<strong>I've thought about this for a few years, and one time I tried to come up with the craziest solution to all of this I possibly could. But it actually made a lot of sense, so I'll share it with you guys.
Legalized drugs. We should legalize all drugs like alcohol and tobacco have been, even cars are treated this way. You have to be of a certain age, and you have to register. Which brings me to my next point,
Registered drug users. It would be more like with cars/driving, as in you have to carry identification and obey laws (how they will be enforced I'm getting to), and you even have to take a short test to qualify for each type of drug you want to use. Just basic information like what to do in the event you O.D., what not to do, what your new "registered drug user citizenship" entails, basic information about safe and proper drug channels, etc. If you don't pass, you can't be a registered drug user.
Special Drug User Reservations. You know how we put the Indians (er, excuse me, Native Americans) on reservations? Well, the same sort of concept goes for drug users, but with a lot less funding and far more policing. Think of it as a very nice little community for drug users only. Once you go in, you can never come out. You cannot leave the community, but don't worry, everything you can want is inside of it. Even drug help programs.
Drug User Reservation laws. In the interests of the public and drug users on DURs, there are certain constraints on your rights when you become a registered drug user and migrate to a DUR. You cannot leave of course. You are monitored 24/7, everywhere you go. Not overtly, secretly in fact, but still, definitely well-monitored. You're also secretly given a tracking device, and a pain-inducing device (in case you attempt to escape). Not only that, but if you're a female your tubes are tied. We don't want any babies getting crack-addicted, nor do we need the gene pool stupid enough to become a registered drug user to be getting any larger.
Funding. Where's all the money for this gonna come from? Well, the government is going to sell some of the drugs, and there are going to be drug taxes imposed, which will pay for a lot of the DUR-related expenses. Where would all of the drugs come from? Any confiscated drugs would be donated to the DURs, and drug companies would be allowed to make strictly-monitored manufacturing centers within DUR cities.
Marketing. What kind of idiot would want to live in a jail like that? Well, you'd be surprised. Most of the bad stuff would actually be secret, but you'd consent to all of it in a huge, all-encompassing agreement you have to sign to become a licensed drug user. And of course after you go into the community, it is made wholly difficult to communicate with the outside world (as if you'll be concerned with that anyway, with all the yummy drugs you'll be stuffing in your body), and when you actually do so, no one will believe drug users' outrageous claims about DURs because they are, well, high and wasted and hallucinating. Not that I'd expect a lot of sympathy for them from the general public. In any case, tons of people would fall for it, and we'd be able to solve a large portion of problems that exist today.
Initial DUR population. Repeat drug users/offenders/dealers would become the starting population of the DURs, after being investigated and tested to verify they are a real drug user, and after being reviewed by a board of non-drug-using citizens as a non-productive drug-using member of society.
Drug exceptions. Of course, alcohol and marijuana will not be included as "drugs" as far as registered drug users go, at least not initially but tobacco will be due to second-hand smoke being a danger to the non-drug-using population. All hard drugs (rock, lsd, speed, heroine) will definitely be included however.
Grace period. There will be a 6-12 month period in which if you are caught with drugs or someone who knows you reports you as a drug user, where you'll be welcome to join the DUR community, or just learn about it. There will be websites, hotlines, informational pamphlets, and educational videos about drug user licensing and DUR communities. Television commercials, radio spots, magazine/newspaper ads, and web banners will advertise Drug User Reservations as being hip, cool, and the easiest/safest/most legal way of trying out new drugs. During this time, you won't *HAVE* to go to a DUR or register if you are caught with/dealing/using drugs, but you will almost definitely be forced to learn about doing so. Eventually you'll want to join, anyway. After that period, you'll have to choose between freely registering as a drug user, or extremely harsh punishments coupled with large fines.
So there you go. Registered drug users and communities, drug taxes, safer drugs, safer streets and non-drug-user communities, a cleaner gene pool, and a better economy.
No, I don't seriously believe this could ever happen or would even work. I just was bored one day and talking with a friend and we planned this all out. It didn't sound so crazy at the time, because it didn't start out being quite so crazy. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] a cleaner gene pool <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Ever heard of Nazism, pal? Ever heard of the concept of drug addiction being, well, an addiction and not a lifestyle choice? Line up for the bradbower's Final Solution to the Drug User problem. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
bradbower, does a bit of chemically-induced mood alteration really warrant permanent exclusion from the human race?
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Maybe I missed something amidst all the debate but who precisely is paying for these "free" perscriptions? I sure as f*ck won't. Not via income taxes and not via raised insurance premiums either. You tell me who (aside from taxpayers) are going to foot the bill and I might listen.
But that aside, you're delusional if you think addicts being able to get a regular fix will somehow [make them less likely to do stupid things / engage in criminal behavior]. People on crack, heroine, or coke -- walking around on the streets -- is no more safe than it was before, just because the drugs are legal now. The only way ANYTHING gets safer is if the behavior changes (while they're high, not just beforehand). Explain that one away and I might listen a little longer...good luck.
i) Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are already being spent enforcing the current drugs laws and look where that's got us! The cost of providing free drugs to every addict in the country would be a fraction of the sums already spent on waging the largely futile "War On Drugs"
ii) 90 per cent of current drug crime would disappear if drugs were legalised. There would be no more turf wars between drug dealers, no more thefts and muggings by addicts desperate for money for a fix
iii) A condition of drug prescriptions could be that addicts not take their drugs in situations likely to threaten others, such as while driving. Some would do so anyway, of course, but most wouldn't because they would not want to risk losing their supply. Registered ddicts could be obliged to take their drugs in special clinics
iv) Addiction is a disease
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Well, it looks as though MarcUK's draconian daydreams won't be coming true - as detailed in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4375858,00.html"; target="_blank">this article</a>, you'll soon be able to buy cannabis at cafes across the UK
<strong>Well, it looks as though MarcUK's draconian daydreams won't be coming true - as detailed in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4375858,00.html"; target="_blank">this article</a>, you'll soon be able to buy cannabis at cafes across the UK</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>) Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are already being spent enforcing the current drugs laws and look where that's got us!</strong><hr></blockquote>Where did it get us? I refer back to those stats earlier in the thread showing that deaths from those illegal drugs are just a tiny fraction of the deaths from the legal ones. I'd say we've saved millions of lives.
