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?

"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?

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.

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.

Mark

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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

"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.

In article ,
says...

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.

In which countries can one obtain drugs legally and in which countries
are they "handed out by the government"?

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.

What does it cost at a pharamcy with a prescription? That's the price
that they would be paying if it was legal you know.

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).

On what information do you base this guess?

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.

And would all this crime still need to take place if the stuff was sold
at the prescription price rather than the drug dealer price?

The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term Heroin
addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy.

So it's a self-limiting problem.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...


How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000
(out
of six million).

On what information do you base this guess?

Information? He dont got no information. He don't got to show you no
stinkin' information.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

In article ,
says...

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"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.

Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:31:46 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"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.

Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.

That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

"Larry Jaques"
That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

Fix the addicts??? What kind of asshole are you? And yeah, you deserve that
response for an ingnorant comment.

If the capability to 'Fix the addicts' was even half as easy as your
assinine comment would suggest, it would have been done already and the
dealers would be starving for new users.

Any future comments you might have go in the bit bucket despite any validity
to them.

Asshole. You're a really big ****ing asshole. Bet you know it too.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:31:46 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"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.

Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.

That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

If there is no supply ...

Say, whatever happened to stopping the flow from Afghanistan. Taliban was
better at that.

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...


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.

Rehab is 30k/month.

Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?

http://www.drug-alcohol-rehabs.org/drug-rehab-cost.html

"From the National Substance Abuse Treatment Services Survey (N-SATSS), the
average cost for inpatient programs was about $7,000 per month. Since more
than 30 days produces a higher recovery rate, the cost of drug rehab can
easily go between $7,500 and $75,000. A typical cost is usually going to be
about $36,000 for a 90-day program."

And that's private treatment, I bet the VA or the armed services do it
cheaper than that.

Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're looking
at a one-time expense. For the same money you get to lock up someone for
just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the odds of them returning
to prison are high. So which approach seems like a better use of the
taxpayer's dollar? Half of all federal prison inmates are there for drug
offenses, and prisons cost the American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I
think exploring alternatives is at least worth trying.

Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.

What do you figure your odds are of getting that past the Supreme Court?

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...


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.

Rehab is 30k/month.

Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?


Nope. Hazelden. And they also get criminals and You pay the 30k.

DGDevin wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...


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.

Rehab is 30k/month.

Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?

http://www.drug-alcohol-rehabs.org/drug-rehab-cost.html

"From the National Substance Abuse Treatment Services Survey
(N-SATSS), the average cost for inpatient programs was about $7,000
per month. Since more than 30 days produces a higher recovery rate,
the cost of drug rehab can easily go between $7,500 and $75,000. A
typical cost is usually going to be about $36,000 for a 90-day
program."
And that's private treatment, I bet the VA or the armed services do it
cheaper than that.

In my state, incarceration is way cheaper. In 2003, we paid $2.5 billion to
lock up 148,000 inmates. That's a bit over $17,000 per inmate per year.
Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.


Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're
looking at a one-time expense. For the same money you get to lock up
someone for just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the
odds of them returning to prison are high. So which approach seems
like a better use of the taxpayer's dollar? Half of all federal
prison inmates are there for drug offenses, and prisons cost the
American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I think exploring
alternatives is at least worth trying.

There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth, the other
in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national centers (drug-free
after being released for one year) is six percent. Compare this to the 30%
of released criminals who do not return to prison and you'll see that jail
has a better outcome than treatment for addiciton.

Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
taxpayer money in reduced crime.

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.

"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.

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.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
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.


They did something similar with cigarette smoking when I was in basic
training. If you got caught smoking when you were not allowed to do so, you
were taken into the latrine and a bucket was placed on your head. A wool
blanket soaked in hot water was thrown over the bucket and a carton of
cigarettes and a lighter handed under the blanket with a direct order to
smoke them all. This punishment was watched by everyone else. After seeing
the result, no one who watched this ever got caught no mater how addicted
they were. And, AFAIK, the 'demonstrator' never even smoked again.
Just getting detailed to wash the guy down and get him to the infirmary was
bad enough!

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

In article ,
says...

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.

Nobody has proposed that theft be made legal. If a drug user steals,
arrest him and put him in jail for stealing.

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.

Now let's see, a gram of 5 percent heroin would be then 50 mg of 100
percent heroin? 100 mg of Morphine at a pharamcy is under 5 bucks.
Heroin should be about the same. So if he could get the Heroin legally
it would reduce that cost to under $1000.

We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison
population.

If they steal and get caught, sure.

"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.

"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.