Are Drug Dealers at fault or Drug Addicts?

You only have to go back 100 or so years.

Okay I am talking about Class A and B drugs.

I asked who you think is too at fault overall, drug dealers or addicts? which one.

We can set the tax rate on drugs to be high enough that they cover healthcare cost for the addicts with a slight spare such that it can subsidies other government spending, and it scales so if we have more addicts - cost of caring for them goes up at a slower pace than income from taxes since care can use economies of scale.
The productivity is a valid issue, however I think longer term with rising automation this won't really be a big issue - plus on some level it is self solving, people without jobs can't afford the drugs therefore they'll check into various rehabilitation clinics (funded by tax on drugs) thus turning them into productive members of society.
Honestly though I doubt anywhere near significant number will use these drugs, when countries have legalized much softer drugs the numbers haven't jumped that high. For instance when Portugal essentially decriminalized personal uses (you can still get slap on the wrist but thats a meh), there was only slight increase in proportion of long term users; I think 4% increase overall. Most people just don't care for drugs, and if you take away the 'cool' factor of it being illegal, it'll just fall out of favor naturally.

You have never had any drugs at all?? Not even Aspirin? Because as soon as you say 'Yes, But...' you lose your point because obviously you have taken some form of substance that has affected you physiologically, and that is without my including Alcohol and the most successful drug of the era, Sugar. The fact is that anyone who attempts to make a sweeping blanket statement about 'Drugs', meaning only prohibited substances, is losing at the skill of intelligent informed analysis, and their opinion can be rejected as uninformed.

What is even worse is people being judgemental callous swine about people who have had issues with varying substances, small-minded vindictive cretins using the misery of others to feel good about themselves, the plague of sanctimony. When you see the stream of nastiness some love to spew, if only given an excuse, permission from society to harass a marginalized group, that is one of the worst things that humans can do, picking upon the vulnerable and damaged.

What is even worse is people being judgemental callous swine about people who have had issues with varying substances,

.

You are making many sensible points, but I find it hard to agree with you. I come from an Easter European country where we just managed to deal with widespread alcoholism. It probably went along with the poor condition of the economy, but still think it takes years of education and campaigning to counter the negative effects of drug on the society when things run out of control.

Speaking about campaigning though I do think it is the best way of fighting drugs and, as far as I know, Portugal did exactly this: we stop spending money of police chasing junkies and we spend the money on education in schools and unis.

Urgh I am so on the wall with it! lol.

Right... Overall I would say the addicts themselves.

Why?

Because they made the choice to get into hard drugs whether it was from stress, peer pressure or just something that should have been a one off.
Because they don't care to question what ingredients are in their drugs.
Because they lack willpower (the ones that go from high flyer to complete druggy bums)

Oh yes absolutely agree on the education, people should be educated and informed about effect of drug use as well as free rehabilitation, and we should have stuff on packaging so anyone who buys it knows absolutely what they are doing.
If they choose to proceed, we might as well ensure they're getting what they think they're getting rather than say fragments of glass or paint thinners as well as regulating its potency; and get some tax out of it.

Pedantic. Really Pedantic.

So is a little 8 year old who had a sip of alcohol at their aunties brithday family dinner and got tipsy and then never touches alcohol in the space of 22 years can possibly say they've taken drugs? Situations can vary, this is literally one sip of glass of wine and some beers and got light not really comparable to someone who drinks occasionally or has had a fair bit of alcohol. I haven't taken drugs. Alcohol isn't something i've really consumed either. I don't know why we have to reach so far. Weed and cocaine are automatically classed as drugs, people have asked me if I ever smoked or drink, if they were all seen as drugs, the 'or' in the question wouldn't be happening mate.


We are talking about cocaine today. Crack cocaine and heroin. Real drugs that affect people lives in a short space of time. Not weed or anything else, just drugs. You can keep saying alcohol is a drug. Stuff your technicalities.

In reality, it goes like this= people don't use the word drugs to describe alcohol, there's a reason. Alcohol is refereed as alcohol and weed and substances are referered as drugs, if alcohol was realistically seen as as the same in reality, then it wouldn't have a separate name, you can keep your technicalities. Weed,smoking and alcohol are three different things.

OK, you got me there. Still, I would argue that they weren't THAT easy to get. Rather expensive, exotic stimulants, quite quickly banned when it came out how harmful they are.

So the only difference you can come up with is that people tend to use a different word for alcohol and i'm being pedantic?

Then why is not classed as drugs when people refer to or talk about drugs

And we both know what i'm talking about when I mean drugs. SO tbh it's just irrelevant you trying to reach. If it's was really seen as drugs then they would be both illegal ( alcohol and smoking ).

Nice comment, what a way to ignore my point about a 8 year old sipping alcohol. You're really going to tell me they've taken drugs before, if you aren't, then you're disagreeing with your own point. There's a reason cannabis or cocaine, whether which one you are dicussing you can just say 'drugs'. It's a term used to describe all illegal substances, alcohol is not that

You are making many sensible points, but I find it hard to agree with you. I come from an Easter European country where we just managed to deal with widespread alcoholism. It probably went along with the poor condition of the economy, but still think it takes years of education and campaigning to counter the negative effects of drug on the society when things run out of control.

Speaking about campaigning though I do think it is the best way of fighting drugs and, as far as I know, Portugal did exactly this: we stop spending money of police chasing junkies and we spend the money on education in schools and unis.

I dunno, you tell me.

For a reason. THEY'RE NOT DRUGS!!!!

I know what drugs are, i don't know what you're talking about when you mean drugs because you exclude certain drugs, unless you can define the difference i'll never know what you're talking about.


Drugs are used as a term to refer to all illegal substances, alcohol is not that.

.

If an 8 year old has sipped alcohol they've taken drugs.

I tried cocaine once, it wasn't anywhere near as powerful as alcohol.

So alcohol anonymous and Drug rehab are the same thing? If they are, then why are classed as and running as two separate things? Why?