Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison. Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...
Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know
Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison. Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...
Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know
Well good for you guys on both counts
To address one other point I missed in response to dudeman's questions about the state's role in helping addicts.... It is cheaper to provide housing to homeless people than it is to leave them on the streets, according to several recent studies and social experiments.....addicts and homeless people had less emergency room visits (lower healthcare expenses), less arrests (lower police expenses), less court appearances (lower legal expenses), and lower addiction rates (less crime, recovery costs). The knee-jerk for so many is to say 'they did it to themselves; I'm not paying to support their bad habits'....but initiatives like Housing First have shown that you can still value money over people and have the end result be a net benefit to our society.
Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison. Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...
Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know
Well good for you guys on both counts
To address one other point I missed in response to dudeman's questions about the state's role in helping addicts.... It is cheaper to provide housing to homeless people than it is to leave them on the streets, according to several recent studies and social experiments.....addicts and homeless people had less emergency room visits (lower healthcare expenses), less arrests (lower police expenses), less court appearances (lower legal expenses), and lower addiction rates (less crime, recovery costs). The knee-jerk for so many is to say 'they did it to themselves; I'm not paying to support their bad habits'....but initiatives like Housing First have shown that you can still value money over people and have the end result be a net benefit to our society.
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison. Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...
Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know
That was awesome that the vote won. I was very happy about that ... But I was so disturbed that it was taken to a vote in the first place. Human rights are not something that should ever be put to a popular vote. Even if 99.9% of the population are against it, it's still a human right and it shouldn't matter how many people don't like it. What if Ireland had voted no?? That would have opened a whole can of worms. If Ireland has any laws about equality and human rights, I don't see how a no vote would have even been legally upheld.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them. I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison. Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...
Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know
That was awesome that the vote won. I was very happy about that ... But I was so disturbed that it was taken to a vote in the first place. Human rights are not something that should ever be put to a popular vote. Even if 99.9% of the population are against it, it's still a human right and it shouldn't matter how many people don't like it. What if Ireland had voted no?? That would have opened a whole can of worms. If Ireland has any laws about equality and human rights, I don't see how a no vote would have even been legally upheld.
Does Canada have equal rights for same sex marriages? It's the law in Ireland that any constitutional change must be passed by the people, it's the very essence of democracy and I'm very proud of how we do things here
so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them. I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Godfather.
It can't be any more stupid then the current system! If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?
Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison. Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...
Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know
That was awesome that the vote won. I was very happy about that ... But I was so disturbed that it was taken to a vote in the first place. Human rights are not something that should ever be put to a popular vote. Even if 99.9% of the population are against it, it's still a human right and it shouldn't matter how many people don't like it. What if Ireland had voted no?? That would have opened a whole can of worms. If Ireland has any laws about equality and human rights, I don't see how a no vote would have even been legally upheld.
Does Canada have equal rights for same sex marriages? It's the law in Ireland that any constitutional change must be passed by the people, it's the very essence of democracy and I'm very proud of how we do things here
Yes, Canada has had it for 10 years now (4th country in the world to legalize, 1st outside of Europe), and it was actually put through via the Civil Marriage Act with almost no controversy at all - basically seamless (most provinces had already legalized it in years preceding that Act). Stephen Harper tried to question it when he got power a year after it was legalized, but he was immediately shot down (even he is probably grateful for that in retrospect). It was a logical decision based on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (not to mention general human decency). It really isn't a debated issue in Canada at all. Everyone just accepted it as the obvious conclusion in a country where people are supposed to have equality.
As for Ireland's law that ALL constitutional changes must be passed by the people..... That's nice that you're all proud of that, but what if people's human rights and their rights to equality are violated by the people's choice??? What then? You all just happily go along while a group of people are being treated unfairly, because the majority of people are bigots?? That doesn't fit with a modern day society at all.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them. I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Godfather.
It can't be any more stupid then the current system! If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?
Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.
Legalising drugs is one thing, the question of what level of level of aid to provide addicts is somewhat more complicated. As Godfather reasonably pointed out, we could be doing them more harm than good by enabling them and giving no incentive at all to get clean. Then again, is it right for us to just say they've made their bed now they have to lie in it? Maybe it is, in the case of adults who are capable of making their own decisions, is it the role of society or government to take such an active role in the lives of its citizens? Even if we look at it dispassionately, is the cost of rehabilitating these citizens too high or would it actually be of net benefit to the society to have them re-integrated as contributing members?
