Another "victimless crime"

[Ceruleanblue]

I completely disagree, but you present the only workable alternative to my position. This is how Thailand got rid of its meth problem, by making use a capitol offense. All the addicts (and it was a huge percentage of the country, since it was a common method of boosting productivity) either quit or were killed off.

I for one am not down with an American genocide, but YMMV.

We are nearing the divergence of two roads here in the yellow wood. The one we have been traveling eventually leads to your logical end. I propose we take the road less traveled by, I'm confident it will in time make all the difference.

I should clarify my position is that the death penalty would be for felony dealers who sell, not the users. Break the supply end of the equation and drive up price due to limited supply (less dealers coupled with sealed borders) and the end user will drop off. When you deal with enough addicts you see that the users action is compulsive but the the dealers are cold calculating profiteers who deal in death and deserve such on themselves. The profit margin is so high in dealing that knowing one may not live to spend their ill gotten gains may be the only thing to discourage such large scale drug dealing. The tonnage of drugs used daily to keep this nation illicitly high is staggering and the cost to all in terms of associated crime (burglaries,robberies, assaults etc.)and spending ( law enforcement, incarceration, welfare to family members of addicts who die or are imprisoned, medical etc) also astronomical.

 

[Woobie]

I should clarify my position is that the death penalty would be for felony dealers who sell, not the users. Break the supply end of the equation and drive up price due to limited supply (less dealers coupled with sealed borders) and the end user will drop off. When you deal with enough addicts you see that the users action is compulsive but the the dealers are cold calculating profiteers who deal in death and deserve such on themselves. The profit margin is so high in dealing that knowing one may not live to spend their ill gotten gains may be the only thing to discourage such large scale drug dealing. The tonnage of drugs used daily to keep this nation illicitly high is staggering and the cost to all in terms of associated crime (burglaries,robberies, assaults etc.)and spending ( law enforcement, incarceration, welfare to family members of addicts who die or are imprisoned, medical etc) also astronomical.

History disagrees.

The supply doesn't go away. It is the supply restriction that has made the cartels rich, and driven the addicts to murder. Meanwhile you get rid of one dealer, and three more pop up to replace him. We've been playing this game for a while.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Oh hell no.

Oh hell yes. Booze tears families apart, it kills people on the roads and it is actually poisonous to your body. I know I do not have to tell a cop about the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse.

 

[BE Mike]

You'd still own the consequences of your choices, it just wouldn't be a crime against the State to choose.



Good luck trying to reconcile the first statement with the last.

Once you consider vices crimes, you must determine that choices are the problem and all your solutions will be to deprive freedom of choice rather than holding individuals responsible and accountable for their choices.

I'm sure that people are sorry when they drink, text and drive and kill folks...well they are at least sorry they got caught. If it weren't a crime, drunk/ texting drivers would still be sorry when they killed some innocent people. They just wouldn't be criminally charged, so they could be sorry, pay damages and be on their way. Yeah that's liberty, at least for the drunk/ texting driver. The pile of dead and wouldn't have to worry about any of their liberties. The survivors (family and friends) left behind would obviously be content that they had their liberties.

 

[ATM]

I'm sure that people are sorry when they drink, text and drive and kill folks...well they are at least sorry they got caught. If it weren't a crime, drunk/ texting drivers would still be sorry when they killed some innocent people. They just wouldn't be criminally charged, so they could be sorry, pay damages and be on their way. Yeah that's liberty, at least for the drunk/ texting driver. The pile of dead and wouldn't have to worry about any of their liberties. The survivors (family and friends) left behind would obviously be content that they had their liberties.

They would be held accountable for the consequences of their choices to those negatively impacted rather than to the State.

This is fundamental.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Oh hell yes. Booze tears families apart, it kills people on the roads and it is actually poisonous to your body. I know I do not have to tell a cop about the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse.

I'm clear. I enjoy a beverage or two but I think I could live without it. Maybe.

 

[chocktaw2]

They would be held accountable for the consequences of their choices to those negatively impacted rather than to the State.

This is fundamental.

Some 40 yrs ago, a person I knew, not well though, was riding in a pickup truck. He and others would throw bricks and rocks at the local Amish population, for entertainment. They were drunk, threw a rock, and hit a baby in the head, killing it instantly. The Amish don't press charges. And neither did the state. The boys father made the young man sit in a chair beside the mother and father of the dead infant at its funeral. He was a changed person after that. Quicker than a prison term, and more effective.

