Ignoring the War on Drugs.

As long as the COURTS keep RELEASING 'drug offenders' QUICKER than the LEOs can complete the paperwork, the 'War on Drugs' will NEVER be won.

The way our country fights this "war on drugs" is absurd. Incarcinating people who use drugs has tremendous cost to this country. Our prisions are full of non-viloent people who got caught using, and I think it cost about $45,000 / year to keep them locked up. We have even out-sourced our prisions just to address this problem.
I propose the following solution:
1> Dechriminalize pot altogether.(actually that started as a racial issue with Mexicans)
2> Put addictive drugs in the drug store, and let doctors write script to addicts for it.

If we did this, the following would occurr:
1> Since the price of hard drugs is mostly "street" value, and the real cost is really cheap, addicts could be able to support their habit from their normal jobs.
2> Since addicts could get their drugs legally and cheap, the street distribution network would disappear virtually overnight. Normal licened drugist would not be pushing this stuff on our children trying to get them hooked, and use would go down.
3> the chrime associated with people trying to support their habit would drastically deminish, due to the fact that the habit is now affordable.
4> We would free up our police to fight chrime, and not always be trying to catch some druggie.
5> our prision system could revert to keeping people who commit viloent chrime, not just drug bust, and that would save our states millions.

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
The way our country fights this "war on drugs" is absurd. Incarcinating people who use drugs has tremendous cost to this country. Our prisions are full of non-viloent people who got caught using, and I think it cost about $45,000 / year to keep them locked up. We have even out-sourced our prisions just to address this problem.
I propose the following solution:
1> Dechriminalize pot altogether.(actually that started as a racial issue with Mexicans)
2> Put addictive drugs in the drug store, and let doctors write script to addicts for it.

If we did this, the following would occurr:
1> Since the price of hard drugs is mostly "street" value, and the real cost is really cheap, addicts could be able to support their habit from their normal jobs.
2> Since addicts could get their drugs legally and cheap, the street distribution network would disappear virtually overnight. Normal licened drugist would not be pushing this stuff on our children trying to get them hooked, and use would go down.
3> the chrime associated with people trying to support their habit would drastically deminish, due to the fact that the habit is now affordable.
4> We would free up our police to fight chrime, and not always be trying to catch some druggie.
5> our prision system could revert to keeping people who commit viloent chrime, not just drug bust, and that would save our states millions.

As hard as it may be for you and others to believe, I completely agreee with you!!!

I agree that the decriminaliztion of drugs would definitely have a positive effect on the amount of crime. I think that decriminalization will be extremly difficult to get into law though.

I think the best short-term fix is to make drug offenders go to mandatory drug treatment programs for specified amounts of time to dry them out instead of letting them sit in a jail cell. I would also offer them some type of incentive (cash or tax break) after they get out of the programs to take monthly drug tests and find and keep employment.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
I agree that the decriminaliztion of drugs would definitely have a positive effect on the amount of crime. I think that decriminalization will be extremly difficult to get into law though.

I think the best short-term fix is to make drug offenders go to mandatory drug treatment programs for specified amounts of time to dry them out instead of letting them sit in a jail cell. I would also offer them some type of incentive (cash or tax break) after they get out of the programs to take monthly drug tests and find and keep employment.

You're right. For some reason the gov't thinks they can somehow stamp out drugs. Somebody should ask them how well it worked when they tried to do that with alcohol.

I think the war on drugs is a perfect example of how government is using morality to fight the war instead of common sense. Government somehow thinks that it can be a nanny or a father figure by trying to take drugs away from its kids. Impossible!

Unfortunately, legalization or decriminalization hasn't helped in the Netherlands that much. Probably best to let adults use from legal, well taxed sources. Then, treat pushers to minors like scum with really harsh punishment. Use taxes for rehab centers, etc.

Will Rogers said the best way to control crime was to make it legal, then tax it!

quote:

You're right. For some reason the gov't thinks they can somehow stamp out drugs. Somebody should ask them how well it worked when they tried to do that with alcohol.

