The Root Cause of Crime...

[Gunthr]

you claim cocaine is a "dangerous drug", you know this how? from personal experience or by "public opinion"?

public opinion thinks "speed kills".

John, are you serious?

I know that cocaine, powder, and crack form, are dangerous drugs both from personal experience and the combined world-wide experience of addicts, doctors, pharmacologists, scientists, and law enforcement - experience that has formed a body of knowledge about the drug that is freely available to everyone, and has therefore become public opinion.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Gunthr
sorry, didn't see it.  I don't see your first reason as valid because it does not address reality.  It fine to talk about freedom and liberty - until the impaired individual somehow effects you negatively.

"effects you negatively"?  like what for example, hurt your feelings? sorry, your feelings aren't protected by law.  rights are.  what I really don't get is why we can't just punish the offenders when they "effect you negatively", assuming that constitutes real crimes of the rights-violating sort.  If a person steals to support his habit he's a criminal, treat him as such.  until he's hurt someone or someone's property they haven't really committed a crime.  broken a law yes, but noone's getting hurt, except arguably the user hmiself.
 

The reality is that individuals on heavy hitting drugs always effect society, and you,  negatively.  whether in lost productivity, impaired function, impaired relationships, health, dui, bankruptcy, lack of child support or any of the train wrecks that addicts and those around them experience.

only real crimes there are dui and child support.  there's laws covering both of those already.  the rest are none of my business.  what are you, the relationship police?  the health police?  etc, etc...  none of those are lockupable offences, yet you want to lock up users so they don't commit those "crimes"?

if you agree that legalized dangerous drugs will result in more users and more addicts...

I don't agree.  you're assuming the war on drugs is stopping people from using drugs, that we're somehow "winning" that war.  it's not and we're not.  something around 3% of the US population were addicts before drug prohibition, around 3% are now.  some percentage of the population will always abuse drugs, it's human nature.  IMHO the humane thing to do is to accept that, treat it as a medical issue and take it from there.

you will agree that there is an increasing negative impact on society.  before you know it, our legal drug users will begin to pay the price in declining health, increased exposure to disease, pretty soon the addicts will learn to use their votes, impaired tho they are, to vote themselves support from liberals in exchange for hand outs.  liberals of course enable these voters with the hand outs, subsidies, housing, harm reduction clinics, free needle programs, free health clinics, child care, gov't subsidized this and that, increased crime and so on.  Believe me, you and society will pay, one way or another.

well, as I said I don't agree that the number of users of hard drugs will skyrocket, so with that said...  you're making a lot of assumptions.  I'm with ya on the out-of-control liberal spending, not suprising considering my libertarian views.  However, if the WoD did end do you realize how much money would be saved?  a 1/10th of it would pay for all the "clinics, needle programs, child care..." needed.  Milton Friedman, champion of free market economics, said "ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year."  that's a lot of clinics...

As far as the war on drugs is concerned, i really don't know what that is any more - just like the war on poverty.  i think it is just a slogan, except with the DARE program in elementary education.

it's prohibition.  didn't work the first time, not working now.  it's also propaganda that serves to keep the general public scared enough to justify budgeting $7.7 Billion a year.  that pays a lot of salaries, buys a lot of equipment, etc...

I agree that enforcing laws against dangerous drugs, their possession, use, manufacture and distribution is like shoveling ***** against the tide, a job that will never be finished.  So?

so end the war!  we're not winning, we're not gonna win.  end the bloody mess and let's try to address the problem, addiction.

i'm not going to let somebody mess with my pursuit of happines just because they want to get high on dangerous drugs.  Screw em.

???  

if someone is "effecting you negatively" enough to violate your right to the pusuit of happiness, I'm sure there's an existing law that covers the specific offense.  otherwise, by simply getting high they're not hurting you.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Gunthr
i think getting jacked up by a legal meth addict or run over by a legal LSD user might be a bitter dose of reality for you, Shamus, even more potent if it was due to your vote to legalize that substance.  

The cost imposed on your so-called "control freaks" isn't only in dollars.  People who use these substances are characterized by their lack of self control.  Do you have children?  Do you imagine that a legal meth user for instance, or a legal LSD user is a responsible member of society who will have the self discipline or concern for others, or clear thinking - to not drive his car in your neighborhood while tweaked to his eyeballs? Past where your child plays?  

You are talking about pie in the sky, not reality.

oooooh, we can't forget the children!  WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!    and don't forget the boogeyman, he'll get ya too...  

