should we outlaw marriage? at least you used the word "likelihood", admitting that it's possible to use drugs without becoming a murdering rapist.
No, we shouldn't outlaw marriage. Using your argument, someone could die from an infected paper cut and thus we ban paper. You have to use some common sense. Yes, you can possibly use some drugs without becoming a murdering rapist. The thing is that I'm not sure you're getting is that drugs affect a person biologically. They affect the brain. They create an addiction, and they kill brain cells. What is the benefit of that? There are also the drugs that make you hallucinate. If a legal drug dealer sells a person something that makes them hallucinate and jump off a bridge to their death, I can see somewhere down the line where the drug dealer and manufacturer will get sued. A person can hallucinate that normal citizens are out to kill them. So they try to "survive" by killing them before they can kill him or her. What then? By the way, I don't think you gave a plan on how you were planning on controlling drugs or regulating them.
what do we do about them now?
We do help support them in ways. But you make it easier for people to take drugs, you make it more acceptable for people to take drugs, and we're going to need a lot more social services. At a time when budgets are tight and we don't want to raise taxes, how are we going to do this?
well, the money that you are currently paying to incarcerate people who aren't addicts, just users, would go a real long way to paying for this. Drug addiction is a disease, not a crime. Treat it like one.
What do we do with all those people in jail who have drug-related offenses? Do we let them go? How can we handle that influx of people as a society? Are employers going to readily accept them and give them jobs? Drug addiction is a crime in a way because it's illegal to use drugs right now. If drug addiction is a disease, are you saying you want to spread more disease by making it legal and okay to use drugs? We have rehab for drug addicts. Do we have the resources to create more rehab centers and staff them adequately? What happens to people who are addicted to drugs? Do they lose their job and then can't afford the rehab centers? Do they get something like maternity leave from their job? If so, do they as the individual pay, or the company? Why should a company have to pay for something that an individual does on their own time? Why do companies have drug screening tests now anyways if drugs are apparently good? Is drug rehab really that affective? Yeah, I hear of success stories. But you also hear about people like Robert Downey Jr. and Darryl Strawberry using drugs, relapsing. I can only imagine that on a grander scale if drugs were legal. Oh, and I just thought of something. If you want to treat people for their addictions, I have a feeling we're going to be paying for that, and it's going to be like prison. For treatment to be successful these guys are going to have to stay there, most likely against their will. That sounds somewhat like prison to me.
do you have some figures to show that they aren't?
Do you have figures to show that they are? All I pretty much hear is about getting rid of drugs. Drugs are bad. It's common sense to me. You look around society and the media, and for the most part they are against drugs. I don't need data to notice that people aren't really championing the cause of making drugs legal.
it's the crime that the laws against them create that are the problem. it's the black market that tells a poor black kid that he can make tousands of dollars a week instead of making 6 bucks an hour if McDonalds will hire them.
Yes, I realize that is a problem. It's like these high school kids who go straight to the NBA instead of going to college. They have a lot of money dangled in front of them. I highly doubt though that legalizing drugs is the way to solve that problem.
The biggest problem that poor blacks have in this country is that black men in this country stand a better than 1 in 4 chance of spending time in a jail cell. now, black people don't do more drugs than white people, but they DO spend a lot more time in jail because of it. Why is that?
Poor blacks have a choice. Granted, their options may not be the greatest. They can choose to go down the path of dealing drugs. That is their choice. They have to realize that the path is lined with potential problems. They can get beat up, arrested, even killed. Or they can choose another path. Study hard, do well in school, go to college, get a job. As far as the number of blacks in jail, I am not stupid to think that they are all drug-related. I do have questions though. How do we know that black people don't do more drugs than white people? Is that based on total numbers, or percentage of their racial population? Can we believe the people who have done the study and given us those numbers? Also, I have to think that the high usage drug problems are in the poor neighborhoods. I wouldn't be surprised,unfortunately, if blacks made up a large population in those areas. The police would be more likely to patrol trouble areas to keep the peace. Plus, I would think there would be a greater desire to try and get rid of those problems by the neighborhood, thus increase the likelihood of arrests.
drugs dealers currently sell it to whoever they can...because there is a huge finacial gain to do so....a gain provided by the laws
Wouldn't they have a financial gain to continue to sell to minors if drugs were legal but regulated? Heck, they are already breaking the law, what makes us think that they will come clean and stop selling to minors? If it's all about the money, they will still try to make as much money as they can.
that you can say that regulating won't work but outlawing will is at best confusing and ignores the fact that the we already know that the laws don't work anyway. And we already know the organized crime, gangs and violence that prohibition brings with it. And yet we haven't learned a damn thing from it.
Prohibition was for alcohol. Alcohol is different than drugs. Drugs are addictive in nature. People can be social drinkers. But when it comes to drug, they can start out as social drug users. After a while though, the effect won't be the same with the same amount. So they have to use more and more drugs. They crave it and need it more. It just leads to more problems. Problems I don't want to have to deal with.
first off, do you understand how expensive it is to incarcerate someone?
No, I don't. But how expensive will it be for drug treatment programs, what legalized drugs will mean to corporate America? I would think there would be some money needed for moving this number of people into society. Rulebooks re-written. A good portion of society needed to be changed.
secondly, do you understand how much money the government currently makes off of taxes on legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol.
