The Cellar - View Single Post

tw · 03-26-2002, 08:41 PM

Too much of what has been posted suffers from too much talking past one another. Some reasons why.

First, define drugs. Performance enhancing drugs (steriods), hazardous recreational (heroine), non-hazardous recreational (mariguana), hazardous legal (cigarette), etc?

Then do we discuss based upon laws made by brided politician or upon the real merits (defeciencies) of the drug?

Do we seek to identify drug users to punish or help?

My personal opinion: hazardous drug users such as heroine, cigarettes, alcohol, and cocaine require help. Just punishing them by banning participation is counter productive (but very much part of the right wing Republican mainstream). Helping requires numerous steps including getting the addicted to identify that they are an addict, getting users to appreciate the problems created for himself, and taking the user through rehab - a process that easy includes multiple relapses. Relapse - the sole reason that right wing extremists say all drug treatment is wasted money.

What good is banning people with such problem from programs (ie chess) that could only help them to recover? Notice that I have just said screw the law. Too many drug laws are not based upon solving the problem because those lawmakers regard those with the problem as 'Them'. Only 'Them' sells or uses mariguana. Therefore 'them' must suffer mandatory sentences equivalent to murder. Laws are irrelevant until the purpose of those laws are defined - based upon logic - not politics.

Appauling is the punishment of mariguana users. They are not a threat to anything but their own performance. A mariguana user will obviously see his own mistake when he starts losing every chess game. Banning him from chess will only make the non-hazardous entertainment drug user less likely to see the error of his ways.

Regardless of the Supreme Court or the myopic laws, the only important point is how to get the individual to see / appreciate problems created by himself. To make help available. That Supreme Court ruling ignores (as it legally should have) the whole issue of drugs - how to get a user to want to get help and why is help routinely not available. Why did a drug usering neighbor have to rob a local gas station of $20 before he could get treatment? The crime here is government response to the problem - not the drug user.

Then there is the performance enhancing drugs. There is a point where banning maybe appropriate. If one wishes to excell above others today at the expense of 20 years of life, then one appropriate measure is to make such drug taking unprofitable - ban him from the sport.

If laws were based upon solutions rather than political bribes, then we would be discussing the rights of these drugs in terms of "does the government have the right to interdict into your actions for your own personal benefit". But we are not asking such questions because too many laws are based even on this most absurd condition - mariguana is more dangerous than murder, but cigarettes are OK.

The whole problem with the Supreme Court ruling and the debate here is that even basic knowledge is thrown away. Even basic definitions are not defined. Does government have the right to step in when you are in touble? Usually. But we are not even discussing that. We have associated Heroine with Mariguana and and declared cigarettes as safe. Therefore all arguements are invalid. Until basic definitions make sense, then everyone will simply argue past one another.

03-26-2002, 08:41 PM	#44
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Too much of what has been posted suffers from too much talking past one another. Some reasons why. First, define drugs. Performance enhancing drugs (steriods), hazardous recreational (heroine), non-hazardous recreational (mariguana), hazardous legal (cigarette), etc? Then do we discuss based upon laws made by brided politician or upon the real merits (defeciencies) of the drug? Do we seek to identify drug users to punish or help? My personal opinion: hazardous drug users such as heroine, cigarettes, alcohol, and cocaine require help. Just punishing them by banning participation is counter productive (but very much part of the right wing Republican mainstream). Helping requires numerous steps including getting the addicted to identify that they are an addict, getting users to appreciate the problems created for himself, and taking the user through rehab - a process that easy includes multiple relapses. Relapse - the sole reason that right wing extremists say all drug treatment is wasted money. What good is banning people with such problem from programs (ie chess) that could only help them to recover? Notice that I have just said screw the law. Too many drug laws are not based upon solving the problem because those lawmakers regard those with the problem as 'Them'. Only 'Them' sells or uses mariguana. Therefore 'them' must suffer mandatory sentences equivalent to murder. Laws are irrelevant until the purpose of those laws are defined - based upon logic - not politics. Appauling is the punishment of mariguana users. They are not a threat to anything but their own performance. A mariguana user will obviously see his own mistake when he starts losing every chess game. Banning him from chess will only make the non-hazardous entertainment drug user less likely to see the error of his ways. Regardless of the Supreme Court or the myopic laws, the only important point is how to get the individual to see / appreciate problems created by himself. To make help available. That Supreme Court ruling ignores (as it legally should have) the whole issue of drugs - how to get a user to want to get help and why is help routinely not available. Why did a drug usering neighbor have to rob a local gas station of $20 before he could get treatment? The crime here is government response to the problem - not the drug user. Then there is the performance enhancing drugs. There is a point where banning maybe appropriate. If one wishes to excell above others today at the expense of 20 years of life, then one appropriate measure is to make such drug taking unprofitable - ban him from the sport. If laws were based upon solutions rather than political bribes, then we would be discussing the rights of these drugs in terms of "does the government have the right to interdict into your actions for your own personal benefit". But we are not asking such questions because too many laws are based even on this most absurd condition - mariguana is more dangerous than murder, but cigarettes are OK. The whole problem with the Supreme Court ruling and the debate here is that even basic knowledge is thrown away. Even basic definitions are not defined. Does government have the right to step in when you are in touble? Usually. But we are not even discussing that. We have associated Heroine with Mariguana and and declared cigarettes as safe. Therefore all arguements are invalid. Until basic definitions make sense, then everyone will simply argue past one another.