1 in 100 people are in jail.

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234
Most drug violence is related to the fact that drugs are a criminal activity to import and sell. Some drug violence is related to the fact that addicts sometimes are desperate for money for a fix.

Drug-related violence would be greatly reduced, but not entirely eliminated, with legalization.

You cannot legislate behavior. As I've said before, alot of criminal behavior that actually directly affects innocent people is crimes like robbery, theft, and even murder. The reason these crimes take place is the person wanting to buy drugs has no money to buy them. It doesnt matter if the US Government sold it or Guido on the corner, they still wont have money.

This is wrong.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234
Most drug violence is related to the fact that drugs are a criminal activity to import and sell. Some drug violence is related to the fact that addicts sometimes are desperate for money for a fix.

Drug-related violence would be greatly reduced, but not entirely eliminated, with legalization.

You cannot legislate behavior. As I've said before, alot of criminal behavior that actually directly affects innocent people is crimes like robbery, theft, and even murder. The reason these crimes take place is the person wanting to buy drugs has no money to buy them. It doesnt matter if the US Government sold it or Guido on the corner, they still wont have money.

There is always a way if there is a will. In my town in Norway (about 70 000 people) the hard addicts (heroin addicts mostly i would guess) have a way of earning money legally. A special magazine is printed every month that only registered drug users can sell. They buy it from the publisher for 20kr (about 4$) and sell it for 40kr on the streets to people willing to buy. Most people are willing to help when they can, so they sell around 15 000 copies of this magazine each month. The addicts don't have to do crime anymore to afford their stuff, and instead of beging on the streets they can sell a product that people actually want to buy.

There is certainly other ways of doing this, but this is one that works well here.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234
Most drug violence is related to the fact that drugs are a criminal activity to import and sell. Some drug violence is related to the fact that addicts sometimes are desperate for money for a fix.

Drug-related violence would be greatly reduced, but not entirely eliminated, with legalization.

You cannot legislate behavior. As I've said before, alot of criminal behavior that actually directly affects innocent people is crimes like robbery, theft, and even murder. The reason these crimes take place is the person wanting to buy drugs has no money to buy them. It doesnt matter if the US Government sold it or Guido on the corner, they still wont have money.

There is always a way if there is a will. In my town in Norway (about 70 000 people) the hard addicts (heroin addicts mostly i would guess) have a way of earning money legally. A special magazine is printed every month that only registered drug users can sell. They buy it from the publisher for 20kr (about 4$) and sell it for 40kr on the streets to people willing to buy. Most people are willing to help when they can, so they sell around 15 000 copies of this magazine each month. The addicts don't have to do crime anymore to afford their stuff, and instead of beging on the streets they can sell a product that people actually want to buy.

There is certainly other ways of doing this, but this is one that works well here.

Well, we have day labor jobs all over the place. All you have to do is show up and you get paid at the end of the day. Youre right. Where theres a will theres a way

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another.

Isn't that a good thing? Tobacco taxation works well, and generates tons of public money. People still buy tobacco, and they'll still buy marijuana, even if it's taxed.

Growing the government is NEVER a good thing. Especially considering the size of ours now.

Government won't "SHRINK" if we keep locking up people over petty crap like having some pot on them. In fact the larger the prison population we have the larger our government becomes as it has to staff, fund, regulate and deal with all these people being locked up over useless crap. Your point is pretty flawed if you apply one iota of thought beyond the "Nuke'em All/Lock'em up" mentality.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another.

Isn't that a good thing? Tobacco taxation works well, and generates tons of public money. People still buy tobacco, and they'll still buy marijuana, even if it's taxed.

Growing the government is NEVER a good thing. Especially considering the size of ours now.

The government won't "SHRINK" if we keep locking up people over petty crap like having some pot on them. In fact the larger the prison population the larger the government becomes as it has to staff, fund and deal with all these people being locked up over useless crap. Your point is pretty flawed if you apply one once of though beyond the "Nuke'em All, Lock'em up" mentality.

Are you kidding me? Did you not read "The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another."??

