The War on Drugs

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And this is my issue with most “legalize it” folks. Personal freedom? Most would say sure. But the consequences of personal freedom? No, that’s a social responsibility.

How about just personal responsibility?

Society cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual people.[/quote]

If people accept full responsibility for their own actions, they can shoot/smoke up. I’d think less of them (yeah, I’m a snob, big deal), but if I’m not going to have my pocket picked to take care of drug-related health problems…And this also goes for smokers and devourers of junk food.

If I help drug users, it’ll be done voluntarily. And, it’ll be through the antiquated charitable avenue called a church.

22

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And this is my issue with most “legalize it” folks. Personal freedom? Most would say sure. But the consequences of personal freedom? No, that’s a social responsibility.

How about just personal responsibility?

Society cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual people.[/quote]

And what do you mean it can’t be? It already is.

23

[quote]jayski wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:

I don’t think it will make America better or worse. It costs billions of dollars a year to fight something that cannot be won. It cost about 800-1000 dollars to treat an addict and 40,000 a year to incarcerate them

I don’t know if you meant 800-1000 a year, but from what I heard from a nurse that does the paperwork for medicad at a rehab facility, that’s about how much a day they get. Covers their “treatments”, food money or aka cigarette money, or some extra pocket change as they see fit, while the administrators, office workers and most of all the owners are enjoying huge profits, sizable bonuses and bragging rights to expensive vacations to Hawaii and Figi. All the while the staff, CNAs-LPN’s are getting severely underpaid to put up with these assholes. [/quote]

In a nutshell all treatment facilities are only meant to get people away from drugs in a controlled environment for a little while, while they go to Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous. Aftercare is all about AA or NA.

All you need for an AA or NA meeting is 2 addicts and a big book. It doesn’t cost that much for either.

Addiction is a disease. We don’t call people assholes and respond to them with bigotry, hatred, prejudice because they get diabetes, cancer or heart disease.

As long as it is acceptable to treat addiction like leprosy was treated in the bible we will never have a rational intelligent policy.

[quote]
If we were to legalize drugs, it would have to be with a catch. They are responsible completely for it. They aren’t elegible to receive any medicad or any government/taxpayer aid, they have to pay for their own addiction. Rather than going to jail for any reckless behavior as a result, they do lots of community service. Obviously if they commit murder, they will of course be subject to the consequences of that. [/quote]

We don’t apply your proposed standards to other diseases so why do it to addicts?

[quote]
Non of this, he was in an altered state and needs to be admitted to the nut house, harm an innocent child physically as a result of the addiction, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor with it remains jail time and loss of that child. [/quote]

Noone has proposed absolving people of responsibility for their actions. You are just spewing a bunch of hysterical propaganda.

[quote]
Same goes if their addiction money is only going for drugs and not for their childs well being till 17 or 18 years of age, they will have them removed. [/quote]

Our present policy of interdiction acts as price support to keep the price of drugs artificially high and does that right now. So you are not making any sense.

[quote]
These ideas are open to improvment but I think it’s a start on improving what we got now, which isn’t working at all. It’s pretty much the same thing we got going already, but with a few differences. [/quote]

Your ideas are open to some serious improvement. The starting point would be to drop all the bigotry and prejudice.

24

[quote]Sifu wrote:
jayski wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:

I don’t think it will make America better or worse. It costs billions of dollars a year to fight something that cannot be won. It cost about 800-1000 dollars to treat an addict and 40,000 a year to incarcerate them

I don’t know if you meant 800-1000 a year, but from what I heard from a nurse that does the paperwork for medicad at a rehab facility, that’s about how much a day they get. Covers their “treatments”, food money or aka cigarette money, or some extra pocket change as they see fit, while the administrators, office workers and most of all the owners are enjoying huge profits, sizable bonuses and bragging rights to expensive vacations to Hawaii and Figi. All the while the staff, CNAs-LPN’s are getting severely underpaid to put up with these assholes.

In a nutshell all treatment facilities are only meant to get people away from drugs in a controlled environment for a little while, while they go to Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous. Aftercare is all about AA or NA.

All you need for an AA or NA meeting is 2 addicts and a big book. It doesn’t cost that much for either.

Addiction is a disease. We don’t call people assholes and respond to them with bigotry, hatred, prejudice because they get diabetes, cancer or heart disease.

As long as it is acceptable to treat addiction like leprosy was treated in the bible we will never have a rational intelligent policy.

If we were to legalize drugs, it would have to be with a catch. They are responsible completely for it. They aren’t elegible to receive any medicad or any government/taxpayer aid, they have to pay for their own addiction. Rather than going to jail for any reckless behavior as a result, they do lots of community service. Obviously if they commit murder, they will of course be subject to the consequences of that.

