By legalizing meth crack heroin we are indeed condoning the use of them. Just the act of making them legal says it's ok try them.
Some people actually are deterred by the law. They may try it but then because it is illegal with jail time repercussions (felony) may not pursue trying again and using and getting hooked.
Nothing good will ever come with those drugs around... this I know first hand.
On the study about Poland I am seeing increasingly that Americans are not the same as Europeans.
We are different animals... our society is like a 2 year old compared to them with about as much common sense... no offense to US
But I think we got away from the OP's topic :?
It is NOT saying it’s ok. Are your morals set by law? Mine aren’t. I can think for myself, thanks.
Who is deterred by law? I don’t buy it. You make it sound as if people only do drugs on street corners, facing imminent threat of arrest….most people who experiment are offered drugs by people they trust in private settings. People don’t even think of the police in that scenario. Even if people ARE deterred, it is a VERY small percentage. If you’re now thinking ‘if prohibition can keep one child off drugs, it’s worth it’…your reasoning has serious flaws. It is NOT worth it to incarcerate millions of non-violent people to save a small fraction of that number from addiction, when the money saved from the legal/prison systems would pay for addiction counseling for ALL of them…Fact is there is NO policy that will prevent people from using drugs. Education may make people think twice, but if they want the experience and are willing to take the risk, nothing is going to stop them. Making it easier, more affordable, less taboo, to admit you are dangerously involved, and funding new research into addiction, prevention education, and improving facilities are the way to go. You can fund jails and halfway homes, or hospitals and clinics…. which do you choose?
Also, I don’t know if you mean to say you have a more legit opinion on the topic because of personal experience…but I assure you, like most people, I have a LOT of personal experience with hard drugs and addiction. I have drug addicted friends and family members. I lost my first love to an overdose (long after we split, but she was still a very special friend). My best friend from HS killed himself while trying to get off coke. These experiences are exactly what made me take such an interest in drug policy….I’ve spent two decades reading everything I can get my hands on regarding this topic…my conclusion: harm reduction is the only logical approach.
And no…we are not off topic IMO….the welfare testing is only feasible because drugs are illegal. They are not testing for alcohol, right? If not for the war on drugs, we wouldn’t be talking about this.
What most people are saying is if you have to be on welfare, how can you afford drugs?
I work in a grocery store and the stories the cashiers tell would blow your mind.
A Mexican family shopping on July 4th. Buy over a thousand dollars worth of groceries that consist of mostly seafood (king crab legs, lobster, you get the picture?). They pay with food stamps. Woman that have there hair and nails done on a regular basis paying with food stamps.
I am upset that the law did not cover government employees like he said when he first announced the idea.
Like omg that's such bullshit....
A white person would never do that :roll: Damn mexicans...
Unbelievable. Now you'll get all defensive and say people call each other racist too easily.
What the fuck did race/nationality have to do with this story, aerial? :evil:
What most people are saying is if you have to be on welfare, how can you afford drugs?
I work in a grocery store and the stories the cashiers tell would blow your mind.
A Mexican family shopping on July 4th. Buy over a thousand dollars worth of groceries that consist of mostly seafood (king crab legs, lobster, you get the picture?). They pay with food stamps. Woman that have there hair and nails done on a regular basis paying with food stamps.
I am upset that the law did not cover government employees like he said when he first announced the idea.
Like omg that's such bullshit....
A white person would never do that :roll: Damn mexicans...
Unbelievable. Now you'll get all defensive and say people call each other racist too easily.
What the fuck did race/nationality have to do with this story, aerial? :evil:
It had to do with welfare you could not get that. I said Mexicans because that is the story she told me, they could not even speak English (she told me). The cashiers working hard for her money sees this as unfair. They cannot afford such a meal and she works.
I think the cashier, as I get offended.
Can you agree that people that get food stamps (welfare) should spend more wisely?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
so if they're an alcholic they'll be ok! People abuse drugs and alcohol whether they're on welfare or not, white, black, asian, mexican....this is about money. If this policy gets put into effect, just curious to see if crime rates go up. This is a social issue, poverty breeds crime and drug/alcohol abuse so unless we start thinking outside the box, our politicians are always going to waste money on drug enforcement that doesn't work or put that money in their own pockets like our buddy from FLA. I don't have the answer but drug testing is expensive and I can't wait to see how much money this will cost as opposed to save.
By legalizing meth crack heroin we are indeed condoning the use of them. Just the act of making them legal says it's ok try them.
Some people actually are deterred by the law. They may try it but then because it is illegal with jail time repercussions (felony) may not pursue trying again and using and getting hooked.
Nothing good will ever come with those drugs around... this I know first hand.
On the study about Poland I am seeing increasingly that Americans are not the same as Europeans.
We are different animals... our society is like a 2 year old compared to them with about as much common sense... no offense to US
But I think we got away from the OP's topic :?
It is NOT saying it’s ok. Are your morals set by law? Mine aren’t. I can think for myself, thanks.
Who is deterred by law? I don’t buy it. You make it sound as if people only do drugs on street corners, facing imminent threat of arrest….most people who experiment are offered drugs by people they trust in private settings. People don’t even think of the police in that scenario. Even if people ARE deterred, it is a VERY small percentage. If you’re now thinking ‘if prohibition can keep one child off drugs, it’s worth it’…your reasoning has serious flaws. It is NOT worth it to incarcerate millions of non-violent people to save a small fraction of that number from addiction, when the money saved from the legal/prison systems would pay for addiction counseling for ALL of them…Fact is there is NO policy that will prevent people from using drugs. Education may make people think twice, but if they want the experience and are willing to take the risk, nothing is going to stop them. Making it easier, more affordable, less taboo, to admit you are dangerously involved, and funding new research into addiction, prevention education, and improving facilities are the way to go. You can fund jails and halfway homes, or hospitals and clinics…. which do you choose?
