|
Doonesbury
In article , "DGDevin" wrote:
[...] so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs. On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for jailing recreational drug users? |
Doonesbury
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
... In article , "DGDevin" wrote: [...] so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs. On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for jailing recreational drug users? Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then Rob others. Meth, for example. Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example. -- Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever wonder why you let them Practice on You? |
Doonesbury
On 2/14/2011 8:20 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In articleY5SdnerjCbFO48TQnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: [...] so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs. On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for jailing recreational drug users? Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house, feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users. There is a potential middle ground between legalization and criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim. |
Doonesbury
|
Doonesbury
In article , "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , "DGDevin" wrote: [...] so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs. On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for jailing recreational drug users? Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then Rob others. Meth, for example. But the main reason that illegal drugs are expensive is that they're illegal. Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example. And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home should be left alone. |
Doonesbury
|
Doonesbury
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs. On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for jailing recreational drug users? I think recreational drug use can and does cause harm to society, there are no harmless recreational drugs including the one that has been legal and massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so. |
Doonesbury
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message ... Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then Rob others. Meth, for example. That's true, but the reason they need to steal to pay for their drug of choice is that the drug is illegal. The worst street bum you can imagine can cash in empties at the recycle center or panhandle enough money to buy a jug of cheap wine, he doesn't need to commit armed robbery to raise a few dollars. It's illegal drugs that inspire robberies. Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example. Also true, but it seems like the people who want to use meth can get their hands on it despite it being highly illegal, so I have to wonder why we're spending billions trying to suppress a drug that almost any moron can make in his garage. |
Doonesbury
"Just Wondering" wrote in message ... Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house, feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users. There is a potential middle ground between legalization and criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim. Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once) than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense. |
Doonesbury
"J. Clarke" wrote in message in.local... Further, tax and regulate the drugs so that they are of a standard concentration and purity and revenue is being _derived_ from their sale rather than _expended_ trying to prevent it. If someone as the result of being in an impaired state injures someone else, make _that_ a criminal offence. And provide some _real_ drug education in the schools and not the obvious propagandizing that goes on now. One of the motives for repealing Prohibition was that all levels of government realized the huge tax revenues they'd lost by making booze illegal. I don't smoke anything, so the idea of people who choose to smoke cannabis paying taxes rather than me having to pay to fix potholes is highly attractive to me. |
Doonesbury
"DGDevin" massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so. And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or just in everyday living. Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? How many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? You might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been a member of one of those families so afflicted. Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive drinking. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without exception. |
Doonesbury
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:24:24 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article , markem618 says... On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:16:28 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , "Lobby Dosser" wrote: Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then Rob others. Meth, for example. But the main reason that illegal drugs are expensive is that they're illegal. Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example. And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home should be left alone. Doug making meth is not extremely expensive, dangerous but not expensive at all. Another argument for legalization. Legal, licensed, inspected meth labs are less likely to burn, when they do burn they are less likely to burn down the neighborhood, and the operators will have insurance to pay for the damage to others caused by the fire, not to mention workmen's comp for the injured workers. And maybe just maybe I can get my Pseudoephedrine back damn meth heads. Benedryl sucks!!!! Mark |
Doonesbury
