if i remember the chart right the last time my brother got one, it only takes 11 or 12 over to get to $100.
now all that argument said, scribe would have probably been better off paying the ticket. if you walk in and you've got a clean record, you're offered "the program" wherein you agree to pay the fine in what's called "court costs", and it doesn't show up on your record. just like it never happened. the condition of this is that you can't be convicted of a moving violation for a year afterwards. otherwise they enter that agreement as a guilty plea and you end up with two tickets on your record.
I want to tell Luv2 that yes, she is correct that we shouldn't be thinking of "drugs" as just one thing (it should be pointed out that alcohol is the drug that is most often given an "out" when drugs are considered as just one thing). Yes, the are all different and should be considered individually. That they are all considered this one big evil thing is a large part of the problem and it's one of the tools of the "war" on them.
so...how about we start to consider them individually?
It wasn't a speeding ticket but turning left during 4 - 6PM.
It's a long story, but she was innocent. She went to fight it but ended up sitting there for over 3 hours. She still hadn't been called but had to go get the kids, so she ended up having to plead guilty. They wouldn't reschedule. They wouldn't take her case first.... She couldn't just leave the kids, so she had to leave.
They were real dicks about it too I guess.
I tell you, I'm starting to hate the police in St Paul. I've had nothing but bad experiences with them.
She realizes that. She is after all going to law school.
The court papers said to be there at 11:30. She finally had to leave at 3:00, when the kids were supposed to be picked up.
She made allowances. She just had no idea it would be so bad.
The court took the cases in alphabetical order. So, being a Taylor she was going to be one of the last. She talked to two assistant county attorneys about it, and they didn't care. They refused to reschedule, and told her she could wait until it was her turn.
So, she plead guilty to the judge, but not until after having it put in the court record what the situation was.
She's going to forward an official complaint to the St Paul police and the Ramsey County Attorney.
Is it "our" government anymore, Bill? Nine states now have medical marijuana laws, most passed by referendum (i.e., the voice of the people), but the federal government has made sure that federal law trumps state law and uses our tax dollars to enforce it. The feds need to be reined in, hard, and not just on drug policy.
also...the use of the word "war" as in a "war on drugs" (or for that matter a "war on terror") is a misnomer not entirely unlike the way we ascribe words like "evil" to an inanimate substance like a drug.
you don't engage inanimate objects in war...you engage people in war...it's a war on drug users, not on drugs....it's a war on terrorists, not terror. That we allow our media to misuse language in this manner is unfortunate.
Those of us who are against the War on Drugs have, so far, been on the defensive. I'd like those who approve of this "war" to defend it. Please justify, if you can, the following:
1. Untold billions of dollars being spent on a war that is, in fact, a total defeat. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons, much less the rest of the country.
2. Years in prison for people who are not predatory criminals.
3. Diversion of law enforcement resources to arrest people who have not done anything violent.
4. Thefts that would not occur if drugs were available and affordable.
5. Erosion of privacy rights and other civil liberties.
6. Deaths from tainted drugs, which are not controlled or regulated for purity or absence of toxic substances.
7. The creation of a lucrative black market which would not otherwise exist.
Question: Of all the so-called "crack-related" murders in New York in 1988, how many were committed by a perpetrator high on the drug?
I know both people who have taken meth, and people who have taken heroin, and they are good people. Since every person is the product of all their experiences (among other things), then taking heroin and meth are part of what made them good people. My ex-heroin-junkie friend is a very good person, and his time doing heroin is part of what made him so.
I agree with Muskwa, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, it's my life.
My computer is addicting too.
Is it a drug?
What if someone decides that I spend too much time on my computer?
Do they have the right to outlaw my computer and take it away from me?
When is it time for all people to decide what is right for themselves and allow other people to decide what is right for themselves as well?
Personally I would much rather that all the money spent on the failed War On Drugs went to feed and house and clothe the homeless people of our country, capture and convict those who are actually causing harm to others, like priests frinstance.
There are much more important things to control than what people do to themselves.