Also, I don’t know if you mean to say you have a more legit opinion on the topic because of personal experience…but I assure you, like most people, I have a LOT of personal experience with hard drugs and addiction. I have drug addicted friends and family members. I lost my first love to an overdose (long after we split, but she was still a very special friend). My best friend from HS killed himself while trying to get off coke. These experiences are exactly what made me take such an interest in drug policy….I’ve spent two decades reading everything I can get my hands on regarding this topic…my conclusion: harm reduction is the only logical approach.
And no…we are not off topic IMO….the welfare testing is only feasible because drugs are illegal. They are not testing for alcohol, right? If not for the war on drugs, we wouldn’t be talking about this.
What Poland study are you referring to?
another poster put up a study on Poland here in this thread I think directed to my comments.
Yes they should test for alcohol or at least not allow recipients to buy it with tax dollars as they do now.
Drugs have nothing to do with morals, addiction is self gratification and self destruction.
Even those with high morals get addicted.
And yes by the time addiction takes over they are on street corners...
a shadow of the person they were. Without hope, love, the only need is the drug
and if we can save a small percentage that's fine with me.
A life saved from that shit is a life saved.
Legalize pot keep hard drugs a felony. Deterring in my opinion is the best policy
starting with education of the young and the examples set by society and the adults in the child's life.
And yes I also have much experience with hard drugs, as you do, that has brought me, as you, to our opinions. Opinions that we will never agree upon.
What most people are saying is if you have to be on welfare, how can you afford drugs?
I work in a grocery store and the stories the cashiers tell would blow your mind.
A Mexican family shopping on July 4th. Buy over a thousand dollars worth of groceries that consist of mostly seafood (king crab legs, lobster, you get the picture?). They pay with food stamps. Woman that have there hair and nails done on a regular basis paying with food stamps.
I am upset that the law did not cover government employees like he said when he first announced the idea.
Like omg that's such bullshit....
A white person would never do that :roll: Damn mexicans...
Unbelievable. Now you'll get all defensive and say people call each other racist too easily.
What the fuck did race/nationality have to do with this story, aerial? :evil:
just because Aerial mentioned that the family was mexican you get all pissed off and shitty ? :evil: ...WTF is that all about ?
What most people are saying is if you have to be on welfare, how can you afford drugs?
I work in a grocery store and the stories the cashiers tell would blow your mind.
A Mexican family shopping on July 4th. Buy over a thousand dollars worth of groceries that consist of mostly seafood (king crab legs, lobster, you get the picture?). They pay with food stamps. Woman that have there hair and nails done on a regular basis paying with food stamps.
I am upset that the law did not cover government employees like he said when he first announced the idea.
Like omg that's such bullshit....
A white person would never do that :roll: Damn mexicans...
Unbelievable. Now you'll get all defensive and say people call each other racist too easily.
What the fuck did race/nationality have to do with this story, aerial? :evil:
just because Aerial mentioned that the family was mexican you get all pissed off and shitty ? :evil: ...WTF is that all about ?
Godfather.
Referencing nationality in a story when their nationality isn't relevant reinforces stereotypes. Whether it's done consciously or not, you see it all the time. If it's something negative, race is often mentioned, where when it's positive, race is often left out. You don't hear "this black guy in front of me in Starbucks bought my latte".
What most people are saying is if you have to be on welfare, how can you afford drugs?
I work in a grocery store and the stories the cashiers tell would blow your mind.
A Mexican family shopping on July 4th. Buy over a thousand dollars worth of groceries that consist of mostly seafood (king crab legs, lobster, you get the picture?). They pay with food stamps. Woman that have there hair and nails done on a regular basis paying with food stamps.
I am upset that the law did not cover government employees like he said when he first announced the idea.
Like omg that's such bullshit....
A white person would never do that :roll: Damn mexicans...
Unbelievable. Now you'll get all defensive and say people call each other racist too easily.
What the fuck did race/nationality have to do with this story, aerial? :evil:
It had to do with welfare you could not get that. I said Mexicans because that is the story she told me, they could not even speak English (she told me). The cashiers working hard for her money sees this as unfair. They cannot afford such a meal and she works.
I think the cashier, as I get offended.
Can you agree that people that get food stamps (welfare) should spend more wisely?
You can qualify for food stamps while still being employed. If the cashiers had children, they probably would, too. A houshold of 3 (that includes 1 or 2 kids) can qualify if the gross income is $3000/mo. in the house.
Typically, the government tests people whose jobs require keeping people safe and people who have gotten in legal trouble (drug charges, etc.). I would say advocates of testing welfare recipients feel like they have done something wrong, and in a way, this is there punishment. They're saying that they should lose certain rights because they're on welfare.
Using the "it's my taxes" argument, I'd like to propose that we drug test everyone who drives a car. It's a heavily subsidized form of transportation, people don't have to do it, and it make things safer.
What most people are saying is if you have to be on welfare, how can you afford drugs?
I work in a grocery store and the stories the cashiers tell would blow your mind.
A Mexican family shopping on July 4th. Buy over a thousand dollars worth of groceries that consist of mostly seafood (king crab legs, lobster, you get the picture?). They pay with food stamps. Woman that have there hair and nails done on a regular basis paying with food stamps.
I am upset that the law did not cover government employees like he said when he first announced the idea.
Why do you think it should cover government employees?
Drugs have nothing to do with morals, addiction is self gratification and self destruction.
Even those with high morals get addicted
Doesn't this somewhat contradict your stance that it's wrong to send the message that legalization means it's ok to use hard drugs? Does the 'moral message' of the law matter or not?
And yes, they get addicted despite the fact it's illegal. So what is your answer? Do we need to build more jails, throw more money at the problem, hire more police, more judges, just keep running full tilt into that brick wall? The more money we throw at law enforcement, the more the price of drugs go up, the more money in the hands of organized crime, the more desperate the addict, the more crime, the more harm to our families and communities. There is no grey here. It's been proven by decades of failure and countless studies, both public and private. The only reason more people haven't clued into this is because the drug war propaganda makes it too easy for prohibtion proponents to remind us of what we grew up being told - drugs are bad, m'kay? It's not helping, it's hurting. Drug use is not being affected by the money thrown at prohibition, AT ALL. It has gone up and down without correlation to funding.