Lets say we legalize weed and make it a government regulated product. Are you saying the cost savings of not needing as many prison employees is greater than the cost of adding a new product to regulate? Are you kidding? Seeing how weed offences make up 1/2 - 1.6% of the prison population your cost saving will pretty much be negligable.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another.

Isn't that a good thing? Tobacco taxation works well, and generates tons of public money. People still buy tobacco, and they'll still buy marijuana, even if it's taxed.

Growing the government is NEVER a good thing. Especially considering the size of ours now.

The government won't "SHRINK" if we keep locking up people over petty crap like having some pot on them. In fact the larger the prison population the larger the government becomes as it has to staff, fund and deal with all these people being locked up over useless crap. Your point is pretty flawed if you apply one once of though beyond the "Nuke'em All, Lock'em up" mentality.

Are you kidding me? Did you not read "The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another."??

Lets say we legalize weed and make it a government regulated product. Are you saying the cost savings of not needing as many prison employees is greater than the cost of adding a new product to regulate? Are you kidding? Seeing how weed offences make up 1/2 - 1.6% of the prison population your cost saving will pretty much be negligable.

The cost of regulation for making something like pot legal could easily be funded by the self generated and imposed sales taxes place on it. There is no way to create additional funding for an ever growing and increasing prison population other then taxing citizens.

At some point in time the amount of people needed to regulate the sales of something like marijuana will level off, where as the current status of an ever increasing prison population, drug laws, criminal court staff needs, prison staff needs, prison issued supplies to prisoners and prison staff, etc....due to stupid and antiquated drug laws will never level off and will continually out pace our ability to raise enough funding to keep locking people up. We are also effectively creating and maintaining a prison sub-culture in this nation where generations of people are being indoctrinated into prison life and culture because of our stance on drugs. Continuing as we are we will basically be ensuring that we as stay the number one nation in the world when it comes to putting people in prison for a very long time. This is not a good thing, we should be leading in having the lowest prison population in the world instead. This is finding not something we should be proud of at all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another.

Isn't that a good thing? Tobacco taxation works well, and generates tons of public money. People still buy tobacco, and they'll still buy marijuana, even if it's taxed.

Growing the government is NEVER a good thing. Especially considering the size of ours now.

The government won't "SHRINK" if we keep locking up people over petty crap like having some pot on them. In fact the larger the prison population the larger the government becomes as it has to staff, fund and deal with all these people being locked up over useless crap. Your point is pretty flawed if you apply one once of though beyond the "Nuke'em All, Lock'em up" mentality.

Are you kidding me? Did you not read "The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another."??

Lets say we legalize weed and make it a government regulated product. Are you saying the cost savings of not needing as many prison employees is greater than the cost of adding a new product to regulate? Are you kidding? Seeing how weed offences make up 1/2 - 1.6% of the prison population your cost saving will pretty much be negligable.

Uhh... product regulation is generally "profitable" for the government, meaning its generates more revenue than it costs. This is especially true of items that have "sin" taxes, as would be the case here like with alcohol and tobacco, which generate many times more revenue than the cost of regulation.
Usually the argument regarding product regulation is that the cost is passed down to consumers by way of higher prices, not the actual govt costs.

So uh, you pretty much have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, Blackangst1- you assume that the price of drugs would remain constant if legalized. Quite to the contrary- they'd be cheap, even if regulated and taxed along the lines of alcohol or tobacco. And I'm sure that various entities would even provide limited free drugs if the afflicted were willing to listen to their spiel, be it jesus freaks or other civic minded groups...

Manufacturing of meth wouldn't occur in garages and abandoned farms, but rather in pharmaceutical facilities under license from the govt- illegal makers wouldn't be able to compete with mass production methods. The same for opium derivatives and cocaine. And yeh, sure, people would be able to grow limited quantities of weed for themselves, pick their own shrooms, cultivate peyote cactus if they feel like it... the same as with beer and wine...

A whole class of what's defined as criminal would become legal, with licensed sellers willing to follow the law to protect their franchise... I also suspect that drug overdose deaths might actually decrease, because of the known strength and purity of the product available...

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: piasabird
In a lot of other countries they put you in death camps, or just execute you. In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty, and we let you get out on bond a lot of the time if the crime is not too horrible. We are very lenient on criminals and some of these supposed prisons are little more than country clubs. Maybe the real problem is we are too lenient on criminals. In Saudia Arabia, they would give you 100 lashes or chop your head off a lot quicker.

