[quote]pittbulll wrote:
With all the negative concerning the War on Drugs and with the deficit being so astronomical, why does not America end this war?
Even if the government stopped the war on drugs, they’d just rename the DEA and give them something else to do. Making the government smaller is definitely not in the plans for this new administration.
[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.
And what do you mean it can’t be? It already is.[/quote]
Society is just a collective, abstract idea that describes concerted cooperation. Society does not act; society does not plan; individuals do. In this respect society cannot be held responsible for anything. Responsibility goes to individuals and groups of individuals who are capable of acting and not society in general.
It is the ideologies born out of the collectivist mindset – like the utilitarian myth of the “public good” – that have been the source of many evils committed over mankind. We need to undo this way of thinking if we are ever going to live in peace among all men.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
With all the negative concerning the War on Drugs and with the deficit being so astronomical, why does not America end this war?
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5663/t/3881/tellafriend.jsp?tell_a_friend_KEY=415&key=3788423
Even if the government stopped the war on drugs, they’d just rename the DEA and give them something else to do. Making the government smaller is definitely not in the plans for this new administration.[/quote]
your right , we need true conservitism
[quote]Sloth wrote:
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 .
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.[/quote]
I´ll gladly post it again, the GOP will be a “leave me alone” coalition or it will be three old white men in wheel chairs remembering the good old days.
Gays, lesbians, militia members, pot smokers, home schoolers, gun owners, gold bugs and new confederates unite!
You ARE the silent majority.
[quote]jayski wrote:
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.
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? [/quote]
A vast number of medical studies disagree with you.
[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]
I agree, whilst you are at it lets stop funding treatment for heart disease, it’s normally caused by bad diet and excercise which is a choice.
Also we won’t treat anyone who is involved in a car accident. They knew the dangers.
Anyone who is bitten by their pet dog of course will have to treat themselves. What were they thinking keeping such a dangerous animal.
Sports injuries, they are out as well. Sport carries a high risk of injury so they can treat themselves.
Anyone suffering from an allergy, they don’t get treated either, they should have avoided eating it. And I don’t believe allergies are real either. I think they are faking a disease.
OK that’s cut the health cost bills for the country!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
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 .
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.[/quote]
So you are happy to pay more on a point of principal.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.
I agree, whilst you are at it lets stop funding treatment for heart disease, it’s normally caused by bad diet and excercise which is a choice.
Also we won’t treat anyone who is involved in a car accident. They knew the dangers.
Anyone who is bitten by their pet dog of course will have to treat themselves. What were they thinking keeping such a dangerous animal.
Sports injuries, they are out as well. Sport carries a high risk of injury so they can treat themselves.
Anyone suffering from an allergy, they don’t get treated either, they should have avoided eating it. And I don’t believe allergies are real either. I think they are faking a disease.
OK that’s cut the health cost bills for the country![/quote]
I know it was meant to be ironic, but I totally agree anyway.
I know a way out of this though:
The magic of private health insurance.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I agree, whilst you are at it lets stop funding treatment for heart disease, it’s normally caused by bad diet and excercise which is a choice.
Also we won’t treat anyone who is involved in a car accident. They knew the dangers.
Anyone who is bitten by their pet dog of course will have to treat themselves. What were they thinking keeping such a dangerous animal.
Sports injuries, they are out as well. Sport carries a high risk of injury so they can treat themselves.
Anyone suffering from an allergy, they don’t get treated either, they should have avoided eating it. And I don’t believe allergies are real either. I think they are faking a disease.
OK that’s cut the health cost bills for the country![/quote]
You mean, completely private sector health-care? I’m right there with you! No, seriously, I am.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
So you are happy to pay more on a point of principal.[/quote]
Yep. Because, I know exactly what would happen. A country of do whatever you want, have someone else pay for the consequences. If the users are jonesing bad enough, let’s talk about individual freedom AND individual responsibilty.
[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]
Exactly, you act like a child, why should I pay for your crap, If I’m not your dad?
As for food, it does have a value, even crap food provides necessary energy requirements. Illegal drugs provide no health benefits used for recreation that can’t be accomplished with alcohol. Very light alcohol usage has been shown to help with blood lipid profiles.
Meth, coke, heroin, nothing. smoking pot will cause lung cancer. the costs of making these legal will IMO decrease the stigma from use and cost us more in the long run.
It’s not like personal responsibility is on the rise.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
It’s not like personal responsibility is on the rise.
[/quote]
How do you expect it to become more of a priority if government takes care of everything?
No, people must literally suffer the consequences of their bad decisions.
To say we need government because people take no responsibility for their own actions is ass-backwards.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I agree, whilst you are at it lets stop funding treatment for heart disease, it’s normally caused by bad diet and excercise which is a choice.
