Quote from FeenixRizin:
I am experienced, but I know people whose experiences destroyed them.
I don't think anyone has disputed that point. I am pretty sure the workers at Swiss treatment centers are well aware of the harmful impact of drug addiction, as is every single person on this thread who has supported drug decriminalisation.
What is under dispute are two simple points - is the mere usage of drugs (absent any other factors) morally wrong, does it intrinsically harm others or violate their rights? And what is the justification and rationale for imprisoning drug users, given that there are proven alternatives which have been tried and succeeded far better at reducing the social and individual problems that drugs can cause.
As far as I can tell, no one has yet given a reason why drug use per se is immoral. Nor has anyone given evidence that the criminalisation approach produces better overall results for society and individuals than the medical/rehabilitation approach. As soon as someone deigns to at least *try* to give reasons or evidence for either of those contentions, then there will be a debate worth having. So far no one has done that, all they have done is make points that *no one disputes*, but which in no way support the position of criminalising drugs.
Proponents of criminalisation would do well to consider the analogy to alcohol and smoking. Booze and smoking destroy lives. Serious alcohol addicts especially can be violent, anti-social, pose risks to others etc. Yet the policy almost all societies have adopted is to treat and if necessary jail those who, as a result of alcohol use, indulge in behaviour *harmful or extremely dangerous to others* (i.e. criminal); whilst at the same time not criminalising those alcohol users who do not commit crimes against innocent people. A drinker who argues at home when drunk is not put in jail, and no one seriously suggests they should be. A drinker who turns that argument into domestic battery is put in jail, as they should be. Now, substitute "alcohol" for "heroin" or whatever other drug you want, and substitute "drinking" and "drinker" for "injecting" and "drug user", and then explain why the arguments are any different?
That's the challenge for those who wants drugs illegal and users banged up for years. What is it about use of drug X that means criminalisation is justified morally, and preferable social policy, compared to drug Y? It can't be loss of life, since so many die from cigarettes and alcohol. It can't be social consequences, since the consequences of the war on drugs are demonstrably far worse than the consequences of a Swiss-style liberal drug regime. So tell us - what is it?
At least people like Osama bin Laden and the Saudis are morally and logically consistent - they want *all* booze, smoking, drugs banned. That is a defensible position, if you are a pure utilitarian who doesn't believe in individual rights. But for anyone who believes in individual rights, or anyone who thinks smoking and drinking should be legal, there are literally no grounds whatsoever to ban drugs that do not also apply to drink & smoking. People proposing such a dichotomous approach therefore have more hypocritical morals than the world's most wanted terrorist and mass-murderer.
Seriously, I can't think of a single issue where both a rights-based approach *and* a utilitarian/social consequences approach both favour the same position so strongly (most "big issues" are intractable differences of fundamental morality between libertiarian individualists and social utilitarians). Yet remarkably, in much of the supposedly civilised world, the opposite position is taken - without any logically consistent and coherent arguments in favour of it.
