Posted on 12/26/2019 2:15:16 PM PST by rktman
On Monday, during an interview with the Des Moines Register, 2020 presidential hopeful mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg said drug possession should not result in jail time.
Buttigieg said, “Incarceration should not even be a response to drug possession. What I have seen is while there continues to be all kinds of harms associated with drug possession and use, it is also the case that we have created in an effort to deal with a public health problem, we have created an even bigger problem — a justice problem, and it’s own form of a health problem when you think about the adverse aspects on a child. We have kids in South Bend who have grown up with the incarnation of a parent as one of their first experiences.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Of course not. Take away the
criminality and more will try
abusing whatever activity they
weren’t allowed to do before.
All drug abusers started somewhere,
doing away with possession laws
will just make it easier to get
started.
I think this is an absolutely stupid idea and it makes me wonder how serious Mean Little Pete B*ttplug is about becoming the Rat nominee. I think he likes all the money being thrown at him right now, and he will get to keep it in his “campaign fund” after he drops out.
B*ttplug is a vain and immature little man, he is NOT a serious candidate. He knows he can’t handle the job of being POTUS, and I don’t think he really wants the job. But he LOVES the fawning Rat media attention and his newly-found jet-setter lifestyle. SPIT!
Do you deny that all drug busts involve criminals?
What’s your point?
You seem to think it’s our God given right to sell drugs. I do not.
Because > IMO < it was a hair-brained question.
Why should I bother answering a “Captain Obvious” question?
Freedom from the law is also considered just living within the law.
Can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime.
There are plenty of laws I don’t like. I still try to abide by them.
As far alcohol is concerned, and drug users for that matter, if they have not become a legal problem, as committing crimes and such, or being homeless and living on the streets etcetera, I don’t care.
Sounds like you've answered your own question: a working definition of nonaddicted is not committing crimes or living on the street. I heartily agree that such users should be left alone - and that imprisonment is not the right answer for addicted users.
Of course not. Take away the criminality and more will try abusing whatever activity they weren’t allowed to do before.
Your first sentence contradicts your second: if you have the good sense to avoid those drugs for reasons other than legal status, then so do others, so there would be little if any increase in addiction after legalization.
You and I have a completely different take on law enforcement related to drug cartels.
Do you deny that by enforcing drug bans, government restricts the drug market to criminals?
Why should I bother answering a “Captain Obvious” question?
The obvious answer is yes - so the conclusion is that I was correct in saying drug law enforcement protects the cartels' monopoly in the drug market.
Freedom from the law is also considered just living within the law.
Can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime.
There are plenty of laws I don’t like. I still try to abide by them.
Straw man - the issue is not whether the law should be obeyed but what the law on drugs ought to be, and the real-world outcomes of the current drug laws are a major factor in deciding whether they're good laws.
It's our natural right to do anything that doesn't violate anyone else's rights. Selling drugs in and of itself no more violates your rights than does selling, say, kitchen knives.
Seems like wer’re at an impasse.
The point I’m trying to make,
I’ve witnessed first hand.
Although my friend didn’t buy
legal drugs, he did lose his
job. The restriction (the
reason) he abstained to that
point was his job. He did
drink a beer now and then,
but never delved in the drug
world. Meth turned out to be
his drug of choice. He died
6 months after his first “hit”
that he took at a party, of a
brain anyurism.
Take away the restrictions and
more will imbibe.
Meth turned out to be his drug of choice.
Which he chose despite its illegality - irrelevant to whether MORE people would do if it were legal.
This from the WIKI;
(Hopefully it will help explain
the point trying to be made.)
“Drug Free Australia has cited the Netherlands as an example of drug policy failure because it is soft in approach. They argue that the Dutch idea of going soft on cannabis dealers, thereby creating a “separation of markets” from hard drug dealers has failed to stem the initiation to drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines, saying that, in 1998, the Netherlands had the third highest cannabis and cocaine use in Europe.[1] According to Barry McCaffrey of the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, Dutch tolerance has allowed the Netherlands to become a criminal epicentre for illicit synthetic drug manufacture, particularly ecstasy, as well as the home for production and worldwide export of strains of cannabis with THC reportedly 10 times higher than normal.”
That's "Wikipedia".
(Hopefully it will help explain the point trying to be made.)
I understand the point - my position is that the point is not supported by fact or logic.