"DGDevin" wrote in message criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim. Civil litigitation. RIGHT! There's a solution. The US is one of, if not actually being the most litigious country this world has ever seen. Add onto that the fact that the drug user might not have any money to sue him for. Pile on that the fact that some of these claims fail, take years to complete and don't really pay fully for all the expenses that someone so injured will experience. Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once) than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense. NOT WELL SAID. Shortsighted and really ignorant at the very best. Many, many injuries requiring rehab are a LIFE LONG condition. Fewer that you imagine get back to being as healthy or as fully fit as they were. And most definitely, yes, I have extensive experience in this area. For woodworkers who I'd say were generally considered to be creative, inventive and innovative, an awful lot of you are apparently delusional and shortsighted to the extreme. But hell, why should I be surprised? It's just par for the course when it comes to humanity. |
Doonesbury
Doug Miller wrote:
Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example. And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home should be left alone. Nope. In those countries where our illicit drugs are legal, and even handed out by the government, there has been no discernable drop in the number of folks who obtain their drugs illegally. The only result of legal drugs is an increased number of addicts. How much do illegal drugs cost society? A Heroin addict will "shoot" one "paper" of Horse per day (if he can get it). A "paper" is 1 gram of 5% Heroin and costs about $100 on the street. Assuming the addict is not a female (who can earn the $100 by tricking) and assuming the addict does not have a job that leaves $100 per day in discretionary spending, your addict has to steal. Armed robbers don't last long, so, in the main, the thief is a burglar or car thief. In order to net the $100, the thief has to steal something worth about four times that amount, or $400 (hey, fences have to feed their families too!). So, then, $400/day x 365 days per year is $146,000 taken out of the economy for each Heroin addict in the wild. How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000 (out of six million). That's over $7 billion in loss or increased insurance rates just for Heroin. Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and Red Bull. The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term Heroin addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy. |
Doonesbury
In article , "Upscale" wrote:
"DGDevin" massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so. And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or just in everyday living. That depends on the extent of the use. Occasional recreational use of marijuana (or most other drugs) is not noticeably damaging to family, colleagues, or the fabric of society. The larger point is, should abuse be a *crime*, or regarded as a public health problem? I argue for the latter. Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? But should that be a crime? If so, then since adultery also destroys families, should it also be a crime? If not, then why should similar [ab]use of marijuana or cocaine be a crime? How many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? What is (or should be) the crime here, getting drunk, or driving while drunk? The problem isn't the alcohol, the problem isn't the drinker getting drunk -- the problem is the drinker getting drunk and then driving. If you get drunk at home, or get drunk at a bar and take a cab home, it's no business of mine, or society's -- you're not endangering anyone else. Why should getting stoned be treated any differently? You might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been a member of one of those families so afflicted. I've seen what alcoholism has done to several co-workers. But IMO it should be treated as a medical problem, and not as a crime. Why should abuse of any other drug be regarded any differently? Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive drinking. I think that's debatable; excessive drinking is responsible for many tens of thousands of deaths each year in the U.S. And much of the downside of the use of habit-forming drugs -- the crimes that accompany their use -- is the result of the use itself being a crime. *Exactly the same* problems occurred during the American experiment with prohibition of alcohol in the early part of the 20th century. Repeal of Prohibition ended most of the crime associated with alcohol use. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without exception. Perhaps so. But what we're doing now isn't working any better than it worked 90 years ago when we tried to do the same thing with alcohol. ISTM that it's time to try something different. |
Doonesbury
Just Wondering wrote:
Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house, feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users. There is a potential middle ground between legalization and criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim. In another post I showed the computation for Heroin use to be about $138,000 taken out of the economy in thefts and insurance rates caused by one addict. In my state, it costs about $36,000 to house a prisoner per year. Locking up the addicts, then, saves the community over $100,000 per incarcerated addict. We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison population. |
Doonesbury
In article , "DGDevin" wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message ... Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then Rob others. Meth, for example. That's true, but the reason they need to steal to pay for their drug of choice is that the drug is illegal. The worst street bum you can imagine can cash in empties at the recycle center or panhandle enough money to buy a jug of cheap wine, he doesn't need to commit armed robbery to raise a few dollars. It's illegal drugs that inspire robberies. Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example. Also true, but it seems like the people who want to use meth can get their hands on it despite it being highly illegal, so I have to wonder why we're spending billions trying to suppress a drug that almost any moron can make in his garage. And therein lies a large part of the problem. Prohibition didn't work, in part, because any fool can make alcohol, too -- and since the basic ingredients needed (water, sugar, and yeast) are also essential to making bread, it's not possible to restrict their sale. Likewise, any fool can grow marijuana -- it's called "weed" for a reason. |
