Alas, another common junkie has found another miracle cure for their addiction, without having to do any inside work. "I'm the one who drew a line between two little-known theories to come up with the concept of using LDN for this purpose to begin with..." The Nobel prize awaits... Bupe, bupe, eee doop....
It must be nice to be a junkie and still have an ego the size Rush Limbaugh's belly... A sure sign that real recovery is firmly in place...
How do they have the right to steal your car for buying drugs for personal use? I always thought that confiscation was something that was only used as a means of punishing dealers and what not.
How about someone that is fleeing police and speeding down the road in their benz at 140 mph? Say they didn't hit anyone, or hurt anything. Sounds like a victimless crime to me. Should they be violently kidnapped and imprisoned?
He had lung and bone cancer. His family wants to bring him home, not a nursing home. So the doctor prescribe light physical therapy to help the man get stronger so he can go home and get out of bed and to the bathroom by himself. He had no problem with swallowing when he first went to the hospital. He was having a bad day, very tired, so the nurse try to make it easy for him that day and crush his pill.
I think you'd be shocked at what <i>else</i> the prohibition enforcement goons could have done to me, had they felt like it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Paey Richard Paey <b>Richard Paey is a Florida man who was incarcerated in 2004 for drug trafficking. There was no evidence he ever distributed or intended to sell any pills, but drug laws in many states, including Florida, allow officials to prosecute for trafficking based solely on the quantity an individual possesses. Paey spent three and a half years in prison,</b> until he was granted a full pardon by Florida Governor Charlie Crist in September 2007. In 1985, Richard Paey was involved in an automobile accident. A subsequent botched operation left him in near constant pain. Like many chronic pain patients, he developed a tolerance to the opioid painkillers he was using to alleviate his suffering. Detectives began their investigation of him in 1996. Due to the quantities of pills he was buying, it was believed he was trafficking the drugs. However, a three month investigation turned up no evidence of intent to sell, and the quantities he bought are not unusual for long time users of opioid painkillers. Nonetheless, Florida law allows prosecution for trafficking based solely on the amount of drug the suspect possesses. Paey was arrested in March 1997. Prosecutors offered Paey a plea deal in 1999 that would have resulted in a guilty plea of attempted trafficking and 3 years of house arrest, but he chose to fight the charges. A similar plea was offered during his first trial in 2002, but it was quickly rescinded after Paey accepted it. Paey was eventually convicted in his third trial on 15 counts of drug trafficking, possession of a controlled substance, and obtaining a controlled substance by fraud. On April 16, 2004, he was sentenced to a 25 year mandatory minimum prison sentence and a $500,000 fine.
I don't think anyone has disputed that point. I am pretty sure the workers at Swiss treatment centers are well aware of the harmful impact of drug addiction, as is every single person on this thread who has supported drug decriminalisation. What is under dispute are two simple points - is the mere usage of drugs (absent any other factors) morally wrong, does it intrinsically harm others or violate their rights? And what is the justification and rationale for imprisoning drug users, given that there are proven alternatives which have been tried and succeeded far better at reducing the social and individual problems that drugs can cause. As far as I can tell, no one has yet given a reason why drug use per se is immoral. Nor has anyone given evidence that the criminalisation approach produces better overall results for society and individuals than the medical/rehabilitation approach. As soon as someone deigns to at least *try* to give reasons or evidence for either of those contentions, then there will be a debate worth having. So far no one has done that, all they have done is make points that *no one disputes*, but which in no way support the position of criminalising drugs. Proponents of criminalisation would do well to consider the analogy to alcohol and smoking. Booze and smoking destroy lives. Serious alcohol addicts especially can be violent, anti-social, pose risks to others etc. Yet the policy almost all societies have adopted is to treat and if necessary jail those who, as a result of alcohol use, indulge in behaviour *harmful or extremely dangerous to others* (i.e. criminal); whilst at the same time not criminalising those alcohol users who do not commit crimes against innocent people. A drinker who argues at home when drunk is not put in jail, and no one seriously suggests they should be. A drinker who turns that argument into domestic battery is put in jail, as they should be. Now, substitute "alcohol" for "heroin" or whatever other drug you want, and substitute "drinking" and "drinker" for "injecting" and "drug user", and then explain why the arguments are any different? That's the challenge for those who wants drugs illegal and users banged up for years. What is it about use of drug X that means criminalisation is justified morally, and preferable social policy, compared to drug Y? It can't be loss of life, since so many die from cigarettes and alcohol. It can't be social consequences, since the consequences of the war on drugs are demonstrably far worse than the consequences of a Swiss-style liberal drug regime. So tell us - what is it? At least people like Osama bin Laden and the Saudis are morally and logically consistent - they want *all* booze, smoking, drugs banned. That is a defensible position, if you are a pure utilitarian who doesn't believe in individual rights. But for anyone who believes in individual rights, or anyone who thinks smoking and drinking should be legal, there are literally no grounds whatsoever to ban drugs that do not also apply to drink & smoking. People proposing such a dichotomous approach therefore have more hypocritical morals than the world's most wanted terrorist and mass-murderer. Seriously, I can't think of a single issue where both a rights-based approach *and* a utilitarian/social consequences approach both favour the same position so strongly (most "big issues" are intractable differences of fundamental morality between libertiarian individualists and social utilitarians). Yet remarkably, in much of the supposedly civilised world, the opposite position is taken - without any logically consistent and coherent arguments in favour of it.