we have seen people have their children murdered turn into alcoholics, it happens sadly, that is real life they are trying to kill the pain...... some disabled people do the same.... people that otherwise would not of been alcoholics.... changed by life events .
Well yes, I might agree with you on occasion, & if you read my earlier posts where I said I also hated the idea of massive government spending you would understand. But in the case of drug users, & their apologists & have made the economic & moral case to take these people out f society. (please read my earlier posts) Of curse you are free to speak your mind, you are not free to take drugs & are liable to be prosecuted for doing so. The idea of my post is that when drug users are caught, they are no longer punished, which I believe is wrong. As you may understand if you read my previous posts. I despise your pathetic attempt to associate the enforcement of drug law breakers with the Nazis. A standard and worthless argument put forward by people that have no real ability to debate an issue. One commonly used socialist-liberals in the attempt to encourage others with similar low IQ to adopt their ideas of shouting down others with which they disagree & are unable to debate in any sensible form.
I guess the issue boils down to who you think owns one's own body. If one owns one's own body, then she can put what she wishes into it. If, on the other hand, others own her body (i.e. she is a slave), then they decide what is put into it. So who owns your body?
On what principle do you believe it is right to punish people who choose to ingest substances declared verboten by government officials? Prohibition is totalitarian, particularly your take on it. Ah, so you claim some propensity for reason. You'll be able to articulately describe a principle, based on reason and logic, as to why it is legitimate to punish people for what they choose to put in their bodies.
You might as well excuse theft, robbery & crime on unemployment, when in fact it is a moral decision. He does. He11, he excuses and downplays pretty much every criminal action taken. It is part of his schtick. He has actually stated that it should not be any more of a crime to rob something while armed because how else is a robber supposed to do it? He has stated that if you break into somebody's home, armed, and they wake up and come downstairs with a gun, you should be able to shoot them and have it considered self-defense.
An interesting point..Of course we own our own body & minds, but we do that within a society & we must obey the laws of the society within which we live. I may wish to kill someone, but the law states killing is illegal, so I must obey that law. Taking drugs is currently also illegal & so I must obey that law too. If I choose that my will is not to obey the laws of society then I must accept that society will punish me for my behaviour. If you feel that society makes you a slave a robs you of your free will then that is an opinion you are free to hold, but you should expect to face the punishment of society if you are caught breaking those laws. This is nothing new, ancient civilisations would punish people for breaking the accepted code of behaviour & Christianity has laws of commandments that condemn you for breaking them. My point in my OP was that in the UK at least the laws are not being effectively up held, many do not face sufficient or any real punishment for their drug crimes & many are even given public funds t support their drug habits. Hence the £500 million bill that you kindly quoted from my post. This current lack of effecitive punishment only encourages more drug taking & more crime & disorder.
No, you won't. Humans want drugs. That is called "demand". You will NEVER reduce demand by locking up users. Which is why our "War on Drugs" is not working, and never will. Then of course you have the freedom argument of "Who in the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body??". If you think you can change it you're delusional.
On the principle that you & I must obey the law of the land, within which we live. Would you like it if someone broke into your house & stole all your possessions & your drug stash? Probably not & you may well want then punished for their crime. Prohibition can work if you lock up increasing numbers of law breakers, don't let up & don't le hem off with short prison sentences, keep them locked up until they are 50-60 years old & their youthful drug desires have past. Build more & more prisons to hold them. Lock them up in welded cages. Would you take drugs if you faced 50years imprisonment? And you knew the State was not weak on drug enforcement as it is to-day? Of course I can justify why it is wrong to take drugs. It has a damaging long term effect on the consumer, Drug abuse funds prostitution & the slave trade of prostitution. It has untold multitude of economic & social negative effects on the users & their families. It may seem a simple argument to you to justify it as someone's right to put anything into their own body, that sounds harmless enough doesn't it? But the consequences are far more profound than any glig comment you may have read in any Aleister Crowley pamphlet. I have met many people that have had their lives ruined by drug use, several have died from heart attacks due to excessive cocaine use. Some have become prostitutes due to their crack & heroin addictions. If only these friends of mine had been taught the evils of drug misuse & understood the consequences from an early age, instead of being brought up in a society of liberal tolerance towards drug users, maybe some of their lives would have been saved from the (*)(*)(*)(*) they now find themselves living to-day.
It is the politicians that are telling you what you can & can not put into your body. Drug dealers should be executed, drug users should face a minimum of 50 years of solidary confinement without parole. Tell me that would not have an effect on drug use & I could point to a liar.
