U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-10-2008, 03:59 PM
 
339 posts, read 605,054 times
Reputation: 167

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by elvislives View Post
The Dutch address the problem of hard drugs and i like the way they think i hate hard drugs and would never like to see them legal but to have a substance abuse program for anyone no questions asked would be just the thing for America. I am not so hard headed that i cannot be open to new ideas..
I'm all for substance abuse programs. I wish there were more. I don't wish being addicted on anyone. I really don't think we should decriminalize it. I believe there should be more diversion programs. Instead of prison for a first time offender (or at least someone going to prison for the first time as they often don't go until they are charged numerous times), they should get an intensive treatment program. If they don't take the opportunity, F-em...go to prison. That being said...Even if they go to prison, there should be programs available there. If they complete said program and are on say...a 4-5 year sentence for straight possession, they should be allowed to get out in the time it takes them to complete the program (even if it's months and as long as there aren't victims in their wake). It will be an "intervention" if you will. They should have to do pi$$ tests, etc. when they get out and, if they f-up, they can do another inpatient program (in prison) as I even believe everyone deserves a second chance. If they get out then and f-up, they never get another opportunity again. This is literally three chances to straighten themselves out. I'm not even apposed to them being able to get out from under their felony if they don't choose to do diversion or go to prison and then successfully complete their requirements to stay clean.

When people say that they are only hurting themselves, they are full of it. They hurt everyone around them, and they cost the tax-payers an enormous amount of money one way or another. Whether it's prison or medical costs later in life, it costs lots o' money. The only argument I see as beneficial is taking the money out of drug-dealers hands and not having them shoot each other up in the street. These people (drug dealers), no matter what people think, will not just all of the sudden become productive members of society though. They don't have it in them. They are all about getting rich without having to work for it. They will be robbing normal folk for money instead of each other. Then...they will claim they are poor and victims of society (like the already do) so next we will have to just give them money (like a drug addict who we just allow to have drugs) so they won't rob us. Either way, they are holding society hostage because they CHOOSE not to do what it takes to succeed (like tons of poor people from bad backgrounds have before them leading one to believe it's not impossible). Wouldn't that be swell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2008, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,622,573 times
Reputation: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDTD View Post
I'm all for substance abuse programs. I wish there were more. I don't wish being addicted on anyone. I really don't think we should decriminalize it. I believe there should be more diversion programs. Instead of prison for a first time offender (or at least someone going to prison for the first time as they often don't go until they are charged numerous times), they should get an intensive treatment program. If they don't take the opportunity, F-em...go to prison. That being said...Even if they go to prison, there should be programs available there. If they complete said program and are on say...a 4-5 year sentence for straight possession, they should be allowed to get out in the time it takes them to complete the program (even if it's months and as long as there aren't victims in their wake). It will be an "intervention" if you will. They should have to do pi$$ tests, etc. when they get out and, if they f-up, they can do another inpatient program (in prison) as I even believe everyone deserves a second chance. If they get out then and f-up, they never get another opportunity again. This is literally three chances to straighten themselves out. I'm not even apposed to them being able to get out from under their felony if they don't choose to do diversion or go to prison and then successfully complete their requirements to stay clean.

When people say that they are only hurting themselves, they are full of it. They hurt everyone around them, and they cost the tax-payers an enormous amount of money one way or another. Whether it's prison or medical costs later in life, it costs lots o' money. The only argument I see as beneficial is taking the money out of drug-dealers hands and not having them shoot each other up in the street. These people (drug dealers), no matter what people think, will not just all of the sudden become productive members of society though. They don't have it in them. They are all about getting rich without having to work for it. They will be robbing normal folk for money instead of each other. Then...they will claim they are poor and victims of society (like the already do) so next we will have to just give them money (like a drug addict who we just allow to have drugs) so they won't rob us. Either way, they are holding society hostage because they CHOOSE not to do what it takes to succeed (like tons of poor people from bad backgrounds have before them leading one to believe it's not impossible). Wouldn't that be swell.
With over 2,000 drug courts in existence or being planned, there is a great deal of bi-partisan interest in drug courts across the nation. This page provides answers to some of the most commonly asked questions.
“Drug courts are an effective and cost efficient way to help non-violent drug offenders commit to a rigorous drug treatment program in lieu of prison.”
—President George W. Bush

