Memorial to those who died of heroin.
October 8, 2000 7:25 AM Subscribe
Memorial to those who died of heroin. This is what I got in email today, after, I guess, they found my half-completed story on such a topic:
"I was looking on the internet on Google for heroin drug overdose. You can see my daughter's before and after picture on www.ourwall.net. Click on Cheryl Dean born July 11, 1979 overdosed on Oct 5, 1997. Cheryl didn't die but she can't walk, talk, move legs arms or hands is blind and on a feeding tube. She had a cardiac arrest and didn't get enough oxygen to the brain in time."
Ya know, some people who are for the dicriminalization of drugs feel that way because they believe in the idea that people should do with their bodies what they see fit, and that the government has no right to tell us what we can or cannot do with ourselves. It's not really that they feel drug policy has failed, so we might as well just legalize the stuff.
posted by Doug at 10:10 AM on October 8, 2000
posted by Doug at 10:10 AM on October 8, 2000
Why should I be upset about people doing themselves in with heroin? With all of the real suffering in the world, I can't feel much pity for people who are so willing to destroy themselves.What I do know is that if people want to kill themselves off with heroin, that's their business. They're going to do it whether drugs are legal or not.
posted by Mr. skullhead at 10:54 AM on October 8, 2000
posted by Mr. skullhead at 10:54 AM on October 8, 2000
For me, its interesting to note the young ages of many of the people on the list. I'm not one to crow about "protecting our children" because it's a cry usually taken up by those with impure ulterior motives, but I'm having a hard time reconciling that list with the idea that heroin might be *more* available. There are some people who deserve to be protected: not the stupid, not the lazy, not the careless, but the misinformed, the weak, the innocent. We have done a poor job, I think, in separating those two groups in our politics, our policies and our minds.
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:37 AM on October 8, 2000
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:37 AM on October 8, 2000
Listen:
The site does not glorify drug users. It is merely a remembrance, and a profoundly touching one at that.
The simple fact is, there are times in life when we do things that are not good for our bodies, our lives and our spirits. Call it the foolishness of youth, call it what ever you want. The fact is, most of us survive this recklessness and stupidy. Others do not.
Does the fact that their fate was largely self inflicted mean that we should not mourn their loss?
We are all human. We are all given this wonderful, scary, gift of life. And, lest you forget, this whole deal does get pretty intense sometimes. People cope with that intensity differently. Some do so wisely, some foolishly. I wish I could say that I had made the right decision every time, but I know that I haven't. I've just been lucky enough that those bad decisions have not resulted in my death.
Do not condemn these people hastily. They were just like you once. Their descents are individually nightmarish, and collectively, an immeasurable tragedy. Perhaps as you visit the heroin memorial site, you should pause for a moment and mouth the old phrase "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
posted by Optamystic at 11:48 AM on October 8, 2000
The site does not glorify drug users. It is merely a remembrance, and a profoundly touching one at that.
The simple fact is, there are times in life when we do things that are not good for our bodies, our lives and our spirits. Call it the foolishness of youth, call it what ever you want. The fact is, most of us survive this recklessness and stupidy. Others do not.
Does the fact that their fate was largely self inflicted mean that we should not mourn their loss?
We are all human. We are all given this wonderful, scary, gift of life. And, lest you forget, this whole deal does get pretty intense sometimes. People cope with that intensity differently. Some do so wisely, some foolishly. I wish I could say that I had made the right decision every time, but I know that I haven't. I've just been lucky enough that those bad decisions have not resulted in my death.
Do not condemn these people hastily. They were just like you once. Their descents are individually nightmarish, and collectively, an immeasurable tragedy. Perhaps as you visit the heroin memorial site, you should pause for a moment and mouth the old phrase "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
posted by Optamystic at 11:48 AM on October 8, 2000
Who says you have the right to do such horrible things to yourself, or others? Simple things like downing some brews and enjoying a party are an ok part of life, but there is a line. When you step over that line and do hard drugs, or get wasted and step into your car, put hurt yourself and you put others in danger. I don't beleive a person has the right to end or put their life in serious danger, it's the most important thing you have; and I have no doubt about that fact that your rights end where someone else's rights begin.
posted by tomorama at 11:50 AM on October 8, 2000
posted by tomorama at 11:50 AM on October 8, 2000
It comes down to whether or not you believe in personal responsibility. Making certain drugs illegal does not do anything but put more people in jail. If someone is addicted to a substance, they need treatment. Many people use illegal substances without negative affects. It just seems a more humane approach to me.
posted by john at 12:13 PM on October 8, 2000
posted by john at 12:13 PM on October 8, 2000
Yeah, what Optamystic said.
posted by ratbastard at 1:44 PM on October 8, 2000
posted by ratbastard at 1:44 PM on October 8, 2000
I agree with Mr. skullhead. I really don't have much sympathy for these people... they are responsible for their own actions and the consequences. And sure, I did [and do] some pretty reckless and stupid things, but main lining heroin is hardly a 'stupid' 'reckless' part of my youth. As I look through the list of people I noticed one guy was 53. So much for the naive 'youth' theory.
--We are all human. We are all given this wonderful, scary, gift of life. And, lest you forget, this whole deal does get pretty intense sometimes--
Oh yeah, now there's an argument... you want me to feel sorry for people who can't handle life and turn to drugs? Sorry... I'm a realist, not a romantic.
