Flare Sci-Fi Forums: The Drug War -- is it working?

This is topic The Drug War -- is it working? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/611.html

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

In the year 2000, the US prison population hit 2 million -- including 500,000 nonviolent drug offenders -- and on Election Day, voters rebelled. In California, Oregon, Utah and Nevada, ballot initatives that challenge law enforcement's blanket treatment of drug users as criminals passed by wide margins. Leading drug-policy reform activist Ethan Nadelmann says the victories on medical marijuana, treatment instead of jail and limiting police property seizures signal a desire for a new approach. "The success or failure of drug policy should not be evaluated," he says, "not primarily according to whether drug use went up or down last year, but whether the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug use and drug policy go up or down."

In Colorado and Nevada, voters gave patients permission to use pot upon a doctor's recommendation, and registries are to be created to protect users from prosecution. This brings to nine the number of states that have approved medical marijuana -- including Maine, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Hawaii and California -- despite opposition from the federal drug czar's office.

Law enforcement took another blow in Oregon and Utah, where initiatives to restrict police from keeping seized property passed by large margins. In virtually every state, police departments -- and anti-drug task forces in particular -- earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year by confiscating property from suspected users or dealers, selling it and retaining the proceeds, even if no one is convicted of a crime.

Harry Detwiler, a retired special-education teacher in Ashland, Oregon, put a face on the otherwise imprenetrable topic of asset forfeiture by telling his story on radio talk shows and commericals. Ditweiler sold some rural property to a man who then grew marijuana on the land; Detwiler's name remained on the land title. During a police raid on Detwiler's house, officers found $35,000 in cash, his life savings, stored in a safe (he didn't want to keep it in a bank). The seized the money, and despite the fact that Detwiler was never convicted or even accused of being involved with marijuana, he never got it back. "I'm one of tens of thousands of innocent victims out here who have no place to turn," he says.

The logic behind civil asset forfiture, says David Smigelski, spokesman for the Oregon compaign, "was to use drug-dealer money to pay the salaries of drug investigators. In the early days, in the Eighties, it was supposed to be limited to huge forfeitures, but as it filetered down into municipal police departments, it just became a big money grab." In fiscal 1998, federal agencies reported recieving $697 million in forfeited assets.

An initiative in Massachusetts would have redirected the money that results from seized property in drug cases into addiction-treatment programs. It failed, organizers say, because those who might recieve treatment as an alternative to jail included some street dealers, if they could prove they were selling drugs to pay for their own habits. Opponents of the initiative, which included all eleven district attorneys in the state and almost every police chief, ran radio ads warning that the initiative would benefit drug dealers. "It appears," says Bill Zimmerman, executive director of the Campaign for New Drug Policies, "that the sympathy people have for drug users does not extend even to the lowest level of drug dealers."

Six of the seven anti-drug war initiatives were funded, in part, by three billionaires who oppose legalizing hard drugs but take pride in using their money to help compel a debate on the drug war. George Soros, a New York financier and one of the top philanthropists in the world; Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Insurance Company; and John Sperling, a former businessman and chairman of the University of Phoenix, each gave $2 million for the six initiatives. Of the $6 million, about $3 million was directed to Proposition 36 in California, the boldest of the proposed reforms. Proposition 36 mandates that when someone is convicted of simple possession, or other personal drug-use violations, treatment must be offered as an alternative to jail. If the offender does not complete the treatment program, or otherwise violates probation, he can be incarcerated for one to three years.

The landslip passae of Proposition 36 - sixty-one to thirty-nine percent - might be interpreted simply as a sign of taxpayer fatigue. With the largest prison system in the U.S., at 162,000 inmates, California is feeling the cost, at roughly $20,000 per prisoner per year. California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office had estimated that Prop. 36 will divert about 36,000 people per year from the state's prisons and jails into treatment programs. Many of these users are non-violent parolees who would have been sent back to prison by failing a drug test. Since to cost of treating people is about $4,000 per year, the LAO estimated that the measure would save state and local governments $290 million per year and would allow legislators to cancel the planned construction of a new prison, a one-time savings of half a billion dollars.

But saving money was not the only factor in the success of Prop. 36. Traumatized parents of drug addicts played a key role in persuading voters that treatment, with the threat of prison, was a rational option for drug users with no prior offenses. Pushing users into prison doesn't work, says one such mother, Gretchen Burns Berman of San Diego, whose heroin-addicted son was sent to jail for relapses three times, worsening his problems. "When they're in the midst of their disease, homeless, dying, any kind of threats usually don't make much difference to them, even prison," she says. Before the initiative was drafted, Bergman had formed a group of parent activists; after becoming the Prop. 36 chairwoman, she put her network behind it. "San Diego was the most active region for us," says Dave Fratello, who helped draft the initiative. He notes that libertarian activists were chagrined that Prop 36 made treatment compulsory.

One failure at the ballot box, the initiative in Alaska to legalize marijuana, was not supported by the two best funded drug-reform groups, Campaign for New Drug Policies and Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation. "At this point, legalization of recreational drug use will not be approved by a marjority of voters in any state," says Zimmerman. "For that reason, we're not going to waste our time trying to pass laws that can't succeed on Election Day." At the local level, however, voters approved reducing pot possession to a civil violation, like a traffic ticket, in three voting districts in Massachusetts, and in Mendocino County, California.