Do you think places will start selling illegal drugs? Yeah, I can see pot. But I don't really care about pot with all this. I'm talking about the heavy drugs. What kind of tax is going to be on these drugs? Isn't that still going to make them expensive? How are these drugs going to be sold? Are you going to be able to get a receipt for your LSD and heroin?
I don't see a logical starting point for a discussion with anyone who thinks repeating Prohibition would be a good idea -- that vastly escalating the social damage of a drug's use is worth it for the sake of being able to think you're doing something to help people. The Drug War gave birth to crack, and the rise of crank, and has resulted in millions of dollars of innocent people's property being seized without just cause. If someone wants to be proud of that, and defend its continuation, I don't know what to say.
I guess, here's looking forward to whatever cheaper-and-more-powerful-and-more-dangerous drug gets birthed after they "solve" the meth problem. Try not to think too hard about how similar meth labs are to moonshine stills, ok?
As for discussing the issue, there is no point, at least not with someone that insists that drugs be legalized. Now if you want to talk modification of the laws and not elimination then we can talk.
Lance, I have to say that the article is interesting. It does give pause to think. I believe it could give others chance to think about the current state of affairs on the drug war. I'm not saying we abandon it all. Yeah, the war on drugs isn't working the greatest. If there is a better solution, I would love to hear it. My concern is that this would bring a huge change to our society. I think prisoners would need their cases reviewed. Some may be able to go free, some may not. Prison systems would have to be reworked. You may have a number of people who are out of jobs because of the changes in law (prison officials, drug enforcement personnel, judges, police officers), plus you would have the influx of people released from prison who would be looking for jobs. Granted, there may be new jobs created if drugs were legal, but would there be a big difference in the number of jobs lost as to those created by this change in laws? A number of laws would likely have to be taken off the books, and others changed. The role of drugs in society, and where its acceptable for them would have to be addressed. There has been this stigma in this country for many people that drugs are bad. You would have to work on changing that stigma, that it's okay if people have used drugs before. You have to decide if people with previous drug convictions will get those wiped off the books, or if they will stay there. How employers can handle that. How are we going to treat drug users, those who get addicted? Are we going to have campaigns that let people know the side effects of drugs, the negative aspects, etc? It just seems like there is too much up in the air, there isn't a concrete plan on how to go about this. I think that more discussion is needed. More thinking, more brainstorming. If we were to make a change, I would want it to be well thought out, with a good plan of direction.
I can provide some figures on what the WoD costs...like it costs an average of $24,000 a year for minimum security incarceration of one person (maximum goes up to something like $70,000)...and I could provide stats for the more than 600,000 drug law offenders who are in jail and we could do some math if you like.
all this info is readily available from government and other sources.
That's your response? A big long post like that, and all you want to do is throw figures out there? Spewing numbers won't get you to a solution as how to address the many issues involving what you'd like.
Yeah, but you haven't really provided any plan or thoughts on what we will do as far implementing controls.
We had a prohibition once on alcohol, now we don't. What did we do about it then?
We repealed it. But that was a different era, and drugs are not totally the same as alcohol. All you seem to do is talk about making drugs legal. I've raised concerns which you haven't seemed to have addressed.
Kids often will report that buying pot is easier than buying alcohol. Can you see why that would be?
Actually I don't really see why it's easier. People who are dealing drugs are already doing something illegal. If drugs become legal, they will likely be illegal for minors. If someone is doing something illegal already, why wouldn't they continue to later?
I can provide some figures on what the WoD costs...like it costs an average of $24,000 a year for minimum security incarceration of one person (maximum goes up to something like $70,000)...and I could provide stats for the more than 600,000 drug law offenders who are in jail and we could do some math if you like.
But that was a different era, and drugs are not totally the same as alcohol
how are drugs differnet from the drug known as alcohol?
Actually I don't really see why it's easier.
drug dealers don't card people.
People who are dealing drugs are already doing something illegal.
Yes, so the don't have to conform to any controls.
If drugs become legal, they will likely be illegal for minors.
that is how we control alcohol, yes.
If someone is doing something illegal already, why wouldn't they continue to later?
because their dealer no longer deals to them, because it's no longer illegal and therefore not profitable. and the legal dealer need to see an ID.
When they ended prohibition, people stopped buying the bathtub gin at the speakeasy.
If you don't think I'm addressing your issues (and I don't respect that you are asking valid questions and presenting a valid argument, unlike Bodine) then let's take them one at a time. What do you think is going to happen (that isn't already happening now with the drug laws in place) if drugs were legal tomorrow? I'd be happy to discuss your concerns and I recognise them as valid.
and you think it's okay to imprison people based solely on your opinion of human nature and your narrow view of what is acceptable human conduct?
It is SOCIETY's view.
with you it's basically "either you think like me or I want to lock you up or kill you, never mind that your not actually doing anything to me" Go to hell. You don't listen worth a damn. It must be the damn drugs getting in the way. Drug laws are society's view that is why there is the law. I didn't impose the law.
we get it bodine
you are an asshole
we get the point.
No you are worthless, selfish, thoughtless doper.
It is money well spent! so, you want to force me to pay for imprisoning people who have done absolutely nothing to us, but you don't want to have to help pay for health care? It is society's decision. It has been made. I pay for schools I don't use. You can help pay for incarceration you don't like. Except in your case you may be getting the benefit of your payments.
you don't have any science to back that up with, do you?
