Posted on 11/02/2017 11:20:11 AM PDT by Bonston
The US government has created a business out of putting people in jail, a quite lucrative one at that. Privately run prisons thrive due to those minimum sentencing practices, while taxpayers pay for often disproportionately long prison times for people that are no immediate harm to anyone but themselves. And as a reaction those individuals are persecuted to the fullest extent, lives are being destroyed, and the nation’s workforce is diminished while the costs are paid by society.
Instead of a helping hand, the U.S. has introduced the tradition of handing out handcuffs to those related to drugs. And that is exactly what we have to talk about.
(Excerpt) Read more at crowdh.com ...
Bonston
Since Nov 2, 2017
Where do you draw the line?
Legalize pot - OK.
Legalize meth? 100% addictive from the first time you use it. It will destroy your life in a matter of months.
You really want that for sale at your local Wal-Mart?
It's not thorough at all. It is completely one sided and ignorant in it's premises, it's false equivalence and it's misstatements of the facts.
It did not at all explore what would have happened in the absence of a "war on drugs". We don't have to guess. We only have to look at what happened to China.
100 million dead because China lost their war on Drugs. Generations impoverished and suffering. Societal collapse and weakness. *THOSE* are the legacy of not fighting a war on drugs.
Did he mention China? Well then he's either ignorant or lying about the results.
Any fair analysis of the issue *has* to mention what happened in China from 1840 and subsequent years.
Absolute nonsense. Hysteria much?
Agreed.
Legalize meth? 100% addictive from the first time you use it.
False - however, legalization of harder drugs can wait until we've turned pot policy back over to the states and learned what lessons there are from near-nationwide legalization.
True.
Methamphetamine (meth or crystal meth) is considered one of the world’s most addictive drugs.
Stop with your lies.
The question to ask is, would you do meth if it was legal? No probably not, most people won’t. Those who would will try it anyway legal or not, it’s not that hard to get a hold of.
Using all the money spent on actual measures to treat addicts and make sure once you get hooked you can make a recovery is far more beneficial, see the free heroin treatment facilities in the Netherlands, Canada or Switzerland. Legalization doesn’t mean it is available in wal mart necessarily, but it means revenue for the state and tighter control on potency as well as quality - something that has a severe positive impact on addiction as well.
You signed up today, and this is your only post.
Would you care to elucidate on your conservative credentials, or should we assume the worst?
If the former, welcome.
If the latter, well, my mama always said....
Nice walk-back.
What contrary experience of the USA in the 1800s? Most of the US experience with drugs occurred after the civil war left so many former soldiers addicted to opiate pain killers, and awareness of drug addiction did not start in the US until the 1880s or so.
Well, a conservative does not have to agree with EVERYTHING the conservatives consensus is or do you disagree on that? Sorry for having a mind of my own.
Hey, it’s okay to be a little libertarian,
just know when to fold ‘em.
One small issue that seems to be universally ignored is that the federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to prohibit drugs in the first place.
Why doesn’t anyone ever ask why it took a constitutional amendment for the federal gov’t to prohibit alcohol, yet now we seem to think that all they have to do is put a drug on some list somewhere and it is magically prohibitive.
Except for the local constabulary who get all the marvelous toys to prosecute said 'war' as a nearly fully militarized force.
The constitution imbues the Federal Government with the power to protect the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic. Drugs fall into that category.
What’s to stop them from declaring you that enemy? Nice conservative answer. Who needs stinking checks and balances? It’s too damned hard to run a police state and try to stay within Constitutional limitations!
I don’t want drugs legalized if we all have to pay for addicts’ treatments. It’s like saying get the government out of marriage-when they get out of divorce, custody, alimony then they can get out of marriage. It’s a nice libertarian argument but we are so far down the rabbit hole of post constitutionalism that starting with drug legalization isn’t the best idea
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.