# 59000 Deaths Annually!



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Last evening I listened to Scott Pelley and the CBS evening news team report that 59000 annual deaths in the USA are attributable to illegal substance over doses, a 19% increase over the previous year! As reported, this figure represents as many lives lost as those lost throughout the US's entire involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Why do we as a society seem to so blithely accept these entirely preventable deaths? Where is the public outrage? Why have we not risen, en-mass, against these inexcusable deaths? We really do seem to have lost any semblance good sense. :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'll tell you exactly why. It's because such reporting does not conveniently fit into a liberal media narrative such as "blood for oil" or police bias. 

I think you're starting to see a murmuring of how this will proceed. The AG of Ohio, Mike Dewine, is going to try to sue the drug makers for the addiction problem in his state. I think it's ridiculous but I have a feeling once a few opinion makers coalesce around this narrative, the media will start down the road of blaming evil big pharma for the problem. 

The other problem, in my opinion, is that to confront the drug problem, especially he illegal drug problem, is to tread on some pretty dangerous grounds politically. Much of the illegal drug trade comes to us via the southern border. The trade is largely an enterprise of organized criminal gangs, many of whom have their basis in the minority neighborhoods. 

Most, nearly all, of the murders committed in Chicago are done so by criminal gangs vying for control of the drug trade. Of course when local politicians simply call it "gun violence" it's a bit difficult for people far removed from the local scene to get overly excited. 

Drug addiction is a disease and needs to be treated as such. However, this notion that it's like cancer or asthma without a recognizable antecedent is pure folly and political cowardice. 

When federal officials refer to drug dealers as "non violent offenders" I'm the one who's offended. I can guarantee, beyond any doubt, that somewhere between the manufafturing of that drug to its end user, some violence occurred.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

There are so many answers to your question, Eagle. It wasn't that long ago that Florida was the pill mill capital of the world. Drug dealers would bring bus loads of out of state people to the "pain clinics" that were more numerous in Florida than McDonalds (actual fact). You give them $360 and they would give you 120 oxycontin pills. Each 40mg pill has a street value of approximately $1 per mg. So, doing the math, that would make each prescription worth about $4800. They were making a KILLING and people were dying in the process. To top it off, IT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL!!! 
Now, as far as illegal drugs are concerned, diamorphine (heroin) is putting many people in morgues. It's rarely pure. People cut it with less-expensive substances to increase profits. Sometimes, people will lace heroin with fentanyl, which is FAR more potent than heroin. If the user is not aware of this, it can quickly lead to an overdose death. 
Gone are the days when people were satisfied with simply smoking a joint.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Physicians who prescribe narcotics have a DEA issued tracking number. Pull mills, as you've indicated, should get on the DEA radar as prescribing patterns would be in excess of the norm in a given area. This is one area where the federal government really needs to put in more resources. 

Unfortunately, however, the state and local governments, in their customary pattern of being short sighted and plainly staffed by incompetent juveniles see fit to legalize recreational as well as the completely absurd notion of "medical marijuana". So now in addition to narcotics we have another layer of drug use to deal with in the states. 

It would be nice to have some grown ups in charge for a change.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> It would be nice to have some grown ups in charge for a change.


That is so very true.
The "legal" drug trade in Florida absolutely flourished under the leaderships of Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist. Rick Scott took office and made closing the pill mills a priority. He took (and still takes) a ton of political heat for doing so. They were cash cows for everyone involved.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ that's because he was in the hospital business before politics. Somehow most people who actually had to make their way in the real world are able to bring some semblance of order to things.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

And don't even get me started on needle exchange programs.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

In the very early 70's, while policing Piedmont Park and "the Strip" (Peachtree street between 5th and 14th Streets, I would pull one to three young "hippies" out of public restrooms each week, dead from an overdose of heroin (about 6% heroin). Mind you, that was just me.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, these kids always thought they'd be the ones who'd be too smart to get hooked. The same thing occurred later with crack (though not as many deaths, merely destroyed lives and a rapid spread of HIV).

And now it's back to heroin. I guess we have to relive history again and again.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

tda003 said:


> And now it's back to heroin. I guess we have to relive history again and again.


Now, they are wanting to treat heroin addiction with marijuana. That is like treating cancer with syphilis. Near the end of the 19th century, doctors were giving patients morphine as a cure for alcoholism. At the turn of the 20th century, Bayer Corp., best known today for aspirin, rolled out what it marketed as a "safe, non-addictive" alternative to morphine: heroin.

Shampoo, rinse, repeat...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ "Treat heroin addiction with marijuana(!)?"
Sounds about as effective as trying to put out a fire with gasoline. 