--There are some people who deserve to be protected: not the stupid, not the lazy, not the careless, but the misinformed, the weak, the innocent.--
The misinformed? Where do you find any one that thinks heroin is 'healthy'? How could anyone not know it's dangers?
The weak? I don't understand what 'weak' has to do with it. Are they physically weak? The site is states that "She was 16 and a senior introduced her to heroin" -- does that mean he held her down and shot her up? forced her take it and then she could never kick the habit?
The innocent? "She tried a rehab but never completed it." Well there you go... she fucked up a few times didn't she? Now I KNOW they had to warn her of the dangers of heroin in rehab, what's the excuse now?
The only thing that upsets me about these people is that I wasted valuable time reading that site... when I could have been getting H I G H
posted by chiXy at 2:06 PM on October 8, 2000
I have a lot of stories about the users and alcoholics in my life. Stories I don’t really want to tell at this point. But I always had sympathy, even when I wanted to kill the ones who ripped me off or slept with other guys to get drugs. You just had to look at them and there was pity.
Drug addiction is a public health problem. The US treats the issue like its a war, and while it is pretty obvious that it doesn't work, it's a big business now and that's who runs the country. Right?
posted by tranquileye at 4:22 PM on October 8, 2000
Drug addiction is a public health problem. The US treats the issue like its a war, and while it is pretty obvious that it doesn't work, it's a big business now and that's who runs the country. Right?
posted by tranquileye at 4:22 PM on October 8, 2000
Many people use illegal substances without negative affects.
not herion though.
posted by palegirl at 5:16 PM on October 8, 2000
not herion though.
posted by palegirl at 5:16 PM on October 8, 2000
Firstly, this has been stated often enough, legal or not, people will use drugs. If you legalize heroin you will cut out accidentally overdoses and bad batches of the product. Legalization will only make it safer for those who CHOOSE to use.
posted by Zool at 5:49 PM on October 8, 2000
posted by Zool at 5:49 PM on October 8, 2000
Actually, if you legalize currently illegal drugs and that's all you do, bang, you just have more people using them. There are no guarantees that the drugs will be of any better quality. To achieve that, you would need to regulate drugs. Maybe the FDA would do it.
posted by tranquileye at 7:02 PM on October 8, 2000
posted by tranquileye at 7:02 PM on October 8, 2000
Legalizing drugs will mean pharmaceutical companies can and most probably will start making drugs that are now illegal. With their labs and experience, you will most definetely get what you paid for, and the product will have no impurities, which at the moment cannot be guaranteed. Also let's not forget the price drop and the benefit of drug users who will not have to rob and steal to get their fix.
posted by Zool at 7:22 PM on October 8, 2000
posted by Zool at 7:22 PM on October 8, 2000
there is no way that legalizing heroin will magically cut accidental overdoses... it makes no logical sense.
further, if it's legal, more people will CHOOSE to use.
further, price drop my ass
posted by palegirl at 7:24 PM on October 8, 2000
further, if it's legal, more people will CHOOSE to use.
further, price drop my ass
posted by palegirl at 7:24 PM on October 8, 2000
palegirl: Actually, legalizing heroin would almost completely remove accidental overdosing... OD's happen because street heroin varies wildly -- an effective dose with one batch might be a massive OD with another batch.
That's what happens when street gangs dilute their drugs to enhance profits. If heroin were legal, the concentration can be controlled -- then addicts know what they're getting, and they don't OD. Addicts don't want to OD, they want to get high. If you've been buying crap for years, you get used to shooting up major doses. If, one day, you buy pure heroin and do the same dose, you die.
....if you'd ever been a heroin user, you'd know that.
posted by aramaic at 8:12 PM on October 8, 2000
That's what happens when street gangs dilute their drugs to enhance profits. If heroin were legal, the concentration can be controlled -- then addicts know what they're getting, and they don't OD. Addicts don't want to OD, they want to get high. If you've been buying crap for years, you get used to shooting up major doses. If, one day, you buy pure heroin and do the same dose, you die.
....if you'd ever been a heroin user, you'd know that.
posted by aramaic at 8:12 PM on October 8, 2000
>This sort of thing should be required reading for anyone who argues that hard drugs should simply be decriminalized. While the "War on Drugs" has been a failure and something of a disaster, the solution is not to throw up our hands and suggest that there is nothing to be done.
I've never heard anyone argue that hard drugs should be decriminalized as a way of throwing up their hands and saying that there is nothing that can be done. Most people who argue for the decriminalization of hard drugs do it because they see a way we could actually reduce the harm that drugs can cause (through treatment, education, etc., rather than through guns and jails, which have done nothing so far).
Remember that before the "war on drugs" there were far fewer drug users. No-one wants this to happen to anyone. But fewer rights for individuals, more police and harsher prisons don't stop it. By creating an enormous source of profit for illicit drug sellers we have created a huge population of serious addicts. I want drugs to be decriminilized (and regulated) so we can stop doing that.
But I won't repeat myself again. Follow some of the links from here or here and you can find out more.