“Three quarters of the growth in the number of federal prison inmates is due to drug crimes. Building new prisons will only go so far. Drug courts and mandatory testing and treatment are effective. I have seen drug courts work. I know they… make a difference.”
—President William Jefferson Clinton

http://www.nadcp.org/whatis/ (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 04:54 PM
 
339 posts, read 605,054 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvislives View Post
With over 2,000 drug courts in existence or being planned, there is a great deal of bi-partisan interest in drug courts across the nation. This page provides answers to some of the most commonly asked questions.
“Drug courts are an effective and cost efficient way to help non-violent drug offenders commit to a rigorous drug treatment program in lieu of prison.”
—President George W. Bush
“Three quarters of the growth in the number of federal prison inmates is due to drug crimes. Building new prisons will only go so far. Drug courts and mandatory testing and treatment are effective. I have seen drug courts work. I know they… make a difference.”
—President William Jefferson Clinton
http://www.nadcp.org/whatis/ (broken link)

Drug court works. There's no doubt about it. There are some places where the success rate is in the 90 percent range. This is helping people (literally) by holding them accountable. It's not just letting them do drugs because "they are only hurting themselves". Contrary to what people want to believe, sometimes getting in trouble with the law is the best thing for them.

I wish a close family member of mine would have been arrest a long, long time ago. She's a great example of human nature. She was given the opportunity for a drug court type program and turned it down. Why...she rather do dope and drug court is hard. She just couldn't make it to her meetings (an excuse for everything type). The next step for her is going to be prison (only jail time so far). Maybe she will get sick of that and do something for herself???? She was enabled so long though, it's all she knows. Therefore...I doubt it. She will never be able to say that people haven't done all they can for her. Oh wait...she still does. She even got a bunch of money from an inheretance here a few years ago. It was gone in six months. She spent it on dope, bail and hotel flop rooms for all her tweaker friends. Just giving people stuff is awesome for them!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,622,573 times
Reputation: 387
I HATE a tweaker .. pot not so much but hard dope rots your soul... just like the pics i posted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 05:17 PM
 
11,897 posts, read 23,719,307 times
Reputation: 6336
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDTD View Post
So everyone just gets free drugs? So we have taken care of the argument "just legalize them and tax the $hit out of it". Glad that's settled.
Well, I thought it was a pretty crazy idea myself, but then I was thinking...you know, we are currently in the business of giving massive amounts of money to foreign countries in a failed and failing attempt to "control" drug crops (including to regimes that do not like us and harbor terrorists bent on attacking the United States (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm - broken link)) that we could just take that money, lure all the addicts into clinics with free dope on the condition that they come in and get help. There are going to be a few who want to get high no matter what, but there are a lot who don't really want to be junkies. Sure, they can go to prison and when they get out they hit the streets with the pushers who have an easy mark in an addict who may or may not have fully recovered.

Quote:
As far as the violence argument goes...well...DUI related deaths already outnumber murders. Not all murders are drug related.
No, sometimes they're related to college football rivalries (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_re_us/fbc_couple_slain_football - broken link). Should we criminalize college football? Or should we allow the kids to play and only ban people from watching it so they don't go killing each other? (I normally don't announce when I insert tongue into cheek here, but I'll do it here - sometimes a little absurdism makes a point.)

