Either is possible, but we likely won't hear which one. But honestly it's irrelevant - both caused by prohibitionist policy.

Not that any one knows. He's just reaching. I'm willing to bet that this was not the girls first rodeo. Look, the woman was staying the night with the guy's dad. Pretty sure this is not some naïve 17 year old girl trying something for the first time.

"A criminal complaint file in Kanawha County Magistrate Court said Coleman gave Melody Oxley heroin that night, which she later overdosed on and died. "

“I mean I’m not even the one who did it, but that’s cool,” Coleman said.


Reading between the lines here, but it seems like Coleman is saying that he gave the heroin to his dad and his dad gave the heroin to the woman.

So what's the verdict then? If Steve gives the drugs to his Dad, then his Dad calls up the woman to use them?

I agree, still have to hold people accountable to an extent under the conditions they are unfairly forced to live under. People who cut heroin with battery acid deserve murder wraps. "Regular" drug dealers don't.

the first graph you posted is wrong. Heroin doesn't damage your brain unless you OD on the stuff.

She was 43 years old when she died. [tributes.com]

Earlier that night, Steve Slater, who is Coleman’s father, and Oxley had begged Coleman to give them heroin, according to Doughty. He said Coleman provided a video-recorded statement to police, and Slater also told police his son provided the heroin. [wvgazettemail.com]

I was gonna write a long post but tbh NVG ain't the place. Yeah i want drugs to be legal so as to reduce harm & put the billions on $ that goes on the drug war to better use.
But if you choose to sell heroin or other hard drugs then you deserve the full extent of the law coming down on you. Its just a pity that it was not his dad that OD.
Does he deserve a murder charge? To some extent yes. Why, because he choose to sell a product that kills.
DOES HE DESERVE TO SPENT THE REST OF HIS LIFE LOCKED UP BECAUSE OF IT? HELL NO.

So does Budweiser, So does Toyota, So does Phillip Morris, So does McDonald's, Sp does Pfizer.

I mean, where does it stop? Who gets to decide. It's like free speech, you can't pick and choose, you have to defend all of it.

The big lie: the criminal code creates criminals. The absolute truth: it doesn't; the fact that something is illegal never absolves a person who CHOOSES to do it.

I agree he's a parasite, but there's a problem with this "at any costs" approach. What happens when someone else decides that you are a parasite and decides to use any means possible to get rid of you?

This is why we have an adversarial judicial system with (supposedly) strict thresholds for conviction.

You summed up your position and fault in logic in this one simple post. It wasn't because of your absurd stance either, it was because of this: "The big lie: the criminal code creates criminals. The absolute truth:"

You believe in silly absolutes. You slyly ignored my post on law not ='ing morality and instead strawmanned another point.

Your post was really and truly pathetically idiotic. And that is the only response it deserves.

And there ARE absolutes; ice is a solid, and water is a liquid. Wildebeests are mammals. Etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and one more: people who use heroin don't die because heroin is illegal.

That wasn't really my point. My point was it could have been impurities/strength difference that killed. In a regulated market there will be no impurities/cuts and the strength will be uniform. Or possibly the person in question could have injected it wrong or just too much, which in a regulated market we can use the money saved on treatments and harm reduction.

The fact that something is illegal does not mean people should just give up and take whatever the government says. We would never have any progress. I think it's in everyone's best interests that globally we should slowly take the steps to decrimialise all mind altering substances. Starting with the least harmful. Tbh, we are taking steps in the right direction as I see some states/countries adopting new policies in the last few years.

What is the point in criminalising something that:

a) causes a massive illegal market
b) causes many other poriforal crimes to be committed
c) doesn't actually stop what it's meant to stop
d) increases the possible harm of said substances
e) eats up billions of $$ that could be spent elsewhere
f) gives hundreds of thousands of low level users a criminal record, thus hurting their chances of employment

Where is the benefit to society in criminalising drug use?

