Posted on 12/02/2007 7:00:11 PM PST by cryptical
Nonsense is believing that this scenario doesn’t already involve violence. Shooting exists in the streets now — just look at the mess in Los Angeles and Laredo, TX. Cops are being executed in major cities all the time because of illicit drugs. People are being kidnapped and taken into Mexico, which is on the brink of becoming a Narcotics Trafficking Nation! Legalizing drugs won’t stop any of this activity.
With the amount of flamed rhetoric that’s been directed at me, still, none of you have come up with a sure fire solution to the drug problem.
Will we become a nation of state-supported stoners, where it is legal and SSI pays the bills?
Or are we going to solve the drug “supply” problem, by eliminating the demand?
The biggest problem in solving the drug problem is the courts. There’s always a way for a rich drug dealer to get out of a fix.
Ain’t that the truth.
“McCaffrey prided himself on being very sensitive to the racial issues, and he was sensitive to the impact of sentencing laws on African-American men.”
Dumb. That just allowed drug dealers of a certain skin tone to skirt the law and thereby control the flow of drugs.
Somebody had to say it.
Did the U.S. lose the war on murder? Did the U.S. lose the war on cancer?
I don’t think we should have had a war on drugs. Whatever idiot decided this needs to be punished. What a waste of money. I am not for people taking drugs, but throwing money at the problem is not working.
hmm..so if your sister didnt reform..kill her! Is that your position? Should we extend that to smokers, or maybe chocolate lovers??after all those are sddictions also.
Last time I heard smokes and chocolate were legal. Did I miss something on your snooty post?
Yeah, it was a pretty good article with an unmistakable message: Pot Good...Bush Bad.
Nowhere is there any demand for accountability on the part of the left in this country for the destructive drug culture they initiated and encouraged back in the 60’s and 70’s.
Everyone laughs at and lampoons the anti-drug film Reefer Madness and its genre, but the truth of the matter is, until the cultural acceptance of marijuana use imposed by the left in this country, there was no drug problem of consequence.
As long as you don’t count martinis.
So why aren't the violent Mexican cartels in prison, rather than hundreds of thousands of their customers?
Yeah, since after all, legalizing alcohol didn't stop moonshiners and rum-runners and all the violence associated with the beer, wine, and liquor trade.
Right?
Er, wait...
Good article. Ping for reading after work.
"Iran has executed more than 10,000 narcotics traffickers in the last decade;"
--www.payvand.com/news/04/mar/1012.htm
"Iran has the highest proportion of heroin addicts in the world and a growing Aids problem."
--news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm
"The GOS [Government of Singapore] nonetheless is concerned about the increase in addiction rates and recidivism among drug offenders who have undergone treatment. There are currently about 9,000 addicts undergoing rehabilitation in Singapore treatment centers, the same number as in 1995."
--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
The Netherlands has extensive demand reduction programs and lowthreshold medical services for addicts, who are also offered drug rehabilitation programs. Authorities believe such programs reach about 7080 percent of the country's 25,000 harddrug users. [my note: in a total population of 15.1 million]
--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
_______________________________________
Using a population of 3 million for Singapore in 1996, that works out to an addiction rate of about 0.30%.
Using the State Dept. figures for the Netherlands, and a population of 15.1 million, the addiction rate was about 0.17%.
Also note that the Singapore figure only takes into account the addicts under treatment, whereas the figure for Holland is the estimate of the total number of addicts.
SatinDoll: I'm not talking about marijuana but since you brought up the subject... It is being grown within National Park boundaries in the state of Oregon by Mexican gang members. There have been some spectacular murders of government personnel, Park Rangers, and tourists.
Hardly what one would call nonviolent!!
_________________________________
That's because they are guarding a very lucrative product. If we treated tobacco the same way as mj, we would have the same result with the tobacco trade. Do you disagree?
What would be your policy toward mj at the federal level? What about at the state level?
In the early ‘80s, Spain experienced a crime wave after legalizing the personal use of small amounts of drugs. Do you know what that socialist government did in response? Any “infraction” with a monetary value less than $200 was non-actionable, even if someone was assaulted and injured seriously. God forbid statistics show the truth to the world!
I keep repeating this but I will now rephrase it for you: the U.S. taxpayer should NEVER, EVER have to pay the bill to support people who are incurably addicted to illegal substances. Cocaine, meth, heroin - all result in damage far beyond just the addict.
Illicit drug addiction is costing our society, our people, and our nation dearly. Which is why people like Chavez (Venezuela), Castro (Cuba), Kim Jong-Il (N.Korea) and most of the Islamofascist organizations are neck deep in drug trafficking: they are trying to paralyze and destroy this nation.
People like you, good people with the best of intentions and deep compassion, want to maintain a perspective of humane treatment and compassion for drug addicts. Well, I too feel that way because drug treatment for addicts does work. BUT unlike you, I have a terminal point. Three strikes and you’re out.
I suspect that recidivism to drug addiction would cease to be a problem because no sane person wants to die. Only the crazy ones using an addictive substance in an effort to wreck themselves would be in the strike three zone. And I suspect they would be difficult to catch.
Social Security pays out money to addicts so they can eek out an existence. SS is going bankrupt. It may not be there much longer for my boomer generation and we’ve paid all our lives into that scheme. (My sister and her shack-up stud were rock-n-roll musicians who made lots of money, paid no social security taxes, and consumed all their earnings via drugs). So what happens to these incurable addicts on the public dole when the government money, OUR MONEY, runs out?
“If we treated tobacco the same way as mj, we would have the same result with the tobacco trade. Do you disagree?”
Last I looked into it, prolonged use of tobacco doesn’t destroy neurons in a person’s brain. See my post at #55.
Okay, so why not just change policy to prohibit addicts from receiving tax-funded assistance? That way, nobody is forced to pay for the addicts' poor decisions or lack of responsibility.
As a bonus, society saves even more money because we don't have to provide the addicts with legal counsel, access to the appeals process, or room and board for several years while they are waiting for the execution date. Even better, we don't have to give the government the power to kill thousands of people a year.
I admit that my solution would be politically unpopular, but probably not as unpopular as running thousands of addicts through the injection chamber.
IOW, you don't have a good answer so you resort to a foul-mouthed dodge.
I keep repeating this but I will now rephrase it for you: the U.S. taxpayer should NEVER, EVER have to pay the bill to support people who are incurably addicted to illegal substances.
Agreed. That's the New Deal/Great Society Commerce Clause in action. Do you think such programs are in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause?
People like you, good people with the best of intentions and deep compassion, want to maintain a perspective of humane treatment and compassion for drug addicts.
I think families, friends, charities, etc. should be the ones paying for addicts. I think it is not in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause for the federal government to be doing so. What do you think?
I suspect that recidivism to drug addiction would cease to be a problem because no sane person wants to die. Only the crazy ones using an addictive substance in an effort to wreck themselves would be in the strike three zone. And I suspect they would be difficult to catch.
So I ask again, why do Iran and Singapore have such severe drug problems?
SD: Last I looked into it, prolonged use of tobacco doesn't destroy neurons in a person's brain.
At least you dodged the question with a non sequitur this time, rather than profanity.
Care to address the question again?
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.