Doonesbury
On Feb 15, 5:12*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and Red Bull. :-) The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term Heroin addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy. Dunno where you got that info, but life expectancy is far longer than that, sometimes 40 years. That is at 1 gram at 3-5% per day. Still not a good life choice. |
Doonesbury
"Doug Miller" wrote in message Perhaps so. But what we're doing now isn't working any better than it worked 90 years ago when we tried to do the same thing with alcohol. ISTM that it's time to try something different. Quite possibly. The only flaw in your argument is that legalizing and controlling all drugs as has been suggested is not the answer. Suggest something else. What you are suggesting is just the last recourse of grasping at straws for a solution. There's a marked difference between a crazed methamphetamine user and an angry drunk. Any day of the year, I'd face a mean angry drunk over an angry speed user. Many might equate the two as similar problems and apply similar solutions, but I'm not one of them. They're at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to addictions as far as I'm concerned. |
Doonesbury
"HeyBub" wrote in message We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison population. Not a solution I'd want to support because prison has it's own heavy tolls on society and the economy, but it would certainly be one of my choices far above that of decriminalizing drugs. |
Doonesbury
|
Doonesbury
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home should be left alone. Nope. In those countries where our illicit drugs are legal, and even handed out by the government, there has been no discernable drop in the number of folks who obtain their drugs illegally. The only result of legal drugs is an increased number of addicts. This is where you post links to credible sources that make us all say by golly Heybub is right, for once. How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000 (out of six million). That's over $7 billion in loss or increased insurance rates just for Heroin. Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and Red Bull. So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin, eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that? |
Doonesbury
|
Doonesbury
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... And therein lies a large part of the problem. Prohibition didn't work, in part, because any fool can make alcohol, too -- and since the basic ingredients needed (water, sugar, and yeast) are also essential to making bread, it's not possible to restrict their sale. Likewise, any fool can grow marijuana -- it's called "weed" for a reason. The govt. had a chance to cut off meth at the knees, but drug industry lobbyists kept the products used to make meth over-the-counter, where any moron could buy or steal them. |
Doonesbury
On 02/15/2011 04:16 PM, DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home should be left alone. Nope. In those countries where our illicit drugs are legal, and even handed out by the government, there has been no discernable drop in the number of folks who obtain their drugs illegally. The only result of legal drugs is an increased number of addicts. This is where you post links to credible sources that make us all say by golly Heybub is right, for once. How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000 (out of six million). That's over $7 billion in loss or increased insurance rates just for Heroin. Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and Red Bull. So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin, eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that? Here's a good one, Arizona just passed a "medical marijuana" bill. The tax they propose isn't going to deter any illegal activity: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/arizona-lawmakers-want-300-medical-marijuana-tax |
Doonesbury
"Upscale" wrote in message ... "DGDevin" wrote in message criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim. Civil litigitation. RIGHT! There's a solution. You have combined my name with someone else's words. Kindly properly attribute the post you're answering to the person who actually wrote it. For woodworkers who I'd say were generally considered to be creative, inventive and innovative, an awful lot of you are apparently delusional and shortsighted to the extreme. But hell, why should I be surprised? It's just par for the course when it comes to humanity. You appear to believe that people who disagree with you are therefore by definition stupid--until you correct this basic error you'll have a problem. |
Doonesbury
"DGDevin" wrote in message So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin, eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that? Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol was given freely to those to asked for it. Do you have any idea how quickly that would become an unsistainable act and what it would cost? Think about it. Any possible scenario you might propose for alcohol would be compounded many times when compared to habit forming drugs. |
Doonesbury
"Upscale" wrote in message ... And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or just in everyday living. Obesity costs us countless billions in healthcare costs, so that must mean there is a compelling public interest in mandatory dieting and exercise with jail time for those who refuse to lose enough weight. And of course there is tobacco, clearly prison time for those who refuse to quit smoking is justifiable. Lots of risky sports out there, something should be done about those. And so on, it's for your own good and that of society.... Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people felt at home again having a drink now and then. So, organized crime became rich selling bootleg booze because hardly anyone was drinking during Prohibition? But, you're ignoring the downside. Actually that would be you, in your refusal to consider the impact of pouring billions of dollars into the hands of organized crime who supply the demand for illegal drugs. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? How many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? You might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been a member of one of those families so afflicted. I take drunk driving very seriously, so how about you don't make up positions I haven't expressed, okay? Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive drinking. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without exception. There are illegal drugs in every school in your town, in most workplaces, in many of the homes you drive past every day. The huge profits in selling such drugs guarantees that somebody will fill that demand, you cannot stop it. The War On Drugs is a failure, we couldn't have made drugs much more widely available if we'd tried. We've distorted our laws trying to suppress drugs, we've spent countless billions of dollars, we stuffed the prisons with millions of people and the drugs are still there, and they'll be there tomorrow. IT HAS NOT WORKED. And it won't work, not ever. You're acting as if there is this big wall keeping illegal drugs out of our community and if we tear it down all these drugs will flood in, but the reality is the drugs are already here. You're in favor of locking the barn door after the horse is already long gone, it just doesn't make sense. So if one definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over while always expecting a different result that never actually occurs, then the War On Drugs is insane. |
Doonesbury
"DGDevin" wrote in message You appear to believe that people who disagree with you are therefore by definition stupid--until you correct this basic error you'll have a problem. And just possibly, my opinions on this matter are correct. By definition, that would make you pretty stupid, wouldn't it? You see, it works both ways. :) |
Doonesbury
"DGDevin" wrote in message Obesity costs us countless billions in healthcare costs, so that must mean there is a compelling public interest in mandatory dieting and exercise with jail time for those who refuse to lose enough weight. Good point. I'll remember that the next time some fat person tries to mug me or breaks into my home looking for food money. In actuality, it's a pretty feeble attempt at making obesity comparable to drug addiction. The entire planet population needs food to survive. They don't need cocaine or heroine. is tobacco, clearly prison time for those who refuse to quit smoking is justifiable. Tobacco was an industy in production long before governments became directly involved in people activities. And their powerful lobbying still has force. Despite that, there has been a concerted effort to reduce smoking by many governments for some years now. Increased taxation on tobacco is an example of that. But no, you wouldn't see that because it's not in your nature. You see, every little niggling or ridiculous comparison you throw at me, I can easily shoot down for the farce that it is. I take drunk driving very seriously, so how about you don't make up positions I haven't expressed, okay? Such as ridiculous comparisons of drug addiction use to obesity or tobacco use? Uhh, sure, I won't make anything up. I don't have to. Your absolutely feeble arguments make it simple to dispose of any inane reasoning you choose to spew. |
Doonesbury
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:15:35 -0600, Markem
wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:24:24 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , markem618 says... On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:16:28 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , "Lobby Dosser" wrote: Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then Rob others. Meth, for example. But the main reason that illegal drugs are expensive is that they're illegal. Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example. And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home should be left alone. Doug making meth is not extremely expensive, dangerous but not expensive at all. Another argument for legalization. Legal, licensed, inspected meth labs are less likely to burn, when they do burn they are less likely to burn down the neighborhood, and the operators will have insurance to pay for the damage to others caused by the fire, not to mention workmen's comp for the injured workers. And maybe just maybe I can get my Pseudoephedrine back Ditto here. I miss the hay fever meds which had pseudoephedrine in them. The new stuff doesn't work worth a damn. damn meth heads. Benedryl sucks!!!! Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so depressed I considered suicide. Scared the **** out of me. 24 hours later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit me. -- The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. --Herbert Spencer |
Doonesbury
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so depressed I considered suicide. Scared the **** out of me. 24 hours later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit me. Some of the drugs out there have really bad side effects. Specially some of the prescriptions. Never noticed the warnings about Lunesta until after having it's most notorious side effect. Took a couple one night. Went to sleep. Woke up the next afternoon handcuffed to a hospital bed. Don't remember a thing. |
Doonesbury
In article , "Upscale" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message Perhaps so. But what we're doing now isn't working any better than it worked 90 years ago when we tried to do the same thing with alcohol. ISTM that it's time to try something different. Quite possibly. The only flaw in your argument is that legalizing and controlling all drugs as has been suggested is not the answer. Suggest something else. What you are suggesting is just the last recourse of grasping at straws for a solution. Agreed. I don't know that I'd support full legalization of everything; there seems to be substantial reason to restrict some of the more dangerous substances. OTOH, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that supports regulating marijuana more stringently than we do alcohol. Quite the contrary, in fact: alcohol seems much the more dangerous of the two. There's a marked difference between a crazed methamphetamine user and an angry drunk. Any day of the year, I'd face a mean angry drunk over an angry speed user. Many might equate the two as similar problems and apply similar solutions, but I'm not one of them. They're at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to addictions as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps, but IMO abuse of either one should be treated as a medical issue, and widespread use regarded as a public health issue -- not as a crime. |
