This pro-prohibition argument is more impressive when made in countries that do have public healthcare, although it still falls short when trying to explain why doctors should mend bones that people break while engaging in some high-risk activities (like skiing or mountainbiking), but should not heal ailments that people incur while engaging in other high-risk activities (such as smoking).
Banning drug consumption in public spaces, where they might harm others, is a different issue, and the drug that is most problematic here - tobacco - is in any case one of the least restricted ones.
> Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free.
Notice how that doesn’t say “only if they do what I say”?
By and large that is already the law. It is already illegal to harm someone else.
This is a significant and annoying factor of many knee-jerk reactions that harshly criminalise already illegal things. That was how the rollback of basic liberties went after 9/11 for example - there was a pretence that somehow terrorism wasn't already illegal and effectively policed. And we ended up with mass spying and about as much terrorism as there ever was. Similar to this, really. I doubt the amount of drugs taken will change, they are just looking for excuses to spy more.
Which means that nobody should be surprised of measures meant to prevent people from getting harmed.
Following your reasoning, as it is already illegal to harm someone else, then there is no point in banning weapons from aeroplanes; or in forbidding drunk people from operating a vehicle...
I'd like to point out that I'm not a priori against drugs; but whoever proposes that anybody can do what he wants within a society, he does not know what society means.
Should people be held responsible for crimes committed under the influence? Absolutely, to a significant extent, though there are some gradations there. Should people be denied medical treatment for their ailments because some people believe they're a moral failing, when all the evidence proves they are in fact medical ailments? Absolutely not.
I was responding to someone proposing to let everybody consume what he wants, and I replied that freedom to choose must imply obligation of bearing the consequences.
Concerning the addiction, while freeing any addicted person from his shackles would be of great value for everybody (both the addicted person and the society at large), we must also insist on prevention as much as possible. And considering addiction only a disease, while forgetting that it usually stems from an initial deliberate choice, is a very dangerous stance.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot ever become dependent on a drug if you never consumed it. Which means that, short of being forcefully injected, every dependency on an illegal drug has roots in the initial choice.
I feel the pain for the people already in it, but treating anything less than extremely serious has being, and is still, wreaking havoc on several generations.
Just stop pushing the idea that there is anything cool or romantic in illegal drugs.
Addiction is something some people are heavily predisposed to. And they don't generally find out about that fact until it's too late.
There is a HUGE difference between the two options: one is legal everywhere, the other is illegal everywhere. Stop conflating the two things.
But okay, what about cigarettes then? They're just as legal as nuts assuming you're an adult. Do you see a difference there?
You specifically mentioned smokers in your original comment, implying they chose to be addicted to cigarettes, remember?.
A substance being illegal basically everywhere should be a strong hint that it may be dangerous. Most of the people on Earth not using a substance is a strong hint that it may not be necessary.
Illegal, dangerous and not necessary: several good reasons not to use it, and no good reason to use it.
Concerning cigarettes, look at how much money has been spent on dissuading people from smoking. With dangerous substances, not using them is the only sure way not to lose.
In conclusion, while I reiterate my support towards helping people already addicted, it is important to pass the right message to those who are hesitating.
Dependency is not an illness that comes on its own: it cannot come without prior usage, thus stay safe and don't use.
Drugs being banned had nothing to do with supposed harmfulness. It had everything to do with suppressing counterculture, racism, and doubling down on failed policy decisions.
And to say there are no good reasons to use drugs is again hopelessly misguided. It's exactly the kind of simplistic, moralistic bullshit that is so obviously false it drives teenagers to ignore any public advice outright. It's just not as black and white as that. Hell, most recreational drugs happen to have legitimate medical uses: opioids, benzodiazepines, cannabis, psychedelics, amphetamine, even meth!
To help guide people away from addiction and into reasonable use we need to acknowledge the good and the bad, not pretend there's only bad. We've been doing that for decades and the jury's in. It doesn't work.
What are your credentials? MD? at least some sort of medical / physiological phd? have you at least experienced it at all in the past? where are you drawing your knowledge from?
I mean super easy one there is crack addicted newborns. Clearly they’ve used right?