“Drug Free Australia has cited the Netherlands as an example of drug policy failure because it is soft in approach. They argue that the Dutch idea of going soft on cannabis dealers, thereby creating a “separation of markets” from hard drug dealers has failed to stem the initiation to drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines,
We haven't previously been discussing the effect of marijuana policy on the use of other drugs, but only on the use of marijuana.
saying that, in 1998, the Netherlands had the third highest cannabis and cocaine use in Europe.[1]
An apples-and-oranges comparison; the correct question to ask is not how Netherlands use compares to other countries, but what has been the trend over time within the Netherlands. The paragraph you partially quote does go on to address this: "Levels of cannabis use, [were] in 2005 only marginally higher than in 1998, while other European countries have accelerated past them".
According to Barry McCaffrey of the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, Dutch tolerance has allowed the Netherlands to become a criminal epicentre for illicit synthetic drug manufacture, particularly ecstasy, as well as the home for production and worldwide export of strains of cannabis
Nobody has ever claimed that decriminalizing use would reduce manufacture for export.
with THC reportedly 10 times higher than normal.”
And liquor is several times stronger than beer; what of it?
From one of the Kink’s best LPs, Muswell Hillbillies:
Alcohol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea-MVgC_jz4
{Now I wanna tell you a little story
About the old demon alcohol
Yes indeed my little chickadee}
[Verse 1]
Here is a story about a sinner
He used to be a winner
Who enjoyed a life of prominence and position
But the pressures at the office and his socialite engagements
And his selfish wife’s fanatical ambition
It turned him to the booze
And he got mixed up with a floosie
And she led him to a life of indecision
The floosie made him spend his dough
She left him lying on Skid Row
A drunken lag in some Salvation Army Mission
It’s such a shame
[Chorus]
Oh demon alcohol
Sad memories I can’t recall
Who thought I would say
Damn it all and blow it all
Oh demon alcohol
Memories I can’t recall
Who thought I would fall
A slave to demon alcohol
Sad memories I can’t recall
Who thought I would fall
A slave to demon alcohol
[Verse 2]
Barley wine, pink gin
He’ll drink anything
Port, pernod or tequila
Rum, scotch, vodka on the rocks
As long as all his troubles disappeared
But he messed up his life when he beat up his wife
And the floosie’s gone and found another sucker
She’s gonna turn him on to drink
She’s gonna lead him to the brink
And when his money’s gone
She’ll leave him in the gutter
It’s such a shame
{Instrumental - brass}
[Chorus]
Oh demon alcohol
Sad memories I can’t recall
Who thought I would fall
Damn it all, low, low
Sad memories I can’t recall
Who thought I would fall
A slave to demon alcohol
Drug laws are enforced against all illegal entities.
Drug cartels are not protected. That’s children’s logic.
Your conclusion was b. S.
We elect citizens to the positions that create the laws of our land. These people come from the private sector to do it. Unless you wish to state every citizen just can’t wait to help the cartels, you’ll see the weakness of your logic.
It is not a straw man argument that we as adults should obey the laws of the land. Another childish retort on your part.
Drugs do impact society negatively.
Citizens have determined it is not a good idea to have drugs freely available in our nation. I agree.
It is not your God given right to sell drugs.
How old are you?
Why should I bother answering a “Captain Obvious” question?
The obvious answer is yes - so the conclusion is that I was correct in saying drug law enforcement protects the cartels' monopoly in the drug market.
Drug cartels are not protected.
Their monopoly is protected - law-abiding potential competitors are kept out of the market.
Unless you wish to state every citizen just can’t wait to help the cartels
Citizens who think the current drug laws hurt the cartels haven't thought it through.
It is not a straw man argument that we as adults should obey the laws of the land.
It's a straw man because nobody here said nor implied otherwise. Go look up "straw man" - it doesn't mean "incorrect".
Drugs do impact society negatively.
Citizens have determined it is not a good idea to have drugs freely available in our nation. I agree.
It is not your God given right to sell drugs.
Rights are not a gift from one's fellow citizens, nor may they justly be revoked by one's fellow citizens. Thomas Jefferson: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
How old are you?
56. You?
68
You can go ahead and envision it all you like, I do not think our Founding Fathers hoped the nation would be turned into something akin to worse than just an opium den alone.
There are items on the market today that destroy people. There are products on the market that cause people to destroy others.
No matter how well you craft your defense of what you champion, there are some serious down sides that are not worthy of advocacy.
Their monopoly is not protected, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.
All illegal drug activity is targeted by government entities from the feds to your local police department
Americans, Mexicans, other drug abusing entities, they’re all pursued and taken down as much as possible.
Look, we’re not going to agree on this. I’m sure we agree on a great many things. This won’t be one of them.
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.