Do you believe the war on drugs is a failure?

[Wry Catcher]

In principle the Federal Drug Schedule makes sense. In practice it creates an enormous set of problems for states and local communities. The simple act of allowing states to regulate the production and sale of MJ by removing it from Schedule I and placing it in Schedule II would provide tax revenue to the state, reduce the costs to the police, courts, probation and jails for enforcement of MJ laws, eliminate the friction between the US Attorney and local criminal justice professionals and allow addicts to be treated with MJ (as well as the chronically ill) under medical supervision.

Simply allowing the states the ability to decide the MJ issue would eliminate a huge black market, likely reduce the violence in Mexico and in urban environments, reduce the cost of drug enforcement and create a revenue stream able to provide education and treatment.

 

[George Costanza]

Yeah, let's compare somebody smoking a doobie, to murder. Great correlation...

That isn't what I've said at all. I've only said that "people are going to do it even if it's illegal" is not a good reason to change the law about ANYTHING.

By itself, no, it's a good reason. But the nanny state isn't about protecting us from murderers, or other criminals who actually harm people. It's about the state protect us from "ourselves" and that's a foolish mission. It's foolish because it's simply not the state's business to decide what's good for us, and because - as has been pointed out "people are going to do it even if it's illegal". The point is not, as you're suggesting, that we should give up enforcing laws because some people don't follow them. The point is that you can't use laws to do this kind of social engineering. It doesn't work and violates basic concepts of freedom. If recreational drug users aren't harming other people, the state should leave them the hell alone.

I agree with almost all of this post, but have a thought on your last sentence. If all drug users were "recreational" users, I would agree with your premise. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. I assume when you use the term, "recreational," you mean non-addicted drug users for whom drug usage is not an impediment to an otherwise normal life.

The sad fact is that, as with alcohol, a significant number of "recreational" users cross over the line, and become addicted to whatever the substance is. Once that happens, they become a drag on society. They no longer pull their own oar. They may commit crimes to foster their habit or while under the influence of their habit.

What to do with this latter type of drug user - the former "recreatonal" user who crossed over the line? Should the state leave them the hell alone? Yes and no. They should not be put in jail so, in that sense, the state should leave them the hell alone. But the state should not abandon them, for practical reasons as well as the obvious humanitarian reasons.

If I had a dollar for every drugge that has said to me from behind bars, "I need a program," I would be very wealthy. When they say that to me in that context, of course, it is nothing more than foxhole religion. "I need a program" is druggie-behind-bars code for: "I just don't want to go to jail." However, the fact is they DO need a program, whether they want it or not.

So-called "diversion" legislation enacted in recent decades, is a start - but it begs the question with regard to why have jail as any kind of alterative at all when it comes to drug abuse? Jail should not even be in the picture.

Legalize drugs at both the state and federal level. If someone gets in trouble, let them get help the same way alcoholics in trouble get help - voluntary entrance into an appropriate program (AA, NA, CA).

 

[Katzndogz]

Ultimately the cause of drug use is a phenomenal number of people who can't get through the day without getting high. That's the number that has to be reduced. Obviously we can't simply talk people out of wanting to get high. We can't demand it. They have to be eliminated and there is no better way than to increase the amount of drugs available to addicts until they end up dead. Normally addicts if left to their own devices off themselves young. The only thing left for authorities to do is devise a way of protecting the non-drug using public from the criminal drug users.

 

[BluePhantom]

Sure, let's decriminalize murder to, I can tell you right now that murderers are going to murder whether it's illegal or not.

Yeah, let's compare somebody smoking a doobie, to murder. Great correlation...

That isn't what I've said at all. I've only said that "people are going to do it even if it's illegal" is not a good reason to change the law about ANYTHING.

Until you understand what the effect of laws actually are. Laws don't prevent anyone from doing a damn thing. They simply punish those who do. Whether it's murder, drug use, driving drunk, rape, theft, whatever....laws are punitive and not preventative. I think we can all agree that murder is an act that deserves punishment. Smoking a joint? Why does that deserve punishment? Thus far the only reason why is because the government (under pressure from a lot of industries that will lose money on legalization) says so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Some controls are necessary, and without any regulations addictive substances will invade the bodies of younger and younger children creating a Brave New World with SOMA dispensed by anyone seeking to make a profit.