<strong>Where did it get us? I refer back to those stats earlier in the thread showing that deaths from those illegal drugs are just a tiny fraction of the deaths from the legal ones. I'd say we've saved millions of lives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair point about legal drugs, but I have to disagree with your other point. The evidence seems to suggest that it is the very illegality of illegal drugs which accounts for most of the deaths they cause. Why would anyone ever everdose if they were supplied with medically controlled and pure doses of their poison of choice? Under medical supervision?
i) Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are already being spent enforcing the current drugs laws and look where that's got us! The cost of providing free drugs to every addict in the country would be a fraction of the sums already spent on waging the largely futile "War On Drugs"
ii) 90 per cent of current drug crime would disappear if drugs were legalised. There would be no more turf wars between drug dealers, no more thefts and muggings by addicts desperate for money for a fix
iii) A condition of drug prescriptions could be that addicts not take their drugs in situations likely to threaten others, such as while driving. Some would do so anyway, of course, but most wouldn't because they would not want to risk losing their supply. Registered ddicts could be obliged to take their drugs in special clinics
iv) Addiction is a disease
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i) in your opinion
ii) please see i)
iii) please refer to i) and ii)
iv) If you don't do drugs (i.e. abide by the law) you won't get that disease. Its as simple as that.
I'm with Moogs 100%. No drug addict is getting my tax money so he can continue his addiction.
Mike Gray's book "Drug Crazy" is also a good read.
Given the facts (as opposed to the corporate media whitewash and spin), anyone who thinks that the 'war-on-drugs' is a valid and honest attempt to rid US society of drug abuse is either living in cloud cuckoo land, or making money from organized crime and its spin-offs in the prison industry etc.
I get the impression that one of the reasons that things stay the same, i.e. trying the same old ways that we know don't work, is the abject fear that the powers-that-be have about an admission to the public that they have been wrong
Losing face is the ultimate embarrassment for a public figure.
[quote]I'm with Moogs 100%. No drug addict is getting my tax money so he can continue his addiction.<hr></blockquote>
In the U.S., 6450 people per million of the population are incarcerated on drug offenses. In an adult population of 200 million that works out at nearly 1.3 million people in jail at any one time for drug offenses, mostly simple possession. The estimated average cost of housing a prisoner varies between $30,000 to $50,000 per annum, so at a conservative estimate, the annual $$throughput for the mostly privately run prison industry is about $40 billion.
Willoughby, do you have investments in Wackenhut Inc, or the Corrections Corporation of America by any chance? Would you make alcohol, tobacco etc illegal also? And if so, would you throw all alcoholics, nicotine (and barbiturate and prescription drug) addicts in jail too, and if not, according to your views, then why not?
The largest category of prisoners is for marijuana 'offenders' (up to half a million at any one time); these people shouldn't be anywhere near a prison cell, and as a rule don't even require treatment. the incarceration of pot smokers is pure profit for the prison industry. Furthermore, getting drugs in jail is as easy as on the street, and folk who end up in jail learn all about the criminal lifestyle.
The war-on-drugs is a cancer that causes far more problems than the effects of the drugs themselves, and US government agencies are feeding the cancer hand over fist. The drug war nothing more than a war against people, where organized crime, banks and wellplaced industries reap handsome rewards.
Drug addiction is a *medical issue*, period, and the sooner we take the traditional blinkers off, and remove the profit/greed motive on both sides of the law, then we may start getting a handle on this.
Until my food gets paid for by tax money I'll be damned if Spanky McCrackfiend gets his rock on my dime.
I'm all for legalizing weed, but this talk of making hard drugs legal for "medical use" is absolutely ridiculous. And for free!? You've gone stark mad if you think it's logical to give people freerecreational drugs.
So we save money from not fighting the WoD (which you will also assert is a monkey maker for some, interesting duality there) so we should funnel into fostering drug use instead of giving it back to the taxpayers?
[quote]People on crack, heroine, or coke -- walking around on the streets -- is no more safe than it was before, just because the drugs are legal now. The only way ANYTHING gets safer is if the behavior changes (while they're high, not just beforehand). Explain that one away and I might listen a little
longer...good luck.<hr></blockquote>
So, Moogs, what is the best approach re. the alcohol intoxication-crime link, which is the granddaddy of all the intoxicant culprits? You want to remove all state and federally funded alcohol treatment programs and commit alcoholics to prison to get a "short, sharp, shock"?
What do you recommend for 'recreational' drugs, knowing full well that the current retaliatory crime-punishment spiral approach is the 'maximum distress' option for society?
Some facts about alcohol and crime:
1.According to the federal Household Survey, there are more than 48 million Americans who use alcohol an average of one or more days each week of the year. This is more than the combined total number of Americans who have ever tried cocaine, crack, and/or heroin (29.7 million), and two and a half times the number of Americans who have used marijuana once in the last year (18.7 million).
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999), pp. 19, 25, 31, 37, 85, 91, 105.
2.On an average day in 1996, an estimated 5.3 million convicted offenders were under the authorities. Nearly 40% of these offenders, about 2 million, had been using alcohol at the time of the offense for which they were convicted.
Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 20.
3.About 6 in 10 convicted jail inmates said that they had been drinking on a regular basis during the year before the offense for which they were serving time. Nearly 2 out of 3 of these inmates, regardless of whether they drank daily or less often, reported having previously been in a treatment program for an alcohol dependency problem.
Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 27.
4.About a quarter of the women on probation nationwide had been drinking at the time of their offense compared to more than 40% of male probationers (figure 30). For those convicted of public-order crimes, nearly two-thirds of women and
three-quarters of men had been drinking at the time of the offense.
Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 24.
5.For more than 4 in 10 convicted murderers being held either in jail or in State prison, alcohol use is reported to have been a factor in the crime. Nearly half of those convicted of assault and sentenced to probation had been drinking when
the offense occurred.
Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 21.
[quote]which you will also assert is a monkey maker for some<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Willoughby, do you have investments in Wackenhut Inc, or the Corrections Corporation of America by any chance? Would you make alcohol, tobacco etc illegal also? And if so, would you throw all alcoholics, nicotine (and barbiturate and prescription drug) addicts in jail too, and if not, according to your views, then why not?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I could, I would make tobacco illegal.
Where did I ever say that anyone should go to jail? When did I even mention anything about punishment at all?
Drug dealers should be the ones punished, not the addicts. Take away the dealers, take away the drugs and the addicts will go away.
Make drugs legal and you'll have more addicts.
Proof? I don't need any. All of the arguments for the world magically improving by making all drugs legal are based on your opinions. So is mine. You're not going to change that and luckily all drugs will never be legalized because sane, moral, caring people still exist in this world. People that don't want to see their society ruined. People that care about their children.
It seems to me that legalizing drugs to you is only about money. I'm more worried about the demoralizing of our society (which has already started).
You're too wrapped up in who's making a profit off of this to see that drugs, as a whole, are actually a bad thing.