Personally I would much rather that all the money spent on the failed War On Drugs went to feed and house and clothe the homeless people of our country
of course, that would probably do more to reduce drug use in and of itself than the "war"
Lets see. A hard core drug user is a good person because he/she spends thousands of taxpayer dollars in treatment which seldom works the first time. They end up dead, disabled, in jail, in prison or on some type of assistance because no one will hire them due to their past record. Don't forget about broken families.
That's not true for all of them. But it's true for the vast majority. I fail to see how that is a good person.
Forgive me if I missed it, but I still haven't seen a response to my question of how the act of ingestion hurts anyone else. Nor has anyone yet justified the cost, the violation of civil liberties, etc.
haven't seen a response to my question of how the act of ingestion hurts anyone else. Nor has anyone yet justified the cost, the violation of civil liberties, etc.
don't hold your breath for it either
the only justification I've ever seen is "It's against the law...if you don't do it, you don't break the law"...I've never seen any justification for it beyond the fact that it's against the law.
Just as crabs fails to see or admit anything actually does occur in #1424.
you mean this?
Lets see. A hard core drug user is a good person because he/she spends thousands of taxpayer dollars in treatment which seldom works the first time. They end up dead, disabled, in jail, in prison or on some type of assistance because no one will hire them due to their past record. Don't forget about broken families.
okay, let's look at it...
spends thousands of taxpayer dollars in treatment
I believe that if you compare incarceration to treatment costs (if you look at it as a disease instead of a crime) you will find that treatment is a pretty good deal. Which does the government pay more for, treatment of legal alcoholics or treatment of illegal drug users? Or for prisons for drug crimes. Run the numbers for us if you think prohibition is cheaper. But anyway, the cost factor of legal to illegal has to figure in the cost of illegal to society, and I don't think that treatment costs anywhere near what incarceration does.
They end up dead
we all end up dead.
but most people who use drugs don't end up dead because of the drug...unless it's illegal. Legal drugs give you a much better chance of people not ending up dead from it than illegal drugs do. You can't control them when they are illegal.
the laws against it make it so MORE people end up dead BECAUSE OF IT than would if it was legal.
disabled
you can't get much more disabled than being in prison.
in prison
yea...we now have a LOT more people in prison...I fail to see how this is an argument for making them illegal.
or on some type of assistance because no one will hire them due to their past record
again...if they are legal, there is no "past record" of breaking that law. This is another strike against making it illegal.
Don't forget about broken families
yea...I've seen the broken families that incarceration causes.
look, families will have problems (including drug use, for instance, look at Jeb Bush's daughter) regardless of drugs being illegal...that's hard enough for a family to survive without adding incarceration to it (and even harder to survive if you aren't a Bush and actually get incarcerated for it). Jeb's family problems with their daughter are best summed up as THEIR private affair (indeed, he has said as much), and indeed they should be. But the laws make that not possible...when the State gets involved, by law, it's no longer their family's problem exclusively.
besides, there are plenty of people who have intact families and use drugs. Why incarcerate them?
Sure...I'll admit these things do occur...but all of it will still occur and most of it only occurs if you make them illegal.
Well I still think you're blind to the real world crabs.
Jail costs $50.00 a day up here. Treatment is $175.00 a day. Thanks Mr. drug abuser.
True we all end up dead. But the drug loser leaves behind children who will then enter the system (if they're not already there) and cost untold thousands. Thanks Mr. drug abuser.
You said it. "When the state gets involved". More taxpayer dollars.
Plenty of families that are intact while using? Where?
These people made the decision to use without my help. They can make the decision not to use without my help and find their own way out. Why should the taxpayers pay. They didn't shove a needle in someone's arm.
Jail costs $50.00 a day up here. Treatment is $175.00 a day
okay...let's look at the numbers...
"Domestic enforcement costs 4 times as much as treatment for a given amount of user reduction, 7 times as much for consumption reduction, and 15 times as much for societal cost reduction."
Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.
The 1997 National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) stated, "Treatment appears to be cost effective, particularly when compared to incarceration, which is often the alternative. Treatment costs ranged from a low of $1,800 per client to a high of approximately $6,800 per client." To contrast, the average cost of incarceration in 1993 (the most recent year available) was $23,406 per inmate per year.
