Prison population and the war on drugs

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Imagine all the people.. living for today whooo hooo.

You may say I'm a dreamer....but I'm not the only one.... I hope someday you'll join us...and the world can live as one.

Let's just all stay wasted...man. We're all in perfect control of ourselves. It doesn't matter if I'm smoking crack and driving through a playground. If I kill anybody, I didn't mean to. I wasn't in control of myself. It's not my fault. It's society's fault.

If only I just had less hassle from the police and some more education concerning the drug I'm pushing into my vein so I'd know how bad it for me.

[PhillyKev 0]

I guess any possibility of an intelligent discussion is now impossible. Let's just pretend that the war on drugs is perfect and everything is peachy keen. La la la, I'm in magical happy land where all the people doing things I don't agree with are safely locked away and I won't have my sensitivities challenged by the plight of society.

You know what pisses me off, too? Retards. I hate seeing them walk down the street. Can we have a war on retardation and lock up all the mongoloids?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I guess any possibility of an intelligent discussion is now impossible. Let's just pretend that the war on drugs is perfect and everything is peachy keen. La la la, I'm in magical happy land where all the people doing things I don't agree with are safely locked away and I won't have my sensitivities challenged by the plight of society.

You know what pisses me off, too? Retards. I hate seeing them walk down the street. Can we have a war on retardation and lock up all the mongoloids?

Of course, the war on drugs isn’t perfect but you can’t just quit. I’m guessing that there are a whole lot more addicts than suppliers. The focus needs to be on the suppliers. I also don’t really think that legalizing drugs will decrease the overall demand in the long run. Especially when talking about the highly addictive drugs. There will just be more and more new and repeat addicts.

Mentally retarded people shouldn’t piss you off. That can’t be helped and they usually didn’t have a choice in the matter. People who stick a needle in their arm did.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Of course, the war on drugs isn’t perfect but you can’t just quit.

I think that continuing to do the wrong and ineffective thing isn't a good idea either. The current method is not working obviously.

The purpose of these laws is to prevent the user from harming themself or others. In terms of the effect on society, pot is less damaging than alchohol. Consider drunk-driving, bar fights, spouse abuse, missed work, and medical issues.

There are a lot of people who smoke pot and are, otherwise, law-abiding citizens who lead productive lives. I don't think that pot use would increase if it was legal. It might keep people from abusing alcohol, which do less injury to society.

Why not declare that part of the war ended, empty a few prisons and spend the tax money on real drug problems like Coke, etc?

(edited because I wrote something backwards)

[billvon 3,131]

>If you are obese and have a high-risk lifestyle, you pay a higher
> premium. Sorta like buying life insurance for a skydiver.

And for the uninsured? Do we allow people to die in hospital ER's because we don't want to "let the government take our money?" Is that a trait of 'compassionate conservatives?'

The USA isn't the kind of country where we let people die in the streets for lack of emergency medical care. Hence we will always be paying some amount for emergency medical care, no matter how much we try to get around it. How to do that efficiently, so that as little money gets wasted as possible, is the issue.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I think that continuing to do the wrong and ineffective thing isn't a good idea either. The current method is not working obviously.

The purpose of these laws is to prevent the user from harming themself or others. In terms of the effect on society, pot is less damaging than alchohol. Consider drunk-driving, bar fights, spouse abuse, missed work, and medical issues.

There are a lot of people who smoke pot and are, otherwise, law-abiding citizens who lead productive lives. I don't think that pot use would increase if it was legal. It might keep people from abusing alcohol, which do less injury to society.

Why not declare that part of the war ended, empty a few prisons and spend the tax money on real drug problems like Coke, etc?

(edited because I wrote something backwards)

Of course proponents of legalizing drugs fall back to the "grey area" of marijuana. I was mostly speaking of more highly addictive drugs but I think pot should be kept outlawed also (that is, unless it's proven to have medicinal value and even then should be controlled). I admit that I'm not an expert on this subject but isn't pot statistically shown to be a "gateway drug?" It may be as every bit as dangerous as alcohol but does alcohol have the same reputation of graduating people to the next level? I realize some of you out there can probably hold your own and it doesn’t affect you that way. I’m just speaking of overall. I don't know. Just asking.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>If you are obese and have a high-risk lifestyle, you pay a higher
> premium. Sorta like buying life insurance for a skydiver.

And for the uninsured? Do we allow people to die in hospital ER's because we don't want to "let the government take our money?" Is that a trait of 'compassionate conservatives?'