 

[BE Mike]

They would be held accountable for the consequences of their choices to those negatively impacted rather than to the State.

This is fundamental.

What really is fundamental is that the state is: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[SUP]][/SUP] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United ...

 

[Fargo]

We could find a lot of good things to do with the money.

At the risk of injuring my own argument, the "we are not Portrugal" fact does give me pause.

Portugal decriminalized only simple possession and at the same time dumps an unholy amount of public funds into needle exchanges, methadone, and other "alternatives".

The idea that Portugal legalized drugs and everything got better both ignores that they didn't legalize them and that they publicly fund their citizens drug use.

Check the cites in this post.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...aths-surpass-gun-homicides-2.html#post6868619

 

[eric001]

I saw this story earlier... It is horrific, and sad, and infuriating all at the same time.

There are so many ways the parents could have avoided this fate if they had only believed that "parent" is a verb and not just a noun that happens because 2 people got frisky. Epic fail on their parts.

But, no matter what laws we have or could have, you just can't fix stupid--thank you Ron White. Obviously, their desire to experience chemical bliss was WAY more important to them than their love of life, duty to their infant, or anything else. Once this decision was made on their parts, nothing short of a true miracle could save them or the infant.

I can only hope that the infant's soul is in a much better place, and that the "parents" are now in the exact opposite realm. They deserve nothing less.

 

[Woobie]

Portugal decriminalized only simple possession and at the same time dumps an unholy amount of public funds into needle exchanges, methadone, and other "alternatives".

The idea that Portugal legalized drugs and everything got better both ignores that they didn't legalize them and that they publicly fund their citizens drug use.

Check the cites in this post.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...aths-surpass-gun-homicides-2.html#post6868619

I think I conflated someone else with Portugal's initiative. Going off of memory can be dangerous.

I'm guessing that unholy amount of money is less than $40B

 

[churchmouse]

I think I conflated someone else with Portugal's initiative. Going off of memory can be dangerous.

I'm guessing that unholy amount of money is less than $40B

But still....it is not working. And it will not work here either. It just will not.

 

[Woobie]

But still....it is not working. And it will not work here either. It just will not.

It can't be worse than what we are doing, if you start adding up the human cost of the war on drugs. We need to decide if we're going to double down or go a different route. The status quo isn't funny anymore.

 

[Ceruleanblue]

History disagrees.

The supply doesn't go away. It is the supply restriction that has made the cartels rich, and driven the addicts to murder. Meanwhile you get rid of one dealer, and three more pop up to replace him. We've been playing this game for a while.

I believe history disagrees with you. What brought us out of the crack years with its record number of homicides and its associated record crime rates was an aggressive attack of the supply chain and and the mandatory incarceration of dealers. These increased sentencing guidelines in my opinion were far less than what was needed, but as they are being relaxed to an even lower threshold today we see the predictable results. As the prisons surged with certain "politically incorrect" demographics, charges of rascim and liberal social experiments as well as younger politicians with permissive drug use views to win votes in their districts led to calls for reduced sentencing. Now we see a great reduction in lengths of sentencing and a tangent increase in drug use and abuse.
What made the cartels rich was corrupt South American governments and and an open border and poor port/terminal inspections. There was no restriction on supply. The cost per gram of cocaine and other drugs remained stable because supply and demand stayed in equilibrium. Without a solid borders, trying to disrupt supply is like trying to keep rain out of a house without a roof.

 

[Woobie]

I believe history disagrees with you. What brought us out of the crack years with its record number of homicides and its associated record crime rates was an aggressive attack of the supply chain and and the mandatory incarceration of dealers. These increased sentencing guidelines in my opinion were far less than what was needed, but as they are being relaxed to an even lower threshold today we see the predictable results. As the prisons surged with certain "politically incorrect" demographics, charges of rascim and liberal social experiments as well as younger politicians with permissive drug use views to win votes in their districts led to calls for reduced sentencing. Now we see a great reduction in lengths of sentencing and a tangent increase in drug use and abuse.
What made the cartels rich was corrupt South American governments and and an open border and poor port/terminal inspections. There was no restriction on supply. The cost per gram of cocaine and other drugs remained stable because supply and demand stayed in equilibrium. Without a solid borders, trying to disrupt supply is like trying to keep rain out of a house without a roof.

