[ythl]

> Do you accept that most people who use it can enjoy it but there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to drink?

Do you accept that most people who own and use guns do so responsibly but that there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to own and use guns?

[pstuart]

I'm not pro-gun but I recognize the effective "right" to own them (not going to debate the Second Amendment with you). That said, I think there's a lot of unhealthy gun fetishization and lots of tragic deaths from irresponsible gun owners.

I believe in personal freedom up to the point where that freedom impedes on that of another. What you put in your body is your own god damn business.

One more argument in my favor: obesity is reaching epidemic levels in America and has a great societal cost. Do you think we should make junk food illegal to protect those that can't control themselves.

Every one of your arguments has been inadequate. Ignore the hurt of me calling you out and think about my point. The War on Drugs has done far more harm than good. It's bad policy and if you research it, did not have any good intentions behind it.

[ythl]

> That said, I think there's a lot of unhealthy gun fetishization and lots of tragic deaths from irresponsible gun owners.

Right, but my point was that cost is worth the freedom. There's a lot of unhealthy drug fetishization and tragic deaths from irresponsible drug users too, and I think you already said the cost is worth the freedom.

> I believe in personal freedom up to the point where that freedom impedes on that of another. What you put in your body is your own god damn business.

If the world worked like that, I would agree with you whole-heartedly. But in real life, drug users end up killing or otherwise abusing people around them (whether it be through DUIs, child neglect, safety mistakes, etc.). So along with drug legalization there have to be dozens of secondary laws that outline what you can and can't do under the influence, where you can and can't go, etc. And people (of course, not thinking clearly while under the influence), will break these laws anyway and end up killing people, destroying property, etc.

> Do you think we should make junk food illegal to protect those that can't control themselves.

Completely illegal? No. But I see the value in limiting accessibility to junk food, especially in schools and such, where kids are still developing self-discipline. So maybe that's where I can agree with you.

[pstuart]

You ignore the cost of the War itself. Billions of dollars. Massive corruption. Drug gangs. Abusive Policing. Crowded courts and prisons.

Legalize them. Regulate them. Treat their abuse as a health issue, not a criminal one.

When my brother overdosed on heroin, the police laughed about just another dead junkie. Yeah, I feel so much safer.

[ythl]

> Treat their abuse as a health issue, not a criminal one.

A health issue with a cost burden on responsible people who exercise good judgment. Addicts rarely pay for their own treatment.

> When my brother overdosed on heroin, the police laughed about just another dead junkie. Yeah, I feel so much safer.

As far as I know, my entire extended family has not has a single drug abuse case. And certainly a drug death would be unheard of. We were all taught growing up that mind-altering substances should be avoided at all costs, and it paid off with a virtual 0% drug usage rate in the family.

Contrast with your family where you yourself openly admit to using drugs recreationally and think they are good, yet your brother died overdosing on them. I would venture to guess that there are other, unnamed members of your family that use drugs and have or had drug problems in the past.

The best and simplest place to stop drug abuse is in the home via good parenting. That is my vision for what America should strive for. I can't lend my support to your cause because I don't believe in it. I believe that if my parents and grandparents taught us it was okay to experiment "safely" with drugs and such that the amount of drug abuse in the extended family would go way up. Good luck-

[meowface]

Strict abstinence towards anything in life is absolutely one way to prevent issues related to it. But blaming others because they chose to not be abstinent is absurd.

[pstuart]

You're a fucking idiot and I'm clearly wasting my time.

[58]

Indeed. I'm sorry about your brother, and I'm sorry that in a saner society your brother might have gotten the help he needed, or known the purity of the heroin he took, or someone nearby would've been less reluctant to call an ambulance.

I had two friends overdose on heroin, and I found them and made the call that saved their lives. I watched the paramedics amble up the stairs, looking pissed that they had to deal with two more junkies on a Saturday night. One of my friends' hearts stopped for a minute and a half. I got grilled by the cops for an hour, who wanted me to snitch on the dealer and wondered why I would hang out with such "losers" in the first place.

[fucking_tragedy]

I've quite literally never seen someone stoop so low as to use someone's dead relative to prop up an argument that can't stand on its own. My condolences.

[fucking_tragedy]

> A health issue with a cost burden on responsible people who exercise good judgment. Addicts rarely pay for their own treatment.

Find a facility that invoices "responsible people" and will treat someone without health insurance or very deep pockets. Find a person who is hopelessly addicted to marijuana so much that they burden responsible people with their expensive treatment.

Again, draw the comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, both harmful and deadly addictive products. Responsible people don't burden the healthcare system with health issues caused by smoking or drinking. Responsible people don't expose themselves to the harmful effects of prolonged stress through overwork and sleep deprivation enabled by legalized stimulant intake (caffeine, nicotine, Adderall, modafinil).

Reminder that addicts come in all forms of people you might consider responsible contributors to society. Surgeons, businessmen, lawyers, politicians, CEOs, computer programmers.

> We were all taught growing up that mind-altering substances should be avoided at all costs, and it paid off with a virtual 0% drug usage rate in the family.

That you know of. Adolescents rebel, seek novelty, don't have the best judgment and have misguided priorities and influences; addicts and alcoholics learn to hide questionable behavior. People don't talk about it out of shame and not wanting to disappoint.

I lost two childhood friends to the disease. Their families would have said the same thing. One family found out after the autopsy. They were a model family and they were completely blindsided. "How could this happen to him of all people?" was the prominent reaction I remember.

> Contrast with your family where you yourself openly admit to using drugs recreationally and think they are good, yet your brother died overdosing on them. I would venture to guess that there are other, unnamed members of your family that use drugs and have or had drug problems in the past.

I know more families than I can realistically count who openly drank in front of their children, even encouraged consumption, yet their kids didn't grow up to be alcoholics. I know of people who raised kids with a realistic outlook on marijuana use, yet none of them have overdosed and died.

I know families who blatantly used highly addictive drugs in front of their kids, yet somehow, their children grew up to deny that lifestyle and still be successful and drug free.

You can instill values through lessons and experiences in children, yet as they gain autonomy it is up to them to accept, reject, interpret or reflect on them.

You may have chose to accept those experiences and attribute them to your lifestyle, but the same cannot be universally applied across the population.

It is a low blow to use the overdose of someone's brother to try to raise your anecdote as fact.

> The best and simplest place to stop drug abuse is in the home via good parenting.

Good parenting can't stop people from making the choices they want to make. People are people, not robots to be programmed, who have a multitude of varied beliefs and reasons to approach mind altering substances.

Murderers, rapists, thieves and war criminals can and have come from homes with good parents. So can addicts.

> I believe that if my parents and grandparents taught us it was okay to experiment "safely" with drugs and such that the amount of drug abuse in the extended family would go way up

The truth is people are capable of responsible use of drugs including alcohol. There are also dangers, risks and consequences behind consumption; some of them not good at all.

However, I would want my child to come to me if they had a problem with drugs including alcohol or addiction. Lying breeds resentment. Drawing hard but false lines in the sand is a good way for someone to file you away as a person who can't be turned to when they need the help of someone honest and trustworthy.

> That is my vision for what America should strive for. I can't lend my support to your cause because I don't believe in it.

Or we can approach addiction with a realistic outlook: people are going to drink and use drugs. By virtue of the way our brains work, some people will become addicted. There isn't a single way to stop this and there are many, many reasons it will continue despite best efforts to end it. What we can do is educate, take preventative measures, limit availability, ensure quality and purity, reduce harm, move addiction from out of the shadows of criminality and provide accessible/affordable treatment.

[jjawssd]

Do you accept that most people who own and use cars do so responsibly but that there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to own and use cars?