100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The War On Drugs | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am just so sick and tired of seeing people locked up for non violent & consentual "crimes". I am tired of TRILLIONS of tax dollars go to this "WAR" & watching my mother who has worked since she was 9 years old, dying and suffering, because she can no longer afford healtcare, and does not quality for public healthcare. I don't support using tax money for healthcare, but legalizing would have benefits in your mother's case. Drug companies currently spend around $403,000,000 and seven years in order to get a new drug passed through the FDA. If all drugs were legal, your mother's doctor could proscribe cutting edge (but largely untested) drugs, which would be incredibly cheap to buy. This is already possible in many countries, it works to reduce the cost of healthcare. Thank you for your comment. I was only trying to make the point that since the inception of the "WAR ON DRUGS" started by Nixion, and carried on throughout the last almost 4 DECADES, there has been TRILLIONS of dollars spent by our governement, only to make the problem worse. I can think of many things that could have made this country a better place, and kept them in the leadership role with that money. If we werent paying so much in property, income, sales and all sorts of other taxes, then maybe we could afford our own healthcare! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another tid-bit.
There's over a half a million people. In prison these days. On petty drug charges. The US Government/Police Forces are spending $15 million dollars in this supposed "War on Drugs". ..and they can't figure out how to cut spending? o.O $52 billion on nuclear development. $15 million on weak drug charges. Plus the salaries of all the prison guards. Plus tax dollars going to keep this people in prison. ..and the death toll from actually smoking marijuana in the past 30 years? 0. 10,839 people died in 2011 from alcohol. Literally. Your chances of dying from smoking pot are less likely than: 1. Being struck by lightning twice. 2. Having a satellite fall on your from outer space. 3. Getting eat by a shark. 4. Walking down the street. 5. Getting hit by a bus. 6. Getting run over by a police officer. 7. Dying from the zombie plague. 8. Drinking fresh, raw milk. 9. Catching the Bubonic plague. 10. Find yourself devoured by a mutant spider. ..combined.. The very reason marijuana is illegal, is pathetic and a lie. Seriously. It's "almost" completely legal in Amsterdam. When's the last time you heard about them gearing up for war? ..Hitler, perhaps..? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm for legalizing weed and not putting users in prison,but legalizing LSD,well 300,000,000 people on LSD wouldn't be a good thing.*waves hand in front of face*yep i still see tracers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm for legalizing weed and not putting users in prison,but legalizing LSD,well 300,000,000 people on LSD wouldn't be a good thing.*waves hand in front of face*yep i still see tracers. WEEEEEDDD bro, lol. xD 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am just so sick and tired of seeing people locked up for non violent & consentual "crimes". I am tired of TRILLIONS of tax dollars go to this "WAR" & watching my mother who has worked since she was 9 years old, dying and suffering, because she can no longer afford healtcare, and does not quality for public healthcare. I don't support using tax money for healthcare, but legalizing would have benefits in your mother's case. Drug companies currently spend around $403,000,000 and seven years in order to get a new drug passed through the FDA. If all drugs were legal, your mother's doctor could proscribe cutting edge (but largely untested) drugs, which would be incredibly cheap to buy. This is already possible in many countries, it works to reduce the cost of healthcare. Thank you for your comment. I was only trying to make the point that since the inception of the "WAR ON DRUGS" started by Nixion, and carried on throughout the last almost 4 DECADES, there has been TRILLIONS of dollars spent by our governement, only to make the problem worse. I can think of many things that could have made this country a better place, and kept them in the leadership role with that money. If we werent paying so much in property, income, sales and all sorts of other taxes, then maybe we could afford our own healthcare! Exactly! Politicians tax us so that they can spend money on special interest groups to improve their chances of reelection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not true, most drug addicts commit other crimes while high on drugs. LPDON. Seriously, where do you get your information from? o.O Some do, yeah, but most? Even if that was true. See how "fewer" crimes take place when it is legal. Further more. More people die "on alcohol" then marijuana. That's legal. More people die "off cigars" then marijuana. That's legal. More people die "from cigarettes" then marijuana. That's legal. Educate. Don't discriminate. Socialize. Then we legalize. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm for legalizing weed and not putting users in prison,but legalizing LSD,well 300,000,000 people on LSD wouldn't be a good thing.*waves hand in front of face*yep i still see tracers. So just legalize your drug of choice? What about everyone who likes LSD? I do have to point out, that most people won't decide that they want to start dropping acid. It's unlikely that anyone would try legal LSD, if they weren't willing to try illegal LSD. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm for legalizing weed and not putting users in prison,but legalizing LSD,well 300,000,000 people on LSD wouldn't be a good thing.*waves hand in front of face*yep i still see tracers. I am not suggesting legalization of all drugs, however DECRIMINALIZATION. Alcohol and Tabacco are perfectly legal, And, those drugs are more of a threat to our society than all other drugs combined! Locking people up for simply possession drug paraphanilia is costing us. Our children have an easier time buying LSD than alcohol, because there is no regulation. Prohibition only exacerbates the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the drugs that kill you, it's the waiting for drugs that kills you.