Focusing on recreational pot use can seem like a luxury to those who seek to help hard-core drug addicts in prison. "Law Enforcement thinks they're dealing with a behavioral problem and can use tough love," says Dr. Gary Jaeger, president of the California Society of Addiction Medicine. "Tough love is not a way to treat a primary disease of the brain."

As the prices of heroin and cocaine continue to fall, new illegal narcotics enter the market and marijuana arrests skyrocket, ballot initatives will only become more crucial. Says Nadelmann, "we see Congress and the White House as the last place where we'll see sensible drug-policy being implemented."

--Erika Casriel, Rolling Stone Magazine

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Yes, yes, I'm sure surprised that someone from Rolling Stone is defending drugs. Wow, that beats my canned beans.

At the very least, the drug war gives American special forces real combat experience, by taking down fat Columbians. Like the SAS and the IRA. Lord knows, violence = bad PR when it comes to anything else.

------------------
"...[They've] been so completely dumbed down by the media, by tabloid scumbags, by the Christian "right", by politicians in general, the school, parents who are dumber than their parents were, who are dumber than their parents were, and all of whom think that they can bring up a child just because they got down in bed and had a little sex...well, frankly, here is an audience that knows more and more about less and less as the years go by...We are talking about a constituency...that knows nothing. This is pandemic; terrifyingly, paralyzingly pandemic. They know absolutely nothing."
- Harlan Ellison, on the Media Consumer of today.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

It's not so much a defense of drugs as it is a "hey, the system isn't working, let's change it and try and do it right this time."

IMHO, of course.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

*irony mode* Better a thousand innocent people be unjustly punished than one guilty person go unpunished.

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I'm all for the legalization of drug use. If you want to fry your brain, that's your problem, and your legal right. Now making the actual importing illegal, that I'd go for. The government can outlaw that legally.

------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Just for fun, I ran this thread through this and got this.

Very funny. And it sure beats my canned crack cocaine.

------------------
20th century, go to sleep.
--
R.E.M.
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Show no patience, tolerance, or restraint.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

..special forces real combat experience, by taking codeine cough syrup fat Columbians...Lord knows, violence = crack cocaine PR...

I'm all for the legalization of drug use. If you want to marijuana cigarettes dipped in embalming fluid, sometimes also laced with PCP your brain, that's your problem, and your legal right. Now making the actual importing illegal, that I'd amphetamines for. The government marijuana outlaw that legally.

These two passages made me wet myself. Good show.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

For a moment there I thought that link didn't work, then I realised it was quite subtle.

*looks at the post above* Anything drips down here, you die.

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Fantastic! The topic name "The Drug War -- is it working?" went "The drug War -- is it selling crack?"

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Drug "War" is a misnomer, anyway. What kind of a war is it when you don't try to win?

We'd shoot down an enemy plane dropping bombs in our country, but do we take out planes flying coke into the country? No. That's no way to run a war.

Legalize? Fine. Kill yourself, it's no skin off my back. Hell, means more resources left over for me.

But what're you going to do about the folks, once it is legalized, who start working high, driving high, and freaking out on people when they have a bad trip?

We have enough of a problem with drunk drivers, angry drunks, and alcoholics at work already.

I am NOT going to be willing to pay for the 'special accomodations' for some idiot who got himself addicted, or fried his cerebral cortex. If you do it to yourself deliberately, it's not a disability.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

You're more willing to pay about $20,000 to throw them in jail per year than $4,000 to rehab them? Intersting.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You know, Jeff, I'd really love to know where you get these numbers.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Actually, it be cheaper AND more fun to solve the problem for only $40.

$40 for the boots the detention officer has to wear while finding a suitable stick to bludgeon said offender to death with.

I like it.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

$4,000 HOW MANY TIMES?

Rehab, from what I've seen, is just a little less efficient than lighting a match with a fusion bomb.

There's Robert Downey Junior, with what oughtta be the best and most support in the world, and he's been 'cleaned up' now HOW many times? 5? 6?

No, let's not jail them. Let's let 'em get REALLY high, then fly 'em by the planeload to some country we don't like, and drop 'em off.

"Dude, I am SO stoned... is this a Hardees?"
"Beggwa mo tyotimiba mookabla. Forta beb noguba shtlaikoy." ("No, this is the queen's bedchambers. We must behead you now.")

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, First, obviously you're not aware of the situation if you're only argument is Robert Downey Jr., who went against his treatment by working as much as possible so quickly. His own doc said that Downey, Jr. needed a year or two of quiet and not eighteen-hour days on "Ally McBeal" (Well, he said that everyone coming out of Rehab shouldn't be thrown back into high-pressure situations and need to work their way back into normal life).

You know what? Even if we had to put 'em through Rehab a couple of times, I'm all for it. No one has yet to show me that locking people up does anything but put more dangerous criminals back on the streets. Besides:

Person in jail for one year: $20,000

Person in rehab (let's say...) three times: $16,000

Wow. Taxpayer savings. Hmmm. MAYBE, just MAYBE! we can cut people's taxes if we're not locking people up all the time when there's a cheaper solution. What a concept, I know, I know.

All I'm saying is this. Putting people in jail isn't working. Yet we keep doing it, like it's suddenly going to work. Let's try a new way. "Oh, but Robert Downey Jr. failed!!!!" Wow. But how many people kick the habit through rehab? How many through jail?

