people's right to choose whether they want to do drugs or not. Everyone knows the consequences.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

38. He had a disease.

Sometimes diseases win. It's tragic, but it's a fact of life.


That being said diseases should never be criminalized and we should do everything we can to give people a way out from their addiction.

[Vashta Nerada]

41. I agree.

[JDPriestly]

40. We are fighting a war in heroine heaven, otherwise known as Afghanistan.

If this war is anything like the Vietnam War, we will have servicemen and others working in Afghanistan who come home either addicted or smuggling in drugs. I can't say that has happened, but some of the guys who went to Vietnam came back addicts.

What do we expect when we send impressionable teenagers and young adults to the terrors of war, and perhaps injuries that cause lifelong pain. That is not an excuse for a person who is quite mature and "clean" for 23 years. But it may explain the ease with which he obtained the heroin that killed him.

[Starry Messenger]

43. wtf does desiring harm reduction in our drug policies

have to do with plastic bags? Come back with an OP that makes actual sense.

Otherwise you just sound like a fundie that wants to outlaw abortion because women are addicted to sex.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

48. Hey guys let's continue Reagan's failed war on drugs!!!!!!!!

If you don't agree you're an Ayn Rand loving republican, or something. It may be costing us billions of dollars and feeding the prison industrial complex but at least I feel good about myself!






Only on this site can disagreeing with RONALD FUCKING REAGAN get you called a "right winger"...

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Oh, there are a bunch of Reagan policies which get certain folks all misty eyed and excited.

It's downright, what's the word? Creepy.

[Jesus Malverde]

81. nostalgia..nt

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I believe peoples' bodies fundamentally belong to themselves: not to the Government, or "God".

If that makes me a libertarian poopy head or an individualist or an alleged randoid paulbot or a blargle farlgle narglehopper, or someone who causes hair pulling spittle-flinging tantrums among certain circles on DU, eh, tough shit. I've got a long-ass list of silly labels, letters, and adjectives that have been thrown at me, I'll live.

And here's the other thing: the drug war is as it currently stands, i.e. an authoritarian wet dream--- is an abject fucking failure. Heroin is already about as illegal as it can be, and it's not stopping people from using it.

[davidthegnome]

59. You had me at "blargle farlgle narglehopper"

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Some people looooove their labels.

I used to think labels were really meaningful and important, too... but something happened to my brain. It was probably drugs.

[freshwest]

66. Yes, it's a keeper. He wins the internets. Now I'll have to get a translation of that term.

Because blargle farlgle narglehopper sounds familiar.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. I googled it, and all I got was dish.com offering something called a "free hopper upgrade"

think they mean bunnies?

[Rex]

76. Besides, who here is calling for all drugs to be legalized? The OP is making wild assumptions

sounds like some panic setting in imo.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I haven't seen that point argued here, seriously.

I think drug warriors are freaked out by pot legalization, which has jack diddly shit to do with heroin, but it has everything to do with drug war budgets, since the DEA spends most of their resources fighting pot smoking, not heroin use.

[Rex]

86. True if the DEA actually fought drugs that were killing us en mass they would go after Big Pharma.

Pot is the easy one to make into everyones favorite scapegoat. Also, I will be dammed if I am going to get lectured by someone not qualified to debate me about drugs or my right to own my own body. THEN babble something about libertarians and republicans as if it was an afterthought. Failsauce.

Authoritarians just hate it when we fuck with the status quo and I think that is EXACTLY what all these recent FUD stories are about. It is their inability to accept change.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. And the argument that "if you let PEOPLE do what they want, corporations will run amok!"

Yeah, uh, Corporations already run amok.

[TheFrenchRazor]

134. correct. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Your BS prohibition rant has consequences too. Like a higher usage rate of heroin.

"Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%"

Decriminalization works, period.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[BainsBane]

94. Heroin use, according to experts, is up 79% because of LEGAL drugs

They transition from prescription opiates to heroin because it is cheaper and stronger. Few begin straight from heroin. They begin with legal drugs. Did Portugal have a huge problem with prescription drug addiction? The path to heroin addiction would seem to indicate that legalization alone is not a panacea, since legal drugs are widely abused. In my state, the biggest problem is with locally manufactured drugs that are entirely legal because the law cannot keep up with the myriad of new synthetic drugs that are created and sold entirely legally.

The entire criminalization framework for drugs is problematic. It should be treated as a public health problem. The US, however, is the largest consumer of drugs, legal and illegal, in the world. There is something particular to the American character that seeks quick pleasure and leads to addiction. Somehow that has to be understood and addressed. My guess is it's part of the same impulse that drives our consumer culture.

