Here is the scenario (I understand this is happening in the US but I have not confirmed anything):

A private organization gets together and obtains private donations to fund their program. They advertise that they will pay men and women over the age of 18 $300 to voluntarily have themselves sterilized if they are active drug abusers.

They do not recruit, they advertise. They do not approach anyone, the drug abusers read the advertisements and go to the program on their own. They must prove they are active drug abusers, they will be paid $300 for submitting to the procedure of being sterilized. They will never be able to have children again.

The medical procedure is done by licensed medical providers in a local hospital with all the advantages of modern medicine. The procedure is paid for via private dollars, not tax dollars.

Is this morally objectionable or the correct moral decision?

Comparing Alcohol and meth/cocaine/heroin/etc. is apples and oranges.

All of the above are addictions and addiction should be recognised as being a medical problem, not a legal or a moral one. However I am in favour of female drug addicts being offered $300 in order to wear an IUD. The money is an inducement and will of course be used for drugs but she will be using drugs anyhow until she manages to break free of her habit and it is better that while she is using that she avoid having children who will likely be born with health issues, land up in foster/group homes and then go on to live similarly unhappy drug-addicted lives. We are looking at the rights of the community as balanced against the right of the individual, an ailing individual, not an immoral one.

Allowing a drug-addicted woman or an alcoholic for that matter to go on to have a raft of children is somewhat akin to allowing an individual who is infected with the AIDS virus to knowingly have unprotected sex. It damages the rights of others in the community.

Certainly it is true that offering the 300 bucks to drug addicts in order to halt their reproductive activities may be viewed as elitist, and possibly even racist, but the truth is that rich, well-educated drug addicts tend to be less likely to have babies while using.

I am in favour of decriminalizing simple drug use and treating drug addiction as a medical and a social problem. Let the law concentrate on nailing the drug businessmen.

I am in favour of decriminalizing simple drug use and treating drug addiction as a medical and a social problem. Let the law concentrate on nailing the drug businessmen.

If drugs were produced by legal businesses like the three main drugs, Caffeine, Nicotine and Alcohol, then the price would come down, the quality could be guaranteed and most importantly, if they only could be sold in "State Stores" (Liquor stores run by the state), it would make it harder for underage people to get it.

The lower price and the legal availability to most people would remove the profit incentive and might cripple the criminal trafficking in drugs.

Also, because the same people who sell the least harmful drug, Marijuana, also sell the most harmful drugs, having "State Stores" sell pot would keep people from coming in contact with the dealers who try to get pot smokers hooked on worse drugs which have higher profit margins.

And if pot was to be sold for $20 per cigarette size pack, $17 dollars could be tax dedicated to funding rehabilitation facilities.

I know, I will get blasted on this post, but spending $13,000,000,000 a year on the “war on drugs” hasn't done much (if anything at all) to improve the situation.

believe it or not TOM, I agree with you.

I, out of choice would never use "hard drugs" (no, pot is NOT a hard drug. but that is another argument)

Even decrimilizing pot would put a BIG dent in drug makers/sellers. Less people would go to them and they would have less chance to say: "I'm out of weed but I got a couple grams of coke if you want it" which in my experience is what happens.

believe it or not TOM, I agree with you.

I, out of choice would never use "hard drugs" (no, pot is NOT a hard drug. but that is another argument)

Even decrimilizing pot would put a BIG dent in drug makers/sellers. Less people would go to them and they would have less chance to say: "I'm out of weed but I got a couple grams of coke if you want it" which in my experience is what happens.

I have been using the "I don't have any pot today, try this..." argument ever since the late 1960's. That should give the readers of this thread an idea of how long this fruitless "war on drugs" has been failing.

And I will say it, "Pot is no worse and probably a lot better than alcohol". Of course "the munchies" is a Lap-Bandster's worst nightmare

believe it or not TOM, I agree with you.

I, out of choice would never use "hard drugs" (no, pot is NOT a hard drug. but that is another argument)

Even decrimilizing pot would put a BIG dent in drug makers/sellers. Less people would go to them and they would have less chance to say: "I'm out of weed but I got a couple grams of coke if you want it" which in my experience is what happens.

And I agree with both of you on this issue. It would be interesting if the government could get over itself and treat drug use in the same way that it treats alcohol and nicotine use: tell us that it is bad for us but allow us to buy drugs and tax the hell out of those of us who want them. Then the government would be reaping tax dollars instead of spending tax dollars on an ineffective war. This money could go toward to improving society in ever so many ways and all without placing a greater burden on the taxpayer.

It is interesting to note that the use of opiates was widespread in Victorian England and yet that society was an extraordinarily productive one.

By the Way, Bill Clinton and I are exact opposites::fencing:

He never inhaled. :angel:

I never exhaled.:painkiller::peace:

Don't tell a child suffering the long-term effects (varying degrees of retardation) of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) that it's comparing apples and oranges.

By the Way, Bill Clinton and I are exact opposites::fencing:

He never inhaled. :angel:

I never exhaled.:painkiller::peace:

Omigosh! I did both! :faint: and then I ate a lot!:hungry:

Don't tell a child suffering the long-term effects (varying degrees of retardation) of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) that it's comparing apples and oranges.

And I also believe that mothers who ingest alcohol or ANY type of drug while pregnant should be prosecuted for: child abuse, gross neglect and attempted murder.

And I also believe that mothers who ingest alcohol or ANY type of drug while pregnant should be prosecuted for: child abuse, gross neglect and attempted murder.

I agree on the child abuse, but attempted murder is a stretch.

But if we took the money that the prosecution cost and the incarceration would cost, we might be able to give prenatal care and counseling to that mother.

By the Way, Bill Clinton and I are exact opposites::fencing:

He never inhaled. :angel:

I never exhaled.:painkiller::peace:

And Monica didn't swallow, right?

I have been using the "I don't have any pot today, try this..." argument ever since the late 1960's. That should give the readers of this thread an idea of how long this fruitless "war on drugs" has been failing.

And I will say it, "Pot is no worse and probably a lot better than alcohol". Of course "the munchies" is a Lap-Bandster's worst nightmare

Who was the comedian who did the stand up routine about how pot users are NOT a threat to society? He said pot heads don't kill anybody. They get hungry, but before they can work up enough energy to actually drive to the store, they say "screw it, I'm tired" and then just mellow out in the corner. If a pot head does get behind the wheel, he's unlikely to kill anyone because, while he might THINK he's cruising along at 85 mph, he's actually doing 10.

Edited to add.....I used to have an elderly, arthritic dog whom I loved dearly. I hated to see her suffer, but I was so reluctant to have her put down. We fixed up a makeshift "oxygen tent" for her and blew in reefer fumes to ease her pain. They should do that for humans with terminal Cancer.

Who was the comedian who did the stand up routine about how pot users are NOT a threat to society? He said pot heads don't kill anybody. They get hungry, but before they can work up enough energy to actually drive to the store, they say "screw it, I'm tired" and then just mellow out in the corner. If a pot head does get behind the wheel, he's unlikely to kill anyone because, while he might THINK he's cruising along at 85 mph, he's actually doing 10.

I think it was George Carling, but I am not positive.

And Monica didn't swallow, right?

Obviously not. That is why they had "the evidence" on the dress. She spit "the evidence" out.

I think it was George Carling, but I am not positive.

No, this guy was not as well known as Carlin, and he was more recent, too.