rdubnpk I am at a loss as to how to argue a point with someone who thinks it would be OK to test EVERYONE for drugs. I can think of nothing that would more infringe on the rights of all. Again, it makes me think only the most totalitarian of governments would even consider such a thing. As to gun control, I don't believe it is necessary for people to be able to purchase assault rifles. I do believe it would benefit us all to at least make it necessary to show proof you are not a serial killer, terrorist (if that is proveable), criminal, or a general nutcase before being allowed to purchase, which does not seem to be a requirement at gun shows. I don't have any objection to the average Joe or hunter owning guns, period. In fact, if your idea comes to pass and we are subjected to having our privacy infringed on by a government gone mad, then I will be one of the first to arm myself to defend my rights.
I certainly understand your opposition to my suggestion. It would be an imposition to many. I've never taken an illegal drug or even smoked grass so I guess I should look upon my own suggestion as a huge violation of my rights. But then, on the other hand, I also find the security at every airport that I have to fly into and out of to be a huge imposition and violation of my rights. This goes along with the violation of my rights when I know that my e-mails may get read by some government snoop and my phone calls may be listened to by a different government snoop. What about the rights of someone to get hammered at a bar and then get behind the wheel of their car? My point is that when we have a problem we need to do something about the problem. The security at airports is an example of how the problem of terrorism has to be tackled. As you stated in starting the thread what we are currently doing is not working. We need to do something. The stats are that drug overdoses kill something like 26,000 people a year in the US alone. The Mexican drug war has killed a reported 28,000 people since 2007. It is an issue that needs to handled. Rdubnpk, you have already stated what you wouldn't do, and I certainly respect our difference of opinions. My question to you is what would you do to end or at least alleviate the drug problem?
Not to offend, but have you not noticed all the rights and privacys' (privacy is dead!) that have been slowly taken away over the past decade or so in the US? and the huge databases that have been created with everything from fingerprints, to DNA, to iris scans of citizens so that everyone can be monitored and tracked 24/7?... I guarantee you that you haven't sent any emails in the last 5 years that haven't been checked by some computer somewhere, and there is a good chance that all of your internet surfing is logged in some NSA computer someplace for future reference... mandatory drug tests are not far off at all, neither are mandatory lie detector tests and brain scans (once that tech is perfected, and yes they are working on it)... I think most people would agree that if you're collecting government unemployment or welfare that you should be able to pass a basic drug test to show that the tax payers aren't paying you to sit around and smoke crack, and many employers already require drug screenings, so I have a difficult time arguing against such tests given that it's not far from the existing situation. Not to say that they aren't somewhat of an invasion, but for those looking for a handout it's not much to ask, considering all the other info we freely give up all the time.
twini, I appreciate your taking the time to try to respond to my question, but these drugs are only illegal because we've made them so. My question went deeper, I think, by asking why they should be made illegal. You offered the possibility of addiction as a basis, it seems; so, if addictive, then illegal. Right? In this formulation, risk of addiction equals harm to society. On what basis would you then make an exception for alcohol, except that a threshold of use and addiction has been passed, so that it's impractical to try to impose criminal penalties, along with mandatory testing, and sanctions for failing the tests? Does that make sense, since alcohol is the most widely used, and abused, of addictive drugs?
rdubnpk And cigarettes. The difference is that alcohol and tobacco are gigantic industries and ingrained in our culture. They would both hate to see any type of other drug legalized because it would cut in to their revenues.
I think both alcohol and tobacco are both addictive and dangerous in their own rights. Of course it was already tried to outlaw alcohol in the 20's and that one didn't work out very well. The logic there was more moral than anything else, but either way it was a disaster. As for tobacco, it is still subsidized and probably always will be as long as there are any tobacco growers in the US. Bottom line is that it is impractical to outlaw both booze and butts. If they outlawed booze then we'd all have to go to Mexico to get buzzed. Hold it, we do that already. Cocaine, crack, meth and more are deemed to be harmful and that leads to their being illegal. I don't think legalizing drugs is the way to go either. The legalization of gambling in our area and many others hasn't made the problem go away, but just made it worse. I think it would be the same with drugs. But getting back to the original post. How do you stop the illegal drugs? I've made my suggestion which I feel is a very practical way to get rid of the problem. As for it being totalitarian, then I guess we should all protest the need for drug testing of airplane pilots, professional athletes, and school bus drivers. Sorry, but I still think it is a fairly simple suggestion and the only people who would have anything to fear would be those that use. You use, you lose. Real simple.
Why do you think that? To me the elimination of a major problem with a fairly simple solution would seem to make sense. If the majority of Americans are using then no question they would be up in arms over it. Those that aren't using have nothing to fear and should have no problem with it. As Life pointed out, we've lost a ton of freedoms over the last several decades and this inconvenience would be pretty minor.
Generally speaking it seems like most American's will talk a good game, as it were, about standing up for their rights but when the politicians and governments tell them its for their own good or to make their children safe, they'll capitulate pretty quick... perhaps I misunderstood the proposal that was made.. to me requiring drug screenings for anyone who wants to collect government benefits seems perfectly reasonable, especially in times like these when we can't afford to support those who can't even get themselves clean long enough to pass a drug test... and employers have long since required screenings... further, when you get behind the wheel you're obligated to pass whatever sobriety test law enforcements seems fit to administer for alcohol OR drugs.. so a screening before the issuing of a licenses once every 4-6 years or so seems like a non-issue in any case... I don't think anyone suggested a door to door testing campaign at gunpoint... which would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment IMHO... not that that would stop it from happening given recent history in the US. As to the "you have nothing to fear if you don't ... whatever" that's a valid argument, but sadly its been used over and over to eat away at personal freedoms... One thing everyone is guilty of in some way or another is hypocrisy.. if I get up on the stage and declare that I'll put a stop to ALL drug use once and for all, the crowd will cheer my name... if I then say to accomplish that I'll be searching everyone's houses, cars, computers, and businesses looking for anything illegal, the crowd will fall silent as most of them know they won't pass close scrutiny.
Nor has the current approach to stopping the use of other drugs, for recreational purposes. I've laid out my rough sketch of an approach to making other drugs available for recreational use, much as alcohol is but under even more control, which I would favor over the current, destructive approach, with all its evils; but, since no one but me has attempted to flesh out this alternative further, I will not put it forward, again. _____________________ As for twinini's suggestion, I'd be for it, if the society has determined that stamping out all recreational drug use, effectively, is a worthy goal, for the good of all; but, I'd include alcohol for the reason that it is as destructive as the worst of the others, and I prefer rational and symmetrical approaches to solving problems. (This has the additional appeal of being fair to those who prefer other recreational drugs to alcohol.) Though I enjoy alcoholic beverages, I´d give them up, if the conditions I spoke of were met. Business interests, which will, as often as not, oppose any plan which favors the public good but may negatively impact their business, must simply be ignored in these calculations, as in many others, if human beings are to enjoy the best possible of lives. If you believe that using drugs, including alcohol, for recreational purposes, is destructive for society, then it is wrong to allow lawful businesses to be built around these substances. _______________________