It is my opinion based on my observations. I have seen alcoholics and I have seen dopers. The dopers have a much harder time of dealing with their problem. I don't need to have some scientific reports to tell me what I have SEEN.
how are drugs differnet from the drug known as alcohol?
Drugs are much more addictive than alcohol. There are also differing effects of drugs. Alcohol is depressive. Some drugs are depressive, but there are also stimulants and hallucinogens.
because their dealer no longer deals to them, because it's no longer illegal and therefore not profitable. and the legal dealer need to see an ID.
Of course they could profit from kids. You don't think that dealers wouldn't target kids? Or the kids would have ways to get their drugs? If you can sell the product for more than it cost, you are going to make a profit. I just don't see how people who already perform illegal activities won't continue to perform illegal activities in the goal of making money.
What do you think is going to happen (that isn't already happening now with the drug laws in place) if drugs were legal tomorrow?
What I think is we're going to have society turned on it's ear. I raised some points/questions in posts to you and to Lance. Making drugs legal would impact so society in so many ways and on so many levels. All you're talking about is making it legal and that we'll save money and let people have freedom of choice. What I'm not hearing is how we go about it all. You make it legal tomorrow and we still have a bunch of problems, its just that they are different than today's.
It is my opinion based on my observations. I have seen alcoholics and I have seen dopers. The dopers have a much harder time of dealing with their problem. I don't need to have some scientific reports to tell me what I have SEEN.
Jethro, you have to be careful with observation. You grow up in Beverly Hills, you may think it's normal for people to drive Escalades and have plastic surgery. You grow up in Iraq and you think Americans are the devil. A person's experience can be limited. And you can't totally know what is going on in other parts of the country.
as the son of alcoholics, I'm not sure I can agree with that.
I mean, if we are going to allow opinion and personal experience as reasons to make laws that incarcerate people, then my experience is that alcohol is at least as, if not more addictive and destructive than just about any other drug.
but, the drug laws aren't considering how addictive something is...becasue if they were, alcohol would go right to the top and marijuana would fall off the list entirely.
Even if you consider it okay to prohibit drugs based on how addictive and damaging they are, the current laws are BAD, in that they do NOT use the facts about each drug and their approach to it's control.
I mean, if we are going to allow opinion and personal experience as reasons to make laws that incarcerate people, then my experience is that alcohol is at least as, if not more addictive and destructive than just about any other drug.
My dad was an alcoholic too. I've had personal experience with it. It's hard for people to have experiences with all the drugs. Of course it's easy to think alcohol is bad because you had first-hand knowledge. But what if your dad used crack or heroin? What if you were a crack baby? Then you would have yet a different perspective.
Even if you consider it okay to prohibit drugs based on how addictive and damaging they are, the current laws are BAD, in that they do NOT use the facts about each drug and their approach to it's control. It's BAD law.
Then perhaps we need to look at changing the laws to take into account the differing drugs? Make better distinctions? Personally, I'm undecided about pot. I don't know that it's as bad as its made out to be. In all of this, I'm considering pot a whole different issue. That would be the one thing offhand that I would consider making the exception for.
You grow up in Beverly Hills, you may think it's normal for people to drive Escalades and have plastic surgery.
you grow up in Beverly Hills and you think it's normal for people to do cocaine and not get arrested for it.
which is another thing...
when you have prohibition laws that prohibit something that people want and will have regardless of the law, you create a built in disrespect for the law.
when you have AT LEAST a third of the population breaking a law, while others (mostly black) go to prison for it, you create an entire subculture of people who have no respect for the law.
one of the trade-offs you make for the pleasure of putting people who aren't harming you in jail for behaving differently than yourself is that you dilute society's respect for their own laws.
how many people here have never broken any of these laws?
and if there are any of you out there, how many of you have witnessed this law being broken and not done anything about it?
But what if your dad used crack or heroin? What if you were a crack baby? Then you would have yet a different perspective.
crack is something that was created because of the laws
if a woman is on crack and pregnant, I want her to see a doctor, not a jail cell. The only thing worse than being born a crack baby is being born a crack baby in prison.
but what if your dad smoked pot and they put him in jail for twenty years?
when you have prohibition laws that prohibit something that people want and will have regardless of the law, you create a built in disrespect for the law.
By getting something that is prohibiting the law, they are disrespecting the law. If we get rid of laws because people are disrespecting them, why not get rid of laws against murder?
one of the trade-offs you make for the pleasure of putting people who aren't harming you in jail for behaving differently than yourself is that you dilute society's respect for their own laws.
I think some people who go to jail come out with a new respect. Some don't. As kids, many of us probably hated getting disciplined by our parents for things we did. We rationalized it was okay, but they still disciplined us. I think it's kind of like that. I know I'm not perfect. I've broken laws before. And I'm not saying that the law system is perfect. Yeah, I think things need to be addressed. But is it just a drug issue? Or is it a bigger issue involving law enforcement? I think you have to look at it on a broader scope, instead of with a narrow focus.
for TMK, who has been reasonable and wants to know what the plan to make legalization work would look like...that's a very good question, thanks for asking it
this Republican proposes a new bottom line for evaluating our success.