Source: Center for Substance Abuse and Treatment, National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study 1997 Highlights, from the web at http://www.health.org/nties97/costs.htm; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997), p. 4, 502. (Average cost is based on an adult jail and prison population of 1,364,881, and total corrections expenditures of $31,946,667,000 for 1993.)
In 1996, voters in Arizona passed an initiative which mandated drug treatment instead of prison for non-violent drug offenders. At the end of the first year of implementation, Arizona's Supreme Court issued a report which found: A) Arizona taxpayers saved $2.6 million in one year; B) 77.5% of drug possession probationers tested negative for drug use after the program; The Court stated, "The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996 has allowed the judicial branch to build an effective probation model to treat and supervise substance abusing offenders... resulting in safer communities and more substance abusing probationers in recovery." Â Â
Source: State of Arizona Supreme Court, Drug Treatment and Education Fund: Implementation Full Year Report: Fiscal Year 1997-1998, 1999.
According to CASA (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse), the cost of proven treatment for inmates, accompanied by education, job training and health care, would average about $6,500 per inmate. For each inmate that becomes a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, the economic benefit is $68,800. Even if only one in 10 inmates became a law-abiding citizen after this investment, there would still be a net social gain of $3,800.
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population, (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, January 8, 1998), Foreword by Joseph Califano.
feel free to provide your own numbers that show incarceration is cheaper than treatment, if you can find any.
For society, the benefits of drug abuse treatment far outweigh the cost. According to a recent study, every $1 invested in treatment programs nets a $4 return through the decrease in drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft.
Good treatment can be more appropriate than incarceration for many people who abuse drugs, and the cost of residential treatment is less than 1/2 the cost of incarceration. New York estimates that an untreated drug abuser costs the State $21,500 every 6 months for social and governmental costs, while the cost of incarceration is $20,000 for 6 months. Compared to this, treatment costs are modest. In New York State, 6 months in adult, residential drug-free treatment costs an average of $8,250; methadone treatment averages $1,750 per person; and outpatient treatment averages $1,575.
if i remember the chart right the last time my brother got one, it only takes 11 or 12 over to get to $100.
now all that argument said, scribe would have probably been better off paying the ticket. if you walk in and you've got a clean record, you're offered "the program" wherein you agree to pay the fine in what's called "court costs", and it doesn't show up on your record. just like it never happened. the condition of this is that you can't be convicted of a moving violation for a year afterwards. otherwise they enter that agreement as a guilty plea and you end up with two tickets on your record.
of course, speeding actually endangers other people...whereas simply taking speed...
On a 70 mph freeway that's bookin'. In a 40 mph road, it's dangerous.
I want to tell Luv2 that yes, she is correct that we shouldn't be thinking of "drugs" as just one thing (it should be pointed out that alcohol is the drug that is most often given an "out" when drugs are considered as just one thing). Yes, the are all different and should be considered individually. That they are all considered this one big evil thing is a large part of the problem and it's one of the tools of the "war" on them.
so...how about we start to consider them individually?
If people drive so fast they run up a $100 speeding ticket, it should actually be doubled.
It doesn't take much these days. I think my wife paid $90 for her "Violation".
ares 6/20/03 7:48am
It wasn't a speeding ticket but turning left during 4 - 6PM.
It's a long story, but she was innocent. She went to fight it but ended up sitting there for over 3 hours. She still hadn't been called but had to go get the kids, so she ended up having to plead guilty. They wouldn't reschedule. They wouldn't take her case first.... She couldn't just leave the kids, so she had to leave.
They were real dicks about it too I guess.
I tell you, I'm starting to hate the police in St Paul. I've had nothing but bad experiences with them.
Scribe the criminal eh?
It's simple JT. The court can't run on everyone elses schedule.
Who knows what sort of a scene she made in the halls of justice, but I bet you can't surprise anyone who works with traffic violators.
They've seen and heard it all before.
The court can't run on everyone elses schedule.
She realizes that. She is after all going to law school.
The court papers said to be there at 11:30. She finally had to leave at 3:00, when the kids were supposed to be picked up.
