Prison population and the war on drugs

[mardigrasbob 0]

While I agree on Marijuana;it hasn't killed anybody. Certain other drugs are too addictive to be unregulated. My main point has always been; users are victims of their own weakness and should be helped. Sometimes voluntary, other times forced.

Manufacturers, smugglers and dealers of deadly illegal drugs should be aware that if busted they will do serious time. To say that demand causes the drug problem is bassackwards. If the supply were dry up demand would have to drop. Crime should be dealt with for what it is. If someone robs to buy drugs, is that different than robbing to buy new threads? It's robbery! Plain and simple. The only way to separate crime from drugs is to legalize and provide them for free. Not a realistic or intelligent option.

-------------

[Zenister 0]

i dont see terribly many people robbing for six packs, or brewers having shoot outs over who supplies the local bars?

why? its legal, taxed and regulated. It becomes a source of income for the state, estimated profits from an tax equivalent to that of tobacco would make marijuana the number one cash crop in the world. If you control the supply you have a great deal more control over the users behavior and the environment and conditions they use it in...

everything including oxygen is dangerous with uncontrolled use/exposure. Legalization and regulation are far more effective means of control than the demoning anti-drug campaigns currently in use.

Government's job should never be to "protect you from yourself”. It should create an environment where you are responsible for your own actions, irregardless of any substances you many have consumed.

you know nothing of economics if you think demand does not create supply.
the Drug trade is amazingly more profitable since its become illegal and under tight scrutiny.

the governments policies created the environment for criminal profit. Take away the illegal profit and you eliminate the major source of drug related crime....it isn’t Tommy breaking into houses to pay for speed. It is gangsters fighting over trade and markets...

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

[billvon 3,131]

>To say that demand causes the drug problem is bassackwards.
>If the supply were dry up demand would have to drop.

Huh? So if the gasoline supply dried up, suddenly no one would want it? If something is scarce and a lot of people want it, prices go through the roof. Every time you make a drug bust you make the other dealers that much richer.

>The only way to separate crime from drugs is to legalize and provide
>them for free. Not a realistic or intelligent option.

Or just legalize them and sell them. That way it's no different (economically) than bread, and not many people get killed over loaves of WonderBread.

[billvon 3,131]

>True, but that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Sorry! I was answering your question. You should have noted you didn't really want an answer.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>True, but that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Sorry! I was answering your question. You should have noted you didn't really want an answer.

Oh, really?? What question was that?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

Are you proud for having made this statement?

Would you want everyone else to act the same way?

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

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.

Are you proud for having made this statement?

Would you want everyone else to act the same way?

Well, it seems that quite a few Americans like having an inarticulate incompetent in the White House.

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Ralph Wiggum, "Me flunk English? That's unpossible"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

i dont see terribly many people robbing for six packs, or brewers having shoot outs over who supplies the local bars?

why? its legal, taxed and regulated.

Before alcohol was legal, taxed, and regulated, Al Capone made an industry out of shooting the competition. You could be right.

Of course, drawing parallels between the decriminalization of alcohol and pot would be too easy. If logic and reason take over, how would govt function?

[mardigrasbob 0]

FREE TOMMY CHONG[/RED]

www.freetommychong.net

www.freetommychong.org


---------------------

[PhillyKev 0]

Gotta love Tommy Chong...

Quote

The 65-year-old apologized to the court and his family, saying he "got carried away" with his movie character. He admitted once having "a drug problem with marijuana" but said he beat it by redirecting his energy to salsa dancing.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

>To say that demand causes the drug problem is bassackwards.
>If the supply were dry up demand would have to drop.

Huh? So if the gasoline supply dried up, suddenly no one would want it? If something is scarce and a lot of people want it, prices go through the roof. Every time you make a drug bust you make the other dealers that much richer.

>The only way to separate crime from drugs is to legalize and provide
>them for free. Not a realistic or intelligent option.

Or just legalize them and sell them. That way it's no different (economically) than bread, and not many people get killed over loaves of WonderBread.

O.K. #1: Gasoline is a required commodity, crack is not. Anyone who has been though an extended dry spell knows that some people quit, others move on to the drug du Jour. Anyway eventually the demand goes away. Very few people knew of freebase before crack was introduced. Drugs create their own demand.
#2: People will not kill for bread as long as there is cake. The big challenge is to find sustained economic recovery for the inner city. The smartest and the best are going to prison instead of Harvard.


-----

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Are you proud for having made this statement?

Would you want everyone else to act the same way?

Don't be a self-righteous "ass." Notice, I didn't say "you are one."

