Let's talk about drugs

[paulpablo]

I agree to everything about that plan with just some exceptions.

If I'm reading it correctly you're saying legalize and subsidize all drugs and the rehab for the drugs.

I already mentioned my perspective on legalization, I think it might be morally questionable, maybe not, and I do predict it would be the best route to take. So I'm for the legalization.

The rehab, also makes sense.

The subsidizing all drugs and having a designated place to take them is where I think the plan fails in certain aspects.

I can see it working with heroin, as far as I understand it, heroin isn't a party/recreational, social drug. This along with other painkillers and opiates is psychologically and physically addictive, I have sympathy for vulnerable people who are addicted to those kind of drugs and I'm sure some of them will be happy being in a government subsidized room with their heroin.

But I disagree with the subsidizing of more recreational drugs for 2 reasons.
1) I don't want to pay for a bunch of teenagers to have a good weekend and I imagine many taxpayers feel the same way.
2) I can't imagine any recreational drug takers agreeing to be stuck in a government funded room while they take their drugs. As someone who was an ecstasy user I can say that would have been my idea of a nightmare to be stuck in a room while I've got all that energy where I just want to get up and dance, I imagine if that person is taking meth or crack that energy is even more intense although I've never taken either of those so I can't say for certain how it effects behavior, I just can't imagine they want to be stuck in a room.
Unless it's basically a government funded nightclub you're talking about which brings me back to point 1, I don't want to pay for someone's amazing weekend out of my pocket.

First of all, you don't get to decide how your tax money is spent, that's not a part of the contract.  If you could, then homebound people could refuse to have their taxes spent on public transport, and childless couples could exempt their taxes from going to fund schools.

Secondly, you miss the point entirely.  The idea isn't to fund 'teenagers to have a good weekend', but to keep people from robbing a shop and shooting the clerk to fund their good weekend that way.  Would you rather pay a (comparative) pittance for drug users to have a safe place to use drugs, or pay one helluva lot more to have a robbery murder investigated, court costs for defendants, and incarceration?

Third point: Recreational drug users wouldn't have to agree 'to be stuck in a government funded room while they take their drugs'.  With a government monopoly on the ownership and distribution of drugs, they wouldn't have a choice (another benefit of the plan ((which admittedly just occurred to me)) would be the freeing up of law enforcement resources to track down and prosecute the vanishingly small number of private drug dealers.)

Finally, what is the option?  Continue to squander public funds in what is clearly a futile, never ending effort to 'get drugs off our streets'?  Come on.

Boru

I completely get your point. I'm saying I disagree with your point.

While their are some drugs that are heavily physically addictive there are others that aren't.
I see no difference in someone robbing an old lady to get money to go to the theme park and robbing an old lady to get marijuana or a wide screen tv.
My opinion is similar with other drugs such as mdma, lsd, mushrooms, Mcat, and so on.

Using marijuana as a prime example, I don't want my taxes being spent on someone else getting stoned.

I know if you were in charge I wouldn't get a choice but I'm choosing right now to say what I think about your idea.

And drug users would have a choice, either buy the drugs illegally and go out to night clubs, house parties and wherever else, or take the drugs legally and do whatever it is the government allows them to in this designated area.

Also your idea of monopolising the drug trade seems not that much different cost wise to what's happening right now.
The government would still have to compete with the hundreds of gangs battling for control of illegal drug sales.
Resulting in similar amounts of death, shootings, government spending on arrests and so on.