"The days of a drug war waged against our people should come to an end. If we take a new approach -- one that deals with drugs through a medical model rather than a criminal justice model -- I guarantee that prison rates will drop, violent crime will decrease, property crime will decrease, overdose deaths will decrease, AIDS and hepatitis C will decrease, and more of those needing treatment for drug abuse will receive it."
crack is something that was created because of the laws
Well if people have to compete with federal drug dealers/stores, whats to say they won't come up with something in response to that? Or something that they could perhaps market to kids, even though it's illegal or would be illegal?
if a woman is on crack and pregnant, I want her to see a doctor, not a jail cell. The only thing worse than being born a crack baby is being born a crack baby in prison.
I also want her to see a doctor. I want her to be having as much pre-natal care as she can. I don't know what the procedure is for pregnant drug addicts in prison, but I would think they would have medical care for them and their child. Another concern I have is for the child after it's born. Yeah, it would be a shame if the mother was in prison after it was born. But you have to wonder about the responsibility of a person who would take drugs while pregnant, endangering her and the baby's life.
but what if your dad smoked pot and they put him in jail for twenty years?
I would have a different perspective than if he was an alcoholic or cocaine user. As I've said, I'm unsure about the marijuana thing. I feel it's a different issue.
"The days of a drug war waged against our people should come to an end. If we take a new approach -- one that deals with drugs through a medical model rather than a criminal justice model -- I guarantee that prison rates will drop, violent crime will decrease, property crime will decrease, overdose deaths will decrease, AIDS and hepatitis C will decrease, and more of those needing treatment for drug abuse will receive it."
This very well could be true. I wouldn't doubt it. What I'm looking for is a lot more fleshing out of this thought. A change like this, as I've said, would take a huge change. I think there are a lot of areas and aspects that would need to be addressed before this can be thought of being a reality.
If we get rid of laws because people are disrespecting them, why not get rid of laws against murder?
actually, I said "prohibition laws that prohibit something that people want and will have regardless of the law"
When I said ""prohibition laws", I was referring to laws that prohibit someone from having a substance. Simply having a substance doesn't harm anyone (your having or taking a drug neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg) except one's self. Murder, on the other hand, harms someone else. Laws that prevent someone from harming someone else, while they are sometimes broken, have the respect of free people.
Here's a question, and I'm not trying to imply an answer with it...it's just a question...what if murder was legal?
Here's a question, and I'm not trying to imply an answer with it...it's just a question...what if murder was legal? would we all start to kill people?
No, we all wouldn't. But if it were legal and acceptable, I'm sure you would have a lot more murders. Jerry Springer would suffer because there would be less guests. Jethro may have to go into seclusion (I'm kidding).
when you have prohibition laws that prohibit something that people want and will have regardless of the law, you create a built in disrespect for the law.
The point that I'm trying to make is that I'm not against treating people who have drug addiction. The change of attitude for drugs from a criminal to medical perspective has some appeal to me. As part of my schooling, I took some counseling classes that were connected to ADCEP. The big thing for me is that I haven't really seen any major plan that addresses implementation. Making drugs legal would involve a major undertaking. There would be a lot of concerns/problems involved with making them legal.
Why do pregnant women take drugs? Because they are addicted to them. Drugs cause people to be even more irresponsible than they already are. It destroys life.
It used to be society's decision that you could own black people. It was bad law. And, because people thought like you, it was hard to get it changed. But regardless, it was bad law.
Must be from the drugs.
that I'm a pacifist?
nope, that's not what it's from
look, if you are just gonna mouth crap like this and not talk about the subject, why are you even bothering at all? Why would you bother with me at all if I'm so horrible?
Isn't there a nice church camp you could be attending instead?
well, that's where you and I differ. If you were imprisioned by a bad law (say they outlawed internet trolling and namecalling), I would care.
Sorry, I don't believe you. You would care about yourself but dopers are funny that way.
it wasn't my word I was asking you to take...it was the federal statistics for incarceration.
are you saying that the Feds are on drugs and can't count the number of blacks in prison as compared to whites?
should we outlaw marriage? at least you used the word "likelihood", admitting that it's possible to use drugs without becoming a murdering rapist.
No, we shouldn't outlaw marriage. Using your argument, someone could die from an infected paper cut and thus we ban paper. You have to use some common sense. Yes, you can possibly use some drugs without becoming a murdering rapist. The thing is that I'm not sure you're getting is that drugs affect a person biologically. They affect the brain. They create an addiction, and they kill brain cells. What is the benefit of that? There are also the drugs that make you hallucinate. If a legal drug dealer sells a person something that makes them hallucinate and jump off a bridge to their death, I can see somewhere down the line where the drug dealer and manufacturer will get sued. A person can hallucinate that normal citizens are out to kill them. So they try to "survive" by killing them before they can kill him or her. What then? By the way, I don't think you gave a plan on how you were planning on controlling drugs or regulating them.
what do we do about them now?
We do help support them in ways. But you make it easier for people to take drugs, you make it more acceptable for people to take drugs, and we're going to need a lot more social services. At a time when budgets are tight and we don't want to raise taxes, how are we going to do this?
well, the money that you are currently paying to incarcerate people who aren't addicts, just users, would go a real long way to paying for this. Drug addiction is a disease, not a crime. Treat it like one.