And yes by the time addiction takes over they are on street corners... .
So we should throw them in jail with hardened criminals to show our love? How about a hospital or treatment center? You said people were deterred by the law when choosing whether or not to do drugs...I assumed you meant those STARTING to use drugs....as you conceed, they dont start doing drugs on the streets...they start in places where law enforcement is not a consideration, nine times out of ten....but now I see that you're talking about addicts....Do you honestly believe an addict doesn't do drugs because they might get in trouble? absurd. There is no deterrence, it doesn't work. Period.
and if we can save a small percentage that's fine with me
A life saved from that shit is a life saved.
You ignore the point I made. You are destroying many lives to save a few by supporting prohibition. The opposite would be true if we focused on harm reduction. Prohibition = eradication is a utopian pipe dream, ironically enough
Legalize pot keep hard drugs a felony. Deterring in my opinion is the best policy
starting with education of the young and the examples set by society and the adults in the child's life.
And yes I also have much experience with hard drugs, as you do, that has brought me, as you, to our opinions. Opinions that we will never agree upon.
That's all fine and good...but I challenge you to support your stance that deterrance is the best policy, with anything more than opinion. I can show you plenty of facts and figures supporting harm reduction, can you say the same for your inflexible opinion of prohibition?
Did the governor also send a memo to all Chief's of Police to let them know to expect crime to rise when this happens. I mean becuase drug addicts still need drugs (and food), and they probably aren't the best rational decision makers to begin with. So you take away that regular government cheque, they are going to have to find somewhere else to get that kind of money from. And since they probably aren't the most employable people out there, stealing is probably going to be the best option to get the money you need to pay for their habit. And I imagine that any savings the welfare department gets wouldn't even come to covering the increase in costs for police, courts and jails this would result in.
Did the governor also send a memo to all Chief's of Police to let them know to expect crime to rise when this happens. I mean becuase drug addicts still need drugs (and food), and they probably aren't the best rational decision makers to begin with. So you take away that regular government cheque, they are going to have to find somewhere else to get that kind of money from. And since they probably aren't the most employable people out there, stealing is probably going to be the best option to get the money you need to pay for their habit. And I imagine that any savings the welfare department gets wouldn't even come to covering the increase in costs for police, courts and jails this would result in.
Yeah, it's a no win situation... more crime, more kids get put into the foster care system, more cost on drug tests (that conveniently get to the gov), but the state "saves" some money on welfare & food stamps.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Drugs have nothing to do with morals, addiction is self gratification and self destruction.
Even those with high morals get addicted
Doesn't this somewhat contradict your stance that it's wrong to send the message that legalization means it's ok to use hard drugs? Does the 'moral message' of the law matter or not?
And yes, they get addicted despite the fact it's illegal. So what is your answer? Do we need to build more jails, throw more money at the problem, hire more police, more judges, just keep running full tilt into that brick wall? The more money we throw at law enforcement, the more the price of drugs go up, the more money in the hands of organized crime, the more desperate the addict, the more crime, the more harm to our families and communities. There is no grey here. It's been proven by decades of failure and countless studies, both public and private. The only reason more people haven't clued into this is because the drug war propaganda makes it too easy for prohibtion proponents to remind us of what we grew up being told - drugs are bad, m'kay? It's not helping, it's hurting. Drug use is not being affected by the money thrown at prohibition, AT ALL. It has gone up and down without correlation to funding.
And yes by the time addiction takes over they are on street corners... .
So we should throw them in jail with hardened criminals to show our love? How about a hospital or treatment center? You said people were deterred by the law when choosing whether or not to do drugs...I assumed you meant those STARTING to use drugs....as you conceed, they dont start doing drugs on the streets...they start in places where law enforcement is not a consideration, nine times out of ten....but now I see that you're talking about addicts....Do you honestly believe an addict doesn't do drugs because they might get in trouble? absurd. There is no deterrence, it doesn't work. Period.
and if we can save a small percentage that's fine with me
A life saved from that shit is a life saved.
You ignore the point I made. You are destroying many lives to save a few by supporting prohibition. The opposite would be true if we focused on harm reduction. Prohibition = eradication is a utopian pipe dream, ironically enough
Legalize pot keep hard drugs a felony. Deterring in my opinion is the best policy
starting with education of the young and the examples set by society and the adults in the child's life.
And yes I also have much experience with hard drugs, as you do, that has brought me, as you, to our opinions. Opinions that we will never agree upon.
That's all fine and good...but I challenge you to support your stance that deterrance is the best policy, with anything more than opinion. I can show you plenty of facts and figures supporting harm reduction, can you say the same for your inflexible opinion of prohibition?
Changing the laws of punishment makes much more sense then making hard drugs legal.
I don't think I said anything about the message of 'moral laws' I think you did.
A society has laws to protect its people from each other and themselves.
Changing the laws of punishment to include rehab
makes far more sense than making hard drugs legal
which does send the message that they are ok to try/use.
That is very clear.
I think we both know there will always be addicts.
But addicts should never think that is ok, that society accepts this.
Hard drugs that take lives should remain an offense against our society,
an offense against humanity and most especially an offense against the addict.
If you are lucky enough to have a child now or someday,
look into their eyes and see their spirit, watch it grow from infancy,
enjoy the innocence, know the promise, love them like no other love.
Then look into those same eyes and see the spirit gone, this is what drugs do...
they remove the spirit, the life giving force and replace it with a something unholy and unnatural.
As parents we can never allow that to be legal it is no different then shooting your child dead.
I believe making hard drugs (oops, edit) legal would be a bad idea. I would be willing to bet a lot of people that don't do drugs would be willing to try them if it was like buying a Pepsi. I don't do hard drugs, but i'd be willing to try if it was easy to get and legal (maybe ecxstacy or mushrooms, I bet those are good). I know a lot of people who would probably try them if they knew where/how to get them too.