Are you aware that when someone abuses substances they usually have some underlying issue? Things like PTSD, bi-polar, etc. These people start using because their conditions are untreated, and they just want to feel normal. This of course escalates when they need to use more and more of the substance until before long they’re dependent.
You'll see lip service about being compassionate towards drug addicts, then send them to around the least compassionate people on earth towards drug addicts, except maybe cops.
I know nothing on this subject, but I trust you checked your sources.
Anyway, concerning public health, or any other public policy, would you rather listen to people who devoted several years to the study oh the human body and psyche, and whose profession consists in helping others, or to people who pour money into heinous criminal organizations without a second thought just to spice up a party?
Doctors don't hold each other accountable, and assume that if there's an issue with a patient, it's the patient's fault; they're being unreasonable, and some poor doctor must be putting up with their bullshit.
Then you have the very real truth that addicts don't always make the best patients. Further they tie up an inordinate amount of medical resources. It doesn't just stop and end there. Medical abuse is rampant, in any case, and with several other conditions, why would they leave drug addicts out? There's an environment of hostility from both sides - addicts who are fed up with treatment from doctors, and doctors angry with addicts; the fighting can cause a feedback loop.
Doctors are some of the most anti-addict people on the face of the earth. If you took a blind poll of doctors and got their true thoughts, I think a shocking number would be in favor of euthanasia via medical inaction. They are not trustworthy on these issues. Believe it or not experiencing the worst of society, often through bigoted and stereotypical lens, does not make someone a rational decision maker. You're more likely to find bitter, angry hotheads that just want to punish the bad people they've come to hate.
Getting back to "the sources" here, there really aren't great sources, because no one reporting has a motive to talk about this. You will see some quiet conversations, but they don't go far. Doctors are respected and addicts aren't. Medical policy is written by medical workers (the ones I'm criticizing). IMO the media isn't great at holding doctors accountable. They're getting better with police, but they used to be horrible there too.
Media, government, doctors, and insurance companies are way more of one team than people realize. With police we only heard stories for the longest time. Some of them seemed like conspiracy theories, but the number and magnitude of these interactions mount. This is true here, too. People are getting abused by their doctors. If you ask around you'll hear stories.
If you talk to drug addicts, who've had experience with doctors, and shockingly, even people with very moderate use (even one time!), you'll hear the truth: You are dealing with a temperamental, sketchy piece of work that's also a powerful bureaucrat that will take your different lifestyle as carte blanche to refuse to treat you and ignore your medical issues... and it doesn't even matter if you quit!
Just talk to someone that's gone through the system. You will hear conflicting reports, just like a huge percentage of people never have bad interaction with police, but there's a lot of people out there that know exactly what I'm talking about. There's sides of society not everyone sees.
Think about how bad you sound speaking up and there's massive chance you sound even worse in the story.
Here in Norway there's a huge push towards medicalisation of drug users after the Portuguese model. While I think it's maybe a mild improvement over prison, fines and a criminal record, having experienced both first and second hand how addicts are treated in the medical and psychiatric systems, I'm struggling to be too thrilled about it.
We need a fundamentally new cultural paradigm in how we see drug use. Medicine will obviously play a part for those who truly need help, but not everyone does, and forcing help on those can actually turn them into addicts or otherwise hurt them.
>>>You want to smoke like a chimney?
Nobody wants these things. They're illnesses. That was my point.
I agree with you that this is the case in a sane society.
And this responsibility gives me the right to implement policies to prevent such issues as much as possible.
Why when people do something you don’t like do you want to control them by removing access to medicine?
Which is as stupid as it can get, unless you add the prescription that said adult must be the only one to bear the consequences of its consumption.
You want to binge-drink every night? Sure, why not? Just make sure in advance that you won't come in contact with civilised people while intoxicated, and sign a statement releasing the society from any duty to assist you when your liver shuts down. Similar for lighter or heavier drugs.
You want to smoke as a chimney? Damn, I'll fight with you to protect your right to fill your lungs with tar! Just don't go to the E.R. every time a small cold turns into a serious respiratory issue, and especially make sure you collect all the ashes and all the smoke, before they poison unwilling people.