[scotus69]

Why? Let them have cake... and die.

Let me explain what I mean. The "idea" may be reprehensible from a humanistic point of view and perhaps even from the drug pusher's point of view that it is bad business to kill your customers (too) quickly.

However, from a purely psychological viewpoint, the cocaine addicts are merely trying to escape their current reality, albeit temporarily, but at a well publicised cost to themselves, their families and their country. So, why not make that uber costly escape permanent?

The argument that drug addiction is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the drug addict is patently fatalistic and self-defeating. If you don't like the risk of dying of something then don't be involved in an activity that has a high propensity to lead to death by its very nature.

Of course the wisecracks will always argue that life is a disease with a bad prognosis because the outcome is always death... But I say, if all an addict seeks is escape from life by patently dangerous means, then let them have it, for good.

EDIT: Spelling & Grammar.

[barrkel]

Do you consume caffeine for "escape"? How does your argument look if you replace cocaine with caffeine?

Your comment reads like you're regurgitating government propaganda swallowed wholesale.

[jrockway]

How does your argument look if you replace cocaine with caffeine?

Hey now. A crime fighting dog told me that cocaine is bad. What more evidence do we need?

[celoyd]

I believe that cocaine is bad and that its users shouldn’t be treated arbitrarily harshly. There’s no contradiction there.

[scotus69]

Sure. Just because the government is saying something, even truth, does not automatically make it false.

Replacing cocaine with not only "caffeine", but also "theophylline" and "sildenafil citrate" also works. Only, neither of those has the propensity for "addiction" or "dependence" to the degree that "cocaine" does.

Or perhaps you have done some research that proves otherwise?

[aaronblohowiak]

So you yield that it is the addiction and physical dependence that drives cocaine use, not thanatos ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos_(psychoanalysis) )

If addiction is a disease, then addicts need doctors, not executioners. Even if addiction is a moral weakness, I think you'd have a hard time suggesting that the weak-willed all deserve poison in their vice (lest ye cast the first stone.)

[Alex3917]

According to the WHO, cocaine use, when done safely and responsibly, is non-addictive causes essentially zero problems in the vast majority of users:

"Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems ... a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use. ... Use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive, therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations."[1]

Also, there is a wealth of research indicating that cocaine is vastly safer than caffeine, especially when it comes to the health and safety of unborn babies.

[1] http://www.tni.org/archives/drugscoca-docs_sixhorsemen

[scotus69]

Perhaps your references need updating.

The current WHO statement is here: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cocaine/en/index.ht...

Furthermore, the reference you cite is : "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, 5 March 1995 (unpublished Briefing Kit)."

An "unpublished Briefing Kit", oh come on !!! ??? !!!

[Alex3917]

You conveniently left out the part about it being the largest survey of cocaine use ever conducted. But no matter, the Consumer Reports guide to drugs will tell you essentially the same thing:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen...

[crux_]

I suppose you had no problem with the poisoning of alcohol supplies during prohibition then?

(Reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/)

[scotus69]

Just because a "drug" is socially acceptable does not make it any less dangerous, case in point: the tobacco industry in the seventies.

And even alcohol: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/

No, I am not for deliberate poisoning of mass consumed "drugs". But certainly I don't care that people die of their addictions to dangerous substances.

[barrkel]

People are dying here in large part because the drugs are illegal; without the moderating effects of regulation (tort law, at the very least), the additives make them more lethal, without much recourse for the buyer.

I find your position hard to understand. It seems almost inhuman to me; that you would condemn people to death, because... liberty is immoral?

[scotus69]

No, liberty per se, is not immoral. You or any human being on this planet is free to consume, enjoy or even abuse any substance you like. However, when the cost of your consumption or addiction becomes a burden on almost every other fellow human, then you have started "abusing" that liberty.

Do you really feel that "legalising" addictive and physical-dependence-causing "cocaine" will lead to a lesser burden on the collective society than the situation now? if so, then perhaps you need to go visit a rehab centre and see the devastating effect that any "abused" substance can cause -- irrespective of whether it is legal or not.

More importantly, there are enough humans suffering from natural diseases and disasters that could use help, than the few humans who are deliberately indulging in dangerous behaviour and be better dead than sucking precious resources away from those who are trying to merely survive, leave alone "lawyering" and "regulating" cocaine in their lives.

"Liberty" without "responsibility" is the definition "entitlement". Typically seen in individuals and societies too affluent for their own good.

