Yeah, I have heard about that.Still, I find that wrong.

First, it is "working" in Netherlands because its a really advanced society, so they have more common sense than countries from the third world, and even USA(dont mean to offend anyone).But there is also the fact that the number of users(that does this legally) must be small, so the number of overdoses would reflect that.

Having said that, Im totally and completely against that.There is a limit till when you say "Its your body, you can do whatever you want with it".Lets say there is a person that loves stabbing itself, but not to the point that it will kill himself, but enough that would leave uncountable scars and maybe even leave permanent damages on the body.That person would be internalized in a medical facility, for sure.I see as using those strong drugs as the same.For every 1 person that can "handle" its addiction and use few enough to not bethat harmful(and even then will leave damage in a small period of time), there will be 3 persons that will be destroyed by it.That would be especially true in countries like USA, or Marrocos, or Chile for example, places where the general education of the people would be lower.

It would not work, and would just create more problems than solving them.

1. Except the part where they damage themselves tremendously and insurance payment is based a lot on your income so the drug user probably paid almost nothing.

2. They will lie. Just like how people like about not smoking.

That's a big strawman. As somebody who is essentially straight edge - I don't follow liberally, for example I drink very infrequently, so I don't classify myself as this personally - stabbing yourself and leaving heavy wounds is not something comparable to using drugs of any kind. That's the exact argument made for alcohol during the Prohibition era, that alcohol was poison and that allowing it in our country was encouraging suicide essentially. 

Moreover, how many people have died in drug wars in the US? It surely rivals the amount of pure overdoses. If we weren't a hugely conservative country, pushing through safe havens for drug users where they can use clean product in a contained environment would only help matters. Let's be real, the war on drugs started chiefly because of gang violence, and gangs chiefly rose up because of the drug trade. Without product to sell, gangs become essentially non factors in society until they find a way to provide a good that is addicting that the government can't regulate as quickly. 

And as an aside, more people per capita used specifically heroin in the Netherlands at the time of this policy opening than do in the US now, at the height of the US epidemic. And as the article notes, there are almost no users under 40, because there's no market for heroin, and as such there's no way for impressionable young adults to be influenced by it. You're correct on one front, that the Netherlands is much more advanced societally than the US is, but the writing is on the wall. We're just much too much a Christian nation, and we'd make it a moral issue of how the government is supplying drugs, and we would demonize anybody who tried to push this concept. I mean the media is destroying or ignoring Sanders for suggesting that we regulate more to improve quality of life and the lower and middle classes, and he's not even saying anything NEW to American politics. 

I'm by no means advocating heroin, obviously. Again, I don't use. But if regulating and giving away a dangerous drug for free to users helps limit the number of users, that should be a path looked into, not brushed off because it's immoral. 

Weed for certain. The one ridiculous argument I often hear is that weed is a gateway drug ... well, yes, it is, because in order to get weed you have to use dealers that sell other drugs too. I've screamed that at the TV so many frigin' times. Legalise it and it's no longer a gateway drug because you no longer have to go to those dealers.

the government and people in general should have no say on whether another does recreational drugs. Things like Marijuana, Heroin, etc., effect the user. If someone wants to sit in their basement and fry their life away that should be their business.

Now there should probably be  some law on drug use in connection with driving, as someone out of their minds on cocaine might do something very stupid behind the wheel.

Similarly maybeeeee there shoudl be some level or ordinance related to parents with young children not being on hard drugs just because, again, sometimes people do bizarre things when on hard stuff.

but beyond maintaining road safety and appropriate behavior around children there is no reasonable excuse to try and control what others do to their own bodies (as long as its not directly effecting someone else). Its in the same vain of the concept of not allowing someone to kill themselves- its not our right to tell someone else what to do with their lives or body.

The reality is that the war on drugs, similar to prohibition in the 1930s, has been simply another attempt by the government to maintain a strong control on people. It doesn't help people. If anything attempting to prohibit drugs, again like booze in the 30s, has simply boosted the amount of violence and drug activity around it.

If it were legal to buy and sell cocaine then people would not need to get guns involved so often (not to say legalizing that sort of thing would end drug wars, but it might lessen them slightly).

It says a lot when the obvious best thing to do with harder drugs is to allow them and simply tax them yet the US gov doesn't do that. Taxing that market would help everyone really. Notice that the government typically does whatever they can to obtain taxes- and ask yourself why they haven't went that route with drugs. Control. That's why. Its a means of control and it gives an excuse and platform for the US government to continue ridiculous military and police spending.

Bear in mind if drugs suddenly became legalized something like half of the police force would be out of work since that's practically all police departments focus on these days (that and speeding tickets!).

I'm rambling but the point is that the 'war on drugs' is a facade, its not to help the general public, its just a means to an end for the gov to justify spending and to maintain an aggressive presence with the public in general.

Believe what you want but I think we all know that making this sort of stuff illegal has created more problems than it has solved. and in the end its supposed to be a country of freedoms, not control. I can't think of anything more controlling than not allowing someone to take a mind altering substance in the privacy of their home.

Another question you might want to ask yourself is: why the war on drugs but not the war on alcohol? far more deaths are caused by drunk drivers. The reality is that a fair balance should be met with drugs just like drinking- let people do what they want as long as its not on the road OR hurting others (i.e. children).

longramble. sorry

They will still more than likely save the person/treat the person. If the person who did the drugs not going to cover it, other people will have to which puts the burden on us. That is part of the reason why health care is so expensive. T

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI

^ this.

Also it means less people can make a living off of selling drugs (weed is most of their sales), they have to find honest work instead.

and with how much money there is in it, the state might as well have those profits and put them towards good uses, instead of it going to crime lords.

The example I gave was in reference to strong drugs, like cocain and heroin, not alcohol or Tabacco, otherwise it would be a silly example.I mean sure, it is an extreme example, but its not far-fetched.Depending on how you use it, you coukld die on 1 or 2 years, or at least have serious damages on the body, most likely permanent.Not to mention the severe social implications that using those drugs could have.Losing friends, wifes/husbands, even family members because you could have a destructive nature(read:burn the money, be agrressive, and so on).

And while yes, I would agree that, in a world that all drugs were allowed, that would creat a myriad of other problems, some even as serious as the old ones.People could lose all their money just to satisfy the addiction(that would be especially true for drugs that are highly addictive), be indebted because of that.It would cause accidents, be it with cars and whatnot, in a similar fashion that Alcohol cause them.Depending on the drug, people would be incapacitated to do any kind of work during the influence of the drug, again ina similar fashion when you are drunk(maybe even worse).And many more reasons.To be quite honest, there will be many implications that we can only predict once it happens, since Humankind can be really creative when it wants to be.

And in my opinion, and thats strictly speculation, you wouldnt decrease the number of users.I mean, you are legalizing it!What it would decrease is the crimes related to drug traffic and such, that would go down.As stated above, its not a matter of being moral or immoral(even though I do think it is immoral), its more of a matter that it would cause much more harm than good, making legal every single drug, or even making legal dangerous drugs.

Alcohol not a strong drug? You should maybe do some research on that.