• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Addiction: Crime or Health Issue

Should our drug problem be considered a criminal issue, or a health issue?

  • Health Issue

    Votes: 9 60.0%
  • Criminal Issue

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Other/none of the above

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • Total voters
    15

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,901
Reaction score
4,422
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I just read an email I received from L.E.A.P (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). This is a subject that has been brought up and discussed here for the last several weeks and is also an issue that is gaining more attention nationally in the wake of news coverage of border/cartel violence, California, and Massachusetts' proposed legislation to legalize marijuana, and Obama's joking dismissal of the issue in yesterday's town hall. So figured it was pertinent, I am curious to see what people think on this aspect of the Drug policy issue.

From the email I received:

As you probably know, President Barack Obama recently appointed Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as his White House "drug czar," more formally known as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

That means that the U.S. Senate will soon hold a hearing to question and confirm Chief Kerlikowske. Historically, the drug czar confirmation hearings are held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the panel that handles crime and courts issues.

But, since many observers - including the president himself - have said that drug abuse is primarily a health concern, don't you think that the drug czar confirmation should be handled by the lawmakers who oversee such issues?

That's why I'm writing you today.

Please take one minute to visit Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and send a letter to your two U.S. senators, asking them to support moving the drug czar confirmation hearing to the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, a much more appropriate forum

So the question is, notwithstanding current laws, but looking forward, do you think that our drug problem should be a criminal issue, or should it be treated as a health issue?

And I will confess.. although this is primarily driven by wanting to see what people think on the matter, the exposure and potential for people to agree and follow the link to L.E.A.P. and submit a letter to their representative is just a bonus.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is both....it must be, at least now. There must be something psychologically wrong with the man who uses drugs..
This may not be "fixable"..
What we have in place, apparently does not work....probably never did....
Dare we innovate ?
Make some of these deadly drugs legal, controllable, taxable...
 
Unfortunately I cant edit the poll to make both an option, I changed it at the last minute to allow people to vote for more than one category, and removed both from my catch all.

So which one is it primarily? should the ONDCP (drug czar) appointment be heard by the judiciary committee, or the Health, education, labor and pensions committee? or should it go through both? is that an option?
 
Obviously, it's both. Drug addicts are part of a health issue, drug dealers are part of a criminal issue. Since you didn't differentiate between the two, the answer can only be both.
 
Drug addiction is...not my problem. I should neither taxed to prevent it, nor taxed to treat it, nor taxed to subsidize it (ie, tobacco growing subsidies).
 
Drug addiction is a health issue. The behaviors that some addicts resort to is a crime issue. As with most things, this is not a black or white issue.
 
The biggest drug problem is prohibition.
 
Addiction is not a "health issue" per se, as it ultimately derives from voluntary if unwise choices and actions.

However, addiction should not itself be considered a crime issue, nor should drug usage. If drug usage is not criminal, then the selling of drugs should be legal, and so that also is not a criminal issue.

As for the behaviors in which addicts engage, if those behaviors are criminal, they are criminal according to their own merits; addiction is not relevant to that discussion. A robbery is not altered because the motive was money to buy drugs; a murder is not more heinous because it was in a drug frenzy.

In all cases, addiction, drug consumption, and drug distribution should not be criminalized.
 
Addiction is not a "health issue" per se, as it ultimately derives from voluntary if unwise choices and actions.

The disease of addiction is not related to unwise choices. It is a health issue, based biologically. This is why some become addicts, but other, performing the same behavior, do not.

Further, it is irrelevant as to whether the health concerns are a result of choices or actions. They are health concerns nonetheless. Similar to obesity, types of diabetes, and other disorders.

However, addiction should not itself be considered a crime issue, nor should drug usage. If drug usage is not criminal, then the selling of drugs should be legal, and so that also is not a criminal issue.
This seems like circular reasoning.

As for the behaviors in which addicts engage, if those behaviors are criminal, they are criminal according to their own merits; addiction is not relevant to that discussion. A robbery is not altered because the motive was money to buy drugs; a murder is not more heinous because it was in a drug frenzy.

I agree.

In all cases, addiction, drug consumption, and drug distribution should not be criminalized.
I agree with the first two. The second one is dependent on other laws. It is illegal to sell alcohol to a 10 year-old. This is drug distribution and should be criminalized...which it is.
 
The biggest drug problem is prohibition.

Sure legalize all drugs so its abuse can spread like the plague and place even more burden on the average worker to support these scatter brains that end up manic depressive, etc. via social security, mental health programs, plus
 
Last edited:
Addiction is both a health problem and a criminal problem. And the problems vary from drug to drug. Even without prohibition, alcohol causes a huge criminal problem as a result of violence, sexual abuse, among other issues. Smoking may not directly cause criminal activity, but it causes quite a few medical problems.

There's not a drug out there that doesn't carry some baggage with it. If there were a drug that made us all happy, harmonious, productive and generally improved the level of functioning of our society... every society would have already embraced it.

:2wave:
 
Addiction is both a health problem and a criminal problem. And the problems vary from drug to drug. Even without prohibition, alcohol causes a huge criminal problem as a result of violence, sexual abuse, among other issues. Smoking may not directly cause criminal activity, but it causes quite a few medical problems.

There's not a drug out there that doesn't carry some baggage with it. If there were a drug that made us all happy, harmonious, productive and generally improved the level of functioning of our society... every society would have already embraced it.

:2wave:

Hmm...this reminds me of a "Huey Luis and the News" song:)
 
Sure legalize all drugs so its abuse can spread like the plague and place even more burden on the average worker to support these scatter brains that end up manic depressive, etc. via social security, mental health programs, plus

Easy enough to deal with.