Principles of Housing First are: 1) Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions of treatment acceptance or compliance; 2) The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion; 3) Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services; 4) Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the community; 5) Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident commitment to recovery; 6) Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law; 7) Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site model.[6] (per wiki)
Principles of Housing First are: 1) Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions of treatment acceptance or compliance; 2) The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion; 3) Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services; 4) Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the community; 5) Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident commitment to recovery; 6) Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law; 7) Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site model.[6] (per wiki)
All sounds reasonable to me....
How are people actually motivated to get clean under this system though? I presume homeless people who aren't addicts would be housed before those who are?
so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them. I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Godfather.
It can't be any more stupid then the current system! If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?
the current system is flawed for sure, but I don't think in the end game legalizing drugs will be any cheaper..it may clear out the court house but many of the crimes related to to drug use will still be here, murder, burgleries, rapes, international trafficing, even if it was legal in the US it may not be in other countries so shipping it out of here would be big money, kind of like the bootlegers of the 30's who shipped whisky from canada to the US and killed to protect thier rackets, my thought is to find a way to (I don't know how) to educate people or it's really up to us as parents to teach our kids the dangers and cost of drug addiction, if we tell them it's not bad then that's what they'll know and that's what they'll do, it wont happen over night but we need to start now.
Well....I'll go out on a limb and say that hardcore addicts are generally not happy with their lot in life. The motivation to get better is personal, but I would think things like reconnecting with their families, being self-sufficient, not feeling sick and going thru withdrawals, having the respect of their peers, etc are motivation....the thing is - unless you're ready to quit, NOTHING is enough motivation to change your mind. If you're choosing drugs over your kids in the first place, you're pretty far gone....telling a homeless person 'no housing for you because you're an addict' isn't going to motivate them to change their ways - they're already homeless! Allowing them self respect and minimizing the harm of their addiction until they're ready to quit does have a net benefit to society from a monetary stance, but also from the position of social well-being; if it is proven to help people recover, I think benefits are obvious...What is the alternative? As you said; telling them to lie in their beds....in which case, they will likely become a huge burden on society. If society makes them feel worthless, they're not going to care much about their affects on it...
so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them. I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Godfather.
It can't be any more stupid then the current system! If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?
Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.
many of the the folks in prison for drug related crimes are in for murder and trafficing etc. and things that are caused by drug addiction
so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them. I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Godfather.
It can't be any more stupid then the current system! If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?
Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.
many of the the folks in prison for drug related crimes are in for murder and trafficing etc. and things that are caused by drug addiction
Godfather.
Caused by it being illegal.
Think the whole argument for regulating what one wants to ingest is nuts. Caffeine, sugar, nicotine, booze.
As to adding to social costs yeah that's a problem but education and help are the way to address, not locking them up, taking ability to find a decent job away then saying "good luck buddy but we're watching you and throw your ass back in jail if you use again".
so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them. I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Godfather.
It can't be any more stupid then the current system! If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?
Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.
many of the the folks in prison for drug related crimes are in for murder and trafficing etc. and things that are caused by drug addiction
Godfather.
The folks who are in prison for murder are in there for murder. A murder that happens to be connected to some kind of drug activity is still just a murder, and they are violent offenders. No one wants them out of prison I don't think.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them. I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Godfather.
It can't be any more stupid then the current system! If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?
Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.
many of the the folks in prison for drug related crimes are in for murder and trafficing etc. and things that are caused by drug addiction
Godfather.
The folks who are in prison for murder are in there for murder. A murder that happens to be connected to some kind of drug activity is still just a murder, and they are violent offenders. No one wants them out of prison I don't think.
No, I would certainly only be suggesting that people maybe shouldn't be jailed for possessing or selling drugs, as these acts in themselves cannot be said to directly harm others
Principles of Housing First are: 1) Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions of treatment acceptance or compliance; 2) The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion; 3) Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services; 4) Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the community; 5) Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident commitment to recovery; 6) Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law; 7) Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site model.[6] (per wiki)
All sounds reasonable to me....
They did something like this in the 60's and 70's. They called them "Projects".
I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.
I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.
Make it all legal. All of it.
I know crack addiction has gone down because of a newer generation watched what happened.
