Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

Drowned Out · June 2011

Go Beavers nailed the response, I won't bother elaborating...
other than to say.....

Godfather. wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

Now you'll get all defensive and say people call each other racist too easily.

just because Aerial mentioned that the family was mexican you get all pissed off and shitty ? :evil: ...WTF is that all about ?

Godfather.

you people are consistent, I'll give you that

and...
I don't get pissed off here. I just swear a lot

Drowned Out · June 2011

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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

pandora wrote:

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?

Kel Varnsen · June 2011

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.

blackredyellow · June 2011

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

pandora · June 2011

Drowned Out wrote:

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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

pandora wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio · June 2011

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.

JonnyPistachio · June 2011

Interesting article:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/natio ... 12969.html

mikepegg44 · June 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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...

JonnyPistachio · June 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

blackredyellow · June 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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?

pandora · June 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

Drowned Out · June 2011

pandora wrote:

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.

Is this comment (and others below, in this very post) not referencing the morality-based nature of your OPINION:

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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...

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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:

pandora · June 2011

Drowned Out wrote:

pandora wrote:

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.

Is this comment (and others below, in this very post) not referencing the morality-based nature of your OPINION:

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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...

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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?

Drowned Out · June 2011

pandora wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

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:

pandora · June 2011

Drowned Out wrote:

pandora wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

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.

qontheboard · June 2011

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

pandora · June 2011

qontheboard wrote:

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

don't hurt yourself !

Kel Varnsen · June 2011

blackredyellow wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

mikepegg44 · June 2011

Kel Varnsen wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

Kel Varnsen · June 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

Comments

Categories