I said I'm not an "expert." I'm not completely ill-informed, though. It doesn’t mean I might not have something constructive to add to a conversation. I'm not an "expert" on politics either. I'm still going to vote when the time comes with the best information I have obtained. I'm not arrogant enough, like some here, to claim to be "all knowing" about everything. Yes, I’m ok with that. However, feel free to keep doing whatever makes you feel good and keeps your ego boosted to that level.

[billvon 3,131]

>Gasoline is a required commodity, crack is not.

Some things (tobacco, alcohol, some drugs) are extremely addictive; people can't physically do without them. Gasoline? Buy a diesel, or a Honda GX, or a bike.

>Anyone who has been though an extended dry spell knows that some
>people quit, others move on to the drug du Jour.

And I ride my bike to work. So?

>Anyway eventually the demand goes away. Very few people knew of
> freebase before crack was introduced. Drugs create their own demand.

I agree there. Nobody needed gasoline before it was first refined either; early cars were either steam or electric.

>#2: People will not kill for bread as long as there is cake. The big
>challenge is to find sustained economic recovery for the inner city. The
>smartest and the best are going to prison instead of Harvard.

How do you figure? I knew a lot of people who went to MIT and Harvard, and I knew a few people that have been in prison (skydivers mostly.) The people at MIT and Harvard seemed smarter. Many came from the inner city; my college roommate came from a slum in Brooklyn.

Take another example. The high school I went to was a fancy private one. There were more drugs there than I ever saw at the public high school down the street that my sisters went to. The drug addicts were the sons of judges, politicians and real estate moguls. Most of them went on to college.

[PhillyKev 0]

That's a fair answer, and I wouldn't have criticised you in that way. You are definitely entitled to form an opinion and vote how you see fit.

But when you're talking about criminalizing something, causing people to have to hire lawyers and go to jail over something that has no direct effect on you. Don't you think you should be 100% certain that it needs to be criminalized before forming that opinion. It's not like you're talking about prayer in school. You're talking about removing the fundamental rights from other people for doing something that you're not sure about.

IMO, you should criminalize something only when you can conclude with the same burden of proof of convicting someone. That there is 100% no doubt that it is the right thing to do. Otherwise, if you are 100% sure that someone is guilty of a crime, but only 70% sure that the law is right in the first place, should you really be willing to lock them behind bars and screw up their lives?

[mardigrasbob 0]

You must not be talking about Wonder bread. Your argument has holes in it!
We as a society cannot survive for a week without gasoline. Trucks, planes trains, powerplants would all stop. You can't deliver lumber on a bicycle. The economy would collapse!

If by magic; all drugs (tobacco & booze include) were to vanish overnight; no-one would die.

Tobacco is the biggest killer (479,000 last year) and is slowly being excised from society. The whole idea is to curb and prevent drug use, not encourage it.

As far as the drug use at the universities; If a student can stay wasted and maintain the courseload, he could become President. Hey wait; we already did that, twice.


----

[billvon 3,131]

> You must not be talking about Wonder bread. Your argument has holes in it!

Doesn't Wonder Bread have holes in it?

>We as a society cannot survive for a week without gasoline. Trucks, planes
>trains, powerplants would all stop.

Trucks run on diesel, planes run on JP-4, trains run on diesel, powerplants run on coal and natural gas. Gasoline is primarily for private cars. If we, over the course of the next ten years, switched to natural gas, ethanol and diesel cars, we could survive quite well.

>You can't deliver lumber on a bicycle.

Diesel tractor-trailers do a pretty good job.

>If by magic; all drugs (tobacco & booze include) were to vanish overnight;
>no-one would die.

We once tried to make booze vanish overnight. Alcohol consumption went UP and organized crime came to the US. So you're incorrect there; a lot of people would die in the resulting turf wars between the rumrunners.

>Tobbacco is the biggest killer (479,000 last year) and is slowly being
>excised from society. The whole idea is to curb and prevent drug use, not
>encourage it.

I'm all for educating people and keeping kids from using it. Smoking is incredibly dumb. If you wanted to spend some public money to keep kids off alcohol and tobacco I'd be OK with that.

>As far as the drug use at the universities; If a stundent can stay wasted
>and maintain the couseload, he could become President. Hey wait; we
>already did that, twice.

Is that so bad? I drank a lot in college, and although I don't want to be president, I've contributed my small amount to digital and satellite phone technology here in the US.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

Trucks run on diesel, planes run on JP-4, trains run on diesel, powerplants run on coal and natural gas. Gasoline is primarily for private cars. If we, over the course of the next ten years, switched to natural gas, ethanol and diesel cars, we could survive quite well.