You've gotta stay home and wait for the phone to ring... next thing you know you haven't eaten in two days!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm for legalizing weed and not putting users in prison,but legalizing LSD,well 300,000,000 people on LSD wouldn't be a good thing.*waves hand in front of face*yep i still see tracers. So just legalize your drug of choice? What about everyone who likes LSD? I do have to point out, that most people won't decide that they want to start dropping acid. It's unlikely that anyone would try legal LSD, if they weren't willing to try illegal LSD. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 02/27/12 08:09 AM
|
|
No victim no crime.
That is my philosophy. Law suits requires damages, prison time should be the same. If the offended party cannot detail what the damages are then there should not be a crime. Morality laws are universally about shaping other peoples behavior, only problem, they dont work. They just cause people who do not agree to resent the ruling class. Not true, most drug addicts commit other crimes while high on drugs. . . and criminals who are not addicted to drugs do crime while not high. What is your point? Its a useless factotum. No you know what its not useless, it may be that we can help the person who is committing crime due to drug addiction where the person committing crime for other reasons may not be medically able to be helped.
If anything its more likely when you treat drug addiction you remove the pressure to commit the crime. It could also be that if you remove the social sanctions, such as cannot get a job without passing a drug test ect, that you remove the desire/need to commit the crime. This social issue is not fixed by locking people up with rapists and murderer's and violent offenders. The facts speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No victim no crime. That is my philosophy. Law suits requires damages, prison time should be the same. If the offended party cannot detail what the damages are then there should not be a crime. Morality laws are universally about shaping other peoples behavior, only problem, they dont work. They just cause people who do not agree to resent the ruling class. Not true, most drug addicts commit other crimes while high on drugs. . . and criminals who are not addicted to drugs do crime while not high. What is your point? Its a useless factotum. No you know what its not useless, it may be that we can help the person who is committing crime due to drug addiction where the person committing crime for other reasons may not be medically able to be helped.
If anything its more likely when you treat drug addiction you remove the pressure to commit the crime. It could also be that if you remove the social sanctions, such as cannot get a job without passing a drug test ect, that you remove the desire/need to commit the crime. This social issue is not fixed by locking people up with rapists and murderer's and violent offenders. The facts speak for themselves. Great points. Thank you so much for your comments! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No victim no crime. That is my philosophy. Law suits requires damages, prison time should be the same. If the offended party cannot detail what the damages are then there should not be a crime. Morality laws are universally about shaping other peoples behavior, only problem, they dont work. They just cause people who do not agree to resent the ruling class. Not true, most drug addicts commit other crimes while high on drugs. . . and criminals who are not addicted to drugs do crime while not high. What is your point? Its a useless factotum. No you know what its not useless, it may be that we can help the person who is committing crime due to drug addiction where the person committing crime for other reasons may not be medically able to be helped.
If anything its more likely when you treat drug addiction you remove the pressure to commit the crime. It could also be that if you remove the social sanctions, such as cannot get a job without passing a drug test ect, that you remove the desire/need to commit the crime. This social issue is not fixed by locking people up with rapists and murderer's and violent offenders. The facts speak for themselves. so if I were to get drunk and drive home I shouldn't be stopped or arrested as long as I don't hit anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 02/27/12 11:42 AM
|
|
No victim no crime. That is my philosophy. Law suits requires damages, prison time should be the same. If the offended party cannot detail what the damages are then there should not be a crime. Morality laws are universally about shaping other peoples behavior, only problem, they dont work. They just cause people who do not agree to resent the ruling class. Not true, most drug addicts commit other crimes while high on drugs. . . and criminals who are not addicted to drugs do crime while not high. What is your point? Its a useless factotum. No you know what its not useless, it may be that we can help the person who is committing crime due to drug addiction where the person committing crime for other reasons may not be medically able to be helped.