<strong>Ever heard of Nazism, pal? Ever heard of the concept of drug addiction being, well, an addiction and not a lifestyle choice? Line up for the bradbower's Final Solution to the Drug User problem. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
bradbower, does a bit of chemically-induced mood alteration really warrant permanent exclusion from the human race?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Chemically it may be an addiction, but societally it's a lifestyle choice. Especially with tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana.
The solution was more geared to solve the problem of drug-related crime, the drug trade, drug trafficking and manufacture, lessen the number of drug users, scare more kids from doing drugs, and keep druggies away from non-druggies so they don't infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights and health. The whole comment about how it would end up helping the economy and cleaning the gene pool of idiots who want to fry their brains was just a fringe benefit, a perk of the deal.
Did you miss both how insane and inhumane the whole idea was, and my little disclaimer about how it wasn't at all serious at the bottom?
My serious/realistic views are that marijuana should be legalized (and restrictions for 'high driving,' selling, quality, and second-hand smoke should be put in place), alcohol should continue to be legal while all of the efforts to minimize drunk driving should continue, and within the next 10 years various steps should be taken to minimize tobacco, the tobacco industry, and legal forms of tobacco, until there is no more legal smoking or tobacco use. Why legalize cannabis and illegalize tobacco? Because the latter is so much more detrimental to the public's health, and so much more addictive, that's why. Hard drugs should continue to be 'cracked' down on.
Willoughby is either being sarcastic, or its April 1 already:
[quote]If I could, I would make tobacco illegal.<hr></blockquote>
What would the Republicrats do then?...they would be shy of $millions in campaign contributions because suddenly companies like RJ Reynolds would be outlawed. (On the other hand perhaps that wouldn't make any difference).
So you think that 90 million tobacco addicts will suddenly quit because it's against the law? Yeah, right. Or would you prefer that addicts spent their money on the blackmarket and mafia/organized-crime cartels which would control the market like Al Capone and company did in the days of alcohol prohibition, putting regular people with a habit/dependency in regular contact with criminals and street gangs? (Sound familiar?).
Perhaps you are in favor of a sudden huge and massive workload for the already hard-pressed police service. Or failing that, perhaps you are in favor of hiring an extra half-million cops nationwide (billions of $$tax) to police the new laws, executing searches of people's homes, perhaps executing some homeowners by mistake (sound familiar?).
How about alienating the 40% of the population from the police? 90 million tobacco smokers suddenly paranoid of being busted.
Great solution, Willoughby
[quote]Where did I ever say that anyone should go to jail? When did I even mention anything about punishment at all?<hr></blockquote>
When something is against the law, the response by society is normally to punish offenders, unless you have access to the kind of justice that only the extremely wealthy can afford.
[quote]Drug dealers should be the ones punished, not the addicts. Take away the dealers, take away the drugs and the addicts will go away.<hr></blockquote>
This sounds like you are advocating partial legalization. Make your mind up!
[quote]Make drugs legal and you'll have more addicts.<hr></blockquote>
With all due respect, that is complete and absolute rubbish. The Netherlands has been pursuing a "less emphasis on punishment" approach for a number of years with extremely positive results
Proportionately, there are *far less* drug problems, addicts and drug related crime in Holland compared to the United States. Perhaps you prefer higher crime rates, and the traditional penal "solution".
[quote]All of the arguments for the world magically improving by making all drugs legal are based on your opinions.<hr></blockquote>
It's hard to imagine a worse situation than whats going down now.
[quote]You're not going to change that and luckily all drugs will never be legalized because sane, moral, caring people still exist in this world. People that don't want to see their society ruined. People that care about their children.<hr></blockquote>
Those same 'do-gooders' are those people who want the status quo to continue. No-go areas in inner cities. Drive-by shootings. Carjackings. Alienated communities. Prevalence of streetgangs. Drug turf battles. Did you know that in the last 2 decades in L.A. county ALONE, there have been nearly 20,000 people, including many kids and young children murdered as a direct result of streetgang activity, the vast majority as a direct result of the extremely lucrative black market in drugs. To put it in perspective, that is the equivalent of a World Trade Center disaster every 3 years, and in one damned county alone!!!. I once had to walk a mile and a half in Amsterdam at 3 am from a party to my hotelroom (alert for sure, but without too much worry). If I tried the same stunt in a U.S. city I would most likely have been at least harrassed or mugged, or at worst raped or shot. All courtesy of the crazed social climate resulting from the drug-war.
[quote]It seems to me that legalizing drugs to you is only about money.<hr></blockquote>
Well, we do live in a capitalist world: where there's demand, then supply will naturally follow. The problems result from having the worst scumbags in organized crime running the show, and when addicts have to interface with them, and subsequently breaking the law when desperate for a fix, in a number of ways, instead of being able to register at a clinic to do what they have to. The illegality raises the stakes, and the risk factor, and the profits are immense, and hyperinflated. Police departments are corrupt and rotten to the core (didn't you follow the Rampart scandal in LAPD? that represents the tiny tip of a nationwide iceberg).
[quote]I'm more worried about the demoralizing of our society (which has already started). You're too wrapped up in who's making a profit off of this to see that drugs, as a whole, are actually a bad thing.<hr></blockquote>
We agree on that for sure..drugs are a bad thing. And its not just the sleazy activities of street dealers and tobacco empires. What do you think about the big pharmaceutical corporations that push PRESCRIPTION drugs on television that have worse side effects than the ailment they are supposed to be treating? How about those >100,000 Americans who die every year as a result of adverse reactions to prescription drugs? We hold crack-dealers and heroin pushers in utter contempt, quite rightly...but what about the wholesale pushing of potentially lethal substances directly to the public, on television commercials? What about the plan by a certain network to air commercials for *hard liquor*, knowing that alcohol is responsible for causing the deaths of 150,000 Americans every year, and is the largest single common factor in the commission of criminal acts.
I guess you approve of these blatant double standards as well.
Willoughby is either being sarcastic, or its April 1 already:<hr></blockquote>
I don't really see what was so absurd about my post for you to make that statement. I know a lot of smokers who would be forced to quit smoking because it was illegal.
Someone brought up a good point in another thread. Why is suicide illegal but smoking isn't? Labels on cigarettes now say "Smoking Kills". Yet, they're still perfectly legal.
[quote]
So you think that 90 million tobacco addicts will suddenly quit because it's against the law? Yeah, right. Or would you prefer that addicts spent their money on the blackmarket and mafia/organized-crime cartels which would control the market like Al Capone and company did in the days of alcohol prohibition, putting regular people with a habit/dependency in regular contact with criminals and street gangs? (Sound familiar?).
<hr></blockquote>
When alcohol became legal, use increased, not decreased. How would legalizing drugs change addicts? It would give them an easier time finding the drugs they crave.