On a CBS newscast back a few months ago the reporter was taking a look at the marijuana related increases in the need for emergency medical treatment in the State of Colorado, subsequent to the legalization of marijuana sales and use in that State...up 300+%....and the proponents of such use say it's harmless. Idiots, for sure!

Will we as a society ever learn?


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Marijuana used to be claimed as a stepping stone to heroin and now it's a cure? If that were true, there would be no heroin addiction. The addicts could all move to Colorado and smoke their way to a cure.

Wow. There's an ad man's dream.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Abuse of prescription opioids resulted in increased enforcement whited caused prices to rise. The narco-trafficantes have filled the void with cheap heroine. Whatever one's views of the drug problem may be, the demand is there and will be met by big pharma and the officially criminal international drug cartels. 

Until we can reduce the demand for drugs we will have problems. I think the situation is more complicated than the comments posted so far suggest. 

Contrary to many here I view drug and alcohol addiction as medical problems. As a practical matter the so-called war on drugs has not worked and has damaged our society. As a practical matter, drug programs appear to be better than the criminalization of drugs in reducing the damage.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> I think the situation is more complicated than the comments posted so far suggest.


Please don't take my comments as being flippant about the situation. The problem is complicated. Unfortunately, that complication is made exponentially worse by profit-motivated drug companies and complicit politicians.



Gurdon said:


> Contrary to many here I view drug and alcohol addiction as medical problems.


Again, we see eye to eye on this issue. The disease of addiction is real. It manifests itself in many ways, some more legal than others. Programs offer more promise than prison sentences. Also, I think that it is absurd to penalize crack cocaine abusers 10X more harshly than powder cocaine abusers. That is just blatantly wrong.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

"They've seen him out dressed in my clothes, patently unclear if it's New York or New Year".

Drugs are bad, m'kay, so, if you do drugs, you're bad, m'kay, because drugs are bad. they can hurt your body, m'kay, cause drugs are bad, m'kay...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I would certainly hope that the unnecessary loss of 59000 lives to drug overdoses in a years time is not viewed as m'kay! The challenge before us is indeed complicated and an effective solution has been evading us for years. We seem so often so willing to argue incessantly over significantly more contained/smaller losses of life and indeed, even one life lost is a tragedy. I will say again, where is the public outrage insisting that this present issue be more effectively addressed? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The public are, probably, too busy scoring and getting high to be overly concerned. :rolleyes2:

There are innumerable paths to self immolation. How might we address every route?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Shaver said:


> "They've seen him out dressed in my clothes, patently unclear if it's New York or New Year".
> 
> Drugs are bad, m'kay, so, if you do drugs, you're bad, m'kay, because drugs are bad. they can hurt your body, m'kay, cause drugs are bad, m'kay...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

My thoughts) I'd much rather ride with someone smoking pot than someone drinking brandy when driving. How many people die every year from drinking alcohol? Alcoholic problems have seriously hurt families, not to mention, far worse the person who is an alcoholic. From doctors to professors to business owners, etc. Some preacher went to AAA meetings to see what it was like and asked many questions over the years. He wrote it in a Christian magazine for preachers. The uncontrollable love of alcohol.... 

In my early twenties under age didn't matter which they used for entertainment; either way if caught they were in trouble. Turn twenty one and they were legal with alcohol, so many left weed. 

Organized crime became huge during probation which has hurt this country enormously. In the sixties and seventies organize crime grew again thanks to marijuana being illegal, which has hurt this country enormously. 

Other drugs) There was a time in the sixties when you could go to your doctor to get a prescription for some drugs for recreational use. The rest of the other illegal drugs should be banned and those behind the drug pushers (and some drug pushers) should be hunted down and killed. 

And all these dumb young people dumbly thinking tobacco is cool. With all the science out there comomon sense should decide instead of miss placed feelings. I don't want my money paying for their dumb medical problems.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ regarding drunk driving vs. high on pot driving; a flawed argument.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ regarding drunk driving vs. high on pot driving; a flawed argument.


My brother, David, was killed in a car wreck on Dec. 04, 1997. According to witnesses, he was driving erratically (too slow, then too fast, and drifting in and out of lanes). He eventually cut in front of a truck, flipped several times, and was ejected from the vehicle. Toxicology showed a blood-alcohol reading of 0.00. But he had a very high concentration of THC in his system.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> My brother, David, was killed in a car wreck on Dec. 04, 1997. According to witnesses, he was driving erratically (too slow, then too fast, and drifting in and out of lanes). He eventually cut in front of a truck, flipped several times, and was ejected from the vehicle. Toxicology showed a blood-alcohol reading of 0.00. But he had a very high concentration of THC in his system.