If anything its more likely when you treat drug addiction you remove the pressure to commit the crime. It could also be that if you remove the social sanctions, such as cannot get a job without passing a drug test ect, that you remove the desire/need to commit the crime. This social issue is not fixed by locking people up with rapists and murderer's and violent offenders. The facts speak for themselves. so if I were to get drunk and drive home I shouldn't be stopped or arrested as long as I don't hit anyone? First off your example is of a substance that is already legal to consume, its the operation of a motor vehicle that makes it illegal. So your example is already not in line with this discussion and does not support keeping other intoxicants illegal. We are ultimately responsible for our actions addiction pressures or otherwise. Now when seeking to reform, rehabilitate or otherwise help modify a dangerous behavior which scenario do you think would be more effective? We could just lock up people with murderers and other violent offenders to be preyed upon and degenerate into a group of the countries ultimate delinquents, lets call this scenario A. Lets say instead of locking you up with murder's we instead get you help to stop drinking alcohol, you serve your sentence in such a way that it helps you get past this addiction instead of just tossing you in with violent offenders, lets call this scenario B. Does it make sense that you are less likely to repeat offend in scenario A, or scenario B? Would you be more likely to pick up bad (Criminal) habits in scenario A, or scenario B? The reality is that addiction based behaviors are highly modifiable. You give the person control over there addiction, they stop taking the substance and the behavioral pressures are removed or reduced to a level were the person can take charge and stop the cycle. This is not always so clear for every other reason someone does something illegal. The war on Drugs is a war on the weak, the abused, the suffering. Most people who heavily abuse drugs and alcohol are seeking to escape some other life issue they feel helpless to control. A war on these people is amoral. We should be helping them not trying to kill them, not trying to abuse them, not locking them up with violent offenders unless they themselves are violent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 02/27/12 11:55 AM
|
|
A war on drugs is impossible unless you follow the money and take out the drug lords. There are Mexican Drug lords and American Drug lords.
The only person I know of who tries to keep track of these drug lords and top criminals is Danial Hopsicker. I think the Bush family are drug dealing gun running criminals. http://www.madcowprod.com/ If people could stop consuming drugs, we could put these top world crime syndicates out of business. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No victim no crime. That is my philosophy. Law suits requires damages, prison time should be the same. If the offended party cannot detail what the damages are then there should not be a crime. Morality laws are universally about shaping other peoples behavior, only problem, they dont work. They just cause people who do not agree to resent the ruling class. Not true, most drug addicts commit other crimes while high on drugs. . . and criminals who are not addicted to drugs do crime while not high. What is your point? Its a useless factotum. No you know what its not useless, it may be that we can help the person who is committing crime due to drug addiction where the person committing crime for other reasons may not be medically able to be helped.
If anything its more likely when you treat drug addiction you remove the pressure to commit the crime. It could also be that if you remove the social sanctions, such as cannot get a job without passing a drug test ect, that you remove the desire/need to commit the crime. This social issue is not fixed by locking people up with rapists and murderer's and violent offenders. The facts speak for themselves. so if I were to get drunk and drive home I shouldn't be stopped or arrested as long as I don't hit anyone? First off your example is of a substance that is already legal to consume, its the operation of a motor vehicle that makes it illegal. So your example is already not in line with this discussion and does not support keeping other intoxicants illegal. We are ultimately responsible for our actions addiction pressures or otherwise. Now when seeking to reform, rehabilitate or otherwise help modify a dangerous behavior which scenario do you think would be more effective? We could just lock up people with murderers and other violent offenders to be preyed upon and degenerate into a group of the countries ultimate delinquents, lets call this scenario A. Lets say instead of locking you up with murder's we instead get you help to stop drinking alcohol, you serve your sentence in such a way that it helps you get past this addiction instead of just tossing you in with violent offenders, lets call this scenario B. Does it make sense that you are less likely to repeat offend in scenario A, or scenario B? Would you be more likely to pick up bad (Criminal) habits in scenario A, or scenario B? The reality is that addiction based behaviors are highly modifiable. You give the person control over there addiction, they stop taking the substance and the behavioral pressures are removed or reduced to a level were the person can take charge and stop the cycle. This is not always so clear for every other reason someone does something illegal. The war on Drugs is a war on the weak, the abused, the suffering. Most people who heavily abuse drugs and alcohol are seeking to escape some other life issue they feel helpless to control. A war on these people is amoral. We should be helping them not trying to kill them, not trying to abuse them, not locking them up with violent offenders unless they themselves are violent. No victim no crime. That is my philosophy. Law suits requires damages, prison time should be the same. If the offended party cannot detail what the damages are then there should not be a crime. How you get to that conclusion from what I said is beyond me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 02/27/12 01:48 PM
|
|
No victim no crime. That is my philosophy. Law suits requires damages, prison time should be the same. If the offended party cannot detail what the damages are then there should not be a crime. Morality laws are universally about shaping other peoples behavior, only problem, they dont work. They just cause people who do not agree to resent the ruling class. Not true, most drug addicts commit other crimes while high on drugs. . . and criminals who are not addicted to drugs do crime while not high. What is your point? Its a useless factotum. No you know what its not useless, it may be that we can help the person who is committing crime due to drug addiction where the person committing crime for other reasons may not be medically able to be helped.