What do we do with all those people in jail who have drug-related offenses? Do we let them go? How can we handle that influx of people as a society? Are employers going to readily accept them and give them jobs? Drug addiction is a crime in a way because it's illegal to use drugs right now. If drug addiction is a disease, are you saying you want to spread more disease by making it legal and okay to use drugs? We have rehab for drug addicts. Do we have the resources to create more rehab centers and staff them adequately? What happens to people who are addicted to drugs? Do they lose their job and then can't afford the rehab centers? Do they get something like maternity leave from their job? If so, do they as the individual pay, or the company? Why should a company have to pay for something that an individual does on their own time? Why do companies have drug screening tests now anyways if drugs are apparently good? Is drug rehab really that affective? Yeah, I hear of success stories. But you also hear about people like Robert Downey Jr. and Darryl Strawberry using drugs, relapsing. I can only imagine that on a grander scale if drugs were legal. Oh, and I just thought of something. If you want to treat people for their addictions, I have a feeling we're going to be paying for that, and it's going to be like prison. For treatment to be successful these guys are going to have to stay there, most likely against their will. That sounds somewhat like prison to me.
do you have some figures to show that they aren't?
Do you have figures to show that they are? All I pretty much hear is about getting rid of drugs. Drugs are bad. It's common sense to me. You look around society and the media, and for the most part they are against drugs. I don't need data to notice that people aren't really championing the cause of making drugs legal.
it's the crime that the laws against them create that are the problem. it's the black market that tells a poor black kid that he can make tousands of dollars a week instead of making 6 bucks an hour if McDonalds will hire them.
Yes, I realize that is a problem. It's like these high school kids who go straight to the NBA instead of going to college. They have a lot of money dangled in front of them. I highly doubt though that legalizing drugs is the way to solve that problem.
The biggest problem that poor blacks have in this country is that black men in this country stand a better than 1 in 4 chance of spending time in a jail cell. now, black people don't do more drugs than white people, but they DO spend a lot more time in jail because of it. Why is that?
Poor blacks have a choice. Granted, their options may not be the greatest. They can choose to go down the path of dealing drugs. That is their choice. They have to realize that the path is lined with potential problems. They can get beat up, arrested, even killed. Or they can choose another path. Study hard, do well in school, go to college, get a job. As far as the number of blacks in jail, I am not stupid to think that they are all drug-related. I do have questions though. How do we know that black people don't do more drugs than white people? Is that based on total numbers, or percentage of their racial population? Can we believe the people who have done the study and given us those numbers? Also, I have to think that the high usage drug problems are in the poor neighborhoods. I wouldn't be surprised,unfortunately, if blacks made up a large population in those areas. The police would be more likely to patrol trouble areas to keep the peace. Plus, I would think there would be a greater desire to try and get rid of those problems by the neighborhood, thus increase the likelihood of arrests.
drugs dealers currently sell it to whoever they can...because there is a huge finacial gain to do so....a gain provided by the laws
Wouldn't they have a financial gain to continue to sell to minors if drugs were legal but regulated? Heck, they are already breaking the law, what makes us think that they will come clean and stop selling to minors? If it's all about the money, they will still try to make as much money as they can.
that you can say that regulating won't work but outlawing will is at best confusing and ignores the fact that the we already know that the laws don't work anyway. And we already know the organized crime, gangs and violence that prohibition brings with it. And yet we haven't learned a damn thing from it.
Prohibition was for alcohol. Alcohol is different than drugs. Drugs are addictive in nature. People can be social drinkers. But when it comes to drug, they can start out as social drug users. After a while though, the effect won't be the same with the same amount. So they have to use more and more drugs. They crave it and need it more. It just leads to more problems. Problems I don't want to have to deal with.
No I am saying that I can't trust your ability to comprehend what you read or believe that you read. You may have been hallucinating.
I have to go, crabs. I have responsibilities that I must attend to. Something dopers don't understand. See ya!!!!!!
yea...that Rosa Parks was a big whiner...MLK, what a complainer...
oh yea...and those founding fathers...the way they complained about the mean old King.
We wouldn't have a country unless some people complained about the bad laws.
that's okay
I don't believe you either.
and if this is the game you want to play, cool...
It's obvious that you are a drug dealer and are against legalization because it would put you out of business.
drug dealers are notorious liars.
first off, do you understand how expensive it is to incarcerate someone?
secondly, do you understand how much money the government currently makes off of taxes on legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol.
financially, legalizing is a huge plus, not a minus.
first off, do you understand how expensive it is to incarcerate someone?
No, I don't. But how expensive will it be for drug treatment programs, what legalized drugs will mean to corporate America? I would think there would be some money needed for moving this number of people into society. Rulebooks re-written. A good portion of society needed to be changed.
secondly, do you understand how much money the government currently makes off of taxes on legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol.
Do you think places will start selling illegal drugs? Yeah, I can see pot. But I don't really care about pot with all this. I'm talking about the heavy drugs. What kind of tax is going to be on these drugs? Isn't that still going to make them expensive? How are these drugs going to be sold? Are you going to be able to get a receipt for your LSD and heroin?
A judge, a mayor, a psychiatrist, a police chief, a legendary conservative, a law professor and a scholar all walk into a bar, and they say:
"The War on Drugs is Lost"
If you want to defend it, argue with them.
