PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on January 06, 2018, 01:46:38 PM
-
The Obama era policy said the federal government would not stand in the way of states legalizing marijuana.
I think Sessions is correct. If the law is on the books, he should enforce it.
On the other hand, I think our legislators should remove Federal regulations prohibiting marijuana and leave that decision up to the States.
Perhaps Session's new policy will expedite that.
-
I don't recall who said it first, but I recall seeing a claim to the effect that the best way to get an unpopular law repealed is to rigorously enforce it.
-
I don't recall who said it first, but I recall seeing a claim to the effect that the best way to get an unpopular law repealed is to rigorously enforce it.
How unpopular is it? I think the results in Colorado for responsible use aren’t very promising.
We have a massive opioid death problem in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Opioid deaths, half from meds, half from heroin, exceed the sum of every other death in Wisconsin, such as vehicular deaths, DUI deaths, suicide, murder, cancer, heart disease, etc.
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/opioids/opioid-public-health-advisory.pdf
Pot is long believed to be a gateway drug, and I doubt someone who took heroin didn’t previously start with pot. And no that doesn’t mean that everyone who smokes pot will turn to heroin, but it does normalize the use of drugs for those who are so inclined.
-
I think all drugs should be legalized. The war on drugs has been a huge failure costing the taxpayer Trillions. People are going to use drugs whether they are legal, or not. If they want to ruin their lives, that is their business.
-
I think all drugs should be legalized. The war on drugs has been a huge failure costing the taxpayer Trillions. People are going to use drugs whether they are legal, or not. If they want to ruin their lives, that is their business.
A large portion of deaths and damage from drugs is due to their legal status. Anything bought off the street has purity issues and dose issues; overdose deaths from heroin because you never know the strength of what you're getting. Legalizing it would solve that problem.
Another big cause of overdose is going to rehab to get clean, then getting out and relapsing right to your old dose. The rehab industry is focused on maximum profits not long term success. Now I'm a capitalist there's nothing wrong with profits but our model is all wrong. Most addicts have an underlying reason they became addicts in the first place. The reasons are varied but in all cases the addict won't stop being an addict until the underlying cause is addressed and today's rehab template in many cases doesn't do that, their goal is to get you clean in 90 days, take your money, discharge you clean and count you as a success. On the whole this model has been a failure because you are discharged back into the same dysfunctional family situation you left and with the same disorders you started with (depression, ADHD, undertreated chronic pain, etc.)
The next big overdose problem is acetaminophen not opiates. You get addicted to Percocet and you escalate and escalate the dose until you are taking 600 mg of hydrocodone per day and like a stupid idiot you are also ingesting tons of Tylenol which destroys your liver. These addicts don't want the acetaminophen, but the combined pills are a lot easier to get than a pure oxycodone or hydrocodone. Legalize the opiate completely and you will prevent a lot of liver failure damage.
Then there is the damage from needles, HIV, hepatitis. Directly caused by the illegality of injectibles. Make the drugs legal and the needles cheap and widely available you will still have addicts but they won't be trading diseases. No it's not true "everyone" will become an addict if drugs were all legal.
Then there is the direct damage caused by methadone overdose caused by two things; using methadone to treat addiction, and regular doctors switching patients to methadone for pain treatment because the DEA is tightening the leash on oxycodone. Methadone has a much narrower window between effectiveness and overdose death than do the older opioids and you can blame War on Drug policy for a LOT of methadone deaths.
The more legal opioids are regulated and the more supply is tightened the more people who aren't addicts but simply pain patients will turn to the streets. This exposes them to crimal elements and legal risk but here's the thing - this disproportionately affects the poor. Rich people can pay for whatever to get drugs (Michael Jackson, although even Rush Limbaugh resorted to getting them on the sly, although he had escalated his approved dose IIRC). Restricting painkillers more and more has the effect of pushing a sick aging population more and more to going to the black market. Their old family doctor retires and they can't find anyone to keep up their legitimate prescriptions; this has morphed into an extremely big problem as more and more doctors are simply refusing to write scripts for fear of DEA repercussions.
This has done NOTHING to curb the addiction rate - all it has done is put sick people in pain - especially the law abiding ones who would not dream of doing anything illegal. They are the TRUE victims of both addicts and the failed war on drugs.
