Do you have any ideas how many deaths there were in the 19th century from mixing opioids and booze?

Yea, marijuana may be no worse than booze, but libertarianism really falls down when dealing with the externalities of a lot of the harder stuff. You really want the police to spend their days cleaning up the corpses off the street, and arresting junkies for pooping on the sidewalks, only to let them go six hours later to do it all over again?

I’m not saying the drug war is perfect, And no knock raids need to go, but I don’t think that druggie libertarianism is the paradise you imagine it to be.

The older I get, the less I want to live in a place where even marijuana is legal. It is a slacker drug. Had a friend who rented a cheap apartment in Fort Collins Colorado. It was nice at first, and then legal marijuana turned it into slacker paradise. A place where people would steal your license plates if the sticker on it was current. He moved as soon as he could.

The people that are most impacted by this are those who grow up in this culture to think regular marijuana use, and meth use is normal.

"Adults in a free country should be free to consume whatever they choose."

You are now firmly among the whackaloon population of California.

That you are unable to see the misery spreading from addiction - even opioid addiction to prescription drugs - reveals that peculiar blindness of the idealist trapped indoors.

Visit one of the many tent cities now part of that overwhelmingly positive tourist experience in California. Speak to the next passing homeless bum talking loudly to himself on a city street.

Talk to any officer about how many times they administer Narcan TODAY. Who pays for that? Oh. You? Yep!
How generous of you!

The short story is that people who do drugs impact others, and I am not about to let your vision of butterflies and fairies produce more thieves and vandals after my property to sell for more drugs.

On the plus side - this unfettered drug use combined with your insistence that a person may determine their health risk from products they ingest will lead to many deaths as Darwin makes his choices. Natural selection is... natural! Doubleplusgood!
Ever hear of Fentanyl?

And what's an "adult"? They certainly don't appear on the street pulling statues down because they don't get enough attention somehow. Those are some of the people you expect to make wise choices in using drugs, some of which are savage.

Challenge: do a cookie of crack and then, just stop.
This shit destroys people, and you're advocating policies which make it more available.

Quit.

While I agree, in principle, that people should have the right to take drugs if they so choose, I think this is a more complicated issue than that, and not just legally. There are societal consequences to hard drug use.

As for morality, is it moral to push the consequence for you own indulgence onto society? Most hard drug users expect that, in the event of an overdose, emergency responders will answer any distress call; that a fully-stocked and staffed emergency room will take care of them; that, in the event they become unemployable due to long-term drug use, society will prop them up with unemployment, welfare, etc. They may not explicitly expect these things, but the expectation of a social safety net is implicit in their carelessness.

Having watched parents of my acquaintance deal with their children's drug use and addiction, I cannot blithely or casually dismiss this as a simple libertarian issue.

Your comment sections always seem to bring out the social conservatives, despite your own libertarian views.

I’m for legalization along with treatment and education. When I was a child, it seemed that everybody smoked everywhere. Now, few people smoke and that is rarely in public. This has more to do with education than anything else. Yes, laws against smoking in many places have been passed but smoking was becoming less acceptable even before that.

Of course, I think that you should be able to get a strep test and antibiotics over the counter at a drug store and heavier drugs if needed. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Now that I think about it though, this might not work. We all seem to be big babies just focused on our immediate pleasure, delayed gratification and concern for others be damned as evidenced by the use of masks and spread of a Covid 19 here in Texas.

Your comment sections always seem to bring out the social conservatives, despite your own libertarian views.

Do you deny unrestricted drug use has consequences beyond the immediate affects on the user and their friends & family?

A a small l libertarian minded person, if someone's drug use is restricted to themselves and those involved in their life, I wouldn't have a problem with that. As Radwaste points out, it isn't the junkie paying for the Narcan, or the ride to the hospital, or the treatment there.

The taxpayer pays for a lot of that. And if you're a client of that hospital, and wonder why your bill seems excessive, you're subsidizing the emergency room. And if you have to go to the emergency room you'll really be subsidizing the free loaders, including the illegal...excuse me, the undocumented workers.

If you're saying that legalizing all those drugs will make them safe and affordable, well look at California's legal weed regime. They've imposed so much tax burden that it's still cheaper to buy on the street.

I suspect street prices have gone up since legalization. Having to undercut the legal prices doesn't mean leaving money on the table.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Oh, now that's just crazy talk.

marijuana may be no worse than booze

Have the long term studies been done? is weed less harmful to the cardiovascular system than tobacco?

About a Harper's article I sent to Amy four years ago - it's about John Erlichman, in part:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2016/03/the-roots-of-th.html

Rad, I know lots of people who've done cocaine and pretty much anything else under the sun and later stopped. It isn't an unusual event. The drugs aren't what destroy people. The drugs are just the last most public sign of a self destructing person.

"Have the long term studies been done? is weed less harmful to the cardiovascular system than tobacco?" ~IRA

Yes they have been done. As for destruction on the cardio system, it depends on the tobacco product. Many commonly sold cigarettes are far worse. Though the issue is less the tobacco in those products than other chemicals involved.

Either way you should classify the drugs by their effect and not a particular consumption method. After all pot lollipops don't significantly impact the cardiovascular system. Hence why Isab compared it to alcohol. Both are depressants and relatively comparable in dose strength.

When Denver made pot smoking in public legal they ended up with the same issues as New Orleans and Bourbon Street. You've got a city of day drunks running around pissing themselves and getting into fights. It doesn't really matter which intoxicant you use, a culture of public intoxication isn't a healthy one.

"It's The Drug War, Not Drug Use, That's Immoral" ~Amy

As I've said before we don't share a morality. Calling things moral or immoral doesn't really mean anything. Without a common set of values you may as well be complaining how many hogs heads to the hectometre. Meaningless words.

That said this isn't a binary choice. They can both be bad, and they are.

I ask again: have YOU yourself ever seen someone high on meth, spice, pcp, bath salts, or any of the countless designer drugs cooked up in dilapidated trailers the country over? They are, literally, psychotic. There is no chance of reasoning with them, and they're often very violent. If they're coming down, it's worse. They'll do anything for another fix. Do you want more psychotic, violent, unpredictable people running around looking for ways to finance their next fix? I doubt it, esp as y'all defund police.

The news article isn't full of details, but the man was literally cut in half, after being made to watch them rape his wife. Meth.

https://www.oaoa.com/news/crime_justice/courts/article_6de2ed84-2881-11e2-b94e-0019bb30f31a.html

I'm more offended that the young man is wearing a shirt that doesn't fit correctly. Smoke or shoot up all you like, but there's no excuse for wearing an XXL when you're an M.

I'd much rather see my next-door neighbor smoking a joint than wearing pajamas to the supermarket.

Your comment sections always seem to bring out the social conservatives, despite your own libertarian views.

Dan T. at June 30, 2020 7:23 AM

Is it socially conservative to not want to live next door to a meth house? Well then, you got me.

I used to think like Amy does, then I grew up. Became a home owner, and realized “ responsible adult “ seems to apply to a pretty small segment of the population.

Meth house next door ... or toddlers?

As Jack Benny told the stickup man who demanded "Your money or your life ..."

"I'm thinking!"

Meth house next door ... or toddlers?

As Jack Benny told the stickup man who demanded "Your money or your life ..."

"I'm thinking!"

Kevin at June 30, 2020 6:17 PM

You and Lenona really should think about hooking up.

It is an amazing level of hatred against children. Especially since he specified toddlers. They have very little impact on neighbors.