Why is that interesting? You asked a question that was lacking any reasonable foundation. However, that is what so many in this forum do, they assume lacking fact for the purpose of personal attack... p.s. Whether or not I am an alcoholic, is really not any of your business right? I have called out people before for their false claims, and it appears to have no impact over their repeated lies and spreading lies...so what is the point?
Regarding the practical effects of drug prohibition, there are a few countries that treat it mostly as a medical problem. Switzerland is a good example. An hour or two of googling should show the practical effects of a medical approach to hard drug addiction, vs a criminal/prohibition approach. No doubt the vhehns of this world will put those conclusions "on ignore" too - after all, lower crime, less demands on police manpower, more empty jail cells, lower government expenditures, and hundreds of thousands of non-violent political prisoners being free to lead productive lives would be such a terrible thing - how would he get to control and judge people then?
But child molestation is inherently wrong. An innocent person is being harmed and suffering against their will. That does not apply to consensual drug usage. Therefore your analogy does not hold. I am against distribution or child porn because raping kids is wrong in itself - i.e. it's wrong *regardless of the social side-effects*. You haven't claimed that drug use is wrong in itself - only that is has social effects you consider undesirable. So, you still need to answer the question - if something is not wrong in itself, do you think it is moral to use violence to stop someone doing it, with the sole justification being social consequences that you approve of? P.S. please make sure you actually understand an argument before labelling it flimsy.
Cutten, I think addicts are not the criminal, and need medical help. But if someone is drunk or high and kill someone, you think they should not be in jail, but someone who is not drunk or high but kill someone should go to the jail?
So Switzerland hands out Heroin and opiates without a doctor's prescription or care? ...and those who can't get a doctor's prescription or care for a variety of reasons...when they seek out to purchase these "prescription" drugs outside of the system, are they treated like criminals at that point? What about doctor shopping because the addiction grows beyond what a doctor thinks is reasonable, like in the case of Rush Limbaugh? I also expect that part of the approach to the "medical problem" includes treating the patient on the psychological level. You really see a guy like RM going to a shrink and willingly going with the flow of analysis and/or psychotherapy?
The system will change once sufficient countries for sufficient time have a policy of medical, not criminal treatment of drug addicts. The obvious and undeniable successes resulting from this more enlightened policy will save so much money, reduce crime so much, and rehabilitate so many people, with so little negative consequences, that eventually only socially backward societies will be able to hold out for decades with a criminalisation/prohibition approach. Once most if not all of the civilised world has adopted that approach and the benefits are universally acknowledged, then thanks to the wonders of the internet, we will be able to come back and look at the ET archives/google cache and laugh uproariously at reactionary ignoramuses like vhehn, and chuckle loudly at how completely wrong they are. With a bit of luck, he might actually still be alive, in which he will say something like "Of course, things have changed now, and I could support limited decriminalisation, if it was properly regulated that is. In fact that was my position all along." Really it is quite amusing how stick in the mud some people can be. Reading some posts here, it is apparent that some people *honestly believe* the drug prohibition is not only right, not only sensible, but *will actually last*. As a professional forecaster of the future, I can guarantee you that drug prohibition will go the way of alcohol prohibition eventually. People opposed to that progress are just social and intellectual dinosaurs who will go the way of the dodo. Just as mainstream reactionary society once supported flat-earthism, feudalism, the divine right of kings, alchemy, blood-letting, slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, theocracy, and other totally irrational barbaric modes of thought and social oppression, so today's mainsteam support their own versions. It is really amazing how blinkered people can be, not seeing that they themselves are today's reactionaries, taking the ostrich approach to social progress. I am just thankful that this ossified, unimaginative, set in its ways thinking is also the main reason for your lifelong continual donations in the financial markets and other competitive fields, to my considerable personal benefit. Thank you.
It's good that at least you're above lying, though you are being evasive. Your premise was that I don't have my facts straight. The only facts I made claim to were that you're an alcoholic who has a fixation on Rearden Metal. A bit of introspection would reveal to you that there's a unique character in your fixation on him -- it's antagonistic and contains a distinct element of pleasure in making invasive attacks. And it's never is exhausted in its activity (the "return of the repressed" lends it that cyclical character). Besides, if you have no qualms about directly confronting others' approach to their own addictions, why would your own addictions be no one else's business? That seems to be rather narcissistic.
The point is that they don't treat drug users like hardened criminals. If you're a drug addict there, there is a path you can take to manage your addiction without having your life ruined by the legal system. And the Swiss state is not corrupted by the dirty business of engaging in political persecution of victims of addiction, cozying up to shady 3rd world regimes that pledge to burn a few poppy fields, training corrupt foreign law enforcement in torture, or artificially skyrocketing the profits of drug dealing cartels, as the US state is. Just as out of control alcohol addicts or gambling addicts should be treated, not criminalised, so should out of control drug addicts. As for those relative few who can manage their addictions, such as wealthy rock stars or financial traders - well, if they can manage it, then how are they a problem for the criminal justice system? If a rich guy makes and/or buys his own product, and manages to go through life without harming others...so what?
What you asked is none of your business...what is evasive about that? I contend that you had no foundation for that question. Prove me wrong... "Besides, if you have no qualms about directly confronting others' approach to their own addictions, why would your own addictions be no one else's business? That seems to be rather narcissistic." RM brought up his addiction a long time ago, and does so repeatedly, does not deny his addiction...so if he introduced it in this forum, the reasonable thing to believe is that he wanted his drug addiction exposed and discussed. He chose not to keep it private, but expose it to the public forum...that was his choice. Many people around here incessantly talk about their personal lives...their choice, and my choice to keep my personal life private, and to react to what other people say about their own personal life the way I wish. Had he never brought it up, it would not be a topic for open public discussion. So I discuss my opinion of it because he brought it up...and you have an issue with that? If someone doesn't want their personal life dissected...then they should not bring it up in a forum like this. As far as your belief that there is some "fixation" on RM, I think you have it backwards...
Sure it is, if you want to critique the behavior and motives of many other addicts on a public forum. Because you make it <i>your</i> business, I have no issues of propriety or manners with making your own motivations something of interest. They reveal something to me which is informative from a psychoanalytic standpoint, and I think would be informative to you too if you engaged in a bit of introspection. You've lauded the 12 steps. If you came to your god through those steps, it's clear you're seriously stuck on a few in the middle.