Another "victimless crime"

[Woobie]

Not in all jurisdictions, as you are aware. Marijuana may represent a successful test case that might translate to other areas. But most people don't see marijuana as any more addictive than alcohol, so it may not translate for the seriously addictive illicit substances.

Again, it shows us the benefit of ending a war. I don't have any expectation for it to curtail usage. That is just a happy byproduct. Marijuana and alcohol abuse must be targeted by effective methods. And you will never end it completely.

 

[ATM]

Let's agree that the War on Drugs is a failure. What should it be replaced with?

Nothing is stopping us from fixing the problems which prohibition and the war on drugs caused. Since prohibition didn't actually fix anything, it doesn't need "replaced" with anything.

I've given examples. What do you suggest? (Time to provide a solution rather than picking debate point winners and losers .... and I mean that in the nicest way.)

I will always suggest campaigns of education and persuasion.

 

[Woobie]

Hot stoves. Really?

LOL

Pick any metaphor you want, and it sounds ridiculous. And yet prohibitionists bitterly cling to the war on drugs. The fact is, it is just as laughable.

 

[Alpo]

I don't know how reliable the statistic is, and I can't remember the source of the info right now, but it was said that 2/3rds of the proceeds of illicit drugs are retained in the "retail" country. In the USA, that represents slightly less than 1% of GDP.

Legalize drugs and we reduce police forces (when has that ever happened) and thugs will be looking for work (hmmmm).

 

[ATM]

I assume you do not mean "MY" personal choice. Otherwise, I agree.

I could rephrase it as supporting the violent artificial consequences imposed upon those would otherwise be free to choose differently than you do and the violently altered market which sprung up to provide for those who still dared.

 

[Woobie]

I don't know how reliable the statistic is, and I can't remember the source of the info right now, but it was said that 2/3rds of the proceeds of illicit drugs are retained in the "retail" country. In the USA, that represents slightly less than 1% of GDP.

Legalize drugs and we reduce police forces (when has that ever happened) and thugs will be looking for work (hmmmm).

Some of these drug dealers are fairly industrious and imaginative. We could probably use some of them in the workforce. Some will find other ways to beat the system.

Laying off half the DEA sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Alpo]

Laying off half the DEA sounds pretty good to me.

They'll become counter-terrorism enforcers. Squeezing a water balloon changes its shape, not its volume.

 

[Woobie]

They'll become counter-terrorism enforcers. Squeezing a water balloon changes its shape, not its volume.

It took some time to get here, it will take some time to get out. Start plugging holes and the rats have fewer places to hide.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I've seen several heroin overdoses recently who were in moving cars. Some of them were DRIVING.

I think we as a nation are accelerating towards some sort of critical mass situation with heroin. Not sure what's going to happen, but it seems like a building wave of near death and chronic anoxic brain injury vegetables will be upon us shortly

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've seen several heroin overdoses recently who were in moving cars. Some of them were DRIVING.

I think we as a nation are accelerating towards some sort of critical mass situation with heroin. Not sure what's going to happen, but it seems like a building wave of near death and chronic anoxic brain injury vegetables will be upon us shortly

There were a couple of such stories posted in another thread a week or so ago. As long as the public is on the hook for paying for the collateral damage (in this case, as you mentioned the vegatables) of drug use, there is going to be resistance to decriminalizing them.

 

[rvb]

Again, it shows us the benefit of ending a war. I don't have any expectation for it to curtail usage.

I think this is the disconnect in this thread. Alpo seems to only consider reduction in the usage to be the benefit to society. I'm not trying to prove ending the war on drugs will reduce usage; I'm trying to show it will reduce homicides and poisoned product and all the byproduct that happens when a market goes underground (not to mention all the prison over crowding and other effects). users are gonna use, and we've shown even a complete ban and a "war" on he product won't stop them. so lets look to ways to 1) reduce the wake of the drug use and 2) look for ways to help the users.

Or, we keep up with the status quo.... oh, and all those drug related murders, the politicians can use those to springboard their gun control agenda...

