Sgt. Stadanko said:
Ahh jesus christ man, there's a profound difference between ILLICIT heroin and pharmaceutical heroin. This is elementary stuff, and we've been through it before in a thread concerning the legalization of heroin in my country (UK).
Illegally produced heroin as we all know is liable to being stepped on with all sorts of shit. Hell, a dealer can get rid of an unwanted customer by selling them heroin of substantial purity or mixing it with fentanyl.
If it was legit then there would be a clean supply of heroin produced in proper laboratory conditions within the constraints of the FDA, WHO etc.
Cartels won't be able to fund terrorist activities with money obtained from the trafficking of drugs.. I don't know how you can say I advocate the war on drugs from what I've been saying.
No personal attacks!
This is besides the point. The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States did bring about a flood of street grade heroin,
but the presence of pharmaceutical grade heroin is not affected by a war into an opium producing country. The war in Afghanistan has
nothing to do with pharmaceutical heroin.
Such pharmacy grade heroin would only be available if drugs were legal, which
is not the point of this thread. I already said making all drugs legal would take away many of the dangers associated with the black market for drugs, including impurities and violence. However,
this thread is not about legalization. I already said that I believe in the legalization of all drugs, including heroin.
Maybe Sgt. Stadanko was pointing out a Freudian Slip? Symptomatic of paranoia with delusions of grandeur perhaps?
You do have the capacity to wipe the planet of the face of the universe. That's why the rest of the 'known' world are kinda nervous about US. We know you are very proud of that capability. It would be nice if you didn't respond to factual criticism with accusions of 'hate', and that you weren't so arrogant that you feel good in the fact that you could annihilate any other terrestrial entities should you feel it necessary and just.
No, haha, I am actually very fond of other countries, almost to the point of awe; I just felt it necessary to defend my own against silly and unfounded attacks. I only took the "criticisms" personally because they weren't valid criticisms, only statements made to rile my anger and to promote anti-US sentiment.
I believe that all drugs should be legal, and that government interference should be next to none. That being said, drugs are not legal. Because of this, if only to attempt to correct the spread of AIDS caused partially by the difficulties inherent with shooting up illegal drugs, I believe the government should step in and provide these centers.
If drugs are legalized, and a weeks worth of herion and needles is readily available for under $20, (which it probably would be) than there would be no need for government interference other than to license people whos job would be to safely shoot people up.
This is a healthcare issue. As much as I hate to have any government involved in heathcare, if gov. is the cause of the problem than gov. should be part of the solution. There is no more reason for a herion addict to get aids than there is for me to go blind from drinking methanol.
As far as U.S. actions causing a glut of herion to be produced in Afhganistan which in turn is devestating the lives of users, what kind of argument is that?....there will always be opiates. Some will be cut, some will be pharma. If heroin was legal, like it has been in the past, roughly the same amount of people would use it. If heroin is wiped off the face fo the earth, OCs....
There will always be a substitute. Quaaludes are gone, but Xanax is rampant...
This is one of the more reasonable and thought out opinions in this thread. Like I said, I think these clinics are a good idea, but in countries like the US, they are not practical to be funded by the government. Countries that have national health care, like Canada, would be a more appropriate habitat for these kind of programs.
Isn't that the same as saying 'Oh don't worry about Hitler, there's always gonna be some kind of fascist dictator so we may aswell appease him for a while, let him take over Czechoslovakia etc.'?
Hate to commit reductio ad hitlerum, but it's the only analogy I could think of at the present moment. Demographics have nothing to do with it.. as long as cut heroin gets into the hands of people, injecting unsupervised, then there's always greater health implications.
If the government taxed legit heroin then they'd be able to pay for health initiatives, instead of bombs.
No, to put it bluntly, it isn't the same. Reductio arguments are inherently weak in nature, in this case because Hitler is not similar to heroin in any way.
I think what he was trying to say was that, unlike in the case of Hitler, a great demand exists for heroin and opiate-like drugs. As long as this great demand exists, people will continue to try and circumvent any measure we take to stop it. This is why the war on drugs isn't working so well.