Now let's talk about crime. Addicts steal to pay for expensive drugs and the law of supply and demand keeps prices high. Opiates are extremely cheap to produce. But the DEA puts limits on production, shuts down so called "pill mills", squeezes doctors to prescribe less and less, all of this creating an artificially low supply and hence artificially high prices. We could stop drug related burglary in its tracks overnight if we removed ALL restrictions on the production and sale of opiates. And guess what? The addiction rate would likely not change at all.
And then there is the huge black market drug empire and all the horrific damage it is doing mostly,again, to poor communities, minority communities and the big drug lords DO NOT WANT US TO LEGALIZE DRUGS. It would destroy their violent moneymaking empire overnight.
If you favor even tougher laws on drugs you are favoring the same side of the drug lords.
You would think we'd learned this lesson with alcohol prohibition.
Now we can talk about the horrible damage done to families when someone is imprisoned due to a drug related offense. Fatherless children and ex-cons unable to honestly earn a living, perpetually feeding the black market.
Drugs being illegal results in all this damage yet some people still believe the answer is to choke the market even more. All they are doing is driving more and more of it underground.
Humans by nature will self medicate with drugs and alcohol and laws will never stop that. A harm reduction policy is what I favor. Public education campaigns... look at cigarettes!! We didn't make them illegal, instead we embarked on education campaigns about the damage smoking causes and cigarette addiction is way down as a result in the U.S. Public education about not enabling addiction and substance abuse, and more support and treatment aimed at the underlying reasons people turn to drugs in the first place, is what's needed.
Let the drugs be legal and cheap. Have BIG punishments for driving under the influence, have effective treatment and harm reduction programs, and our society will be much safer without drug gangs and crime and death and disease from illegal use.
-
How unpopular is it? I think the results in Colorado for responsible use aren’t very promising.
We have a massive opioid death problem in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Opioid deaths, half from meds, half from heroin, exceed the sum of every other death in Wisconsin, such as vehicular deaths, DUI deaths, suicide, murder, cancer, heart disease, etc.
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/opioids/opioid-public-health-advisory.pdf
Pot is long believed to be a gateway drug, and I doubt someone who took heroin didn’t previously start with pot. And no that doesn’t mean that everyone who smokes pot will turn to heroin, but it does normalize the use of drugs for those who are so inclined.
Nicotine and alcohol are also gateway drugs.
-
At least Seattle will "recover" .... something ... from the abuse of horrible, sugary drinks.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=91323
-
Yep. Philly has the Soda Tax which also taxes fruit juices, and other drinks containing sugar. What did it do? Forced many people to do ALL their grocery shopping outside the city limits. If they were going to go out to the burbs to buy their drinks, then they will buy everything there. Drink distributors, and retailers had to lay people off due to the decline in demand for their products in the city. The city turned around, and sold Bonds based on the projected revenue stream of the tax so they could get the money up front, and SPEND IT.
Mayor Kenney is a Bill De Blasio, Obama wannabee. He is the definition of Progressive Moonbat, leftist whack job.
-
I think all drugs should be legalized. The war on drugs has been a huge failure costing the taxpayer Trillions. People are going to use drugs whether they are legal, or not. If they want to ruin their lives, that is their business.
They don’t just ruin their lives. I have a close friend who now is 62. His Eagle Scout middle son died in his 20s from heroin. He was a musician, and had great talent. He OD’d several times before finishing himself off on a Christmas Eve. His mom, my friend, and their two remaining sons mourn his loss every day, but Christmas is pretty much destroyed for his mom. 4 lives very badly damaged by heroin. He didn’t just destroy his life.
-
They don’t just ruin their lives. I have a close friend who now is 62. His Eagle Scout middle son died in his 20s from heroin. He was a musician, and had great talent. He OD’d several times before finishing himself off on a Christmas Eve. His mom, my friend, and their two remaining sons mourn his loss every day, but Christmas is pretty much destroyed for his mom. 4 lives very badly damaged by heroin. He didn’t just destroy his life.
That is really sad to hear. I feel badly for them, and nobody should have to go through that agony, and loss. However, Heroin was illegal, and he still managed to get, and use it. Alcohol was illegal during Prohibition, but people still bought it, or made it. It is more of a psychological issue rather than a substance issue, to me anyway.
