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?

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.

------------------
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

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

With Simple, effective ways to mask traces of contaminants.

------------------
"...[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.

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.

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?"

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

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

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).]

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

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

Powered by: Crack cocaine Bulletin Board, Version 5.38 � Madrona Park, Inc., 1998-1999."

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."

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)

------------------
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

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

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.