jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (68 posts)

There is no argument for drug prohibition

  1. innersmiff profile image75
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Let's go through the arguments against prohibition.

    Humanitarian argument:
    Prohibition needlessly imprisons thousands of non-violent users, making it harder for them to make any kind of economic progress, often keeping them in a permanent criminal underclass. It stigmatises otherwise peaceful and law-abiding people.

    Also, the enforcement of prohibition by western forces in Mexico and South America kill thousands of civilians each year.

    Libertarian argument:
    Prohibition violates the non-aggression principal - it is not the government's job to legislate the personal decisions of the individual.

    Economic argument:
    Transferring the usage of drugs from the black market to the free market would create a boon, not just from recreational and medicinal usage but from the widespread production of hemp, a more sustainable alternative to paper, oil, concrete and cotton.

    Public health argument:
    Although decriminalisation, where it as occurred, has had no effect on usage, it has made addiction decrease. This is mainly due to the fact that there is no stigma, and addicts are more willing to come forward to find help.

    Cannabis in particular has too numerous medicinal benefits to count, that can effectively treat Alzheimer's and even cancer.

    Crime argument:
    The trade of drugs is run by the gangs because contracts are not allowed to be enforced in the open market. Take the market away from the gangs and naturally take customers out of the reach of criminals.

    Small-government argument:
    Setting the precedent that the government has the right to legislate the personal decisions of the individuals incentivises the growth of government. Prohibition can serve as the excuse for more police and more bureaucracy.

    Christian argument:
    Whatever you think Christ may have thought of drugs, he definitely would not have condoned the use of violence to prevent people from using them.

    Personal benefit argument:
    Less harmful illicit substances such as cannabis make you feel good and helps to relieve inhibitions. Legalised, you could take advantage of this without the risk of being arrested.

    ________

    We're running out of arguments that one can make for prohibition. Give it your best shot.

    The arguments made in a funny song starring Ron Paul and Kevin Smith:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykvc20YpXAQ

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Just my two cents of support, our drug legislation is utterly ridiculous.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Is this just about marijuana?  Not other drugs?

      And don't you kinda have it backwards?

      Marijuana's already been "banned" for years, if I'm not mistaken.

      So this is not about prohibition or the people who want to continue prohibiting marijuana.

      This is about people wanting to change a law that's already on the books.

      Am I right?

  2. Zelkiiro profile image96
    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago

    Prohibition is right because Satan smokes marijuana.

    #invincibleargument

  3. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    I always hope you can change the hardcore conservative's minds.  After watching Fox News though, the hosts on the network generally take the totalitarian view of drugs.  Even with the massive waste of money and the ruined lives, there is no change...

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/10/12/drug-spending-addiction/large.png
      http://themormonworker.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/693px-us_incarceration_timeline-clean-svg.png

      War on Drugs: Huge success o.O

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        It's perfect.  Conservatives can support it because it reduces the size of government.

      2. innersmiff profile image75
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        It's as obvious as it is obvious to most people, including conservatives, who understand why alcohol prohibition didn't work. The only reason they don't see it is that the disastrous effects of it are not so close to home.

  4. innersmiff profile image75
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Let's hear your arguments then, prohibitionists!

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      OK - I'm not really a prohibitionist, but from memory:

      Legalizing drugs will promote usage, including that for young children who find those drugs freely available in homes.  While effects of those drugs are not very documented on young bodies and minds, what documentation there is strongly indicates it is extremely harmful.  The same goes for use by pregnant women.  There is also the question of second hand smoke from cannabis; if second hand tobacco smoke is harmful, that from a mind altering drug would seem far worse for children trapped in the same room.

      As use increases, so will accidents in the workplace.  We have enough trouble with drunken workers in dangerous occupations, why add to it?

      While cannabis may make you feel good and remove inhibitions, neither is useful and both are harmful.  We already have too many people living in a dream world rather than reality; let's not make it worse.

      It is government's job to protect people from harming themselves.  We have a very long history of this and should retain that history.  It is what this country is built on, after all.

      To think that criminal activity by gangs will decrease is silly; take away the drug trade from them and they will find something else.  Prostitution, maybe, or virtual slavery.  Or worse drugs; I'm assuming that you would not make every chemical in the world legal to imbibe. 

      What Christ would do is immaterial; God has a history of simple death for not following commands  Violence at it's ultimate.