-
Nicotine and alcohol are also gateway drugs.
I don’t know about nicotine, but I doubt that about alcohol.
-
That is really sad to hear. I feel badly for them, and nobody should have to go through that agony, and loss. However, Heroin was illegal, and he still managed to get, and use it. Alcohol was illegal during Prohibition, but people still bought it, or made it. It is more of a psychological issue rather than a substance issue, to me anyway.
Yes, he still got the heroin. Do you think having unfettered access to heroin will increase or decrease the number of situations like the sad one I described?
Same with pot. Let’s see what Colorado looks like in 10 years.
Typical drug and alcohol testing programs (professional flying, CDL, etc.) test randomly for drugs in your system, but alcohol is only tested either right before or right after undertaking the activity for which you were tested in the first place.
Do you think that’s because of the legal status of drugs vs alcohol, or that there is a difference in how they manifest themselves in your body?
-
I don't know what would happen Stan. All I know, the war on drugs isn't working, costs too much, and has created yet another huge, overbearing bureaucracy. If people want to destroy themselves they will, laws be damned. I lived in Colorado before Pot became legal. I haven't been there recently to know what Pot legalization has done.
-
I don't know what would happen Stan. All I know, the war on drugs isn't working, costs too much, and has created yet another huge, overbearing bureaucracy. If people want to destroy themselves they will, laws be damned. I lived in Colorado before Pot became legal. I haven't been there recently to know what Pot legalization has done.
If anyone cares to slog through this:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm
The war on drugs is a socialist enterprise.
-
The war on drugs is a socialist enterprise.
Same with the war on poverty, same with the New Deal, same with the various stimulas packages, etc, etc. It's all been about wealth redistribution and raiding of taxpayer dollars.
-
I don’t know about nicotine, but I doubt that about alcohol.
My comment wasn't an off-hand remark. If you accept the gateway drug theory, you must accept that nicotine and alcohol are gateway drugs. You can look up the data. So the question becomes, if we accept a war on drugs that includes marijuana, why does it not include alcohol and cigarettes?
-
Make it harder for States that have democratically decided to legalize marijuana. Yeah, right, States rights and all that.
-
Make it harder for States that have democratically decided to legalize marijuana. Yeah, right, States rights and all that.
Why do progressives get angry when the government enforces federal laws? These laws that were adopted and voted on by congress, sent through the senate and signed by the President and enacted into law all in accordance with the Constitution.
Should we the people just decide arbitrarily which laws will be followed and which will be ignored? You know, like the Clintons?
-
Why do progressives get angry when the government enforces federal laws? These laws that were adopted and voted on by congress, sent through the senate and signed by the President and enacted into law all in accordance with the Constitution.
Should we the people just decide arbitrarily which laws will be followed and which will be ignored? You know, like the Clintons?
Why do Conservatives get angry when other people have opinions about the constitutionality of various laws?
-
Why do Conservatives get angry when other people have opinions about the constitutionality of various laws?
How about the Constitutionality of states' gun control laws which are counter to the Second Amendment? I am certainly angry about those.
-
They don’t just ruin their lives. I have a close friend who now is 62. His Eagle Scout middle son died in his 20s from heroin. He was a musician, and had great talent. He OD’d several times before finishing himself off on a Christmas Eve. His mom, my friend, and their two remaining sons mourn his loss every day, but Christmas is pretty much destroyed for his mom. 4 lives very badly damaged by heroin. He didn’t just destroy his life.
So sorry to hear that. Of course I don't know the details in his case but most heroin addicts like to maintain their level and are very aware of what that level is and do not deliberately overdose. What typically happens is one of three scenarios: they can't get their hands on any for several days, go through withdrawal and their tolerance drops accordingly, then they procure some and immediately shoot their old maintenance level, or they go to rehab, get clean, get out and again relapse at the old level (which has become an overdose level now) or, they get a batch that is a lot stronger than their normal supply and they overdose.
Yes, if they have unfettered legal access to drugs produced properly, most of these overdose deaths would not happen. I've never been a heroin addict or any other kind unless you count sugar, but I've had friends and relatives involved and done a lot of learning about it.