We don’t apply your proposed standards to other diseases so why do it to addicts?

Non of this, he was in an altered state and needs to be admitted to the nut house, harm an innocent child physically as a result of the addiction, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor with it remains jail time and loss of that child.

Noone has proposed absolving people of responsibility for their actions. You are just spewing a bunch of hysterical propaganda.

Same goes if their addiction money is only going for drugs and not for their childs well being till 17 or 18 years of age, they will have them removed.

Our present policy of interdiction acts as price support to keep the price of drugs artificially high and does that right now. So you are not making any sense.

These ideas are open to improvment but I think it’s a start on improving what we got now, which isn’t working at all. It’s pretty much the same thing we got going already, but with a few differences.

Your ideas are open to some serious improvement. The starting point would be to drop all the bigotry and prejudice.[/quote]

Couldn’t agree with you more on this.

25

Maybe Obama can win some points with me if he ends this idiotic ‘war’. Now, if he does not sign FOCA too, then I might almost like him. I hold little hope for such a change…

26

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I don’t understand the stigma that some of you are attaching to illegal drugs. For most of them, the only reason that they are illegal today is that they were illegal yesterday. There are numerous currently legal substances that if they were discovered today someone would be pressing for them to be illegal. [/quote]

I remember when Nevada was considering legalizing Marijuana they had the Los Vegas sheriff on wining that it would be a bad idea to make marijuana legal because it is an illegal drug.

[quote]
Their are plenty of people that are using class A drugs in a manageable way that are not impacting society in any negative way. You probably work with several serious drug users that you don’t even know that they are taking something. [/quote]

In America instead of the class system we use a numerical drug schedule system. Class A would be equivalent to schedules 1 and 2. Schedule drugs are highly addictive with no accepted use in medicine, ie Heroin, cocaine, meth. Schedule 2 is also highly addictive but used in medicine, ie Oxycontin, morphine, Ritalin.

Addictiveness has nothing to do with the scheduling by the way. ie The response in the dopamine production center of the brain the part of the brain that is responsible for addiction is 4 times higher to Ritalin than it is to Cocaine.

Which shows just how irrational and arbitrary the drug schedule system is. Ritalin is an extremely addictive Methamphetamine but because it is legal it is passed out to children just like it is a candy.

[quote]
The main problems caused by illegal drugs are because they are expensive, it is hard to guarantee quality and the trade is controlled by criminals. Basically the problem with illegal drugs is that they are illegal. [/quote]

Worse than that. All the problems that result from the illegality of drugs is used as further justification for keeping them illegal.

ie Drug gangs are killing each other and innocent people fighting over drug turf is a reason to keep them illegal.

Kids get ahold of them because the supply chain is unregulated.
That is why we need to keep them illegal.

People are dying from inconsistent purity or adulteration. That is why we need a law to keep the business in the hands of black marketeers.

Drug dealers are buying off politicians and police. That’s why we need the law which keeps them making the money they use to corrupt our government.

[quote]
There is no evidence (that I am aware of) to indicate that usage would increase if drugs were legalised. [/quote]

Alcohol use went down after prohibition ended. Holland has lower rates of drug usage than the US.

This is most likely because one of the characteristic behaviors of late stage addicts or alcoholics is to stockpile a supply of their drug of choice so they don’t have worry about running out. This stockpiling in turn leads to binging because thy have plenty to use.

ie People stock up on alcohol for New Years because the alcohol stores close early and they don’t want to run out. Or they make sure they have plenty of beer on hand for the super bowl because they don’t want to have to make a beer run during the game. Then they end up binging because they have plenty of booze on hand.

[quote]
The kind of problem drug users that you are talking about sound like something out of a 60s drug education video. And if they do exist, they don’t sound like people that are going to be abiding by the prohibition in the first place. [/quote]

In a free society there are limits to what government can do to control human behavior. Unfortunately some societies are full of unrealistic people who can’t accept that government has it’s limitations who are too much in denial to see that their cure is worse than the disease they are trying to cure.

27

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And this is my issue with most “legalize it” folks. Personal freedom? Most would say sure. But the consequences of personal freedom? No, that’s a social responsibility.[/quote]

It shouldn’t be. I don’t see the point in helping someone who chose to take a drug that is widely known as addictive and potentially fatal. But again, it is their choice to do so. Whether or not you choose to help them is up to you.

28

[quote]pat wrote:
Maybe Obama can win some points with me if he ends this idiotic ‘war’. Now, if he does not sign FOCA too, then I might almost like him. I hold little hope for such a change…[/quote]

One of the few that I could hope for from a Democrat controlled government would be the application of reason and logic to the war on drugs, which was initiated by the Republicans as revenge upon the hippy movement of the sixties.