Gee, Omega, I'd like to know why all you can ever says is "where'd you get these numbers, duuuuude?" It's mentioned quite clearly in the article -- if you'd read it, which obviously you didn't -- that the numbers (in regards to the cost of rehab v. incarciration) come from the Legislative Analyst Office of California. Next time please read the article, thank you.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 16, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Oh. Duh. I feel stupid. Blame it on lack of sleep.

But First still has a point. How effective could enforced rehab possibly be? How are you going to keep them from getting drugs, if they don't want to clean up in the first place? 24 hour guard? House arrest?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, the laws that have passed offer the person a choice between incarciration or rehab. If the person fails a drug test at rehab -- off to prison!

How effective is enforced incarciration? Not very. In some cases, sure, people are scared straight. Again (I don't have any numbers here), but I remember a Sociology class learning that a high percentage of incarcirees would return to jail after being released. So, IMHO, incarciration isn't that effective.

Now, I assume the questions you ask are aimed at a person AFTER going through rehab? You've got to assume that some people will relapse ... not all, mind you -- and I don't know if anyone has any numbers? -- but doing this rehab thing is going to have to take into account the fact that certain people might go through it once or twice before it takes any effect.

No, no twenty-four hour house guards or the like. Simple, effective, drug tests. They'd have to be under some sort of probation after rehab (say two years?), and if they fail a drug test, its back to rehab (or prison), again, giving them a choice.

Now, if they go through rehab a second time and still screw up, perhaps a combination of jail time and THEN rehab would be called for.

I just think we gotta try something new here.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 16, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"Simple, effective, drug tests."

With Simple, effective ways to mask traces of contaminants.

Posted by Invictus on :

No, the war against drugs is not working. IMO, the majority of currently illegal drugs should be legalized within the US.

In fact, they should be legalized, taxed, and distributed by the govt. If such a thing were to happen we could stop wasting millions and millions of dollars on a "war" that we'll never win. As long as someone wants drugs, they'll have them. Why bother trying to fight it?

If we legalized and taxed drugs, the revenue generated by the sale of drugs could be used for rehab. Anyone interested in breaking their habit could sign into a free drug rehab program. Most current govt drug rehab programs obviously don't work that well, since they don't, er, work. People go in, then go out, then get re-addicted. Private rehab places are too expensive for most people who are so addicted to drugs that they need rehab, anyway. Taxes from drugs would allow the govt to build good rehab centers.

In fact, a program like this is already being used in Holland. Marijuana is TOTALLY legal there- you can buy it along with a cup of morning coffee.

More "hard" drugs (cocaine, heroin etc) are illegal, but the police don't do drug busts and searches to try and arrest people for use. In general, you'll only be arrested for using ANY type of drugs if you cause a public disturbance (and most of these public disturbances generally involve alcohol :p )

Also, in Holland theres a lot of public awareness about drugs. There are stores where you can buy marijuana/psychadelic mushrooms, and be helped by someone who will tell you how to properly use the drug.

The argument that I hear the most frequently against the legalization of drugs is that "drug users drag more than just themselves down- they also drag down people around them (when they steal to support their habit). More legalized drugs would be more users, which would mean more people being dragged down. "

My reply to this argument is that the legalization of drugs would probably DECREASE the use of drugs. I would be willing to bet a lot of kids would never get started on drugs in the first place because it wouldn't make them look "cool." They would never get hooked, so they would never start, so they would never become addicts.

As for people being dragged down by their addict friends: Isn't this already happening? :p

The war against drugs isn't working, and I feel that its certainly time to give legalized drugs- marijuana at the least-a chance.

------------------
Well OBVIOUSLY the answer is 42. That's the answer to everything, you know!

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Actually, dope isn't "totally" legal in Holland. I think you can ONLY smoke it with your morning coffee, i.e. in a coffee-shop - a name which has become synonymous with "place where you can smoke dope" in Amsterdam. The law there is actually quite complex regarding it, and I can't be bothered to research it.

I've been to Amsterdam. And I've smoked dope. Not at the same time - all the coffee shops were full of asshole Brits who'd gone there JUST to smoke dope.

But apart from that I like what he's saying. I can't imagine people sitting in a bar qute legally snorting coke, though. Or is that one that should stay criminalized?

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Prison recidivism rate (those who end up back in jail): around 70-80%

Rehab relapse rate: I don't know. I'd bet money it's about the same.

Chances that any given currently used drug test will come back with an inaccurate result (false positive OR false negative): 60+%

Chances that an average person going through rehab will, or can, follow doctor's orders properly: Negligible. Nobody but the rich, permanently disabled, or very job-secure can afford to take a year off to rest. Except in jail.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Out of curiousity, where did you get these numbers?

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. . .

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

The recidivism rate I came across while doing a research paper for a criminology class I took in my 2nd year of college. It's been a few years, but since I remember virtually every factoid I find of interest, it's stuck with me.

The drug test statistics came off a 60 Minutes report/expose a few months ago. I remembered that, too.

However, this I can back up:

The November 1992 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, printed this surprising result. In a survey of 272 Michigan doctors 38 per cent said they didn't believe drug tests were accurate.

In the May 1987 edition of Laboratory Medicine, Dr. T.P. Moyer of the Mayo Clinic concluded in testing for marijuana on the EMIT test, 15% of the positives would be false.