Also we won’t treat anyone who is involved in a car accident. They knew the dangers.
Anyone who is bitten by their pet dog of course will have to treat themselves. What were they thinking keeping such a dangerous animal.
Sports injuries, they are out as well. Sport carries a high risk of injury so they can treat themselves.
Anyone suffering from an allergy, they don’t get treated either, they should have avoided eating it. And I don’t believe allergies are real either. I think they are faking a disease.
OK that’s cut the health cost bills for the country!
You mean, completely private sector health-care? I’m right there with you! No, seriously, I am.
[/quote]
What about unemployed or underemployed people, what happens when they can’t meet the premiums? Do you just let them die in the street? Who then pays to scrape the corpses up or do you let them rot where they lie?
I’m all for private healthcare and I am all for keeping as much as possible in the private sector but in practice there needs to be a safety net unless you are prepared to just exterminate anyone who is below a certain poverty level (which is a practical solution but might be hard to get passed into law.)
The net change to you would be a gain if they legalized, educated and treated instead of criminalising this behaviour. From a purely capitalist standpoint I don’t understand why you wouldn’t support this.
[quote]tom63 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.
Exactly, you act like a child, why should I pay for your crap, If I’m not your dad?
As for food, it does have a value, even crap food provides necessary energy requirements. Illegal drugs provide no health benefits used for recreation that can’t be accomplished with alcohol. Very light alcohol usage has been shown to help with blood lipid profiles.
Meth, coke, heroin, nothing. smoking pot will cause lung cancer. the costs of making these legal will IMO decrease the stigma from use and cost us more in the long run.
It’s not like personal responsibility is on the rise.
[/quote]
So you would support a total ban on sweets, alcohol (prescription drugs can take care of your blood lipids as well or better with less side effects), tobacco, sky diving and large engined cars?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
tom63 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.
Exactly, you act like a child, why should I pay for your crap, If I’m not your dad?
As for food, it does have a value, even crap food provides necessary energy requirements. Illegal drugs provide no health benefits used for recreation that can’t be accomplished with alcohol. Very light alcohol usage has been shown to help with blood lipid profiles.
Meth, coke, heroin, nothing. smoking pot will cause lung cancer. the costs of making these legal will IMO decrease the stigma from use and cost us more in the long run.
It’s not like personal responsibility is on the rise.
So you would support a total ban on sweets, alcohol (prescription drugs can take care of your blood lipids as well or better with less side effects), tobacco, sky diving and large engined cars?[/quote]
Yes! If I thought for a minute all of that would pass, in a heartbeat!
Orion, that’s easy to say from a position of comfort.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
tom63 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.
Exactly, you act like a child, why should I pay for your crap, If I’m not your dad?
As for food, it does have a value, even crap food provides necessary energy requirements. Illegal drugs provide no health benefits used for recreation that can’t be accomplished with alcohol. Very light alcohol usage has been shown to help with blood lipid profiles.
Meth, coke, heroin, nothing. smoking pot will cause lung cancer. the costs of making these legal will IMO decrease the stigma from use and cost us more in the long run.
It’s not like personal responsibility is on the rise.
So you would support a total ban on sweets, alcohol (prescription drugs can take care of your blood lipids as well or better with less side effects), tobacco, sky diving and large engined cars?
Yes! If I thought for a minute all of that would pass, in a heartbeat!
[/quote]
How does that line up with personal responsibility? Surely you are talking about a total nanny state?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Orion, that’s easy to say from a position of comfort.[/quote]
And that makes it any less true?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I agree, whilst you are at it lets stop funding treatment for heart disease, it’s normally caused by bad diet and excercise which is a choice.
Also we won’t treat anyone who is involved in a car accident. They knew the dangers.
Anyone who is bitten by their pet dog of course will have to treat themselves. What were they thinking keeping such a dangerous animal.
Sports injuries, they are out as well. Sport carries a high risk of injury so they can treat themselves.
Anyone suffering from an allergy, they don’t get treated either, they should have avoided eating it. And I don’t believe allergies are real either. I think they are faking a disease.
OK that’s cut the health cost bills for the country!
You mean, completely private sector health-care? I’m right there with you! No, seriously, I am.
What about unemployed or underemployed people, what happens when they can’t meet the premiums? Do you just let them die in the street? Who then pays to scrape the corpses up or do you let them rot where they lie?
[/quote]
You should seriously look up private welfare in London if the 19th century.
You know, when working people could still see a doctor on a moments notice, drugs were affordable and crime was 2-3% of what it is now.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
How does that line up with personal responsibility? Surely you are talking about a total nanny state?[/quote]
I betcha folks would be a whole lot more accepting of personal responsibility.