We are caught in an ideological chasm in the US. On one side is a harsh society wide approach like that of the Chinese. On the other hand is complete tolerance and legalization, which is more compatible with a Western social and political values. We are in an awkward spot somewhere in between.
Unfortunately we must measure success of our national drug programs by the number of people who do not become junkies. I say unfortunately because it seems that many people self medicate to deal with sadness or emptiness in their lives, which makes dealing with hard drug use a daunting task. How do we remove sadness from people's lives? How do we heal the abscess of loneliness?
Unfortunately people do not always make good decisions, even if they are content, well adjusted people. If we legalize heroin in the manner I believe we should with marijuana, I fear many more people than now will stumble into heroin addiction.
So caught in a valley between two extreme responses, one which is antithetical to our Western social constructs and another which does not adequately protect people from themselves, what do we do?
Perhaps the case of Portugal represents an alternative. While not legalizing the all drugs - you won't see commercials for Black Tar™ brand Heroin - Portugal has decriminalized all drugs, meaning that while they haven't granted heroin the tacit acceptance that comes with legalization, they have made life easier for those who inevitably do become addicts. Perhaps this is the best we can hope for.
"Does not adequately protect people from themselves, what do we do?"
What we do as a society founded upon the principles of natural rights and liberties is stop trying to protect people from themselves. It always was, and always will be, a slippery and dangerous slope to collectivism and totalitarianism. The government has absolutely no right whatsoever to tell me what I can and can't do with my body, whether that is drinking beer, coke, smoking weed, or cigars, or eating lettuce. For by accepting the encroachment, you open the floodgates for arbitrary decisions on what can and can't be done.
It's not even that these thing need to be "legalized". It was never the right of the government either federal or state to determine them one way or the other. All the proper medical care, mentally and physically, and education about substances, would then be free to do its good work without the interference of lawyers attempting to legislate our lives.
This silent acquiescence of increasingly overreaching government must stop. It is anathema to everything America was founded upon.
"...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense
I don't accept the slippery slope argument. But, let's entertain your line of thinking.
Let's get rid of the speed limit everywhere. We don't need the stinking government telling us how fast to drive! Oh, looks like traffic deaths are going up. Hm, maybe we should institute a speed limit...
The point is that people do need to be told what to do - with an enforced penalty - in certain situations.
Roads are a public place, subject to constitutional reasonable regulation (by the states, not the federal government) as long as not in violation of our right to travel. So you picked a bad example. Case in point, if I own a vehicle that never leaves my ranch property it doesn't need license plates, insurance, or a drivers license to operate it, and I can go as fast as I damn well please.
What I do in the privacy of my own home is none of yours nor the governments fucking business.
>"people do need to be told what to do"
This is a disgustingly subservient slave mentality. Enjoy your self-forged shackles. The worst part is you would put them on others and tell them it is for their own good!
If you think being told that people can't go above a certain speed on the highway to make highways safe enough to drive on makes you a "slave", I would tell you that you're being melodramatic.
Civilization is a set of rules, either informal or formal, that we obey. We do this so we can live peaceful and comfortable lives. If you think that's slavery then I feel bad for you.
You seem to not understand the difference between private and public property. I have nary a issue to say "You have to follow the speed limit on public roads", or "No guns can be brought into the courthouse".
But once we step foot into your own property, I can take my guns anywhere I want. As long as I guarantee the bullets don't leave the property, I can shoot what I want. I can take any sort of vehicle I want at whatever speed I want. I'm the king of my castle and the land that surrounds it.
Now, as per drug usage - the bigger public health crisis is people ODing on the streets, urinating/defecating on the streets, needles exposed for people to get jabbed on the streets... Notice a trend here? "On the streets" is in public. Therefore public health crisis.
If I want to do drug, one of, in my own property, there should be no good reason for a government to say "You don't know your body well enough, so we have to tell you no". The result is a bunch of nanny-state politicians who want to dictate your body on your private land.
And, slippery slope? Well, tell that to NYC who can no longer sell larger than 12 oz sodas. Or other jurisdictions that enforce usage, rather than information. Nanny state at its best.
EDIT: So, what gives? Why is this "government knows best" idea so prevalent? The choice of how I treat my own body goes all the way to choosing to commit suicide. Most jurisdictions, even that is "illegal". Harming others directly - whole different story and that should have state "interference".
I'm not entirely sure how true that is. We do have an awful lot of statists in this country as well. And there's also a healthy faction that are hell-bent on setting their "ethics" up as laws for the states too.
Then again, I'd much rather have discourse than simple -1's applied by random peoples. Even kuro5hin told whom up/downvoted content. But still, responses are intriguing. Sometimes, I've even changed my own views since underlying assumptions I had were false.
Oh well. I'd attribute it to a corollary I heard with voting systems - no matter the comment and moderation system, there will always be defects for each method.
Unfortunately we must measure success of our national drug programs by the number of people who do not become junkies. I say unfortunately because it seems that many people self medicate to deal with sadness or emptiness in their lives, which makes dealing with hard drug use a daunting task. How do we remove sadness from people's lives? How do we heal the abscess of loneliness?
Unfortunately people do not always make good decisions, even if they are content, well adjusted people. If we legalize heroin in the manner I believe we should with marijuana, I fear many more people than now will stumble into heroin addiction.
So caught in a valley between two extreme responses, one which is antithetical to our Western social constructs and another which does not adequately protect people from themselves, what do we do?
Perhaps the case of Portugal represents an alternative. While not legalizing the all drugs - you won't see commercials for Black Tar™ brand Heroin - Portugal has decriminalized all drugs, meaning that while they haven't granted heroin the tacit acceptance that comes with legalization, they have made life easier for those who inevitably do become addicts. Perhaps this is the best we can hope for.