She made allowances. She just had no idea it would be so bad.
The court took the cases in alphabetical order. So, being a Taylor she was going to be one of the last. She talked to two assistant county attorneys about it, and they didn't care. They refused to reschedule, and told her she could wait until it was her turn.
So, she plead guilty to the judge, but not until after having it put in the court record what the situation was.
She's going to forward an official complaint to the St Paul police and the Ramsey County Attorney.
in that case, she ought to be able to appeal, and get it thrown out on the grounds that her confession was coerced. :)
repeal the prohibition on drugs and the courts wouldn't be so cloogged up
repeal the prohibition on drugs and the courts wouldn't be so cloogged up
It was traffic court, not criminal court.
courtrooms are courtrooms
judges are judges
budgets are budgets
Is it "our" government anymore, Bill? Nine states now have medical marijuana laws, most passed by referendum (i.e., the voice of the people), but the federal government has made sure that federal law trumps state law and uses our tax dollars to enforce it. The feds need to be reined in, hard, and not just on drug policy.
The feds need to be reined in, hard, and not just on drug policy.
Yep.
Yeah let's legalize it all crabs. Sell a couple kilos to the school kids THEN traffic court can get done sooner!...brilliant!!!
Alcohol is a poison fold? Then why is 1 to 2 drinks a day recommended for heart health?
uh...kids can get drugs easier when they are illegal than when they are legal.
legalizing it will make it easier to keep it from being sold to kids.
alcohol is a drug
they are inert substances and therefore have no innate "goodness" or "badness".
they are simply substances.
yes...we agree.
also...the use of the word "war" as in a "war on drugs" (or for that matter a "war on terror") is a misnomer not entirely unlike the way we ascribe words like "evil" to an inanimate substance like a drug.
you don't engage inanimate objects in war...you engage people in war...it's a war on drug users, not on drugs....it's a war on terrorists, not terror. That we allow our media to misuse language in this manner is unfortunate.
For the record, Bill, my philosophy is more libertarian than anything else :~)
This issue represents everything I believe in -- basically, leave me alone unless I hurt someone.
Those of us who are against the War on Drugs have, so far, been on the defensive. I'd like those who approve of this "war" to defend it. Please justify, if you can, the following:
1. Untold billions of dollars being spent on a war that is, in fact, a total defeat. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons, much less the rest of the country.
2. Years in prison for people who are not predatory criminals.
3. Diversion of law enforcement resources to arrest people who have not done anything violent.
4. Thefts that would not occur if drugs were available and affordable.
5. Erosion of privacy rights and other civil liberties.
6. Deaths from tainted drugs, which are not controlled or regulated for purity or absence of toxic substances.
7. The creation of a lucrative black market which would not otherwise exist.
Question: Of all the so-called "crack-related" murders in New York in 1988, how many were committed by a perpetrator high on the drug?
the "others" here include property seizure
That's one of the scariest things about the WOD -- police departments actually depending on property seizure for their funding.
Well, if you don't want your "stuff" seized, don't possess it.
Simple.
If you CHOOSE to possess drugs, you accept the consequences. Whatever they might be.
so much for the "land of the free"
I know both people who have taken meth, and people who have taken heroin, and they are good people. Since every person is the product of all their experiences (among other things), then taking heroin and meth are part of what made them good people. My ex-heroin-junkie friend is a very good person, and his time doing heroin is part of what made him so.
if you don't think that drugs have played any role in the arts, then you should take pretty much all your record collection and throw it away.
I agree with Muskwa, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, it's my life.
My computer is addicting too.
Is it a drug?
What if someone decides that I spend too much time on my computer?
Do they have the right to outlaw my computer and take it away from me?
When is it time for all people to decide what is right for themselves and allow other people to decide what is right for themselves as well?
Personally I would much rather that all the money spent on the failed War On Drugs went to feed and house and clothe the homeless people of our country, capture and convict those who are actually causing harm to others, like priests frinstance.
There are much more important things to control than what people do to themselves.
Heroin and meth make good people.
Just when ya thought ya heard it all.
LOL!