[quote]
Perhaps you are in favor of a sudden huge and massive workload for the already hard-pressed police service. Or failing that, perhaps you are in favor of hiring an extra half-million cops nationwide (billions of $$tax) to police the new laws, executing searches of people's homes, perhaps executing some homeowners by mistake (sound familiar?).
<hr></blockquote>
No, that doesn't sound familiar at all. How about all the new laws that would need to be created to stop "high driving"? How about the new laws to stop people from getting high at work?
[quote]
How about alienating the 40% of the population from the police? 90 million tobacco smokers suddenly paranoid of being busted.
Great solution, Willoughby
<hr></blockquote>
Smokers being paranoid of being busted, sounds to me like they'd quit. That does sound like a good solution. Oh and no more campaign contributions from Tobacco companies...Great! We'll get rid of that mess too.
The way you're talking, we might as well make gambling legal everywhere. Prostitution - no problem, do it whereever you like. Just think of all the tax money we'd save by not having to send out cops to bust bookies, hookers and illegal gambling rings. Just think of all the free time our police would have!
Great solution, Samantha. Lets legalize everything while we're at it. What do we need laws for anyway?
[quote]
This sounds like you are advocating partial legalization. Make your mind up!
<hr></blockquote>
Not at all. I think that dealers should be targeted and get the strictest penalties. Addicts shouldn't go to jail on their first offense, but dealers should.
[quote]
With all due respect, that is complete and absolute rubbish. The Netherlands has been pursuing a "less emphasis on punishment" approach for a number of years with extremely positive results
Proportionately, there are *far less* drug problems, addicts and drug related crime in Holland compared to the United States. Perhaps you prefer higher crime rates, and the traditional penal "solution".
<hr></blockquote>
Do you believe everything you read on these pro-drug sites? What seems like its working in one country doesn't mean it would work in the US.
[quote]
It's hard to imagine a worse situation than whats going down now.
<hr></blockquote>
I can imagine a much worse scenario. A society where half the people are high all the time, crimes are worse and children actually think drug use is ok. Crimes would be worse because anyone on drugs wouldn't be able to tell the difference between right and wrong in their intoxicated states. Just like when alcohol was legalized the use went up, so would drug use. More drugs, more high people. More high people, less people with good judgement.
[quote]
Those same 'do-gooders' are those people who want the status quo to continue. No-go areas in inner cities. Drive-by shootings. Carjackings. Alienated communities. Prevalence of streetgangs. Drug turf battles. Did you know that in the last 2 decades in L.A. county ALONE, there have been nearly 20,000 people, including many kids and young children murdered as a direct result of streetgang activity, the vast majority as a direct result of the extremely lucrative black market in drugs. To put it in perspective, that is the equivalent of a World Trade Center disaster every 3 years, and in one damned county alone!!!. I once had to walk a mile and a half in Amsterdam at 3 am from a party to my hotelroom (alert for sure, but without too much worry). If I tried the same stunt in a U.S. city I would most likely have been at least harrassed or mugged, or at worst raped or shot. All courtesy of the crazed social climate resulting from the drug-war.
<hr></blockquote>
Ha! You think making drugs legal will abolish streetgangs? You can't be serious??? Have you ever lived in a city? Well I've lived in 3 of them and I can tell you that you're never going to get rid of the gang mentality. It has nothing to do with selling drugs. It can be as simple as a childish "turf war".
You mention Amsterdam, well I have a better example for you. New York City. 10 years ago you couldn't even go to Times Square at night without prostitutes, drug dealers, sex shops etc staring you in the face. Guiliani cleaned it up, got rid of the drug dealers, the prostitutes and made it a safe place. A place where people can take their family, have fun with their kids and not have to worry as much. Did he do this by legalizing anything? Nope.
[quote]
We agree on that for sure..drugs are a bad thing. And its not just the sleazy activities of street dealers and tobacco empires. What do you think about the big pharmaceutical corporations that push PRESCRIPTION drugs on television that have worse side effects than the ailment they are supposed to be treating? How about those >100,000 Americans who die every year as a result of adverse reactions to prescription drugs? We hold crack-dealers and heroin pushers in utter contempt, quite rightly...but what about the wholesale pushing of potentially lethal substances directly to the public, on television commercials? What about the plan by a certain network to air commercials for *hard liquor*, knowing that alcohol is responsible for causing the deaths of 150,000 Americans every year, and is the largest single common factor in the commission of criminal acts.
I guess you approve of these blatant double standards as well.
<hr></blockquote>
Now you're on my side!! I think those prescription drug commericals are horrible. Everyone's solution today is "pop a pill". Your kid is hyper? Oh here give him some of this, that'll knock him into a stuper and shut him up.
Yeah, so lets legalize cocaine and heroin then. Oh, feeling depressed...just shoot up! I can see the commericals now.
Your last quote is exactly why I think drugs should stay illegal.
OK, Willoughby, I guess we agree to disagree on this.
One question: Would you too, given the choice, make alcohol illegal too, considering that (re. intoxicants), it is the #2 killer, and the #1 factor common in the commission of crimes?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>OK, Willoughby, I guess we agree to disagree on this.
One question: Would you too, given the choice, make alcohol illegal too, considering that (re. intoxicants), it is the #2 killer, and the #1 factor common in the commission of crimes?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't actually think I was going to change your mind.
You're entitled to your opinion and I do respect it even if it doesn't seem that way.
Ugh...alcohol....
I don't think there's a clear yes or no answer on this one. Could you imagine the rioting that would happen the day alcohol became illegal? It has become so common place. Probably too common place.
I think there's something really wrong with snorting a line of coke or dropping lsd to escape your problems or "feel better". I feel the same way about doing that with alcohol. However, I see nothing wrong with having a beer at a sporting event or with a couple friends.
I actually like the taste of beer. I never drink to get drunk and I never drink to escape any problems. I'll have an alcoholic beverage because I like the taste. Seriously the amount I drink (less than a few a month) has no diminishing affects on my health. Plus I'd never get in a car if I had too much to drink....never.
I think the attitude that "its cool to drink" or "its cool to get hammered" needs to change. We need to stop conveying that message to our youth.
If alcohol became illegal tomorrow, I'd be ok. I'm sure there'd be plenty of non-alcoholic beverages that would pop up that tasted the same. However, if I had to vote for it, I'm not sure what I'd choose.
Maybe if we tried solving the problems of alcoholism, the messages we're sending and worked harder to combat drunk driving we wouldn't have to worry about out-lawing it.
It seems like the idea of making alcohol illegal is "too late". The social backlash would be tremendous. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Comments
<strong>I've thought about this for a few years, and one time I tried to come up with the craziest solution to all of this I possibly could. But it actually made a lot of sense, so I'll share it with you guys.