This http://drugtesting.freeservers.com/table7.htm
shows another statistical table, although it only shows false positives, and the rates average between 33 and 42%

It might interest you to know that Ibuprofin (In Dristan, Sudafet, Midol, etc), and Nyquil can both cause false positives.

The 'negligible' one is obvious, given a basic knowledge of human nature.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 17, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

So, you're basicly saying, "that way won't work, let's stick with what we're doing now" even though what we're doing now isn't working either?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Trying a second unsuccessful solution would be a waste of resources.

In effect, I'm saying "We KNOW it's got problems, but you haven't come up with a more workable solution. Rather than change gears and spend a great deal on ANOTHER unworkable solution, We suggest that you gather more data and try again later."

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

"Amphetamines to crack cocaine, hacker. Your IP marijuana been logged. Have a nice day.
Opium to: Select a ForumList of Forums:Category: System Forums--------------------Incoming Crack cocaineNetwork ProjectsCategory: Cocaine Trek--------------------General DiscussionVoyagerDeep Space NineStarships & Other TechnologyDesigns, Artwork, and CreativityCategory: Science Fiction--------------------General Sci-Fi DiscussionCocaine WarsCategory: Community Forums--------------------Officers' LoungeFlameboardForum Contests

Content, graphics, and design are © 1999-2000 by The Solareclipse Network
Terms and Conditions of Use & Privacy Statement

I love the message I got when I tried to post through that link.

And I love how George "Dubya" Bush translates to Heroin "Dubya" Marijuana. I wonder what Al Gore translates to?

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Al Gore translates as ... Al Gore. Now, if its Al "The Bore" Gore, maybe we'll get somewhere

First, actually, I think we should give this rehab thing a shot. I'm not saying it'll be perfect, but hey, even if it doesn't work, it's still a lot cheaper than tossing someone in the lockup. I mean, hey, you can put five people through rehab for the cost of one person in jail for a whole year. Heck, we could use the left over money to form a sort-of "halfway" house society-reintroduction program, where recent "grads" of the rehab work their way gradually back into the system.

If 38% of Michigan doctors believe that drug tests are not accurate, does it not then follow that 62% believe them to be accurate?

And did Dr. T. P. Moyer, of the Mayo Clinic, deduce that 85% of the positives would be true?

And is anyone aware that Omega is smarter than a speeding isobutyl nitrite? (According to that site, anyway)

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 17, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

JeffK: the cost factor doesn't include the amount of damage, monetary and otherwise, that addicts do when they're not in rehab. Some of them kill people, you know.

I like that you asked about the 15% error rate in the language that you did. Did you onsider that the death penalty 's (which you oppose) error rate is considerably lower? Or is it NOW okay to punish people, as long as a higher percentage of guilty people are punished?

A 15% error rate means just that. Innocent people get stuck with the stigma of being an addict.

As the significant other of a person who requires medicines that are classed with narcotics in order to function, I have firsthand experience of just how much damage that stigma can do.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Invictus on :

Vogon, where'd you get THIS from?

quote:
Actually, dope isn't "totally" legal in Holland. I think you can ONLY smoke it with your morning coffee, i.e. in a coffee-shop - a name which has become synonymous with "place where you can smoke dope" in Amsterdam. The law there is actually quite complex regarding it, and I can't be bothered to research it.

Uh, no. I lived in Holland (Amsterdam, if you're curious), and I'm 99.99999 percent sure that its legal everywhere. No, wait, 100%. What kind of law would this be:

"You can smoke pot ONLY in coffee shops, and no where else."

And coffee shops are still synonymous with "coffee."
:p As far as I know, the law isn't complex at all. You:

1) Buy marijuana and then you
2) Use it wherever you want

and its OK as no one complains and you don't cause a nuisance.

------------------
Well OBVIOUSLY the answer is 42. That's the answer to everything, you know!

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I had always heard that it could only be done in a business catering to the trade, but then again, anyplace usually has a misinterpted view of another.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I'm sorry First, I guess I misunderstood.

I took it to mean that out of people tested for drugs, 15% of the results would be flawed one way or the other, but that the other 85% would be correct. Therefore, this would seem to support drug testing as a way to ascertain whether or not those out of rehab were still using drugs. Since that is how I propose using drug testing, at worse what would happen is that 15% of those out of rehab would have their results skewered. Sure it's sad if someone's kicked the habit and suddenly people think he hasn't, but it's also a better solution than any you've proposed ...

...but you know what? If you lock someone up mistakenly, you can set them free. If you execute someone by mistake, well, can't really bring them back to life, now can you? (Also, you'll notice my plan calls for being offered a second chance between rehab or jail, and I'm sure the wrongly-accused would go for rehab, where its more than likely possible the Docs would realize, "he's cured, it was a faulty test" and set him free).

Now, notice we're also talking about a study ... that was done 13 years ago. Isn't it possible that tests have become MORE accurate? I think it is. Not to mention that there are SEVERAL kinds of tests which can be done, including urine and hair, so that might lower the odds too.

The cost factor doesn't include the amount of damage, monetary and otherwise, that addicts do when they're not in rehab. Some of them kill people, you know

Let me respond to THAT with this:

The cost factor doesn't include the amount of damage, monetary and otherwise, that addicts do when they're not in jail. Some of them kill people, you know.

So, on one hand, we've got the cost of rehab ($4,000) + amount of damage (monetary and otherwise) caused out of rehab.