-rvb

 

[Woobie]

I think this is the disconnect in this thread. Alpo seems to only consider reduction in the usage to be the benefit to society. I'm not trying to prove ending the war on drugs will reduce usage; I'm trying to show it will reduce homicides and poisoned product and all the byproduct that happens when a market goes underground (not to mention all the prison over crowding and other effects). users are gonna use, and we've shown even a complete ban and a "war" on he product won't stop them. so lets look to ways to 1) reduce the wake of the drug use and 2) look for ways to help the users.

Or, we keep up with the status quo.... oh, and all those drug related murders, the politicians can use those to springboard their gun control agenda...

-rvb

Exactly

 

[Woobie]

I've seen several heroin overdoses recently who were in moving cars. Some of them were DRIVING.

I think we as a nation are accelerating towards some sort of critical mass situation with heroin. Not sure what's going to happen, but it seems like a building wave of near death and chronic anoxic brain injury vegetables will be upon us shortly

The zombie apocalypse!

But I agree. It is obvious we aren't doing enough of the right things, and quite a bit of the wrong things. Sometimes you have to call a time out and revisit your strategy before the other team runs away with the game.

 

[Woobie]

There were a couple of such stories posted in another thread a week or so ago. As long as the public is on the hook for paying for the collateral damage (in this case, as you mentioned the vegatables) of drug use, there is going to be resistance to decriminalizing them.

Thats the difficulty of the struggle. The public has been on the hook for so long for all the wrong we are doing, they don't mind still wasting the money. So instead of reducing their financial burden through fixing the problem, they would rather allocate their resources to punishing those who cause the liability. It's sort of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" attitude we have toward this right now. It isn't easy to grow out of that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thats the difficulty of the struggle. The public has been on the hook for so long for all the wrong we are doing, they don't mind still wasting the money. So instead of reducing their financial burden through fixing the problem, they would rather allocate their resources to punishing those who cause the liability. It's sort of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" attitude we have toward this right now. It isn't easy to grow out of that.

This info may be out there somewhere, I don't know...but a thought just occurred to me. Counties such as Lawrence County started needle exchange programs to help reduce the cases of blood borne disease transfer. I'm sure there is enough data by now to start to see if these programs actually have any effect on usage (probably not) and its cost on the counties/state for the costs associated with HIV, hepatitis, etc. If it is reducing the cost, one might be inclined to think that changing the approach on how drug abuse is handled would actually save taxpayer money and lives.

 

[BE Mike]

This info may be out there somewhere, I don't know...but a thought just occurred to me. Counties such as Lawrence County started needle exchange programs to help reduce the cases of blood borne disease transfer. I'm sure there is enough data by now to start to see if these programs actually have any effect on usage (probably not) and its cost on the counties/state for the costs associated with HIV, hepatitis, etc. If it is reducing the cost, one might be inclined to think that changing the approach on how drug abuse is handled would actually save taxpayer money and lives.

The taxpayers will have to carry the load, no matter what programs are administered. Addicts typically can't pay for their medical treatment. This is why, no matter what "solution" comes about, the "individual liberty" and poor choices of the addicts will continue to affect everyone in one way or another.

 

[Woobie]

The taxpayers will have to carry the load, no matter what programs are administered. Addicts typically can't pay for their medical treatment. This is why, no matter what "solution" comes about, the "individual liberty" and poor choices of the addicts will continue to affect everyone in one way or another.

Did you read my treatment program? There is a question of who lays out the initial funds, which I haven't cleared up yet. But the addict is on the hook in the long term. If they don't like it, they can choose to be DNR.

 

[ATM]

The taxpayers will have to carry the load, no matter what programs are administered...

The only programs you can imagine are government programs?

Government thrives on violence and control, it is not in the business of solutions.

 

[BE Mike]

The only programs you can imagine are government programs?

Government thrives on violence and control, it is not in the business of solutions.

And all the time I thought this government was the people. Silly me.

 

[BE Mike]

Did you read my treatment program? There is a question of who lays out the initial funds, which I haven't cleared up yet. But the addict is on the hook in the long term. If they don't like it, they can choose to be DNR.

Yes I did. No offense, but I don't see anyone saluting when you run it up the flag pole.