If anything its more likely when you treat drug addiction you remove the pressure to commit the crime. It could also be that if you remove the social sanctions, such as cannot get a job without passing a drug test ect, that you remove the desire/need to commit the crime. This social issue is not fixed by locking people up with rapists and murderer's and violent offenders. The facts speak for themselves. so if I were to get drunk and drive home I shouldn't be stopped or arrested as long as I don't hit anyone? First off your example is of a substance that is already legal to consume, its the operation of a motor vehicle that makes it illegal. So your example is already not in line with this discussion and does not support keeping other intoxicants illegal. We are ultimately responsible for our actions addiction pressures or otherwise. Now when seeking to reform, rehabilitate or otherwise help modify a dangerous behavior which scenario do you think would be more effective? We could just lock up people with murderers and other violent offenders to be preyed upon and degenerate into a group of the countries ultimate delinquents, lets call this scenario A. Lets say instead of locking you up with murder's we instead get you help to stop drinking alcohol, you serve your sentence in such a way that it helps you get past this addiction instead of just tossing you in with violent offenders, lets call this scenario B. Does it make sense that you are less likely to repeat offend in scenario A, or scenario B? Would you be more likely to pick up bad (Criminal) habits in scenario A, or scenario B? The reality is that addiction based behaviors are highly modifiable. You give the person control over there addiction, they stop taking the substance and the behavioral pressures are removed or reduced to a level were the person can take charge and stop the cycle. This is not always so clear for every other reason someone does something illegal. The war on Drugs is a war on the weak, the abused, the suffering. Most people who heavily abuse drugs and alcohol are seeking to escape some other life issue they feel helpless to control. A war on these people is amoral. We should be helping them not trying to kill them, not trying to abuse them, not locking them up with violent offenders unless they themselves are violent. No victim no crime. That is my philosophy. Law suits requires damages, prison time should be the same. If the offended party cannot detail what the damages are then there should not be a crime. How you get to that conclusion from what I said is beyond me. Yelling fire in a crowded theater even when no one is hurt is not a victimless crime. Setting my own house on fire endangers my neighbors. Doing drugs . . . . ummm, in the privacy of my own home . . . ummm. Yea no crime. Drinking alcohol when you are NOT operating a motor vehicle places no one but yourself in danger. This is the bar that responsibility sets. It is the activity beyond the consumption of intoxicants which changes it from a victimless activity to one which places other people in danger. If I go to a gun range and safety use the firearm, I place no one in danger, if I however shoot in random directions I am now placing everyone around me in danger of being shot. This activity is not without victims. The damages in this case is the ability for bystanders to safely engage in driving without fear of being run down by drunks, the damages in the theater is people having to flee for there lives from a perceived danger and possibly be injured. The damages for possessing pot to the safely of those around you. . . is nothing. The damages of safety drinking alcohol in your home is . . . nothing. Merely being intoxicated does not reach this bar, it requires in engaging in activities beyond just the intoxication. By placing people in danger you have moved from a victimless activity to one in which bystanders are engaged and can be harmed by your behavior. Just having drugs or alcohol should not be a crime as there is no victim who is not the sole responsible party. Shooting randomly in any direction indiscriminately endangers everyone and everyone is being victimized becuase of one person not being safe. Its about personal responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