Quote:
That being said, drug related murders are already far less than DUI related deaths. Alcohol is obviously already legal, and DUI doesn't always equate into "alcohol" in the first place. Sometimes it's drugs. Is making drugs acceptible and legal going to double the DUI related death toll every year but take away from the murders associated with drugs? The math still puts you well behind and now, instead of drug dealers killing drug dealers (still unfortunate anyone is getting killed), you are trading drug dealers for every day citizens just driving home.
I was thinking that with cops no longer bogged down with busting drug offenders - especially cannabis possession and small-time dealing which makes up a great number of drug-related offenses for something no more harmful than alcohol if not less so - you put more of them on the street to do things like monitor traffic. Car traffic, that is.

Quote:
How many soccer-mom's have been killed in an MS-13 shootout?
Suppose the soccer mom's husband happens to be a cop? Or the soccer mom is a cop? They end up in the middle of the gang war zone all the time. And I used MS-13, a gang made up in large part of immigrants, as only an example. There are other homegrown gangs that have influence and lead young people into a life of crime and gangbanging through the illegal drug trade.

Now...how many have been killed by drunk or high drivers? Is making it legal and having more addicts going to all of the sudden make them think..."Hey, but I draw the line at driving all high on Meth because that wouldn't be right." Domestic violence...DV is often drug and alcohol related. It's after the fact. It doesn't make a difference if it's legal or not. The root cause of it is someone is f-ed up on something (legal or not) and beats the you know what out of someone or kills them. Does making it legal change this? F-ed up is f-ed up. It has nothing to do with legal or not. These violent confrontations start over stupid $hit like dinner is cold not because the husband is wearing red and the wife is wearing blue. Are more addicts (because you are going to have more just like cigarettes and booze) going to all of the sudden change their attitude because it's legal?[/quote]

If the Dutch figures on cannabis use are an indication, it's highly possible that use may not go up over the long term. I can't say for sure as pot is not a physically addicting drug like cocaine for example. What I can say for sure is that anyone who wants to score blow right now can do so.

Quote:
It seems like the argument is going to just trade one for the other. I'm not so sure what the lesser of two evils is, and I'm not so sure that I just want to roll the dice.
That's exactly what it is. A phrase that is used as of late is "harm reduction." The dice are showing snake eyes right now, so rolling them again in hopes to get something better might not be a bad idea.

Quote:
Once you allow something, it's a lot harder to take it away if all hell breaks loose.
Like alcohol prohibition, perhaps? That went over like a lead balloon.

Anyway, my actual "what I would do if..." as presented here may not even be the same if I was actually put in charge of it. They're just ideas, and they're not intended to be indicative of what all decriminalization/legalization/"harm reduction" proponents might hold. They may have as many arguments with me as you do. If it makes you feel better, I have no power whatsoever with anyone who might actually have the capacity to make such a decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 05:31 PM
 
Location: CA
95 posts, read 269,579 times
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDTD View Post
Dude...Reagan started "the war on drugs" in 1982? He actually signed the drug enforcement bill in 86. Nancy's program was "Just say no". You picked the wrong guy to quote.
Nixon coined the term war on drugs, not Reagan. Reagan revised the war on drugs during his second term of Presidency. I am quite sure that quote was from earlier in his political Career, but who is better to quote than people who's quotes can be used to discredit their own actions? Hypocrisy at its finest, I thought it would be self implied.

Here are some quotes that I find amusing.

"[In] my era everybody smoked and everybody drank and there was no drug use "

Current DEA Chief Thomas Constantine,
July 1, 1998


"Criminal penalties have clearly failed to prevent widespread use of marijuana... Law and health are two entirely separate issues."

Bob DuPont
Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
President Nixon's 'drug czar'


"Marijuana leads to homosexuality ... and therefore to AIDS."