I believe making hard drugs (oops, edit) legal would be a bad idea. I would be willing to bet a lot of people that don't do drugs would be willing to try them if it was like buying a Pepsi. I don't do hard drugs, but i'd be willing to try if it was easy to get and legal (maybe ecxstacy or mushrooms, I bet those are good). I know a lot of people who would probably try them if they knew where/how to get them too.
that is the problem though, they are illegal because of what people think...not the empirical evidence that shows differently...people take dangerous mass produced pharmaceuticals every day, no one suggests that those should be banned.
People abuse everything...and if you allow people the opportunity to be responsible, more times than not they are...at least the majority is...
We don't make alcohol illegal because some people abuse it...we don't make oxy illegal because some cannot handle it...I could go on for hours...we can regulate the use because of those things...but all out prohibition isn't the answer
and if the drugs were in a safer production environment wouldn't they probably be safer to use? if someone wants to take heroin who are you to say they can't? wanting the freedom for people to choose is not equal to promoting the activity...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I believe making hard drugs (oops, edit) legal would be a bad idea. I would be willing to bet a lot of people that don't do drugs would be willing to try them if it was like buying a Pepsi. I don't do hard drugs, but i'd be willing to try if it was easy to get and legal (maybe ecxstacy or mushrooms, I bet those are good). I know a lot of people who would probably try them if they knew where/how to get them too.
that is the problem though, they are illegal because of what people think...not the empirical evidence that shows differently...people take dangerous mass produced pharmaceuticals every day, no one suggests that those should be banned.
People abuse everything...and if you allow people the opportunity to be responsible, more times than not they are...at least the majority is...
We don't make alcohol illegal because some people abuse it...we don't make oxy illegal because some cannot handle it...I could go on for hours...we can regulate the use because of those things...but all out prohibition isn't the answer
and if the drugs were in a safer production environment wouldn't they probably be safer to use? if someone wants to take heroin who are you to say they can't? wanting the freedom for people to choose is not equal to promoting the activity...
Yeah, you make some good points Mike. I agree for the most part. I think there is good and bad to legalizing them. I just see how oxys are killing so many youths these days.. Kids that really cant make the smart choice not to do them.. then they get addicted. I just feel that there are many that don't do hard drugs out of fear of getting caught.
I guess i'm really on the fence on this. Personally, I think most drugs should be legal though.. especially marijuana.
I believe making hard drugs (oops, edit) legal would be a bad idea. I would be willing to bet a lot of people that don't do drugs would be willing to try them if it was like buying a Pepsi. I don't do hard drugs, but i'd be willing to try if it was easy to get and legal (maybe ecxstacy or mushrooms, I bet those are good). I know a lot of people who would probably try them if they knew where/how to get them too.
that is the problem though, they are illegal because of what people think...not the empirical evidence that shows differently...people take dangerous mass produced pharmaceuticals every day, no one suggests that those should be banned.
People abuse everything...and if you allow people the opportunity to be responsible, more times than not they are...at least the majority is...
We don't make alcohol illegal because some people abuse it...we don't make oxy illegal because some cannot handle it...I could go on for hours...we can regulate the use because of those things...but all out prohibition isn't the answer
and if the drugs were in a safer production environment wouldn't they probably be safer to use? if someone wants to take heroin who are you to say they can't? wanting the freedom for people to choose is not equal to promoting the activity...
But what exactly do you do with drugs like heroin? You make the comparison to pharm drugs, but they are still controlled and you need a prescription to get them (not saying that isn't abused). How do you make a drug like heroin legal (and taxable), but still somewhat controlled?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I believe making hard drugs (oops, edit) legal would be a bad idea. I would be willing to bet a lot of people that don't do drugs would be willing to try them if it was like buying a Pepsi. I don't do hard drugs, but i'd be willing to try if it was easy to get and legal (maybe ecxstacy or mushrooms, I bet those are good). I know a lot of people who would probably try them if they knew where/how to get them too.
that is the problem though, they are illegal because of what people think...not the empirical evidence that shows differently...people take dangerous mass produced pharmaceuticals every day, no one suggests that those should be banned.
People abuse everything...and if you allow people the opportunity to be responsible, more times than not they are...at least the majority is...
We don't make alcohol illegal because some people abuse it...we don't make oxy illegal because some cannot handle it...I could go on for hours...we can regulate the use because of those things...but all out prohibition isn't the answer
and if the drugs were in a safer production environment wouldn't they probably be safer to use? if someone wants to take heroin who are you to say they can't? wanting the freedom for people to choose is not equal to promoting the activity...
Legal drugs are abused therefore legalize highly addictive deadly drugs?
What kind of thinking is that?
Last time I checked two wrongs did not make a right.
There are laws that force people into rehab for alcohol abuse when it becomes a danger to themselves and others, same for legal drugs acquired illegally or abused in a illegal way.
I think or I am assuming you are a father to that lovely avatar.. if he or she wants to shoot up heroin, wants to die a horrible death that would be ok with you? Or would you fight with everything in you to keep that from happening?
Do not even think "not my child" because it very well could be.
You want to wash your hands of humanity... I want to save it.
Treat all of humanity as though they were your child.
And I propose we get rid of all the legal drugs ... I refuse to take them. You can to.
This pill thing is out of control.
A society has laws to protect its people from each other and themselves.
Well, here is a major source of our disconnect...I don't think society needs to make laws to protect us from ourselves, and I believe (based in science and FACTS) that drug laws make us more dangerous to each other...
Changing the laws of punishment to include rehab
makes far more sense than making hard drugs legal
which does send the message that they are ok to try/use.
That is very clear.