      We aren't setting a precedent for a nanny state; that was done a long time ago and is necessary for the well being of citizens incapable of making their own (right) decisions.

      I'm out of arguments.  While some of these are rather tongue in cheek, others do have some merit and bear thinking about. Particularly the effect on young bodies and minds; that one truly is a problem when drugs are common and available and we DO accept the necessity of protecting children from their parents as needed.

      1. innersmiff profile image75
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Usage levels are not really the point - there is a demand for recreational drugs and that is not going to go away. The point is to reduce the harmful effects of usage. The personal health downsides to usage are inevitable also, so how best is it to treat them? By stigmatising the usage of drugs to a point where addicts are afraid to come forward? The point stays the same for the workplace accidents point. Prohibition has been shown to be ineffective at reducing usage or addiction. Time for something else.

        Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, people would like to be able to relax and socialise through something other than alcohol (a much more personally and socially dangerous drug). The point is 'personal benefit' after all. If you don't want that, you have not lost anything by legalisation.

        The government's job, if it is to be tolerable at all, is to protect the liberty of the individual, not infringe upon it. This was the main intention of the founding fathers of the United States.

        I don't see how that's silly. There was a huge increase in criminal activity once alcohol was prohibited simply because the demand for alcohol remained and it could not be met by the market. When enforcement of those voluntary contracts has to come from gangs rather than courts, there is going to be crime. You've made a great argument for the legalisation of prostitution too. Take the market away from the criminals so they are compelled conduct their activities peacefully. Yes, every voluntary action in demand will be met by someone somehow - if it is illegal to do it in the free market, the black market will be happy to oblie.

        God is God. As far as I'm aware, man is not supposed to take the place of God and make his decisions for him. The commands are: love thy neighbour and be peaceful.

        Then we are setting a further precedent. And at some point this nanny state will infringe on one of your personal decisions, and you won't like it. How do we know that the government knows what is right for the individual? In short, we don't.

        Try again!

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          No, you can't do away with it that easily.  Usage numbers ARE the point; making it cheap, legal and easy to get will almost certainly increase those numbers no matter what drug(s) you legalize and that is a bad thing.  Even encouraging the use of the innocuous cannabis is a bad choice.

          Alcohol is not a more dangerous drug, socially or personally, than anything but possibly (possibly!) marijuana.  Saying it is doesn't make it so.

          Gang members, even the drug lords of Mexico will have several choices in their product of choice is taken away:
          1) find another illegal product to sell
          2) get an honest job, paying a fraction of what they get now
          3) go on welfare
          4) starve.
          Of those, I expect 1) to be the path chosen; do you disagree?  Of is it silly to think that making illegal drugs legal and safe will get rid of the gang violence currently associated with those drugs?

          The biggest (and truthfully, about the only) real objection I have you didn't address at all; the kids that will end up addicts or damaged from having these drugs in their systems.  That is a very large concern and needs to be addressed.  Will second hand cannabis smoke, for instance, 5 nights out of 7, cause damage to developing brains and bodies of 3 or 4 year old children?

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Well the point you raise have answers but since you don't really believe them allow me to skip to the one you do.
            Second hand smoke may be harmful to child development but #1 People who don't use drugs now are not going to suddenly start using them in the same room as their children because it is legal #2 Most parents I know take their cigarettes outside to smoke let alone their joint #3 Exposing children to it should and would be a crime.

            Price fluctuations in the product in the past have not increased usage to any significant degree, people don't just start mainlining because it's cheaper tongue and semi legalization in Portugal actually saw significantly reduced usage as education and help for addicts became more widely available.

          2. innersmiff profile image75
            innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            What you're saying simply isn't true. Legalisation has not been shown to significantly increase usage, but addiction, the truly harmful aspect of drug use, goes down. This is a net benefit as far as I'm concerned. But if you still won't accept it, in the face of evidence - show me the proof that prohibition has been effective in deterring drug use.

            Alcohol is not as bad as heroin or meth, but far worse to the body than cannabis. The possible negative long-term psychological effects of cannabis cannot match up to alcohol, that is always damaging to the heart, liver, brain and kidneys. Perpetrators of assault are far more likely to be found to have consumed alcohol rather than cannabis, and is far more likely to be involved in domestic abuse cases. Alcohol prohibition would not begin to solve these problems. The demand is there and always will be.

