Another "victimless crime"

[Alpo]

Nah. You've thrown in Guatemalan orphans and the kitchen sink. You even attempted an ATM victory. But, you're not him.

Certain drugs are presently illegal. If you use them in an illicit manner, or assist in their sale or distribution, you are breaking the law. Don't like the law? Work to change it.

I might even vote for an alternative if it made sense and had scientific support.

Until then, you can yell all you want. The way I fight the abuse of drugs is not to put ONE dollar in the hands of those in that process.

 

[Woobie]

Nah. You've thrown in Guatemalan orphans and the kitchen sink.

Certain drugs are presently illegal. If you use them in an illicit manner, or assist in their sale or distribution, you are breaking the law. Don't like the law? Work to change it.

I might even vote for an alternative if it made sense and had scientific support.

Until then, you can yell all you want. The way I fight the abuse of drugs is not to put ONE dollar in the hands of those in that process.

So you have no argument for the war on drugs.

Meanwhile, your tax dollars are putting money in the hands of the drug dealers, distributors and manufacturers.

 

[Alpo]

 

[ATM]

Not until you impact my insurance rates in your continuous OD cycle, or the effects of your habitual drug use begins to affect your kids socialization, learning ability, etc. (let's not forget about your kids which are sometimes born with the same dependency). Need I go on? There's a huge list of effects from your ignorant self-indulgence.

Insurance is a service. Don't like it? Don't purchase. Socialization and abilities are not yours to mandate, either. None of this is dependent on you or any of your rights.

Laws are not the cure for ignorance or self-indulgence.

You won't be able to go on much further without shifting your approach.

 

[ATM]

Fantastic. And if they knowingly sold you a defective motorcycle with a 99% crash and injury rate expected?

are you against medical malpractice lawsuits?

Contract accountability and civil suits? Much better than turning everything into a crime against the State.

 

[ATM]

ATM, stop working and answer me! I demand satisfaction!

You know it's true. Everything I do, I do it for you.

 

[BE Mike]

There's a whole bunch of false. I don't even know where to start with this one. Your insurance rates won't be higher with legalization of drugs for one. People who OD and are drug addicts are going to be OD drug addicts regardless of laws telling them not to take drugs. It's not a choice for them, and law has no bearing. In fact, legalizing would allow them to have easier access to getting help and getting off of drugs should they choose.

In addition, your tax dollars will drop SIGNIFICANTLY should the war on drugs cease. The amount of money needed to help people who are on drugs is MINISCULE compared to the war on drugs.

Decriminalizing would lead to money in your pocket.

Nice theory, but do you have any facts to support this? Most countries I know about that legalized drugs are socialist states where the government takes most of the citizen's money at the outset.

 

[BE Mike]

Heroin addicts are getting help in southern Indiana, but not the kind that gets them clean. It is the kind of "help" that just keeps them alive until they can get another fix. When I was at a local ER Saturday night with my elderly father, they were bringing in patients from Louisville because of the hospitals there being full. My daughter said that a friend took someone to the same southern Indiana ER I was at and they told her to go to another southern Indiana ER because "they had patients in beds in the halls". I found out later that Louisville had 34 cases of OD during the weekend.

 

[churchmouse]

There's a whole bunch of false. I don't even know where to start with this one. Your insurance rates won't be higher with legalization of drugs for one. People who OD and are drug addicts are going to be OD drug addicts regardless of laws telling them not to take drugs. It's not a choice for them, and law has no bearing. In fact, legalizing would allow them to have easier access to getting help and getting off of drugs should they choose.

In addition, your tax dollars will drop SIGNIFICANTLY should the war on drugs cease. The amount of money needed to help people who are on drugs is MINISCULE compared to the war on drugs.

Decriminalizing would lead to money in your pocket.

My only point of disagreement with this is that once taxed those taxes never seem to go away.

 

[Woobie]

Nice theory, but do you have any facts to support this? Most countries I know about that legalized drugs are socialist states where the government takes most of the citizen's money at the outset.

Is the burden of proof really on those who want to deregulate? I want to see some evidence showing how the massive investment of tax dollars and the humanitarian disaster we are creating are worthy of continued support.

 

[Woobie]

My only point of disagreement with this is that once taxed those taxes never seem to go away.

I tend to agree. I don't think taxpayers will see their bill lowered. But there would be a much smaller deficit. If we don't like mortgaging our kids and grandkids, this helps.

