Posted on 11/26/2015 8:08:37 AM PST by Kaslin
You cannot legalize without subsidizing.
Drug addicts are unemployable and spend all their money on their habits.
Legalizers assume that there are zero consequences to society telling addicts that their life decisions are valid and should be guaranteed by law.
Legalization means more unemployable addicts who will survive by either directly robbing and assaulting productive human beings, or by giving votes to politicians who will indirectly rob productive human beings through taxes and through insane employment laws.
And all addicts are inherently violent - for every "nonviolent" drug addict there is usually at least one friend or family member who has been menaced or assaulted, and who is too embarrassed to file charges.
Anyone who tries to stand between an addict and his fix will soon learn how "nonviolent" he is.
If you don't know the difference of author and source you better go back to school. You sure need it
You are 100 percent correct.
A stern warning, in the firmest possible language, preferably in writing.
I admire anyone who adopts children and gives them a loving home.
Thank you, they certainly were loved!
I don't doubt it one bit that they were loved.
Cuba, anyone?
I mentored two young men (now men and doing well) a number of years back. The younger one told me once “my life is better when mom is in jail”. It was the sad truth.
Good for you,you are awesome!
drunk drivers and drug addicts? It’s not a victimless crime. Where do you think these addicts get their money from? Why do you think organizations like MADD exist? What about the families that are without because these lowlifes spend the money? Do you really think these are good role models for children? I am the mother of an addict and the grandmother of a child who has an addict for a parent, believe me, it’s not a victimless crime!!
Happy Thanksgiving to You and Yours, Kaslin!
The article is a load of liberal, legalize crime claptrap. The most certain way to avoid incarceration is not breaking the law. As things stand now, incarceration is no deterrent for crime- they are cared for better than many of our elderly or veterans who actually did something for our society instead of tearing it down.
Amen!
Ah, dang it, if you were just a little sooner, but I just gave my money to the starving animal fund with all the sad pictures on TV.
I’m glad for that and I sincerely salute you.
In answer to your question, I would very much like to do exactly that. Still working it.
No argument with your basic point. The question is how do you minimize the cost?
There is a hard core of addicts who will not get help, who will never shake the monkey on their back. The less we spend on them, the better. Jails are very expensive places, a precious resource if you will. Junkies don’t merit jail unless and until their violent conduct forces the issue.
With our current crowd of sue-happy anti-religious malcontents, and widespread skepticism, sometimes help that is worth a dime isn’t even allowed to get near the people who need it.
Let’s ban everything that someone might do something stupid with and get a boo-boo on, then. We are not safe until our rubber rooms are complete.
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.