In an ideal world, I would allow the addict to maintain his habit while approaching him with treatment for underlying conditions
And.... this part is really important: NO SUPPORT OF ANY KIND, no welfare no food stamps no letting him live under your roof, cut him off completely so that he must earn his keep to survive. Too many addicts remain addicts because of enabling families or spouses. Public education is so important, families need to learn that they are often just as much an addict; they are addicted to worrying about and caring for the addict.
You must make the addict responsible and accountable for his own life and not prop him up. But criminalizing his habit does no good and adds so many more problems to the situation.
Let him have unfettered access to his drug of choice. But don't feed or house him, and don't PAY for it for god's sake. No free drugs no free needles no free medical care. Market conditions apply and he can pay his own way.
But if you do this (unfettered access) you will immediately improve the quality of life for millions of pain patients who are the real victims of limiting the opiate supply.
Suppose 10% of the population are addicts. We are restricting access by all the rest of us in an effort to prevent 10% from getting drugs. How is that logical or fair? It might be if it worked but it doesn't. I resent that my ability to go get get a painkiller if I get strep throat for example is curtailed because of addicts and because public policy has become so restrictive in the name of preventing drug harm that MY quality of life is degraded.
It's time we cared about the 90% of us who aren't addicts and see the harm being done to us and to doctors and their careers by this war on drugs. It has metastasized into something that is causing way more harm than good.
-
Why do Conservatives get angry when other people have opinions about the constitutionality of various laws?
If there is a constitutional question of a law then there is a process to clarify said law. Why do we have laws on the books that were placed there under the process of the constitution yet when those laws are attempted to be enforced progressives say no fair?
I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which laws should be enforced and which can be ignored. Sorta invalidates the whole process.
-
My comment wasn't an off-hand remark. If you accept the gateway drug theory, you must accept that nicotine and alcohol are gateway drugs.
Not that I disagree with you, but I don't accept the theory of gateway drugs.
A long time ago, in a place far far away, I used to partake of the smoke of the herb. But I couldn't just buy it at the grocery store or local pharmacy. So I had to buy it from some rather unsavory characters. These are the characters that later enticed me to try a little coke. It had nothing to do with using mj, it had everything to do with the guys I was forced to buy the mj from.
-
So sorry to hear that. Of course I don't know the details in his case but most heroin addicts like to maintain their level and are very aware of what that level is and do not deliberately overdose. What typically happens is one of three scenarios: they can't get their hands on any for several days, go through withdrawal and their tolerance drops accordingly, then they procure some and immediately shoot their old maintenance level, or they go to rehab, get clean, get out and again relapse at the old level (which has become an overdose level now) or, they get a batch that is a lot stronger than their normal supply and they overdose.
Yes, if they have unfettered legal access to drugs produced properly, most of these overdose deaths would not happen. I've never been a heroin addict or any other kind unless you count sugar, but I've had friends and relatives involved and done a lot of learning about it.
In an ideal world, I would allow the addict to maintain his habit while approaching him with treatment for underlying conditions
And.... this part is really important: NO SUPPORT OF ANY KIND, no welfare no food stamps no letting him live under your roof, cut him off completely so that he must earn his keep to survive. Too many addicts remain addicts because of enabling families or spouses. Public education is so important, families need to learn that they are often just as much an addict; they are addicted to worrying about and caring for the addict.
You must make the addict responsible and accountable for his own life and not prop him up. But criminalizing his habit does no good and adds so many more problems to the situation.
Let him have unfettered access to his drug of choice. But don't feed or house him, and don't PAY for it for god's sake. No free drugs no free needles no free medical care. Market conditions apply and he can pay his own way.
But if you do this (unfettered access) you will immediately improve the quality of life for millions of pain patients who are the real victims of limiting the opiate supply.
Suppose 10% of the population are addicts. We are restricting access by all the rest of us in an effort to prevent 10% from getting drugs. How is that logical or fair? It might be if it worked but it doesn't. I resent that my ability to go get get a painkiller if I get strep throat for example is curtailed because of addicts and because public policy has become so restrictive in the name of preventing drug harm that MY quality of life is degraded.
It's time we cared about the 90% of us who aren't addicts and see the harm being done to us and to doctors and their careers by this war on drugs. It has metastasized into something that is causing way more harm than good.
How are you restricted from getting an opiate-based pain med if you need it? If it’s the best med for you, your doctor can prescribe it. I’m not aware of any movement to stop those, even though that’s how many addicts get started with their addiction, at least here in Wisconsin.