Legalized drugs. We should legalize all drugs like alcohol and tobacco have been, even cars are treated this way. You have to be of a certain age, and you have to register. Which brings me to my next point,
Registered drug users. It would be more like with cars/driving, as in you have to carry identification and obey laws (how they will be enforced I'm getting to), and you even have to take a short test to qualify for each type of drug you want to use. Just basic information like what to do in the event you O.D., what not to do, what your new "registered drug user citizenship" entails, basic information about safe and proper drug channels, etc. If you don't pass, you can't be a registered drug user.
Special Drug User Reservations. You know how we put the Indians (er, excuse me, Native Americans) on reservations? Well, the same sort of concept goes for drug users, but with a lot less funding and far more policing. Think of it as a very nice little community for drug users only. Once you go in, you can never come out. You cannot leave the community, but don't worry, everything you can want is inside of it. Even drug help programs.
Drug User Reservation laws. In the interests of the public and drug users on DURs, there are certain constraints on your rights when you become a registered drug user and migrate to a DUR. You cannot leave of course. You are monitored 24/7, everywhere you go. Not overtly, secretly in fact, but still, definitely well-monitored. You're also secretly given a tracking device, and a pain-inducing device (in case you attempt to escape). Not only that, but if you're a female your tubes are tied. We don't want any babies getting crack-addicted, nor do we need the gene pool stupid enough to become a registered drug user to be getting any larger.
Funding. Where's all the money for this gonna come from? Well, the government is going to sell some of the drugs, and there are going to be drug taxes imposed, which will pay for a lot of the DUR-related expenses. Where would all of the drugs come from? Any confiscated drugs would be donated to the DURs, and drug companies would be allowed to make strictly-monitored manufacturing centers within DUR cities.
Marketing. What kind of idiot would want to live in a jail like that? Well, you'd be surprised. Most of the bad stuff would actually be secret, but you'd consent to all of it in a huge, all-encompassing agreement you have to sign to become a licensed drug user. And of course after you go into the community, it is made wholly difficult to communicate with the outside world (as if you'll be concerned with that anyway, with all the yummy drugs you'll be stuffing in your body), and when you actually do so, no one will believe drug users' outrageous claims about DURs because they are, well, high and wasted and hallucinating.
Initial DUR population. Repeat drug users/offenders/dealers would become the starting population of the DURs, after being investigated and tested to verify they are a real drug user, and after being reviewed by a board of non-drug-using citizens as a non-productive drug-using member of society.
Drug exceptions. Of course, alcohol and marijuana will not be included as "drugs" as far as registered drug users go, at least not initially but tobacco will be due to second-hand smoke being a danger to the non-drug-using population. All hard drugs (rock, lsd, speed, heroine) will definitely be included however.
Grace period. There will be a 6-12 month period in which if you are caught with drugs or someone who knows you reports you as a drug user, where you'll be welcome to join the DUR community, or just learn about it. There will be websites, hotlines, informational pamphlets, and educational videos about drug user licensing and DUR communities. Television commercials, radio spots, magazine/newspaper ads, and web banners will advertise Drug User Reservations as being hip, cool, and the easiest/safest/most legal way of trying out new drugs. During this time, you won't *HAVE* to go to a DUR or register if you are caught with/dealing/using drugs, but you will almost definitely be forced to learn about doing so. Eventually you'll want to join, anyway. After that period, you'll have to choose between freely registering as a drug user, or extremely harsh punishments coupled with large fines.
So there you go. Registered drug users and communities, drug taxes, safer drugs, safer streets and non-drug-user communities, a cleaner gene pool, and a better economy.
No, I don't seriously believe this could ever happen or would even work. I just was bored one day and talking with a friend and we planned this all out. It didn't sound so crazy at the time, because it didn't start out being quite so crazy.
[quote] a cleaner gene pool <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Ever heard of Nazism, pal? Ever heard of the concept of drug addiction being, well, an addiction and not a lifestyle choice? Line up for the bradbower's Final Solution to the Drug User problem. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
bradbower, does a bit of chemically-induced mood alteration really warrant permanent exclusion from the human race?
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>Free perscriptions to registered addicts?
Maybe I missed something amidst all the debate but who precisely is paying for these "free" perscriptions? I sure as f*ck won't. Not via income taxes and not via raised insurance premiums either. You tell me who (aside from taxpayers) are going to foot the bill and I might listen.
But that aside, you're delusional if you think addicts being able to get a regular fix will somehow [make them less likely to do stupid things / engage in criminal behavior]. People on crack, heroine, or coke -- walking around on the streets -- is no more safe than it was before, just because the drugs are legal now. The only way ANYTHING gets safer is if the behavior changes (while they're high, not just beforehand). Explain that one away and I might listen a little longer...good luck.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moog:
i) Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are already being spent enforcing the current drugs laws and look where that's got us! The cost of providing free drugs to every addict in the country would be a fraction of the sums already spent on waging the largely futile "War On Drugs"
ii) 90 per cent of current drug crime would disappear if drugs were legalised. There would be no more turf wars between drug dealers, no more thefts and muggings by addicts desperate for money for a fix
iii) A condition of drug prescriptions could be that addicts not take their drugs in situations likely to threaten others, such as while driving. Some would do so anyway, of course, but most wouldn't because they would not want to risk losing their supply. Registered ddicts could be obliged to take their drugs in special clinics
iv) Addiction is a disease
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>Well, it looks as though MarcUK's draconian daydreams won't be coming true - as detailed in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4375858,00.html"; target="_blank">this article</a>, you'll soon be able to buy cannabis at cafes across the UK</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wooooooooooohoooooooooo!!
<strong>) Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are already being spent enforcing the current drugs laws and look where that's got us!</strong><hr></blockquote>Where did it get us? I refer back to those stats earlier in the thread showing that deaths from those illegal drugs are just a tiny fraction of the deaths from the legal ones. I'd say we've saved millions of lives.
<strong>Where did it get us? I refer back to those stats earlier in the thread showing that deaths from those illegal drugs are just a tiny fraction of the deaths from the legal ones. I'd say we've saved millions of lives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair point about legal drugs, but I have to disagree with your other point. The evidence seems to suggest that it is the very illegality of illegal drugs which accounts for most of the deaths they cause. Why would anyone ever everdose if they were supplied with medically controlled and pure doses of their poison of choice? Under medical supervision?
<strong>
Wooooooooooohoooooooooo!!
Rolling papers at the ready, eh Jamie?
