Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life
- Thread starter Redworm
- Start date
The repeal of prohibition left us with the best Organized Crime in the world. These gangs simply moved into other illegal ventures, using the money available to corrupt officials all over again. Then, turf battles erupted once again, with the same ferocity. What upset that apple-cart was WWII.
The idea that treating addiction is better than incarceration hasn't been proven out. You don't ignore the addiction of incarcerated people, either. The recidivism of public treatment is extremely high, and results in an expensive boondoggle.
I'm amazed that the same people who expect the government to stay out of their lives are in favor of government sponsored treatment of addiction. That's not what the Framers had in mind. In those days, while drugs were free to the masses, those who used them weren't helped by the government. They were left free to die as they saw fit. The government intruded only when they broke the law.
The idea that treating addiction is better than incarceration hasn't been proven out. You don't ignore the addiction of incarcerated people, either. The recidivism of public treatment is extremely high, and results in an expensive boondoggle.
I'm amazed that the same people who expect the government to stay out of their lives are in favor of government sponsored treatment of addiction. That's not what the Framers had in mind. In those days, while drugs were free to the masses, those who used them weren't helped by the government. They were left free to die as they saw fit. The government intruded only when they broke the law.
No one says it would stop it altogether but it would but it down by a large factor. Repealing prohibition did indeed stop much of the violence associated from bootlegging.
say what? So you actually deny that it's better to medically treat someone for an addiction than to stick that addict in a jail cell for five years while he associates with other criminals only to be let out with more criminal skills, more criminal contacts and an even stronger hatred of society?
The irony of this statement is utterly mind boggling.
jakeswensonmt
New member
Sometime maybe 10,000 years ago European and Asian civilizations discovered how to ferment sugars into alcohol. It's not documented, but I would bet that in the generations following that discovery a lot of people died from alcoholism. The survivors were more resisitant to alcohol.
Evolution at work, and not on a geologic timescale.
This is documented: American Indian tribes never discovered how to ferment ethanol. When it was presented to them by Europeans, their populations were highly succeptible to alcoholism, many of them died of it, a problem which continues to this day. This is probably exactly what happened to the European and Asian populations 10,000 years ago.
It sounds cruel, but I say if someone is willing to kill themselves with a substance, let them do so. Those who opt not to kill themselves will (hopefully) have more offspring. Evolution at work again. The nanny state encourages the breeding of weaker and dumber humans, which is just more reason to abolish it.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
JR, JR....
No, they wouldn't. They'd have to go out and get a job, because you can rest assured that the private sector will adequately protect its financial interests by guarding their legal crop properly, with legal security guards and mechanical, physical, & other means.
No, I don't think so. I think you legitimately eliminate a ton of violence, just exactly like we did by ending prohibition. That is a 100% analygous situation to pot.
Well, there would still be some violence, but the overall effect would be a net reduction in violence, I believe.
That's true; some will; but fewer than *presently*, assuming we use some money that we save from the WOSD to treat the addicts and set them straight...which brings us to your next point....
WHY ON EARTH NOT!!!??? The goal here is to *reduce drug use* overall, correct? I hope we can agree that drug use is a BAD THING, and the goal should be to reduce, overall, the level of drug use & abuse in society. That's my goal anyway. Drugs are worthless deadends that result in untold countless heartaches & misery in our society. Drug treatment has been *proven* to work to reduce drug use. If we SLASHED the federal alphabet soup fedgov agencies' collective budgets by 3/4ths (that they spend on the WOSD enforcement, and which is clearly not working), and gave 1/2 of that money back to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut, and spent the other 1/2 of that money on drug treatment centers (subsidizing private treatment centers in some way), and in anti-drug-use education among pre-teens, teens, & adults, and then legalized pot, and decriminalized harder drugs, the end result would be: (1) Far fewer people abusing drugs, AND (2) More money in our pocket, AND (3) Less violent crime, AND perhaps most importantly, (3) Far few violations of our civil rights, including 2nd, 4th, & 5th amendment issues. It's win-win-win-win, baby. Of course, we would need to provide re-education & training for new careers for all the LEOs which would be out of work, and subsidize them over a period of time, so that they're not thrown out in the street - ultimately putting them to work actually contributing to society, instead of violating our rights and locking up potheads.
They already can, and they already DO! And of course should be able to continue to do so. Being privy of contract, they are free to negotiate & set terms of the insurance contract, and believe you me, the actuaries do make sure that appropriate exclusions are in there. Complete non-issue.
No, they wouldn't. They'd have to go out and get a job, because you can rest assured that the private sector will adequately protect its financial interests by guarding their legal crop properly, with legal security guards and mechanical, physical, & other means.
.
No, I don't think so. I think you legitimately eliminate a ton of violence, just exactly like we did by ending prohibition. That is a 100% analygous situation to pot.
Well, there would still be some violence, but the overall effect would be a net reduction in violence, I believe.
That's true; some will; but fewer than *presently*, assuming we use some money that we save from the WOSD to treat the addicts and set them straight...which brings us to your next point....
WHY ON EARTH NOT!!!??? The goal here is to *reduce drug use* overall, correct? I hope we can agree that drug use is a BAD THING, and the goal should be to reduce, overall, the level of drug use & abuse in society. That's my goal anyway. Drugs are worthless deadends that result in untold countless heartaches & misery in our society. Drug treatment has been *proven* to work to reduce drug use. If we SLASHED the federal alphabet soup fedgov agencies' collective budgets by 3/4ths (that they spend on the WOSD enforcement, and which is clearly not working), and gave 1/2 of that money back to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut, and spent the other 1/2 of that money on drug treatment centers (subsidizing private treatment centers in some way), and in anti-drug-use education among pre-teens, teens, & adults, and then legalized pot, and decriminalized harder drugs, the end result would be: (1) Far fewer people abusing drugs, AND (2) More money in our pocket, AND (3) Less violent crime, AND perhaps most importantly, (3) Far few violations of our civil rights, including 2nd, 4th, & 5th amendment issues. It's win-win-win-win, baby. Of course, we would need to provide re-education & training for new careers for all the LEOs which would be out of work, and subsidize them over a period of time, so that they're not thrown out in the street - ultimately putting them to work actually contributing to society, instead of violating our rights and locking up potheads.
They already can, and they already DO! And of course should be able to continue to do so. Being privy of contract, they are free to negotiate & set terms of the insurance contract, and believe you me, the actuaries do make sure that appropriate exclusions are in there. Complete non-issue.
Yeah, I totally knock off three tea shops a day to get my caffeine fix. If I'm feeling gutsy I'll hold up a Starbucks for a cup of coffee, but addicts like me are pretty dangerous so I like to avoid them if I can.
... Oh wait, no I don't, caffeine is cheap. With how cheap it is, I may as well be able to grow it in the safety of my own backyard. Too bad you can't do that with mari... Wait...
... Oh wait, no I don't, caffeine is cheap. With how cheap it is, I may as well be able to grow it in the safety of my own backyard. Too bad you can't do that with mari... Wait...
Let it Bleed
New member
Just say know. 
The amount of disinformation that passes for drug education in this country is appalling. :barf:
The amount of disinformation that passes for drug education in this country is appalling. :barf: