Carcassian said:
Ok. I don't want to turn this into basic philosophy debate 101, but you seem to have this conception that hard drug users are affable, non-violent people who live in a bubble away from society, and don't affect it. Most drug users don't go to jail because of the drugs - they go because of the crimes they commit to buy the drugs. Legalising drugs won't make them any more affordable, and who cleans up the mes afterwards? What message would it put out if the government said, "fine, try drugs all you like", then had to finance the inevitable rehab ?
I do think the prices would fall. I am sure they fell when alcohol was relegalized in the US. More importantly though, the production of drugs would no longer be in the hands of the same old criminals. There wouldn't be the risks involved in selling drugs that there is now, and this risk helps keep prices up. I don't think the government should pay for rehab. Charities could, if they wanted to.
Carcassian said:
Drug crime is inexorably linked to violent crime. A heroin addict will basically do anything to be able to get their next fix - I have personally arrested a man who beat his own MOTHER so she would give him enough money for a bag of heroin. Sure, some alcoholics would do the same thing, and hey, I'm no idiot. I know that the government is being hypocritical in taking taxes for smoking and alcohol consumption. But you aren't seriously saying that Heroin use should be down to the individual, surely?
The main link between drugs and crime is because of the prohibition on drugs, not the drugs themselves, just as it was when alcohol was banned in the US in the 1920s and 1930s. Once it was re-legalized, the criminal element was taken out of it. Sure, people still made stupid decisions about alcohol, but they always will. Of course, people should always have constant reminders of the consequences of committing violence against others.
Carcassian said:
As for the rights - ah, well I guess your constitution has had rights at their centre since the beginning - they are a much newer concept in the UK. Personally, I think you have no innate rights, save those that the state decides to grant you. You are granted those rights on certain conditions - mostly that you obey the law. I'm not condoning rape in prison etc, but hey, at the end of the day, if you decide to break the law, you know where it's going to head. Cause and consequence - "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
The rights in the United States can be traced back to the Magna Carta from 1215. The founders of the US and the framers of the Constitution knew, however, that they were not "granting" rights, but merely recognizing them when they listed them in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as amendmended by the Bill of Rights.
It's rather silly to claim people have no rights except for that which "the state" grants them. The people created the state; therefore, they are the masters over the state. The state's purpose, presumably, is to protect those rights the people already have. Sure, you lose claim to certain (not all) rights when you violate other people's rights. But still, people are not slaves to the state. If people do not have any rights, that would mean there is nothing wrong with the actions of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Jong Il, etc. I think you know there is.
Always make sure your friends know what they are if you bake something like that.