White House Drug Czar Carlton Turner, 1986
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 10:06 PM
 
339 posts, read 605,054 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81 View Post
Well, I thought it was a pretty crazy idea myself, but then I was thinking...you know, we are currently in the business of giving massive amounts of money to foreign countries in a failed and failing attempt to "control" drug crops (including to regimes that do not like us and harbor terrorists bent on attacking the United States (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm - broken link)) that we could just take that money, lure all the addicts into clinics with free dope on the condition that they come in and get help. There are going to be a few who want to get high no matter what, but there are a lot who don't really want to be junkies. Sure, they can go to prison and when they get out they hit the streets with the pushers who have an easy mark in an addict who may or may not have fully recovered.



No, sometimes they're related to college football rivalries (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_re_us/fbc_couple_slain_football - broken link). Should we criminalize college football? Or should we allow the kids to play and only ban people from watching it so they don't go killing each other? (I normally don't announce when I insert tongue into cheek here, but I'll do it here - sometimes a little absurdism makes a point.)



I was thinking that with cops no longer bogged down with busting drug offenders - especially cannabis possession and small-time dealing which makes up a great number of drug-related offenses for something no more harmful than alcohol if not less so - you put more of them on the street to do things like monitor traffic. Car traffic, that is.



Suppose the soccer mom's husband happens to be a cop? Or the soccer mom is a cop? They end up in the middle of the gang war zone all the time. And I used MS-13, a gang made up in large part of immigrants, as only an example. There are other homegrown gangs that have influence and lead young people into a life of crime and gangbanging through the illegal drug trade.

Now...how many have been killed by drunk or high drivers? Is making it legal and having more addicts going to all of the sudden make them think..."Hey, but I draw the line at driving all high on Meth because that wouldn't be right." Domestic violence...DV is often drug and alcohol related. It's after the fact. It doesn't make a difference if it's legal or not. The root cause of it is someone is f-ed up on something (legal or not) and beats the you know what out of someone or kills them. Does making it legal change this? F-ed up is f-ed up. It has nothing to do with legal or not. These violent confrontations start over stupid $hit like dinner is cold not because the husband is wearing red and the wife is wearing blue. Are more addicts (because you are going to have more just like cigarettes and booze) going to all of the sudden change their attitude because it's legal?
If the Dutch figures on cannabis use are an indication, it's highly possible that use may not go up over the long term. I can't say for sure as pot is not a physically addicting drug like cocaine for example. What I can say for sure is that anyone who wants to score blow right now can do so.



That's exactly what it is. A phrase that is used as of late is "harm reduction." The dice are showing snake eyes right now, so rolling them again in hopes to get something better might not be a bad idea.



Like alcohol prohibition, perhaps? That went over like a lead balloon.

Anyway, my actual "what I would do if..." as presented here may not even be the same if I was actually put in charge of it. They're just ideas, and they're not intended to be indicative of what all decriminalization/legalization/"harm reduction" proponents might hold. They may have as many arguments with me as you do. If it makes you feel better, I have no power whatsoever with anyone who might actually have the capacity to make such a decision.[/quote]


Point 1: Are you hoping that they will just come around one day? "Hey Bob. Want some rehab today?" "No Earl. Not today." "Well hows about a little crack to tie you over then?" "Sounds great Earl. Sprinkle some Meth on it too will ya?"

One of the biggest parts of recovery is to stop enabling. This is not only enabling, it's contributing.

Point 2: People kill because of boredom too. Can we outlaw this? That would be sweet though wouldn't it?

Point 3: I don't think cops are really all fired up about busting a 20 year old with a 20 bag. Now...throw in a big grow with a bunch of money, a house and a few cars to sieze, you may get their attention.

Point 4: You are watching too many movies. Although it has happened, it's not common. They usually respond to the aftermath. More cops are killed responding to domestic violence situations by far than gang shootouts. DV's are usually related to drug and alcohol useage, so this statistic would likely grow.