I am genuinely sorry to read that Dr L.

There are many tasks one should not consider attempting whilst one's faculties are impaired.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Correct and I join shaver in offering you my condolences. I'm sure the passage of 20 years has done little to blunt your sadness and heartache. 

This popular, yet uniformed and prepubescent notion that pot is safer than booze is highly flawed. Just because smoking pot has attained some countercultural cache over the past 50 years doesn't make it any less dangerous.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Thank you for the condolences. There is an interesting twist to the story. The truck that he cut in front of was a U-Haul that sustained front-end damage. When the officers arrived, they spoke with the driver, determined that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, and placed him under arrest. So, for his last mortal good deed, my brother removed a drunk driver from the roadway. Good for him.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

> My thoughts) I'd much rather ride with someone smoking pot than someone drinking brandy when driving.


I equate that as equivalent to preferring to be shot with a 9mm parabellum rather than a .357 magnum. Impaired is impaired. What difference does it make to the victim what caused the impairment that killed her/him?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

It was back in the late seventies or early eighties when hitch hiking that I rode in the two different cars. Pot smoker stayed in the correct lane and drove normal. The brandy drinker had delayed movements. On corners we were in the other lane and somewhat off the road with bappidy bappidy of branches hitting the car (on the highway) and then after a ways they would notice on coming cars and then we would drift to the other side of the road and beyond, bappidy bappidy of branches. Both rides were on the same highway going the same direction and same stretch of highway and I didn't smoke nor drink. Of course today's marijuana is considerably stronger than that of the past.

Last summer I had a headache and I went out to mow the lawn. The neighbors were smoking up a large cloud of marijuana smoke that drifted to were I was mowing. Didn't appreciate mowing with that smoke. Breathing that smoke and my headache went away. Decided that I had breathe in to much smoke, which I didn't want to breathe, anyway, and quit mowing the lawn. There may be some medical value from marijuana. Opium is a more dangerous plant to get medicine from. 

It seems to me that so many people worship these drugs, alcohol, marijuana, heroine, etc. They are a poor substitute for God.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Intoxicants are no substitute for God but can they be employed as sacrament, facilitating access to God?


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

WA said:


> Last summer I had a headache and I went out to mow the lawn. The neighbors were smoking up a large cloud of marijuana smoke that drifted to were I was mowing. Didn't appreciate mowing with that smoke. Breathing that smoke and my headache went away. Decided that I had breathe in to much smoke, which I didn't want to breathe, anyway, and quit mowing the lawn. There may be some medical value from marijuana.


This could actually be worked up into a pretty good stand-up comedy routine; I can certainly hear it as a Louis CK bit!

(I interject with no offense intended.)

DH


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Last evening I listened to Scott Pelley and the CBS evening news team report that 59000 annual deaths in the USA are attributable to illegal substance over doses, a 19% increase over the previous year! As reported, this figure represents as many lives lost as those lost throughout the US's entire involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Why do we as a society seem to so blithely accept these entirely preventable deaths? Where is the public outrage? Why have we not risen, en-mass, against these inexcusable deaths? We really do seem to have lost any semblance good sense. :icon_scratch:


There are any number of "death categories" this could be applied to.

There are north of 300,000 deaths due to cardiac complications arising from obesity and diabetes in the USA annually, yet here are all these folks sizing up their bacon cheeseburgers and washing them down with a big gulp. At least once a year I'm away from the USA for a month or more, and when I arrive back in the US I'm always struck by two things: how gawdawful fat everyone is, and how many tattoos there are (granted, I often arrive in LAX, so these twin sins are exacerbated there.)

Each two years, the number of deaths from car accidents (60,000+) is an entire Vietnam war (58,000) and change.

A big part of that is being one of the world's most populous nations (the USA is #3, after China and India), but a big part of it is simple distraction and lack of discipline. It's fitting that drugs are another big killer, since that's just more stuffing something into your body which doesn't belong and failing to pay attention.

(And now that public schools are having LESS recess and physical fitness rather than more, we'll see rises in all three of those categories.)

DH


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

That some of this is due to lifestyle choices doesn't take away from its seriousness. 

No one wakes up in the morning and says "this is the day I'm going to become a junkie!"