On the other, we've got the cost of jail ($20,000 per year) + amount of damage (monetary and otherwise) caused out of jail.

Hmmm. Rehab's still cheaper.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 17, 2001).]

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

quote:
So, you're basicly saying, "that way won't work, let's stick with what we're doing now" even though what we're doing now isn't working either?

Congratulations, you've just grasped the Conservative's Creed. 8)

Invictus: I don't claim to be an expert on Dutch law. I thought that there were some restrictions on the sale, possession and use of marijuana. That information could be 4 or 5 years old, and out of date - but I am certain there were restrictions at one time, fairly recently.

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Then why the hell haven't we had a major portion of our druggie population move over to Holland? They're still here, the dirty, filthy, bastards. WTF? Spend all your money on speed, and can't afford water? Take a fucking bath, dopey.

Posted by Invictus on :

Vogon, sorry if it sounded like I was flaming you :p

I don't ever remember there being any restrictions on the sale of marijuana. Maybe something with who could sell it to who changed (I have no clue :p ) but that really doesn't effect the outcome, which is that it's legal to smoke it.

Erm, I know that brothels are now official allowed in Holland again (they had existed before "unofficially", not that anyone really cared). They're taxed, and regulated (of course). Another smart move, because I would tend to say that prostitution (possibly one of the world's oldest professions) will never totally be wiped out. Ever. Just like drug use.

Prostitutes (which were already legal) != brothels. There is some sort of legal difference (not sure of the details :p )

------------------
Well OBVIOUSLY the answer is 42. That's the answer to everything, you know!

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Relax, Invy, after you hang out with this lot, you KNOW when you're being flamed. Well, I do, anyway. I seem to bring out the worst in people.

Like I say, I don't know Dutch law. One thing I do know, the law on prostitution is a lot older than any recent changes in the drugs law.

------------------
Luke Ford: "What's it like having a dick in your ass?"

Zoe: "Imagine taking your bottom lip and pulling it over the top of your head. You get used to it but it does hurt."

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :

The problems with the alternative to the war on drugs -legalizing certain controlled substances - are twofold.

First, there is the responsibility issue. Society would be saying, in effect, "Its alright to be a crackhead. And, if you get addicted we'll pay for it. After all, we allowed you to become a doper in the forst place. Legally!" Personal responsibility has to come into play here. We've already got a problem with responsibility at our highest political levels ("I di not have sex with that women..."). Let's not translate it any further into society.

Second, do you really want a whole population of permanently medicated crackheads wandering the streets? A police officer that I sometimes work with informed us that (and I apologize for not being able to remember the precise percentage) there now exists a large population of the permanently medicated in places like the Netherlands. Yup, legalization sure worked well there! Let's see... Let's have them drive cars, teach school, and all of those other jobs where we want people to be alert and awake. One may argue that there already exists such a population in the USA, but why add fuel to the fire? Why increase the numbers? Also, why should my tax dollars go to take care of some moron who chose to get himself addicted? Crack babies can have my money. They deserve it. They weren't responsible for their predicaments. Adult crackheads cannot. They became addicted (mostly) by choice.

------------------
Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I think you need to make up your mind regarding responsibility. You say that society is responsible for drug addicts, and then you say the drug addicts are. Can't have it both ways.

Also, where did you get this bizarre idea that anything not forbidden is compulsory? (Aside from T.H. White.)

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :

Incorrect. I can have it both ways.

I stated that crack babies are not responsible for their plights. A fetus, then baby, addicted to drugs through the actions of its parents are clearly not responsible for the addiction he/she is born with. An adult, however, who makes the clear and premeditated choice to take drugs is. I believe I nmade that point quite clear.

Also, where did I say that something is compulsory? Please explain.

------------------
Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"First, there is the responsibility issue. Society would be saying, in effect, 'Its alright to be a crackhead. And, if you get addicted we'll pay for it. After all, we allowed you to become a doper in the forst place. Legally!'"

Here you say that it would be society's fault.

"Personal responsibility has to come into play here."

Here you are apparently indicating that the blame for addiction rests wholely on the addict. So whose fault is it?

"Second, do you really want a whole population of permanently medicated crackheads wandering the streets?"

Unlike, say, the ones that do so now?

"Let's see... Let's have them drive cars, teach school, and all of those other jobs where we want people to be alert and awake."

Huh? Do you actually believe that making a substance legal translates into sweaty heroin addicts somehow getting jobs as grade school teachers and sitting in the back of the classroom pumping junk into their veins? Have you ever stopped, just for a moment, and realized that being drunk is legal but being drunk while behind the wheel isn't? Has that thought ever crossed your mind?

"Why increase the numbers?"

Why would it?

"Also, why should my tax dollars go to take care of some moron who chose to get himself addicted?"

What on Earth does this have to do with legalization?

"Also, where did I say that something is compulsory?"

You keep saying that the only reason people don't do drugs is because they are forbidden to do so, and that should that commandment disappear millions upon millions of otherwise normal people would instantly turn into shivering opium fiends.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"'First, there is the responsibility issue. Society would be saying, in effect, "Its alright to be a crackhead. And, if you get addicted we'll pay for it. After all, we allowed you to become a doper in the forst place. Legally!"'"
"Here you say that it would be society's fault."

I read that quote to be a complaint against society's taking responsibility for it. He says "Society would" be doing so, not "Society should"...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :

Thanks TSN, that's exactly how I meant it.

Also...