This is not an argument about whether or not we feel it is good to do heroin -- it is about how we, as a society, want to go about reducing the harms that drugs can cause. What we are doing now is horrible — we probably couldn't do worse.
posted by sylloge at 9:39 PM on October 8, 2000
I've never heard anyone argue that hard drugs should be decriminalized as a way of throwing up their hands and saying that there is nothing that can be done. Most people who argue for the decriminalization of hard drugs do it because they see a way we could actually reduce the harm that drugs can cause (through treatment, education, etc., rather than through guns and jails, which have done nothing so far).
Remember that before the "war on drugs" there were far fewer drug users. No-one wants this to happen to anyone. But fewer rights for individuals, more police and harsher prisons don't stop it. By creating an enormous source of profit for illicit drug sellers we have created a huge population of serious addicts. I want drugs to be decriminilized (and regulated) so we can stop doing that.
But I won't repeat myself again. Follow some of the links from here or here and you can find out more.
This is not an argument about whether or not we feel it is good to do heroin -- it is about how we, as a society, want to go about reducing the harms that drugs can cause. What we are doing now is horrible — we probably couldn't do worse.
posted by sylloge at 9:39 PM on October 8, 2000
tomorama said:
Who says you have the right to do such horrible things to yourself
and
I don't beleive a person has the right to end or put their life in serious danger, it's the most important thing you have;
What more fundamental right can there possibly be? How can you be said to own your life in any meaningful way if you don't have the right to dispose of it as you wish?
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:51 PM on October 8, 2000
Who says you have the right to do such horrible things to yourself
and
I don't beleive a person has the right to end or put their life in serious danger, it's the most important thing you have;
What more fundamental right can there possibly be? How can you be said to own your life in any meaningful way if you don't have the right to dispose of it as you wish?
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:51 PM on October 8, 2000
Yes, the misinformed, the weak, the innocent.
You think these people found heroin in their mailboxes? No, they were introduced to it.
You think they've done research on the harmful effects of heroin? No, all they know is what they hear from their peers, likely the same people who introduced it to them in the first place.
You think that if someone knew the true dangers of heroin that'd they'd try it in the first place? That they'd understand that "experimenting" with heroin is a trap very different from coke, marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol? Some will. Some won't. Nobody, not even the user-to-be candidate, knows which category she falls in until the choice is in front of her.
You think that everyone's capable of standing up to peer pressure, maybe from lovers or best friends or family members and not having a try? No, people are weak. What they need is the support of the people who are instead putting them at risk.
You think people are capable of accurately judging information on heroin? You think people don't trust their friends and family to give them good data? No, they're innocent. They don't know how dumb people are, how ill-informed they are, how much they take for granted, how evil the world can be. They don't know how the strongest will can be undercut by an unavoidable chemical reaction. Or they do know it and forget it because of trust.
You think the the "peer pressure" argument is lame cop-talk? No, it's how it happens. It's how the drug shows up in your veins in the first place: somebody shows you how to do it. How to buy, how to fill the needle, how to tie off, how to find the vein, how to push the plunger. Probably somebody you know well.
You think once you get a vein full of heroin that's it? Just one "experiment"? Not likely. There's almost always a second hit and more. Heroin is liquid love, a happy birthday, a merry Christmas, hot summer Sundays at the beach. It's bliss. You want to do more. You can't help but do more. Your body has flagged heroin as a good thing and alongside food, water, heat, love and sex, demands more of it.
I've got friends for whom everything above is a reality. Two were introduced to heroin by boyfriends. Another one by a semi-famous rock band. Another learned about it from a coworker. This shit is tough, man, and the selling and marketing of heroin couldn't be better if they were running ads on television.
Get a heart.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:48 AM on October 9, 2000
You think these people found heroin in their mailboxes? No, they were introduced to it.
You think they've done research on the harmful effects of heroin? No, all they know is what they hear from their peers, likely the same people who introduced it to them in the first place.
You think that if someone knew the true dangers of heroin that'd they'd try it in the first place? That they'd understand that "experimenting" with heroin is a trap very different from coke, marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol? Some will. Some won't. Nobody, not even the user-to-be candidate, knows which category she falls in until the choice is in front of her.
You think that everyone's capable of standing up to peer pressure, maybe from lovers or best friends or family members and not having a try? No, people are weak. What they need is the support of the people who are instead putting them at risk.
You think people are capable of accurately judging information on heroin? You think people don't trust their friends and family to give them good data? No, they're innocent. They don't know how dumb people are, how ill-informed they are, how much they take for granted, how evil the world can be. They don't know how the strongest will can be undercut by an unavoidable chemical reaction. Or they do know it and forget it because of trust.
You think the the "peer pressure" argument is lame cop-talk? No, it's how it happens. It's how the drug shows up in your veins in the first place: somebody shows you how to do it. How to buy, how to fill the needle, how to tie off, how to find the vein, how to push the plunger. Probably somebody you know well.
You think once you get a vein full of heroin that's it? Just one "experiment"? Not likely. There's almost always a second hit and more. Heroin is liquid love, a happy birthday, a merry Christmas, hot summer Sundays at the beach. It's bliss. You want to do more. You can't help but do more. Your body has flagged heroin as a good thing and alongside food, water, heat, love and sex, demands more of it.
