Ms. Cornett seems to be implying that druggies don't deserve any of the help they get, simply because there is some collateral damage done to others and they don't pay large sums of money when they screw up.

I guarantee you that if you look at the damage drugs do to people in this country, the vast majority of it is to the users themselves. While it's tragic that the occasional person dies in a drug-related car accident or whatever, it's nothing compared to the day-in, day-out costs all those individual users pay.

Any number of industries function the same way (damaging primarily the individual consumer): tobacco, fast food, gambling... Tobacco in particular probably kills many times more people each year than drugs do - why is it legal? Just because the damage is more gradual doesn't mean it's any less dangerous.

You read it differently than I did. I mostly read it as an argument against drug legalization, not as a reason not to help the users. The logic being that contrary to the "What I do doesn't affect anyone else" libertarian ideal, drugs hurt users and non-users alive (though certainly, as you point out, disproportionately).

If I were looking for holes in the argument, I wouldn't actually use tobacco but alcohol. People do things under the influence (poor driving the biggest but not sole example).

Tobacco and fast food, under certain levels of legislation (related illnesses not covered by general healthcare, smoking in public completely banned) only affect those that choose to partake. Tobacco and fast food are still iffy, though the libertarian argument is not as weak there as it is with alky and (non-mj) drugs.

I've got a LOT of mixed feelings about the legality of substances. There are far too many substances to say "these are the bad ones." Paint thinner, markers, glue, tobacco, alcohol, and various "narcotics." play good roles as well as bad ones. Believe it or not, tobacco (pure tobacco, not the crap the cigarette industry grows) does have some decent uses. It's not the product that's the problem, but the user. Alcohol is good for you when taken in moderation, yet a huge problem when it isn't. Marijuna has it's uses in medicine as well. The arguments go back and forth, yet somehow seems to steer away from the real problem.

If you're going to make drugs illegal, then why is it ok for the defense to say "he was out of his mind high, so therefore didn't know he was murdering those people." Like it's somehow more ok for a bad crime to take place because the abuser was unaware of it.

People just aren't as accountable for their actions as they use to be.

My dad went in for a job interview a while back. I agree with my father completely on what took place. During the interview they asked him a question. "An employee is suspected of having a drinking problem. He's constantly coming into work late, he has trouble doing his job, etc.... What do you do?"

My dad looked at them and said "Fire them. There's a hundred more out there that would love to have his job, and be more than willing to do it."

The people conducting the interview said "The correct answer is to try and get him into rehab, etc."

This country (USA for those outside of here) has adopted a very strange attitude. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem lending a hand to someone that asks. But why should we be forced to boost everyone up?