Retired Cop Waves White Flag in War on Drugs

The Standard-Times (MA) ^ | 15 Jan 2003 | John Doherty

[staytrue]

if we do not pay for their treatment, we must instead pay for their incarceration

I would rather pay more for incarceration than pay to help them use drugs. Basically, your argument is like that of some black democrats where they say, "give us money or we will steal from you" or "give us money or we will burn down your house"

[Dead Corpse]

It's the lack of comprehension on your part.

Only habit I currently have involves a Smith rack and a quarter ton of iron.

Come on Teach, you can do better than that. Go hang out with the debate club and get back to us once you get all that "logic" and stuff worked out. Ok?

[staytrue]

It may sound ridiculous, but I'd rather pay for incarceration than to subsidize drug use. Just as I would rather pay to incarcerate thieves than to pay them welfare so that they stop.

[Wolfie]

So you're a Punitive Socialist. Not a surprise.

[Pure Country]

Why is it that I don't believe you? If I said "Marine" with the contempt that you say "teach" you'd have something to say about that. You are definitely on something and it's probably not legal--hence your weak logic or lack thereof. End of discussion. Can't talk with an addict. They don't think... they just try to justify their habit while the whole time denying that they have one. I think the shoe fits.......tightly.

[Dead Corpse]

Ahhh. That's it. Get caught with your brain around your ankles and go slinking off.

As I said, no wonder our schools are such a mess.

[Pure Country]

Yawn................

[Dead Corpse]

Yawn indeed. Don't you have a class to teach? Young minds to warp to your liberal ideology?

[tacticalogic]

Only habit I currently have involves a Smith rack and a quarter ton of iron.

IMHO, the greatest piece of body building equipment ever devised by man can be had at any hardware store for about $40. They call it a "post hole digger".

[tacticalogic]

Whoop de doo! I guess your idea of victimless charges are a little different than mine!

It may very well be. People who live in different environments tend to have different points of view. I do find that demands that federal policy that affect everyone be driven by what is deemed in the best interest of those in inner-city urban areas is typically a liberal, Democratic agenda.

[Wolfie]

Only habit I currently have involves a Smith rack and a quarter ton of iron.

Sniff...I haven't been able to get in the power rack for 2 months. Blew out the discs at L4/L5. No more squats for me!

[Hacksaw]

Read posts of Mr. LeRoy, and learn. He's capable of carrying on a civil discussion, even when he doesn't agree.

RIGHT. The guy is a humourles weenie.

[Pure Country]

I never said that I was in an inner-city situation, that was made up by another poster. Actually I am in a small mid-western town. Never said I was a public school teacher either. Actually, now I homeschool, but enough of that.

Drug and alcohol abuse is everywhere and needs to be addressed. Libertarians tend to think that nothing should be legislated and only acted upon when the victim is dead. I am very conservative, but I don't give up easily on what I think is right. Abuse of substance or person in any form is wrong and legalizing it doesn't correct a thing. That's just my opinion for what it's worth and I guess my vote counts as much as anyone else's at the polls, so.... I should be able to say what I think. Calling me names as the previous poster did is not going to sway me at all. He used the same logic, or lack of, that abusive parents have used for years. I just don't buy it and don't apologize for it.

[Dead Corpse]

Ouch. You can still do 'em. You've just got to work back in to it VERY slowly. Start with no bar, range of motion. Use a belt, especially if the verts were fused.

I've known people with various pins and braces that still manage to get a good workout in.

Tangenial though. Quite a few of the anti-WOD posters here don't use illicit drugs. We'd rather have to fend off the occassional junky, than have a Nanny State telling us what is good for us ala "Demolition Man" and "THX 1138".

[tacticalogic]

Abuse of substance or person in any form is wrong

Granted. But by what logic do you consider those two to be interchangeable? You seem to automatically equate substance abuse with child abuse, and I don't think that's a rational basis to start from.

[EBUCK]

Who advocated subsidation??

Strawmen everywhere today.

[Dead Corpse]

Libertarians tend to think that nothing should be legislated and only acted upon when the victim is dead.

Shows how little you know about libertarian philosophy.

As for the Drug War. The "cure", as put forth by government, is currently worse than the disease. This is pure fact in the abuses of power and errosion of Rights we are seeing on a daily basis.

With the Billions in tax money being spent, we should have seen some appreciable results by now. We haven't. Ergo, that money was not well spent and spending more on it is throwing good money after bad.

Making criminals out of people with what is essentially a medical problem seems an assinine way of going about it as well. Should medicare pay for their treatment? No. But neither do I want to pay for their incarceration for hurting themselves either. If they abuse their children, steal from others, or mug people to support their habbit, then charge them with that and throw away the key.

Say what you think, that is what this place is for. Don't get so offended though if someone like me comes along and points out the failure of your logic.

[jammer]

Well, if I had a different viewpoint about other things, I would totally agree with you. That argument is totally sound. Here is where we differ: I do not rationalize my anti-WOD stance on the basis of utility (i.e., cost) or morality or, especially, on any personal use of illegal drugs. Going down this road on costs, etc., by fellow anti-WOD people is as short-sighted as arguing against gun control of a type of weapon on the basis of whether it may be used for hunting or not. Damnit, hunting has no relationship to the 2nd Amendment or any other part of the Constitution. Neither does the WOD.

I am arguing against self-interest when I write my arguments--the control of drugs enhances my income. Basically, I take two positions:

1. The federal government has no Constitutional right to say anything whatsoever about drugs, except to REGULATE (not prohibit) their interstate sale. If it takes an Amendment to prohibit alcohol, then it takes an Amendment to prohibit other drugs.
2. The STATES have a right to do what they want. That is the basis of federalism. If Utah wants to execute marijuana smokers, that is its right, odious as it is to me. Marijuana smokers may move to California or whatever other state may legalize it.

Again, if it were Constitutional, I would totally agree with you about costs. Your reasoning, IMO, is exactly correct here.

[MrLeRoy]

OK, how about the parrot that told its young companion to "Speak clearly!"

That's pretty darn abstract, in my opinion. The bird was, on it's own: 1) recognizing that the other bird wasn't speaking clearly,

That's not necessarily abstraction; it may be, for example, that parrots make certain sounds when not speaking clearly that they don't make (or make much less) when speaking clearly.

and 2) knowing what "speak clearly" even means.

That one I simply don't buy; someone must have taught this parrot the phrase.

There's the chimp who makes tools (he subsequently learned how to make them with his hands, just like the scientists wanted). There are chimps who even know sign language.

I don't see either toolmaking or language use as necessarily abstract---or at any rate not at a level of abstraction I would consider as "reasoning."

(So what IS that level, you ask? I haven't carved anything in stone, but I think I was pretty near the mark when I told the last person who asked that if one could understand and use negative numbers one was a reasoning being.)

[Wolfie]

Nah...squats are out. I've been "working around" a bad back for over 10 years. I've done the "working back in slowly" thing MANY times, but the result is always injury to one degree or another. Didn't use to have problems, but a goofy injury in '91 just started a down hill slide. The best alternative I've used are Hip Belt Squats. The bar is suspended below the waist via a heavy duty belt and carabiner set up. Great for the legs, zero strain on the back. (Of course, other low back exercises that don't involve compression of the spine should be done. I do reverse hypers and glute/ham raises.) Should have stuck with with the Hip Belts, but I was feeling frisky. Warming up with 115 put me into the hospital for 2 days.