Drug Addicts
Debates across the world occur when ever the issue of how to deal with drug problems come up...the question is, should they be treated as patients: say given drugs like heroin on prescription in order to get them off the drug or should they be treated as criminals and imprisoned for their habit?
What do you think?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nobody deserves to be imprisoned for a habit.-AC
Whats the ratio of that happening though?
There is more crime involved than simply being arrested for a habit; stealing, armed hold ups etc, not to mention the behavioral/psychological problems after taking the drugs, people need money for the drugs and do stupid things to get them.
Originally posted by MIŠTWell, apparently in the US at least, that is not the case. And the prisons are flooded with minor offenders or those whose crime was to buy or sell the drugs.
Whats the ratio of that happening though?There is more crime involved than simply being arrested for a habit; stealing, armed hold ups etc, not to mention the behavioral/psychological problems after taking the drugs, people need money for the drugs and do stupid things to get them.
Originally posted by MIŠTWell, how are you supposed to take it if you can't have it on you? 😐
Buying/selling/growing is a different business to actually taking them though. I'm not sure there are laws saying you can't take drugs? Cops don't usually bust people for being high, it's mostly because they are holding a drug on them, with or without intent to sell/buy.
But I wouldn't be sure actually. I don't know the law, but I would imagine that intoxicated people would face punishment. Might be all off though.
Well from observation, people have been busted for having ecstasy pills in their pocket, but I haven't seen anyone busted for actually being high on it, even though the cops have said to their face 'you are high'.
Also drunk people, never seen anyone arrested for being 'too drunk', it's more of them being a nuisance or drinking where they shouldn't be drinking etc.
Originally posted by MIŠTPersonally I have not much problem with "driving under the influence" being against the law, and being a public nuisance should also be, regardless of the higness. I think the problem I have (and probably AC) is that you can't have the drugs on you, you can't consume them, you can't buy them and you can't sell them...and all those things are outlawed and can get you in (big) trouble, while not being anyone's problem but the users, really.
Well from observation, people have been busted for having ecstasy pills in their pocket, but I haven't seen anyone busted for actually being high on it, even though the cops have said to their face 'you are high'.Also drunk people, never seen anyone arrested for being 'too drunk', it's more of them being a nuisance or drinking where they shouldn't be drinking etc.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Personally I have not much problem with "driving under the influence" being against the law, and being a public nuisance should also be, regardless of the higness. I think the problem I have (and probably AC) is that you can't have the drugs on you, you can't consume them, you can't buy them and you can't sell them...and all those things are outlawed and can get you in (big) trouble, while not being anyone's problem but the users, really.
The buying/selling factor is simple - people are making (tax free) money off of drug trafficking, the government can't get a cut so they ban it etc.
But I'm agreeing with you on the other parts, it's the simplification of arresting people for liking drugs that I'm posting about. Nobody is really arrested for using drugs, it's more of being arrested for the potential of committing a crime while on the drug. Same as say, someone who has 1000 photos of child porn, but hasn't actually touched a kid before, they'll be arrested for the 'potential' that they might harm a kid.
Originally posted by MIŠT
The buying/selling factor is simple - people are making (tax free) money off of drug trafficking, the government can't get a cut so they ban it etc.
No, actually it's more the other way around. The government made drugs illegal, therefore it can't get its cut.
Not that it deserves a cut in the first place. Either way, it shouldn't be illegal.
Originally posted by MIŠT
But I'm agreeing with you on the other parts, it's the simplification of arresting people for liking drugs that I'm posting about. Nobody is really arrested for using drugs, it's more of being arrested for the potential of committing a crime while on the drug. Same as say, someone who has 1000 photos of child porn, but hasn't actually touched a kid before, they'll be arrested for the 'potential' that they might harm a kid.
What exactly is the difference to the person that got arrested for taking drugs as opposed to being arrested for potentially doing something stupid on drugs?
Yeah, I am against arresting people for having child porn, too.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not that it deserves a cut in the first place.
Unfortunately they get a cut from everything we do, deserving or not...
Yeah I think I missed a sentence there...I think what I was saying was when a cop arrests you, you wouldn't get charged with 'being high', it'd be 'possesion' or something. Like it wouldn't be 'drunk' it's more 'drunk driving'. I dunno, whatever, I'm falling asleep here sleeping
But what I was getting at, was comparing it to Minority Report, where it is 'beneficial to society' to prevent someone from committing harm to others, before they actually commit harm. That's how I see our current legal system's excuses for charging people.
Or something, I might go play CoD 4 to keep my brain active..