Characterizing the OP as a "prohibition rant" s unfair. People clearly are deluded about the effects of heroin and have posted all sorts of insane stuff insisting it is harmless, despite the fact that death by overdose is up over 100 percent in the past few years. Clearly it is not harmless. It is not marijuana (which isn't harmless either, but certainly is nothing like heroin).

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Not the same issue but

prescription painkiller abuse and heroin carry the same sort of legal penalties that cause people not to seek treatment.

I'll have to look for Portugal's numbers on prescription drug abuse, but the heroin numbers fell precipitously, because as a public health problem, rather than a criminal issue, abusers self-sought available treatment, and not only heroin usage fell, but methadone and other 'weaning' medication use fell as well.

That's an outcome we should be fighting to replicate.

[ecstatic]

65. I want to decriminalize drugs. I certainly don't want to see

everyone doing drugs, but at the same time, the war on drugs is destroying lives and creates new criminals daily. Trying to control what people put in their own bodies is too authoritarian, IMO. Just don't get behind the wheel or endanger others. By the way, I don't smoke or do drugs and I rarely drink.

[Spider Jerusalem]

69. Here's the thing that anti-drug zealots don't get:

if addiction were treated as a medical problem and not as a criminal problem, and if heroin were decriminalised (NOT legalised) and available to addicts on prescription, there would be far fewer overdose deaths. Smackheads OD because street heroin varies widely in purity; if you're used to getting stuff that's 10% pure and you suddenly get some that's 25% pure? the same amount will have much stronger effects that may include death from respiratory paralysis. Street heroin is also full of impurities; part of the problem of "overdoses" is the stuff street smack is cut with. Decriminalise and regulate? That won't be a problem anymore. And it should be pretty obvious that the current prohibitionist approach is not working.

[DeSwiss]

70. ....

[ZombieHorde]

71. There is no such thing as human rights.

No one has any rights. This is a dangerous myth that has indirectly caused a lot of harm.

[kcr]

83. Well, if no one has any rights, then what was the harm?

No one's rights were violated. They didn't exist.

[ZombieHorde]

89. The harm in what?

I don't know what situation you had in mind that was supposed to cause harm.

[kcr]

110. The supposed harm caused by the myth of human rights n/t

[ZombieHorde]

117. OK. I wasn't sure if you meant that harm

or the harm discussed in the OP.

Even if human rights existed, I don't see the connection between them and harm. Burning yourself while baking is harmful, but there is no human right involved. We created the concept of human rights to help reduce harms that were already happening.

When people believe in things like human rights, laws, etc., as more than just a convenient rhetorical tool they often become our masters. When nonexistent things become our masters, then we seem to be able to justify all sorts of behavior, such as Right to Lifers blowing up abortion clinics.

[kcr]

118. You don't see the connection?

There's a reason you used self harm as an example. You're avoiding the connection. Whether or not we humans created the concept or not, its existence is vital. Just because some misuse the concept isn't a reason to pretend it doesn't exist.

[ZombieHorde]

120. I used that example because I burnt myself while baking pizza.

Whether or not we humans created the concept or not, its existence is vital.

I agree that it is useful, but we should also recognize that we created the concept. The goal is not the concept, the goal is trying to keep people from being total assholes.

Just because some misuse the concept isn't a reason to pretend it doesn't exist.

We don't pretend, we know.

[kcr]

122. Absolutely, let's keep people from being total assholes

We don't get there by saying there's no such thing as human rights.

[ZombieHorde]

123. That might be true. nt

[Rex]

125. Of course there is such a thing as human rights, it came into existence the moment

we created it.

[kcr]

126. Either way, the claim it doesn't exist is inaccurate. n/t

[SamKnause]

78. Drug War

The US should follow the successful model of Portugal.

12 years of proven success.

The US is not interested in solving the drug crisis.

Their actions prove this, time after time.

[merrily]

80. The distinction between human rights and legal rights is an illusion.

If you can't enforce a right in court, you don't have that right.

Ask a prisoner in Gitmo who was determined to be innocent years ago, but got force fed when he tried to die rather than remain a prisoner, about human rights.

Our laws allow us thousands of things that are not human rights yet government deprives us of things that are our legal rights, or allows others to deprive us.

Further, I think suicide, by whatever means that does not hurt others, should be a human right. I don't know whether or not PSH overdosed intentionally or not.

Bottom line, I don't think arguing about what is or is not a human right gets any discussion very far, including this one.

Also statistics could be cited for alcohol and smoking that are just as bad as the statistics for heroin, yet we are allowed to drink, to be alcholics, to smoke, to die of cancer induced by smoking, etc.

I agree with those who say addiction is a disease and should be treated as such, much as we treat alcoholics or even cigarette smokers.

Yes, people try drugs initially as a choice. And they can do that because, for whatever reason, the war on drugs has been a colossal failure. But, they seldom, if ever, remain addicts by choice.

Also, we need to do some honest research on addictions.

For example, it was once found that alcoholics have a high incidence of Vitamin B deficiency. It was not, however, determined whether large quantities of alcohol caused the deficiency or whether the deficiency tended to lead to alcoholism. Research on issues of that kind as to all kinds of addiction might help, instead of only researching, for example, the 40 millionth illness to which cigarettes make you vulnerable because that is the easier way to get a research grant.

[davidthegnome]

82. I'm all for protecting people.

Throwing them in prison for illegal drug use does not protect them. It doesn't help them. One way we might help addicts is by decriminalizing these drugs and improving education about their effects. Also - improving access to substance abuse counseling. Generally, I think what is needed is for a society in which we can talk about these things more openly - where if someone needs help, they can talk to a friend about an addiction without fear that someone might overhear them and go to the police.

The dealers, the gangsters, the black market.... all would have far less power and far less money (possibly resulting in far less crime!) if they no longer controlled the situation.

There has to be a solution that does not involve law enforcement. When it comes to most addicts, throwing them in prison and forcing them to quit is not only inhumane, but is just as harmful overall as the addiction itself. It is something that needs to be handled more delicately, that needs to be approached with respect for the individual and compassion for their illness.

If someone is standing on a roof, threatening to jump... do police start shooting at them because suicide is illegal? Generally not, right? So why do we permit this further abuse of people who are already abusing themselves? If the war on drugs truly resembled any noble or compassionate effort, then addicts and hardcore drug users would be admitted to facilities that offered long term care in treating addiction. Not thrown into a prison, where they are entirely likely to be abused even worse than they have already abused themselves.

No, our prison system and our law enforcement is not the solution to this problem. The War on drugs isn't just a failure, it's pure idiocy.

[OwnedByCats]

90. We didn't learn from prohibition did we?

The drug war has been a tremendous waste of time, money and lives while the drug dealers make money hand over fist because people with an illness like addiction aren't given the proper help. Who do you think benefits from drugs being illegal? The drug dealers! Certainly not the addicts, that much is for sure. People will always take advantage of those with this disease because there is not a lot of legal options for them. These designer drugs are worse than the drug it's trying to mimic (meth, krokodil). This is ALWAYS going to be the case unless we try something different.

The DEA have been driving more and more people to the streets by breathing down the necks of doctors and threatening their livelihoods if they are suspected to prescribe too much opiate medication. People are getting cut off their pain meds and some of them get involved with the black market which is extremely dangerous. It's easier to get these pills/heroin on the streets than a doctor. Unless the doctor is corrupt, you are always better off under the direction of a doctor and getting safe meds than being pushed to the street, but the DEA are too stupid to realize this. They wonder why more and more people are turning to heroin as of late - gee, I wonder why?

Now there are people who legitimately need pain medication and it almost takes an act of God to get them from a doctor, unless you are lucky enough to find one who is willing, but that's getting harder and harder to do. It's medication I personally benefit from in small doses because of my medical condition but I cannot get it even though in the past I was always responsible with it. So I had to give it up because it's not acceptable to take even small doses apparently, even if it does improve my quality of life. An ex-boyfriend of mine was cut off. He then moved on to heroin, then went to using meth as well. His life is totally ruined and he's in legal trouble now. Under the support of his doctor, he was doing fine. Then his doctor just cut him off, not even so much as helped him wean off. I warned him illicit drugs could only lead to destitution, prison or death, but he did not listen, he did the stupid thing. You can't tell me he's better off now.

I know some people OD on prescription drugs too, but then again, that's always happened and it's always going to happen. The thing is you can't babysit the world. All you can do is educate them on the dangers of taking too much, or mixing it with other drugs or alcohol, but that's all you can do. If we take everything away that's dangerous to us, there wouldn't be a lot left. A certain amount of personal responsibility needs to happen. I'm all for the government saving lives and doing some damage control, but they aren't doing it with the drug war. Look at Portugal. They tried something different, such as treating addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one, and they've had good results. Prison is not rehab. This is not where they belong.

Prohibition was a tremendous failure too. At least back then we were smart enough to realize that. How soon we forget history.