No, the EXPERIENCES of each life is what makes people what they are.
There are experiences that drug users have had that helped to form who they are today.
Just like your experiences playing football or baseball helped form what you are today.
Football is dangerous too.
Perhaps we should regulate that as well eh?
of course, that would probably do more to reduce drug use in and of itself than the "war"
Yep.
;)
Wouldn't work crabs. "Giving" people more only results in more money they have to expend on drugs and alcohol.
"Giving" only solves a problem on a very short term basis. But of course, the "short term" results in a lifestyle that the left loves.
Lets see. A hard core drug user is a good person because he/she spends thousands of taxpayer dollars in treatment which seldom works the first time. They end up dead, disabled, in jail, in prison or on some type of assistance because no one will hire them due to their past record. Don't forget about broken families.
That's not true for all of them. But it's true for the vast majority. I fail to see how that is a good person.
giving people hope doesn't
I noticed you include the legal drug in there...are you advocating a return to alcohol prohibition?
no it's not...the vast majority of drug users are just as much contributing members of society as you are.
you fail to see.
LOL!
people do drugs...lots of them...it's a rare person who doesn't do drugs of some kind or another.
Forgive me if I missed it, but I still haven't seen a response to my question of how the act of ingestion hurts anyone else. Nor has anyone yet justified the cost, the violation of civil liberties, etc.
don't hold your breath for it either
the only justification I've ever seen is "It's against the law...if you don't do it, you don't break the law"...I've never seen any justification for it beyond the fact that it's against the law.
Just as crabs fails to see or admit anything actually does occur in #1424.
you mean this?
okay, let's look at it...
I believe that if you compare incarceration to treatment costs (if you look at it as a disease instead of a crime) you will find that treatment is a pretty good deal. Which does the government pay more for, treatment of legal alcoholics or treatment of illegal drug users? Or for prisons for drug crimes. Run the numbers for us if you think prohibition is cheaper.
But anyway, the cost factor of legal to illegal has to figure in the cost of illegal to society, and I don't think that treatment costs anywhere near what incarceration does.
we all end up dead.
but most people who use drugs don't end up dead because of the drug...unless it's illegal. Legal drugs give you a much better chance of people not ending up dead from it than illegal drugs do. You can't control them when they are illegal.
the laws against it make it so MORE people end up dead BECAUSE OF IT than would if it was legal.
you can't get much more disabled than being in prison.
yea...we now have a LOT more people in prison...I fail to see how this is an argument for making them illegal.
again...if they are legal, there is no "past record" of breaking that law. This is another strike against making it illegal.
yea...I've seen the broken families that incarceration causes.
look, families will have problems (including drug use, for instance, look at Jeb Bush's daughter) regardless of drugs being illegal...that's hard enough for a family to survive without adding incarceration to it (and even harder to survive if you aren't a Bush and actually get incarcerated for it). Jeb's family problems with their daughter are best summed up as THEIR private affair (indeed, he has said as much), and indeed they should be. But the laws make that not possible...when the State gets involved, by law, it's no longer their family's problem exclusively.
besides, there are plenty of people who have intact families and use drugs. Why incarcerate them?
Sure...I'll admit these things do occur...but all of it will still occur and most of it only occurs if you make them illegal.
Well I still think you're blind to the real world crabs.
Jail costs $50.00 a day up here. Treatment is $175.00 a day. Thanks Mr. drug abuser.
True we all end up dead. But the drug loser leaves behind children who will then enter the system (if they're not already there) and cost untold thousands. Thanks Mr. drug abuser.
You said it. "When the state gets involved". More taxpayer dollars.
Plenty of families that are intact while using? Where?
These people made the decision to use without my help. They can make the decision not to use without my help and find their own way out. Why should the taxpayers pay. They didn't shove a needle in someone's arm.
okay...let's look at the numbers...
feel free to provide your own numbers that show incarceration is cheaper than treatment, if you can find any.
all around you.
people use drugs...the laws don't change that.
you don't see it because the laws keep it underground, which creates it's own set of problems.
this is a statement against making laws against it.
http://www.treatment.org/Communique/Comm93/intro.html