No, it's not...this is very much an opinion. And to me, a wrong one. A comprehensive harm reduction approach would, of course, include prevention education. which would teach people the risks of use....so that they would be choosing not to use because they're informed, not scared. People taught to fear soemtimes decide to be brave, right? With additional funding, it would probably be MUCH BETTER education than the DARE bs we use now, which isn't changing anything....We would be able to give at-risk people better coping tools, and addicts better treatment facilities. If you have experience with addiction, I'm surprised you would state that rehab should be a punishment. Even the most casual observer on the topic knows an addict has to have a desire to quit for rehab to have ANY effect at all. As mike pointed out, a harm reduction approach would find ways to limit the dangers of use, and give them easy access to help when they decided they need it. I'm obviously not talking about selling heroin at the 7/11 here.
I think we both know there will always be addicts.
But addicts should never think that is ok, that society accepts this.
Hard drugs that take lives should remain an offense against our society,
an offense against humanity and most especially an offense against the addict.
Where are you getting that harm reduction is accepting of addicts? I don't understand how you can say I'm the one talking morality, but then you keep on talking about the message we're sending with the laws. Changing our approach is not saying 'it's ok', it's saying 'we want to help'. I'm surprised someone with such a peace and love board demeanour would be so opposed to that.
If you are lucky enough to have a child now or someday,
look into their eyes and see their spirit, watch it grow from infancy,
enjoy the innocence, know the promise, love them like no other love.
Then look into those same eyes and see the spirit gone, this is what drugs do...
they remove the spirit, the life giving force and replace it with a something unholy and unnatural.
As parents we can never allow that to be legal it is no different then shooting your child dead.
Ya know pandora, I sometimes find the peace and love board demeanour I mentioned to be refreshing idealism, a view we all need to be reminded of...other times, like now, I find it smug and dripping with condescension. I do have kids, and my point of view is just as valid as yours; not at all akin to shooting my children in the head....and I would never say that to you about your opinion and children. So you can save your patronizing ideals of love and babbling about spirits and holiness and innocence for someone who can't see thru it - it does not affect the cold facts that the war on drugs is a failure, and your archaic approach contributes to the problem.
edit: wow, just saw the post above mine....you're on a roll, huh? can you tell us all how to parent, please, oh wise one? :evil:
A society has laws to protect its people from each other and themselves.
Well, here is a major source of our disconnect...I don't think society needs to make laws to protect us from ourselves, and I believe (based in science and FACTS) that drug laws make us more dangerous to each other...
Changing the laws of punishment to include rehab
makes far more sense than making hard drugs legal
which does send the message that they are ok to try/use.
That is very clear.
No, it's not...this is very much an opinion. And to me, a wrong one. A comprehensive harm reduction approach would, of course, include prevention education. which would teach people the risks of use....so that they would be choosing not to use because they're informed, not scared. People taught to fear soemtimes decide to be brave, right? With additional funding, it would probably be MUCH BETTER education than the DARE bs we use now, which isn't changing anything....We would be able to give at-risk people better coping tools, and addicts better treatment facilities. If you have experience with addiction, I'm surprised you would state that rehab should be a punishment. Even the most casual observer on the topic knows an addict has to have a desire to quit for rehab to have ANY effect at all. As mike pointed out, a harm reduction approach would find ways to limit the dangers of use, and give them easy access to help when they decided they need it. I'm obviously not talking about selling heroin at the 7/11 here.
I think we both know there will always be addicts.
But addicts should never think that is ok, that society accepts this.
Hard drugs that take lives should remain an offense against our society,
an offense against humanity and most especially an offense against the addict.
Where are you getting that harm reduction is accepting of addicts? I don't understand how you can say I'm the one talking morality, but then you keep on talking about the message we're sending with the laws. Changing our approach is not saying 'it's ok', it's saying 'we want to help'. I'm surprised someone with such a peace and love board demeanour would be so opposed to that.
If you are lucky enough to have a child now or someday,
look into their eyes and see their spirit, watch it grow from infancy,
enjoy the innocence, know the promise, love them like no other love.
Then look into those same eyes and see the spirit gone, this is what drugs do...
they remove the spirit, the life giving force and replace it with a something unholy and unnatural.
As parents we can never allow that to be legal it is no different then shooting your child dead.
Ya know pandora, I sometimes find the peace and love board demeanour I mentioned to be refreshing idealism, a view we all need to be reminded of...other times, like now, I find it smug and dripping with condescension. I do have kids, and my point of view is just as valid as yours; not at all akin to shooting my children in the head....and I would never say that to you about your opinion and children. So you can save your patronizing ideals of love and babbling about spirits and holiness and innocence for someone who can't see thru it - it does not affect the cold facts that the war on drugs is a failure, and your archaic approach contributes to the problem.
edit: wow, just saw the post above mine....you're on a roll, huh? can you tell us all how to parent, please, oh wise one? :evil:
I think you may be getting very personal and kind of nasty... do you see this?
edit: wow, just saw the post above mine....you're on a roll, huh? can you tell us all how to parent, please, oh wise one? :evil:
I think you may be getting very personal and kind of nasty... do you see this?
From my perspective, only the last paragraph, and the edit were personal....and they were calling you out on the same...you told me (edit: well, inferred that) with my opinion, I might as well be shooting my children in the head. Right?
So you're not nasty,but I am for taking offense to that? :roll:
edit: wow, just saw the post above mine....you're on a roll, huh? can you tell us all how to parent, please, oh wise one? :evil:
I think you may be getting very personal and kind of nasty... do you see this?
From my perspective, only the last paragraph, and the edit were personal....and they were calling you out on the same...you told me with my opinion, I might as well be shooting my children in the head. Right?
So you're not nasty,but I am for taking offense to that? :roll:
you and I will never agree so why do yo push this and make it so personal?
and again the rolling eyes... so disrespectful and telling ...
do you do that to people when you discuss things in person?
I do think many parents, if they live through their child's addiction, will agree...
lets not make them readily available and an accepted part of our society by legalizing them,
this my point and no direct offense to you was ever intended, but I see that was not your intention.