I've got friends for whom everything above is a reality. Two were introduced to heroin by boyfriends. Another one by a semi-famous rock band. Another learned about it from a coworker. This shit is tough, man, and the selling and marketing of heroin couldn't be better if they were running ads on television.
Get a heart.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:48 AM on October 9, 2000
Mo, I agree with all the above except for one point.
As someone who has tried , over the years, most substances including heroin (once, under much peer pressure as Mo so eloquently points out above, and also under the influence of God knows what else, it's a long time in the past and a whole lifetime behind me) I have not experienced such a feeling of sickness, revulsion and nausea from any other drug. This is the initial experience for most people who try it, not the 'instant addiction' that seems to be the accepted wisdom of most people. Thats why I only did it once, the 'good' effects weren't anything compared to the bad ones. It always amazes me how anyone except the really desperate could get past the initial 2 or 3 times (which appears to be how long it takes before your body gets used to the side effects and 'accepts' heroin instead of treating it like a poison).
So yes, get a heart people.
posted by Markb at 3:37 AM on October 9, 2000
As someone who has tried , over the years, most substances including heroin (once, under much peer pressure as Mo so eloquently points out above, and also under the influence of God knows what else, it's a long time in the past and a whole lifetime behind me) I have not experienced such a feeling of sickness, revulsion and nausea from any other drug. This is the initial experience for most people who try it, not the 'instant addiction' that seems to be the accepted wisdom of most people. Thats why I only did it once, the 'good' effects weren't anything compared to the bad ones. It always amazes me how anyone except the really desperate could get past the initial 2 or 3 times (which appears to be how long it takes before your body gets used to the side effects and 'accepts' heroin instead of treating it like a poison).
So yes, get a heart people.
posted by Markb at 3:37 AM on October 9, 2000
Although I was of the mind that "we're all adults and if you drop yourself in it you're an idiot who deserves what they got" it's a tad obvious that most people aren't smart, are weak, and most people need to have hard drugs kept away from them throughout their entire lives. People steal for drugs. It's humilitating that most adults are treated like children and never allowed to do with their body what they want. But then that's society.
Regardless I was and still am of the mind that human life isn't too precious (if you don't know them*1). Anyone who does this is a fool. Anyone to sucumbs to peer-pressure to do things they don't want to deserves what they get. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves - this line of thought is being used to take away everyone's rights*2.
Decriminalise all drugs. It will suck for a century, maybe two, but that's evolution and it's the only way kids learn. I believe it's better for society in the long-term.
Oh, and I've been reading the occasional comment telling others to get hearts - bah humbug!
*1 In that IMO people pay human life lip-service, and in general will spend $1/coke*3 rather than $1/day.*2 sorry, no examples come to mind*3 The softdrink.
posted by holloway at 4:11 AM on October 9, 2000
Regardless I was and still am of the mind that human life isn't too precious (if you don't know them*1). Anyone who does this is a fool. Anyone to sucumbs to peer-pressure to do things they don't want to deserves what they get. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves - this line of thought is being used to take away everyone's rights*2.
Decriminalise all drugs. It will suck for a century, maybe two, but that's evolution and it's the only way kids learn. I believe it's better for society in the long-term.
Oh, and I've been reading the occasional comment telling others to get hearts - bah humbug!
*1 In that IMO people pay human life lip-service, and in general will spend $1/coke*3 rather than $1/day.*2 sorry, no examples come to mind*3 The softdrink.
posted by holloway at 4:11 AM on October 9, 2000
Peer Pressure? Been there -- didn't even TRY heroin -- and I am still 'around' people that use heroin frequently.
Research on the harmful effects of heroin? Well yes, what idiot wouldn't stop and THINK at least a few seconds about what they are going to ingest (smoke, shoot, eat, etc)? Would these idiots have just as much trouble keeping a fork out of a toaster? Or should we start a national campaign about toaster dangers because people could be misinformed and innocent of it's dangers.
These people couldn't muster one iota of thought and apparently never had the capability to think for themselves.
posted by chiXy at 6:07 AM on October 9, 2000
Research on the harmful effects of heroin? Well yes, what idiot wouldn't stop and THINK at least a few seconds about what they are going to ingest (smoke, shoot, eat, etc)? Would these idiots have just as much trouble keeping a fork out of a toaster? Or should we start a national campaign about toaster dangers because people could be misinformed and innocent of it's dangers.
These people couldn't muster one iota of thought and apparently never had the capability to think for themselves.
posted by chiXy at 6:07 AM on October 9, 2000
chiXy et al: Your naive social Darwinism makes me sick. Obviosuly you don't have any kids.
posted by tranquileye at 8:01 AM on October 9, 2000
posted by tranquileye at 8:01 AM on October 9, 2000
Research on the harmful effects of heroin? Well yes, what idiot wouldn't stop and THINK at least a few seconds about what they are going to ingest
Exactly, so I reiterate my point - these people must be pretty desperate to carry on with taking herion when they KNOW the side effects and they have such a rotten time the first few hits.
So are they idiots who should be condemned and left to get on with it, or are they desperate people who need help?
OK, so it's likely that not all of them are desperate individuals, but by the same token not all of them are idiots I suspect
posted by Markb at 8:05 AM on October 9, 2000
Exactly, so I reiterate my point - these people must be pretty desperate to carry on with taking herion when they KNOW the side effects and they have such a rotten time the first few hits.