Now I wonder what happens though when you keep making new drugs? Molly is the next beast. What's coming after that?
Thirdly if it's not illegal or "hush hush" will it be so chic? See what happened to alcohol during prohibition? People that never drank before wanted to have a drink…
I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.
Make it all legal. All of it.
I know crack addiction has gone down because of a newer generation watched what happened.
Now I wonder what happens though when you keep making new drugs? Molly is the next beast. What's coming after that?
Thirdly if it's not illegal or "hush hush" will it be so chic? See what happened to alcohol during prohibition? People that never drank before wanted to have a drink…
I think the prohibition argument is very simplistic. Not that it isn't valid. But keeping heroin illegal doesn't make me want to go shoot up. Alcohol was legal and the bible thumpers insisted on legislation. I believe that is what led the major push against prohibition. It was one of the first real examples of the people being told by the government what they couldn't ingest.
I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.
I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.
Pot sure..coke no way.
Why? Before you answer, consider this: - coke is slightly more physically harmful and slightly easier to become dependent upon than alcohol, but considered less socially harmful and half as intoxicating drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties#sthash.8rSvWokc.kaWXQHvg.dpbs (whether you accept that risk or not......see below) - decriminalization reduced use in Portugal by 50%. -Re-distribution of drug war funding would further decrease harm and use thru treatment programs and improved care - most people who want it now can get it, despite prohibition - prohibition of any drug puts an unnecessary burden on our police, justice, and legal systems and results in (often life) prison sentences for people who have harmed no one but themselves
I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.
Pot sure..coke no way.
Coke, while addicting, is not really considered a hard drug anymore. Really, I think most all drugs except heroin should be decriminalized.
Drug abuse and addiction is a medical issue not a criminal one. Get police and Doo gooders out of it. All drugs.
drug addicts rob, kill, steel and lie for thier fix and that's what gets a whole lot of them in prison. I can't think of any case where a person went to prison for the sole crime of a drug addiction, only the crimes they commit for thier addiction.
Comments
To address one other point I missed in response to dudeman's questions about the state's role in helping addicts....
It is cheaper to provide housing to homeless people than it is to leave them on the streets, according to several recent studies and social experiments.....addicts and homeless people had less emergency room visits (lower healthcare expenses), less arrests (lower police expenses), less court appearances (lower legal expenses), and lower addiction rates (less crime, recovery costs). The knee-jerk for so many is to say 'they did it to themselves; I'm not paying to support their bad habits'....but initiatives like Housing First have shown that you can still value money over people and have the end result be a net benefit to our society.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.
Godfather.
If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?
As for Ireland's law that ALL constitutional changes must be passed by the people..... That's nice that you're all proud of that, but what if people's human rights and their rights to equality are violated by the people's choice??? What then? You all just happily go along while a group of people are being treated unfairly, because the majority of people are bigots?? That doesn't fit with a modern day society at all.
(per wiki)
All sounds reasonable to me....
Godfather.
Godfather.
Think the whole argument for regulating what one wants to ingest is nuts. Caffeine, sugar, nicotine, booze.
As to adding to social costs yeah that's a problem but education and help are the way to address, not locking them up, taking ability to find a decent job away then saying "good luck buddy but we're watching you and throw your ass back in jail if you use again".
... and makes other drugs illegal has laws that are hypocritical.
I know crack addiction has gone down because of a newer generation watched what happened.
Now I wonder what happens though when you keep making new drugs? Molly is the next beast. What's coming after that?
Thirdly if it's not illegal or "hush hush" will it be so chic? See what happened to alcohol during prohibition? People that never drank before wanted to have a drink…
Before you answer, consider this:
- coke is slightly more physically harmful and slightly easier to become dependent upon than alcohol, but considered less socially harmful and half as intoxicating drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties#sthash.8rSvWokc.kaWXQHvg.dpbs
(whether you accept that risk or not......see below)
- decriminalization reduced use in Portugal by 50%.
-Re-distribution of drug war funding would further decrease harm and use thru treatment programs and improved care
- most people who want it now can get it, despite prohibition
- prohibition of any drug puts an unnecessary burden on our police, justice, and legal systems and results in (often life) prison sentences for people who have harmed no one but themselves
I can't think of any case where a person went to prison for the sole crime of a drug addiction, only the crimes they commit for thier addiction.
Godfather.
Godfather.