Doonesbury
In article , "Upscale" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison population. Not a solution I'd want to support because prison has it's own heavy tolls on society and the economy, but it would certainly be one of my choices far above that of decriminalizing drugs. But why lock up the *users*? In many cases, they're victims, too. Lock up the *dealers*. A fellow I used to carpool with had an innovative solution: Get rid of all the drug laws. All of them. Except for this one: make a list of banned drugs; if you're caught with anything on the list, whatever you have, you eat. Possession of small amounts for personal use would be effectively decriminalized; after all, the guy was planning to eat it anyway. And narcotics dealing would carry an instantaneous capital sentence. |
Doonesbury
In article , "DGDevin" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... And therein lies a large part of the problem. Prohibition didn't work, in part, because any fool can make alcohol, too -- and since the basic ingredients needed (water, sugar, and yeast) are also essential to making bread, it's not possible to restrict their sale. Likewise, any fool can grow marijuana -- it's called "weed" for a reason. The govt. had a chance to cut off meth at the knees, but drug industry lobbyists kept the products used to make meth over-the-counter, where any moron could buy or steal them. I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy pseudoephedrine in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that bill, and it's not coming from "drug industry lobbyists". It's coming from everyday Hoosiers who suffer from seasonal allergies and don't want the additional delays and expenses of having to see a physician in order to buy decongestants that actually work. |
Doonesbury
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:12 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and Red Bull. :-) The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term Heroin addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy. Dunno where you got that info, but life expectancy is far longer than that, sometimes 40 years. That is at 1 gram at 3-5% per day. Still not a good life choice. I grant some may keep going for 40 years. These few are offset, however, by those who die during their first use. I guess it all averages out to three years. I got the information from a week-long class for law enforcement officers conducted by the (then) Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. |
Doonesbury
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:45:35 -0800, "CW"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so depressed I considered suicide. Scared the **** out of me. 24 hours later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit me. Some of the drugs out there have really bad side effects. Specially some of the prescriptions. Never noticed the warnings about Lunesta until after having it's most notorious side effect. Took a couple one night. Went to sleep. Woke up the next afternoon handcuffed to a hospital bed. Don't remember a thing. The current allergy med's like Clartin ect. put me into the beginning of anaphylactic shock. Now that just not what an allergy medince should do, but if you read the side effects that information is in there. Mark |
Doonesbury
On 2/15/2011 1:21 PM, Upscale wrote:
wrote in message criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim. Civil litigitation. RIGHT! There's a solution. The US is one of, if not actually being the most litigious country this world has ever seen. Add onto that the fact that the drug user might not have any money to sue him for. Pile on that the fact that some of these claims fail, take years to complete and don't really pay fully for all the expenses that someone so injured will experience. Your comments are out of context. The alternatives are keeping the status quo of criminalization and imprisonment at taxpayer expense, or outright legalization with NO civil remedy. Please explain why you think using civil law is inferior to both the criminal law and no restrictions at all. Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once) than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense. NOT WELL SAID. Shortsighted and really ignorant at the very best. Many, many injuries requiring rehab are a LIFE LONG condition. Fewer that you imagine get back to being as healthy or as fully fit as they were. And most definitely, yes, I have extensive experience in this area. For woodworkers who I'd say were generally considered to be creative, inventive and innovative, an awful lot of you are apparently delusional and shortsighted to the extreme. But hell, why should I be surprised? It's just par for the course when it comes to humanity. So you think people whose point of view differs from you are shortsighted, ignorant and delusional? That says not so much about them, but a whole lot about you. |
Doonesbury
On 2/15/2011 12:57 PM, Upscale wrote:
massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so. And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or just in everyday living. Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? How many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? You might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been a member of one of those families so afflicted. Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive drinking. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without exception. Undoubtedly there would be repercussions. But there are already repercussions from the existing illegal drug trade. The question is, which set of repercussions is worse? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter