Is The Opioid Crisis The Government's Responsibility?

[vided]

You have an agenda that you're not admitting to.
No more responses...

they always do

[Joe T.]

You have an agenda that you're not admitting to.
No more responses...

Assuming you are addressing me: yes I do.

I am tired of the $$ being spent by taxpayers to support the 'War on Drugs,' the $$ being collected by the drug cartels, the $$ being spent by taxpayers on incarceration, the $$ being spent by taxpayers on rehab, the $$ being spent by taxpayers on hospital bills (we all pay for it via our taxes and/or insurance premiums), the $$ being spent by taxpayers on 'accidental death and injury' of innocent victims due to illegal drugs, and the $$ being spent by taxpayers on local crime enforcement due to drugs.

So, again, YES I DO have an agenda.

I want all of the above STOPPED!! Legalize drugs. Make all Americans accountable for their actions.

It is not my job, or OUR JOB, to help middle class America raise their kids because they fear the kids might have an opportunity to use drugs. It is their PARENTS' responsibility to raise their kids. That seems to be a reasonable, conservative approach, doesn't it?

I am Type II diabetic. It ain't anybody's fault but my own. I take full responsibility for my actions. I have three vices: 1.) Sugar 2.) Salt and 3.) Grease. The first vice is the hardest to kick. But, it ain't your fault or the government's fault.


Regards,
Joe T.

[Schwingel9]

Will there be more addicts if every drug is readily available and fully legal?

[Rob Rodriguez]

Will there be more addicts if every drug is readily available and fully legal?

I would say no because I believe the drugs are already readily available weather legal or not. The "addicts" are certainly getting them somewhere and it appears they are doing so without issue as long as they have $ to purchase.

[Schwingel9]

I would say no because I believe the drugs are already readily available weather legal or not. The "addicts" are certainly getting them somewhere and it appears they are doing so without issue as long as they have $ to purchase.

When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and looked at a display of heroin, lsd, and cocaine? Never mind the people who are already addicted or fighting the addiction, what about all people who would tempted to experiment with highly addicting drugs? There will be many, many more addicts, period. The more of those drugs the more addicts there will be.

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, if need be, especially the vulnerable. In any society there will be those who are vulnerable and need help. Who in their right mind would pupose an idea to make money off of vulnerable people? Well, besides planned parenthood?

[Rob Rodriguez]

When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and looked at a display of heroin, lsd, and cocaine? Never mind the people who are already addicted or fighting the addiction, what about all people who would tempted to experiment with highly addicting drugs? There will be many, many more addicts, period. The more of those drugs the more addicts there will be.

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, if need be, especially the vulnerable. In any society there will be those who are vulnerable and need help. Who in their right mind would pupose an idea to make money off of vulnerable people? Well, besides planned parenthood?

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, I don't agree with you on this. Yes, a role of government is to protect its people but I don't agree with the "from themselves part". If a person wants to voluntarily take part in activities that they may need protection from (which will be different for different people......drugs, extreme sports, gambling, unprotected sex, riding without a helmet, etc, etc,) then they have every right to do that and they will have to deal with whatever consequences arise from that.

You can buy any of the drugs you mentioned right outside of Walmart (and clubs, schools, convenience stores, etc....dealers are mobile) in the parking lot without an issue. There is no display with a big yellow price drop smiley face but they are available and for sale. Legal or illegal, sold in Walmart or not sold in Walmart if people want access to drugs for experimentation or use they are going to find a way to do that.

How is this any different than alcohol or tobacco? You can go into a lot of stores and legally purchase alcohol. Alcohol is a mind altering drug that can cause physical problems and health issues to those who use (and sometimes to those who don't use) it. Using your logic everyone in the USA will be an alcoholic and heavy smoker simply because these things are sold in stores

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and looked at a display of heroin, lsd, and cocaine? Never mind the people who are already addicted or fighting the addiction, what about all people who would tempted to experiment with highly addicting drugs? There will be many, many more addicts, period. The more of those drugs the more addicts there will be.

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, if need be, especially the vulnerable. In any society there will be those who are vulnerable and need help. Who in their right mind would pupose an idea to make money off of vulnerable people? Well, besides planned parenthood?

WELL...... trayvon martin walked into a store and bought the ingredients for 'shake & bake' a crude homemade meth. the news forgot
to mention that about the night he was killed and that he had trace amounts in his blood.
the drugs are already there and very readily available like that synthetic marijuana that was around last year that was sold at deli's
or online.

[Schwingel9]

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, I don't agree with you on this. Yes, a role of government is to protect its people but I don't agree with the "from themselves part". If a person wants to voluntarily take part in activities that they may need protection from (which will be different for different people......drugs, extreme sports, gambling, unprotected sex, riding without a helmet, etc, etc,) then they have every right to do that and they will have to deal with whatever consequences arise from that.

You can buy any of the drugs you mentioned right outside of Walmart (and clubs, schools, convenience stores, etc....dealers are mobile) in the parking lot without an issue. There is no display with a big yellow price drop smiley face but they are available and for sale. Legal or illegal, sold in Walmart or not sold in Walmart if people want access to drugs for experimentation or use they are going to find a way to do that.

How is this any different than alcohol or tobacco? You can go into a lot of stores and legally purchase alcohol. Alcohol is a mind altering drug that can cause physical problems and health issues to those who use (and sometimes to those who don't use) it. Using your logic everyone in the USA will be an alcoholic and heavy smoker simply because these things are sold in stores

Thanks for the reply! If drugs were to be legalized and sold openly in the market, they will inevitably become promoted to the masses. When these drugs are used out of their initial context for healing and medical purpose, they become a great evil, an evil that enslaves people, at times instantly. Normally speaking, heroins addiction qualities far outway alcohols. Using drugs that are designed for medical purposes for recreational purposes is an intrinsic evil. Alcohol in itself, used in moderation is not.

Any addiction that consumes one to the point of leading them away from the purpose they were created for actually enslaves them. In order to do the most good we need to start at the margins and work our way out. Drug addicts need help, they are people like you and I. Yes, they made bad choices for what ever reason, but we all have at one time or another. Feeding the monster of addiction is not charitable, it harms human life. Making money off that harm is even worse.

[Bob Denman]

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Thanks for the reply! If drugs were to be legalized and sold openly in the market, they will inevitably become promoted to the masses. When these drugs are used out of their initial context for healing and medical purpose, they become a great evil, an evil that enslaves people, at times instantly. Normally speaking, heroins addiction qualities far outway alcohols. Using drugs that are designed for medical purposes for recreational purposes is an intrinsic evil. Alcohol in itself, used in moderation is not.

Any addiction that consumes one to the point of leading them away from the purpose they were created for actually enslaves them. In order to do the most good we need to start at the margins and work our way out. Drug addicts need help, they are people like you and I. Yes, they made bad choices for what ever reason, but we all have at one time or another. Feeding the monster of addiction is not charitable, it harms human life. Making money off that harm is even worse.

I am not promoting drugs in any way but cocaine cures the common cold in small doses but only temporarily it also clears the head
but again only temporarily. coca leaves in south america are chewed for a small pep to keep alert in the same way people drink
coffee. cigarettes on the other hand are flat out poison and contain nicotine which is far more addictive then cocaine.
Me i am just a pervert who likes to ride and doesn't drink, smoke, do any type of drug nor even drink coffee. I would be quite happy
if all drugs were gone but since that will never happen then i would want them legal, regulated & taxed and limited support for those
that abuse them.

[Bob Denman]

Arlo made it all sound so.... HAPPY!

[Bob Denman]

An awful lot of great music came out the haze...

[BoilerAnimal]

When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and looked at a display of heroin, lsd, and cocaine? Never mind the people who are already addicted or fighting the addiction, what about all people who would tempted to experiment with highly addicting drugs? There will be many, many more addicts, period. The more of those drugs the more addicts there will be.

One of the roles of the government is to protect its people and that includes protecting them from their selves, if need be, especially the vulnerable. In any society there will be those who are vulnerable and need help. Who in their right mind would pupose an idea to make money off of vulnerable people? Well, besides planned parenthood?

There were huge segments of the European population who said the same thing about Portugal. Many dire predictions were made but never came to pass. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.13e4d9b448d3

Legalization should also entail taxation, strict controls on sales, education and treatment for addiction. There would still be a prohibition on illegal, or "under the counter" sales. It is a multi-prong approach that has been effective in Portugal. The current approach to the drug problem is unworkable. It is past time to try a proven approach here. If it falls short in effectiveness, it won't be any worse than the current situation.

[Peter Aawen]

Just a little of an interesting aside prompted by the link you provided above BoilerAnimal.... Check out the high end of the 'deaths thru drug overdoses' chart. A thorough cursory glance suggests that the top end of that chart, ie, those countries where MORE deaths thru overdoses occur, is heavily populated by those countries in the EU that have the most lenient drug laws (altho stopping short of decriminalisation like Portugal) & apart from Portugal (possibly the exception that proves the rule?) the low end of the chart, ie, those places with FEWEST overdose deaths, is populated by those countries with the STRICTEST anti-drug laws & enforcement.... The next most lenient country, which I believe is the Netherlands, is pretty much smack in the middle... (oops, pun not intended! )

So while that chart could be interpreted to support decriminalisation, it could be also be argued to support (possibly even more strongly) the idea that maybe decriminalisation is not quite the panacea for all drug ills that some might like to think; & arguably, for most countries shown on that chart, stricter controls have proven to be significantly more effective at reducing overdose deaths?? Aren't charts & statistics fun?!

[BoilerAnimal]

It's not all about reducing deaths. There are other considerations as well, such as costs of law enforcement, incarceration, crime rates and the effects and burdens on society as a whole. In the U.S., these costs are escalating at extremely high rates.

The more restrictive a society or country is, the easier it is to influence behavior in all forms. I certainly don't want to go down the avenue of a near police state to control drug use, especially if there are other options available.

The status quo is far from a success. I think that it's time to have a serious discussion of alternatives. The route that Portugal has taken has seen much better outcomes than most anything short of execution for drug offenses.

With income from taxation on the legal drug trade used for education of the TRUE dangers of drugs and for rehabilitation, I believe that headway could be made on this problem. I emphasized true because of claims made by the government regarding some drugs that empirical evidence shows not to be true. If you lie about the dangers in one area why should you be trusted for anything?

Part of the allure of drugs is due to the fact that they are illegal. It provides a bit of a thrill and a certain perception of a "cool" factor, at least to those most inclined to experiment with them. The U.S.had a period where they tried outlawing alcohol. Prohibition was strongly advocated as a means to cure societal ills back in the 1930's and it was reversed due to the fact that it caused more problems than it purported to cure. I feel that we have arrived at the same outcome with pretty much the same problems.

If they told you today that drug use would be legal, would you decide to become an addict, especially if you were educated on the true facts of any possible decisions that you may make about drugs? Legal access to drugs would not alleviate your responsibility to your fellow citizens. Restrictions on drug use at work would still be valid, driving while using drugs would still be illegal.

What the U.S. is doing now is not working!!! It's time to explore other options!

[DJFaninTN]

When is the last time you saw the government become involved in something and it turned out good?

Exhibit A for failures would be healthcare

[Bob Denman]

sb_reagan_9_terrifying_words-585x455.jpg

[Schwingel9]

How is possible to have a rational conversation if one believes money trumps human life?

[Bob Denman]

But the costs cannot be ignored either: how do you figure out where to draw the lines?

And to further complicate things : Do you value the life of an addict, as much as that of a taxpayer?

[Schwingel9]

But the costs cannot be ignored either: how do you figure out where to draw the lines?

And to further complicate things : Do you value the life of an addict, as much as that of a taxpayer?

Easy, human life is always first, especially those who are on the margins and most vulnerable. By helping those on the fringes we become stronger. Legalizing drugs harms those that are on that edge. I struggle with how much I have to pay in and what my tax money goes towards. But then stop and remember that this tax thing is nothing new, that is why we are told to pay Cesar what is Cesar's, and care for those who need the most help. Everyone's dignity is equal.

[Bob Denman]

I guess that we'll just have to agree to respectfully disagree...

[Schwingel9]

I guess that we'll just have to agree to respectfully disagree...

Thanks for the discussion!

[Bob Denman]

Ditto!

[Rob Rodriguez]

I believe that addicts started down that path knowing full well the dangers. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance but chances beyond that should be of their own doing. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you. I agree cost has to play into the equation.

I would personally prefer my US tax dollars stay here and help the people in the USA (preferably legal citizens of the USA) rather then be sent to foreign countries for who knows what. Those BILLIONS sent to foreign countries could do a lot more "work" right here for the people who paid them in.

That's a whole other conversation though.

[Schwingel9]

I believe that addicts started down that path knowing full well the dangers. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance but chances beyond that should be of their own doing. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you. I agree cost has to play into the equation.

I would personally prefer my US tax dollars stay here and help the people in the USA (preferably legal citizens of the USA) rather then be sent to foreign countries for who knows what. Those BILLIONS sent to foreign countries could do a lot more "work" right here for the people who paid them in.

That's a whole other conversation though.

I repect your opinion, even though it is contrary to the Gospel.