Posted on 03/20/2012 2:54:08 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
It’a hard to imagine legalizing anything stronger than pot. I wonder how much money would be saved legalizing pot — taken into account people in the judicial system for just pot related offenses.
Could legalized drug abuse become the next bubble for the economy?
That will be where it starts - and if we decide that what's left of the War On Drugs is actually winnable, that's where legalization will end.
I wonder how much money would be saved legalizing pot — taken into account people in the judicial system for just pot related offenses.
It's not just number of people but also length of sentence. And money would also be saved in no longer going after pot producers and sellers. And saving money is not the greatest of the benefits of legalization - no longer putting hyperinflated pot profits in criminal hands is at the top of my list.
Could legalized drug abuse become the next bubble for the economy?
Legal alcohol use is a stable economic activity, not a "bubble" - I'd expect legal pot use to be the same.
Yup, the War On Drugs is welfare for LEOs and criminals.
Bttt read later
..
It's strange how many people don't see that "freedom - but not for acts I disapprove of" is not freedom at all.
The Constitution requires an Amendment to have any prohibition. Last I checked we repealed the last one and have not amended the Constitution for another one.
The issue is NOT should drugs be legal? The Issue is why are we letting the federal government enact a 2nd prohibition without constitutional authority?
I think we should use Singapore as a model for our anti- drug laws.
“The right speaks of personal freedom but not really.”
This is something social conservatives really need to confront, within themselves.
Are they really going to stand for small and limted government, or are they against big and intrusive government ONLY if and when it makes on imposition on their sensibilities.
I wish they saw there is common ground.
For instance: That common ground is found in the fact that Roe-v-Wade did not establish abortion as a “right”, as in the rights found in the Bill of Rights. Roe-v-wade means, and simply means abortion cannot be totally illegalized by the states. So, its “legal” like smoking cigarettes are “legal”.
So, in defense of the pro-choice folks, yes abortion is “legal”. But, in defense of the pro-life folks, just because the law says a woman CAN have an abortion, that is not a claim on anyone that THEY must provide it for her. She can go to anyone who agrees to provide it, but no one can be required to be that provider. And, the government cannot command anyone to be an abortion provider, against their will, just because of Roe-V-Wade. Just because it is “legal” does not make it mandatory for anyone not wishing to be part of it.
There are many current social issues that could be bridged this way between social conservatives and Libertarians.
As you can see, it takes Libertarian conservatives also admitting that there are limits to how far “legal” can be imposed against the Liberty of those not in favor of something.
The Constitution requires an Amendment to have any prohibition. Last I checked we repealed the last one and have not amended the Constitution for another one.
After Prohibition was passed and experienced, it was repealed; but the same year it was repealed, Congress passed drug prohibition laws ... without a backlash. By that time, there had been so many overreaches by the FedGov that no one complaiined that that the new drug laws were unconstitutional.
Drug counselors will privately tell you that success rates are around 5% - abysmal. Many don't even try to help the addicts.
True story:
My friend's ex-wife became an addict after a badly broken ankle. She finally enrolled in a local methadone program. We had hopes for her.
But the clinic did nothing for her except sell her that daily dose & collect the associated gov’t subsidy. That daily dose became the most important thing in her life.
This went on for years until she went into the hospital with kidney problems. The doctors there told her the methadone was destroying her kidneys & liver, & would kill her if she continued using it. She managed to quit on her own.
Here is my point: If that clinic had secretly cut her dose a tiny bit each week, she would have been drug free in months & avoided some serious kidney problems. But the clinic would have lost a patient, & the associated subsidies. The clinic had zero incentive to help people, & every incentive to keep them addicted.
BTW, the alcohol rehab industry works exactly the same way & has the same level of success.
Give yourself a minute or two and make a more specious argument. If you decrease the number of activities that are considered crimes, of course crime will go down. That’s like saying you won’t be hungry after you eat. It also isn’t making any kind of a point.
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.