Stop taxing the worker to support the useless.

Sounds fair to me.
 
Easy enough to deal with.

Stop taxing the worker to support the useless.

Sounds fair to me.

In theory that sounds great. Unfortunately the 'useless', if left to their vices, eventually resort to anti-social activities, such as panhandling, petty crime, or more dangerous means to feed and clothe themselves.

So the taxpaying workers end up footing a bill one way or the other.

:doh
 
In theory that sounds great. Unfortunately the 'useless', if left to their vices, eventually resort to anti-social activities, such as panhandling, petty crime, or more dangerous means to feed and clothe themselves.

So the taxpaying workers end up footing a bill one way or the other.

:doh


Then you shoot their asses when they break into your house, and you feed them garbage if they get put in jail, and you make being in prison so damn upleasant that they don't want to go there, ever. Prisoners need exercise? Okay...let 'em walk around in circles until they collapse, don't give them free-weights to bulk up with.

It's not the taxpayers' job to coddle these things. If they want to be anti-social, fine, show them that we really really know what it means to be anti-anti-social, too.

I'd much rather pay for the incarceration of criminals who've committed real crimes against others than pay the hundred of billions of dollars that have been wasted trying to stop people from putting chemicals in their bodies, an effort that has led to ever expanding violations of the Constitution at every single level of government.

At least the petty thief has committed a real crime.
 
Then you shoot their asses when they break into your house, and you feed them garbage if they get put in jail, and you make being in prison so damn upleasant that they don't want to go there, ever. Prisoners need exercise? Okay...let 'em walk around in circles until they collapse, don't give them free-weights to bulk up with.

Oh, I won't argue with you on this point. I believe our prison systems are a mess.

:2wave:
 
Drug addiction is...not my problem. I should neither taxed to prevent it, nor taxed to treat it, nor taxed to subsidize it (ie, tobacco growing subsidies).

I fully agree, unfortunately under the current prohibition, Drugs are everyone's problem, and we are paying for them, heavily.

I fully support heavy taxation of intoxicants, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, you name it. Let the users themselves pay via taxes for the self imposed issues that can potentially occur, treatment, health care, all can be offset via taxation, we can take this problem off form the shoulders of the entire nation, and place it on those who choose to accept the risks of their own behaviors for themselves.
 
Well, I can't really answer the question as posed since the only "drug problem" we have is the fact that they're illegal. (Thanks Nixon, you dumbass!)
 
I fully agree, unfortunately under the current prohibition, Drugs are everyone's problem, and we are paying for them, heavily.

I fully support heavy taxation of intoxicants, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, you name it. Let the users themselves pay via taxes for the self imposed issues that can potentially occur, treatment, health care, all can be offset via taxation, we can take this problem off form the shoulders of the entire nation, and place it on those who choose to accept the risks of their own behaviors for themselves.

Unfortunately with many addicts the problem eventually lands right back on the taxpayers' shoulders anyway. My uncle was an Ivy-league educated man who ended up drinking himself to death. The family could only do so much, short of having him committed I suppose, which wasn't an option until the very sad end of many problematic years. His private health insurance covered his hospitalizations up to a point... but after numerous legal, financial, and an onslaught of related health issues... he ended up on medicaid and Social Security in the end.
 
Unfortunately with many addicts the problem eventually lands right back on the taxpayers' shoulders anyway. My uncle was an Ivy-league educated man who ended up drinking himself to death. The family could only do so much, short of having him committed I suppose, which wasn't an option until the very sad end of many problematic years. His private health insurance covered his hospitalizations up to a point... but after numerous legal, financial, and an onslaught of related health issues... he ended up on medicaid and Social Security in the end.

See?

An excellent argument for the termination of Medicaid and Socialist Security if I ever saw one.
 
See?

An excellent argument for the termination of Medicaid and Socialist Security if I ever saw one.

Perhaps... but then, without these programs many of these addicts would end up on the streets or in jail. So back on the taxpayers' dime one way or the other. Which has been my argument from the start.
 
Perhaps... but then, without these programs many of these addicts would end up on the streets or in jail. So back on the taxpayers' dime one way or the other. Which has been my argument from the start.

The streets are free.

Jail is their choice if they choose to do a crime.

They'll be in jail because they committed a crime, not because they're drug addicts.

Let's do as much as possible to make sure American jails consume the least amount of money possible, by making them as uncomfortable as possible. It's pointless to argue that just because the little scumbags will wind up sucking off the public tit one way or another we should be nice to them.

Screw that, they can detox behind bars and whacking weeds along the interstate. If some of them die in that detox process, it's their choice, isn't it, as the ultimate fate junkies usually reach eventually.
 
The streets are free.

If they were left on the streets, that would be true. But most urban areas pay for "homeless shelters." Probably less expensive than jails. But on the taxpayer dime all the same. The taxpayer cost for 'homeless' in New York City alone is staggering:

Spending for homelessness driven by shelter needs. In the
1980s, the city entered into a number of consent decrees that
established a “right to shelter” for homeless single adults; this
right was later extended to families. DHS is responsible for
complying with these decrees by providing emergency shelter
for anyone who requests it, and who is without other housing
options. In 2001, DHS spent $476 million; this year’s budget
(fiscal year 2002) is currently $531 million—up $34 million
from the amount adopted in June.
NYC Budget Analysis, 2001

:shock:
 
Acai Berry

There are many different types of drug abuse. These have traditionally been divided based on the action on the brain, chemical salt or the purpose for which it is used medically or socially.Acai Berry
 
Back
Top Bottom