Are there any ideas out there or is the idea that no solution exists so let's default to ideology? It's much easier and doesn't require any thought.

It's not ideology. You're starting with the assumption that its a problem government should do something about. That's the premise I'm rejecting. Not all our problems can or should be solved by government and drug abuse is a perfect example.

Agreed, not all problems can be solved by the government. There are many not for profit agencies - the Salvation Army, for example - which do good work in the rehabilitation of former addicts. However, there are many more for profits and the cost is impossible for even a committed addict to avail him/her self to such treatment. Also, some drug addictions - alcohol, barbiturates for example - require medical supervision during detox - do you believe such addicts will be treated for free by the private sector?

Of course the callous conservative will default to it's all about personal responsibility so let them suffer and die. It's very easy to offer up simple solutions to complex issues, as is apparent by the 'solutions' suggested by those who default to ideology. In fact that is exactly what you have done.

 

[George Costanza]

Ultimately the cause of drug use is a phenomenal number of people who can't get through the day without getting high. That's the number that has to be reduced. Obviously we can't simply talk people out of wanting to get high. We can't demand it.

Well stated. You are absolutely correct. It has often been said that you cannot legislate morals. Nor can you legislate emotional health issues.

They have to be eliminated and there is no better way than to increase the amount of drugs available to addicts until they end up dead. Normally addicts if left to their own devices off themselves young.

I assume you would take the same position with alcholics, right? Just give them more and more of whatever substance they are abusing so they die from it as soon as possible.

I can't believe you really believe that.

The only thing left for authorities to do is devise a way of protecting the non-drug using public from the criminal drug users.

But if drugs were legalized, then users would not be criminals - at least, not in the self-perpetuating sense of making them criminals because they use drugs. Another thing to consider is, that if drugs were legalized, presumably their cost would go way down and they would be more affordable for the drug users so they would not have to commit crimes to get the money to buy the drugs. I realize that they would still need money to get drugs, and crime would probably still go on for that purpose but, at least with drugs legalized and prices lower, the crime involved would be proportionately less.

It really is a terrible problem. People caught in the hell of drug additction all too often are totally unable to climb out of it. It seems to me that with drugs de-criminalized (so jail would not be an option), probably forced participation in residential drug programs would be the most effective solution. But what is the sanction if they bug out from the program? I don't know. I just know that jail is not the answer.

 

[Katzndogz]

My best friend was a criminal defense attorney. Her drug of choice was cocaine. To her, cocaine made her a better attorney. She was sharper, more dedicated, and performed better high than not. She was a fully functioning, recreational drug user.

Her clients did not agree. The Judges did not agree. As she spiralled down she destroyed the lives of many many people. Eventually she was disbarred. Like all drug users she blamed an unreasonable bias against drugs, but not her own actions. After all, wasn't she a much better attorney because of cocaine? And why ever would she go into treatment? She performed much better under the influence. She wouldn't just give up the very thing that enhanced her peformance.

She's dead now. My friend died several years ago. She died penniless, living with an alcoholic couple who took her in. She died in complete disgrace after losing everything she had.

 

[dblack]

I agree with almost all of this post, but have a thought on your last sentence. If all drug users were "recreational" users, I would agree with your premise. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. I assume when you use the term, "recreational," you mean non-addicted drug users for whom drug usage is not an impediment to an otherwise normal life.

By "recreational" drug users I mean those not taking drugs for medicinal purposes. I'm not at all discounting the serious problems related to drug abuse. My ex-wife is an alcoholic and it's been very painful part of life for my sons and me.

The sad fact is that, as with alcohol, a significant number of "recreational" users cross over the line, and become addicted to whatever the substance is. Once that happens, they become a drag on society. They no longer pull their own oar. They may commit crimes to foster their habit or while under the influence of their habit.

What to do with this latter type of drug user - the former "recreatonal" user who crossed over the line? Should the state leave them the hell alone? Yes and no. They should not be put in jail so, in that sense, the state should leave them the hell alone. But the state should not abandon them, for practical reasons as well as the obvious humanitarian reasons...

