Indiana House revives drug testing plan for welfare clients

[rambone]

I have never heard anyone say that
And it's foolish

Anyone who says "doing drugs is not a victimless crime" is implying exactly that; that drug users are victimizers. Words have meanings.

Of course, the logic is ludicrous. People can do drugs and hurt absolutely no one. Doing drugs is a victimless crime. The drugs get blamed for people's violence and irresponsibility, just like guns get blamed for violence and irresponsibility. Owning a gun is a victimless crime, too.

Its ridiculous to punish people who mind their own business, with drugs or guns.

 

[churchmouse]

Anyone who says "doing drugs is not a victimless crime" is implying exactly that; that drug users are victimizers. Words have meanings.

Of course, the logic is ludicrous. People can do drugs and hurt absolutely no one. Doing drugs is a victimless crime. The drugs get blamed for people's violence and irresponsibility, just like guns get blamed for violence and irresponsibility. Owning a gun is a victimless crime, too.

Its ridiculous to punish people who mind their own business, with drugs or guns.

Come on Rambone..........Most of the drug users we are talking about are the same as the idiots that mis-handle firearms and cause problems for the rest of us. It is not the drugs but the idiots that "CHOOSE" to use them. They leave a trail of "Victims" behind where ever they go.

There has been a rash of drug related home invasions lately that are drug related and children have been shot in the Malay. How are they not victims sir.
There are lines that need to be drawn.

We are "Not" talking about innocent people sir. You are "NOT" reading the posts.

Give it a rest.

The casual pot smoker that sits in his living room and bothers no one is not who most of us are referring to. There are levels of users. You do know this but stand on your box beating your drum and it is starting to hurt.

The "Heavy" drug users are victimizers. Yes, words have meanings.

 

[steveh_131]

Our little girl was a cocaine baby and has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

​(But I'm sure her birth mother never ever smoked pot)

See? The Sarah Brady of prohibition.

We are "Not" talking about innocent people sir. You are "NOT" reading the posts.

There are untold numbers of 'innocent' people sitting in jail or prison right now, who have harmed no one. That is exactly who we are talking about.

The people who have harmed someone have broken various laws in doing so, and should rightly be prosecuted.

The "Heavy" drug users are victimizers. Yes, words have meanings.

Plenty of them have victimized no one. Again, if they have victimized someone, they should be in jail and we don't need prohibition to get them there.

 

[Ericpwp]

Here we go again....................................

 

[churchmouse]

Here we go again....................................

I know right.


Not a prohibitionist.

How do you jail and prosecute someone for extreme mental anguish. Taking years off of someones life.

There is not a meth head/crack smoker or Heroin abuser out there that has not victimized some one.

This is not a black and white issue.

The law does not pursue when one of these idiots steals from a family member. They have no time for these so called "Victim-less" crimes.
Until you have 1st hand experience with the depths of the rabbit hole it is impossible to understand.

As to those trapped in the system......what they did was against current law. I can not change that and they knew full well going in what the risks were.
If you do not agree with the law work to get it changed.

 

[steveh_131]

How do you jail and prosecute someone for extreme mental anguish. Taking years off of someones life.

This sounds like a case for civil court, not criminal. Take it there if you think you can prove it.

There is not a meth head/crack smoker or Heroin abuser out there that has not victimized some one.

If this is true then you have the criminal and civil justice system at your disposal to prosecute them for that specific victimization. Prohibition is not necessary.

The law does not pursue when one of these idiots steals from a family member. They have no time for these so called "Victim-less" crimes.

If you think the law is inadequate for prosecuting thieving family members, please see below:

If you do not agree with the law work to get it changed.

Don't use prohibition as a work-around for imprisoning people who victimize others. Too many are getting caught in the crossfire.

Theft is and should be a crime, family member or not. Press charges if you feel that the person belongs in prison.

 

[Thor]

Take it to court...what a lame argument.