[Alex3917]

You're missing the point that the vast majority of drug users are neither addicts or irresponsible. Even tobacco, the most addictive drug there is, is essentially non-addictive for roughly 70% of the people who use it. Of those that do abuse drugs, a large percentage are severely mentally ill and using drugs to self-medicate. For example, 44% of all the cigarrettes in the U.S. are consumed by the 2% of the population with severe mental illness. It's not the fault of these people that they're in pain all the time, and even if they weren't abusing drugs they'd still be non-functional anyway. In fact, many of them are probably a lot more functional on drugs than off them.

Don't forget the word pharmacist means someone who poisons people. It also means someone who cures people. Because the poison is always in the dose.

[ahlatimer]

Do you have a citation for your tobacco statistics? Not trying to be an ass; I've just heard the opposite is true for tobacco. Something like 70% of people who begin using it casually eventually become addicted.

[rdtsc]

> Do you really feel that "legalising" addictive and physical-dependence-causing "cocaine" will lead to a lesser burden on the collective society than the situation now?

I do. We only have on case so far : Portugal. And it looks pretty good, which, of course, flies in the face of the our government's War On Drugs(tm) propaganda.

We also have the case of US Prohibition Era, where prohibiting the substance made it worse, as people still consumed it, but just kept dying because government agents poisoned the supply. It also let criminals gangs flourish as the whole industry moved underground.

[godDLL]

You are no fun, mate.

[riffic]

Why does everyone always assume that drug usage is an escape?

Some may see it as enhancement. Besides, not everyone shares the same motives.

[dedward]

Because in the context we're discussing, it's an escape.

Sure, tiny amounts of cocaine act as a stimulant similar to caffeine. Coca tea is just fine and safe.

But a nose full of cocaine is way, way, way more drug than the tea contains, and makes you feel REALLY good for short while. Almost every single user ends up binging every last bit of cocaine they have on them, and staying up all night. They do it because of the reward system it kicks off in your brain. Will they end up chronically addicted to it? Not everyone, but the thing is, it has little to do with willpower, knowledge,or strength. Statistically some people can walk away... but you have know way of knowing if YOU are the person who can walk away. You might think you are, but that's meaningless. (And the thought that you can walk away leads to "Well hey, why not tomorrow night too? After all, I can obviously walk away!")

The same pattern repeats, more or less, for most habit-forming drugs - tobacco included. Alcohol actually ranks quite low on this scale, though it's far more damaging than many illegal drugs.

So back to the original question - why do people think it's an escape? Because it generally is - people do it to experience a different reality than their own, and personal risk. That's not necessarily bad, but it IS an escape... just like many other activities, like snowboarding or skydiving.... it just has a much higher risk factor.

[scotus69]

OK. Enhancement by "addictive" means. Note, it is the "addiction" that provides an extra level of "danger" to abuse.

Why even get into motives? Just because my motive is to fly by myself does not mean I won't die if I skydive without a parachute.

[rdtsc]

So clearly we should poison everyone's coffee with lead. We have lots of our fellow citizens hopelessly addicted to this terrible substance. They cannot function without it. Clearly the only way out is to poison the coffee.

Then, while we are at it, let's add some mercury to cigarettes, and put maybe put arsenic in fast food hamburgers.

[riffic]

Are you arguing that drugs are inherently dangerous? In particular, I'd like you to show me what is dangerous about cannabis.

From the way I see it, the most dangerous aspect of that drug is the risk of catching law enforcement's attention.

[deathbob]

Without meaning a personal dig it's clear that you're quite ignorant about drugs. Anyone who's ever done any knows they're the original augmented reality. There are few drugs that one would take to escape reality entirely; the vast majority of drug use is social in nature and rooted in reality by definition.

[scotus69]

Agreed. And the "acceptability" of such substances varies from society to society (case-in-point: khat). But that still does not take away the societal distress and human cost their abuse causes.

[A1kmm]

The point the article was making was that it is illegal to sell kits which test for levamisole and other harm reduction 'paraphernalia'.

Some people are going to use drugs no matter how dangerous they are perceived to be, and that is why prohibition does not reduce the overall harm drugs cause to society.

Yes it would be better if the externalities of drugs on society could be internalised into the price of the drug - but that doesn't justify government interventions which achieve nothing but stop drug users from protecting themselves against serious harm.

[InclinedPlane]

If we applied this logic to every behavior that someone else found reprehensible and dangerous to society the population would crash.