Res Ipsa Loquitur

1) People on meth are not crackheads they are junkies or tweakers. A crackhead is the name given to smoke crack.
2)This does not counter any drug legalization argument. Laws already exist against kidnapping and maybe the drug addict would not need to commit crimes if the drugs were obtainable in a legal manner.

It appears Cal somewhat beat me to the punch. I think the slam on drug legalization is a bit unfair, Rita. People drunk on legally-obtainable alcohol have been known to do similarly stupid things. Of course, no one then cries: let's bring back the 18th Amendment!

Conversely, stupid people doing stupid things on drugs is not an argument against drugs. It's an argument against stupid people. It's an argument against doing stupid things. But drugs? If so, then alcohol must go as well.

Besides, drugs -- neither alcohol nor the more specifically chemical variants -- are not necessary antecedents to harming other people. Lots of people commit crimes with a crystal clear state of mind, or at least with a mind that hasn't been fogged up by chemicals of any sort. Heck, lots of people do extremely negligent things that border on criminal -- say, running over a kid with a ridding lawn mower -- which need not require being drunk or high.

My problem with outlawing drugs is that it's too similar to other forms of paternalistic regulations, in which the government will "save" me from my own alleged stupidity. If the act itself is innocent, particularly if it's to myself, then the government should not be involved. If an innocent act occurs before a criminal act, then that is not a justification for proscribing the innocent act. That's the fallacy of ex post, ergo propter hoc (followed by, therefore caused by). By that principle, we might as well sit back and let the government run everything for us.

Thanks, I know they're technically not crackheads, it's used locally as a generic term for several types of drug addicts.

Adam, the flaw in that otherwise rational argument is the effects of drug use on others, especially meth. You can't really compare meth with alcohol abuse because the effects of each are entirely different.

BTW, the crack about my grandson being run over by the lawn mower wasn't very nice and was completely uncalled for. And for the record, I did think the person who did that was criminally negligent.

I suggest both of you do some volunteer work with child welfare or a drug court for a year and then see if you still think drugs, especially meth, should be legalized.

It is NOT a victimless crime.

Oh yeah... legalize all the drugs and tax the shit out of the sales...

We will need the money to buy backhoes to bury the dead and land to bury them in.

Study the effects of what the Volstead Act did to alcoholism rates in the US before quoting it as an example of failed control of substance abuse.

Was it completely successful? Hell no... but before probition alcocholism was destroying large segments of the population (up to 60% of some groups) and the rates of alcohol addiction never returned to those levels after repeal.

Opiates (as Laudnum, etc) were available as an over the counter nostrum until the turn of the century and were responsible for thousands of overdose deaths. Same story for coca derivetives.

Methadone programs are an attempt to legalize drug addiction and the success rate is very low. I've known junkies that stayed on methadone programs for over a decade and died junkies. Bloated, pasty, deteriorated shadows of a human being, living for the next methadone pill. They looked and acted dead for years before they actually stopped moving and went cold.

Here in the heartland, with meth labs exploding (literally and figuratively) every day, we see the effects of this "victimless" crime...

Skinny, crazy folks going nuts, tweaking on the population, killing members of their families and any one who appears to be a danger in their psycotic delusions...

Children starving to death because Mommy and Daddy are wigged-out on speed and they forgot to feed the kids...

Yup... legalize it and maybe you will be the victim of that speed freak who, in an amphetamine induced psycotic break, decides that the shirt you're wearing is the same shirt that the guy who ripped him off last week was wearing so you must be the same guy and the only sensible thing to do is kill you and your entire family...
All his neighbors will comment that "... he was such a nice guy, a family man until he started using meth and then he just went crazy."

Oh, and if your support for legalization is based on the fact that your tired of looking over your shoulder every time you light up a joint, snort a line or smoke a rock...

Think about how f**cked up your life would be without any outside controls.

Dear Cal and Adam: I have listened to these "red herrings" all of my adult life and recognise them for what they are, YOUR, after the fact, justification for your own use. You want to indulge? Please do so but, have the courage to accept the risks and consequences for your actions without whining about making it "legal". We are ALL burdened with the cost of alcoholism in almost every facet of our lives and THAT is the primary reason that most of the the banned drugs will never be legal. What is the actual cost on every dollar collected in taxes on alcohol? The real problem in our society is that those that indulge are allowed to push off the negative aspects of their abuse onto those that do not.
Adam: You are correct in that stupid people do stupid things, but my experience in life has shown me that stupid people on drugs do ten times the damage, usually to someone else. 80% of the people incarcerated in the U.S. for violent crimes committed those crimes while under the influence....
Adam: ALL forms of societal strictures are "paternalistic". The "Government", has no wish to separate or "save" you from your stupidity, but has a responsibility to "save" other members of society from same said stupidity. Cuasality and culpabilty.

Cal: One other thing, Switzerland had a wonderful free opiate and heroin program and discovered that they became the permanent recidence of every junkie that could afford an airline ticket. The problems (and costs), associated with having and maintaining such a population became increasingly burdensome to the Swiss taxpayer. Even when the drugs are legal and free, the addicts also need food, lodgeing and basic health treatment, which in this instance was expected to be supplied by the Swiss Government, free of cost to the addict.

For the record, Bill, I have never used drugs in my entire life. Of course, as long as one doesn't count alcohol or nicotine as "drugs." You really need to look up the definitions of the following logical fallacies before shooting off a response to an argument: (1) ad hominem, and (2) hasty generalization.

More important, I want to apologize to Rita for making light of her grandson's accident. I have been following this situation through your blog, and I understand the seriousness of what happened and of the resulting problems. It was not my intent to offer this in any way that was sarcastic or made light of the incident; I offered it because readers of the blog know of this incident and I thought it made a particularly compelling example of my point. As you well know, though, intent is meaningless when one's actions reflect something different (or are amphibolous, such that they can be reasonably interpreted in a different way). I apologize for not expressing myself better, and thus expressing something in a flip and sarcastic manner that is anything but.

Thanks Adam for explaining and the gracious apology. There are things going on with my grandson's situation that I haven't posted about, so there's no way you could've known that wasn't a good analogy. And I apologize for my curtness and for misunderstanding what you meant.

To be more precise; I don't know you from ADAM'S housecat and have no interest in your use or non-use of illegal substances. Promoting lunacy in others is worse than actually being involved in the behavior.
1). Ad Hominem....against the man and I didn't have to look for the definition.
2). You do not want me to be specific, ( ad hominem ), and you do not want me to be general, (hasty generalization), that doesn't leave much room for tap dancing. Does it?
I was and am reacting to a "general" tone. I have a "generally" low regard for stupid ideas that justify other stupid ideas. Innocent or not.