This supposed factual information is just pure baloney.

We should just execute more people. It is a lot cheaper and it saves the state a lot of money.
Think about this. Every time liberals see a problem their solution is to pass more laws. The more laws we have the more people are put in jail. If you put less people in jail, you would not need as many lawyers. Too much litigation by liberal weenies.

Execution is more expensive than incarceration. Its another thread, but one thats been proven.

I just don't see how this could possibly be true if done the old way...

Plus, our society is so fucked up now that I'll bet a PPV execution would make the government some cash.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another.

Isn't that a good thing? Tobacco taxation works well, and generates tons of public money. People still buy tobacco, and they'll still buy marijuana, even if it's taxed.

Growing the government is NEVER a good thing. Especially considering the size of ours now.

The government won't "SHRINK" if we keep locking up people over petty crap like having some pot on them. In fact the larger the prison population the larger the government becomes as it has to staff, fund and deal with all these people being locked up over useless crap. Your point is pretty flawed if you apply one once of though beyond the "Nuke'em All, Lock'em up" mentality.

Are you kidding me? Did you not read "The money we save in our prison systems is now overshadowed by regulatory control and taxation. You kill one problem only to create another."??

Lets say we legalize weed and make it a government regulated product. Are you saying the cost savings of not needing as many prison employees is greater than the cost of adding a new product to regulate? Are you kidding? Seeing how weed offences make up 1/2 - 1.6% of the prison population your cost saving will pretty much be negligable.

The cost of regulation for making something like pot legal could easily be funded by the self generated and imposed sales taxes place on it. There is no way to create additional funding for an ever growing and increasing prison population other then taxing citizens.

At some point in time the amount of people needed to regulate the sales of something like marijuana will level off, where as the current status of an ever increasing prison population, drug laws, criminal court staff needs, prison staff needs, prison issued supplies to prisoners and prison staff, etc....due to stupid and antiquated drug laws will never level off and will continually out pace our ability to raise enough funding to keep locking people up. We are also effectively creating and maintaining a prison sub-culture in this nation where generations of people are being indoctrinated into prison life and culture because of our stance on drugs. Continuing as we are we will basically be ensuring that we as stay the number one nation in the world when it comes to putting people in prison for a very long time. This is not a good thing, we should be leading in having the lowest prison population in the world instead. This is finding not something we should be proud of at all.

mmmkay. And can you give an example outside of the USPS where ANYTHING regulated by the government is paid for completely by taxes on that product?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Blackangst1- you assume that the price of drugs would remain constant if legalized. Quite to the contrary- they'd be cheap, even if regulated and taxed along the lines of alcohol or tobacco. And I'm sure that various entities would even provide limited free drugs if the afflicted were willing to listen to their spiel, be it jesus freaks or other civic minded groups...

Manufacturing of meth wouldn't occur in garages and abandoned farms, but rather in pharmaceutical facilities under license from the govt- illegal makers wouldn't be able to compete with mass production methods. The same for opium derivatives and cocaine. And yeh, sure, people would be able to grow limited quantities of weed for themselves, pick their own shrooms, cultivate peyote cactus if they feel like it... the same as with beer and wine...

A whole class of what's defined as criminal would become legal, with licensed sellers willing to follow the law to protect their franchise... I also suspect that drug overdose deaths might actually decrease, because of the known strength and purity of the product available...

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldnt be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We cant. And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Blackangst1- you assume that the price of drugs would remain constant if legalized. Quite to the contrary- they'd be cheap, even if regulated and taxed along the lines of alcohol or tobacco. And I'm sure that various entities would even provide limited free drugs if the afflicted were willing to listen to their spiel, be it jesus freaks or other civic minded groups...

Manufacturing of meth wouldn't occur in garages and abandoned farms, but rather in pharmaceutical facilities under license from the govt- illegal makers wouldn't be able to compete with mass production methods. The same for opium derivatives and cocaine. And yeh, sure, people would be able to grow limited quantities of weed for themselves, pick their own shrooms, cultivate peyote cactus if they feel like it... the same as with beer and wine...

