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.
There are distinctions between legalization, decriminalization, and regulation.
What does "treatment" for an illness have to do w/ "legalization"?
Do we throw grandma in jail because of high blood pressure?
I took it that pollyrobin meant making it illegal to use the drugs meant it was being regulated. I wasn't considering the differences you just brought up and that is very true there are diffences. I am concerned about making all drugs legal. I don't get the distinction between that and your analogy to haveing grandma arrested for having high blood pruessure. Drugs used for medical purposes are different and should, of course, be legal. That I have no problem with. But lets face it people started out using crack as a recreational drug and look what that did to them. Legalize that and there would be more people getting hooked on such a dangerous drug. That is my point and what I fear for the public. I accept decriminalization much more than the other two you brought up because no one can stop everyone from using and getting hooked but if it's decriminalized and treatment is offered that might help except what happens when they refuse treatment? who pays for the treatment? because you now have additional expenses taxpayers have to shell out for addicts in treatment, if the treatments are free for the addict, they should have to pay themselves. I don't like this idea of having a free for all attitude towards allowing people to use drugs that will untimately cost the taxpayers more money so they can have free recreational use and/or free treatment when/if they get hooked on it.
I took it that pollyrobin meant making it illegal to use the drugs meant it was being regulated. I wasn't considering the differences you just brought up and that is very true there are diffences. I am concerned about making all drugs legal. I don't get the distinction between that and your analogy to haveing grandma arrested for having high blood pruessure. Drugs used for medical purposes are different and should, of course, be legal. That I have no problem with. But lets face it people started out using crack as a recreational drug and look what that did to them. Legalize that and there would be more people getting hooked on such a dangerous drug. That is my point and what I fear for the public. I accept decriminalization much more than the other two you brought up because no one can stop everyone from using and getting hooked but if it's decriminalized and treatment is offered that might help except what happens when they refuse treatment? who pays for the treatment? because you now have additional expenses taxpayers have to shell out for addicts in treatment, if the treatments are free for the addict, they should have to pay themselves. I don't like this idea of having a free for all attitude towards allowing people to use drugs that will untimately cost the taxpayers more money so they can have free recreational use and/or free treatment when/if they get hooked on it.
You know I think many have concerns over people being harmed.
However, I believe education and environment is still the best way to improve these problems.
More people are harmed by prescription meds and medical abuses each yr.
A good example of this nuttiness is in FL, a state who admits prescription meds are a much greater issue for abuse. They now have people paying for their own drug testing to be eligible for social aide.
I agree that we need to try to determine the real issues and address them effectively, because it is costing everyone much more than money.
Anyway Ron Paul even though I don't agree with some of his positions is still The Best Candidate that represents American Values based on the Constitution and that's why I am voting for him.
The only mistake Paul made was going on that trashy TV show, but thanks for sharing as it is further proof that Paul has been consistent and principled for year, along with showing that detractors, such as the OP, need to rely on ignorance and sensationalism.
The only mistake Paul made was going on that trashy TV show, but thanks for sharing as it is further proof that Paul has been consistent and principled for year, along with showing that detractors, such as the OP, need to rely on ignorance and sensationalism.
This is what you do to get air time when you run third party.
I took it that pollyrobin meant making it illegal to use the drugs meant it was being regulated. I wasn't considering the differences you just brought up and that is very true there are diffences. I am concerned about making all drugs legal. I don't get the distinction between that and your analogy to haveing grandma arrested for having high blood pruessure. Drugs used for medical purposes are different and should, of course, be legal. That I have no problem with. But lets face it people started out using crack as a recreational drug and look what that did to them. Legalize that and there would be more people getting hooked on such a dangerous drug. That is my point and what I fear for the public. I accept decriminalization much more than the other two you brought up because no one can stop everyone from using and getting hooked but if it's decriminalized and treatment is offered that might help except what happens when they refuse treatment? who pays for the treatment? because you now have additional expenses taxpayers have to shell out for addicts in treatment, if the treatments are free for the addict, they should have to pay themselves. I don't like this idea of having a free for all attitude towards allowing people to use drugs that will untimately cost the taxpayers more money so they can have free recreational use and/or free treatment when/if they get hooked on it.
This is where I feel you are wrong. By making drugs illegal, it increases the "cool" factor and youngsters naturally want to rebel a bit. By legalizing drugs, you will take a part of that factor out and overall, less will most likely experiment with the drug. Not all of course. The mass amount of money spent on the drug war could be used in educating the public in the dangers of drugs. Just something to think about.
It makes no sense to make pot illegal, but alcohol legal. More people die via alcohol AND especially prescription drugs by a large amount over pot, yet pot is illegal.
In my personal opinion it is because of the usefulness of hemp. Hemp can be used in place of hundreds of high market products and this tptb will not have. It is all about the money. Hemp makes a really efficient bio-fuel and this can replace oil. No way, Jose!
This is where I feel you are wrong. By making drugs illegal, it increases the "cool" factor and youngsters naturally want to rebel a bit. By legalizing drugs, you will take a part of that factor out and overall, less will most likely experiment with the drug. Not all of course. The mass amount of money spent on the drug war could be used in educating the public in the dangers of drugs. Just something to think about.
It makes no sense to make pot illegal, but alcohol legal. More people die via alcohol AND especially prescription drugs by a large amount over pot, yet pot is illegal.
In my personal opinion it is because of the usefulness of hemp. Hemp can be used in place of hundreds of high market products and this tptb will not have. It is all about the money. Hemp makes a really efficient bio-fuel and this can replace oil. No way, Jose!
I think the hemp thing is a big part, but I think there are other issues w/ MJ, as well. Heck even the history channel did a decent episode on how it was made illegal, interesting.
I think this may be the newer one, maybe not the one I am thinking about.
It should be like a prison but with therapy where they can't just walk out anytime they want.
It usually is, unless you're a celebrity or have signed yourself in voluntarily.
Quote:
But after 3 strikes then they go to jail, that is what I think would be of better service to the public and the addict.
Incarceration is cost-ineffective in almost all cases, let alone for a victimless crime like drug possession.
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.
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.