Unless you believe that you want them OTC, in which case I can’t agree. I’m not a chemist or a doctor, by my daughter is a veterinarian and her education in chemistry, organic chemistry, and other advanced chemistry blew me away. I can’t imagine the knowledge of chemistry necessary to understand the right med and dosage for the right patient. I’ll leave that up to the professionals.
-
Why do Conservatives get angry when other people have opinions about the constitutionality of various laws?
Because we don't like stupid people that make up their own interpretations based on "feelings".
(actually, there are times when I agree with you on this. but in total, it is mostly the libs that disregard the Constitution).
-
If there is a constitutional question of a law then there is a process to clarify said law. Why do we have laws on the books that were placed there under the process of the constitution yet when those laws are attempted to be enforced progressives say no fair?
I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which laws should be enforced and which can be ignored. Sorta invalidates the whole process.
I took Steingar's comment to be one speaking to constitutionality. You asked why someone would get upset about that. I'm simply drawing the parallel in a snarky way.
-
Make it harder for States that have democratically decided to legalize marijuana. Yeah, right, States rights and all that.
Here is one of the FEW times I will agree with you.
Although, restricting dangerous medications could fall under "provide for the general welfare" clause. And I"m sure you realize that the word "welfare" as used here, has absolutely nothing to do with the transfer of wealth social programs that are so ubiquitous today.
-
I took Steingar's comment to be one speaking to constitutionality.
And I answered it on the bounds of constitutionality.
-
How are you restricted from getting an opiate-based pain med if you need it? If it’s the best med for you, your doctor can prescribe it. I’m not aware of any movement to stop those, even though that’s how many addicts get started with their addiction, at least here in Wisconsin.
Unless you believe that you want them OTC, in which case I can’t agree. I’m not a chemist or a doctor, by my daughter is a veterinarian and her education in chemistry, organic chemistry, and other advanced chemistry blew me away. I can’t imagine the knowledge of chemistry necessary to understand the right med and dosage for the right patient. I’ll leave that up to the professionals.
Then you are not up to speed on how doctors must stay under a DEA quota so even if they think you could use one they have to decline some of their patients and how many doctors are just flat refusing to prescribe opioids at all because too many addicts doctor shop, and how the various state prescription programs are invading our privacy even going so far as to grant local sheriffs the power to see your medication list and how insurance companies are being pressured to deny filling the prescriptions even if your doctor prescribes it and on and on. The noose is tightening so much that addicts now resort to stealing grandmas painkillers which pisses me off no end!!! Let the fucking addict buy his drug so poor grandma in the nursing home doesn't get her meds stolen, "diverted" by the nurses!
The more you try to restrict supply to save the poor addict the worse you hurt innocent people- the priority is all upside down. With all due respect to your friend and his loss I have no sympathy for addicts and all that the war on drugs is doing is making them steal from innocent people, it's not stopping them from getting drugs. Innocent people are the ones hurt the most.
-
Then you are not up to speed on how doctors must stay under a DEA quota so even if they think you could use one they have to decline some of their patients and how many doctors are just flat refusing to prescribe opioids at all because too many addicts doctor shop, and how the various state prescription programs are invading our privacy even going so far as to grant local sheriffs the power to see your medication list and how insurance companies are being pressured to deny filling the prescriptions even if your doctor prescribes it and on and on. The noose is tightening so much that addicts now resort to stealing grandmas painkillers which pisses me off no end!!! Let the fucking addict buy his drug so poor grandma in the nursing home doesn't get her meds stolen, "diverted" by the nurses!
The more you try to restrict supply to save the poor addict the worse you hurt innocent people- the priority is all upside down. With all due respect to your friend and his loss I have no sympathy for addicts and all that the war on drugs is doing is making them steal from innocent people, it's not stopping them from getting drugs. Innocent people are the ones hurt the most.
Rush,
Do you think you husband would like a tall, red headed, attractive woman who is a doctor and an IFR rated pilot, but who is a liberal?
Perhaps he and I could trade.
-
Rush,
Do you think you husband would like a tall, red headed, attractive woman who is a doctor and an IFR rated pilot, but who is a liberal?
Perhaps he and I could trade.