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

And then there are auto accidents and speed limits being reduced, as though that is the answer. A lack of knowledge of what humans are. Especially the difference between males and females. Places where we could pass slow drivers are being yellow solid lined, so now it is maybe 20 miles of stuck behind people driving 10 miles under the speed limit (these idiots won't pull over and let legitimate drivers go by). If the foolish government is going to put these solid yellow lines for miles, then they need to putin lanes for slow drivers. After all, I'm paying taxes, which means I have a right to how the taxes are spent on roads, including what speeds should be. The government is handing out drivers licenses to people who don't qualify, nowadays. Giving unfair tickets because speed limits are being unfairly lowered. Punishing the the rest of us because of the incompetence and foolishness (drugs, drunk, distraction (cell phones), etc.) is criminal. Declaration of Independence says government has limitations, so those in government cannot do whatever they want. Besides, when do law cops, prosecutors and judges, not to mention governors, mayor's, etc. get speeding tickets? According to the Declaration of Independence says their citizenship should be revoked and then removed from us soil.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> This could actually be worked up into a pretty good stand-up comedy routine; I can certainly hear it as a Louis CK bit!
> 
> (I interject with no offense intended.)
> 
> DH


One time hitch hiking the two young guys were going to shove me into prostitution. They were afraid that if I didn't show up for work that they would be hunted by law enforcement. They kept asking me if the boss (owner) had told me to come to work. If anyone of my replies sounded like I wasn't telling the truth I wouldn't be here. They kill all used prostitutes when they are done using them. Legitimate cops are afraid of organize crime. We're not talking about street crimals here. You think Al Capone was the only one who had control over government, including chief of police, mayor's, etc.? These crimes have been going on for thousands of years. It is really rather sadly ordinary.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

WA said:


> One time hitch hiking the two young guys were going to shove me into prostitution. They were afraid that if I didn't show up for work that they would be hunted by law enforcement. They kept asking me if the boss (owner) had told me to come to work. If anyone of my replies sounded like I wasn't telling the truth I wouldn't be here. They kill all used prostitutes when they are done using them. Legitimate cops are afraid of organize crime. We're not talking about street crimals here. You think Al Capone was the only one who had control over government, including chief of police, mayor's, etc.? These crimes have been going on for thousands of years. It is really rather sadly ordinary.


This just keeps getting better. Probably deserves its own thread. A+ for creativity!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Intoxicants are no substitute for God but can they be employed as sacrament, facilitating access to God?


That has been the supposed practice of sages and shamans from antiquity to the present time. Lesser mortals dabble and experiment at their own peril, their quest for divine insight being likely to provoke instead visitations by daemons or other torment.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> There are any number of "death categories" this could be applied to.
> 
> There are north of 300,000 deaths due to cardiac complications arising from obesity and diabetes in the USA annually, yet here are all these folks sizing up their bacon cheeseburgers and washing them down with a big gulp. At least once a year I'm away from the USA for a month or more, and when I arrive back in the US I'm always struck by two things: how gawdawful fat everyone is, and how many tattoos there are (granted, I often arrive in LAX, so these twin sins are exacerbated there.)
> 
> ...


You have added much needed dimension to the staggering reality that serves as the focus of this thread. As to your closing thought, it really hit close to home. One of our oldest grandkids (one of a set of twins), entering high school this fall, is presently taking her required physical education/health class online, over her summer break. Sitting before a keyboard does a fat lot of good in terms of toning one up, eh(?)! Phys Ed is the last course I would consider offering on line.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Actually, I feel insulted. No one has ever try to entice me into a life of prostitution, much less demanded it. Once or twice, in my youth, an angry father has tried to force me stop seeing his daughter, though.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

tda003 said:


> Actually, I feel insulted. No one has ever try to entice me into a life of prostitution, much less demanded it.


Exactly. However, the very idea that someone would willingly pay to have sex with me has me breaking up into uncontrollable fits of laughter.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

tda003 said:


> Actually, I feel insulted. No one has ever try to entice me into a life of prostitution, much less demanded it. Once or twice, in my youth, an angry father has tried to force me stop seeing his daughter, though.


That's not bad- angry father and fine daughter.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

drlivingston said:


> Exactly. However, the very idea that someone would willingly pay to have sex with me has me breaking up into uncontrollable fits of laughter.


At the time it wasn't about laughter but the need for two revolvers to blow them away at the same time. Innocent people need gun rights without government getting in the way.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

WA said:


> At the time it wasn't about laughter but the need for two revolvers to blow them away at the same time. Innocent people need gun rights without government getting in the way.


You either have a gift for literary creativity or a need to be institutionalized. If both, I look forward to further dispatches from the looney bin.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

smmrfld said:


> You either have a gift for literary creativity or a need to be institutionalized. If both, I look forward to further dispatches from the looney bin.


