Quote from CaptainObvious:
First let's address the "victimless crime" myth. Just because there isn't a dead body in the street doesn't mean addiction has no victims other than the addict. Tell it to the children who don't know who will walk through the door tonight. Daddy all high and happy, or the monster that kicks their ass for no reason. Tell it to the spouses that deal with the same Jekyll and Hyde personality. Tell it to the parents that go broke trying to "fix" their kid. No, there are plenty of victims in the wake of the addict.
Next lets touch on the subject of legalization somehow helping the addict. We need only to look at the legal drug we do have on the market, alcohol. Legal heroin will no more help a junkie than legal vodka helps an alcoholic. The dope addict will still abuse the drug regardless of the legalities. The addict will still commit other crimes in conjunction with supporting his habit, legal or not, just like a drunk does.
Now if were talking recreational use that's a different subject. I don't drink or drug anymore but that doesn't mean everybody will abuse like I did. There are people, most people, that can drink and use some drugs in a recreational way. I'd support legalizing pot and disburse it just like cigarettes or booze. Stronger drugs can be/should be available through prescription, but again, the addict will/does abuse that.
The bottom line is the "addict" will never learn to be a recreational user. Most will die trying and that's just the hard truth. Treatment should absolutely come before jail, but at some point the addict needs to suffer the consequences of their actions. If that's doing some time, then that's part of the process. A process that leads towards recovery, which is complete and total abstinence, long term confinement in prison or mental institutions, or the grave. Those are the choices for an addict. I can attest that most think those choices are for shit, but it is what it is.
"First let's address the "victimless crime" myth. Just because there isn't a dead body in the street doesn't mean addiction has no victims other than the addict. Tell it to the children who don't know who will walk through the door tonight. Daddy all high and happy, or the monster that kicks their ass for no reason. Tell it to the spouses that deal with the same Jekyll and Hyde personality. Tell it to the parents that go broke trying to "fix" their kid. No, there are plenty of victims in the wake of the addict."
Your logic seems inconsistent. Many drug users do not even have kids, so how can they beat them? Many people who use drugs who have kids, do not beat them. Thus you are advocating imprisonment of people who are not committing the abuse you are claiming, and in many cases people who are not even capable of committing it. You are saying that a drug user who does not beat their kids, or does not even have kids, ought to be jailed because some drug users with kids do beat them.
Many people who are not drug users abuse their kids e.g. heavy drinkers, people with short tempers, people who had a bad day at the office etc. To be consistent in your logic, you must also advocate jailing people who drink (but have no kids, or have them but don't beat them), people with short tempers, people who hate their jobs etc.
You say one victim of drug use is the spouse who has to deal with a Jekyl & Hyde personality. But having a disturbed personality is not a crime, and having to deal with a spouse with a disturbed personality is not something for which one can sue - it is not a "harm" in the legal or moral sense. Otherwise *anyone* with a disturbed personality, who was married, would be liable to go to jail.
You don't seem to understand what "victimless crime" means. The term means that the behaviour in question is illegal under law, but does not make someone the victim of a crime in the moral sense. To show that something is a moral crime with a real victim, one needs to show more than just some negative consequence - it needs to be a negative consequence to such an extent that causing it is a moral crime. Merely having to deal with imperfect or undesireable circumstances does not make one the victim of a crime. If my girlfriend eats too much and gets fat, or loses her sex drive, I suffer. But I am not the victim of a crime and only a moron would say so. Equally, if a spouse has to put up with unpredictable or unpleasant behaviour from their husband or wife, that causes suffering but it does not make them a crime victim.
You contrast addicts under legalisation (e.g. alcohol addicts) versus addicts under criminalisation (e.g. drug users), but yet again you ignore the question I and others put to you - under which regime have addicts (and thus their friends, relatives, and wider society) fared best? Did Prohibition cause more or less problems than the regimes where alcohol usage was legal? Are you seriously telling us that under Prohibition, there were *less* problems related to alcohol usage and the secondary effects of the ban on it, than under the legalisation era? And look at the treatment of drug addicts in Switzerland, The Netherlands etc - are the addicts better or worse off in such programs in those countries, compared to in the USA? Does Swiss or Dutch society suffer more or less negative social consequences from drug addiction than the USA? Please answer honestly.
Another problem with your position is that recreational drug users are also criminalised. You can spend decades in jail for smoking pot in the USA, ditto for LSD, coke, speed etc. Is someone like Lemmy from Motorhead a serious criminal and danger to society? What about the countless students and young professionals who use drugs recreationally and are not addicted?
I would just put one last question to you - if someone takes hard drugs, but does not beat up their kids, does not treat anyone like shit, does not break any laws (other than the possession of their drug of choice), is a productive member of society, pays their taxes etc...are you saying they deserve to spend 10-20 years in jail? If so, then how do you justify that position? Remember, this is the position that Rearden Metal found himself in. If hard drug use is not a victimless crime, perhaps you could point out who he victimised? What crimes did he commit that someone else suffered from? If you can't answer that question, then your entire last post, and thus your position on the legality of drugs, is entirely refuted.
You are an individual who advocates violent kidnap and imprisonment (and likely sexual molestation) of productive members of society who have not hurt anyone else, and arguably not even hurt themselves. I view someone who would treat another human being that way as a barbaric sadist, and far more of an unhumane criminal than any junkie.