The USA isn't the kind of country where we let people die in the streets for lack of emergency medical care. Hence we will always be paying some amount for emergency medical care, no matter how much we try to get around it. How to do that efficiently, so that as little money gets wasted as possible, is the issue.

Who said anything about emergency medical care? I said if you want to stick a needle in your vein, go ahead. Just don't ask me to pay for your stupid choice. The key word being "CHOICE"
BTW read my sig line.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Who said anything about emergency medical care? I said if you want to stick a needle in your vein, go ahead. Just don't ask me to pay for your stupid choice. The key word being "CHOICE"
BTW read my sig line.

The bad thing is I don't think it's as simple, in the case of highly addictive drugs, as "go ahead but just don't ask me to pay for it." I think once they're at that level, we're going to pay for it one way or the other. It's pretty much a given that they're going to affect society as a whole and not just themselves. Therefore, I think it's a silly notion to legalize drugs.

[happythoughts 0]

The "gateway" thing has been pounded on in several threads. Even the police don't believe it anymore. clicky

I don't think that people should smoke themselves unconscious. It is as irresponsible as drinking a case of beer and planning on going to work the next day.

I do believe that the consequences should be proportional to the effect of the crime. Consequences should be a tool to protect society or the individual. That isn't the case here.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I admit that I'm not an expert on this subject but isn't pot statistically shown to be a "gateway drug?"

Dubiously. Statistically, a very high percentage of people who use hard drugs started out with marijuana. Statistically a very high percentage of people who smoke marijuana, never use hard drugs.

The correlation between marijuana and hard drugs is about as much as the correlation between chewing gum and hard drugs.

One way that it IS a gateway is direcly because it is illegal. Since it is illegal you have to buy it from criminals. Many of these criminals also sell hard drugs. If it weren't illegal many people would never be exposed to hard drugs that currently are.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The bad thing is I don't think it's as simple, in the case of highly addictive drugs, as "go ahead but just don't ask me to pay for it." I think once they're at that level, we're going to pay for it one way or the other. It's pretty much a given that they're going to affect society as a whole and not just themselves. Therefore, I think it's a silly notion to legalize drugs.

Can you explain to me what the criminalization of what we all seem to agree is a social problem does to improve society? Does it save you taxes? No, the war on drugs is expensive, treatment would be cheaper. Does it protect society? No, drug offenders aren't typically kept in jail all that long unless there's some other associate crime, and if there is, they'd be in jail anyway. Does it help the addicts? No, they would get much better treatment for cheaper in a facility than a prison.

I just really don't see the point. I'm not advocating or condoning drug use at all. But I don't see what the point of the current method of dealing with it is. They already affect society. We're already paying for treatment of the indigent.

You admitted in regard to marijuana that you're not an expert on the subject, yet you're in favor of criminalizing it. Dont' you think you should know about something before you condone outlawing it?

[billvon 3,131]

>Who said anything about emergency medical care?

You talked about the obese guy, a guy who will need lots of medical care (due to heart attacks, knee problems etc.) You will pay for his emergency care even though it's his fault that he's obese, at least if he doesn't have insurance/can't pay. Same for the drug user. Like I said before, we are not a country that lets people die in the streets.

[skygeek 0]

I have a question.
How does our country look to the rest of the world when for the past 20-or-so-years we have been losing a "War on Drugs". What we cant win a war against people on drugs? How bad is that? How many other wars have gone on this long spending this much money with no real improvment? Gives me a warm fuzzy just thinking about it......

We had better not let the terrorist find out, next thing you know they will all be on drugs and then we will never win the "War on Terrorism"...

Welcome to the New World Order. Expect no Mercy.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

wishes ignorance were was painful

If it was...some here would be dead.

Are you absolutely sure "were" is wrong here? If I were you, I'd check carefully.

www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/073001.htm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Ignorance is a singular noun (as opposed to plural), so "was" is the correct verb. Maybe people use "were" because of the "s" sound at the end, but it is incorrect.

Replace it with drunkenness, or any other condition.
(Ignorance is the state or condition of being ignorant)

You wouldn't say "I wish drunkenness were painful," would you?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Ignorance is a singular noun (as opposed to plural), so "was" is the correct verb. Maybe people use "were" because of the "s" sound at the end, but it is incorrect.

