Free smack!

You said drug addicts, not a particular kind of drug addict. Smokers and a lot of obese people are addicts, too.

Well, I know drug addicts, too. And I know that they're irresponsible, but I also know there's a reason for their addiction. Why should they die over it?

 

But when they get cancer and are too weak to take care of their kids...I know what's considered a drug addict, but I also know it's bullshit. Someone who smokes a lot of weed is a drug addict and an alcoholic isn't.

"Couldn't handle life" is an extremely wide definition. There are reasons for it, not just "Well, life sucks, I think I'll go freebase some coke". It's easy to say when you've never been in the position of someone like that. Not everyone needs anything, sure, but people are different.

I'm all for legalizing it, though. It would be a bit cheaper to afford and the damages to people's health (that still exist while it's illegal) could be covered by the tax money all this would bring in. This program is better than before, but legalizing everything would be the way to go.

 

Humane politics are depressing. I'm in support of Zanza's Island.

 

Again, you only seem to be talking about heroin, but okay, how about the kids who were hurt while mommy went down for cigarettes? Or the second hand smoke that hurts kids more than adults? Yeah, theres a difference, but they can all hurt the kids.

Ah, you must be very strong-willed. I don't suppose you or anyone else you know are smokers, drinkers, watch braindead amounts of tv, are handicapped in a way that requires money from the state, or anything else that might be considered a weakness?

I meant the income taxes from what would be the drug manufacturers and the salesmen of it, if it was legal.

I suppose you can see it as danegeld, but I'd say it's different than giving money to armed robbers to not rob banks. They do it to get paid, these people do it because they're slaves. It helps them and it helps society not have a bunch of street robbers and burglars, and it takes money away from criminals dealing drugs.

By the way, I'm not in any way saying that heroin addicts are the same as smokers or handicapped people, I'm merely trying to put it into perspective.

 

The only thing in this that remotely compares to drug addiction is alcoholism. Alcoholism ruins lives and families. A mother will pass out from drugs and alcohol or neglect their child for the next fix. A smoker will not.

I know quite a few people that are handicapped in that way. The funny thing, most of them would be productive members of society if they didn't become addicted to the free drugs and money offered by the welfare state - my own brother amongst them. He'd have had use of his left arm again if he kept his appointments with his physical therapist and he'd be off the disability pay back in his union job (the disability pay BTW pays him more each month than I receive working full time).

Stop trying to compare smoking to drug addictions. You're just trying to grasp at straws to make your point. And it fails.

 

I only have to say that Hard Drugs is really bad, and I can say it from the first hand.

 

I'm not really trying to compare a heroin addict with a smoker, but most people who smoke are addicted and it is a drug, like it or not. It might not be mentioned with drug use, just like alcohol or fat foods won't but that's just because they're legal. I don't mind people who smoke, most of my friends do, it's just an example.

All those people you quoted me saying was some of who could be considered weak, since Dark Elf said he didn't mind seeing the gene pool rid of weakness.

 

My comparison to the situation in which rapists would get free prostitutes was to show how in attempt solve the problem the government tries to get rid of the effects of the disease, instead of the causes, which shows how weak the government is against the problem.
This way there will be more and more drug addicts, since the program doesn't reduce them by one bit, while it gives free heroine, so "Hey, why not take drugs, we get them for free".
I wouldn't care if cost not DKK 70 million but just DKK 1. I wouldn't want one penny of taxes spend on free rides for drug addicts.
They are parasites on everyone, by the own choice. No one forced them to take drugs. They choose to do so, so now pay for the drugs by your legally earned money. If you get the money by crime, you get sentenced and pay the consequences. If you find no way to get your drug money, either sweat the drug out in great pain, or commit suicide to free yourself from the misery and make the world a better place without you. That's how it should be done. I don't care how hard or even impossible it is to get out of drug addiction. It's their own motherfuckin' problem. I don't see why I should tolerate someone's problem (which is their own fault) only because it is hard for them to deal with it. I'm sure it is also hard for pedophiles to keep themselves from raping children, yet it's obvious that the difficulty doesn't justify them. Why should drug addicts be treated with any difference?
The best option would be if they would all die over the night. Everyone would be happier that way. Yes, drug addicts who eschange their own pride, dignity and humanity for some opioid in a syringe is sub-human and do not deserve to live in a society. They don't deserve to live at all, since what is the sense of their existance? But with the greatest undeserved mercy they should be isolated. Entirely, permanently. The junky island option sounds perfect.