Sol System,

"You keep saying that the only reason people don't do drugs is because they are forbidden to do so, and that should that commandment disappear millions upon millions of otherwise normal people would instantly turn into shivering opium fiends."

Er, ummm, I never said that. You may have misinterpreted my earlier statements, but I never expressly said that. My position is that legalization should not occur because of the immense societal costs involved. Society should not have to take responsibility (financial and otherwise) for persons who willingly choose to ruin their lives with illicit drugs. To do so would condone their actions and relieve them to be responsible for their own actions. Also, please stop resorting to hyperbole. Again, I have not stated that the mere existence of drugs will result in "shivering opium fiends." However, as a public school teacher who has experienced drugged out kiddies firsthand, a supply of drugs will result in the temptation to experiment. Obviously, most young people are smart enough not to fry their brains with that crud - our kids are smarter than we adults usually give them credit for. However, some will succumb to the temptation, through peer pressure, etc. Therefore, why allow legalization? Why allow even that small percentage to fall down the sewer of life? Because drugs will do just that.

Oh yes, the permanently medicated. I almost forgot. If we legalize illicit drugs more and more people will become medicated in their daily lives. Heck, look at the sheer numbers of people on anti-depressants compared to a decade ago. Since their prescription has become more acceptable and more insurance plans have made them more available, more and more people are taking them. Now, please don't misinterpret my statement. I am not condemning the use of anti-depressants. I offer this merely as an example. When something becomes more available and societally allowable, the percentage of users rises. Therefore, if illicit drugs are legalized the number of users will go up.

------------------
Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"My position is that legalization should not occur because of the immense societal costs involved."

Costs that are already being paid.

"Society should not have to take responsibility (financial and otherwise) for persons who willingly choose to ruin their lives with illicit drugs."

How does legalizing or decriminalizing them have anything to do with responsibility? At any rate, one could make the argument that the current drug laws are the result of society trying to take responsibility for what is ultimately a personal issue.

"Also, please stop resorting to hyperbole."

I'll write as dryly as I know how.

"However, as a public school teacher who has experienced drugged out kiddies firsthand, a supply of drugs will result in the temptation to experiment."

The supply exists now. Why should we expect that to increase due to legalization. Where will this new market come from?

"However, some will succumb to the temptation, through peer pressure, etc. Therefore, why allow legalization?"

What do those two things have to do with each other?

"If we legalize illicit drugs more and more people will become medicated in their daily lives."

Prove it.

"Heck, look at the sheer numbers of people on anti-depressants compared to a decade ago. Since their prescription has become more acceptable and more insurance plans have made them more available, more and more people are taking them."

It might be even more useful to look at the numbers of antidepressants that exist now as compared to ten years ago.

"Now, please don't misinterpret my statement. I am not condemning the use of anti-depressants. I offer this merely as an example."

Then it is a bad one. What do the two have in common?

"When something becomes more available and societally allowable, the percentage of users rises."

I can't think of a single example of a drug that has followed this pattern. Drugs are created, used, and then become illegal.

You keep mentioning 'the children' in that abstract, Mrs. Lovejoy sense. This strikes me as a bit of a strawman. Alcohol is legal, but not for children, or even teens. Heck, spraypaint can't be bought by anyone under the age of 18 around here. Neither can certain types of engine performance boosters.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I am still trying to figure out the 'if it's legal they will smoke it' idea. If it were legal I still wouldn't use anything like that, shiite, my mind is fragged enough as it is, without adding outside help...

It would also help to know the types that are being discussed. Like the alcohol contents in beer and whiskey, these are lower percentagewise than those of say, Germany. So to say to someone, Hey, smoke that joint if you want, is different than giving them crack or heroine.

So, like alcohol content levels, where is this line being drawn, and why there?

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them....

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

To tell you the truth, the onl

***ZZZZZT! This is Commando Internet. We have seized control of this user's posting process to provide you with the following:

Ultra Secret Government Conspiracy Plan to End Drug War

Step 1: Legalize drugs.
Step 2: Tamper with production. Add strychnine or cyanide.
Step 3: Sit back and enjoy the chaos.
Step 4: Profit.

ZZZZZT!****

aying about it is that he's pulling it out of... what was that?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

What a lame conspiricy. They do that now.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Saw "Insider" last week. Damn fine custard, that was.

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Sol: Yes, but I mean add a FATAL amount.

Drug user: *Snort!* *GAAK!! AHHHHkkkkkkkkkkhhhhhhh...*
Rest of us: *Chortle* Dumbass... that crap's DANGEROUS!

Oh, and of course they'll stop treating people who O.D.

Hey, wouldn't the first logical step after drug legalization be to sue the hell out of all the people that would produce it legally, because of all the hazardous effects of illegal drugs? If it worked against the tobacco companies...

Of course, Big Tobacco won't sent a couple of their boys 'round to pump a couple dozen rounds into you.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, if the State sued -- public health? -- I think the now legal drug makers would find it difficult to figure out who to shoot.

"Let's just do a drive-by on city hall."
"Ok."
::drive::
::Bang! Bang! Bang!::
"Damn, we killed all the reporters."

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"So, like alcohol content levels, where is this line being drawn, and why there?"