            What, do you think criminals just are? They are opportunists, taking advantage of demands that cannot be met legally. If the market doesn't do it, they will. The best we can do is legalise all voluntary trade to at least limit criminals' choice. Maybe we need to examine why we think violence is an appropriate way to deal with voluntary actions we find undesirable.

            Second hand cannabis may indeed be damaging to children, but, again, how is prohibition supposed to prevent this?

            The biggest lesson we could all learn is that: no law can destroy demand for any product.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              You seem to believe that if something is illegal it won't make one whit of difference in the amount people will do it anyway.

              I have to disagree with that.  I believe that nearly any and every will have some deleterious effect on the amount of (now) illegal activity is going on.  Your way would seem to say that no law as any affect on what people do, so why have any laws at all?  All it does is fill prisons - as it will do no good to laws prohibiting rape, we should get rid of such laws, yes?

              And then, while you are explaining to raped women why we took away the laws against it, you can also explain to brain damaged children that their parents always kept those damaging drugs out of their reach and never smoked in their presence because, well, because every parent knows better and cares enough not to do such things.

              1. innersmiff profile image75
                innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                It's about economics. Banning a product will make not a whit of difference to the demand for it unless you decrease the supply. Prohibition does not decrease the supply, therefore, no difference to usage levels. The Portugese statistics prove this.

                And aren't you one of these people who understand that gun control just puts guns in the hands of criminals?

                Laws against aggressive actions are different to laws against products in that they are actually enforceable. Aggressive actions have direct victims that take issue with it and are more likely to come forward. Voluntary actions, by definition, do not have direct victims.

                How to deal with the in-direct effects of drug usage is a different matter, but we know for sure that prohibition will make absolutely no difference.

  5. profile image52
    Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago

    I can be convinced that prohibition is bad but first can you tell me how many tax payer dollars are spent on recovering addicts and how much more would be spent if drugs were legalized.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well Portugal semi legalized and they released their ten year report a few months back, addiction rates actually fell significantly not to mention the healthcare costs of people getting sick from re-using needles etc.

    2. innersmiff profile image75
      innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And whatever it would come to it would not match the astronomical cost of enforcing the ban through, essentially, warfare.

  6. profile image52
    Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago

    After a cursory search apparently a Trillion dollars has been spent over a period of 40 years on the war on drugs and the stated goals have not been met. I guess my next question is how do we regulate it?

    1. innersmiff profile image75
      innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Regulation is fraught with the same problems, if admittedly less harmful than outright prohibition. Just let people make their own decisions.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Depends what you mean by regulation. I definitely things as dangerous as some drugs are need quality control, with that sort of supervision and legal framework we could stop people selling weed laced with meth to get more customers or ecstasy that has ground up glass and drain cleaner in it etc. not to mention regulating who can make it with what expertise so that meth labs stop exploding so regularly etc. and regulating that the drugs are not coming from terrorist organizations (as most Cocaine for example comes from communist guerrillas). 

        Basically I think if we treated it like tobacco or alcohol that would work.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          What he said.  :-)

        2. innersmiff profile image75
          innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          False advertising is un-libertarian as it is a breach of contract. I wouldn't go as far as regulating who can make it, effectively making 'Meth-maker licence-ship'. The costs of this would pass on to the consumer and encourage crime.

          The kind of regulation I am against is stuff like compulsory warnings on packets, banning usage in bars and pubs and regulation through taxation. Doesn't work.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Exploding meth labs are really bad for the neighbors and all too often they have children around them.

            Though I must say meth is a tricky one due to the fact that it does massively increase aggression and can cause psychosis, I don't mind what people choose to do to themselves but others have a right to be safe too.

  7. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    You will get no argument from me.  Of course, I would prefer the sale and use of drugs be regulated, but not banned.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Junkie is a junkie I suppose if you legalise drugs and there use they will still be a junkie. Pharmaceutical companies will make billions and the government could gain billions in tax revenue. Legalising drugs won't get rid of crime and the drugs lords won't disappear.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        It won't get rid of crime but it will massively reduce it and crime lords will still run other things but they don't have the same profit margins or quantities so there will be fewer of them and their wars will be much smaller.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          For it to massively reduce crime then you must agree that junkies must commit a massive amount of crime.
          I doubt if it will stop the junkie high on drugs from killing someone will it? But I also doubt there would be a big reduction in crime.
          I'm not against legalising drugs but I am against legitimising junkies.
          The price of drugs will be set by pharmaceutical companies and governments so there will always be room for the drug lords to manoeuvre around those prices and of course governments will still spend billions trying to eliminate them.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The crime reduction would be because people would stop killing each other over where they can sell drugs or who controls the drug trade in a certain city.