They don't have that right, despite the fact that they have asserted it. Insanity. I hope you never hold public office.
Have you ever taken drugs yourself? I only ask because you seem such an advocate for the rights of drug dealers to sell their product to the people. And My OP was all about ineffectual punishment of the crime of drug misuse, There may be no need to execute drug dealers in my World if they were punished for their crime, instead of the cardboard justice system that has been in effect for the past 40 years that has led to people's tolerance of drug use & ultimately the ludicrous idea spouse by people such as yourself that drug taking is a right to "put what ever you like into your body"
We have ALL taken drugs. Ever drink coffee, or a coca-cola? You've taken drugs. Ever take an aspirin or another pain reliever? You've taken drugs. Ever have a prescription? You've taken drugs. Ever drink alcohol? You've taken drugs. Ever smoke a cigarette? You've taken drugs. I am an advocate of FREEDOM, and smart enough to recognize that the "War on (some) Drugs" has created the violent gangs and cartels who use bullets instead of lawyers to settle disputes. I'm not saying "all drugs are good", I'm saying that legal drugs is the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have Walgreens and CVS selling them than violent street gangs.
The "law is the law" is a tautology, a circular argument. While it may be safer to obey because of the consequences of those who claim the right and have the power to initiate violence against other human beings, that does not mean I am under any obligation to do so. Such an action would be wrong regardless of what those in power dictate ("legality".) Where is that working? In countries where people are killed outright for violating prohibition, they still have problems, often worse than here. All it does is put more immoral people in power who are then more susceptible to corruption. There are many things which are wrong to do. Cheating on a spouse. Lying to your mother. Eating to massive obesity. Drinking alcohol until one blacks out. Saying mean things to sensitive people. If it is your objective principle that anything that has a broader social or economic negative effect must be outlawed, then will you outlaw all the things that I mentioned? Ownership of one's self is the foundation of natural rights. What does Crowley have to do with anything? I'm not interested in propaganda, either the preposterous pagan propaganda nor the crap that comes from government agencies. I asked you why you feel that you have the right to throw them in a cage, which is about as destructive as any drug use. This isn't a question about a liberal attitude toward drug use, but a fundamental question of rights and liberty. Since your answer is that we "must follow the law", I can only deduce that your basic principles are might is right and the end justifies the means. Would that be an accurate summation?
So given that we each own our own body, what justification is there for a law that criminalizes people putting something into the the body that they own?
Wrong. If what you say is true, 1%-ers would be breaking into peoples' houses. You'd have 1%-ers joining gangs.
My brother was/is a junkie. All I can tell you is that I hate junkies with a passion. No matter how you couch it, there is not one junkie who did not already know that the drugs they have become addicted to, were addictive. The fact is, as in my brothers case, that time and time again they are offered treatment, are "rehabilitated" and yet they CHOOSE with open eyes to go back and use again, and again and again. They like it, and they do not care in the slightest the harm they do to their families, their friends, their co-workers. I think all drugs should be legal, and let's not wast one more dollar on useless enforcement practices, but also, all junkies should be deprived of any kind of government assistance, other than their personal funeral expenses, and those at a bare minimum. Do you have a coal fired power plant nearby? That may be an effective way to dispose of their remains and yield a little "green" energy in the process. Maybe I seem harsh in my opinions, but they are based on 30 yrs of seeing willful self destruction on the part of many users, and at least I am being honest in how I feel about it.
Willful self-destruction seems to be at the bottom of it rather than actual drug addiction, but there aren't many cures for people who picture themselves as failures.
I don't think you understood my question: So given that we each own our own body, what justification is there for a law that criminalizes people putting something into the the body that they own? I know it's against the law. I'm asking why such a law is justified.
What justification is law ? ... I did understand your question & I posed the answer, what is there any justification in law for murder. I know drug use is pleasurable & that is easy for middle class users to argue there is no harm in their use, but for some drug use is an addiction that can only is only affordable through crime or dealing. A fact that those middle-class drug users care to forget. There is no justification to use alcohol or tobacco other than they are legal & taxable. But that doesn't mean we should include cannabis, ectasy, cocaine or any modern formula of psychoactive drug in the roll f what is illegal. Maybe the question to you is why should you choose to want to escape reality with pumping your body with drugs? Why do you hate your own existence that you want to delude yourself with the effects of drugs?
If I am understanding you correctly, you are asking me why laws against murder are just. The answer would be that, since each of us owns our body, a murderer would be violating this ownership by destroying someone's body. I don't. I don't. However, you still haven't offered any reason why, if a person owns their own body, it is justified to have a law forbidding them from putting drugs into it.