<strong>
Moog:
i) Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are already being spent enforcing the current drugs laws and look where that's got us! The cost of providing free drugs to every addict in the country would be a fraction of the sums already spent on waging the largely futile "War On Drugs"
ii) 90 per cent of current drug crime would disappear if drugs were legalised. There would be no more turf wars between drug dealers, no more thefts and muggings by addicts desperate for money for a fix
iii) A condition of drug prescriptions could be that addicts not take their drugs in situations likely to threaten others, such as while driving. Some would do so anyway, of course, but most wouldn't because they would not want to risk losing their supply. Registered ddicts could be obliged to take their drugs in special clinics
iv) Addiction is a disease
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i) in your opinion
ii) please see i)
iii) please refer to i) and ii)
iv) If you don't do drugs (i.e. abide by the law) you won't get that disease. Its as simple as that.
I'm with Moogs 100%. No drug addict is getting my tax money so he can continue his addiction.
<a href="http://www.drugwarfacts.org"; target="_blank">http://www.drugwarfacts.org</a>;
Mike Gray's book "Drug Crazy" is also a good read.
Given the facts (as opposed to the corporate media whitewash and spin), anyone who thinks that the 'war-on-drugs' is a valid and honest attempt to rid US society of drug abuse is either living in cloud cuckoo land, or making money from organized crime and its spin-offs in the prison industry etc.
I get the impression that one of the reasons that things stay the same, i.e. trying the same old ways that we know don't work, is the abject fear that the powers-that-be have about an admission to the public that they have been wrong
Losing face is the ultimate embarrassment for a public figure.
In the U.S., 6450 people per million of the population are incarcerated on drug offenses. In an adult population of 200 million that works out at nearly 1.3 million people in jail at any one time for drug offenses, mostly simple possession. The estimated average cost of housing a prisoner varies between $30,000 to $50,000 per annum, so at a conservative estimate, the annual $$throughput for the mostly privately run prison industry is about $40 billion.
Willoughby, do you have investments in Wackenhut Inc, or the Corrections Corporation of America by any chance? Would you make alcohol, tobacco etc illegal also? And if so, would you throw all alcoholics, nicotine (and barbiturate and prescription drug) addicts in jail too, and if not, according to your views, then why not?
The largest category of prisoners is for marijuana 'offenders' (up to half a million at any one time); these people shouldn't be anywhere near a prison cell, and as a rule don't even require treatment. the incarceration of pot smokers is pure profit for the prison industry. Furthermore, getting drugs in jail is as easy as on the street, and folk who end up in jail learn all about the criminal lifestyle.
The war-on-drugs is a cancer that causes far more problems than the effects of the drugs themselves, and US government agencies are feeding the cancer hand over fist. The drug war nothing more than a war against people, where organized crime, banks and wellplaced industries reap handsome rewards.
Drug addiction is a *medical issue*, period, and the sooner we take the traditional blinkers off, and remove the profit/greed motive on both sides of the law, then we may start getting a handle on this.
I'm all for legalizing weed, but this talk of making hard drugs legal for "medical use" is absolutely ridiculous. And for free!? You've gone stark mad if you think it's logical to give people free recreational drugs.
So we save money from not fighting the WoD (which you will also assert is a monkey maker for some, interesting duality there) so we should funnel into fostering drug use instead of giving it back to the taxpayers?
Some real domestic policy geniuses around here!
[quote]People on crack, heroine, or coke -- walking around on the streets -- is no more safe than it was before, just because the drugs are legal now. The only way ANYTHING gets safer is if the behavior changes (while they're high, not just beforehand). Explain that one away and I might listen a little
longer...good luck.<hr></blockquote>
So, Moogs, what is the best approach re. the alcohol intoxication-crime link, which is the granddaddy of all the intoxicant culprits? You want to remove all state and federally funded alcohol treatment programs and commit alcoholics to prison to get a "short, sharp, shock"?
What do you recommend for 'recreational' drugs, knowing full well that the current retaliatory crime-punishment spiral approach is the 'maximum distress' option for society?
Some facts about alcohol and crime:
1.According to the federal Household Survey, there are more than 48 million Americans who use alcohol an average of one or more days each week of the year. This is more than the combined total number of Americans who have ever tried cocaine, crack, and/or heroin (29.7 million), and two and a half times the number of Americans who have used marijuana once in the last year (18.7 million).
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999), pp. 19, 25, 31, 37, 85, 91, 105.
2.On an average day in 1996, an estimated 5.3 million convicted offenders were under the authorities. Nearly 40% of these offenders, about 2 million, had been using alcohol at the time of the offense for which they were convicted.
Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 20.
3.About 6 in 10 convicted jail inmates said that they had been drinking on a regular basis during the year before the offense for which they were serving time. Nearly 2 out of 3 of these inmates, regardless of whether they drank daily or less often, reported having previously been in a treatment program for an alcohol dependency problem.
Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 27.
4.About a quarter of the women on probation nationwide had been drinking at the time of their offense compared to more than 40% of male probationers (figure 30). For those convicted of public-order crimes, nearly two-thirds of women and
three-quarters of men had been drinking at the time of the offense.
Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 24.
5.For more than 4 in 10 convicted murderers being held either in jail or in State prison, alcohol use is reported to have been a factor in the crime. Nearly half of those convicted of assault and sentenced to probation had been drinking when
the offense occurred.
Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 21.
[quote]which you will also assert is a monkey maker for some<hr></blockquote>
monkey maker...you got that right for sure.
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>
Willoughby, do you have investments in Wackenhut Inc, or the Corrections Corporation of America by any chance? Would you make alcohol, tobacco etc illegal also? And if so, would you throw all alcoholics, nicotine (and barbiturate and prescription drug) addicts in jail too, and if not, according to your views, then why not?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I could, I would make tobacco illegal.
Where did I ever say that anyone should go to jail? When did I even mention anything about punishment at all?
Drug dealers should be the ones punished, not the addicts. Take away the dealers, take away the drugs and the addicts will go away.
Make drugs legal and you'll have more addicts.
Proof? I don't need any. All of the arguments for the world magically improving by making all drugs legal are based on your opinions. So is mine. You're not going to change that and luckily all drugs will never be legalized because sane, moral, caring people still exist in this world. People that don't want to see their society ruined. People that care about their children.
It seems to me that legalizing drugs to you is only about money. I'm more worried about the demoralizing of our society (which has already started).
You're too wrapped up in who's making a profit off of this to see that drugs, as a whole, are actually a bad thing.
<strong>
Rolling papers at the ready, eh Jamie?
No way man!! If we get these Cafes someone will be rollin for me!! Sweeeeeeet.
<strong>Ever heard of Nazism, pal? Ever heard of the concept of drug addiction being, well, an addiction and not a lifestyle choice? Line up for the bradbower's Final Solution to the Drug User problem. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
bradbower, does a bit of chemically-induced mood alteration really warrant permanent exclusion from the human race?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Chemically it may be an addiction, but societally it's a lifestyle choice. Especially with tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana.