So are they idiots who should be condemned and left to get on with it, or are they desperate people who need help?
OK, so it's likely that not all of them are desperate individuals, but by the same token not all of them are idiots I suspect
posted by Markb at 8:05 AM on October 9, 2000
> Obviosuly you don't have any kids
Righto, as if they had kids they'd agree with you. Up there with the "get a heart" remarks, that one is.
Idiots left to get on with it gets my tick, Markb.
posted by holloway at 9:21 AM on October 9, 2000
Righto, as if they had kids they'd agree with you. Up there with the "get a heart" remarks, that one is.
Idiots left to get on with it gets my tick, Markb.
posted by holloway at 9:21 AM on October 9, 2000
Maybe the "get a heart" comment which offends you so much should be changed to "get a social conscience" then.
It's about living in a civilized society and being a responsible member of it.
posted by Markb at 9:30 AM on October 9, 2000
It's about living in a civilized society and being a responsible member of it.
posted by Markb at 9:30 AM on October 9, 2000
> "get a social conscience"
I have one. It's different. I don't think that mothering people from what they want is heathly in the long-run for society. Be it "want" by peer-pressure/choice/whatever. Everyone before they do drugs (well, aside from crack babies I guess) knows that heroin has some level of addiction. Take heed the warnings or you're most probably an idiot.
Oh, and "get a heart" doesn't offend me. It just seems rather inane. It's like "grow a brain" only more touchy-feely.
(I'm going to sleep now, won't respond for a few hours. Nighty night.)
posted by holloway at 9:55 AM on October 9, 2000
I have one. It's different. I don't think that mothering people from what they want is heathly in the long-run for society. Be it "want" by peer-pressure/choice/whatever. Everyone before they do drugs (well, aside from crack babies I guess) knows that heroin has some level of addiction. Take heed the warnings or you're most probably an idiot.
Oh, and "get a heart" doesn't offend me. It just seems rather inane. It's like "grow a brain" only more touchy-feely.
(I'm going to sleep now, won't respond for a few hours. Nighty night.)
posted by holloway at 9:55 AM on October 9, 2000
Ultimately society cannot and should not protect people from themselves. To actually prevent anyone from having any exposure to drugs would require giving up many freedoms I cherish (like the Fourth Amendment, the one which requires search warrants).
Ultimately, in order to preserve many of the freedoms I won't yield, it's necessary to preserve a very fundamental one which isn't usually stated:
People have the right to do stupid things.
As weird as it may sound, this is the fundamental right on which all others are based. It becomes more obvious why if stated slightly differently:
People have the right to do things which other people consider to be stupid.
I cherish my right to make an ass of myself, for without that I am only free to do that which my neighbors approve, which means I am not free at all.
We have the ability to prevent anyone from ever having contact with, let alone ingesting, heroin. But to do that would require a draconian police state of proportions to make the worst fascist state of the past look mild by comparison. We could locate and confiscate ever speck of heroin in NYC, but only by tossing the 4th amendment in the shredder and doing a house-to-house search of every building in the city with drug-sniffing dogs, and then searching every car and truck and ship entering the city. The price is too high.
Absent such a solution, there's really only a few things we can do in my opinion:
1. Make treatment as available as possible for those who want it.
2. Accept that there will be a certain fatality rate among the rest.
3. Try as hard as possible within legal limits to prevent importation and distribution, and accept that the effort won't be totally successful (and probably will mostly be a failure).
I don't think putting addicts in jail solves anything. Jailing dealers is a different matter, although jailing the lowest tier of dealers is also probably pointless.
Some problems have no acceptable solution. That's all.
Here's an odd concept, and think twice about it before you start screaming: Men have died in wars to protect our rights. Now some addicts die because we won't violate those same rights. Is there really any difference?
Those soldiers didn't have to die, but had they not done so we would have lost our rights. Equally, those addicts don't have to die, but we'd have to lose our rights to save them.
I don't like it, but a free society has to accept that some of its members will find interesting ways to kill themselves. It's simply part of the price we pay for freedom.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:38 AM on October 9, 2000
Ultimately, in order to preserve many of the freedoms I won't yield, it's necessary to preserve a very fundamental one which isn't usually stated:
People have the right to do stupid things.
As weird as it may sound, this is the fundamental right on which all others are based. It becomes more obvious why if stated slightly differently:
People have the right to do things which other people consider to be stupid.
I cherish my right to make an ass of myself, for without that I am only free to do that which my neighbors approve, which means I am not free at all.
We have the ability to prevent anyone from ever having contact with, let alone ingesting, heroin. But to do that would require a draconian police state of proportions to make the worst fascist state of the past look mild by comparison. We could locate and confiscate ever speck of heroin in NYC, but only by tossing the 4th amendment in the shredder and doing a house-to-house search of every building in the city with drug-sniffing dogs, and then searching every car and truck and ship entering the city. The price is too high.
Absent such a solution, there's really only a few things we can do in my opinion:
1. Make treatment as available as possible for those who want it.
2. Accept that there will be a certain fatality rate among the rest.
3. Try as hard as possible within legal limits to prevent importation and distribution, and accept that the effort won't be totally successful (and probably will mostly be a failure).