Point 5: The "figures" (like all figures) are all over the board. Some say that legalizing shows a huge rise in useage, others say not so much. Figures can be skewed. What can't be skewed are the figures on death (either they die or they don't). The FACTS are that more people are dying from an already legal drug every year than are getting killed in drug related violence. Legalize more...you might just double an already horrible statistic. You may keep drug dealers from killing drug dealers, but you may replace it with junkies killing Bob the accountant or Sally the vet-tech. And...people on hard drugs randomly attack people (no motive for robbery, etc. all the time). A lot of time it's attributed to "mental illness". Behind a lot (not all) of "mental illness" is a person who simply fried their brain on dope. They caused their own "mental illness". It wasn't because they were dropped on their head as a baby.

Point 6: Prohibition. Okay...back in the 30's, how many cars were on the road and how many could go a buck 20? If they would have known that DUI related deaths would be higher than thug related death, they may have stuck with prohibition. It was a far different time. And...It's not the same at all for the fact that alcohol was a part of culture since FOREVER before that. Once something is the norm, it's kinda hard to go backwards. You would have to go about 4 or 5 generations before someone wouldn't be able to reminisce about the days they could drink a beer without the cops bothering them. Almost every mom, dad, school teacher, cop, firefighter, etc. drank before it became illegal. The demand was waaaaaaaaaaaay higher for this reason. By contrast, crack has never been part of the norm. Once it is made part of it, it would be hard to go back. Currently, no one is reminiscing about the day they could smoke crack without being hassled. Hopefully they never will. It's not the same. And...once again, I'm not pointing to prohibiting alcohol. I'm just saying it's too late once you give in (unless you are willing to wait a few generations to see if it takes hold).

You can argue that people will do it anyhow. They will. But...it is a deterrent for some people not to currently. They aren't testing for booze (unless the boss smells it on them) at jobs, they test for other drugs. Therefore...people won't take them for fear of losing their job. Most people with good jobs aren't going to risk getting popped for a felony and losing their good job currently. Made legal, this wouldn't matter, so they would do it. Some people don't want to go to prison, so they don't do it. No prison on the table, they will. I know that for some it won't matter, but most people think with the "I have too much to lose" attitude. It's human nature. Take this away and...it's on!

Okay now you can beat me up on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 11:06 PM
 
11,897 posts, read 23,719,307 times
Reputation: 6336
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDTD View Post
Point 1: Are you hoping that they will just come around one day? "Hey Bob. Want some rehab today?" "No Earl. Not today." "Well hows about a little crack to tie you over then?" "Sounds great Earl. Sprinkle some Meth on it too will ya?"
One of the biggest parts of recovery is to stop enabling. This is not only enabling, it's contributing.[/quote]

Consider methadone clinics (http://www.nida.nih.gov/MedAdv/00/NR3-7.html - broken link). Methadone is the same thing as heroin except that it doesn't produce a high. But it's still an addictive drug - it's an opium derivative. When someone is physically addicted to a drug, they will seek it out not so much to get high but because they will become physically ill upon not having it. Who knows, with the advances of science perhaps similar derivatives of other addictive drugs could be created and then used in therapy. And yes, maybe people who are not constantly worried about getting busted and thrown in jail where they would be cut off from their supply abruptly might bring people in for help.

Quote:
Point 2: People kill because of boredom too. Can we outlaw this? That would be sweet though wouldn't it?
It would be sweet. There wouldn't be any crappy TV or movies anymore, and people would be held responsible for their asinine garbage. But answering seriously here, outlawing boredom would be like outlawing, well, drugs. You can pass the law, but it doesn't get rid of the target of the law.

I'm not going to say that I have the answer to all crime. People killing people has been in the history of man since there was a history of man. However, we surely have a lot of it going down on the streets.

Quote:
Point 3: I don't think cops are really all fired up about busting a 20 year old with a 20 bag. Now...throw in a big grow with a bunch of money, a house and a few cars to sieze, you may get their attention.
It depends on the cop more than anything. Like in the town where I grow up. I've heard of ones who will turn your car inside out for a bag of weed and others who will find one, dump it out, tell them something like "you know, you could go to jail for this" and send them on their way. Especially if nobody else is watching. But yes, since asset forfeiture is a cash cow for law enforcement agencies, the big grow operations and such are prime targets. Never mind that the redneck manufacturing meth in his trailer is probably a bigger threat overall. It's all about the money, which is misguided.