I agree 100%. It's no coincidence that a lot of the problems that we see today with drugs appeared when prohibition first started.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:

quote:

You're right. For some reason the gov't thinks they can somehow stamp out drugs. Somebody should ask them how well it worked when they tried to do that with alcohol.

I agree 100%. It's no coincidence that a lot of the problems that we see today with drugs appeared when prohibition first started.

You betcha!

I seldom reply to articles on the forum because of the knee-jerk reactions I see (e.g., "It's because of THEM and their lack of MORALITY and the pandering of LIBERALS that enable this behavior...I know what's BEST for EVERYONE!). However, this is an important issue for a couple of reasons:

1. It's a matter of personal liberty. It should be no one else's business what you ingest unless your behavior (for which you are responsible) infringes on another's rights and/or property. Americans seem to be way too interested in enforcing their ideas of morality; they should mind their own shop.

2. The current drug laws aren't working and they are expensive to our society in both dollars and people's lives. The government is wrong in their assessment of marijuana and because of that, they lose credibility across the entire subject. I've heard of local teenagers taking prescription pain medicines (e.g., oxycontin, hydrocodone) so that their parents wouldn't smell alcohol on them. Much like their sexual abstinence campaigns, they promote ingonrance, never talking about dosage or side effects. My neice died in Atlanta summer before last because (1) she took Extacy and (2) neither she nor the other teenage experimentors knew that it raises core temperature - her temperatuer rose to 108 in July. As for questioning her or her family's morals: two words. The first starts with "F", the second, "Y".

Beyond that, the administration's policies regarding medical marijuana use is reprehensible. Weren't the Repulicans once the champions of decentralized government and state's rights?

Further, the race issue in Huffington's article is not laughable at all. Crack cocaine is traded primarily among low-income blacks. So disproportionate sentencing for crack vs. powedered cocaine would have (however unintentionsal) a racial component. Why would you oppose fixing that?

Chris Rock has a hilarious and thought-provoking routine called "If It's White, It's Alright", where he compared drug commerce in the black community with the corporate industry involved in the production and sale of alcohol and tobacco. To paraphrase, he said that if cigarettes were made by black people, then "a pack of Newports would get you 15 years."

Well, That (thinks she's so) Smart Chick. thanks for your vote of confidence...but

1. I don't recall mentioning driving under the influence - I did say something about responsibility for behavior, by which I meant stealing to support habits, DUI, etc. However, mere possession?

2. Since when do teenagers think about consequences? My point was that the inadequacy of the government's anti-drug programs do nothing beyond "Just Say No" and scare tactics reminescent of "Reefer Madness". They figure out that the marijuana information is so much BS, so what about the rest of it?

As for marijuana, you answer is that since the drug testing technology is inadequate, then let's limit personal liberty? Why not issue everyone an ankle bracelet?

Chris Rock makes a lot of sense on this issue; murder and robbery are separate crimes from drug use. Your statement also perpetuates stereotypes...

Despite public whippings and worse, alcohol is readily available in Saudi. Jack Daniels and scotch are the tipples of choice. I understand the same is true of Iran, but I'm not going there to check it out.

Stereotype (hiding in plain sight): "A" uses drugs and drives a school bus, therefore "A" is guilty of driving school bus on drugs. People that use recreational (or medicinal) illegal drugs - particularly marijuana - do not necessarily commit other crimes.

You say that drug use is inextricably intertwined with other violent crime; therefore, society is justified to treat it as a crime of itself alone.

Incidentally, this is also the same point that you argue against when it comes to race and drugs, i.e., that there is no connection. You can't have it both ways.

On the other hand, I don't argue that drug use and other crime are not interconnected - especially under the present black market conditions; just that drug use in itself should not be prosecuted. I believe people should be held responsible for whatever other crimes they commit.

quote:

Originally posted by colecaj:
People that use recreational (or medicinal) illegal drugs - particularly marijuana - do not necessarily commit other crimes.

You'd get a HELL of an argument from my wife regarding that statement, especially concerning her EX.