I don't think putting addicts in jail solves anything. Jailing dealers is a different matter, although jailing the lowest tier of dealers is also probably pointless.
Some problems have no acceptable solution. That's all.
Here's an odd concept, and think twice about it before you start screaming: Men have died in wars to protect our rights. Now some addicts die because we won't violate those same rights. Is there really any difference?
Those soldiers didn't have to die, but had they not done so we would have lost our rights. Equally, those addicts don't have to die, but we'd have to lose our rights to save them.
I don't like it, but a free society has to accept that some of its members will find interesting ways to kill themselves. It's simply part of the price we pay for freedom.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:38 AM on October 9, 2000
So tell me about how wunnerful it's going to be when people take PCP legally and then hop in their cars.
This is not a open-and-shut issue where nobody but the drug user (legal or otherwise) gets hurt.
Let us not forget the "legal" substances that people get fooged up on, like sniffing glue and huffing aerosols.
Legalizing all drugs is not a very intelligent solution. Neither is locking up everybody who so much as walks through a cloud of pot smoke at a rock concert.
>Some problems have no acceptable solution. That's all.
I would amend that to say "some problems have no EASY solution".
posted by ethmar at 11:07 AM on October 9, 2000
This is not a open-and-shut issue where nobody but the drug user (legal or otherwise) gets hurt.
Let us not forget the "legal" substances that people get fooged up on, like sniffing glue and huffing aerosols.
Legalizing all drugs is not a very intelligent solution. Neither is locking up everybody who so much as walks through a cloud of pot smoke at a rock concert.
>Some problems have no acceptable solution. That's all.
I would amend that to say "some problems have no EASY solution".
posted by ethmar at 11:07 AM on October 9, 2000
naive social Darwinism? I'm not the naive one. Social Darwinism is an illogical extension of the theory of evolution.
And ditto what holloway said.
...now excuse me while I go run with scissors out into traffic and play with matches...
posted by chiXy at 11:10 AM on October 9, 2000
And ditto what holloway said.
...now excuse me while I go run with scissors out into traffic and play with matches...
posted by chiXy at 11:10 AM on October 9, 2000
and ethmar to your question:
--So tell me about how wunnerful it's going to be when people take PCP legally and then hop in their cars.--
It will be just the same as people who take PCP ILLEGALLY and then hop in their cars. Do you think just because it's illegal people aren't doing it now? It's like underage drinking, people are going to participate, legal or not.
posted by chiXy at 11:16 AM on October 9, 2000
--So tell me about how wunnerful it's going to be when people take PCP legally and then hop in their cars.--
It will be just the same as people who take PCP ILLEGALLY and then hop in their cars. Do you think just because it's illegal people aren't doing it now? It's like underage drinking, people are going to participate, legal or not.
posted by chiXy at 11:16 AM on October 9, 2000
>...now excuse me while I go run with scissors out into traffic and play with matches...
A cynic would say, "Don't worry, if anything bad happens it's not YOUR fault."
However, I'm not a cynic.
posted by ethmar at 11:18 AM on October 9, 2000
A cynic would say, "Don't worry, if anything bad happens it's not YOUR fault."
However, I'm not a cynic.
posted by ethmar at 11:18 AM on October 9, 2000
So tell me about how wunnerful it's going to be when people take PCP legally and then hop in their cars.
Probably just about as wunnerful as it is now with people taking insane amounts of a totally legal substance (alcohol) and then hopping in their cars. If you think PCP should be illegal just because someone could hurt someone else by driving while on PCP, then you must also advocate to ban alcohol, Nyquil, Benadryl, staying awake more than 16 hours at a time, being 16, overcrowded freeways, allowing pedestrians to cross roads, and many many more things. Are you in favor of banning those things, too?
posted by daveadams at 12:05 PM on October 9, 2000
Probably just about as wunnerful as it is now with people taking insane amounts of a totally legal substance (alcohol) and then hopping in their cars. If you think PCP should be illegal just because someone could hurt someone else by driving while on PCP, then you must also advocate to ban alcohol, Nyquil, Benadryl, staying awake more than 16 hours at a time, being 16, overcrowded freeways, allowing pedestrians to cross roads, and many many more things. Are you in favor of banning those things, too?
posted by daveadams at 12:05 PM on October 9, 2000
these people must be pretty desperate to carry on with taking herion when they KNOW the side effects and they have such a rotten time the first few hits.
So are they idiots who should be condemned and left to get on with it, or are they desperate people who need help?
MarkB, I guess the question is, is it helping these people to throw them in jail? If they're desparate and need help, then we need to treat them! Obviously it's not a good thing for themselves or for society to have a bunch of heroin addicts around, but what gain do we get by criminilizing those unfortunate enough to become addicted?
posted by daveadams at 12:12 PM on October 9, 2000
So are they idiots who should be condemned and left to get on with it, or are they desperate people who need help?
MarkB, I guess the question is, is it helping these people to throw them in jail? If they're desparate and need help, then we need to treat them! Obviously it's not a good thing for themselves or for society to have a bunch of heroin addicts around, but what gain do we get by criminilizing those unfortunate enough to become addicted?
posted by daveadams at 12:12 PM on October 9, 2000
>Probably just about as wunnerful as it is now with people taking insane amounts of a totally legal substance (alcohol) and then hopping in their cars.