I believe making hard drugs (oops, edit) legal would be a bad idea. I would be willing to bet a lot of people that don't do drugs would be willing to try them if it was like buying a Pepsi. I don't do hard drugs, but i'd be willing to try if it was easy to get and legal (maybe ecxstacy or mushrooms, I bet those are good). I know a lot of people who would probably try them if they knew where/how to get them too.
that is the problem though, they are illegal because of what people think...not the empirical evidence that shows differently...people take dangerous mass produced pharmaceuticals every day, no one suggests that those should be banned.
People abuse everything...and if you allow people the opportunity to be responsible, more times than not they are...at least the majority is...
We don't make alcohol illegal because some people abuse it...we don't make oxy illegal because some cannot handle it...I could go on for hours...we can regulate the use because of those things...but all out prohibition isn't the answer
and if the drugs were in a safer production environment wouldn't they probably be safer to use? if someone wants to take heroin who are you to say they can't? wanting the freedom for people to choose is not equal to promoting the activity...
But what exactly do you do with drugs like heroin? You make the comparison to pharm drugs, but they are still controlled and you need a prescription to get them (not saying that isn't abused). How do you make a drug like heroin legal (and taxable), but still somewhat controlled?
That's the problem I have had when trying to get my head around legalizing drugs like heroin or meth. I mean with hard, addictive drugs like that unless you legalize them and set up a program where they are basically given away to addicts for free you are still going to have pretty much all the exact same problems. I mean say if heroin becomes legal to purchase tomorrow. Sure prices are going to drop a bit, but unless it becomes free most users are going to need money to pay for it. And since most junkies aren't typically people with secure high paying jobs, they will still need to find a way to pay for it, which means crime.
Plus even if drugs like heroin, crack and meth were to become legal, I don't think anyone but illegal groups would want to sell them. I mean purely from a product liability standpoint when restuarants are getting sued for making burgers that make people fat, do you think any company or store is going to want to touch selling those drugs that someone could easily overdose and die from? Not to mention from a safety standpoint, most pharmacies in my city have big signs saying they don't carry drugs like morphine or oxycotin in stock because they are afraid of being robbed by drug addicts. With that in mind I don't think any store in the world would want to carry heroin or cocaine.
that is the problem though, they are illegal because of what people think...not the empirical evidence that shows differently...people take dangerous mass produced pharmaceuticals every day, no one suggests that those should be banned.
People abuse everything...and if you allow people the opportunity to be responsible, more times than not they are...at least the majority is...
We don't make alcohol illegal because some people abuse it...we don't make oxy illegal because some cannot handle it...I could go on for hours...we can regulate the use because of those things...but all out prohibition isn't the answer
and if the drugs were in a safer production environment wouldn't they probably be safer to use? if someone wants to take heroin who are you to say they can't? wanting the freedom for people to choose is not equal to promoting the activity...
But what exactly do you do with drugs like heroin? You make the comparison to pharm drugs, but they are still controlled and you need a prescription to get them (not saying that isn't abused). How do you make a drug like heroin legal (and taxable), but still somewhat controlled?
That's the problem I have had when trying to get my head around legalizing drugs like heroin or meth. I mean with hard, addictive drugs like that unless you legalize them and set up a program where they are basically given away to addicts for free you are still going to have pretty much all the exact same problems. I mean say if heroin becomes legal to purchase tomorrow. Sure prices are going to drop a bit, but unless it becomes free most users are going to need money to pay for it. And since most junkies aren't typically people with secure high paying jobs, they will still need to find a way to pay for it, which means crime.
Plus even if drugs like heroin, crack and meth were to become legal, I don't think anyone but illegal groups would want to sell them. I mean purely from a product liability standpoint when restuarants are getting sued for making burgers that make people fat, do you think any company or store is going to want to touch selling those drugs that someone could easily overdose and die from? Not to mention from a safety standpoint, most pharmacies in my city have big signs saying they don't carry drugs like morphine or oxycotin in stock because they are afraid of being robbed by drug addicts. With that in mind I don't think any store in the world would want to carry heroin or cocaine.
so by changing policy we would be, at worst, in the same position we are in, readily accessible drugs for those that want to use them even though there is an inherent risk...but at best, again as shown in countries who actually did change the way they punish drug offenses, more people in rehab and less people overall doing drugs...seems win win to me. and I have to tell you...there may be unforeseen consquences from the legalization of drugs, but there are already seen consequences of how we have been doing things and they are devastating...
who would carry these drugs you ask? if no one in Minneapolis were to open an opium den if it were legal you could count me as the first...any time there is a market for a product there are going to be those who want to sell it. until someone harms you or others, it isn't your business what they do...
Restaurants may be getting sued, but who is getting money for that? which jury found those restaurants guilty? I don't know as I have never heard of one.
All of these fears were the same fears people had in Portugal, and none of that came true. Plus the cops now have the time and room to investigate real crimes. You can still make a crime more severe if you are high while doing it...just don't make getting high punishable....because I bet the majority will simply go about there lives everyday without touching a legal drug.
As far as regulation goes...that is very simple...you just keep it regulated like EVERY OTHER PRODUCT SOLD...cigarettes are addictive and ruin lives yet I see them being sold everywhere...alcohol is legal and addictive and ruins lives yet I see it everywhere...get the users out of jail, they shouldn't be there...please, to anyone who didn't read the previous link read it...it might change your preconceived notions of what it will mean to decriminalize personal possession...it is important as this particular course we are on now is only doing more damage to more people than having legal heroin could ever do.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
who would carry these drugs you ask? if no one in Minneapolis were to open an opium den if it were legal you could count me as the first...any time there is a market for a product there are going to be those who want to sell it. until someone harms you or others, it isn't your business what they do...
Restaurants may be getting sued, but who is getting money for that? which jury found those restaurants guilty? I don't know as I have never heard of one.
So you open up an opium den, what do you do the first time someone dies in your establishment from a product that you sold him and their family sues you? And as far as the resturant example goes, even if the people who sue them don't win it still costs the restaurant money to respond to a lawsuit. For that matter if you are selling a product that could kill people with one does, how would you even get insurance for your business. I can't see any way you would. So not only would get sued and possibly be on the hook if someone OD's in your place, you would also possibly be on the hook if someone slipped on the floor and broke their leg. Honestly I don't really have a problem if drugs were to be legalized, I just think a lot of the times when people talk about legalization, they don't seem to think of all the side issues that will come from selliong extremly dangerous and addictive products.
