Quote:
Originally Posted by mineistaken
My perspective is that junkies COST to society. Meaning EVERYONE pays for their treatment, for their inability to work and so on and on. That is the sole reason to prohibit it.
Same logic - some people say that safety belts should not be enforced as it is HIS/HER own life. Do you agree with that?
I do not because losing those lives actually COST to society (one less person to contribute etc etc). That is why they are enforced, even though it is his/her own life...
|
I got educated on what addiction really is last year after attending some educational seminars on the subject by a top professional in the field.
Only a very TINY portion of people are addicts. And if you ARE an addict..you are already one before you touch your first drink of alcohol or your first prescription pain killer.
Your receptors are just sitting there waiting for it.
As for the 99.9% of the rest of us...we are NOT addicts and don't need the govt. telling us what to do.
The "junkies" who cost society??? They are going to find and take whatever they are addicted to regardless of what you or the govt. tells them to do.
Addiction hijacks the brain and they have no choice.
An addict could care less about legalities.
All the govt. does with the "war on drugs" is turn it's own citizens into criminals.