Bill Clinton didn’t do it and I doubt Obama will be likely to do it either. By now our government is too much in the control of drug war special interests.

29

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And this is my issue with most “legalize it” folks. Personal freedom? Most would say sure. But the consequences of personal freedom? No, that’s a social responsibility.

How about just personal responsibility?

Society cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual people.

If people accept full responsibility for their own actions, they can shoot/smoke up. I’d think less of them (yeah, I’m a snob, big deal), but if I’m not going to have my pocket picked to take care of drug-related health problems…And this also goes for smokers and devourers of junk food.

If I help drug users, it’ll be done voluntarily. And, it’ll be through the antiquated charitable avenue called a church.[/quote]

Your pocket is being picked to put non violent drug users in prison. They don?t get help, it does not settle the problem, and it does nothing but creates violence in locations of the traffic and creates an extreme profit

30

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your pocket is being picked to put non violent drug users in prison. They don?t get help, it does not settle the problem, and it does nothing but creates violence in locations of the traffic and creates an extreme profit

[/quote]

So legalizie it, and don’t pick my pocket to treat drug related health problems. Deal?

31

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Your pocket is being picked to put non violent drug users in prison. They don?t get help, it does not settle the problem, and it does nothing but creates violence in locations of the traffic and creates an extreme profit

So legalizie it, and don’t pick my pocket to treat drug related health problems. Deal?[/quote]

Epic deal.

32

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Your pocket is being picked to put non violent drug users in prison. They don?t get help, it does not settle the problem, and it does nothing but creates violence in locations of the traffic and creates an extreme profit

So legalizie it, and don’t pick my pocket to treat drug related health problems. Deal?[/quote]

Perfect for me.

33

[quote]Sifu wrote:
jayski wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:

I don’t think it will make America better or worse. It costs billions of dollars a year to fight something that cannot be won. It cost about 800-1000 dollars to treat an addict and 40,000 a year to incarcerate them

I don’t know if you meant 800-1000 a year, but from what I heard from a nurse that does the paperwork for medicad at a rehab facility, that’s about how much a day they get. Covers their “treatments”, food money or aka cigarette money, or some extra pocket change as they see fit, while the administrators, office workers and most of all the owners are enjoying huge profits, sizable bonuses and bragging rights to expensive vacations to Hawaii and Figi. All the while the staff, CNAs-LPN’s are getting severely underpaid to put up with these assholes.

In a nutshell all treatment facilities are only meant to get people away from drugs in a controlled environment for a little while, while they go to Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous. Aftercare is all about AA or NA.

All you need for an AA or NA meeting is 2 addicts and a big book. It doesn’t cost that much for either.

Addiction is a disease. We don’t call people assholes and respond to them with bigotry, hatred, prejudice because they get diabetes, cancer or heart disease.

As long as it is acceptable to treat addiction like leprosy was treated in the bible we will never have a rational intelligent policy.

If we were to legalize drugs, it would have to be with a catch. They are responsible completely for it. They aren’t elegible to receive any medicad or any government/taxpayer aid, they have to pay for their own addiction. Rather than going to jail for any reckless behavior as a result, they do lots of community service. Obviously if they commit murder, they will of course be subject to the consequences of that.

We don’t apply your proposed standards to other diseases so why do it to addicts?

Non of this, he was in an altered state and needs to be admitted to the nut house, harm an innocent child physically as a result of the addiction, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor with it remains jail time and loss of that child.

Noone has proposed absolving people of responsibility for their actions. You are just spewing a bunch of hysterical propaganda.

Same goes if their addiction money is only going for drugs and not for their childs well being till 17 or 18 years of age, they will have them removed.

Our present policy of interdiction acts as price support to keep the price of drugs artificially high and does that right now. So you are not making any sense.

These ideas are open to improvment but I think it’s a start on improving what we got now, which isn’t working at all. It’s pretty much the same thing we got going already, but with a few differences.

Your ideas are open to some serious improvement. The starting point would be to drop all the bigotry and prejudice.[/quote]

Having grown up with drug addicts I won’t drop any bigotry and prejudice, they don’t deserve any pity, they are low life pieces of fucking shits and I’m sure glad I ain’t one of them. Most of them don’t want improvement. They’ll be clean for 6 months and they’ll end up right back in rehab. And they don’t just attend a couple of meetings with with a nice little book to take home with them, they have to go through step programs which is where the 800 a day goes to. Many of them are there because it was either jail or that.

