B
BioCatholic
Guest
Ive been considering writing an Op-Ed piece on the current situation on illegal drugs and the possible solutions to the rising incidence of addiction.
In one possible scenario, in large cities, a State could almost eliminate the inflow of most if not all drugs using various proven methods, just on a massive scale. If a State utilized ALL the resources at its disposal, and I mean massive resources, it could reduce the flow of drugs to nil.
Now the question I am wrestling with is what is done about the people addicted to drugs? Assuming all drug flow is stopped, there are going to be a huge amount of cases of withdrawal. Some cases so severe that the user would most likely die or commit suicide.
Which is a higher priority? Does the State 1) work to strictly enforce all legitimately passed drug laws and drastically reduce crime to protect innocent citizens, or 2) would the horrible widespread effect of eliminating drugs on addicted persons outweigh the the Executive duty to enforce Laws passed by a duly elected Legislature?
I for one take the position that the Laws must be enforced FIRST, and the duty of the State is to first and foremost protect its citizens from violent crime and drugs. Even if it means many drug users are severely affected or die. I’m not saying that the State shouldn’t work to help these people, but the consequences on drug users of a large-scale drug enforcement should not affect the execution of the State’s forgoing powers to enforce the Laws.
Anyone else have a take on this?
In one possible scenario, in large cities, a State could almost eliminate the inflow of most if not all drugs using various proven methods, just on a massive scale. If a State utilized ALL the resources at its disposal, and I mean massive resources, it could reduce the flow of drugs to nil.
Now the question I am wrestling with is what is done about the people addicted to drugs? Assuming all drug flow is stopped, there are going to be a huge amount of cases of withdrawal. Some cases so severe that the user would most likely die or commit suicide.
Which is a higher priority? Does the State 1) work to strictly enforce all legitimately passed drug laws and drastically reduce crime to protect innocent citizens, or 2) would the horrible widespread effect of eliminating drugs on addicted persons outweigh the the Executive duty to enforce Laws passed by a duly elected Legislature?
I for one take the position that the Laws must be enforced FIRST, and the duty of the State is to first and foremost protect its citizens from violent crime and drugs. Even if it means many drug users are severely affected or die. I’m not saying that the State shouldn’t work to help these people, but the consequences on drug users of a large-scale drug enforcement should not affect the execution of the State’s forgoing powers to enforce the Laws.
Anyone else have a take on this?