            Addicts do of course commit crimes but MOST do so because they need money to feed their habit and a ton of that stems from the ridiculously high price of drugs due to their illegality.

            As for crime rings around legalized drugs not really, there are hardly huge violent crime rings based around moonshine now that alcohol is legal.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Well here in the UK there are large crime rings based around both alcohol and tobacco, last year there were 2 major busts of illegal alcohol rings and over 100 million forged cigarettes were confiscated. The scope for illegal drugs to flood the market will only be dented not removed.
              As I said I am not against the legalisation of drugs or their usage but I don't think it's the answer to the social ills drug use brings.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I bet those crime rings are nowhere near the size or violence of drug rings.

                Obviously legalization is not a magic bullet it just makes things better, reduces addiction, reduces the spread of disease, reduces fatalities, makes it easier for addicts to get help.

  8. Marquis profile image80
    Marquisposted 4 years ago

    Drugs are bad.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That right there is the fundamental basis of the prohibition argument.

      1. Marquis profile image80
        Marquisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Alcohol is bad.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Almost anything can be considered bad for humans if its use is abused.
          A friend took up munching carrots when he gave up smoking, after a week or two he turned orange and was ill.

  9. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

    Just to jump in here for a second...

    There is absolutely no proof that pot causes any long lasting brain damage, and cigarette smoke is more damaging to the lungs/respiratory system than pot smoke. I'm assuming that also means second hand pot smoke is also less damaging than second hand cigarette smoke.

    Where is the brain damage argument coming from?

    1. Superkev profile image86
      Superkevposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The very nature of the way pot is smoked will make it more harmful.

      Holding the smoke deep in the lungs and for a longer period means it will get in to the deeper capillaries and cells of the lungs. Let face it, inhaling smoke of any type in to your respiratory is bound to be harmful as that is NOT what your lungs are supposed to be doing.

      Here is at least one study that says pot does damage the brain:

      http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/11 … iction.htm

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yes but the concern is not about the effect to the smoker (who may be holding the smoke) he or she can do as they wish with their own body, the concern is for those that might be impacted by second hand smoke and they will not be holding the smoke any more than tobacco second hand smoke "victims".

        Studies on possible brain damage are very conflicting.

        That study is for long term frequent use and actual direct imbibing, second hand smoke victims would not be exposed to anywhere near that kind of quantity.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Here's one that says it doesn't.

        http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news … mage-brain

        And I agree that smoking anything damages lungs, my argument is more along the lines of second-hand smoke from cigarettes being worse than it's counterpart from pot.

        Since second hand smoke isn't inhaled deeply and held, and pot has far less carcinogens, I would assume the danger is less.

        I've seen no studies either way, just making an educated guess.

        Besides, there are many many ways to ingest pot.  Smoking is not necessary.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image89
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, both studies appear to agree that heavy long term pot use does indeed damage the brain.

          Melissa’s source, “Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain” from July 2003, is based on “scores on thinking tests” that compared “various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information.” Contradicting the title, the article reports researchers found impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users that they characterized as "very small" but did not otherwise quantify. In the words of lead researcher and psychiatrist Igor Grant, MD, “"However, there might be a different set of circumstances to a 12-year-old whose nervous system is still developing." {1} At the time, Dr. Grant was committed to establishing that the short-term side effects of pot administered to individuals in a medical setting “would be safer than what is practiced by street users.”

          Superkev’s source, “Marijuana Use Causes Brain Damage Confirmed” published online in August 2012, reports on a study conducted down under at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. MRI brain scans of a group of subjects who used pot for an average of 15 years were compared to another group who had never used the drug. The comparisons revealed there was more than 80 percent reduction of white matter in the brains of the pot users. “Additionally, researchers found that the average age of participants in the study started using cannabis when they were 16 years old. Participants who started using the drug at a younger age like 10 or 11 had even more severe brain damage.” The article adds, “Researchers linked the significant changes in the white matter in the brain's hippocampus and commissural fibers, suggesting that long-term marijuana use may lead to memory impairment and deficits in learning and concentration ability.” {2}

          Clearly, neither of these studies addresses the issues surrounding drug prohibition but they do answer the question, “Where is the brain damage argument coming from?”