As for legalizing drugs: It'll NEVER happen. There's too much $$$ being made by the various courts in trying drug cases and in the collecting of fines, etc from the accused/guilty.

quote:

Originally posted by interventor:
Unfortunately, legalization or decriminalization hasn't helped in the Netherlands that much. Probably best to let adults use from legal, well taxed sources. Then, treat pushers to minors like scum with really harsh punishment. Use taxes for rehab centers, etc.

Will Rogers said the best way to control crime was to make it legal, then tax it!

I disagree, Holland has a lot of drug use, next to no crime associated with it. The did not eliminate addiction, they Priced crime out of the drug market.

quote:

Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
As long as the COURTS keep RELEASING 'drug offenders' QUICKER than the LEOs can complete the paperwork, the 'War on Drugs' will NEVER be won.

Agreed, the Suspect offender gets his day in court. Drug offenders who have light skin get a pass those with dark skin get 15 years to life.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
As long as the COURTS keep RELEASING 'drug offenders' QUICKER than the LEOs can complete the paperwork, the 'War on Drugs' will NEVER be won.

Agreed, the Suspect offender gets his day in court. Drug offenders who have light skin get a pass those with dark skin get 15 years to life.

That is an assumption made based on the headlines in the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

quote:

Originally posted by that smart chick:
As long as people blame their race for their predicaments we will never win anything. From what I've read this morning in the news and on this forum, being black or hispanic makes you more likely to do drugs, have bad credit, lose your home to foreclosure, not graduate from high school, have a child out of wedlock, and collect welfare. Those aren't RACE issues, those are MORAL issues. You can't make people behave like civilized human beings. Race does not make people do drugs, race does not make people avoid paying their financial obligations, race does not make someone drop out of school, race does not make people promiscuous, and race does not make people lazy. People need to take responsibility for themselves. If someone does not wish to be stereotyped then they need to avoid the stereotypical behavior patterns.

Arianna Huffington's article is laughable. Put drug dealers back on the streets, since they aren't hurting anyone and give them the right to vote because they historically vote Democrat. What a load of manure. Who are they hurting??? They are hurting their entire community by peddling drugs! She may be right with regard to the fact that locking up people for drug offenses isn't working. The answer is not to let them go free with a hug and a welfare check. The answer is to make the punshment harsher. The punishment has to be harsh enough to deter people from committing the crime. Cushy prison cells with 3 squares a day and cable tv apparently aren't cutting it.

As Long as dark skin or a foreign accent is a barrier to full opportunity, dark skinned and foreign people will have a right to complain about their situation.

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
The way our country fights this "war on drugs" is absurd. Incarcinating people who use drugs has tremendous cost to this country. Our prisions are full of non-viloent people who got caught using, and I think it cost about $45,000 / year to keep them locked up. We have even out-sourced our prisions just to address this problem.
I propose the following solution:
1> Dechriminalize pot altogether.(actually that started as a racial issue with Mexicans)
2> Put addictive drugs in the drug store, and let doctors write script to addicts for it.

If we did this, the following would occurr:
1> Since the price of hard drugs is mostly "street" value, and the real cost is really cheap, addicts could be able to support their habit from their normal jobs.
2> Since addicts could get their drugs legally and cheap, the street distribution network would disappear virtually overnight. Normal licened drugist would not be pushing this stuff on our children trying to get them hooked, and use would go down.
3> the chrime associated with people trying to support their habit would drastically deminish, due to the fact that the habit is now affordable.
4> We would free up our police to fight chrime, and not always be trying to catch some druggie.
5> our prision system could revert to keeping people who commit viloent chrime, not just drug bust, and that would save our states millions.

On the mark. Alcohol sales during prohibition put people in prison, created criminal gangs, provided a source of capital for criminals to go "legitimate," made the Kennedy family as rich as Midas. Put wood alcohol in the bodies of unsuspecting consumers, created a culture of decadence and deception centered on the "speakeasy" and ruined lives more than legal alcohol does today.