Replace it with drunkenness, or any other condition.
(Ignorance is the state or condition of being ignorant)

You wouldn't say "I wish drunkenness were painful," would you"

Yes, because it's a hypothetical. Didn't you read the article? (Example #3)

I guess they don't teach grammar any more. If they were to teach grammar, you and P'to would not make such errors.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

You are referring to use of the Subjunctive Mood when relating to unreal events. Yes, I learned about that, and many other facets of grammar in the English language. However, it is not taught. If I were a product of the public school system, rather than a product of my own desire, I still wouldn't know what you are talking about. I didn't learn in in K through 12, and I didn't learn it in four years at a state flagship university. I learned it because I chose to study another language in depth, even before my vocabulary was sufficient to express myself.

Back to the Subjunctive Mood in unreal events. It has fallen out of use, near completely. I know if it, and I recognize it, but as far as use in practical language, it is dying a slow but sure death.

It is however, still accepted, based on preference. In that sense, it is not something to be corrected so much as debated. I agreed with pajarito based on experience working with/for english professors at university.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Of course proponents of legalizing drugs fall back to the "grey area" of marijuana. I was mostly speaking of more highly addictive drugs but I think pot should be kept outlawed also (that is, unless it's proven to have medicinal value and even then should be controlled). I admit that I'm not an expert on this subject but isn't pot statistically shown to be a "gateway drug?" It may be as every bit as dangerous as alcohol but does alcohol have the same reputation of graduating people to the next level? I realize some of you out there can probably hold your own and it doesn’t affect you that way. I’m just speaking of overall. I don't know. Just asking.

Come on, how does the myth of the gateway drug seem reasonable to you? Everyone (but me apparently) has smoked pot at some point in their life, but how many cokeheads do you know?

And why must it have medicinal value? Shouldn't a standard, if we would still have restrictions, be based on the potential for harm? Pot scores as a dirtier, but less addictive form of smoking. And even with the drug war it doesn't kill 20,000 a year like alcohol does just with regards to driving.

I can't resolve in my mind what should be done with heroin and speed, but pot seems like a slam dunk. Free it up, tax it, and see what happens over a 5 year period. Then reconsider the rest.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

wishes ignorance were was painful

If it was...some here would be dead.

you would do this sillyness when i've just finished packing my shelves, so off the top of my head.......nice try..but no.

'wishes' is present tense, "was" is past tense, your version has incorrect verb tense constancy.

you also may be unaware that italics implies third person, which affects the tense.
{Zen} wishes ignorance were painful.

I wish ignorance were past progressive. ie had been painful in the past and continued to be in the future painful.


He/I wished past tense ignorance was (is also past tense, ignorance was once painful but is not any longer?) painful.

My sentence is Present Progrssive, it expresses continuing action or state.


'wishes'=present, 'were' = started in the past and continued on.

was you in pain? (when you were ignorant)? lol
were you in pain (when you were ignorant)? The subject is present tense even if the question is directed toward a past event.


No. because ignorance doesnt cause pain. No matter how much better off mankind would be if it did.

[Zenister 0]

ah the old "i wasnt aware of that rule" defense...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

All I know is I ain't got no clue what any of yous is talking about.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

It's pretty much a given that they're going to affect society as a whole and not just themselves.

nice assumption, but if that were any thing near true we'd have ALOT more violent crime associated with drug use...

something on the order of 85% (i'll honestly have to look for more recent numbers) of drug offenders are incarcerated on non violent charges, have had no violent charges filed against them, and are locked away as if they presented a clear danger to society.

the "War on Drugs" has been a cash cow for law enforcement. So of course no juristiction is going to turn down special assistance from federal funds....Want money to fight thieves, rapists and murderers in your town? sorry cant justify that, but we'll spend several million (per LEO agency in some states/ counties) on helicopters and drug interdiction patrols, all while the 'line officers' drive older cars, use outdated radio and computer systems and cant pull overtime to work day to day cases because the budget went to the Narc team..and Montgomery county has suuuuuch a drug problem too......

at least terrorists represent a real threat.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

You admitted in regard to marijuana that you're not an expert on the subject, yet you're in favor of criminalizing it. Dont' you think you should know about something before you condone outlawing it?

I don't have to be an "expert" on something in order to cast my vote. I'm just talking here. I don't claim expertise. That's why I said in my quote, "I'm just asking." Take a deep breath.

[pajarito 0]

Violent crime isn't the only way I would think they'd be a burden on society. My wife has patients come in from time-to-time who are addicted to crack, they have babies, and the State has to take care of some of them.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Who said anything about emergency medical care?

You talked about the obese guy, a guy who will need lots of medical care (due to heart attacks, knee problems etc.) You will pay for his emergency care even though it's his fault that he's obese, at least if he doesn't have insurance/can't pay. Same for the drug user. Like I said before, we are not a country that lets people die in the streets.

True, but that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Please try to follow along.