One definition of Looney is that government is always available to protect you. Then there is also some other factors. In the USSR and China people needed protection from the government. And then the FBI reports that some counties in the US where every government position is filled by organize crime, so is unsafe in those places.

Smmrfld, maybe you need to expand your reading? And, were you born after the Cold War. In schools we had three drills. Fire, earthquake and the war drill between USA and USSR. Go outside, hide under the desk and the last where we went to the bottom floor of the school and leaned up against an inside wall in the lunch room. The last was foolish because a bomb would blow shards of glass at us.


----------



## LeeReynolds (Jan 23, 2012)

Because those 59000 deaths are self-inflicted.

You can't save people from themselves. You can't fix people who are broken. Take away one drug and the druggie will find another. If all possible drugs were somehow magically made unavailable, the druggies would find some other way to self destruct. They'll huff paint fumes.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ then let's let fat people die because they could have prevented their heart disease. 

People are flawed, weak, fragile and more often than not fail. Whatever the cause of the addiction, we still need to help them and it still presents a public health epidemic. 

Of course, the best way to deal with the problem is to lessen the exposure to such drugs, particularly prescription opioids but just as much illicit drugs. 

That states toy with the idea of legalizing pot strikes me as truly stupid.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Many years ago, the City of Atlanta had a "Loaned Executive" program whereby a corporation would lend an executive to the City for a period of time while continuing to pay that individual's salary. He or she would undertake tasks as assigned.

One of those was either assigned or undertook to solve the problem of the homeless, specifically those who with alcohol addiction. This was motivated primarily by them sleeping throughout downtown while the employed came to work and went to lunch and those homeless tossing their empties onto the streets sidewalks and doorways. (Apparently, they weren't keen on recycling.)

The executive came to me for help in drawing up and ordinance to prohibit the sale of miniature bottles of liquor in Atlanta. When I asked him why Atlanta needed such an ordinance, he explained that the bulk of the tossed bottles were miniature liquor bottles, primarily Gordon's gin. I questioned him a bit further , being intrigued as to where this was leading, and he explained that he believed that, deprived of Gordon gin minis, they would stop drinking downtown. As politely as I could (and keeping all traces of sarcasm from my voice and stifling a nearly uncontrollable urge to laugh), I asked that if,unable to get those minis, the vagrants might pool resources and/or save up and purchase half pints instead of rushing into a 12 step program. I don't think that, until that moment, he'd actually considered that the problem wasn't just the availability of small containers of hooch.

Folks with addictions will find a way to feed those addictions.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ then let's let fat people die because they could have prevented their heart disease.
> 
> People are flawed, weak, fragile and more often than not fail. Whatever the cause of the addiction, we still need to help them and it still presents a public health epidemic.
> 
> ...


The idea that use of an intoxicating substance can be considered an illegal act strikes me as not only truly stupid (my memory is a little hazy, remind me, how did the Volstead Act impact upon American society?  ) but a gross perversion of, and irreconcilable with, the notion of law itself.

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.............Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (pub. 1859)
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ that's a good point and if someone wants to cook up meth and consume it only for himself, then I'm for it. Similarly, if someone distills his own spirits or grown his own weed for his own consumption, then so be it. 

By the time the heroin reaches the end user, there is a trail of violence and likely death along the way. 

Oh, and Mill also said that failure to pay taxes was a harm caused by omission. Last I recall, most drug dealers don't pay taxes.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

tda003 said:


> Many years ago, the City of Atlanta had a "Loaned Executive" program whereby a corporation would lend an executive to the City for a period of time while continuing to pay that individual's salary. He or she would undertake tasks as assigned.
> 
> One of those was either assigned or undertook to solve the problem of the homeless, specifically those who with alcohol addiction. This was motivated primarily by them sleeping throughout downtown while the employed came to work and went to lunch and those homeless tossing their empties onto the streets sidewalks and doorways. (Apparently, they weren't keen on recycling.)
> 
> ...


Yes, the simple-mindedness of makers and shapers of public policy can be breathtaking. So many social ills can be traced to stupidly designed laws grounded in good intentions. For instance, one might consider sometime why the cost of higher education in the United States bears so little relation to what consumers can actually afford. It didn't used to be this way, and the answer is not that the people in higher education are greedier today, which simply isn't true.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> The idea that use of an intoxicating substance can be considered an illegal act strikes me as not only truly stupid (my memory is a little hazy, remind me, how did the Volstead Act impact upon American society?  ) but a gross perversion of, and irreconcilable with, the notion of law itself.
> 
> "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.............Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
> 
> ...


