From: Mermaid . (britannica@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 13:35:15 MDT
[Walpurgis]Hello :) I don't mind at all! This is a public mailing list after
all. Your thoughts are valuable, thanks.
[Mermaid]Thanks..:)
[Walpurgis]The impact will be adverse to some degree - unavoidably. I think
the problem is the *extent* of the negative effect. If other drugs
prove to be just as negative (or less so, but not more so) as
tobacco/alcohol then they are justified. Unless you want to
reform/ban these two drugs themselves of course. Otherwise, the
position would be hypocritical.
[Mermaid]I was being general and clubbing drugs, alcohol and tobacco, all of
which have a somewhat negative effective on popular notions of healthy
living.
[Mermaid]Let me be precise. Any individual behaviour having an adverse
effect on the lives of other individuals, thereby trespassing on their
rights(rights being the key word), is reason enough for the state to step in
and regulate behaviour.
[Mermaid]Yes, I believe that alcohol and tobacco use should be regulated
along with the growing list of 'interesting' drugs.
[Walpurgis]Substance abuse cannot be avoided,
[Walpugris]Neither can substance *use*. Lets remember not all use of drugs
is abuse, just like not all sex is abusive.
[Mermaid]There is use and then there is substance abuse and substance
dependency. All of them are totally different terms. Substance abuse
includes anything that can be termed as 'harmful', physically and mentally,
for the user. Most people who develop a dependency on
drugs/alcohol/nicotine(or caffine, for that matter)are usually first
substance abusers before they become dependents. Dependency means higher
resistance, addiction etc. Neither of these definitions take into account
anything more than the personal cost to the drug user/abuser/addict. Over
and above all this, there is the social cost, the economic cost and the
emotional cost to his/her immediate circle of friends and family.
[Walpugris]Should other mind-altering substances like junk-food and
chocolate have an age-limit too/ Why ask such a question when the interests
of the companies that sell these products are so entrenched as to be
inmoveable anyway....?
[Mermaid]No. Food doesnt need to have a age limit. Food for a child is a
parent's responsibility. Companies do not sell mind altering drugs.
Companies that sell alcohol and tobacco already have age limits for purchase
of the products.(a 10 year old cannot handle 24 ounces of alcohol. Tobacco?
I dont think even adults should be allowed to smoke considering the various
negative impacts of nicotine , but thats another story and that would just
be my personal opinion.) Considering that there needs to be extensive
studies and research conducted to be aware of ALL the effects and side
effects of drug use, few companies will market and sell drugs of any kind.
So, decriminalisation is the first step. Legalisation can only occur after a
prolonged period of decriminalisation and the study of its impact on
society. If we want to discuss corporate greed, its a whole different
discussion anyways. No need to confuse issues here..:)
[Mermaid]The Dutch system(and someone correct me if i am wrong), treats drug
addicts as patients, as they most certainly are...this was how it worked
when drug use was decriminalised. The cost of not legalising drugs was the
cost borne by the state to treat the patients. The status of 'patient' will
not apply to anyone who consumes drugs when its made legal...because
legalisation carries with it stringent laws and controls and regulations
before a company manufactures and places a bottle of ..say..hmm..Xtacy on
the shelves of your local drug store. Caveat Emptor..:)
[Mermaid earlier]d.when the tax payer is not burdened with the cost of
treatement programs for substance abusers.
[Walpurgis]Or junkfood abusers. Or people that don't exercise. Or... Or...
[Mermaid]I dont think tax payer's money is being used to treat people who
eat junkfood or those who do not exercise. But IRS says weight-loss
programs for Obesity are deductible. This doesnt include the cost of diet
foods. It is applicable only if obesity is diagnosed or some other specific
disease is being treated. Being overweight, by itself, isnt considered an
ailment that qualifies an individual to write off weight-loss program
expenses.
[Walpurgis]Perhaps the tax payer shouldn't pay for anything they don't agree
with? I don't want to fund the military for example.
[Mermaid]Then you shouldnt. You have a voice. You have a vote. Use it.
[Walpurgis] Fairness would require a radical overhaul of our political
system.
[Mermaid]True, but hardly relevant. We are not talking about fairness, we
are concerned about the effects and ill effects of drugs/alcohol/tobacco on
society and community.
[Walpurgis]Otherwise we could fudge what we have. The taxpayer will pay for
my treatment when my organs fuck-up, but I'd have paid more than
them for the pleasure, because my drugs would have been taxed.
[Mermaid]The cost of your pleasure is your burden. Do not expect me or any
other tax payer to subsidise YOUR drug of choice. Everything is taxed. As
they say, you cannot escape it...death and taxes..:) and even death is
taxed!! I pay sales tax for bottled water. I see no reason why drugs,
alcohol and tobacco users should get special treatment when it comes to
taxes.
[Walpurgis]It pays for itself.
[Mermaid]No, it doesnt. Its called 'blackmail'.
[Walpurgis]See above. Not all users are addicts.
[Mermaid]I agree. All users are not addicts. So, the non addicts dont have
to get treatment. There is no issue of disagreement or discontent there. I
am talking about those who are treated as patients for substance
abuse/dependency.
[Walpurgis]Not all average joes are fit, healthy non-substance ab/users
[Mermaid]Again, irrelevant.
[Walpurgis]Drug use is not about wanting to die, it is about a great deal of
other things.
[Mermaid]Maybe, I should have been more clear. I am sure it is about a great
deal of other things. I am only concerned about the cost incurred by the
rest of society for an individual's personal habits. All I am asking for is
personal responsibility for the decision to take drugs.
[Walpurgis] The people so concerned about health effects of drugs might do
better to direct their attentions against pollution caused by the cars they
drive/packaging they throw away/energy they pay for/etcetcetc
[Mermaid]Yes, they should. Not only that, if they are concerned about health
effects and have doubts about their well being, they should also refrain
from using drugs. Once again, it only underscores my original point.
Responsibility. Personal responsibility for one's personal actions and
choices.
[Walpurgis] Pollution is everyones concern, with a great health impact than
5000 LSD tabs.
[Mermaid]True. We all need to work on that too.
[Walpurgis]Agian, this rule must be implemented to influence the behaviour
of ALL, not just drugs ab/users.
[Mermaid]What does this mean? Until the problem of pollution is solved,
until people stop consuming chocolate, until junk food is banned and until
there is no military, I have to allow my taxes to pay for a drug addict's
treatment program and subsidise a drug habit by not taxing it(it being a
product which is legal to purchase) while the drug user does not take any
personal responsibility for his actions?
[Mermaid]That is how I understood your statement. If I have misunderstood
you and you only desire the end to all world's problems along with the need
to freely do drugs, then my best wishes are with you and lets hope for a
brighter future. However, if one demands legalisation and insists on passing
the burden of socio-economic costs to the rest of the society because the
rest of the world's affairs are not functioning in tip top order AND refuse
to accept responsibility, not to mention the cost and consequences of one's
drug(or other substances) habit, I call that Blackmail.
[Mermaid]Even with the pre conditions of legalisation of drugs that I listed
being true for alcohol and tobacco which is freely available, there is an
enormous cost to society. I can only express amazement(and a little
amusement)with regard to your expectations of legalisation of drugs with
absolutely no rules or regulations or constraints. Responsibility is not a
four letter word..:)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:48 MDT