The solution was more geared to solve the problem of drug-related crime, the drug trade, drug trafficking and manufacture, lessen the number of drug users, scare more kids from doing drugs, and keep druggies away from non-druggies so they don't infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights and health. The whole comment about how it would end up helping the economy and cleaning the gene pool of idiots who want to fry their brains was just a fringe benefit, a perk of the deal.
Did you miss both how insane and inhumane the whole idea was, and my little disclaimer about how it wasn't at all serious at the bottom?
My serious/realistic views are that marijuana should be legalized (and restrictions for 'high driving,' selling, quality, and second-hand smoke should be put in place), alcohol should continue to be legal while all of the efforts to minimize drunk driving should continue, and within the next 10 years various steps should be taken to minimize tobacco, the tobacco industry, and legal forms of tobacco, until there is no more legal smoking or tobacco use. Why legalize cannabis and illegalize tobacco? Because the latter is so much more detrimental to the public's health, and so much more addictive, that's why. Hard drugs should continue to be 'cracked' down on.
[quote]If I could, I would make tobacco illegal.<hr></blockquote>
What would the Republicrats do then?...they would be shy of $millions in campaign contributions because suddenly companies like RJ Reynolds would be outlawed. (On the other hand perhaps that wouldn't make any difference).
So you think that 90 million tobacco addicts will suddenly quit because it's against the law? Yeah, right. Or would you prefer that addicts spent their money on the blackmarket and mafia/organized-crime cartels which would control the market like Al Capone and company did in the days of alcohol prohibition, putting regular people with a habit/dependency in regular contact with criminals and street gangs? (Sound familiar?).
Perhaps you are in favor of a sudden huge and massive workload for the already hard-pressed police service. Or failing that, perhaps you are in favor of hiring an extra half-million cops nationwide (billions of $$tax) to police the new laws, executing searches of people's homes, perhaps executing some homeowners by mistake (sound familiar?).
How about alienating the 40% of the population from the police? 90 million tobacco smokers suddenly paranoid of being busted.
Great solution, Willoughby
[quote]Where did I ever say that anyone should go to jail? When did I even mention anything about punishment at all?<hr></blockquote>
When something is against the law, the response by society is normally to punish offenders, unless you have access to the kind of justice that only the extremely wealthy can afford.
[quote]Drug dealers should be the ones punished, not the addicts. Take away the dealers, take away the drugs and the addicts will go away.<hr></blockquote>
This sounds like you are advocating partial legalization. Make your mind up!
[quote]Make drugs legal and you'll have more addicts.<hr></blockquote>
With all due respect, that is complete and absolute rubbish. The Netherlands has been pursuing a "less emphasis on punishment" approach for a number of years with extremely positive results
Proportionately, there are *far less* drug problems, addicts and drug related crime in Holland compared to the United States. Perhaps you prefer higher crime rates, and the traditional penal "solution".
<a href="http://drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm"; target="_blank">http://drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm</a>;
[quote]Proof? I don't need any.<hr></blockquote>
Those pesky, inconvenient facts....grrrrr
[quote]All of the arguments for the world magically improving by making all drugs legal are based on your opinions.<hr></blockquote>
It's hard to imagine a worse situation than whats going down now.
[quote]You're not going to change that and luckily all drugs will never be legalized because sane, moral, caring people still exist in this world. People that don't want to see their society ruined. People that care about their children.<hr></blockquote>
Those same 'do-gooders' are those people who want the status quo to continue. No-go areas in inner cities. Drive-by shootings. Carjackings. Alienated communities. Prevalence of streetgangs. Drug turf battles. Did you know that in the last 2 decades in L.A. county ALONE, there have been nearly 20,000 people, including many kids and young children murdered as a direct result of streetgang activity, the vast majority as a direct result of the extremely lucrative black market in drugs. To put it in perspective, that is the equivalent of a World Trade Center disaster every 3 years, and in one damned county alone!!!. I once had to walk a mile and a half in Amsterdam at 3 am from a party to my hotelroom (alert for sure, but without too much worry). If I tried the same stunt in a U.S. city I would most likely have been at least harrassed or mugged, or at worst raped or shot. All courtesy of the crazed social climate resulting from the drug-war.
[quote]It seems to me that legalizing drugs to you is only about money.<hr></blockquote>
Well, we do live in a capitalist world: where there's demand, then supply will naturally follow. The problems result from having the worst scumbags in organized crime running the show, and when addicts have to interface with them, and subsequently breaking the law when desperate for a fix, in a number of ways, instead of being able to register at a clinic to do what they have to. The illegality raises the stakes, and the risk factor, and the profits are immense, and hyperinflated. Police departments are corrupt and rotten to the core (didn't you follow the Rampart scandal in LAPD? that represents the tiny tip of a nationwide iceberg).
[quote]I'm more worried about the demoralizing of our society (which has already started). You're too wrapped up in who's making a profit off of this to see that drugs, as a whole, are actually a bad thing.<hr></blockquote>
We agree on that for sure..drugs are a bad thing. And its not just the sleazy activities of street dealers and tobacco empires. What do you think about the big pharmaceutical corporations that push PRESCRIPTION drugs on television that have worse side effects than the ailment they are supposed to be treating? How about those >100,000 Americans who die every year as a result of adverse reactions to prescription drugs? We hold crack-dealers and heroin pushers in utter contempt, quite rightly...but what about the wholesale pushing of potentially lethal substances directly to the public, on television commercials? What about the plan by a certain network to air commercials for *hard liquor*, knowing that alcohol is responsible for causing the deaths of 150,000 Americans every year, and is the largest single common factor in the commission of criminal acts.
I guess you approve of these blatant double standards as well.
- should you put addictive people in jail ?
- should you make drugs legals ?
- should the governement control the distribution ?
- do you aloud everypeople to take drugs ? or do you think it's forbidden for the accomplismenth of their work ?
Well i will come back later in this debate, i have some work to do right now;
Willoughby is either being sarcastic, or its April 1 already:<hr></blockquote>
I don't really see what was so absurd about my post for you to make that statement. I know a lot of smokers who would be forced to quit smoking because it was illegal.
Someone brought up a good point in another thread. Why is suicide illegal but smoking isn't? Labels on cigarettes now say "Smoking Kills". Yet, they're still perfectly legal.
[quote]
So you think that 90 million tobacco addicts will suddenly quit because it's against the law? Yeah, right. Or would you prefer that addicts spent their money on the blackmarket and mafia/organized-crime cartels which would control the market like Al Capone and company did in the days of alcohol prohibition, putting regular people with a habit/dependency in regular contact with criminals and street gangs? (Sound familiar?).