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. Another screed from an authoritarian that believes they know better than you how to conduct

your life. These are the so-called liberals that destroyed black communities all across America imposing their beliefs on them in exchange for the bare subsistence of "welfare".

You're married? No help for you. You're not married, why is there a man's razor in your bathroom? No help for you. You were seen in in a bar smoking cigarettes, no help for you.

The drugs are not the problem. The plague of profound unhappiness in a huge part of the population is the problem. Drugs are just how some people deal with the misery of living in this sick fucking world that we have no say in.

[Mr.Bill]

95. If I 'm the one who put the needle in my arm

I think it is my right. I think I also have the right to clean unadulterated heroin if I wish to use it, as long as I don't harm anyone else with it.

[get the red out]

102. More treatment options

As a society, we need to be able to accept new treatment options for people and respect individuals' decisions on what treaemt options work for them. Someone suffering from addiction should not be made to believe there is only one way to beat it. Until we get sane about treatment we are adrift with no hope on this subject.

[DiverDave]

103. Who said ot was, oh, YOU DID

fail, trashed ,ignore.
man, what kind of people are on this site now?

[Rex]

124. I ask myself that from time to time.

I think we had a nest of authoritarians move in one year, that love to lecture us as if they are qualified to do so.

[B Calm]

104. All drugs should be legal. The consequences you speak of are not on

the backs of the ones who want to legalize, but on the back of the ones who want to keep it illegal.

[Orrex]

107. That's the way they find them.

Dropper full of clotted blood hanging out of a blue arm.

[lame54]

111. What are your thoughts on prison?

[former9thward]

112. Suicide is a human right.

To say otherwise means you favor government having the right to tell you what to do with your body. That is the ideology of abortion laws.

[HappyMe]

113. I agree.

I think that being pro-choice extends beyond abortion.

[JoeyT]

116. Either we own our bodies and can make decisions about what we do with them,

or we do not own our own bodies and cannot make decisions about what we do with them, and instead need the will of the people to tell us what we are allowed to do with them.

I assure you, the first choice is not the right wing one.

[Glassunion]

119. Drugs should be legal... ALL of them.

Yes, even heroin.

If done properly, addiction, overdose and death rates would go down.

[FarCenter]

129. He probably died of acetyl fentanyl spiked heroin

If drugs were legal, they would at least conform to standards of purity and accurate dosage. This would minimize deaths from overdose.

Acetyl fentanyl is 40 times more potent than heroin, so it has to be cut properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylfentanyl

[Trajan]

130. screw that

The law and order types can stuff their dream police state up ....

Well ... you know where to stuff it ...

[Jamastiene]

131. A person's "rants" as you call them, have no consequences

one way or the other on whether or not a drug addict dies due to overdosing on their drug of choice.

This country's shitty attitude about addiction, criminalizing it instead of treating it as the medical condition that it is, is what is killing people.

Legalization of heroin has been tried in other countries before and worked. People got pure heroin and remained healthy. They held down jobs and they didn't overdose and die. It's this stupid war on drugs and this stupid attitude toward drug addiction in America that is causing these deaths, not people stating an opinion about legalizing drugs. An opinion, or "rant" as you call it, has no effect on whether or not someone will overdose or not.

[scorpiogirl]

133. My brother was found the same way

In 2002 at the age of 33 except it was morphine. He was found sitting in his truck parked at the end of a street in the Hollywood Hills. This was a month after we learned our mother had colon cancer. He struggled with addiction since he was 13. His death was ruled accidental but I always wondered because he was so dependent on my mom if he did it on purpose. His own father was addicted to heroin and committed suicide 11 days after he was born. Maybe his body just gave out from the on and off abuse? He was supposed to have been clean when this happened. I truly believe he was a tortured soul and I don't generally believe in that kind of thing. I don't really know if the openness of treatment or making it legal would have helped him or not. He did a lot of rehab and some jail and still ended his life with a needle in his arm. He was looking for something he would never find in that realm.

Another statistic's story.

[Nevernose]

137. Keeping it illegal sure as hell didn't save Hoffman

And there's more heroin in the US than ever before, thanks to the Mexican cartels, who grow the majority of Anerican consumed opium. Who are powerful because of the drug war.

Drugs are illegal because they destroy lives, families, and communities, but guess what? The drug war does an even better job of destroying lives, families, and communities. Forty years later and drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever before.

Ending the drug war wouldn't cause anyone to use drugs that wasn't already going to use drugs, because those drugs are already available.

It would, however, end the suffering that motherfucking Richard Nixon inflicted on forty years ago.