Having a relative work as a nurse in a rehab facility, I used to go there often when she either needed me to drop something off or pick her up from work and these assholes know they are fucking the system and are being babied through it. They don’t want improvement, they love the coddling they are getting from our tax dollars. So drop all your fucking remorse those people, they chose that life and are going to stick with it. They laugh about it while they are clean. I don’t care what they say, addiction is not a disease, that’s just some bullshit they tell them to try and get them to improve. They inject that shit in themselves, and they know what it will do to them. It’s a choice. So if I’m addicted to chocolate, does that mean I have a fucking disease?

34

The single greatest joke in the 20th & 21st centuries. Sorry guys but on this one you’re wearing the “L” on your forehead.

35

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Your pocket is being picked to put non violent drug users in prison. They don?t get help, it does not settle the problem, and it does nothing but creates violence in locations of the traffic and creates an extreme profit

So legalizie it, and don’t pick my pocket to treat drug related health problems. Deal?[/quote]

My point is you are not just paying for the health problems that come from drug abuse; you are paying for some war that can not be won, that can not even claim one victory. And this war has so many negatives besides cost.

36

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Your pocket is being picked to put non violent drug users in prison. They don?t get help, it does not settle the problem, and it does nothing but creates violence in locations of the traffic and creates an extreme profit

So legalizie it, and don’t pick my pocket to treat drug related health problems. Deal?

My point is you are not just paying for the health problems that come from drug abuse; you are paying for some war that can not be won, that can not even claim one victory. And this war has so many negatives besides cost.

[/quote]

Which is why I’m for legalizing drug addicts using. I’m just saying, that if you choose to use, don’t go looking to the government to take care of your (not you personally, of course) any drug related health problems. We all decided that you’re a big boy, who can make his own choices and take care of himself.

37

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Your pocket is being picked to put non violent drug users in prison. They don?t get help, it does not settle the problem, and it does nothing but creates violence in locations of the traffic and creates an extreme profit

So legalizie it, and don’t pick my pocket to treat drug related health problems. Deal?

My point is you are not just paying for the health problems that come from drug abuse; you are paying for some war that can not be won, that can not even claim one victory. And this war has so many negatives besides cost.

Which is why I’m for legalizing drug addicts using. I’m just saying, that if you choose to use, don’t go looking to the government to take care of your (not you personally, of course) any drug related health problems. We all decided that you’re a big boy, who can make his own choices and take care of himself.[/quote]

The Gov. is already taking care of Drug Addicts through Soc. Sec. I personally feel America needs a safety net to take care of those that can not take care of them selves. That is the bleeding heart in me. I am more repulsed by taking care of major Corporations so they can screw the working class.

38

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Gov. is already taking care of Drug Addicts through Soc. Sec. I personally feel America needs a safety net to take care of those that can not take care of them selves.

[/quote]

If I have to take care of him, then I’ll dictate his lifestyle. Really, it’s that simple. He wants individual freedom? Me too. Freedom from paying for a drug users bad lifestyle choices. When he starts marching for my cause, I’ll start for marching his. But, like I said, most legalize it folk aren’t after personal freedom. And most are frightened by the idea of personal resposibility, the other side of the freedom coin.

39

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
The Gov. is already taking care of Drug Addicts through Soc. Sec. I personally feel America needs a safety net to take care of those that can not take care of them selves.

If I have to take care of him, then I’ll dictate his lifestyle. Really, it’s that simple. He wants individual freedom? Me too. Freedom from paying for a drug users bad lifestyle choices. When he starts marching for my cause, I’ll start for marching his. But, like I said, most legalize it folk aren’t after personal freedom. And most are frightened by the idea of personal resposibility, the other side of the freedom coin.[/quote]

You are paying many times over the cost of supporting him to persecute him .

40

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
The Gov. is already taking care of Drug Addicts through Soc. Sec. I personally feel America needs a safety net to take care of those that can not take care of them selves.

If I have to take care of him, then I’ll dictate his lifestyle. Really, it’s that simple. He wants individual freedom? Me too. Freedom from paying for a drug users bad lifestyle choices. When he starts marching for my cause, I’ll start for marching his. But, like I said, most legalize it folk aren’t after personal freedom. And most are frightened by the idea of personal resposibility, the other side of the freedom coin.

You are paying many times over the cost of supporting him to persecute him .
[/quote]

And he’s not willing to me to join in my fight to do away with supporting others through entitlement programs. Since entitlement programs alone are threatening to sink our financial ship, when he’s willing not to be a burden on me period, we’ll talk. But, if he doesn’t want to responsible for his bad choices, I’m not going to be agitated enough to join his cause in any active way. Let’s compromise. Drugs legal. Pay his own health costs.