I don't see a logical starting point for a discussion with anyone who thinks repeating Prohibition would be a good idea -- that vastly escalating the social damage of a drug's use is worth it for the sake of being able to think you're doing something to help people. The Drug War gave birth to crack, and the rise of crank, and has resulted in millions of dollars of innocent people's property being seized without just cause. If someone wants to be proud of that, and defend its continuation, I don't know what to say.
I guess, here's looking forward to whatever cheaper-and-more-powerful-and-more-dangerous drug gets birthed after they "solve" the meth problem. Try not to think too hard about how similar meth labs are to moonshine stills, ok?
yea...that Rosa Parks was a big whiner...MLK, what a complainer...
Not comparable. If you weren't such a doper you would see that.
We wouldn't have a country unless some people complained about the bad laws.
Complain all you want. Just because you complain does not mean you are correct.
"The War on Drugs is Lost"
No. It is a never ending battle. Hopefully the dopers will come to their senses and then the drug war will be over.
As for discussing the issue, there is no point, at least not with someone that insists that drugs be legalized. Now if you want to talk modification of the laws and not elimination then we can talk.
Lance, I have to say that the article is interesting. It does give pause to think. I believe it could give others chance to think about the current state of affairs on the drug war. I'm not saying we abandon it all. Yeah, the war on drugs isn't working the greatest. If there is a better solution, I would love to hear it. My concern is that this would bring a huge change to our society. I think prisoners would need their cases reviewed. Some may be able to go free, some may not. Prison systems would have to be reworked. You may have a number of people who are out of jobs because of the changes in law (prison officials, drug enforcement personnel, judges, police officers), plus you would have the influx of people released from prison who would be looking for jobs. Granted, there may be new jobs created if drugs were legal, but would there be a big difference in the number of jobs lost as to those created by this change in laws? A number of laws would likely have to be taken off the books, and others changed. The role of drugs in society, and where its acceptable for them would have to be addressed. There has been this stigma in this country for many people that drugs are bad. You would have to work on changing that stigma, that it's okay if people have used drugs before. You have to decide if people with previous drug convictions will get those wiped off the books, or if they will stay there. How employers can handle that. How are we going to treat drug users, those who get addicted? Are we going to have campaigns that let people know the side effects of drugs, the negative aspects, etc? It just seems like there is too much up in the air, there isn't a concrete plan on how to go about this. I think that more discussion is needed. More thinking, more brainstorming. If we were to make a change, I would want it to be well thought out, with a good plan of direction.
Oh yeah, and Crabby, you briefly touched on my last big post. Do you have any response to the rest of it?
nor does saying that it's "complaining" mean that it's not correct.
you have presented nothing that resembles any argument that shows it's not correct.
I can provide some figures on what the WoD costs...like it costs an average of $24,000 a year for minimum security incarceration of one person (maximum goes up to something like $70,000)...and I could provide stats for the more than 600,000 drug law offenders who are in jail and we could do some math if you like.
all this info is readily available from government and other sources.
That's your response? A big long post like that, and all you want to do is throw figures out there? Spewing numbers won't get you to a solution as how to address the many issues involving what you'd like.
You said you didn't know the cost involved. I just tried to provide you with that information.
I'm trying to show you that it will save more money than any of the things you ask about would cost.
You want to know about how to control it?
We had a prohibition once on alcohol, now we don't. What did we do about it then?
Kids often will report that buying pot is easier than buying alcohol. Can you see why that would be?
You want to know about how to control it?
Yeah, but you haven't really provided any plan or thoughts on what we will do as far implementing controls.
We had a prohibition once on alcohol, now we don't. What did we do about it then?
We repealed it. But that was a different era, and drugs are not totally the same as alcohol. All you seem to do is talk about making drugs legal. I've raised concerns which you haven't seemed to have addressed.
Kids often will report that buying pot is easier than buying alcohol. Can you see why that would be?
Actually I don't really see why it's easier. People who are dealing drugs are already doing something illegal. If drugs become legal, they will likely be illegal for minors. If someone is doing something illegal already, why wouldn't they continue to later?
you have presented nothing that resembles any argument that shows it's not correct.
It is my opinion based on my viewe of human nature and my observation of actual human conduct. You damned doper.
I can provide some figures on what the WoD costs...like it costs an average of $24,000 a year for minimum security incarceration of one person (maximum goes up to something like $70,000)...and I could provide stats for the more than 600,000 drug law offenders who are in jail and we could do some math if you like.
It is money well spent!
how are drugs differnet from the drug known as alcohol?
drug dealers don't card people.
Yes, so the don't have to conform to any controls.
that is how we control alcohol, yes.
because their dealer no longer deals to them, because it's no longer illegal and therefore not profitable. and the legal dealer need to see an ID.
When they ended prohibition, people stopped buying the bathtub gin at the speakeasy.
If you don't think I'm addressing your issues (and I don't respect that you are asking valid questions and presenting a valid argument, unlike Bodine) then let's take them one at a time. What do you think is going to happen (that isn't already happening now with the drug laws in place) if drugs were legal tomorrow? I'd be happy to discuss your concerns and I recognise them as valid.
how are drugs differnet from the drug known as alcohol?