 

[steveh_131]

I won't even get started on the fact that prohibition is the very reason drugs are so expensive and people are robbing you to buy them.

 

[rambone]

There has been a rash of drug related home invasions lately that are drug related and children have been shot in the Malay. How are they not victims sir.

Those are victims... victims of home invasion.

They are not victims of drugs. Or guns.

The police already have a proper justification to go after the perpetrators. Arrest them for robbery, assault, breaking and entering, etc. Don't focus on the drug, or the gun. This is exactly like debating gun controllers.

We are "Not" talking about innocent people sir. You are "NOT" reading the posts.

You seem to want it both ways. You said that you yourself have used drugs. But you argue that drug users are "not" innocent.

If some people, like yourself, can use drugs without victimizing others, then how can you continue to say that drug use is "not" victimless?

You have to judge others by the same measure that you judge yourself.

The casual pot smoker that sits in his living room and bothers no one is not who most of us are referring to. There are levels of users. You do know this but stand on your box beating your drum and it is starting to hurt.

The "Heavy" drug users are victimizers. Yes, words have meanings.

There are tons of casual users being punished, every day. As long as they are being punished, that is who we are referring to. The law does not (and cannot) differentiate between the two. I have not seen you call for a repeal of drug laws, so how can you say you are not referring to the majority of those affected?

I know some people who used heavy drugs and did not victimize others. It is simply not true what you are saying. Not every user is a victimizer. Punish people for their victimizing actions, not the drugs.

 

[Thor]

Meh, they're expensive because when idiots use them they destroy lives, theirs or others they don't care because they're stoned, ergo they become illegal because the rest of society doesn't want to deal with their idiocy.

Want cheap and easy access to them? Okay, then we get cheap and easy access to taking them out of the gene pool when they become a threat to others...with no more legal pratfalls than they had in gaining access.

Get stoned in your house? I don't care, it's unfortunate for your family. Get stoned in public, I care; it can be unfortunate for my family. With the freedom comes responsibility.

 

[1861navy]

We chased 3 family members down that rabbit hole trying to save them
1 made it (so far) 1 is still alive but a shadow of her former self and 1 is gone. Literally.
When you see this 1st hand, when they lie cheat and steal from you. When they turn on you like a snake when you cut them off. When you have physical altercations with them and the POS they run with this alters your perception of the "Victim-less" crime.

In my family 2 went down the road both made it out, fortunately. Both of them lost everything before they turned around. One who married into the family has been slipping fast for several years. Got himself in bad.

The things these type of people do are way worse than puffing a j and forgetting to help grandma. Their only consideration is getting high, health and welfare of others means nothing. There definitely are victims on many sides when people act this way.

 

[churchmouse]

Those are victims... victims of home invasion.

They are not victims of drugs. Or guns.

The police already have a proper justification to go after the perpetrators. Arrest them for robbery, assault, breaking and entering, etc. Don't focus on the drug, or the gun. This is exactly like debating gun controllers.



You seem to want it both ways. You said that you yourself have used drugs. But you argue that drug users are "not" innocent.

If some people, like yourself, can use drugs without victimizing others, then how can you continue to say that drug use is "not" victimless?

You have to judge others by the same measure that you judge yourself.



There are tons of casual users being punished, every day. As long as they are being punished, that is who we are referring to. The law does not (and cannot) differentiate between the two. I have not seen you call for a repeal of drug laws, so how can you say you are not referring to the majority of those affected?

I know some people who used heavy drugs and did not victimize others. It is simply not true what you are saying. Not every user is a victimizer. Punish people for their victimizing actions, not the drugs.

You live in a bubble. I have seen so many people victimized by the actions of users.
You can believe as you wish. That is one good thing we all still have in this country.
Repeal the law and the flood gates open up for other types of problems.
Replace those laws with workable options and I am on board with the change.
This is my belief from my lifes experiences.
Please know I understand your views and opinions on this. I just see things through a different set of eyes and experiences.