 

[Woobie]

Heroin addicts are getting help in southern Indiana, but not the kind that gets them clean. It is the kind of "help" that just keeps them alive until they can get another fix. When I was at a local ER Saturday night with my elderly father, they were bringing in patients from Louisville because of the hospitals there being full. My daughter said that a friend took someone to the same southern Indiana ER I was at and they told her to go to another southern Indiana ER because "they had patients in beds in the halls". I found out later that Louisville had 34 cases of OD during the weekend.

I've had some ideas rolling around in my head on this, and I'm not sure they are ready to express. But maybe I'll beta test one.

First of all, we know that the condition you are describing exists under the current policy of criminalization. Calling for more of the same must be recognized as foolhardy.

I'm thinking an addict could go to the local hospital and basically inform them he wishes to be DNR. He gets an ID or some such, and as long as he has it on him and the cops or emt's see it, they don't give the OD any Narcan. If you don't opt into that program, then you are legally obligated for all expenses related to your OD, including a mandatory rehab. Since so many addicts are poor, they will be offered work with a sponsor organization. That organization could be a business or charity, or possibly menial labor for a state agency wishing to participate. Offer tax incentives to sponsor businesses. Routine random drug tests will be administered, and a failure will result in consequences [haven't thought that part out, maybe they never leave the supervision of the rehab facility]. Upon payment of your debt, the sponsor has the option to employ you full time, or let you go, with or without a letter of recommendation. This will be costly, and must be in lieu of enforcement programs, not in addition to them.

 

[churchmouse]

I tend to agree. I don't think taxpayers will see their bill lowered. But there would be a much smaller deficit. If we don't like mortgaging our kids and grandkids, this helps.

Those in power will just move these funds to their pet projects.

 

[Woobie]

Those in power will just move these funds to their pet projects.

I would like to give them as few options as possible.

 

[eldirector]

Why not go with implied consent?

If you knowingly and willingly engage in illegal activity, that has well known and well documented risks including likely death, then DNR is implied.

On the flip side, if you are enrolled in a treatment program and are actively seeking addiction counseling, you could receive a "Please Use Narcan" ID, because you have made the choice to get clean, but still need some help. The ID, and the Narcan, could be provided by the non-profits that also provide the addiction counseling.

Call it the "help those that actually want help" program. Or, for the more cynical, the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" program.

 

[Woobie]

Why not go with implied consent?

If you knowingly and willingly engage in illegal activity, that has well known and well documented risks including likely death, then DNR is implied.

On the flip side, if you are enrolled in a treatment program and are actively seeking addiction counseling, you could receive a "Please Use Narcan" ID, because you have made the choice to get clean, but still need some help. The ID, and the Narcan, could be provided by the non-profits that also provide the addiction counseling.

Call it the "help those that actually want help" program. Or, for the more cynical, the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" program.

I could live with that. No pun intended.

I firmly believe that we are responsible for our own actions. I also don't ever want to get into the mindset of "screw him, he's just an addict." It is a pitiful thing looking into an empty pair of eyes, desperate for hope, and finding none. A heroin addict bears a resemblance to an abused dog. They choose to get into that condition, but they don't choose to stay.

Even so, if we went the implied DNR route, I would be OK with that. Just as long as we are reorganizing our approach to a more effective approach to the drug problem.

 

[churchmouse]

Why not go with implied consent?

If you knowingly and willingly engage in illegal activity, that has well known and well documented risks including likely death, then DNR is implied.

On the flip side, if you are enrolled in a treatment program and are actively seeking addiction counseling, you could receive a "Please Use Narcan" ID, because you have made the choice to get clean, but still need some help. The ID, and the Narcan, could be provided by the non-profits that also provide the addiction counseling.

Call it the "help those that actually want help" program. Or, for the more cynical, the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" program.

Posts #129/#129

 

[Alpo]

Is the burden of proof really on those who want to deregulate?

Yes. Many of us are swayed by scientific evidence and facts.

 

[Woobie]

Yes. Many of us are swayed by scientific evidence and facts.

Then how did you get swayed into supporting prohibition?

No amount of facts have swayed you so far. I call shenanigans.

 

[Alpo]

I didn't have to support it. It is the status quo. You want change. Fine. Where is your evidence?

As I said before, the present system isn't working well, but I don't have any suggested changes. You seem to be all-fired up about your approach. Where are the facts supporting your conclusions?