JoãoCésar wrote:That's not the same thing... We have traffic police trying to avoid people who does not use seatbelt. To be the same reasoning the use of seatbelt would have to be optional. Besides this, the simple fact that more money is spent with those drug users (because they are more frequent and generally chronically ill) than with people who does not use a seatbelt who are in an accident makes it different.
I still think that when someone goes to buy drugs he should sign a kind of contract exempting the government from his health responsibility. It's not like the government would become evil by doing this, but it would better manage its resources.
What ? It's exactly the same. If police sees you without seatbelt, they (theoretically) stop you and punish you (for example a fine). If police sees you with a joint, they do the same, just the punishment is usually different. I don't see the difference here.
About the money thing, are you even sure about this ? And it was anyway an example, you can put anything else instead. I could say that taking your car without it being absolutely necessary for you is irresponsible because it's one of the first causes of death, so people should not be cared about when they had a car accident when they could instead have used another kind of transport. And it would be worth much more money, as well as protecting the environment + other people who don't even drive a car and might be victim of the accident. How about that ? And there are tons of other stupid examples like this.
And anyway, what would happen if you really did this ? Let's say you mostly have 2 kind of people who smoke weed :
1) those who are not addicted and don't smoke a lot of it so they will anyway have no health problems
2) those who are addicted and will not stop it, regardless of health problems
Of course some will stop but most likely not the majority. So it wouldn't even solve the problem. And yes, it would save some money, but on the other hand a massive amount of people would die, which makes no sense.