Comments
Who is deterred by law? I don’t buy it. You make it sound as if people only do drugs on street corners, facing imminent threat of arrest….most people who experiment are offered drugs by people they trust in private settings. People don’t even think of the police in that scenario. Even if people ARE deterred, it is a VERY small percentage. If you’re now thinking ‘if prohibition can keep one child off drugs, it’s worth it’…your reasoning has serious flaws. It is NOT worth it to incarcerate millions of non-violent people to save a small fraction of that number from addiction, when the money saved from the legal/prison systems would pay for addiction counseling for ALL of them…Fact is there is NO policy that will prevent people from using drugs. Education may make people think twice, but if they want the experience and are willing to take the risk, nothing is going to stop them. Making it easier, more affordable, less taboo, to admit you are dangerously involved, and funding new research into addiction, prevention education, and improving facilities are the way to go. You can fund jails and halfway homes, or hospitals and clinics…. which do you choose?
Also, I don’t know if you mean to say you have a more legit opinion on the topic because of personal experience…but I assure you, like most people, I have a LOT of personal experience with hard drugs and addiction. I have drug addicted friends and family members. I lost my first love to an overdose (long after we split, but she was still a very special friend). My best friend from HS killed himself while trying to get off coke. These experiences are exactly what made me take such an interest in drug policy….I’ve spent two decades reading everything I can get my hands on regarding this topic…my conclusion: harm reduction is the only logical approach.
And no…we are not off topic IMO….the welfare testing is only feasible because drugs are illegal. They are not testing for alcohol, right? If not for the war on drugs, we wouldn’t be talking about this.
What Poland study are you referring to?
A white person would never do that :roll: Damn mexicans...
Unbelievable. Now you'll get all defensive and say people call each other racist too easily.
What the fuck did race/nationality have to do with this story, aerial? :evil:
It had to do with welfare you could not get that. I said Mexicans because that is the story she told me, they could not even speak English (she told me). The cashiers working hard for her money sees this as unfair. They cannot afford such a meal and she works.
I think the cashier, as I get offended.
Can you agree that people that get food stamps (welfare) should spend more wisely?
another poster put up a study on Poland here in this thread I think directed to my comments.
Yes they should test for alcohol or at least not allow recipients to buy it with tax dollars as they do now.
Drugs have nothing to do with morals, addiction is self gratification and self destruction.
Even those with high morals get addicted.
And yes by the time addiction takes over they are on street corners...
a shadow of the person they were. Without hope, love, the only need is the drug
and if we can save a small percentage that's fine with me.
A life saved from that shit is a life saved.
Legalize pot keep hard drugs a felony. Deterring in my opinion is the best policy
starting with education of the young and the examples set by society and the adults in the child's life.
And yes I also have much experience with hard drugs, as you do, that has brought me, as you, to our opinions. Opinions that we will never agree upon.
just because Aerial mentioned that the family was mexican you get all pissed off and shitty ? :evil: ...WTF is that all about ?
Godfather.
Referencing nationality in a story when their nationality isn't relevant reinforces stereotypes. Whether it's done consciously or not, you see it all the time. If it's something negative, race is often mentioned, where when it's positive, race is often left out. You don't hear "this black guy in front of me in Starbucks bought my latte".
You can qualify for food stamps while still being employed. If the cashiers had children, they probably would, too. A houshold of 3 (that includes 1 or 2 kids) can qualify if the gross income is $3000/mo. in the house.
Why do you think it should cover government employees?
other than to say.....
you people are consistent, I'll give you that
and...
I don't get pissed off here. I just swear a lot
And yes, they get addicted despite the fact it's illegal. So what is your answer? Do we need to build more jails, throw more money at the problem, hire more police, more judges, just keep running full tilt into that brick wall? The more money we throw at law enforcement, the more the price of drugs go up, the more money in the hands of organized crime, the more desperate the addict, the more crime, the more harm to our families and communities. There is no grey here. It's been proven by decades of failure and countless studies, both public and private. The only reason more people haven't clued into this is because the drug war propaganda makes it too easy for prohibtion proponents to remind us of what we grew up being told - drugs are bad, m'kay? It's not helping, it's hurting. Drug use is not being affected by the money thrown at prohibition, AT ALL. It has gone up and down without correlation to funding. So we should throw them in jail with hardened criminals to show our love? How about a hospital or treatment center? You said people were deterred by the law when choosing whether or not to do drugs...I assumed you meant those STARTING to use drugs....as you conceed, they dont start doing drugs on the streets...they start in places where law enforcement is not a consideration, nine times out of ten....but now I see that you're talking about addicts....Do you honestly believe an addict doesn't do drugs because they might get in trouble?
Yeah, it's a no win situation... more crime, more kids get put into the foster care system, more cost on drug tests (that conveniently get to the gov), but the state "saves" some money on welfare & food stamps.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Changing the laws of punishment makes much more sense then making hard drugs legal.
I don't think I said anything about the message of 'moral laws' I think you did.
A society has laws to protect its people from each other and themselves.
Changing the laws of punishment to include rehab
makes far more sense than making hard drugs legal
which does send the message that they are ok to try/use.
That is very clear.
I think we both know there will always be addicts.
But addicts should never think that is ok, that society accepts this.
Hard drugs that take lives should remain an offense against our society,
an offense against humanity and most especially an offense against the addict.
If you are lucky enough to have a child now or someday,
look into their eyes and see their spirit, watch it grow from infancy,
enjoy the innocence, know the promise, love them like no other love.
Then look into those same eyes and see the spirit gone, this is what drugs do...
they remove the spirit, the life giving force and replace it with a something unholy and unnatural.