A whole class of what's defined as criminal would become legal, with licensed sellers willing to follow the law to protect their franchise... I also suspect that drug overdose deaths might actually decrease, because of the known strength and purity of the product available...

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldnt be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We cant. And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

Remember how well prohibition worked? We're seeing it now with drugs. The prohibition causes more crime than regulated legalization. There are already laws against driving under the influence of illegal drugs, just like alcohol. But it isn't reasonable to believe that someone who's forced to break the law to buy pot is going to be super concerned about the law against driving high. You've already made them criminals, why not go for broke?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Blackangst1- you assume that the price of drugs would remain constant if legalized. Quite to the contrary- they'd be cheap, even if regulated and taxed along the lines of alcohol or tobacco. And I'm sure that various entities would even provide limited free drugs if the afflicted were willing to listen to their spiel, be it jesus freaks or other civic minded groups...

Manufacturing of meth wouldn't occur in garages and abandoned farms, but rather in pharmaceutical facilities under license from the govt- illegal makers wouldn't be able to compete with mass production methods. The same for opium derivatives and cocaine. And yeh, sure, people would be able to grow limited quantities of weed for themselves, pick their own shrooms, cultivate peyote cactus if they feel like it... the same as with beer and wine...

A whole class of what's defined as criminal would become legal, with licensed sellers willing to follow the law to protect their franchise... I also suspect that drug overdose deaths might actually decrease, because of the known strength and purity of the product available...

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldnt be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We cant. And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

Remember how well prohibition worked? We're seeing it now with drugs. The prohibition causes more crime than regulated legalization. There are already laws against driving under the influence of illegal drugs, just like alcohol. But it isn't reasonable to believe that someone who's forced to break the law to buy pot is going to be super concerned about the law against driving high. You've already made them criminals, why not go for broke?

I wasnt responding to weed so much as everything else. Legalization will increase use, thus increase related deaths. People dont die from weed. They do from everything else though. And, as I've said which no one seems to want to acknowledge, legalizing wont change the addicts behavior, only their dealer.

And who the fuck thinks the government is going to condone the manufacture of things like meth, crack, and X? Jesus people. Look up the ingredients sometime.

Also. Legalizing opiate based drugs, of which there are a few, will officially endorse importing from Afghanastan. Neato. Nice trade partne.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Blackangst1- you assume that the price of drugs would remain constant if legalized. Quite to the contrary- they'd be cheap, even if regulated and taxed along the lines of alcohol or tobacco. And I'm sure that various entities would even provide limited free drugs if the afflicted were willing to listen to their spiel, be it jesus freaks or other civic minded groups...

Manufacturing of meth wouldn't occur in garages and abandoned farms, but rather in pharmaceutical facilities under license from the govt- illegal makers wouldn't be able to compete with mass production methods. The same for opium derivatives and cocaine. And yeh, sure, people would be able to grow limited quantities of weed for themselves, pick their own shrooms, cultivate peyote cactus if they feel like it... the same as with beer and wine...

A whole class of what's defined as criminal would become legal, with licensed sellers willing to follow the law to protect their franchise... I also suspect that drug overdose deaths might actually decrease, because of the known strength and purity of the product available...

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldnt be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We cant. And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

Remember how well prohibition worked? We're seeing it now with drugs. The prohibition causes more crime than regulated legalization. There are already laws against driving under the influence of illegal drugs, just like alcohol. But it isn't reasonable to believe that someone who's forced to break the law to buy pot is going to be super concerned about the law against driving high. You've already made them criminals, why not go for broke?

I wasnt responding to weed so much as everything else. Legalization will increase use, thus increase related deaths. People dont die from weed. They do from everything else though. And, as I've said which no one seems to want to acknowledge, legalizing wont change the addicts behavior, only their dealer.

And who the fuck thinks the government is going to condone the manufacture of things like meth, crack, and X? Jesus people. Look up the ingredients sometime.

Also. Legalizing opiate based drugs, of which there are a few, will officially endorse importing from Afghanastan. Neato. Nice trade partne.

