A safer society? Legalize drugs

The Boston Globe ^ | June 6, 2006 | Bill Fried

[LowCountryJoe]

Meanwhile, politicians puff sanctimoniously about ``cleaning the streets" and ``ridding the projects of drug dealers

[Know your rights]

So You do want us to continue the support system for dopers?

Which part of "I'm against us having to pay for their living/medical expenses" did you not understand?

[Know your rights]

simple irrelevant facts that you can't and won't needn't address.

There, now that's correct.

[Mojave]

irrelevant facts

Facts are irrelevant to the dope cult.

[investigateworld]

Go back and read your post #298.

What? Because I don't want to pay for the survival of dopers I'm now a hypocrite? Just because I think a guy who busts his butt in construction all day should be able to kick back with a beer? (or two or twenty) If I'm following your thinking, because the above scenario is legal, a subject should be able to do a couple of lines of cocaine?
Just have a bit of difficulty following your reasoning.
And I admit, having seen some beautiful young ladies get hooked on meth, then turned into sh*t dipped in misery does color my thought process.
If you know the doper world, then you know it's based on predatory behavior. These maggots are always looking for some sweet young thing to get hooked, then support their (the collective "their") habits.

[Know your rights]

Your facts are irrelevant to any post on this thread.

[Know your rights]

Which part of "I'm against us having to pay for their living/medical expenses" did you not understand?

Go back and read your post #298.

I understood my post; it's you who seems to be having trouble.

Just because I think a guy who busts his butt in construction all day should be able to kick back with a beer? (or two or twenty)

Quit evading the subject ... I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about the guy who you and I have to support because of his alcohol abuse. Why isn't your continued support for the legality of the drug alcohol conditional on your not having to support its abusers, since you take that position with regard to other drugs?

having seen some beautiful young ladies get hooked on meth

Never seen anyone get hooked on alcohol? I have ... it's not pretty.

[investigateworld]

You wrote: "Why isn't your continued support for the legality of the drug alcohol conditional on your not having to support its abusers, since you take that position with regard to other drugs?"

Where did I ever say I wanted to support any "substance abuser"?

Again, my position is remove all support (tax payer funded) and let the Darwin Effect proceed.

[Know your rights]

my position is remove all support (tax payer funded)

Mine too. Is is also your position that some drugs should be illegal until all taxpayer funded support is removed, but other drugs (such as alcohol) should be legal even though all taxpayer funded support hasn't been removed?

[investigateworld]

(Scratching old head) OK I'll try again

My position is remove all funding for all substance abusers, IE: Food stamps, Section eight housing and so forth.
Many of these folks would do some really dumb stuff just to get in jail, so we'd have to call in a certain Arizona Sheriff as director of inmate housing. All medical limited to basic life saving, no transplants and the like.

Once these concepts are in place, then remove all laws concerning usage, possession etc. Sales or transferring of course would be subject to a relative defending the intended recipient. (Family member or designated representative able to terminate said sales staff)
Guaranteed it would be ugly for a few months... Of course the existing government would be totally against it. Laws concerning booze would remain in place of course. The Nanny State folks would say, "But we're at where we were in the 1880s. Waaaaahhhh".
My response "SO?"

[Know your rights]

My position is remove all funding for all substance abusers[...] Once these concepts are in place, then remove all laws concerning usage, possession etc.

So you think the drug alcohol should be banned until all funding is removed for alcohol abusers? If not, why are you making an exception for that drug?

[investigateworld]

I thought the thread was about drugs, such a cocaine, heroin, meth and the like. We've already tried banning alcohol ... how far did we get with that?

And I know many functioning alcoholics (I'm a retired cop remember?)

But once one goes into the drug slide, the need for a higher buzz overcomes everything.
I've been clear what I think would work. What would your solution be?

[Know your rights]

I thought the thread was about drugs

It is. Alcohol is a drug.

We've already tried banning alcohol ... how far did we get with that?

Not much less far than we've gotten with banning other drugs.

[investigateworld]

Your solution?

[Know your rights]

The same as the solution to the ills of Prohibition: relegalize.

[investigateworld]

Sounds like we're moving towards the same sheet of music. I know this sounds like a hard *ss, but I would tolerate that only as long one could protect the younger members of their family via taking steps so no one would temp them to use said drugs. Remember, the druggie world is a collection of predators.
AND
No taxpayer support system for the addicts.

[Know your rights]

the druggie world is a collection of predators.

If that's any less true for alcohol than for other drugs (and I don't know that it is), it's most likely because of the illegality and the consequent economic motivation to create more users (so one can sell to them and use the profits for one's own drugs).

No taxpayer support system for the addicts.

So you think the drug alcohol should be banned until all funding is removed for alcohol abusers? If not, why are you making an exception for that drug?

[investigateworld]

I give up ... I quit... You've beaten me down, nothing should be legal...
Just ban everything ... Happy Now?

[Know your rights]

nothing should be legal... Just ban everything ... Happy Now?

To the extent that I've finally outed you, yes.

[investigateworld]

You've done nothing of the sort. You never answered my question, : "What do you propose?"

I've been clear where my thinking is, and you?

[Know your rights]

You've done nothing of the sort.

Sure I have: you admitted your ban-happy prejudices.

You never answered my question, : "What do you propose?"

Wrong again.