Quote:
Point 4: You are watching too many movies. Although it has happened, it's not common. They usually respond to the aftermath. More cops are killed responding to domestic violence situations by far than gang shootouts. DV's are usually related to drug and alcohol useage, so this statistic would likely grow.
It's not common, but it happens, and there are regular people trying to live out their lives in the gang hoods. Drive-bys that target the wrong house and such. It happens often enough that it's the problem. I guess there's some sort of quota for dead people that weren't gangbangers to make it a problem.

Quote:
Point 5: The "figures" (like all figures) are all over the board. Some say that legalizing shows a huge rise in useage, others say not so much. Figures can be skewed. What can't be skewed are the figures on death (either they die or they don't). The FACTS are that more people are dying from an already legal drug every year than are getting killed in drug related violence. Legalize more...you might just double an already horrible statistic. You may keep drug dealers from killing drug dealers, but you may replace it with junkies killing Bob the accountant or Sally the vet-tech. And...people on hard drugs randomly attack people (no motive for robbery, etc. all the time). A lot of time it's attributed to "mental illness". Behind a lot (not all) of "mental illness" is a person who simply fried their brain on dope. They caused their own "mental illness". It wasn't because they were dropped on their head as a baby.
The figures are all over the place because they're speculation - we're talking about something that hasn't really been done since there were drug laws to begin with. There was such a time. Back in 19th century America you could buy laudanum (tincture of opium) at the same general store where you bought your food, or patent medicines which were in part a combination of products of drugs that are illegal today. Somehow, the country held together, and with a considerably lower population that made one person deciding to be a dope fiend have a larger effect on the productiveness of society as a percentage. Mind you, I don't advocate such a thing in the future. I don't think pot should be sold at Walgreen's or someplace "mainstream" like that. It should, basically, be in the kind of establishments where kids aren't allowed to begin with. For medical use that's another story, and that would be handled like a prescription drug.

Quote:
Point 6: Prohibition. Okay...back in the 30's, how many cars were on the road and how many could go a buck 20? If they would have known that DUI related deaths would be higher than thug related death, they may have stuck with prohibition. It was a far different time. And...It's not the same at all for the fact that alcohol was a part of culture since FOREVER before that. Once something is the norm, it's kinda hard to go backwards. You would have to go about 4 or 5 generations before someone wouldn't be able to reminisce about the days they could drink a beer without the cops bothering them. Almost every mom, dad, school teacher, cop, firefighter, etc. drank before it became illegal. The demand was waaaaaaaaaaaay higher for this reason. By contrast, crack has never been part of the norm. Once it is made part of it, it would be hard to go back. Currently, no one is reminiscing about the day they could smoke crack without being hassled. Hopefully they never will. It's not the same. And...once again, I'm not pointing to prohibiting alcohol. I'm just saying it's too late once you give in (unless you are willing to wait a few generations to see if it takes hold).
This is where you go about toughening DUI laws, and with less crowded prisons absent of people selling drugs (they'd be out of business from the getgo if this would work) you start having people do hard time for endangering the public at large. I don't know how much actual research has been done for the effects on driving under the influence of cocaine, meth and the like. One of the earliest uses for meth was by the Germans during WWII, given to pilots, tank crews etc. to fight fatigue as they ran roughshod over Europe. Not that I'm defending the use of meth in any case, but just offering an example of how it was given specifically to people operating vehicles much more powerful than a Toyota.