Mill's view has broad currency only in a dogmatically libertarian world that presumes the common existence of behaviors that have zero third party effects. In the real world such examples are few and far between. Self-abuse damages others, and it is perfectly rational, and fair, for those others to seek ways of regulating against such damage. The key is proper calibration, and that requires the recognition that perfection is not attainable.

While I am not a libertarian, I do at least appreciate their attempt at consistency, even if that consistency may be more superficial than they acknowledge. They hold that society has no right to prevent a man from taking highly risky and addictive recreational drugs but also hold that society has no duty to assist that man when those risks mature into medical or financial distress. The problem with liberals (in the modern American sense of the term) -- as opposed to libertarians -- is that all too many think a sustainable society can be organized that not only allows people to exercise all manner of self-destructive behaviors (we wouldn't want to be judgmental) but also allows the costs of those behaviors to rest with society (more specifically those taxpayers who behave responsibly).


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Get rid of the drug pushers and who will buy? Drug pushers are con men. People have feelings, which is a handle that is used against good people. We all have weaknesses. Maybe not this one. Maybe not that one. But none of us are above human. Get rid of those selling drugs by Death and problem solved.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

As a practical matter, criminalization has not worked as a deterrent to addiction. It is a medical problem, a public health issue.

I have little personal tolerance for the behavior of addicts, and I object to spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to jail low level drug offenders. 

We currently jail crazy people and addicts. Individuals in those categories did not get there through the exercise of free will. 

We need to agree on how to change the way we deal with these medical and public health problems. This would be difficult under the best of circumstances. I am not optimistic. 

Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ that's a good point and if someone wants to cook up meth and consume it only for himself, then I'm for it. Similarly, if someone distills his own spirits or grown his own weed for his own consumption, then so be it.
> 
> *By the time the heroin reaches the end user, there is a trail of violence and likely death along the way. *
> 
> Oh, and Mill also said that failure to pay taxes was a harm caused by omission. Last I recall, most drug dealers don't pay taxes.


Indeed, which is why prohibition is such a poor approach.

Portugal decriminalised all narcotics, nigh on 20 years ago now, and you may find this report of some interest:

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/..._Drug_Decriminalization_in_Portugal_-_LSI.pdf

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Mill's view has broad currency only in a dogmatically libertarian world that presumes the common existence of behaviors that have zero third party effects. In the real world such examples are few and far between. Self-abuse damages others, and it is perfectly rational, and fair, for those others to seek ways of regulating against such damage. The key is proper calibration, and that requires the recognition that perfection is not attainable.
> 
> While I am not a libertarian, I do at least appreciate their attempt at consistency, even if that consistency may be more superficial than they acknowledge. They hold that society has no right to prevent a man from taking highly risky and addictive recreational drugs but also hold that society has no duty to assist that man when those risks mature into medical or financial distress. The problem with liberals (in the modern American sense of the term) -- as opposed to libertarians -- is that all too many think a sustainable society can be organized that not only allows people to exercise all manner of self-destructive behaviors (we wouldn't want to be judgmental) but also allows the costs of those behaviors to rest with society (more specifically those taxpayers who behave responsibly).


A reasonable, thoughtful (and if I may say so, very well written) response. I am afraid that you may consider my reply to be something of a craven swivel; however, I shall advance it in any case. Acknowledging, of course, that any deterministic non-linear system (in this instance Post-Industrial society) cannot be presumed to exclude a sensitivity to even the minutest of effects, nevertheless, we are obliged to disengage any tendency towards moral tyranny in proposed amelioration. You may consider that self-abuse damages society whilst I believe that unrestricted population growth will annihilate society. I am certain that you will be able to appreciate where this line of discourse is destined so I will spare you the denouement&#8230;..


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

^I'm fairly sure that curtailing world wide breeding just isn't going to happen. I'm equally sure the addicts will get their drugs and that self destructive behavior will continue. However, I truly resent that the rest of society must pay for anyone's personal decisions, whether substance use or child birth.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It is sad and truly unfortunate that we are so quick to discount the collateral damage resulting from the various forms of addictive behavior that we are discussing in this thread and a few that have yet to be mentioned.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ A fair point, Eagle, but unfortunately for society but more so for the individuals themselves, some people, whether through temperament, or some quirk of DNA, or unfortunate experiences in life, are destined to become addicts. It goes beyond deliberate choice.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Langham said:


> ^ A fair point, Eagle, but unfortunately for society but more so for the individuals themselves, some people, whether through temperament, or some quirk of DNA, or unfortunate experiences in life, are destined to become addicts. It goes beyond deliberate choice.


