Posted on 12/26/2019 2:15:16 PM PST by rktman
We surrender. The drug war is over. Say goodbye to the DEA.
So sayeth Satan through his vessel.
That was part of it. But we discovered that not all drug treatment facilities are good at what they do . . . a drug addict is one of the easiest kinds of people in the world to take advantage of . . . and a couple of them did. One of the rehab facilities was good, and he learned enough to put him on the right track. Two others were not so good, one actually bad, so much so that now, as bad as he hates jail, he would rather go to jail than to rehab.
Tweekers and junkies aren’t going to vote reliably. Pandering to libertarians?
No, it means that, as in the several states that have legalized marijuana, store owners would be licensed and regulated - and would (absent excessive taxation) take many customers away from street dealers.
These drugs as in the title are not regulated.
You asked about legalization, which Buttboy's plan is not. Under his plan, dealing would remain illegal and unregulated, and so only criminals would deal, just as they do now; such ideas are usually referred to as "decriminalization."
Does this mean all are innocent when people die of drug abuse from addicts getting drugs by these people/
No - Buttboy would change only the laws relating to personal-use possession (which, again, is different from legalization).
I’m actually torn on this.
I have a huge number of clients who just have these stupid drug charges. Otherwise, they have no other criminal record. They might be a grandmother, 9 grandkids, works for a living, but bizarrely also has the vice of doing cocaine and pot. She gets caught and it’s a felony charge. Maybe they don’t do jail time, maybe they do if they’ve been caught before.
Other clients, like those who do heroin, might be hardcore dependent on them and are unable to function. They might have jobs as handymen, lawncare, whatever, but they’er doing heroin and falling asleep at the taco bell parking lot.
Again, no violent criminal record. Not even thefts (but sometimes there are, to feed the addiction). Maybe traffic violations, whatever, but because they get caught so much, now they’re facing years in prison.
It seems to me that most drugs, like marijuana, Joe Rogan’s DMT, etc., are not more addictive than alcohol and that there is no one being harmed by them other than the user and the State, and the State retaliates by hurting them more than the drugs ever did.
ON THE OTHER HAND
I get a client, a black guy. Every single black client I get has 20-30 previous arrests. Lots of it violent. Assaults with deadly weapons but they dropped the deadly weapon part to get a guilty plea. Breaking into cars, houses. Brandishing guns. The works. He comes to me because he’s charged for drug dealing, and it is THIS charge that may finally put him away on a first degree felony. Not the crazy violence he’s done in the past, or the fact that he’s violated parole or bond every time he’s been on it.
The drug use by them is just a feature of their overall criminal activity. It makes it easier to put them away when you also got them for drug possession or dealing.
It seems to me, even if drug laws are unnecessary, drug laws help keep violent crime down because violent criminals often do drugs—but drugs don’t always cause violent crime, unless it’s severely addictive, and even then, not all the time.
So you see, I’m torn. I don’t like these drug laws ruining the lives of otherwise normal people or people who are simply troubled and need support.
But drug laws also keep crime down.
Under total demonrat rule, this country will be one unrecognizable free-for-all.
What's up with that? Is it the mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses?
Plus, a preemptive pardon for Ed Buck.
“Sounds to me like the position of Drug War supporters. “
The reason the drug war failed is, where there is a demand, there will be a supply. The larger the demand, the larger and cheaper the supply.
Decades ago a mere handful of cartels controlled the flow of drugs into the United States. The cartels controlled who could obtain and import. If some idiot went down to Columbia and tried to buy cocaine the locals would inform the local cartel who would then kill the idiot. It was a near perfect control on who could import. The cartels sometimes fought over territory, but, mostly, they just let each other be. Each cartel could only import so much. After a certain point they reached the point of diminishing returns. For each additional kilo they didn’t make that much more money as the over-supply kept down the price. So, they only imported enough to keep the price relatively high. This also served to keep low-end users out of the market because they couldn’t afford the product.
Then, the war on drugs destroyed the cartels and their iron control over who and how much got imported. The free market took over with individual tourists bringing back a few ounces or sending home a pound or two. Soon, the price was dirt cheap. At the same time, different, cheaper formulations and synthetic drugs were introduced. The cartels reformed into the seething mass of fighting hoods we see today in Mexico.
Perhaps it is time to readdress the situation with new solutions. But the War on Drugs has its onw lobbyists and it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. If there was a gleaming solution out there, the lobby would defeat it.
The problem is not so much the drug users using drugs, it is what the drug users are doing to get the money for the drugs.
Wonder what drugs he uses as it’s certainly apparent he’s on something pretty wild!
And illegal drugs are expensive because our drug laws give criminals a monopoly in that market. (Which Buttboy's plan does nothing to address.)
Well, in one regard it has been a rousing success. That being how completely it has pissed on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with a wholesale destruction of our fundamental liberties. It has done a great job of hastening the transition of this country from a republic to a fascist state. Asset forfeiture has turned this bogus war into a cash cow for state and local governments.
I don't know if there is even a "solution" to the drug problem, but I know it isn't the so called "war on drugs" which would be more aptly named the "war on liberty".
Out and out legalization isn't going to work. It will make things even worse. I do have some thoughts on what I believe is a better approach, but since they would never be put into practice, it's pointless to talk about them.
Sadly, a lot of ‘liberaltarian’ freepers would agree with Butt-itch.
No one in our family died. We stayed away from drugs for the most part, and somehow did just fine in life.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Drug abuse outcomes are interested in you as well.
So the Democrats pl a to jail Second Amendment folks and give a pass to etch labs.
I agree, Let Darwinism win!. the battle field of the war on drugs will quickly clear itself. and when drugs are legal they won’t be so attractive for some people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.