It seems to me that illegals and minorities are jumping to the front of the line in many different areas in this politically correct world we are living in. Also, they do have a right to complain if they have been wronged just like the white majority. They don't have a right just because they are a minority though.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by that smart chick:
As long as people blame their race for their predicaments we will never win anything. From what I've read this morning in the news and on this forum, being black or hispanic makes you more likely to do drugs, have bad credit, lose your home to foreclosure, not graduate from high school, have a child out of wedlock, and collect welfare. Those aren't RACE issues, those are MORAL issues. You can't make people behave like civilized human beings. Race does not make people do drugs, race does not make people avoid paying their financial obligations, race does not make someone drop out of school, race does not make people promiscuous, and race does not make people lazy. People need to take responsibility for themselves. If someone does not wish to be stereotyped then they need to avoid the stereotypical behavior patterns.

Arianna Huffington's article is laughable. Put drug dealers back on the streets, since they aren't hurting anyone and give them the right to vote because they historically vote Democrat. What a load of manure. Who are they hurting??? They are hurting their entire community by peddling drugs! She may be right with regard to the fact that locking up people for drug offenses isn't working. The answer is not to let them go free with a hug and a welfare check. The answer is to make the punshment harsher. The punishment has to be harsh enough to deter people from committing the crime. Cushy prison cells with 3 squares a day and cable tv apparently aren't cutting it.

As Long as dark skin or a foreign accent is a barrier to full opportunity, dark skinned and foreign people will have a right to complain about their situation.

The barrier for most of them is they can't get beyond the thought that they are being descriminated against whether they are or not. If something doesn't go their way it's imediately racism.

quote:

Originally posted by Southern Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
The way our country fights this "war on drugs" is absurd.
<SNIP><Posted elsewhere>
5> our prision system could revert to keeping people who commit viloent chrime, not just drug bust, and that would save our states millions.

As hard as it may be for you and others to believe, I completely agreee with you!!!

Blinking off the pain of falling on my head. I see that you can understand the injustice of at least one set of legalisms.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by Southern Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
The way our country fights this "war on drugs" is absurd.
<SNIP><Posted elsewhere>
5> our prision system could revert to keeping people who commit viloent chrime, not just drug bust, and that would save our states millions.

As hard as it may be for you and others to believe, I completely agreee with you!!!

Blinking off the pain of falling on my head. I see that you can understand the injustice of at least one set of legalisms.

The war on drugs is not the only issue with our legal system.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
I agree that the decriminaliztion of drugs would definitely have a positive effect on the amount of crime. I think that decriminalization will be extremly difficult to get into law though.

I think the best short-term fix is to make drug offenders go to mandatory drug treatment programs for specified amounts of time to dry them out instead of letting them sit in a jail cell. I would also offer them some type of incentive (cash or tax break) after they get out of the programs to take monthly drug tests and find and keep employment.

I have total agreement with you on point one. The solution is to campaign for regulation of the sale of drugs. Not flat prohibition. Regulations retain the ability to restrict use, and allow blatant abusers to be the only subjects of "mandatory" treatment. It also allows prison time for blatant violations.

quote:

Originally posted by that smart chick:
Do you think that by legalizing drugs and allowing doctors to write Rx's for them that everything will be ok?

Oxycontin, Valium, Xanax, Soma, Loratab, and Ritalin are all availabe by prescription and all have a vast street market. Addicts are not going to go to the doctor to get their fix of pain killers, benzos, heroin, meth or pot.

Why isn't pot legal? Because there isn't a cheap and reliable field test for it. If you get pulled over for drunk driving you can take a breathilizer and there is a standard limit of intoxication that is acceptable. There is no such thing for marijuana.