Crack use was reduced because as it became harder to get, cheaper alternatives became available. We whacked the meth mole and heroin popped up. It is a vicious cycle.

Corrupt South American governments did not make cartels rich. Did Columbia just look up Escobar and write him a check? No. Look at the supply and demand charts for most drugs. A minor reduction in supply creates a giant increase in price. It is in the cartels' best interest for us to maintain our current system. It drives up prices while discouraging competition. Basically it's the same thing as our pharmaceutical drug market, but with more guns.

 

[Ceruleanblue]

Crack use was reduced because as it became harder to get, cheaper alternatives became available. We whacked the meth mole and heroin popped up. It is a vicious cycle.

Which proves that if you go after supply aggressively you can reduce availability and use. A strong border and better port and terminal inspections as well as death/life incarceration for dealers will have most impact on supply and we have not had that yet heretofore.Heroin must be imported into this country as well as cocaine. Stop it on the borders . The sentencing for meth dealers is obviously not stiff enough and it further gets knocked down in plea deals.


Corrupt foreign government absolutely made the cartels rich. The Mexican budget relies heavily on narco money from the United States. The current president of Mexico is under investigation for cartel ties and has threatened to unleash the cartels on trump. The Mexico army has had standoff with border agents and have seized back many drug mule vehicles from border agents who were forced to pull back. They also turn a blind eye and allow the narcos to operate with impunity many areas especially along the border.


There has been no disruption of supply, the average price of drugs in this country has been very stable. The price of cocaine and heroin has been relatively stable since the mid nineties. I don't know what charts you use but I see it on the streets. It is far different than the pharmaceutical/prescription opioid supply chain in this country. The "supply level" dealers are licensed medical professional who can write Rx's before it further gets disseminated along the supply chain. Different strategies can be used to eradicate this problem.

 

[ATM]

Some 40 yrs ago, a person I knew, not well though, was riding in a pickup truck. He and others would throw bricks and rocks at the local Amish population, for entertainment. They were drunk, threw a rock, and hit a baby in the head, killing it instantly. The Amish don't press charges. And neither did the state. The boys father made the young man sit in a chair beside the mother and father of the dead infant at its funeral. He was a changed person after that. Quicker than a prison term, and more effective.

An excellent example of accountability and voluntary justice following a tragic choice.

 

[Woobie]

Which proves that if you after supply aggressively you can reduce availability and use. A strong border and better port and terminal inspections as well as death/life incarceration for dealers will have most impact on supply and we have not had that yet heretofore.Heroin must be imported into this country as well as cocaine. Stop it on the borders . The sentencing for meth dealers is obviously not stiff enough and it further gets knocked down in plea deals.

Funny thing is, after we invaded Afghanistan, their heroin exports went down 12,000%. And yet, look how easy it is to get. And crack probably isn't that hard to get, it's just more expensive. Figure out the heroin problem and there will be something else.

You are proposing making it a death penalty offense for someone to sell a chemical, while someone down the street gets rich for the same thing. The difference is the government has licensed one of them to do it. Do you trust your government this much? I don't.

 

[ATM]

What really is fundamental is that the state is: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[SUP]][/SUP] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United ...

No, that's just the U.S. constitution. Never been a big fan.

Here's a better definition of the State:

Murray Rothbard defines the state as "that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."

Anatomy of the State

 

[Ceruleanblue]

Funny thing is, after we invaded Afghanistan, their heroin exports went down 12,000%. And yet, look how easy it is to get. And crack probably isn't that hard to get, it's just more expensive. Figure out the heroin problem and there will be something else.

You are proposing making it a death penalty offense for someone to sell a chemical, while someone down the street gets rich for the same thing. The difference is the government has licensed one of them to do it. Do you trust your government this much? I don't.

Heroin exports went up after we invaded Afghanistan. It did not go down even 1%. The taliban increased production to fund their war effort and the western power did nothing to eradicate poppy crops aside from a token effort in the beginning. 85% of the worlds heroin comes from the afghan region.

Why Britain's pledge to end Afghanistan's deadly heroin trade has failed - Telegraph