Unless the US has different laws, then the fact that your beer is weak piss compared to the rest of the world hasn't got anything to do with laws on alcohol content. You're just a bunch of big girls blouses, who don't need alcohol, because only sad pathetic people need drugs to enjoy life, and you have blueprints of the starship Enterprise, so you're cool, because you know exactly what deck Commander Wiliam Thomas Riker's quarters are on.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

You still buy transformers.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, but Transformers are cool.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Yep, I like the transformers also....

mmmmm, no, I haven't a clue which deck Riker's quarters are on... nor do I have any bluprints...
So I guess I need alcohol....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"Of course, Big Tobacco won't sent a couple of their boys 'round to pump a couple dozen rounds into you."

Maybe not rounds of lead, no.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I collect Transformers for, er display purposes.

And I don't spend my free time arguing about what exact part of the Axalon Cheetor's quarters are on, and about how Beasts SUX! CARS RULEZ! And so on.

Besides, I never claimed to be cool. I do see my house from the outside occasionally. At night, too.

Besides, I am much cooler than you, because I have a friend who has a large penis. And, by association, that makes my penis all the larger.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I weep for this phase you are in. May this short-lived obsession with being generally displeasing be just that. I prey to a thousand Alan Shearers that you make it home safe. Be well, my brother.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

*apathy*

Being "cool" is irrelevant.

*apathy*

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Being "uncool" is "cool"

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :

"Costs that are already being paid."

And therefore I should have to keep paying taxes to support turd brains who willingly endanger themselves and others? Tell you what, Sol - you go ahead and pay your hard earned money to your coke toking buddies. I, however, decline.

"It might be even more useful to look at the numbers of antidepressants that exist now as compared to ten years ago."

Um, I think you just proved the point you were attempting (poorly) to ascribe to me, namely that supply equals drug users. If more antidepressants exist today, and there are more antidepressant users, then by your own reasoning (and by a simple logical extension) expanding the supply of illicit drugs will equal more illicit drug users. And yes, more illicit drugs exist now than existed ten years ago, so sayeth my sheriff deputy colleague. I had not originally broach that point - you did. If you are going to attempt to argue a point, please be consistent at least.

The bottom line is that drug use is life abuse.

------------------
Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Pah. you may mock my displeasing attitude all you wantm but do not deny the power of Simon's trouser contents, and, by association, the power they infuse upon me. Bwahahahaha!

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Ha! The power they infuse within you is much greater than even I can imagine. I respectfully decline confrontation with you, and bless your family.

Good Afternoon, silly man.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Constellation,

Look at it this way. Any extra costs that would be being paid in a rehabilitation plan would be made up in money saved by not incarcerating those same people. I don't know if you saw the numbers earlier in the post, but it costs $20,000 to incacerate someone (per year), and only $4,000 for rehabilitation.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I see we've abandoned all pretense of civility. Well then.

"And therefore I should have to keep paying taxes to support turd brains who willingly endanger themselves and others?"

What exactly are you on about? Could you explain, if it can be done in our primitive Earther tounge, what these two concepts have to do with each other?

"Tell you what, Sol - you go ahead and pay your hard earned money to your coke toking buddies. I, however, decline."

Oh, I am outed! Yes, in fact I was just this past Friday taking a trip with my tuned out friends to an opium den in the darkest reaches of Myanmar. There we all spent the next several days in a haze, hallucinating sexual encounters with Marilyn Monroe while riding winged hippos of the purest crimson over the hills of San Francisco. How was your weekend?

"Um, I think you just proved the point you were attempting (poorly) to ascribe to me, namely that supply equals drug users. If more antidepressants exist today, and there are more antidepressant users, then by your own reasoning (and by a simple logical extension) expanding the supply of illicit drugs will equal more illicit drug users."

This must be some newer, stupider form of logic.

"The bottom line is that drug use is life abuse."

Oh. My. God.

Just this morning I arose and said to myself, "Self, the one thing I desire more than anything else is some way to encompass problems in an easily remembered rhyming scheme." And now you've done it! I had never ever considered the fact that drugs are bad! But now, you have opened my eyes! The truth is loose! It's drugless fun in 2001!

In other words, consider this a colossal "Duh" being flung across the countryside. Who ever said anything at all about drugs being good or desirable or fun? That has absolutely nothing to do with their legality. If it did, shipping Mariah Carey records across state lines would be a felony.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, this thread is more about rehabilitation v incarceration as a "punishment" to drug use, and also reviewing the way the US of A deals with the "drug war", because, frankly, the way we got now sucks. Peace out.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

"Even Hard Liners in the war on drugs like to say that we can no longer incarcerate our way out of the problem" -- Newsweek

Found some interesting facts from Newsweek's current addiction story, including:

Substance abusers who stay in treatment longer are less likely to resume their bad habits.

I'll post more later.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

It's a bit weird that Sol is the one here defending drugs. But whenever the people who live in non-US consitution countries try and argue on drugs, we get poo-pooed for daring to have different ideas that Washington. So I'll shut up.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

C'mon, dude, comment! Comment!

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Of course Sol is defending drugs. He encourages, and profits from the sale of the Placebo that is Viagra, and his own special brand "Simon Sizer's Sizing Pills!". Then he laughs at the people purchasing the drug, waves his all-natural staff of manliness around, and pole-vaults away.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I'm not so sure that irony should really be misconstrued as defense.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

True. Otherwise I'd be defending everything I'd ever said.