Locking people up for non-violent drug offenses isn't economical and it isn't working. There needs to be a punishment though and it needs to be something strong enough to discourage repeat offenders. In-san-i-ty (noun): Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

Rush Limbaugh may get away with VIOLATING THE LAW regarding the use of Oxycontin, but the drug is legal, is prescribed, is not illegal to use under medical supervision, and with supervision of the use is not destructive to health and productivity.
Until breath analysis was possible for alcohol, behavior, not consumption was the evidence of impaired driving. It got easy to measure quantity, and quantity became the deciding factor. Many states, with a .08 intoxication limit will prosecute for less than that, using the term "IMPAIRED" in place of "INTOXICATED." The same term is used in cases where the intoxication is due to a drug other than Alcohol.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
I agree that the decriminaliztion of drugs would definitely have a positive effect on the amount of crime. I think that decriminalization will be extremly difficult to get into law though.

I think the best short-term fix is to make drug offenders go to mandatory drug treatment programs for specified amounts of time to dry them out instead of letting them sit in a jail cell. I would also offer them some type of incentive (cash or tax break) after they get out of the programs to take monthly drug tests and find and keep employment.

I have total agreement with you on point one. The solution is to campaign for regulation of the sale of drugs. Not flat prohibition. Regulations retain the ability to restrict use, and allow blatant abusers to be the only subjects of "mandatory" treatment. It also allows prison time for blatant violations.

Is there any GOOD reason why drugs could not be regulated the same way as alcohol is now. That would go right along with what you are saying Ed.

quote:

Originally posted by that smart chick:
Thank you for seldom replying on articles on the forum.

1. It is not a matter of personal liberty. If you go out and drive a car while you are on drugs then you are endangering countless lives. That is not an issue of morality - it is mortality.

2. Current drug laws aren't strict enough. If your neice and her friends thought they'd be doing hard time breaking rocks in a quarry for 10 years if they got caught with Ecstasy then they wouldn't have been messing with it. Our ineffective and soft drug laws contributed to her death, not the governments stance on pot.

Since you mention it. Lets go ahead and legalize pot. OK. Now how are you going to determine if someone is "too high" to fly a plane, drive a car, or teach your kids at school? Answer that and then legalize all you want.

Chris Rock... it is amusing but it does not make sense. People do not commit crimes such as armed robbery and murder in order to get money to buy a pack of Newports. Being black does not make you crave cocaine or crack. Those type of statements perpetuate the stereotypes and do nothing but harm to the black community.

I think you have two problems. One, you bought the statement that crack is more common in the Black Culture.

quote:

Even though the majority of crack users are white or Hispanic, 80% of sentenced crack defendants are black. The injustice is so egregious that a conservative Republican senator, Jeff Sessions, is now leading the charge in Congress to ease crack sentences.

And Two: Those types of statements are encouraged because they perpetrate the myth of White Superiority. Keeping White Black and Brown Workers suspicious of each other benefits the Fascists. They don't need law to subjugate minorities, their work force will do it voluntarily.

The key word here is "necessarily". Many people have substance abuse problems. I know people that have them, some committed other crimes, some didn't. I've also known people who didn't use drugs and committed crimes.

Perhaps the biggest factor is dosage. I've read health reports that encourage one drink of alcohol per day as beneficial. No one is making the same argument for a fifth of liquor daily.

The same is true for marijuana - a little may increase focus and creativity or relieve arthritis or MS symptoms. Too much and you may not accomplish anything other than staring at the TV and raiding the refridgerator.

I've digressed from my original intent to some degree. A point I wanted to make is that the current policy fails to inform regarding dosage nor relative dangers. By villifying marijuana, the government loses credibility with the entire program and these substances are not all equal. Who knew that Ecstasy (thanks for the spelling tip, Smart Girl) caused a rise in body temperature? Or that long-term abuse of prescription pain meds can cause hearing loss? The fried-egg paradigm is inadequate.

quote:

Originally posted by colecaj:
Well, That (thinks she's so) Smart Chick. thanks for your vote of confidence...but

1. I don't recall mentioning driving under the influence - I did say something about responsibility for behavior, by which I meant stealing to support habits, DUI, etc. However, mere possession?

2. Since when do teenagers think about consequences? My point was that the inadequacy of the government's anti-drug programs do nothing beyond "Just Say No" and scare tactics reminescent of "Reefer Madness". They figure out that the marijuana information is so much BS, so what about the rest of it?

As for marijuana, you answer is that since the drug testing technology is inadequate, then let's limit personal liberty? Why not issue everyone an ankle bracelet?

Chris Rock makes a lot of sense on this issue; murder and robbery are separate crimes from drug use. Your statement also perpetuates stereotypes...

Right on Brother (or sister, as the case may be)
LEGALIZE LIBERTY

In the jurisdiction in which I was employed as an LEO, a full 90% of the drug arrests involving the use/delivery of crack AND marijuana were BLACK, especially since Meth became the 'drug of choice' among whites. FWIW, blacks made up MAYBE 30% of my county's population.

quote:

Originally posted by that smart chick:

quote:

Well, That (thinks she's so) Smart Chick. thanks for your vote of confidence...but

1. I don't recall mentioning driving under the influence - I did say something about responsibility for behavior, by which I meant stealing to support habits, DUI, etc. However, mere possession?

2. Since when do teenagers think about consequences? My point was that the inadequacy of the government's anti-drug programs do nothing beyond "Just Say No" and scare tactics reminescent of "Reefer Madness". They figure out that the marijuana information is so much BS, so what about the rest of it?

As for marijuana, you answer is that since the drug testing technology is inadequate, then let's limit personal liberty? Why not issue everyone an ankle bracelet?

Chris Rock makes a lot of sense on this issue; murder and robbery are separate crimes from drug use. Your statement also perpetuates stereotypes...

1. You want to legalize drugs. Do you think that people won't drive, fly planes, teach school children, operate bulldozers, etc while they are taking the new "legal" drugs? How are you going to make sure that innocent children are protected from the people exercising their personal liberty to be high?

2. Teenagers think about consequences when their parents instill values in them and when they are rational. Same as everyone else. Three year olds think about consequences. That is why you spank a child when they run into the street. The quicker you give the spanking and the harder you spank, the less likely it will happen again.

Marijuana is a drug. It affects a persons ability to function. Are you going to say that a person is fine to drive a school bus after they smoke a joint? If you make it legal, then how are you going to draw the line between "not too high" and "too high" if you don't even have the tools to figure out the difference. Making pot legal puts a vast number of people's health and safety in jeopardy.

Murder and robbery are separate from drug use, but are often committed to obtain money to buy drugs, secure property to sell drugs, or eliminate competition in the illegal drug market. I don't think we have a problem concerning people being murdered for money to buy cigarettes.

Please explain how my statement perpetuates any stereotype.

Hey, hold on here. LEGALIZE POSSESSION AND USE. Outlaw impaired driving, flying, murder for drugs (not for cigarettes, they are legal, and have motivated murder) Outlaw talking to sober people while intoxicated if you wish.
LEGALIZE LIBERTY

quote:

Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
In the jurisdiction in which I was employed as an LEO, a full 90% of the drug arrests involving the use/delivery of crack AND marijuana were BLACK, especially since Meth became the 'drug of choice' among whites. FWIW, blacks made up MAYBE 30% of my county's population.

I can't speak for your personal experience, but I can point to data PROVING that drug enforcement efforts are almost all focused on non white neighborhoods.
Your anectdote leads me to believe that your county did the same thing, consciously or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Southern Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
As long as the COURTS keep RELEASING 'drug offenders' QUICKER than the LEOs can complete the paperwork, the 'War on Drugs' will NEVER be won.

Agreed, the Suspect offender gets his day in court. Drug offenders who have light skin get a pass those with dark skin get 15 years to life.

That is an assumption made based on the headlines in the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is an ASSERTION based on data gathered from literally thousands of courts and millions of decisions. MINORITY DEFENDANTS, in drug cases, are EIGHT TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE SENTENCED TO PRISON THAN WHITES.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-04.htm
One fact to consider, the population of the USA is less than 20% African American.

quote:

Originally posted by Southern Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
I agree that the decriminaliztion of drugs would definitely have a positive effect on the amount of crime. I think that decriminalization will be extremly difficult to get into law though.