Let's see the addiction is stronger in heroin, cocaine and meth. The side effects are more severe.
and you think it's okay to imprison people based solely on your opinion of human nature and your narrow view of what is acceptable human conduct?
with you it's basically "either you think like me or I want to lock you up or kill you, never mind that your not actually doing anything to me"
we get it bodine
you are an asshole
we get the point.
so, you want to force me to pay for imprisoning people who have done absolutely nothing to us, but you don't want to have to help pay for health care?
got it.
there is a black market for cigarettes. There will be a black market for legal drugs. And the impact of legal drugs will be devastating.
and this is just your opinion?
you don't have any science to back that up with, do you?
and what about marijuana?
no physical addiction, no harmful side effects
since alcohol is obviously much worse than pot, I suppose that you want to go back to prohibition of that as well, right?
and you think it's okay to imprison people based solely on your opinion of human nature and your narrow view of what is acceptable human conduct?
It is SOCIETY's view.
with you it's basically "either you think like me or I want to lock you up or kill you, never mind that your not actually doing anything to me" Go to hell. You don't listen worth a damn. It must be the damn drugs getting in the way. Drug laws are society's view that is why there is the law. I didn't impose the law.
we get it bodine
you are an asshole
we get the point.
No you are worthless, selfish, thoughtless doper.
It is money well spent!
so, you want to force me to pay for imprisoning people who have done absolutely nothing to us, but you don't want to have to help pay for health care? It is society's decision. It has been made. I pay for schools I don't use. You can help pay for incarceration you don't like. Except in your case you may be getting the benefit of your payments.
got it.
DO YOU GET IT?
no physical addiction, no harmful side effects
BULLSHIT!
you don't have any science to back that up with, do you?
It is my opinion based on my observations. I have seen alcoholics and I have seen dopers. The dopers have a much harder time of dealing with their problem. I don't need to have some scientific reports to tell me what I have SEEN.
how are drugs differnet from the drug known as alcohol?
Drugs are much more addictive than alcohol. There are also differing effects of drugs. Alcohol is depressive. Some drugs are depressive, but there are also stimulants and hallucinogens.
because their dealer no longer deals to them, because it's no longer illegal and therefore not profitable. and the legal dealer need to see an ID.
Of course they could profit from kids. You don't think that dealers wouldn't target kids? Or the kids would have ways to get their drugs? If you can sell the product for more than it cost, you are going to make a profit. I just don't see how people who already perform illegal activities won't continue to perform illegal activities in the goal of making money.
What do you think is going to happen (that isn't already happening now with the drug laws in place) if drugs were legal tomorrow?
What I think is we're going to have society turned on it's ear. I raised some points/questions in posts to you and to Lance. Making drugs legal would impact so society in so many ways and on so many levels. All you're talking about is making it legal and that we'll save money and let people have freedom of choice. What I'm not hearing is how we go about it all. You make it legal tomorrow and we still have a bunch of problems, its just that they are different than today's.
It is my opinion based on my observations. I have seen alcoholics and I have seen dopers. The dopers have a much harder time of dealing with their problem. I don't need to have some scientific reports to tell me what I have SEEN.
Jethro, you have to be careful with observation. You grow up in Beverly Hills, you may think it's normal for people to drive Escalades and have plastic surgery. You grow up in Iraq and you think Americans are the devil. A person's experience can be limited. And you can't totally know what is going on in other parts of the country.
as the son of alcoholics, I'm not sure I can agree with that.
I mean, if we are going to allow opinion and personal experience as reasons to make laws that incarcerate people, then my experience is that alcohol is at least as, if not more addictive and destructive than just about any other drug.
but, the drug laws aren't considering how addictive something is...becasue if they were, alcohol would go right to the top and marijuana would fall off the list entirely.
Even if you consider it okay to prohibit drugs based on how addictive and damaging they are, the current laws are BAD, in that they do NOT use the facts about each drug and their approach to it's control.
It's BAD law.
I mean, if we are going to allow opinion and personal experience as reasons to make laws that incarcerate people, then my experience is that alcohol is at least as, if not more addictive and destructive than just about any other drug.
My dad was an alcoholic too. I've had personal experience with it. It's hard for people to have experiences with all the drugs. Of course it's easy to think alcohol is bad because you had first-hand knowledge. But what if your dad used crack or heroin? What if you were a crack baby? Then you would have yet a different perspective.
Even if you consider it okay to prohibit drugs based on how addictive and damaging they are, the current laws are BAD, in that they do NOT use the facts about each drug and their approach to it's control. It's BAD law.
Then perhaps we need to look at changing the laws to take into account the differing drugs? Make better distinctions? Personally, I'm undecided about pot. I don't know that it's as bad as its made out to be. In all of this, I'm considering pot a whole different issue. That would be the one thing offhand that I would consider making the exception for.
you grow up in Beverly Hills and you think it's normal for people to do cocaine and not get arrested for it.
which is another thing...
when you have prohibition laws that prohibit something that people want and will have regardless of the law, you create a built in disrespect for the law.
when you have AT LEAST a third of the population breaking a law, while others (mostly black) go to prison for it, you create an entire subculture of people who have no respect for the law.
one of the trade-offs you make for the pleasure of putting people who aren't harming you in jail for behaving differently than yourself is that you dilute society's respect for their own laws.
how many people here have never broken any of these laws?
and if there are any of you out there, how many of you have witnessed this law being broken and not done anything about it?
crack is something that was created because of the laws
if a woman is on crack and pregnant, I want her to see a doctor, not a jail cell. The only thing worse than being born a crack baby is being born a crack baby in prison.
but what if your dad smoked pot and they put him in jail for twenty years?
when you have prohibition laws that prohibit something that people want and will have regardless of the law, you create a built in disrespect for the law.