And I don't see how crack and meth has ever been "the norm." People should be educated about drugs - with straight talk, not this D.A.R.E. "don't do drugs because your friends won't think you're cool and oh by the way all drugs are the same even legal ones" crap. In no way am I envisioning billboards and magazine ads with Miley Cyrus holding a crack pipe telling kids to smoke up because it's something to do. Educate showing real results and not making it out to be some forbidden fruit (enhanced by its current status as illegal) that only makes it more enticing, particularly to the subset of young people who are looking for reasons to do the opposite of what their parents and teachers are telling them to do. Show them what really happens when people become crackheads.

Quote:
You can argue that people will do it anyhow. They will. But...it is a deterrent for some people not to currently. They aren't testing for booze (unless the boss smells it on them) at jobs, they test for other drugs. Therefore...people won't take them for fear of losing their job. Most people with good jobs aren't going to risk getting popped for a felony and losing their good job currently. Made legal, this wouldn't matter, so they would do it. Some people don't want to go to prison, so they don't do it. No prison on the table, they will. I know that for some it won't matter, but most people think with the "I have too much to lose" attitude. It's human nature. Take this away and...it's on!
Well, I don't know what kind of environment you grew up in or have lived around, but I've lived in the inner city, the suburbs, the country around very disparate groups of people and I have never heard anyone say "I want to (do a line/smoke a rock/etc.) but it's illegal so I won't." They might have decided not to do it because it could be hazardous to their health, their job or something (especially regarding work in regards to pot, since it's detectable in your system for a longer time than other drugs), but I don't really think the legal issue itself has much bearing. Perhaps because it is an illegal drug for which employers test, but the deterrent is in either not getting a job or getting fired. Statistically speaking, you're not all that likely to get busted for possession. If a majority of people who used it got busted, the jails and court system would shut down under the sheer number of cases. Selling, a different story, depending on how you go about it and how much of the wrong attention you draw.

Quote:
Okay now you can beat me up on this.
Not really my aim here. It's been civil.

Backtracking some here, if we got away from the obviously contentious suggestion of doling out drugs for free to addicts, then an answer to your question would be to keep it at a price lower than what it would run on the black market. The main idea here is to circumvent the illegal drug trade that has made inner cities and the Mexican border warzones. Sure, this could mean you might have a burglary or a robbery by someone who is looking to get their fix at wherever the drugs are being distributed, which I'd figure would have surveillance cameras where someone who has been victimized and might recognize who did it might point them out. Then they can go to prison, for an actual crime against somebody. It already happens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2008, 02:05 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,689,822 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLangben View Post
Nixon coined the term war on drugs, not Reagan. Reagan revised the war on drugs during his second term of Presidency. I am quite sure that quote was from earlier in his political Career, but who is better to quote than people who's quotes can be used to discredit their own actions? Hypocrisy at its finest, I thought it would be self implied.

Here are some quotes that I find amusing.

"[In] my era everybody smoked and everybody drank and there was no drug use "

Current DEA Chief Thomas Constantine,
July 1, 1998


"Criminal penalties have clearly failed to prevent widespread use of marijuana... Law and health are two entirely separate issues."

Bob DuPont
Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
President Nixon's 'drug czar'


"Marijuana leads to homosexuality ... and therefore to AIDS."

White House Drug Czar Carlton Turner, 1986
This here shows why the DEA and other anti-drug agencies cannot be trusted. The most anti-drug people are the ones who are least informed and most prejudiced. This nation will continue to bleed money as long as we continue these moronic policies. Anyone who claims that the drug war was accomplished anything other than empowering FARC, The Cali Cartel, The Gulf Cartel, The Juarez Cartel and the Arellano-Felix Cartel is either foolish or delusional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2008, 01:53 PM
 
48,526 posts, read 76,140,463 times
Reputation: 17839
If you look at the lifes ruined by drug use ;its hard to justify any encouraging it.We alreqady have a massive poroblem with one leag drug called alcohol that cost bilions every years cesides the lifes it destroyed. I the end they become worthless to society and a true danger to all around them;especailly family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top