Yeah, this is where we disagree. I don't think society should abandon them, and as a member of the community, I feel an obligation to help - but I don't think it's a problem appropriate for the coercive power of government. The state has no compelling interest in our personal habits. When we do things that are actually crimes (i.e. things that harm other people) then the state should step in. Until then, our personal habits are personal.

And even at that, the state's involvement should be primarily punitive. The assumption that government should be responsible for "curing" drug abusers, even if only after they've exhibited criminal behavior, is most often used as justification for prohibition. "If I have to pay for these losers who get addicted, then we should just make it illegal in the first place!"

 

[Katzndogz]

Ultimately the cause of drug use is a phenomenal number of people who can't get through the day without getting high. That's the number that has to be reduced. Obviously we can't simply talk people out of wanting to get high. We can't demand it.

Well stated. You are absolutely correct. It has often been said that you cannot legislate morals. Nor can you legislate emotional health issues.

They have to be eliminated and there is no better way than to increase the amount of drugs available to addicts until they end up dead. Normally addicts if left to their own devices off themselves young.

I assume you would take the same position with alcholics, right? Just give them more and more of whatever substance they are abusing so they die from it as soon as possible.

I can't believe you really believe that.

The only thing left for authorities to do is devise a way of protecting the non-drug using public from the criminal drug users.

But if drugs were legalized, then users would not be criminals - at least, not in the self-perpetuating sense of making them criminals because they use drugs. Another thing to consider is, that if drugs were legalized, presumably their cost would go way down and they would be more affordable for the drug users so they would not have to commit crimes to get the money to buy the drugs. I realize that they would still need money to get drugs, and crime would probably still go on for that purpose but, at least with drugs legalized and prices lower, the crime involved would be proportionately less.

Well, yes, we already permit acoholics to drink themselves to death. Didn't Whitney Houston just die? The day she died she was in the restaurant at the Beverly Hilton knocking back straight whiskies as fast as the waiter could bring them.

I'm sure you know that druggies commit crimes for reasons other than to get money to buy drugs. They want everything everyone else has. They just can't work to get the money to buy those things so they turn to crime. Free or very low cost drugs might lessen the crimes necessary for survival but not eliminate them.

After many years of dealing wth drug addicts both personally and professionally, the easiest way to deal with them is to permit them the freedom to die of their addictions. Early, and that's what will limit the drug problem. The public needs to be protected from druggies, including marijuana users, but that's about all.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ultimately the cause of drug use is a phenomenal number of people who can't get through the day without getting high. That's the number that has to be reduced. Obviously we can't simply talk people out of wanting to get high. We can't demand it.

Well stated. You are absolutely correct. It has often been said that you cannot legislate morals. Nor can you legislate emotional health issues.

They have to be eliminated and there is no better way than to increase the amount of drugs available to addicts until they end up dead. Normally addicts if left to their own devices off themselves young.

I assume you would take the same position with alcholics, right? Just give them more and more of whatever substance they are abusing so they die from it as soon as possible.

I can't believe you really believe that.

The only thing left for authorities to do is devise a way of protecting the non-drug using public from the criminal drug users.

But if drugs were legalized, then users would not be criminals - at least, not in the self-perpetuating sense of making them criminals because they use drugs. Another thing to consider is, that if drugs were legalized, presumably their cost would go way down and they would be more affordable for the drug users so they would not have to commit crimes to get the money to buy the drugs. I realize that they would still need money to get drugs, and crime would probably still go on for that purpose but, at least with drugs legalized and prices lower, the crime involved would be proportionately less.

It really is a terrible problem. People caught in the hell of drug additction all too often are totally unable to climb out of it. It seems to me that with drugs de-criminalized (so jail would not be an option), probably forced participation in residential drug programs would be the most effective solution. But what is the sanction if they bug out from the program? I don't know. I just know that jail is not the answer.

Treatment programs do not work. Look at the entertainment community with their very public entrances into treatment and rehab. Residential programs that have the best care. As soon as they can, they go right back to using. When they eventually pass on, they are idolized. They become greater role models not less.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Jail is an option for those who profit from the drug trade, and I do not include the user who sells for product as one who profits.