But that's not legal. Well, maybe in Texas.
I'm seeing a whole lot of "legalize it" sentiments without a great deal of thought about the consequences of adopting an "anything goes" attitude towards the decriminalization of drugs.
By the same token, I'm not crazy about locking up everybody who's even considered experimenting with drugs, alcohol, going without sleep, using Flash on their websites, etc.
Surely there must be a middle ground?
daveadams does bring up a good point, in that there are (dum de dum dum) environmental factors that need to be addressed in all of this. Or shall we cast stones at those who turn to drugs and label them "losers" without even remotely pausing to think about what environmental/socioeconomic/suchlike factors might have influenced such a decision?
posted by ethmar at 12:16 PM on October 9, 2000
But that's not legal. Well, maybe in Texas.
I'm seeing a whole lot of "legalize it" sentiments without a great deal of thought about the consequences of adopting an "anything goes" attitude towards the decriminalization of drugs.
By the same token, I'm not crazy about locking up everybody who's even considered experimenting with drugs, alcohol, going without sleep, using Flash on their websites, etc.
Surely there must be a middle ground?
daveadams does bring up a good point, in that there are (dum de dum dum) environmental factors that need to be addressed in all of this. Or shall we cast stones at those who turn to drugs and label them "losers" without even remotely pausing to think about what environmental/socioeconomic/suchlike factors might have influenced such a decision?
posted by ethmar at 12:16 PM on October 9, 2000
ethmar, I may not have said that i've "thought about the consequences of adopting an `anything goes` attitude towards the decriminalization of drugs", but that doesn't mean I haven't.
My middle ground is helping people do what they want with their bodies. Drugs, no drugs, whatever. I don't think they're all losers but more to the point I don't believe in helping someone off drugs who doesn't want to be (you can't keep them your way forever and once unattended people usually do what they want). Similarly I know one heroin user who's a rich bastard, can afford it, doesn't let it ruin his life and doesn't use macromedia flash.
People have the right to be silly bastards. Evolution is like that. Show them a few goatse.cx photos and say drugs caused it if you must, give them every opportunity to do what you think's best, but it's their life.
posted by holloway at 3:53 PM on October 9, 2000
My middle ground is helping people do what they want with their bodies. Drugs, no drugs, whatever. I don't think they're all losers but more to the point I don't believe in helping someone off drugs who doesn't want to be (you can't keep them your way forever and once unattended people usually do what they want). Similarly I know one heroin user who's a rich bastard, can afford it, doesn't let it ruin his life and doesn't use macromedia flash.
People have the right to be silly bastards. Evolution is like that. Show them a few goatse.cx photos and say drugs caused it if you must, give them every opportunity to do what you think's best, but it's their life.
posted by holloway at 3:53 PM on October 9, 2000
>My middle ground is helping people do what they want with their bodies.
By your reasoning, it's OK for me to strap on some dynamite, walk into the nearest skyscraper, and push the button. After all, it's my body, and I felt like strapping dynamite to it.
Same goes for drug use. Not everybody is going to ingest [drug name here] and merely "chill out" in a corner and not bother anybody.
There will be times that the health and safety of others can and will be negatively impacted upon by someone too screwed up to drive or think straight.
And yeah, it happens nowadays when certain drugs are illegal, and for that, there are legal consequences for such actions.
But I reject the notion that it's "all or nothing" on either side of the argument. I'm no fan of martial law, conversely I'm not big on Anarchy myself.
BTW, I was in no way implying that people who use Flash on their websites are on drugs.
posted by ethmar at 6:22 AM on October 10, 2000
By your reasoning, it's OK for me to strap on some dynamite, walk into the nearest skyscraper, and push the button. After all, it's my body, and I felt like strapping dynamite to it.
Same goes for drug use. Not everybody is going to ingest [drug name here] and merely "chill out" in a corner and not bother anybody.
There will be times that the health and safety of others can and will be negatively impacted upon by someone too screwed up to drive or think straight.
And yeah, it happens nowadays when certain drugs are illegal, and for that, there are legal consequences for such actions.
But I reject the notion that it's "all or nothing" on either side of the argument. I'm no fan of martial law, conversely I'm not big on Anarchy myself.
BTW, I was in no way implying that people who use Flash on their websites are on drugs.
posted by ethmar at 6:22 AM on October 10, 2000
ethmar -- lemme guess, you never took logic or rhetoric classes, did you? Your dynamite example is simply laughable, and starting it off with "By your reasoning" only makes it more pathetic.
You appear to have some useful points in there somewhere, but they're pretty much obliterated by a complete rhetorical failure. Here's a free tip -- if you ever use the phrase "by your reasoning" in an argument, you've already lost. Just because politicians use that maneuver doesn't mean it's a good idea....
posted by aramaic at 6:53 AM on October 10, 2000
You appear to have some useful points in there somewhere, but they're pretty much obliterated by a complete rhetorical failure. Here's a free tip -- if you ever use the phrase "by your reasoning" in an argument, you've already lost. Just because politicians use that maneuver doesn't mean it's a good idea....
posted by aramaic at 6:53 AM on October 10, 2000
>My middle ground is helping people do what they want with their bodies.
