scotus69

Perhaps your references need updating.

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Furthermore, the reference you cite is : "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, 5 March 1995 (unpublished Briefing Kit)."

An "unpublished Briefing Kit", oh come on !!! ??? !!!

Agreed. And the "acceptability" of such substances varies from society to society (case-in-point: khat). But that still does not take away the societal distress and human cost their abuse causes.

No, liberty per se, is not immoral. You or any human being on this planet is free to consume, enjoy or even abuse any substance you like. However, when the cost of your consumption or addiction becomes a burden on almost every other fellow human, then you have started "abusing" that liberty.

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.

Sure. Just because the government is saying something, even truth, does not automatically make it false.

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?

OK. Enhancement by "addictive" means. Note, it is the "addiction" that provides an extra level of "danger" to abuse.

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.

Just because a "drug" is socially acceptable does not make it any less dangerous, case in point: the tobacco industry in the seventies.

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.

Why? Let them have cake... and die.

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.