If someone wants to drink Draino because it gets them fucked up, more power to them. If they don't have enough money to buy Draino, most likely they won't get any. Someone has to have a criminal mindset to think, "I don't have something I want... I'll take it from someone else." Mass violence wouldn't occur.

By the way, the Norweigan magazine scheme is hilarious to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, guys, death penalty opponents aren't going to give up and roll over anytime RSN, bet on that. They'll continue to donate a lot of time and money to thwart executions, while the taxpayers have to pay for blood...

To see it otherwise is mere diversion and wishful thinking, no matter one's stance on the issue.

So we have to decide whether revenge is worth the price, or if life inprisonment will accomplish the desired ends...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nebor
By the way, the Norweigan magazine scheme is hilarious to me.

I thought it was contrived to say the least. Just because someone is an addict does not mean we should facilitate that addiction. And I say this (as I'm sure you well know) as one of the staunchest legalization proponents.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, guys, death penalty opponents aren't going to give up and roll over anytime RSN, bet on that. They'll continue to donate a lot of time and money to thwart executions, while the taxpayers have to pay for blood...

To see it otherwise is mere diversion and wishful thinking, no matter one's stance on the issue.

So we have to decide whether revenge is worth the price, or if life inprisonment will accomplish the desired ends...

The problem there is that I cannot decide which is crueler, or more vengeful. It seems to me that life imprisonment, instead of capital punishment, is just to assuage our own conscience as opposed to any kindness. Life imprisonment is just a death sentence delayed.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have a point, vic, but it doesn't really matter to me. I figure that most people will choose life on whatever terms they can get rather than death, and that the possibility of executing innocents precludes the death penalty.

Mostly, though, I just want to employ the most cost effective and humane methods to keep the few who must be locked up, locked up. The death penalty doesn't really fit in with the first part in our world and time, so I figure it's a waste of resources...

I see life w/o parole much the same way. Having hope of getting out someday moderates prisoners' outlook and behavior, and can begin a process where they become fit to rejoin society at some point down the road. Not all, but some, so it's a waste of resources to keep them all imprisoned until the day they die...

Well, unless it's all just about retribution, about making them suffer, in which case keeping them alive allows for more of it, as you say.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Blackangst1- you assume that the price of drugs would remain constant if legalized. Quite to the contrary- they'd be cheap, even if regulated and taxed along the lines of alcohol or tobacco. And I'm sure that various entities would even provide limited free drugs if the afflicted were willing to listen to their spiel, be it jesus freaks or other civic minded groups...

Manufacturing of meth wouldn't occur in garages and abandoned farms, but rather in pharmaceutical facilities under license from the govt- illegal makers wouldn't be able to compete with mass production methods. The same for opium derivatives and cocaine. And yeh, sure, people would be able to grow limited quantities of weed for themselves, pick their own shrooms, cultivate peyote cactus if they feel like it... the same as with beer and wine...

A whole class of what's defined as criminal would become legal, with licensed sellers willing to follow the law to protect their franchise... I also suspect that drug overdose deaths might actually decrease, because of the known strength and purity of the product available...

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldnt be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We cant. And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

Remember how well prohibition worked? We're seeing it now with drugs. The prohibition causes more crime than regulated legalization. There are already laws against driving under the influence of illegal drugs, just like alcohol. But it isn't reasonable to believe that someone who's forced to break the law to buy pot is going to be super concerned about the law against driving high. You've already made them criminals, why not go for broke?

I wasnt responding to weed so much as everything else. Legalization will increase use, thus increase related deaths. People dont die from weed. They do from everything else though. And, as I've said which no one seems to want to acknowledge, legalizing wont change the addicts behavior, only their dealer.

And who the fuck thinks the government is going to condone the manufacture of things like meth, crack, and X? Jesus people. Look up the ingredients sometime.

Also. Legalizing opiate based drugs, of which there are a few, will officially endorse importing from Afghanastan. Neato. Nice trade partne.

If someone wants to drink Draino because it gets them fucked up, more power to them. If they don't have enough money to buy Draino, most likely they won't get any. Someone has to have a criminal mindset to think, "I don't have something I want... I'll take it from someone else." Mass violence wouldn't occur.

