theDEA.org I have a challenge for you. Can you find ONE wrongly intended reason that our government doesnt want us, the people, to do drugs?
Politicians always MEAN well. When Hitler decided that the good of humanity required murdering the Jews, he was doing what he thought was the right and responsible thing. When US polititions outlawed opium to control the Yellow Menace (Chinese immigrants) they MEANT well. When they outlawed cocaine out of fear of blacks, they MEANT well. When they outlawed marijuana out of fear of migrant Hispanics, they MEANT well. When they outlawed LSD and the like out of fear of the Hippie movement they MEANT well.
The great wellspring of evil in human society is incompetence, not deliberate malice. Our government is simply a bit incompetent.
JeW BaLLs said:
The government didnt lose its credibility, the people chose to throw their respect for it away.
No, the government lost its credibility because they kept championing ideas that were irrational. 'If you smoke pot you caused 9-11'? You've got to be kidding. People don't trust the government because the government has repeatedly shown that it's NOT trustworthy. Nobody 'stole' the government's credibility.
In all honesty, it is sooooo much safer to simply go by the rules they give us (they make these rules to protect us,
Safety isn't the highest virtue of a society in my world. Freedom, even if it maims or kills you, is far better than a comfortable cage. If that doesn't appeal to you, by all means do as the government tells you and be happy.
Personally, I don't drink or smoke. If people followed MY values instead of the government's (which condones and even profits off both industries) they would be even safer than if they just went with what the government tells them they can and can't do. The difference is, I don't believe I have the right to hold a gun to somebody's head and order them not to do something that's not good for them. The government is concerned about the dangers of drugs? They should be. But they shouldn't be trying to deal with those dangers through the iron fist of criminal law.
The only way to be 100 percent safe is to not take drugs.
Quite true.
If the girl didnt want to be safe, she made that decision.
That's a false dichotomy. A third option is to educate people and make sure that the drugs they can buy are pure and of a known potency.
Do you by any chance use alcohol or tobacco? If so, you are probably taking far greater risks with your health than an 'ecstasy' user is.
If she would have listened to the government and didnt take the drugs, she would be totally fine right now
If she had listened to the government and the government had taken a sincere harm-reduction approach instead of the scare-em-strait approach she would also probably be fine right now. The government tried to simply prevent her from using drugs and failed. But if they had taken a different approach to protecting society from the dangers of drugs she could have
still easily been saved.
I also believe you are giving kids too much credit.
I have a dim view of humanity in all age groups. But I do believe that education is more effective than manipulation. More than that, I don't believe knowing better than somebody else gives you the right to control their life.
I was unaware the government has hidden the true cause of death in hyponatremia cases. I have heard of quite a few.
What of this very story? Unless they're incompetent they know what the mechanism of death was by now, so why aren't they telling us? My dime says this was a hyponatremia death.
Either way, I highly doubt she would have drank that much water had she not taken an illegal and risky substance.
People don't drink themselves to death because they took a pill. These cases are the direct result of bad advice about how to behave while using.
BTW, could you please find some sources in your spare time that show this hiding you speak of that has been done so many times?
<points up> More infamously, I suggest the case of
Danielle Heird. Can I prove it was hyponatremia? No: The government buried the actual cause of death (it takes real balls to say a death was 'due to drug intoxication.') But I'd wager it was.
A hyponatremia death is very distinctive. The victim feels ill, often with vomiting/loss of coordination, loses consciousness, goes into a coma, and dies fairly quickly unless put on a respirator. Other than the bleeding in the brain there's little evidence of an injury/toxicity. The victims are almost always young girls/women (in fact, I can't recall ever hearing of a male victim.) I suspect that's a reflection of psychological differences in how they respond to anxiety while on the drug; male users may be more likely to just wait it out rather than trying to 'treat' the problem by forcing down a lot of water.
At any rate, there's a very typical profile for a hyponatremia death; you can spot likely cases rather easily once you know what to look for. A 'normal' overdose/heat stroke death has a much different profile (and frankly, is much uglier), but because the victims tend to be older and male they don't make nearly as appealing poster-children for the anti-drug campaigns.