By getting something that is prohibiting the law, they are disrespecting the law. If we get rid of laws because people are disrespecting them, why not get rid of laws against murder?
one of the trade-offs you make for the pleasure of putting people who aren't harming you in jail for behaving differently than yourself is that you dilute society's respect for their own laws.
I think some people who go to jail come out with a new respect. Some don't. As kids, many of us probably hated getting disciplined by our parents for things we did. We rationalized it was okay, but they still disciplined us. I think it's kind of like that. I know I'm not perfect. I've broken laws before. And I'm not saying that the law system is perfect. Yeah, I think things need to be addressed. But is it just a drug issue? Or is it a bigger issue involving law enforcement? I think you have to look at it on a broader scope, instead of with a narrow focus.
for TMK, who has been reasonable and wants to know what the plan to make legalization work would look like...that's a very good question, thanks for asking it
this Republican proposes a new bottom line for evaluating our success.
"The days of a drug war waged against our people should come to an end. If we take a new approach -- one that deals with drugs through a medical model rather than a criminal justice model -- I guarantee that prison rates will drop, violent crime will decrease, property crime will decrease, overdose deaths will decrease, AIDS and hepatitis C will decrease, and more of those needing treatment for drug abuse will receive it."
crack is something that was created because of the laws
Well if people have to compete with federal drug dealers/stores, whats to say they won't come up with something in response to that? Or something that they could perhaps market to kids, even though it's illegal or would be illegal?
if a woman is on crack and pregnant, I want her to see a doctor, not a jail cell. The only thing worse than being born a crack baby is being born a crack baby in prison.
I also want her to see a doctor. I want her to be having as much pre-natal care as she can. I don't know what the procedure is for pregnant drug addicts in prison, but I would think they would have medical care for them and their child. Another concern I have is for the child after it's born. Yeah, it would be a shame if the mother was in prison after it was born. But you have to wonder about the responsibility of a person who would take drugs while pregnant, endangering her and the baby's life.
but what if your dad smoked pot and they put him in jail for twenty years?
I would have a different perspective than if he was an alcoholic or cocaine user. As I've said, I'm unsure about the marijuana thing. I feel it's a different issue.
"The days of a drug war waged against our people should come to an end. If we take a new approach -- one that deals with drugs through a medical model rather than a criminal justice model -- I guarantee that prison rates will drop, violent crime will decrease, property crime will decrease, overdose deaths will decrease, AIDS and hepatitis C will decrease, and more of those needing treatment for drug abuse will receive it."
This very well could be true. I wouldn't doubt it. What I'm looking for is a lot more fleshing out of this thought. A change like this, as I've said, would take a huge change. I think there are a lot of areas and aspects that would need to be addressed before this can be thought of being a reality.
actually, I said "prohibition laws that prohibit something that people want and will have regardless of the law"
When I said ""prohibition laws", I was referring to laws that prohibit someone from having a substance. Simply having a substance doesn't harm anyone (your having or taking a drug neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg) except one's self. Murder, on the other hand, harms someone else. Laws that prevent someone from harming someone else, while they are sometimes broken, have the respect of free people.
Here's a question, and I'm not trying to imply an answer with it...it's just a question...what if murder was legal?
would we all start to kill people?
Here's a question, and I'm not trying to imply an answer with it...it's just a question...what if murder was legal? would we all start to kill people?
No, we all wouldn't. But if it were legal and acceptable, I'm sure you would have a lot more murders. Jerry Springer would suffer because there would be less guests. Jethro may have to go into seclusion (I'm kidding).
there are irresponsible people in the world
do we make responsible people criminals because of it?
and isn't it already against the law to endanger children?
this just brings to mind an old Charlie Mingus song...
"All The Things You Could Be By Now If Sigmund Freud's Wife Was Your Mother"
not from me...I'm a pacifist
when you have prohibition laws that prohibit something that people want and will have regardless of the law, you create a built in disrespect for the law.
Criminals disrespect the law? Really?
not from me...I'm a pacifist
Must be from the drugs.
The point that I'm trying to make is that I'm not against treating people who have drug addiction. The change of attitude for drugs from a criminal to medical perspective has some appeal to me. As part of my schooling, I took some counseling classes that were connected to ADCEP. The big thing for me is that I haven't really seen any major plan that addresses implementation. Making drugs legal would involve a major undertaking. There would be a lot of concerns/problems involved with making them legal.
Why do pregnant women take drugs? Because they are addicted to them. Drugs cause people to be even more irresponsible than they already are. It destroys life.
It used to be society's decision that you could own black people. It was bad law. And, because people thought like you, it was hard to get it changed. But regardless, it was bad law.
that I'm a pacifist?
nope, that's not what it's from
look, if you are just gonna mouth crap like this and not talk about the subject, why are you even bothering at all? Why would you bother with me at all if I'm so horrible?
Isn't there a nice church camp you could be attending instead?
We have already had one prohibition and we certainly can learn from that experience what the problems of repeal may be.
It's true that we have dug ourselves a pretty deep hole with it, but seriously, if drugs were legal tomorrow what's the worst thing that could happen?