As parents we can never allow that to be legal it is no different then shooting your child dead.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/natio ... 12969.html
that is the problem though, they are illegal because of what people think...not the empirical evidence that shows differently...people take dangerous mass produced pharmaceuticals every day, no one suggests that those should be banned.
People abuse everything...and if you allow people the opportunity to be responsible, more times than not they are...at least the majority is...
We don't make alcohol illegal because some people abuse it...we don't make oxy illegal because some cannot handle it...I could go on for hours...we can regulate the use because of those things...but all out prohibition isn't the answer
and if the drugs were in a safer production environment wouldn't they probably be safer to use? if someone wants to take heroin who are you to say they can't? wanting the freedom for people to choose is not equal to promoting the activity...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yeah, you make some good points Mike. I agree for the most part. I think there is good and bad to legalizing them. I just see how oxys are killing so many youths these days.. Kids that really cant make the smart choice not to do them.. then they get addicted. I just feel that there are many that don't do hard drugs out of fear of getting caught.
I guess i'm really on the fence on this. Personally, I think most drugs should be legal though.. especially marijuana.
But what exactly do you do with drugs like heroin? You make the comparison to pharm drugs, but they are still controlled and you need a prescription to get them (not saying that isn't abused). How do you make a drug like heroin legal (and taxable), but still somewhat controlled?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
What kind of thinking is that?
Last time I checked two wrongs did not make a right.
There are laws that force people into rehab for alcohol abuse when it becomes a danger to themselves and others, same for legal drugs acquired illegally or abused in a illegal way.
I think or I am assuming you are a father to that lovely avatar.. if he or she wants to shoot up heroin, wants to die a horrible death that would be ok with you? Or would you fight with everything in you to keep that from happening?
Do not even think "not my child" because it very well could be.
You want to wash your hands of humanity... I want to save it.
Treat all of humanity as though they were your child.
And I propose we get rid of all the legal drugs ... I refuse to take them. You can to.
This pill thing is out of control.
Ya know pandora, I sometimes find the peace and love board demeanour I mentioned to be refreshing idealism, a view we all need to be reminded of...other times, like now, I find it smug and dripping with condescension. I do have kids, and my point of view is just as valid as yours; not at all akin to shooting my children in the head....and I would never say that to you about your opinion and children. So you can save your patronizing ideals of love and babbling about spirits and holiness and innocence for someone who can't see thru it - it does not affect the cold facts that the war on drugs is a failure, and your archaic approach contributes to the problem.
edit: wow, just saw the post above mine....you're on a roll, huh? can you tell us all how to parent, please, oh wise one? :evil:
So you're not nasty,but I am for taking offense to that? :roll:
and again the rolling eyes... so disrespectful and telling ...
do you do that to people when you discuss things in person?
I do think many parents, if they live through their child's addiction, will agree...
lets not make them readily available and an accepted part of our society by legalizing them,
this my point and no direct offense to you was ever intended, but I see that was not your intention.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
That's the problem I have had when trying to get my head around legalizing drugs like heroin or meth. I mean with hard, addictive drugs like that unless you legalize them and set up a program where they are basically given away to addicts for free you are still going to have pretty much all the exact same problems. I mean say if heroin becomes legal to purchase tomorrow. Sure prices are going to drop a bit, but unless it becomes free most users are going to need money to pay for it. And since most junkies aren't typically people with secure high paying jobs, they will still need to find a way to pay for it, which means crime.
Plus even if drugs like heroin, crack and meth were to become legal, I don't think anyone but illegal groups would want to sell them. I mean purely from a product liability standpoint when restuarants are getting sued for making burgers that make people fat, do you think any company or store is going to want to touch selling those drugs that someone could easily overdose and die from? Not to mention from a safety standpoint, most pharmacies in my city have big signs saying they don't carry drugs like morphine or oxycotin in stock because they are afraid of being robbed by drug addicts. With that in mind I don't think any store in the world would want to carry heroin or cocaine.
so by changing policy we would be, at worst, in the same position we are in, readily accessible drugs for those that want to use them even though there is an inherent risk...but at best, again as shown in countries who actually did change the way they punish drug offenses, more people in rehab and less people overall doing drugs...seems win win to me. and I have to tell you...there may be unforeseen consquences from the legalization of drugs, but there are already seen consequences of how we have been doing things and they are devastating...
who would carry these drugs you ask? if no one in Minneapolis were to open an opium den if it were legal you could count me as the first...any time there is a market for a product there are going to be those who want to sell it. until someone harms you or others, it isn't your business what they do...
Restaurants may be getting sued, but who is getting money for that? which jury found those restaurants guilty? I don't know as I have never heard of one.
All of these fears were the same fears people had in Portugal, and none of that came true. Plus the cops now have the time and room to investigate real crimes. You can still make a crime more severe if you are high while doing it...just don't make getting high punishable....because I bet the majority will simply go about there lives everyday without touching a legal drug.
As far as regulation goes...that is very simple...you just keep it regulated like EVERY OTHER PRODUCT SOLD...cigarettes are addictive and ruin lives yet I see them being sold everywhere...alcohol is legal and addictive and ruins lives yet I see it everywhere...get the users out of jail, they shouldn't be there...please, to anyone who didn't read the previous link read it...it might change your preconceived notions of what it will mean to decriminalize personal possession...it is important as this particular course we are on now is only doing more damage to more people than having legal heroin could ever do.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
So you open up an opium den, what do you do the first time someone dies in your establishment from a product that you sold him and their family sues you? And as far as the resturant example goes, even if the people who sue them don't win it still costs the restaurant money to respond to a lawsuit. For that matter if you are selling a product that could kill people with one does, how would you even get insurance for your business. I can't see any way you would. So not only would get sued and possibly be on the hook if someone OD's in your place, you would also possibly be on the hook if someone slipped on the floor and broke their leg. Honestly I don't really have a problem if drugs were to be legalized, I just think a lot of the times when people talk about legalization, they don't seem to think of all the side issues that will come from selliong extremly dangerous and addictive products.