You should be free to do whatever you like to your own body. People like to take mind altering substances, some legal some illegal at the moment. What's the difference if someone wants to take some LSD to alter their mind or take alcohol. For sure the risk that they may harm someone else in their altered state is exponentially higher taking alcohol than most illegal substances.

Sure people would die if heroin was legal, but without a doubt less people would die if it was legal. I would also argue that use would not increase significantly either.

Most drug deaths are caused by impurites and/or strength difference in different batches. (especially heroin)

lol who said anything about brain damage? 'Physical harm' can mean a number of things. FWIW it isn't 'wrong' this graph was made by Professor David Nutt who conducted years of research and was on the UK Drugs Policy board for a number of years. The graph appeared in a peer reviewed journal partly authored by him and others scientists.

Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4

I would guess you don't have the relevant knowledge to ascertain that the graph is 'wrong'

Hi dstock I suppose you wrote this post in response to mine.

I'll try again, I would legalize all drugs and do support them being sold on the open market. I also think the war on drugs is a sham-call it racial if you like.
When 70% of people in america are in jail for drug offences its time to find a better strategy to attack what i believe is a social choice.
But selling heroin was steve's choice & its illegal, I believe people who sell hard drugs like heroin, coke meth are scum. Dealers of these drugs are parasites who prey on the weak. I say the same for tobacco company's but unfortunately tobacco is legal.
And as such when u choose to sell hard drugs you definitely know what you're getting into & should be prepared to pay the consequences.
Because i say that these people who peddle hard drugs are scum does not mean that i think they should be illegal, but do not mix this in with car company's or fast food operators please ffs.
Using or selling heroin cocaine or meth(ice) is overstepping it in terms of recreational fun(in my opinion) & education is needed in this department, helping the victims of substance abuse is needed in america & the rest of the modern world.
But there again if it was not for some of these drugs most of the music I listen to would never had been written so there that lol.

And professor David Nutt was removed from the board( sacked for not providing false statements)to back up the UK Gov absurd stance on drugs.
Specifically on mdma.

Indeed, RIP David Nutt lol

One day we'll get there, hopefully before I die.

The law here is a big issue for me.

I would like to see legislation for this kind of offence to be more in line with "Assisting Suicide" rather than homicide.

The person in question knowingly and willingly took a lethal combination of drugs. The person who sold the drugs does play a part, but has not chosen to end the life of another person.

physical doesn't translate to brain damage. Veins collapsing, liver, kidney issues, respiratory issues... etc etc.

If someone who is addicted to heroin takes heroin, it is "knowingly and willingly," in some sense of those words. However, it is MOST CERTAINLY NOT "knowingly and willingly," in the ORDINARY sense.

As far as the level of HARM goes, you might have a different opinion after a heroin addict drives a car over your family in front of your eyes. The argument that drug users harm only themselves is A FANTASY abided by those who wish to abide fantasies.

Again with the big lie!!!

And again the truth: The fact that something is illegal NEVER absolves those who CHOOSE to do it!!!!

No one is saying it absolves it. But look at countries with legalized drugs use and the proper health facilities available. Needle exhchanges, rehab, etc

Did somebody do that to your family? That would be an acceptable explanation as to why your views are so warped. Although I'm pretty sure you are just a stone imbecile that is incapable of having a discussion that isn't pushing your beliefs whilst ignoring any counterargument to them.

You really think heroin makes users run over people? What are you even saying?

Those countries are different, culturally, from the USA in a great many ways; it's apples and oranges. Now, maybe we should be more like them, but that doesn't mean we should adopt their programs willy nilly. Many of those countries also provide healthcare, housing, etc., and many of them do not have the same commitment to personal rights as we.

Destroying black markets doesn't get rid of the bad people operating in them, nobody said it does. What it will do is give them one less way to gain power/wealth. Nobody said anything about absolution either.

Where exactly is the "big lie" within the war on drugs causing its own unique avoidable crime?

I'm glad to hear you would accept that, Mr. Mystic.

The rules don't cause people to violate the rules, Mr. Mystic. Look at your watch, Mr. Mystic; don't be late for your tea party.