Diesel and gasoline are not apples and oranges. More like apple juice and apple cider.
The point is people should not smoke gasoline!


------------

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Tobacco is the biggest killer (479,000 last year) and is slowly being excised from society. The whole idea is to curb and prevent drug use, not encourage it.

Really? How are they doing that without locking up the people who use it? Don't we need to spend billions a year on a war against tobacco? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the gov't SUBSIDIZE tobacco farmers?

You've just kind of proved the point that the war on drugs is unnecessary and useless.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Don't be a self-righteous "ass." Notice, I didn't say "you are one."

I said I'm not an "expert." I'm not completely ill-informed, though. It doesn’t mean I might not have something constructive to add to a conversation. I'm not an "expert" on politics either. I'm still going to vote when the time comes with the best information I have obtained. I'm not arrogant enough, like some here, to claim to be "all knowing" about everything. Yes, I’m ok with that. However, feel free to keep doing whatever makes you feel good and keeps your ego boosted to that level.

Don't worry, I won't take offense, esp when I asked for such a response.

PhillyKey said it more tactfully - how can you profess ignorance on a subject while insisting on the proper course of action, and then justify it with the fact that voters aren't required to be competent?

Because CA has a lazy legislature, I'm asked to vote on a very wide range of initiatives. Unless I'm knowledgeable enough on the topic I tend to vote no. No change is better than one I don't understand. (Hmm...I guess this would suggest some should vote for the status quo wrt drugs. )

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Don't worry, I won't take offense, esp when I asked for such a response.

PhillyKey said it more tactfully - how can you profess ignorance on a subject while insisting on the proper course of action, and then justify it with the fact that voters aren't required to be competent?

Because CA has a lazy legislature, I'm asked to vote on a very wide range of initiatives. Unless I'm knowledgeable enough on the topic I tend to vote no. No change is better than one I don't understand. (Hmm...I guess this would suggest some should vote for the status quo wrt drugs. )

I don't care if you do take offense, really. I don't say anything here I won't say directly to your face. I never "professed ignorance on the subject." I professed that I wasn't an "expert", that I was just offering an opinion, and parts of it, I was “just asking.” I also didn’t “insist” anything. I also never said that “voters aren't required to be competent.” I said that they didn't have to be an expert. That would imply "somewhere in the middle.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Dudes-- Mellow

Smoke some weed, take chill pill!






---------

[happythoughts 0]

I don't think of myself as an expert. Someone once told me that I didn't need to know everything, but I need to be able to find someone who does. The internet has provided me with a lot of information.

A lot of the stuff that I quote is sourced from places that I respect. Sometimes even the govt promotes one side of an issue.

However, the Rand Institute did a good study on "gateway" drug issues. The National Institutes of Health hasn't put together a report on the impact of pot only, they tend to mix their figures with ones from alcohol. The NIH stuff on other drugs is excellent.

For any issue, there are experts that support one side, but they are necessary because they do bring up other stuff. I tend to toss out the "mommy answer" of "...because I said so".

If the answers provided are not working, I try to come up with better ones. I also understand that new answers may introduce new and different problems.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

If we stopped the war on drugs, we could direct that money to education and prevention and treatment of addicts. 60 BILLION a year is currently spent on the war on drugs. Stopping the war on drugs will cost taxpayers LESS.

Don't forget we'd be taxing the drugs that are sold. So not only would we not be spending 60 billion a year on the war, but we'd be earning tax money off the sale of the drugs just like we do with tobacco and alcohol.

As for really hard drugs, it might be best to have the government sell them directly through a supervised program. The program should be structured to either get the addicts off of hard drugs or work to prevent as much harm as possible these people will do to others through their use of drugs.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

Quote

If we stopped the war on drugs, we could direct that money to education and prevention and treatment of addicts. 60 BILLION a year is currently spent on the war on drugs. Stopping the war on drugs will cost taxpayers LESS.

Don't forget we'd be taxing the drugs that are sold. So not only would we not be spending 60 billion a year on the war, but we'd be earning tax money off the sale of the drugs just like we do with tobacco and alcohol.

As for really hard drugs, it might be best to have the government sell them directly through a supervised program. The program should be structured to either get the addicts off of hard drugs or work to prevent as much harm as possible these people will do to others through their use of drugs.

That is most idiotic drabble I have ever read.
Government distributing crack?! Real wise!
The idea is to elevate society not lower it to bassest element.
Freedom also means being able to raise your kids in a healthy environment. Government spends way too much on lazy asses now; let alone paying for their habits.
I think 'it might be best to have the government sell' skydives 'directly through a supervised program.'
See how niave and humorous your argument sounds.


---------