Studies do indeed demonstrate the some people have greater predilections for certain types of addictions than others, but such predilections are hardly evidence of predestination or biological materialism. Even children learn to resist temptations. Nonetheless, given the existence of such predilections, it plainly stands to reason that some casualties should be expected to the extent behaviors vulnerable to addiction are socially acceptable (e.g., alcohol and gambling). However, experimenting with behaviors that are socially prohibited in large part because of the risk of addiction, (e.g., cocaine or heroin) can only be regarded as an irresponsible -- indeed reckless -- deliberate choice.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> ... Experimenting with behaviors that are illegal in large part because of the risk of addiction, (e.g., cocaine or heroin), however, is an irresponsible deliberate choice.


I won't disagree with that. However, some people just _are_ more irresponsible than others - risk-takers and creative people sometimes, and arguably a tendency to be irresponsible, to court risk, is simply the other side of the coin or is a necessary adjunct to creativity, without which the world would be poorer. Not just artists, musicians, but clever businessmen, politicians, writers and thinkers - many have at least dabbled.

Not really germane to my argument, but I was recently told by someone who had suffered an unfortunate hunting injury that morphine makes a damn good cocktail!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Langham said:


> I won't disagree with that. However, some people just _are_ more irresponsible than others - risk-takers and creative people sometimes, and arguably a tendency to be irresponsible, to court risk, is simply the other side of the coin or is a necessary adjunct to creativity, without which the world would be poorer. Not just artists, musicians, but clever businessmen, politicians, writers and thinkers - many have at least dabbled.
> 
> Not really germane to my argument, but I was recently told by someone who had suffered an unfortunate hunting injury that morphine makes a damn good cocktail!


It is appropriate for society to tolerate risk-taking when the benefits can be socialized as well as the costs, just as it is proper for society to regulate or prohibit risk-taking when only the costs can be socialized. A man might decide that the benefit of the "high" produced by shooting heroin is worth the risk of addiction, etc., but society might well decide to deprive that man of the right to make such a decision if that benefit is limited to that man while the cost is inevitably to a large extent socialized.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> A reasonable, thoughtful (and if I may say so, very well written) response. I am afraid that you may consider my reply to be something of a craven swivel; however, I shall advance it in any case. Acknowledging, of course, that any deterministic non-linear system (in this instance Post-Industrial society) cannot be presumed to exclude a sensitivity to even the minutest of effects, nevertheless, we are obliged to disengage any tendency towards moral tyranny in proposed amelioration. You may consider that self-abuse damages society whilst I believe that unrestricted population growth will annihilate society. I am certain that you will be able to appreciate where this line of discourse is destined so I will spare you the denouement&#8230;..


Shaver,
Thank you for your response, which per usual is very thoughtful. Leaving aside the dubious merits of the population growth example, your point -- assuming I understand it correctly -- is well taken. Yes, we must always be alert to the "gradual eclipse of liberty." But the boundaries of various liberties intersect and are inevitably in constant tension with each other, and therefore must be subject to negotiation and compromise through the democratic process. As long as (i) lawmakers are subject to the people, (ii) freedom of speech is respected, (iii) minorities are protected by due process and equal protection and (iv) the right to leave a nation is unimpeded by force or law, then tyranny should be avoided pretty much by definition. As a matter of general principle, a free society can choose to organize itself with more or less libertarian or paternalistic assumptions, but these assumptions must be complementary rather than incompatible. To be succinct, it is hopelessly naive to believe that a society can organize itself so that it both (i) allows people to harm themselves as long as they don't hurt others and (ii) accepts the financial responsibilities associated with remedying such self-harm. Such a society is no more sustainable than a banking system that allows banks to keep the profits of prudent loans and bill the government for the losses of imprudent loans. Sooner or later one runs out of other people's money, to paraphrase the late Lady Thatcher, for no other reason than rewarding bad behavior at the expense of good behavior inevitably results in good behavior insufficient to compensate for bad behavior.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Looking at users the lions share of the problem is that they are running with the wrong crowd, which weakens them. They are not guarding themselves from there emotional weaknesses. Manipulation. Back when I was a teenager the social rule was, if you don't smoke cigarettes then you are not cool, being mocked came with that if I didn't join the crowd. How many people caved in? I figured that wreaking ones body is not cool, so I stayed away from smokers. A doctor told a neighbor that if he didn't change the definition of cool that he was going to be real cool six feet under in the grave. He had been running with the wrong influence, a powerful influence it was. It is the same for those who are around drugs, whether users or dealers, they're both losers.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver,
> Thank you for your response, which per usual is very thoughtful. Leaving aside the dubious merits of the population growth example, your point -- assuming I understand it correctly -- is well taken. Yes, we must always be alert to the "gradual eclipse of liberty." But the boundaries of various liberties intersect and are inevitably in constant tension with each other, and therefore must be subject to negotiation and compromise through the democratic process. As long as (i) lawmakers are subject to the people, (ii) freedom of speech is respected, (iii) minorities are protected by due process and equal protection and (iv) the right to leave a nation is unimpeded by force or law, then tyranny should be avoided pretty much by definition. As a matter of general principle, a free society can choose to organize itself with more or less libertarian or paternalistic assumptions, but these assumptions must be complementary rather than incompatible. To be succinct, it is hopelessly naive to believe that a society can organize itself so that it both (i) allows people to harm themselves as long as they don't hurt others and (ii) accepts the financial responsibilities associated with remedying such self-harm. Such a society is no more sustainable than a banking system that allows banks to keep the profits of prudent loans and bill the government for the losses of imprudent loans. Sooner or later one runs out of other people's money, to paraphrase the late Lady Thatcher, for no other reason than rewarding bad behavior at the expense of good behavior inevitably results in good behavior insufficient to compensate for bad behavior.