<hr></blockquote>
When alcohol became legal, use increased, not decreased. How would legalizing drugs change addicts? It would give them an easier time finding the drugs they crave.
[quote]
Perhaps you are in favor of a sudden huge and massive workload for the already hard-pressed police service. Or failing that, perhaps you are in favor of hiring an extra half-million cops nationwide (billions of $$tax) to police the new laws, executing searches of people's homes, perhaps executing some homeowners by mistake (sound familiar?).
<hr></blockquote>
No, that doesn't sound familiar at all. How about all the new laws that would need to be created to stop "high driving"? How about the new laws to stop people from getting high at work?
[quote]
How about alienating the 40% of the population from the police? 90 million tobacco smokers suddenly paranoid of being busted.
Great solution, Willoughby
<hr></blockquote>
Smokers being paranoid of being busted, sounds to me like they'd quit. That does sound like a good solution. Oh and no more campaign contributions from Tobacco companies...Great! We'll get rid of that mess too.
The way you're talking, we might as well make gambling legal everywhere. Prostitution - no problem, do it whereever you like. Just think of all the tax money we'd save by not having to send out cops to bust bookies, hookers and illegal gambling rings. Just think of all the free time our police would have!
Great solution, Samantha. Lets legalize everything while we're at it. What do we need laws for anyway?
[quote]
This sounds like you are advocating partial legalization. Make your mind up!
<hr></blockquote>
Not at all. I think that dealers should be targeted and get the strictest penalties. Addicts shouldn't go to jail on their first offense, but dealers should.
[quote]
With all due respect, that is complete and absolute rubbish. The Netherlands has been pursuing a "less emphasis on punishment" approach for a number of years with extremely positive results
Proportionately, there are *far less* drug problems, addicts and drug related crime in Holland compared to the United States. Perhaps you prefer higher crime rates, and the traditional penal "solution".
<hr></blockquote>
Do you believe everything you read on these pro-drug sites? What seems like its working in one country doesn't mean it would work in the US.
[quote]
It's hard to imagine a worse situation than whats going down now.
<hr></blockquote>
I can imagine a much worse scenario. A society where half the people are high all the time, crimes are worse and children actually think drug use is ok. Crimes would be worse because anyone on drugs wouldn't be able to tell the difference between right and wrong in their intoxicated states. Just like when alcohol was legalized the use went up, so would drug use. More drugs, more high people. More high people, less people with good judgement.
[quote]
Those same 'do-gooders' are those people who want the status quo to continue. No-go areas in inner cities. Drive-by shootings. Carjackings. Alienated communities. Prevalence of streetgangs. Drug turf battles. Did you know that in the last 2 decades in L.A. county ALONE, there have been nearly 20,000 people, including many kids and young children murdered as a direct result of streetgang activity, the vast majority as a direct result of the extremely lucrative black market in drugs. To put it in perspective, that is the equivalent of a World Trade Center disaster every 3 years, and in one damned county alone!!!. I once had to walk a mile and a half in Amsterdam at 3 am from a party to my hotelroom (alert for sure, but without too much worry). If I tried the same stunt in a U.S. city I would most likely have been at least harrassed or mugged, or at worst raped or shot. All courtesy of the crazed social climate resulting from the drug-war.
<hr></blockquote>
Ha! You think making drugs legal will abolish streetgangs? You can't be serious??? Have you ever lived in a city? Well I've lived in 3 of them and I can tell you that you're never going to get rid of the gang mentality. It has nothing to do with selling drugs. It can be as simple as a childish "turf war".
You mention Amsterdam, well I have a better example for you. New York City. 10 years ago you couldn't even go to Times Square at night without prostitutes, drug dealers, sex shops etc staring you in the face. Guiliani cleaned it up, got rid of the drug dealers, the prostitutes and made it a safe place. A place where people can take their family, have fun with their kids and not have to worry as much. Did he do this by legalizing anything? Nope.
[quote]
We agree on that for sure..drugs are a bad thing. And its not just the sleazy activities of street dealers and tobacco empires. What do you think about the big pharmaceutical corporations that push PRESCRIPTION drugs on television that have worse side effects than the ailment they are supposed to be treating? How about those >100,000 Americans who die every year as a result of adverse reactions to prescription drugs? We hold crack-dealers and heroin pushers in utter contempt, quite rightly...but what about the wholesale pushing of potentially lethal substances directly to the public, on television commercials? What about the plan by a certain network to air commercials for *hard liquor*, knowing that alcohol is responsible for causing the deaths of 150,000 Americans every year, and is the largest single common factor in the commission of criminal acts.
I guess you approve of these blatant double standards as well.
<hr></blockquote>
Now you're on my side!! I think those prescription drug commericals are horrible. Everyone's solution today is "pop a pill". Your kid is hyper? Oh here give him some of this, that'll knock him into a stuper and shut him up.
Yeah, so lets legalize cocaine and heroin then. Oh, feeling depressed...just shoot up! I can see the commericals now.
Your last quote is exactly why I think drugs should stay illegal.
One question: Would you too, given the choice, make alcohol illegal too, considering that (re. intoxicants), it is the #2 killer, and the #1 factor common in the commission of crimes?
<strong>OK, Willoughby, I guess we agree to disagree on this.
One question: Would you too, given the choice, make alcohol illegal too, considering that (re. intoxicants), it is the #2 killer, and the #1 factor common in the commission of crimes?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't actually think I was going to change your mind.
You're entitled to your opinion and I do respect it even if it doesn't seem that way.
Ugh...alcohol....
I don't think there's a clear yes or no answer on this one. Could you imagine the rioting that would happen the day alcohol became illegal? It has become so common place. Probably too common place.
I think there's something really wrong with snorting a line of coke or dropping lsd to escape your problems or "feel better". I feel the same way about doing that with alcohol. However, I see nothing wrong with having a beer at a sporting event or with a couple friends.
I actually like the taste of beer. I never drink to get drunk and I never drink to escape any problems. I'll have an alcoholic beverage because I like the taste. Seriously the amount I drink (less than a few a month) has no diminishing affects on my health. Plus I'd never get in a car if I had too much to drink....never.
I think the attitude that "its cool to drink" or "its cool to get hammered" needs to change. We need to stop conveying that message to our youth.
If alcohol became illegal tomorrow, I'd be ok. I'm sure there'd be plenty of non-alcoholic beverages that would pop up that tasted the same. However, if I had to vote for it, I'm not sure what I'd choose.
Maybe if we tried solving the problems of alcoholism, the messages we're sending and worked harder to combat drunk driving we wouldn't have to worry about out-lawing it.
It seems like the idea of making alcohol illegal is "too late". The social backlash would be tremendous. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: Willoughby ]</p>