posted
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"
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.
------------------ 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 17, 2001).]
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
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.
------------------ "...[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
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
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
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 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
"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.
"'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.
"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
"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.
posted
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....
Printer-friendly view of this topic