 

Thinking that users are going to be satisfied with state-controlled drugs is like thinking that Hitler will be satisfied with annexing Austria.

 

Someone who smokes a lot of weed isn't a drug addict either. They won't get physically sick if they try to give it up, same as an alcoholic. These "addictions" are mental, not physical. Heroin addicts get seriously ill when they try to kick the habit. That's how most addicts get stuck so deep into their addictions. After a while, they no longer shoot or smoke up just for the high effects, it's also to keep from getting even more sick. The problem is, the body starts to become desensitized to the rush from heroin with time, to the point that the junkie shoots up higher and higher doses. That's when a lot of ODs occur. They finally hit that lethal threshold from trying to sustain an adequate high that the body just can't handle it anymore. It's a sad, sad downward spiral. This isn't the case with weed or alcohol. The mind craves alcohol, not the body. So I don't think a pure definition of addiction applies here. I don't know, I'm trying to recall a few years of Drug and Dependency classes I took about 8 years ago towards a Forensics Degree. Maybe the definition has changed since then. But there is nothing in weed that will literally make your body addicted to it, like nicotine in cigarettes or heroin will....unless the dope is laced with something. But that's a whole other fish to fry.

EDIT: Ok apparently there are pyschological addictions, which are like compulsive disorders, and physiological addictions, which are basically physical dependencies. Had to look it up. It was eating my brain.

 

Muro: It's not like people just go there and are given free drugs, it's only the hardcore junkies who have basically no chance of recovery. They wouldn't just hand out some heroin to someone going to a party.

I think it's too easy to say that if they commit crime they'll just have to go to prison. After all, that might be someone's head cracked open for money.

GrimmHatter: That's what I meant, that a weed smoker in our societies are classified as a drug addict because the drug is illegal, even if it doesn't make you addicted. Alcohol is legal, so alcoholics aren't seen as drug addicts even, contrary to what you said, they become physically addicted to it.

 

True, so you'd actually pay more tax money for that.

 

Only Americans call it Canadian Bacon. Everyone else, including Canadians, still calls it ham.

They have a system like this in Vancouver. It didn't actually work all that well, the crime rate is still soaring.

 

I disagree with your stance about alcohol. I worked with a guy who was a REALLY bad alcoholic. If he wasn't at least a little tipsy, he couldn't function. He would literally walk out of the building and go find a place to get beer. I'd find facts to back my stance up further, but I'm now going to go shower, since I've to leave in about 10 minutes. Shit.

 

You disagreed with my stance yet you provide an example that backs it up. Strange. The guy coudn't function, not because the lack of alcohol made him physically sick, but because he had a psychological dependency on it. The body of an alcoholic does not NEED alcohol to avoid becoming physically ill. His lack of "function" was because he mentally craved that "tipsy" feeling.

I guess you could make the argument that alcoholism does make the body sick in terms of cirrhosis of the liver. But I think that's a bit more of a long term side effect.

 

Oi!

What irks me about this free smack arrangement is its sustainability. Granted, it is outrageous to assume that every member of a society would abandon his contractual duties for free smack, but with no external deterrent, would a balance of contributors to free-loaders be maintained?

I don't suppose that I would ever be satisfied with the answer. It could be the case that providing for addicts is far more cost effective than persecuting them and that enough people would choose contribution over indulgence to make the system work, and I would still oppose the idea.