You're right, this line speaks for itself.
>you never took logic or rhetoric classes, did you?
From now on, I promise to only use the Socratic Method.
>complete rhetorical failure
Or not.
holloway's argument comes off as "it's my body, I can do whatever I want with it and nobody should care".
I counter that an extreme liberal view in this regard is no more beneficial than an extreme conservative one.
---------
>If heroin were legal, the concentration can be controlled -- then addicts know what they're getting, and they don't OD.
Does this mean that nobody who buys beer legally will ever get sloppy drunk, just a good buzz?
Or am I remiss in my assessment in this regard as well?
>....if you'd ever been a heroin user, you'd know that.
One heroin user's experience(s), for better or for worse does not necessarily speak for the lot.
A friend of mine did cocaine quite extensively in his early 20's. One day he snorted up coke like there was no tomorrow and woke up with a nosebleed. He quit doing coke cold turkey and never looked back. I could easily lump all cocaine users together and declare that since he did it, so can they, and if they don't, they're either lazy or stupid. But refrain from doing so if for no other reason that I view his situation as an isolated case, and frankly, he's damned lucky.
posted by ethmar at 7:28 AM on October 10, 2000
You're right, this line speaks for itself.
>you never took logic or rhetoric classes, did you?
From now on, I promise to only use the Socratic Method.
>complete rhetorical failure
Or not.
holloway's argument comes off as "it's my body, I can do whatever I want with it and nobody should care".
I counter that an extreme liberal view in this regard is no more beneficial than an extreme conservative one.
---------
>If heroin were legal, the concentration can be controlled -- then addicts know what they're getting, and they don't OD.
Does this mean that nobody who buys beer legally will ever get sloppy drunk, just a good buzz?
Or am I remiss in my assessment in this regard as well?
>....if you'd ever been a heroin user, you'd know that.
One heroin user's experience(s), for better or for worse does not necessarily speak for the lot.
A friend of mine did cocaine quite extensively in his early 20's. One day he snorted up coke like there was no tomorrow and woke up with a nosebleed. He quit doing coke cold turkey and never looked back. I could easily lump all cocaine users together and declare that since he did it, so can they, and if they don't, they're either lazy or stupid. But refrain from doing so if for no other reason that I view his situation as an isolated case, and frankly, he's damned lucky.
posted by ethmar at 7:28 AM on October 10, 2000
Holloway, I'd agree with you up to a point, people should be free to do what they want with their bodies but the point I was trying to make is that not all the people on heroin made an informed, unbiased choice.
More importantly, not everyone addicted to heroin wishes to stay addicted to heroin. So how does society deal with heroin addicts - my argument is that we offer them support, find out which of them are 'silly bastards' just looking for kicks and which of them need or want help.
Thats why I talked about a social conscience - it's easy to say let them do what they like but that doesn't help those for whom the issue wasn't just 'shall I go out and get wasted on heroin today' but those people who got into it as an escape, against their better judgement or whatever. My point is simply that there are often much wider issues surrounding this than simply people choosing to do something illegal - it's not a nice drug to take at first, you have to be pretty determined to carry on after the first time, wheras with cocaine, every ones a good 'un which is why it's currently so popular with affluent professionals - no needles, no come-down (relatively speaking) and no 'druggie' imagery.
posted by Markb at 9:38 AM on October 10, 2000
More importantly, not everyone addicted to heroin wishes to stay addicted to heroin. So how does society deal with heroin addicts - my argument is that we offer them support, find out which of them are 'silly bastards' just looking for kicks and which of them need or want help.
Thats why I talked about a social conscience - it's easy to say let them do what they like but that doesn't help those for whom the issue wasn't just 'shall I go out and get wasted on heroin today' but those people who got into it as an escape, against their better judgement or whatever. My point is simply that there are often much wider issues surrounding this than simply people choosing to do something illegal - it's not a nice drug to take at first, you have to be pretty determined to carry on after the first time, wheras with cocaine, every ones a good 'un which is why it's currently so popular with affluent professionals - no needles, no come-down (relatively speaking) and no 'druggie' imagery.
posted by Markb at 9:38 AM on October 10, 2000
MarkB: Exactly, help them if they want to get off :)
Of course people should care what happens to others, Ethmar, teach and help people do what you think's best - be that off drugs or on them or whatever religion you think's wonderful.
Now as for you dynamite example (har har), I don't think it's laughable. I would be sad that the person wants to do that to themselves but but they obviously want to kill themselves -- you can't watch them 24/7 -- and changing their mind is the only way. You can't stop them.
posted by holloway at 6:28 AM on October 15, 2000
Of course people should care what happens to others, Ethmar, teach and help people do what you think's best - be that off drugs or on them or whatever religion you think's wonderful.
Now as for you dynamite example (har har), I don't think it's laughable. I would be sad that the person wants to do that to themselves but but they obviously want to kill themselves -- you can't watch them 24/7 -- and changing their mind is the only way. You can't stop them.
posted by holloway at 6:28 AM on October 15, 2000
« Older Ferrari has the title back in Maranello after 21... | Racism, Ra-Ra! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tranquileye at 9:25 AM on October 8, 2000