I'm not so certain that these four 'as long as' points (laudable as they may be) are sufficient to exclude tyranny. This said I suspect that you and I will never find common ground vis-a-vis the tyranny of Capitalism...... as it is our right to pleasantly dispute the definition. However, eight people owning equivalent wealth to 50% of the global population seems to me to satisfy the definition of 'cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary abuse of power' by any interpretation one cares to apply.

Acknowledging a smidgen of the scurrilous in my 'offspring' example please allow me to introduce a more reasonable comparison to substance abuse: carnivorous diets. Eating meat is unequivocally proven as the poorer option healthwise when compared to vegetarianism. However, for those who still will not accept that - vegetarianism is a superior allocation of resources, the water and grain required to make a burger and so on. Even further, for those who are capable of caring about such things, the horror of the cattle and poultry industries - a holocaust of creatures who cannot defend themselves, billions of cruel deaths annually. We do not legislate against this appetite, it is so codified that even intelligent folk may glibly disregard the carnage, disassociate themselves from their complicity. Carnivorism is unhealthy, it is destructive to the environment and it requires moral ambiguity to sustain itself as a practice. In context I am inclined to allow a few folk to get high when they fancy it without being excessively critical.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ... Eating meat is unequivocally proven as the poorer option healthwise when compared to vegetarianism. However, for those who still will not accept that - vegetarianism is a superior allocation of resources, the water and grain required to make a burger and so on. Even further, for those who are capable of caring about such things, the horror of the cattle and poultry industries - a holocaust of creatures who cannot defend themselves, billions of cruel deaths annually. We do not legislate against this appetite, it is so codified that even intelligent folk may glibly disregard the carnage, disassociate themselves from their complicity. Carnivorism is unhealthy, it is destructive to the environment and it requires moral ambiguity to sustain itself as a practice. In context I am inclined to allow a few folk to get high when they fancy it without being excessively critical.


I would agree with most of your argument, except for that of carnivorism being unhealthy or requiring moral ambiguity. 
I have met one or two living advertisements for the benefits of a vegetarian diet; but perplexingly, many rather unhealthy looking vegetarians.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> However, eight people owning equivalent wealth to 50% of the global population seems to me to satisfy the definition of 'cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary abuse of power' by any interpretation one cares to apply.


Bill Gates certainly didn't get his wish for president. He actually made more millioneers than than anyone else. Other CEOs of other companies kept the money (not saying he or not cheat, bully other companies and people). 'cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary abuse of power' describes the Democrat party. The democrat party refuses to teach children in schools how to invest so they won't be under other peoples (mainly the democrat party) thumb. The US school system is about teaching children to work for other people, instead of creating jobs by creating a business. So many people, working for other people, get a government handout, nowadays, as the Democrats idea of learning is taking over the public schools more and more. If you want your children to be above slavery send them to a private school. For most people the only way out of slavery is by investing; what public schools require those lessons. Even colleges that have these classes do not require them. College students who take these classes and act on them find themselves paying off college loans way way sooner and way easier.

Invested money is practically free money. Once you have accumulated enough a job is merely a hobby. For example, buy a jet to fly charitable people to distant countries, and supplies, (Republican), instead of having some boss looking over your shoulder at some slave job, (Democrat).

I'm rather opinionated.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

WA said:


> I'm rather opinionated.


And ignorant or uneducated. Or both.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

smmrfld said:


> And ignorant or uneducated. Or both.


"Shut up," he explained.


----------

