[chinese_donald]

"This cat and mouse game will have no end until they can tap into your brain stem and prevent you from committing these 'crimes' or modify your brain chemistry in a way that will make you not yearn for altering your conciousness"

As someone that doesn't do any drugs, I'm all for drug legalization.

However, there needs to be limits. I should be able to fire someone that is high on the job, for instance. Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence should also be illegal.

'altering your conciousness' can directly harm the people around you and they have the right to not be harmed by your personal choices.

"How can we get the government to respect our right to put anything in our body that we want to?"

Another issue is health care: Should the government continue to pour tons of money into allowing you to kill yourself with drugs?

"I'm kind of rambling, but this is what comes to mind when I see these types of articles."

You never mention firearms, which is another primary business on the dark web. Are you also fine with anyone being able to buy a weapon at any time?

[atom_enger]

> 'altering your conciousness' can directly harm the people around you and they have the right to not be harmed by your personal choices.

I stated clearly "As long as it(drug use) does not hurt others through the production or the consumption or harm the environment".

> However, there needs to be limits. I should be able to fire someone that is high on the job, for instance. Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence should also be illegal.

If you are the employer, you should absolutely have the right to fire someone for being under the influence during their hours of employment. Driving is the same -- you're putting other people at risk. Not acceptable.

> Should the government continue to pour tons of money into allowing you to kill yourself with drugs?

The government pours tons of money into fighting the wrong fight at the moment, they're treating the symptom, not the problem. They're inflating law enforcement budgets and eroding our rights every which way to "fight" this battle. I say if they could take that exact same amount of money they're using to "fight" this battle and put it towards healthcare and treatment, then yeah, they should pour tons of money into it. Our current solution isn't working.

> You never mention firearms, which is another primary business on the dark web. Are you also fine with anyone being able to buy a weapon at any time?

I'm not talking at all about firearms. I'm naive in the sense that I dream about a world without them but I recognize they can be useful tools in certain situations.

[EpicEng]

>I stated clearly "As long as it(drug use) does not hurt others through the production or the consumption or harm the environment

But... It does. We know that it does. There are classes of drugs which don't lend themselves to responsible use. That problem will remain, and you'll still have the junkies stealing to get high, regardless of where they spend that money. These drugs have a negative societal impact, of course exacerbated by the fact that using them turns you into a criminal.

I don't know that e.g. unfettered access to heroin is a good thing. I do know that treatment instead of jail is a good thing.

[atom_enger]

What if a junkie could go to a clinic and get their fix? I'd happily pay more taxes to get junkies their fix. I'd also be happy to pay taxes that would help them seek treatment as well.

I'm not at all qualified to propose real solutions to this problem but I know from watching this failed drug war that we should start talking about alternative solutions and the way we do that is start considering other options. I feel like our current solution is hurting us as a whole more than it's helping us.

[EpicEng]

A clinic isn't really the optimal setting for this sort of thing. And what about the people who have jobs and families? Hard drug use is demonstrably bad for society on the whole. It's tough to argue that the government should be playing drug dealer to heroin addicts.

[girvo]

> It's tough to argue that the government should be playing drug dealer to heroin addicts.

Mine did for me, and I'm clean now. Opiate-replacement therapy is one of the few proven ways to truly help addicts reintegrate back into society. I can somewhat understand the moral argument against it, but the facts don't really support it; I am quite biased, however, as I'd be dead or in jail without it.

[EpicEng]

Sure, but I wasn't really talking about those sort of programs, more the unfettered access to any drug you like that was the context of my response.

[leakybit]

Yes, but how do you stop people from becoming junkies in the first place? Opiate addicts already have access to methedone and some countries are looking into giving pharma grade heroin replacement, but these types of addicts are essential lost causes and will always be addicts.

I believe sentencing laws/guidelines needs to be reformed, but you have to see it from the governments perceptive. How do you stop people from becoming drug addicts? Legalize the drugs your trying people not to use?

[girvo]

> Opiate addicts already have access to methedone and some countries are looking into giving pharma grade heroin replacement, but these types of addicts are essential lost causes and will always be addicts.

I'm a "lost cause"? Thanks. I was a heroin addict from 16 years of age until I was 24. I've been clean for four years now, due to my governments excellent opiate-replacement therapy program.

The dehumanisation that happens when people discuss "junkies" makes me sick, and directly contributes to why a lot of us never ask for help.

[another_account]

Hear, hear.

Coming up to two years clean from an IV habbit. So, also a "lost cause."

I feel if people had the slightest idea just how many people around them are high on some kind of opiate, and how indiscriminate addiction really is that this type of language would be less prevalent.

Congrats on beating the gorilla.

[ncallaway]

> but these types of addicts are essential lost causes and will always be addicts.

That's just flat out not true. It's absolutely possible to beat an opioid addiction, though it can be extremely challenging.

To anyone who may be addicted to opioid's who is reading leakybit's words, please don't take them to heart. Despite what they say: There is hope. It is possible.

[another_account]

Am I also a "lost cause"?

Echoing comments below, please watch your language. You are part of the reason people struggle to hold their hand up and ask for help.

[chinese_donald]

"course exacerbated by the fact that using them turns you into a criminal."

If you mean just using and nothing more, it's not really true. Junkies don't get arrested for only getting high. It usually involves some other crime like robbery or petty theft.

Legalizing these drugs won't really solve the issue. Opiates are already legal, but expensive. Most addicts start out with the expensive prescriptions and then end up getting street drugs like heroin because it's so much cheaper. Street drugs will always be there because people the government always needs their cut through taxes.

"I do know that treatment instead of jail is a good thing."

..but to what end? If a person chooses over and over to take drugs, It's their freedom to take them, but also their responsibility to figure out a treatment plan.

I'm really tired of people demanding they can do what they want with their body and then demanding that I pay money to fix all of the negative consequences that comes along with it.

[flukus]

> I'm really tired of people demanding they can do what they want with their body and then demanding that I pay money to fix all of the negative consequences that comes along with it.

But your happy to pay for jail or did you have something else in mind?

Your're also ignoring a huge amount of people that take those drugs but don't end up being junkies.

[EpicEng]

Having been arrested for possession on more than one occasion, no, that is total crap.

As for the rest of your comment; yeah, it sucks, but that's the price you pay to be a part of a civilization. We all benefit from a healthy and happy population, so don't pretend like helping those at the bottom doesn't also benefit you.

[micaksica]

> You never mention firearms, which is another primary business on the dark web. Are you also fine with anyone being able to buy a weapon at any time?

Yes. In America, this is pretty much how it is. Without a violent criminal record or a restraining order for domestic violence, in a lot of states you can go spend a couple hundred bucks and have yourself a nice handgun.

I am curious just how deep the "firearms business" goes on the dark web. I suspect the majority of sellers are not capable of delivering. Most arms dealers on Tor are pretty well known to be scamming people.

[chinese_donald]

"Yes. In America, this is pretty much how it is. Without a violent criminal record or a restraining order for domestic violence, in a lot of states you can go spend a couple hundred bucks and have yourself a nice handgun"

You must not be from the US or ever tried to get a gun. I can't order a gun through the mail, for instance. It needs to be sent to a regulated dealer and I will have to go through a background check.

"I am curious just how deep the "firearms business" goes on the dark web."

According to many of the ant-gun advocates in the US, you can just order it online with no checks or problems. But the reality is much different.

[pstrateman]

>I should be able to fire someone that is high on the job, for instance. You can >Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence should also be illegal. It is.

[FELEG]

  Are you also fine with anyone being 
  able to buy a weapon at any time?

Yes.