Originally posted by MIŠTI agree with you about the de facto intention of the law, I just disagree with that purpose.
Yeah I think I missed a sentence there...I think what I was saying was when a cop arrests you, you wouldn't get charged with 'being high', it'd be 'possesion' or something. Like it wouldn't be 'drunk' it's more 'drunk driving'. I dunno, whatever, I'm falling asleep here sleepingBut what I was getting at, was comparing it to Minority Report, where it is 'beneficial to society' to prevent someone from committing harm to others, before they actually commit harm. That's how I see our current legal system's excuses for charging people.
Or something, I might go play CoD 4 to keep my brain active..
But you go play your game, you silly aussie.
[edit] Notice how I used latin, which is followed by Epic Win, obviously.
1. Certain drugs should never be permitted to become legal, and depending on what the person did for their fix should determine if they should go to prison, or not.
2. We all know right from wrong and if someone doesn't, then jail is certainly a good place to begin learning.
3. I think that many addicts should be treated as patients, because having a vice does not make someone a villain.
Originally posted by Stoic
2. We all know right from wrong and if someone doesn't, then jail is certainly a good place to begin learning.
I guess you could say we all have a concept of "right" and "wrong" (most of us anyways), but one man's right may very well be another's wrong. There is likely no absolute right or wrong anyways.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess you could say we all have a concept of "right" and "wrong" (most of us anyways), but one man's right may very well be another's wrong. There is likely no absolute right or wrong anyways.
Ain't that the truth, but in times of doubt or uncertainty it's best to observe than to act.
Today on the news I saw a man who allegedly defecates on himself get caught for murdering an innocent woman, his father then testified that after the man does this he would take 3 hour showers. This of course was his fathers way of pleading for his sons insanity.
This man choked the woman to death, and stuffed a banana down her throat, later cutting off the womans legs so that she would fit in the trunk of his car, and later tried to dump her body in a river.
I believe that he knew full well what he was doing, because if he didn't he would never have tried to get rid of her body.
My point? We all know right from wrong, it is within us to know these things by simply knowing what we would hate to have happen to us.
Originally posted by Stoic
Ain't that the truth, but in times of doubt or uncertainty it's best to observe than to act.Today on the news I saw a man who allegedly defecates on himself get caught for murdering an innocent woman, his father then testified that after the man does this he would take 3 hour showers. This of course was his fathers way of pleading for his sons insanity.
This man choked the woman to death, and stuffed a banana down her throat, later cutting off the womans legs so that she would fit in the trunk of his car, and later tried to dump her body in a river.
I believe that he knew full well what he was doing, because if he didn't he would never have tried to get rid of her body.
My point? We all know right from wrong, it is within us to know these things by simply knowing what we would hate to have happen to us.
Well, you subscribe to a sort of golden rule then, I guess. But even that is not absolute. Some people hate things others like.
As for the case, I wouldn't judge so fast, it is true that insanity might be claimed wrongly, but the psychology of humans is too complex, imo, to just judge it like that. It might very well be that that person had no control, that's why professional should judge such cases.
Originally posted by Stoic
2. We all know right from wrong and if someone doesn't, then jail is certainly a good place to begin learning.
Its not that simple some people who end up on drugs come from broken homes or they were in a really messed up situation they make one wrong decison and they end up getting hooked on heroin.
Sometimes its the envinronment that you grow up in that determines how bad your actions will be.
Re: Drug Addicts
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Debates across the world occur when ever the issue of how to deal with drug problems come up...the question is, should they be treated as patients: say given drugs like heroin on prescription in order to get them off the drug or should they be treated as criminals and imprisoned for their habit?What do you think?
Drugs themselves aren't really the problem as there are alot of people with heroin addictions that function perfectly well as they work in jobs where they can afford to buy the drugs.
the problem is all the crime that surrounds drug abuse with those people that can't afford to pay for it. shoplifting, robbery, house-breaking, muggings etc.
so regardless of whether drug taking was legallised, these problems would still exist as the addicted would still be committing crimes to pay for their habits.
Originally posted by jaden101True, but the people not being harmful to anyone wouldn't be treated as criminals, the drugs would be cheaper, safer, more monitored, and bringing in tax money, and much of the criminal gang element would be removed.
Drugs themselves aren't really the problem as there are alot of people with heroin addictions that function perfectly well as they work in jobs where they can afford to buy the drugs.the problem is all the crime that surrounds drug abuse with those people that can't afford to pay for it. shoplifting, robbery, house-breaking, muggings etc.
so regardless of whether drug taking was legallised, these problems would still exist as the addicted would still be committing crimes to pay for their habits.