Heroin problem: 'We're not going to arrest our way out of this'

The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus [IL] ^ | January 18, 2015 | Rachel Warmke

[outpostinmass2]

I thought this was a site where adults can discuss topics in a rational manner. Who said anything about guns. Hey, about that medicine I just brewed up. Want a taste?

[DiogenesLamp]

But as Diogenes said, we have to live in the real world where “entirely free of” is not possible. As he points out, it’s also unrealistic to say, “since there is some heroin, it means all efforts to control heroin are a failure”. Both sides of the all-or-nothing proposition are utopian and unrealistic.

I believe the current status quo of ~2% usage is a compromise between what is possible, and what our citizens will tolerate. A lot of Americans are squeamish about the idea of just killing drug dealers. They think it is too harsh, and so even though that is the path to improvement, it is further than most Americans want their government to go, so here we are living with what is essentially a compromise.

Singapore goes further, and has a much lower percentage of drug usage. We just don't want to go that far.

To me there are two important questions, the first being, how do we deal with the unintended consequences of the drug war — such as the proliferation of SWAT insanity and the criminal seizures of property that is owned by people who have not been convicted of any crime.

Much of the drug war has been used to justify what is just blatant abuse. We never should have tolerated these ideas such as "Asset Forfeiture" without trial and so on.

The second being a more general, what is to be done?

I am reminded of what that Irishman said in the movie "Braveheart."

The Lord says he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're f***ed!

There may not be a viable solution. The country appears to be heading towards chaotic dissolution. The mechanisms which tended to keep people civilized in the past have been disabled by liberal rule and liberal courts, and I suspect it's going to be a free for all at some point down the road. This seems appropriate:

If you want a more scientific analysis of what is happening, I can give you a link to a very good explanation.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your "umbrella" of the Defense Clause is a made up phantom.

I suspect we'd all be happier if dealers became phantoms.

[ConservingFreedom]

I thought this was a site where adults can discuss topics in a rational manner. Who said anything about guns.

You were talking about dead people; are people dead from guns any less dead than people dead from bad medicine?

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s easier (and there are fewer repercussions) for a kid in high school to get heroin than a 6-pack of beer.

That is a blatant and bald-faced Libertarian lie. It is nonsense on the face of it.

[DiogenesLamp]

So citing authorities is argument by authority and is bad, but the flip side of that coin is good. Got it.

If you want to believe that the UNITED NATIONS are competent at anything, be my guest, but don't be such a fool as to think any rational person is going to agree with you about it.

And for what it's worth, betting on incompetency from fools or authorities is a pretty safe bet.

[DiogenesLamp]

You were talking about dead people; are people dead from guns any less dead than people dead from bad medicine?

Little children should be seen and not heard.

[ConservingFreedom]

betting on incompetency from fools or authorities is a pretty safe bet.

Yeah, only some guy on the Internet who goes by "DiogenesLamp" is to be believed.

[outpostinmass2]

I have read and studied the Federalist Papers and I agree they are fascinating reading. Lets say for argument I am brewing up koolaide to be sold for in state only. While I kill only people in my state for a while what happens when someone buys it and brings it to your state and kills people. How does one stop commerce from leaving their state? What if I set-up shop in your state, sell everyone the koolaide but never leave my state?

[outpostinmass2]

You were talking about dead people; are people dead from guns any less dead than people dead from bad medicine?

---

No, but a gun is designed to kill or maim. Food and medicine is not suppose to kill. You can’t see the difference?

[Lurker]

“While I kill only people in my state for a while what happens when someone buys it and brings it to your state and kills people.”

Murder is a crime in all 50 states I believe. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on that. Pretty sure I’m right, though.

See Wickard v Filburn for the tortured legal logic of your next question.

Best,

L

[outpostinmass2]

No, no I’m make my own brand of koolaide. Those people are just blaming me for those deaths. I had hundreds of people who drink it and they lived. We tested it on lab rats it’s all good. I know the guy who did it. He used his own standards, none of those silly federal regulations. Anyway this guy just bought some and is bringing it down to you. What is the big deal?

[RFEngineer]

“That is a blatant and bald-faced Libertarian lie. It is nonsense on the face of it”

Yeah, legalizing beer for 18 year-olds is a huge Libertarian issue. Boy, you sure outed me in a hurry. Putz.

[RFEngineer]

“Of course, because dealers don’t card - only in a legal regulated market can age restrictions be enforced.”

Plus rehab is the perfect government/government-funded enterprise. You throw kids into the front end, and spit them out at the back end, and you don’t have to be accountable for whether the time and expense actually accomplished anything.

Socialists keep their jobs, they keep pretending to care, and the keep recycling the same folks through rehab time and again.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah, legalizing beer for 18 year-olds is a huge Libertarian issue. Boy, you sure outed me in a hurry. Putz.

If you think it's easier to get Heroin than beer, you are deluded. (Note how I completely ignore the fact that you deliberately misstated my point? Somebody has to be a grown up in these discussions.)

[ConservingFreedom]

a gun is designed to kill or maim.

And that somehow gives it constitutional protections from regulation that food and medicine lack?

[outpostinmass2]

a gun is designed to kill or maim.
And that somehow gives it constitutional protections from regulation that food and medicine lack?

---

Do you eat guns?

[ConservingFreedom]

a gun is designed to kill or maim.

And that somehow gives it constitutional protections from regulation that food and medicine lack?

Do you eat guns?

Nonresponsive. You have yet to show that the difference you note is relevant to constitutional status.

[outpostinmass2]

Drugs you can ingest. Food you can ingest. Guns, not so much. I have to go. It has been nice talking to you.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Yep. What you said. You have to WANT to kick your bad habits.