I believe the decriminalizaton for drug use/abuse/addiction is an appropriate action. I also believe the criminal behavior engaged in by users should be punished by incarceration, but incarceration in a different milieu then the general population in the county jail or juvenile institution.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Jail is an option for those who profit from the drug trade, and I do not include the user who sells for product as one who profits.

I believe the decriminalizaton for drug use/abuse/addiction is an appropriate action. I also believe the criminal behavior engaged in by users should be punished by incarceration, but incarceration in a different milieu then the general population in the county jail or juvenile institution.

You want different kind of jails built?

or some kind of isolated rehab?

 

[BluePhantom]

Treatment programs do not work. Look at the entertainment community with their very public entrances into treatment and rehab. Residential programs that have the best care. As soon as they can, they go right back to using. When they eventually pass on, they are idolized. They become greater role models not less.

Maybe you should stop using the Enquirer as your primary educational source. For every Whitney Houston that you point at, I can show you a Steven Tyler, Robert Downey Jr., Johnny Cash, or Ray Charles that did beat their addictions and went on to live long fruitful lives. I can also show you dozens of Willie Nelsons and Paul McCartneys who continue to smoke grass well into their senior years.

Yes in the entertainment industry there are the Whitney Houstons, Janis Joplins, and Jimi Hendrixs who gained fame and died young as a result of substance abuse, but most of them don't actually.

 

[Katzndogz]

Treatment programs do not work. Look at the entertainment community with their very public entrances into treatment and rehab. Residential programs that have the best care. As soon as they can, they go right back to using. When they eventually pass on, they are idolized. They become greater role models not less.

Maybe you should stop using the Enquirer as your primary educational source. For every Whitney Houston that you point at, I can show you a Steven Tyler, Robert Downey Jr., Johnny Cash, or Ray Charles that did beat their addictions and went on to live long fruitful lives. I can also show you dozens of Willie Nelsons and Paul McCartneys who continue to smoke grass well into their senior years.

Yes in the entertainment industry there are the Whitney Houstons, Janis Joplins, and Jimi Hendrixs who gained fame and died young as a result of substance abuse, but most of them don't actually.

And why is that? Possibly because it was a personal choice. It was a very personal decision. My basic premise then in absolutely correct. Let the addicts take whatever drugs they want to take until they die. Since they are absolutely free and unfettered to make another decision as not be addicts anymore they will live long, fruitful and productive lives.

Problem solved!

 

[Immanuel]

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Yes, it is a failure.

Solution: Well, this isn't my solution, but one that I believe the President would be on board with. We just consider them to be terrorist and snuff out their lives without giving them one of those pesky things we call a trial.

Solution: I'd have to agree with Blue Phantom. It is not going to happen soon, but we need to change people's viewpoint on the subject. We need to do the same thing in regards to abortion. We should not make these kinds of things illegal (that doesn't work), but we should work to make them undesireable. You don't think that can be done? I can point to a liberal war and show you proof that it can be done. The liberals have waged war on smokers for nearly thirty years. They are winning too. When I was a kid, everyone smoked and no one cared. Today, it is becoming more and more rare for a person to smoke.

IT CAN BE DONE.

Immie

 

[Jos]

If so, what is your solution to drug abuse in America?

Its a huge failure. Education is part of the solution.

The Drug information hot line should tell consumers the current price so they dont get ripped off

 

[JWBooth]

Yes

 

[Katzndogz]

And, the location of where the best and cheapest drugs can be found. The cartels need that information.

 

[JWBooth]

And, the location of where the best and cheapest drugs can be found. The cartels need that information.

Most any high school kid can clue you in. Its easier for them to get than alcohol, which is the best evidence that the WOD is a complete failure.

 

[Katzndogz]

And, the location of where the best and cheapest drugs can be found. The cartels need that information.

Most any high school kid can clue you in. Its easier for them to get than alcohol, which is the best evidence that the WOD is a complete failure.

Of course it's a failure. Legalize it all, then just start picking up the bodies of those who ahem, "overindulge".