By the way, the Norweigan magazine scheme is hilarious to me.

Well, the government is NOT going to legalize nor will it sanction selling products legally that contain the ingrediants that these drugs contain. Period. And no, Im not talking about weed.

 

[RightIsWrong]

What do you do when you are imprisoning your citizens at such an alarming rate?

You could try to change some minor laws that would lesson the amount of people that would end up in the prison system. You could divert funds to treatment facilities instead of prisons for those that are coming into the system for addiction reasons. Or, you could just build more prisons to house them all.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor
By the way, the Norweigan magazine scheme is hilarious to me.

I thought it was contrived to say the least. Just because someone is an addict does not mean we should facilitate that addiction. And I say this (as I'm sure you well know) as one of the staunchest legalization proponents.

You have to realize that being addicted to things like heroin is not "just and addiction". Its has to be treated like a deadly decease as extremely few people will survive the addiction without hard long time treatment and a livable life to go to after they have been cured. Most heroin addicts just die, and in the process cost the society a lot of money for acute treatment of overdoses and other complications. In addition there is the crime related to getting money to buy the stuff. There is also the crime related to smuggling, but that is not the topic of my reply here.

Clearly the best option is treating people for their addiction, but its also extremely difficult since they have to be volunteers for treatment, at least in my country. It's not a crime to be addicted, so the government can't do anything about that. Most heroin addicts will fall back to their old habits even if treated, so the focus of the society has to be to lessen the damage they do. By giving them a way of earning their own money they get a better life, they don't to crime any more, and they don't beg on the streets as much as they used to. They clearly get more optimistic about their own situation, and that might help them one day to finally get rid of the daemon. When they have these magazines to sell they also can stand with a strait back and no longer be quite the rats on society that they used to.

There?s also the chemical treatments that helps many to live a close to normal life, methadone is one of them, and is used more and more. They are still addicts, but get their free methadone doses on the pharmacies and can have work and family without to much trouble.

In addition free health care for these people also can save a lot of lives. Free syringes have been handed out for many years now, and nobody wants to go back to earlier days with aids and hepatitus spreading. In the capital (and maybe some other cities) there is also a special center with a nurse and clean needles where they can go and take their shots in sterile environment. No questions asked. It saves lives and saves more money in reduced emergency callouts than it costs. There was of course a big debate about it (like the one you have here now) before they set it up, but i think nobody wants to get rid of it now when we see how well it works.

Even if you think all this is ridiculous, give it a chance. It isn't.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor
By the way, the Norweigan magazine scheme is hilarious to me.

I thought it was contrived to say the least. Just because someone is an addict does not mean we should facilitate that addiction. And I say this (as I'm sure you well know) as one of the staunchest legalization proponents.

You have to realize that being addicted to things like heroin is not "just and addiction". Its has to be treated like a deadly decease as extremely few people will survive the addiction without hard long time treatment and a livable life to go to after they have been cured. Most heroin addicts just die, and in the process cost the society a lot of money for acute treatment of overdoses and other complications. In addition there is the crime related to getting money to buy the stuff. There is also the crime related to smuggling, but that is not the topic of my reply here.

Clearly the best option is treating people for their addiction, but its also extremely difficult since they have to be volunteers for treatment, at least in my country. It's not a crime to be addicted, so the government can't do anything about that. Most heroin addicts will fall back to their old habits even if treated, so the focus of the society has to be to lessen the damage they do. By giving them a way of earning their own money they get a better life, they don't to crime any more, and they don't beg on the streets as much as they used to. They clearly get more optimistic about their own situation, and that might help them one day to finally get rid of the daemon. When they have these magazines to sell they also can stand with a strait back and no longer be quite the rats on society that they used to.

There?s also the chemical treatments that helps many to live a close to normal life, methadone is one of them, and is used more and more. They are still addicts, but get their free methadone doses on the pharmacies and can have work and family without to much trouble.

In addition free health care for these people also can save a lot of lives. Free syringes have been handed out for many years now, and nobody wants to go back to earlier days with aids and hepatitus spreading. In the capital (and maybe some other cities) there is also a special center with a nurse and clean needles where they can go and take their shots in sterile environment. No questions asked. It saves lives and saves more money in reduced emergency callouts than it costs. There was of course a big debate about it (like the one you have here now) before they set it up, but i think nobody wants to get rid of it now when we see how well it works.