I think the best short-term fix is to make drug offenders go to mandatory drug treatment programs for specified amounts of time to dry them out instead of letting them sit in a jail cell. I would also offer them some type of incentive (cash or tax break) after they get out of the programs to take monthly drug tests and find and keep employment.

I have total agreement with you on point one. The solution is to campaign for regulation of the sale of drugs. Not flat prohibition. Regulations retain the ability to restrict use, and allow blatant abusers to be the only subjects of "mandatory" treatment. It also allows prison time for blatant violations.

Is there any GOOD reason why drugs could not be regulated the same way as alcohol is now. That would go right along with what you are saying Ed.

Only one, and it is the same one that plagues Cigarettes and Alcohol. People break laws. If it were legal to murder one person every ten years there might not be any increase in the rate of murder. And, there might even be a decline in the rate of serial murders.

quote:

By the way -
I did not stereotype all drug users. I said that if they legalize drugs than who is to say how high is too high.

Um...If I'm not mistaken, you just did: ZERO! And, BTW, I don't use illegal drugs. But, as Kathleen Turner says in "Romancing The Stone", I went to college...(the same one you did, apparently).

To turn your question around, why wouldn't you provide information on substances that may be encountered by the unsuspecting public? You can do that without promoting the use of illegal drugs just as you can provide sex education without promoting pre-marital sex.

Also, BTW, here is an excellent reference for anyone who may be wondering what their kids (or they themselves) may be encountering: http://www.amazon.com/Buzzed-Straight-Alcohol-Ecstasy-R...id=1175895253&sr=8-1

quote:

FYI - I was MARRIED to a drug dealer. Thanks for the info, I have enough. I know what drugs do to a family. I know what they do to the user. I know what they do to their spouse. I know what it does to their kids. I know the effects of pretty much anything you can inject, snort, or smoke. I don't need some pompous fool such as yourself to "educate" me.

I'm sorry for your pain and that it has left you so bitter. However, it is not universal but anecdotal. I didn't try to educate you at all, just linked to a reference that I found interesting and that someone reading this thread might wish to read for themselves.

You are free to blame whoever you wish for whatever you wish and you are free to consider me a pompous fool. I will stipulate that trying to engage you in an enlightened debate is probably the most foolish thing I've done in months. But that does not make you the arbitor of all things moral nor does it validate the government's policies. I'm not either sufficiently pompous or foolish to think that my opinions regarding drugs and civil liberties matter at all.

As for your prayers - it's too late for my neice and I neither need nor want them.

quote:

Originally posted by that smart chick:
I'm through the pain, I just don't wish to see others suffer through the same fate.

I blame no one for anything that has happened to me. I think people should accept the blame for their own actions.

There is no enlightened debate when it comes to drug use. Even after you lost a loved one to drugs, you still see it as a topic to be debated and labeled a "civil liberty". A fool indeed.

that smart chick, Are you blaming yourself for what someone else did, or for what you witnessed? I cannot put myself in your shoes,but you carry no blame at all for what anyone else did, except perhaps your minor children.
I think that enlightened debate with you on the problems of ILLEGAL drug use would be profitable. But you have taken a position that the drugs are all of the problem, and don't even want to consider how to change the law to reduce the severity of the situation.
You believe the deterrent effect of stringent enforcement and severe penalties will prevent others from suffering the disaster and upheaval you suffered.

They did not prevent your troubles, why do you think they are preventing the same problems for others?

quote:

Originally posted by that smart chick:
You said it Ed,

quote:

the deterrent effect of stringent enforcement and severe penalties

There isn't any of that (in this area). I know of a guy who went down TWICE for trafficking, once under RICO and what happened? 5 years sentance and out early for good behavior. Whoop-dee-doo. And then on his second offense (trafficking again) he got a monster 7 years and out in 3 on parole. Yeah, what a deterrent. Who pays the price? Me, you, we all do.

I blame myself for wasting years of my life on a loser, that's all the blame I carry.

Question: What was his RACE?