But even if you agree with it, the "drug use is life abuse" thing is a laughably simplistic way of looking at the situation.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Do drugs. Have a ball. Enjoy yourself in your artificially-induced chemical haze, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

But when you fuck it up, let it be on YOUR head. I shouldn't have to pay for a bad habit that isn't mine.

If I have a heart attack and die at 40 because my arteries are clogged with the fatty residue from too many Hardee's Monster Burgers, that's just too damn bad for me. Don't bring me back, I don't deserve it. It's my own fault. I knew better, but I did it anyway.

Likewise, if you turn yourself into a homeless jobless imbecile from your overindulgence in certain recreational pharmaceuticals, that's just too damn bad for you. Die on the street. You knew better, but you did it anyway. (I just LOVE those new "Whatsizname, Whatsizname on heroin" commercials, BTW.)

And, quite frankly, that goes for alcoholics with cirrhosis and smokers with lung cancer, too.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

But you're more than willing to shell out $20k per year for an addict to be tossed in a jail with no hope of kicking the habit ... but rehabilitation, no way? Funny attitude.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

No, I'm saying that I've given up on enforcement and jail, both. I've decided that you should only jail the people who hurt other people while under the influence of drugs, in ADDITION to treating them. Perhaps make evidence of long-term recovery a condition of release from incarceration. Find out how soon people tend to relapse, and make them stay in 'treatment' over that period.

But I believe that the trade-off for this should be to deny all medical treatment to people whose problems are the result of drug use, or the result of an incident stemming from drug use. (For instance, if you take LSD, decide that bugs are under your skin, and stab yourself several times to kill them, that's tough for you. You die, from a terminal case of self-destructiveness. Or, if you drive while smoking pot or drinking, and crash into a bus, killing someone, you go to jail for 1st degree murder - because you knew what you were doing when you started smoking and got behind the wheel -, AND you get 'treatment' (aversion therapy would be good) before you get out.)

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Right on :

Explain to me how a civilized society can allow its citizens to do such things to themselves when that society has the opportunity to help them? Letting them bleed to death and refusing to treat them is murder, by both law and the rule of decency.

This country does have a drug problem, but letting drug addicts kill themselves or others isn't going to solve the problem.

"Gee, my engine is making funny noises. Maybe if I leave it alone it'll go away."

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Kids. They think life should be fair.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Kids. They think government should be responsible for its citizens. Wow.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Adults. They think citizens should be responsible for THEMSELVES. Wow, what a novel concept.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Monkeys, they think termites are tasty. Freaks!

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Pant makers. They think they can design containment units for Simon's Sizer. COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON BASTARDS!!!!

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

People who think Government should be responsible for its citizens = stupid

People who think Government should let its unresponsible citizens rot away = correct

At least, as far as First is concerned. Now, let me ask you something, if your kid develops a drug habit, whatcha gonna do? Let 'em live a life on the corner, or try and help them? The liberal ideal here is to try and help everyone in trouble. Apparently, that's "evil"

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

The Government isn't your babysitter. It's not it's job to wipe your ass because you don't want to get shit on your hands. No, I recall something about "by the people, people in general, something about people" that even I remember. it runs things, but it doesn't take personal responsibility for your own poo.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

When its citizens are homeless in the streets, or killing themselves through drug use, the Government needs to get involved. For the people.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"We must step in and save you from yourselves."
Isn't that the classic line of the Friendly Fascist?

Government is NOT the daddy.

If MY kid starts screwing up his life, of COURSE I'm going to try to help. He's MY kid. I'm responsible for bringing him into this world, and helping him to get through it and grow up and survive in it.

He is NOT the government's kid. It is not the government's job to run his life, or to do everything for him if he can't cut it on his own.

Dependency is BAD.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I think maybe you're missing the point.

If someone gets busted for drugs, the Government will be taking responsibility for them whether they toss 'em in jail or put them through a rehabilitation program. It just depends on whether or not we want these people going back and back and back into jail time and time again.

If they can be helped into becoming productive citizens, they become an asset to the community.

Maybe I'm the only one who sees the whole "for the people" bit. I dunno, it makes sense. Government is here, for the people.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

You have a point.

The best way for them to be productive citizens is to keep them off the drugs in the FIRST place.

And the best way to make them WANT to be productive citizens (at least, for most people nowadays) is to make them well aware of the negative consequences of not being so.

Negative consequences MUST exist for proper behavior to form.

Have you ever known someone who was always getting someone to bail them out of whatever trouble they got themselves into, from childhood on? Do you know what people who have that done for them end up like?

They become addicted. Not to drugs, but to assistance. (Well, sometimes to drugs as well, but that's beside the point.)

That's what allowing the government to run lives, to 'bail' them out of the negative consequences of drug use, to provide that kind of 'help,' will create -- has created, in many cases already.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, there should obviously be a point where the government stops assistance.

But people do fuck up, and make mistakes, and given the opportunity, would make great productive members of society, and establishing a network of rehabs, halfway houses, and employers (given tax-benefits to employ recovering addicts or what have you) to help people get back onto their feet is something that the government could do to help these people.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Perhaps.

How many chances should someone get?

I've always been a firm follower of the 'Everybody gets one free mistake. ONE.' philosophy. Because frankly, if you haven't learned after that, you most likely aren't going to.

Then again, like criminals, drug users generally commit several 'mistakes' before they're caught.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I think it would have to depend on the severity of the crime. There's a big difference between going on a shooting spree in a shopping mall and getting busted for posession of weed.