Even if you think all this is ridiculous, give it a chance. It isn't.

I can see legalizing it all. I support that. But government funding for addicts? Encouraging them by giving them specialized care? No way.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: Nebor

I can see legalizing it all. I support that. But government funding for addicts? Encouraging them by giving them specialized care? No way.

Well, overcoming ideology is probably just as hard as treating addicts. Until then you just have to live with more and more prisons, violence and fear. While we live with less and less crime, a few more treated addicts, and a lot less dead addicts.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What do you do when you are imprisoning your citizens at such an alarming rate?

You could try to change some minor laws that would lesson the amount of people that would end up in the prison system. You could divert funds to treatment facilities instead of prisons for those that are coming into the system for addiction reasons. Or, you could just build more prisons to house them all.

1: Change laws to send less people to jail for non-violent crimes.
2: Execute more people for violent crimes.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Blackangst1- you assume that the price of drugs would remain constant if legalized. Quite to the contrary- they'd be cheap, even if regulated and taxed along the lines of alcohol or tobacco. And I'm sure that various entities would even provide limited free drugs if the afflicted were willing to listen to their spiel, be it jesus freaks or other civic minded groups...

Manufacturing of meth wouldn't occur in garages and abandoned farms, but rather in pharmaceutical facilities under license from the govt- illegal makers wouldn't be able to compete with mass production methods. The same for opium derivatives and cocaine. And yeh, sure, people would be able to grow limited quantities of weed for themselves, pick their own shrooms, cultivate peyote cactus if they feel like it... the same as with beer and wine...

A whole class of what's defined as criminal would become legal, with licensed sellers willing to follow the law to protect their franchise... I also suspect that drug overdose deaths might actually decrease, because of the known strength and purity of the product available...

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldnt be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We cant. And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

Remember how well prohibition worked? We're seeing it now with drugs. The prohibition causes more crime than regulated legalization. There are already laws against driving under the influence of illegal drugs, just like alcohol. But it isn't reasonable to believe that someone who's forced to break the law to buy pot is going to be super concerned about the law against driving high. You've already made them criminals, why not go for broke?

I wasnt responding to weed so much as everything else. Legalization will increase use, thus increase related deaths. People dont die from weed. They do from everything else though. And, as I've said which no one seems to want to acknowledge, legalizing wont change the addicts behavior, only their dealer.

And who the fuck thinks the government is going to condone the manufacture of things like meth, crack, and X? Jesus people. Look up the ingredients sometime.

Also. Legalizing opiate based drugs, of which there are a few, will officially endorse importing from Afghanastan. Neato. Nice trade partne.

If someone wants to drink Draino because it gets them fucked up, more power to them. If they don't have enough money to buy Draino, most likely they won't get any. Someone has to have a criminal mindset to think, "I don't have something I want... I'll take it from someone else." Mass violence wouldn't occur.

By the way, the Norweigan magazine scheme is hilarious to me.

Well, the government is NOT going to legalize nor will it sanction selling products legally that contain the ingrediants that these drugs contain. Period. And no, Im not talking about weed.

Yes this would never happen because we all known a cigarette does not have toxic cancer causing agents in it or a addictive substance (Nicotine is on par if not gram for gram more addictive then heroin.) in it. Oh and alcohol is not toxic to your liver and other bodily functions nor can it become addictive. Ever seen someone go through alcohol withdrawals? Alcohol is considered to be the worst addiction to kick because of it's withdrawal symptoms.

I won't even mention the fact that most hardcore pain killers (Of which are sold underground because grandma/pa can't find affordable health insurance.) are basically opiates just like heroin. WTF do you think Rush Limbaugh was hooked on when he was using OxyContin? OxyContin is a opiate same as herion, hence the "Hillbilly Heroin" title. If you seriously think that our government has not sold or is not allowing the sale of drugs that are as addictive or as toxic as some of our own illegal drugs then you are naive IMHO or flat out being dishonest in the point you are trying to make IMHO.