Damn! That would be a real dilemma for him. He'd love the doctor income and IFR rating and attractiveness but he can't stand liberals. He and I are in tight agreement on almost all political points and something we both love about our marriage.
-
Make it harder for States that have democratically decided to legalize marijuana. Yeah, right, States rights and all that.
You are an asshole.
that is the only response necessary to your brutally stupid question.
Seriously, though, you have little, to no concept of states rights, as proven by your endless line of stupid, one line, supposed to make you look thoughtful, or at least informed, but which remind us that you are constitutionally illiterate, by choice.
-
You are an asshole.
that is the only response necessary to your brutally stupid question.
Seriously, though, you haveee little, to no concept of states rights, a s proven by your endless line of stupid, one line, supposed to make you look thoughtful, or at least informed, but which remind us that you are constitutionally illiterate, by choice.
Sorry, but he has a point. There is plenty of fairly convincing argument that the FedGov does not have the constitutional authority to enact laws against non-violent drug use, and that those laws should be left to the states.
-
Let’s see what Colorado looks like in 10 years.
Yes, lets see what happens to Colorado. That is exactly why this should be decided by the States instead of the Federal government like Obamacare was foisted on the whole country.
Let CO an CA and a few other states try it out. If it works well, great; more states can follow. But if it backfires, then it only screws up the few states that thought it would be a good thing.
I still maintain that our draconian drug laws are responsible for turning many people into criminals and raising the profit and incentive for those criminals to snare as many other people into criminality as possible.
-
Sorry, but he has a point. There is plenty of fairly convincing argument that the FedGov does not have the constitutional authority to enact laws against non-violent drug use, and that those laws should be left to the states.
IF he had a good point, it would be that the Federal Gov't should allow states to operate within the constitution, which is obvious, even to communist progressives, is a ship that sailed decades, if not centuries ago.
However, in the case of FEDERAL LAWS currently on the books, it was the little, progressive messiah, Barack, that ORDERED teh DOJ, among other agencies, to ignore existing federal law to soothe his liberal fantasies, a stance that ZERO liberals spoke against. He even intentionally ignored federal courts when they ruled against his traitorous ass. Which is something else no democrats bothered to respond against.
There ARE federal statutes on the books related to the point in question.
Pretending that they don't exist is playtime entertainment for low (in Steingar's case - NO) information voters.
When Jeff Sessions actually chose to obey the existing federal law, and dared to mention that he expected everyone else to obey the law, I can understand how outrageous that would be to useless, whining, progressive, academics, who get their constitutional education from George Soros handouts.
Congress made the law in question, legally. We can debate whether the EXISTING law is popular, politically correct, or simply an impediment to the corrupt democrat party, but, I guess you liberals really do believe that congress is as irrelevant as you all acted when that pig, Obama was president.
-
Yes, lets see what happens to Colorado. That is exactly why this should be decided by the States instead of the Federal government like Obamacare was foisted on the whole country.
Let CO an CA and a few other states try it out. If it works well, great; more states can follow. But if it backfires, then it only screws up the few states that thought it would be a good thing.
I still maintain that our draconian drug laws are responsible for turning many people into criminals and raising the profit and incentive for those criminals to snare as many other people into criminality as possible.
Of course the other side of the question is, "how expensive will it be for the American taxpayers," - you know? The ones that actually pay taxes, as opposed to the 47% that live off the rest of us, - "to deal with the outfall of the drug addicts that find legal haven in Colorado and California, after the ill effects are obvious."
I would far rather that colorado and california be exempt from receiving federal dollars as long as they, and any other "Sanctuary States," choose to flout federal law, but that would never happen because liberals are too entrenched in using tax dollars to purchase votes in those to states to let them sink, or swim, in their own sewage.
-
I think all drugs should be legalized. The war on drugs has been a huge failure costing the taxpayer Trillions. People are going to use drugs whether they are legal, or not. If they want to ruin their lives, that is their business.
Agree on principal, but the ruining of lives extends quite far into the public sphere when they use medical/social resources provided by tax dollars.
I'm all for liberty, use whatever one wants, but the contemporaneous liberty comes with responsibility. If one becomes addicted to crack cocaine, then live the life of the crack cocaine addict, and no fed/state govt resources will be expended to save or help the addict. Similar reasoning for just about any substance, including alcohol.