> As Dr. Clark put it: "The idea of letting addicts die to make drugs scarier is reprehensible."
Yes.
Yes.
Let me explain what I mean. The "idea" may be reprehensible from a humanistic point of view and perhaps even from the drug pusher's point of view that it is bad business to kill your customers (too) quickly.
However, from a purely psychological viewpoint, the cocaine addicts are merely trying to escape their current reality, albeit temporarily, but at a well publicised cost to themselves, their families and their country. So, why not make that uber costly escape permanent?
The argument that drug addiction is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the drug addict is patently fatalistic and self-defeating. If you don't like the risk of dying of something then don't be involved in an activity that has a high propensity to lead to death by its very nature.
Of course the wisecracks will always argue that life is a disease with a bad prognosis because the outcome is always death... But I say, if all an addict seeks is escape from life by patently dangerous means, then let them have it, for good.
EDIT: Spelling & Grammar.
(Reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/)
And even alcohol: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/
No, I am not for deliberate poisoning of mass consumed "drugs". But certainly I don't care that people die of their addictions to dangerous substances.
I find your position hard to understand. It seems almost inhuman to me; that you would condemn people to death, because... liberty is immoral?
Do you really feel that "legalising" addictive and physical-dependence-causing "cocaine" will lead to a lesser burden on the collective society than the situation now? if so, then perhaps you need to go visit a rehab centre and see the devastating effect that any "abused" substance can cause -- irrespective of whether it is legal or not.
More importantly, there are enough humans suffering from natural diseases and disasters that could use help, than the few humans who are deliberately indulging in dangerous behaviour and be better dead than sucking precious resources away from those who are trying to merely survive, leave alone "lawyering" and "regulating" cocaine in their lives.
"Liberty" without "responsibility" is the definition "entitlement". Typically seen in individuals and societies too affluent for their own good.
Don't forget the word pharmacist means someone who poisons people. It also means someone who cures people. Because the poison is always in the dose.
I do. We only have on case so far : Portugal. And it looks pretty good, which, of course, flies in the face of the our government's War On Drugs(tm) propaganda.
We also have the case of US Prohibition Era, where prohibiting the substance made it worse, as people still consumed it, but just kept dying because government agents poisoned the supply. It also let criminals gangs flourish as the whole industry moved underground.
Some may see it as enhancement. Besides, not everyone shares the same motives.
Why even get into motives? Just because my motive is to fly by myself does not mean I won't die if I skydive without a parachute.
Then, while we are at it, let's add some mercury to cigarettes, and put maybe put arsenic in fast food hamburgers.
From the way I see it, the most dangerous aspect of that drug is the risk of catching law enforcement's attention.
Sure, tiny amounts of cocaine act as a stimulant similar to caffeine. Coca tea is just fine and safe.
But a nose full of cocaine is way, way, way more drug than the tea contains, and makes you feel REALLY good for short while. Almost every single user ends up binging every last bit of cocaine they have on them, and staying up all night. They do it because of the reward system it kicks off in your brain. Will they end up chronically addicted to it? Not everyone, but the thing is, it has little to do with willpower, knowledge,or strength. Statistically some people can walk away... but you have know way of knowing if YOU are the person who can walk away. You might think you are, but that's meaningless. (And the thought that you can walk away leads to "Well hey, why not tomorrow night too? After all, I can obviously walk away!")
The same pattern repeats, more or less, for most habit-forming drugs - tobacco included. Alcohol actually ranks quite low on this scale, though it's far more damaging than many illegal drugs.
So back to the original question - why do people think it's an escape? Because it generally is - people do it to experience a different reality than their own, and personal risk. That's not necessarily bad, but it IS an escape... just like many other activities, like snowboarding or skydiving.... it just has a much higher risk factor.
Your comment reads like you're regurgitating government propaganda swallowed wholesale.
Replacing cocaine with not only "caffeine", but also "theophylline" and "sildenafil citrate" also works. Only, neither of those has the propensity for "addiction" or "dependence" to the degree that "cocaine" does.
Or perhaps you have done some research that proves otherwise?
"Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems ... a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use. ... Use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive, therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations."[1]
Also, there is a wealth of research indicating that cocaine is vastly safer than caffeine, especially when it comes to the health and safety of unborn babies.
The current WHO statement is here: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cocaine/en/index.ht...
Furthermore, the reference you cite is : "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, 5 March 1995 (unpublished Briefing Kit)."
An "unpublished Briefing Kit", oh come on !!! ??? !!!
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen...
If addiction is a disease, then addicts need doctors, not executioners. Even if addiction is a moral weakness, I think you'd have a hard time suggesting that the weak-willed all deserve poison in their vice (lest ye cast the first stone.)
Hey now. A crime fighting dog told me that cocaine is bad. What more evidence do we need?
Some people are going to use drugs no matter how dangerous they are perceived to be, and that is why prohibition does not reduce the overall harm drugs cause to society.
Yes it would be better if the externalities of drugs on society could be internalised into the price of the drug - but that doesn't justify government interventions which achieve nothing but stop drug users from protecting themselves against serious harm.