its not about the individual though. Society, either thru scientific or empirical data has determined that the cost of cigarettes and alcohol (and its not like there hasn't been an ebb and flow to this) is acceptable while heroin is not. Eastern societies recognized the danger of this drug in the 1700's. In the late 1800's American attempted to normalize it by imposing taxes on its import. Bayer company distributes is as an alternative to morphine. Less than 10 years later they realize the damage its doing and they start shutting it down. In less than 20 years they ban the importation and a few years later they outlaw it completely.hedge wrote:"Legalizing heroin does not change that process in any way. You are coming at it from a stand point of it being a casual recreational drug. Its not."
This is the crux of the problem. Look at the language you use. You clearly think that cigarettes and alcohol are "casual" and "recreational" and I doubt you would even use the term "drugs" when talking about them. But somehow the fact that millions of people die every year as a direct consequence of using tobacco and alcohol and that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent caring for them doesn't stop you from thinking of these vices as "casual" and "recreational". Again, from my libertarian point of view, it doesn't matter if they're "casual and recreational" or, as is really the case, progressively addictive and deadly. People should be able to kill themselves in whatever way they see fit. It's none of the government's or anybody else's business. As long as the real information about all these things is available to everyone (and it is), it's their choice.
Every major country that has seen heroin introduced into society has outlawed it.
You can't really say - if the person wants to do it, let them, if the result is that person is almost guaranteed to become a burden on society, and in many cases become a threat to society. I think that's the subtle difference between narcotics versus tobacco/alcohol.
