Obama Says Treating Drug Use As a Criminal Problem Is "Counterproductive"

Huffington Post ^ | jan 22, 2015 | Tony Newman

[MrB]

Add:

Positive testing for illegal drug use is a disqualifying factor for any “public benefits”.

[Vigilanteman]

Exactly right. The only "soft" solution I see is requiring them to register as drug user with the condition of voiding their driver's license and voter registration.

In return, their drugs are delivered at a cost so nominal it isn't worth stealing. Eventually, Darwin takes care of them.

Put the liberals in charge of drug distribution, tenement cleanup and hauling the results of their policies to the boneyard. Leave the rest of us alone in return for funding the program at far less cost than it takes to run the war on drugs.

[ConservingFreedom]

tell me how this adds to a healthy productive growing economy.

How does letting adults stay up past midnight add to a healthy productive growing economy?

Staying up past midnight is equal to smoking dope, in your eyes?

No. Staying up past midnight doesn't add to a healthy productive growing economy - YOU proposed that criterion ... shame how it blew up in your face.

[ConservingFreedom]

CF loves drugs....he can’t stop boosting them on FR.

You can't stop lying about me; I neither love nor boost drugs ... any more than I love or boost alcohol, tobacco, or Marxist literature by supporting their legality for adults.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hey! Look who is on the same side as President IDIOT!!!!!

[ConservingFreedom]

Hey! Look who is on the same side as President

He wears his pants with the zipper in front - you'd better not.

IDIOT!!!!!

Thanks for the laugh.

[Vigilanteman]

You are also correct.

The Singapore solution would be even more effective than the soft solution suggested in my post #62. But we lack the will to adopt it.

[McGruff]

God help us.

[1010RD]

This is extremely dangerous. Drug use is a choice, not a disease.

[McGruff]

the devastating impact of our drug policies on communities of color

Isn't that Racist?

[DiogenesLamp]

By reducing prices it would reduce the motivation to steal - and it would take the proceeds from drug sales out of criminal pockets (just as ending Prohibition did).

Liberal Gobbledygook theories that work out in practice exactly the way Liberal Gobbledygook theories always do. They fail. Badly.

Again, both China and Switzerland tried this idiocy. It FAILED. BADLY.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” No kidding. He’s a paid operative of George Soros and Barack Obama. He’s a retread troll with a one-track agenda.”

Are you a retread troll CF ? You arguments are so bankrupt, as to be laughable. I would have thought Soros could afford better talent, anyway/s

[Ken H]

I prefer lib states to legalize and red state not to and let’s compare productivity, crime rates, welfare roles, and IQ’s in 10-20 years.

[jsanders2001]

> Well when they come to steal your $hip to sell it for drugs IT’s a problem.

A problem made worse by drug criminalization’s inflation of drug prices.

All that legalization will do is just change the distribution channel. The price might actually go up once they have quelled their competition and become a monopoly. Have you ever known the government to reduce their fees on anything if they can squeeze another dime out of you? I don’t...Besides if it’s legal and everybody has it there will be even more break-ins by the self-entitled freeloaders...haven’t you learned anything on here?...: )

[Veto!]

LOL…People of Pallor???????? What a hoot, and the rest of your post too.

[ConservingFreedom]

China and Switzerland tried this idiocy. It FAILED.

Switzerland proved only that if you legalized drug sale and use in a single very small location you'll hyperconcentrate those activities to that location - so Rhode Island should probably wait to legalize.

As for opium in China: As you've said, "Till someone presents an argument that there are better figures, I will have no choice but to use what is available." What's available says that addiction was low and declining in post-Civil War America: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." (http://web.archive.org/web/20110529221013/http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm) 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.

[ConservingFreedom]

You arguments are so bankrupt, as to be laughable.

And yet rather than demonstrate their alleged bankruptcy, you lie about me.

[servantboy777]

>>I prefer limited government over a police state. The War on Drugs was the go to means of circumventing our 4th amendment rights until the War on Terror.<<

I have to agree. Police powers are getting out of control and the war on drugs have siphoned off billions of hard earned tax dollars...to where? for what? Has it made a positive impact? No, no and no.

Millions of our tax dollars go to foreign governments...then into the pockets of crooked officials. There's gotta be a better way.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's a relocation, not an absolute increase. People who have been responsible enough to avoid drug use because it was illegal will continue to be responsible and not let legal drug use drive them out of employment or onto welfare rolls.

This is a statement that deliberately ignores the effect of legitimacy on human nature. The law is a normalizing force. If the law declares something wrong, it dissuades a significant portion of the people from doing it.

This statement also flies in the face of History. When drugs are legalized, drug usage increases following a logistical growth pattern. Like this one:

[stephenjohnbanker]

” And yet rather than demonstrate their alleged bankruptcy, you lie about me. “

There “ bankruptcy” is obvious to anyone. Ping JimRob to this thread, and ask his opinion of your “arguments”