          In addition to the findings above, a broad consensus of medical professionals agree that the risks of smoking marijuana go up with heavy use:

          Typically, heavy marijuana use lowers men's testosterone levels, sperm count and quality. 

          It can affect libido and fertility in men.

          It is psychologically addictive.

          One in 12 occasional users experience withdrawal symptoms if they cannot get high when they want to.

          The rates of dependence are higher among heavy pot smokers.
          Many experts believe marijuana is physically addictive and report symptoms of withdrawal that might include aggression, anxiety, depressed mood, and/or decreased appetite. {3}
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news … mage-brain
          {2} http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/11 … iction.htm
          {3} http://answers.webmd.com/answers/118214 … -marijuana

          1. innersmiff profile image75
            innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I'm quite prepared to accept that pot may cause brain damage in the long-term, however, I've really curious:

            What do you actually believe from a moral standpoint? Do you believe it is right to tell people what they can or cannot consume under threat of violence?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Do people not believe that alcohol and tobacco cause brain damage as well?

              1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                ^5 innersmiff. As you already know, I do not oppose legalizing marijuana. I do, however, have an issue with claims that its use is a harmless recreational activity.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  10. Marquis profile image80
    Marquisposted 4 years ago

    Pot needs to be banned as well.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Presenting your freedom loving American big_smile tongue

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Don't get me wrong, I'm all for banning of most drugs.  I just take issue with one of the most beneficial medicinal herbs known to man being arbitrarily banned when more dangerous and less useful substances are freely available.

        1. Marquis profile image80
          Marquisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          That is why pot should be banned too. I hate all vile drugs equally.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you.  I understand your position quite well.

            All drugs banned.

            Gotcha.

      2. Marquis profile image80
        Marquisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        All gateway drugs need to be banned.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          As I said, freedom loving.

          1. Marquis profile image80
            Marquisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I never said anything about not liking freedom. I do not like gateway drugs or any other drug that allows the evil drug dealer to profit from.

            The following drugs should be banned: crack cocaine, cocaine, pot, speed and morphine.

            1. innersmiff profile image75
              innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              "I do not like drugs . . . that allow the evil drug dealer to profit from"

              Then legalise them and put them in the hands of law-abiding businessmen and women.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Absolutely
                The pharmaceutical corporations could do with some more profit. The could sell the drugs to get hooked on and then sell the drugs to be rehabilitated with.

              2. Marquis profile image80
                Marquisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Nope -

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  What do you think will happen after legalisation?
                  Do you think the same supply chain
                  would be tolerated by the government? Or will they be spending billions
                  on ensuring you only buy from government
                  approved sources?
                  Legalisation throws up as many questions as it
                  answers. The giant pharmaceutical companies will be dancing with joy at the prospect of the
                  legal high.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Just as happened with alcohol after prohibition ended the supply will return to the hands of legitimate business people and will be regulated just like any other industry.

                    Most of these drugs WERE legal for decades in America and really I doubt all that many pharmaceuticals will jump on the chance because they would prefer not to be associated with formerly illegal drugs.

                  2. innersmiff profile image75
                    innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    So what, honestly?

                    I'd rather a few corporations make some money off drugs rather than criminal gangs.

                2. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  So freedom loving. tongue

  11. Marquis profile image80
    Marquisposted 4 years ago

    We need temperance. Legalizing filthy alcohol is not the way.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yay freedom, now we will take away your alcohol too.

      1. Marquis profile image80
        Marquisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        If things were left up to me, possession of alcohol would be 2 hours of water boarding with alcohol. That is a just sentence.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Conservatives love freedom sooo much that now they will tell you what you can drink tongue

          1. Marquis profile image80
            Marquisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            lol

  12. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    A long term heroin user who smokes is much more likely to die from a smoking related disease than a heroin related cause.

    1. Superkev profile image86
      Superkevposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Would AIDS or Hep C be considered a non heroin related cause?

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        No, they would be heroin related.

 
working