"What do you think? Are certain substances so inherently addictive that they must be banned? Or should the proper scope of policy be focused on behaviors?"
In answer to the above question, I looked up some information on Wikipedia. Who banned the drugs to begin with and why? The Government because they have the "potential" for addiction.
I believe in individual responsibility and consequences. But, I've also watched my brother flounder with Meth addiction and my sister and her husband flounder with alcohol addiction. Is the Meth addiction worse than the alcohol addiction because the Meth is "illegal"? No, if the abuse continues, then all of the above will likely die because of their addictions.
I also believe that employers know the attention to detail that their employees need to pay and should know how each substance affects their employees.
It is easy for casual use to escalate into abuse and then for abuse to escalate into addiction. For some with addictive personalities, the use escalates into addiction quickly.
In this era of taking the easy way and feeling good, it is difficult to say that one way of feeling good is OK and another isn't.
I don't have an answer... I do think that each individual should be looked at as that, an individual. And if employers are banning substances, then it should be all substances that are checked for including prescription drugs like Xanax or the "Codone" based drugs. It should be all or none, not picking and choosing. And definately the behavior should be taken into account, more so than the blood levels.
Not an easy answer to this question. I'll think on it some more and do more research 'cuz it seems that a lot of what the U.S. Government did when it started banning substances was arbitrary and there may not have been a lot of scientific research done.
"The video above features an interview with retired police captain Peter Christ on WGRZ-TV in Buffalo, NY. Captain Christ is co-founder and vice-chair of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a nonprofit organization made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are speaking out about the failures of America’s War on Drugs.
Starting at about 2:45, Captain Christ makes a key point:
When you institute a prohibition like we have with drugs in this country, what you are doing is not protecting people from other people, you are attempting to use law enforcement to protect people from themselves. Protecting you from yourself is a function of family, church, education, and the health care system. It never is, and never should have been intended to be, a law enforcement function. We are out there enforcing morality when we enforce drug laws, and that is not our job. We were not trained to do it, we are not capable of doing it, and if anything else you see the failure of it.
We’ve been doing this for over 40 years since Nixon kicked it off, and the drugs are more available, of purer quality and cheaper than they’ve ever been before on the streets of America. And we’ve had 40,000 deaths in Mexico over the last five years fighting over this drug trade. Plus we’ve destroyed more lives than the drugs have by incarcerating people and hanging felony convictions on them and denying them college educations, denying them jobs, for no good reason.
And one other thing I want to point out in case people think that if we do it hard enough that this will actually be doable to make drugs go away. We have the largest prison system on the planet, and the most efficient prison systems on the planet. And in that huge efficient prison system, we do not have one drug-free prison in America. And if you cannot keep drugs out of prisons, who is going to be delusional enough to think you can keep them out of a free society?
"The video above features an interview with retired police captain Peter Christ on WGRZ-TV in Buffalo, NY. Captain Christ is co-founder and vice-chair of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a nonprofit organization made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are speaking out about the failures of America’s War on Drugs.
Starting at about 2:45, Captain Christ makes a key point:
When you institute a prohibition like we have with drugs in this country, what you are doing is not protecting people from other people, you are attempting to use law enforcement to protect people from themselves. Protecting you from yourself is a function of family, church, education, and the health care system. It never is, and never should have been intended to be, a law enforcement function. We are out there enforcing morality when we enforce drug laws, and that is not our job. We were not trained to do it, we are not capable of doing it, and if anything else you see the failure of it.
We’ve been doing this for over 40 years since Nixon kicked it off, and the drugs are more available, of purer quality and cheaper than they’ve ever been before on the streets of America. And we’ve had 40,000 deaths in Mexico over the last five years fighting over this drug trade. Plus we’ve destroyed more lives than the drugs have by incarcerating people and hanging felony convictions on them and denying them college educations, denying them jobs, for no good reason.
And one other thing I want to point out in case people think that if we do it hard enough that this will actually be doable to make drugs go away. We have the largest prison system on the planet, and the most efficient prison systems on the planet. And in that huge efficient prison system, we do not have one drug-free prison in America. And if you cannot keep drugs out of prisons, who is going to be delusional enough to think you can keep them out of a free society?
gmule wrote: We should abandon the drug war and treat drug use as a public health issue. The money we spend on the drug war could help a lot of people.
We should abandon the drug war and stop pretending there is even an issue. There is not even a mandate to continue to pretend there is an issue to be solved with some more minor form of socialization.
The money we spend on the drug war could be left with those that earn it to spend as they see fit. This way the govt does not have to take it by force in the first place, no need to find an alternative public use for peoples' money once you stop pretending you need a drug war, they will take care of that money just fine. Maybe even buy some good drugs with it.
ComputerBreath wrote: The last paragraph of the article quoted says:
"What do you think? Are certain substances so inherently addictive that they must be banned? Or should the proper scope of policy be focused on behaviors?"
In answer to the above question, I looked up some information on Wikipedia. Who banned the drugs to begin with and why? The Government because they have the "potential" for addiction.
I believe in individual responsibility and consequences. But, I've also watched my brother flounder with Meth addiction and my sister and her husband flounder with alcohol addiction. Is the Meth addiction worse than the alcohol addiction because the Meth is "illegal"? No, if the abuse continues, then all of the above will likely die because of their addictions.
I also believe that employers know the attention to detail that their employees need to pay and should know how each substance affects their employees.
It is easy for casual use to escalate into abuse and then for abuse to escalate into addiction. For some with addictive personalities, the use escalates into addiction quickly.
In this era of taking the easy way and feeling good, it is difficult to say that one way of feeling good is OK and another isn't.
I don't have an answer... I do think that each individual should be looked at as that, an individual. And if employers are banning substances, then it should be all substances that are checked for including prescription drugs like Xanax or the "Codone" based drugs. It should be all or none, not picking and choosing. And definately the behavior should be taken into account, more so than the blood levels.
Not an easy answer to this question. I'll think on it some more and do more research 'cuz it seems that a lot of what the U.S. Government did when it started banning substances was arbitrary and there may not have been a lot of scientific research done.
If people would be measured based on their behavior, there is no need to even mention the drugs.
If we have a certain standard for driving say, where you must be able to walk in a straight line. You then have the right to drive if you can among other things walk in a straight line.
Now if you have had 2 beers in the last hour and you cannot walk in a straight line should you have more or less rights than another person that is under the influence of no drugs that also cannot walk that line. Should people have different rights even if they can perform to the same standard? That is a tough question to answer. The drug one is easy, none of your business unless I violate a reasonable performance standard.
I do not think people when it comes to rules should be looked at as individuals. I think they should meet a standard and the standards should be determined with extreme care.
This is the same issue as hate crimes, same issue as the SIMPLE IRA (where you only get this tax break IF your employer signs up), this is the same issue as gay marriage. This issue is that of what people can do to increase or decrease your rights and the judgement on you, even if your action does not change. You can increase or decrease your rights today based on what you have eaten yesterday, who you are related to, who you are employed by, etc. We have a strong foundation in a govt backed class system and it is wrong, plain and simple, but something that can be gained so it is oh so here to stay.
Drugs in themselves should never have been an issue, even bringing them up associated with what kinds of rights you are going to leave a person has us avoiding the subject before we even engaged it.