[bsdaddict]

Gunther, I'd be really interested to hear your take on the LEAP vid that was posted earlier in this thread.

[Gunthr]

what I really don't get is why we can't just punish the offenders when they "effect you negatively", assuming that constitutes real crimes of the rights-violating sort. If a person steals to support his habit he's a criminal, treat him as such. until he's hurt someone or someone's property they haven't really committed a crime. broken a law yes, but noone's getting hurt, except arguably the user hmiself. - bs

 lets say we legalize all those dangerous drugs that you think are so necessary for our personal freedom.

it is foreseeable that people who smoke crack will want to continue smoking due to it's addictive nature.  so in your world, we legalize it, i guess, simply to satisfy those who want to be high in order to escape themselves (the addictive personality).

 it is foreseeable that when the crack is smoked up, the user will want more.  it is foreseeable that the user will then do what they have to do to obtain the crack.  This is science, having to do with nerves, synapses, and body chemistry.  This is also history.  We all know of people who have tried crack and fell off the precipice into total dissolution of personality and morals.  

Bsaddict, is this really a substance that you want to legalize?  And then stand back and watch the fun begin?

[lukster]

Originally posted by SwS
You are trying to state your opinion as fact and it just isn't so...if you don't like the way that your local judges do business then go get your own law degree and change it.

I don't need a law degree to have the same voice in how our courts enforce our laws.



There is plenty of hard evidence to support exactly what I said. Damn bleedin' hearts, if there is any justice or karma they will eventually be victims of those they would turn loose on society.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Gunthr
lets say we legalize all those dangerous drugs that you think are so necessary for our personal freedom.

ok, but I didn't say that.

it is foreseeable that people who smoke crack will want to continue smoking due to it's addictive nature.  so in your world, we legalize it, i guess, simply to satisfy those who want to be high in order to escape themselves (the addictive personality).

THEY'RE ALREADY SMOKING CRACK

it is foreseeable that when the crack is smoked up, the user will want more.  it is foreseeable that the user will then do what they have to do to obtain the crack.  This is science, having to do with nerves, synapses, and body chemistry.  This is also history.  We all know of people who have tried crack and fell off the precipice into total dissolution of personality and morals.

and it's happening today, and will tomorrow, and the day after that, and the next...  drug addicts historically find a way to mess themselves up.  jailing them doesn't help their medical problems.  addressing those medical problems is cheaper than locking them up, enforcing prohibition laws, etc...

Bsaddict, is this really a substance that you want to legalize?  And then stand back and watch the fun begin? [/B]

pfft, don't patronize me.  I've repeated myself enough already and you're ovbiously too emotionally attached to this issue to reason with, so I'm done debating this with you.  Watch the LEAP vid I suggested and then maybe we'll talk...

[Gunthr]

i'm not  patronising you, bsdaddict.  I have seriously thought about this for the past thirty years.  i respect your opinion, just don't agree.

[bsdaddict]

fair enough, sorry for overreacting then.  I'm very suspicious of people who try to sway me with emotional arguments.  The "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" crys are a pet peeve of mine.  I hear that and I tend to discount anything else that person has to say.

I'd still like to hear what you have to say about that LEAP video.  

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Gunthr
i think getting jacked up by a legal meth addict or run over by a legal LSD user might be a bitter dose of reality for you, Shamus, even more potent if it was due to your vote to legalize that substance.  

The cost imposed on your so-called "control freaks" isn't only in dollars.  People who use these substances are characterized by their lack of self control.  Do you have children?  Do you imagine that a legal meth user for instance, or a legal LSD user is a responsible member of society who will have the self discipline or concern for others, or clear thinking - to not drive his car in your neighborhood while tweaked to his eyeballs? Past where your child plays?  

You are talking about pie in the sky, not reality.

Yes Gunthr, I know many things are possible, and I dare say that I personally deal with as many of the dregs of society and danger posed in life as you do.

You and I differ on the cause and effect.

I have a problem with most proactive laws, thats why I made the statement that I did, I think there has to be a victim or injured party for a crime to have occurred.

When I hear that the victim is "society", I look at that with a jaundice eye.

You can stand there and say what if this shamus and what if that shamus, but it means nothing, you have no idea what will happen.

BTW, I am not in favor legalizing all drugs, but I am of the opinion that the "war on drugs", even tho you don't believe it is going on anymore, has done more harm to the country than anything else thats happened in the last 40 years.

shamus

[Gunthr]

Yes Gunthr, I know many things are possible, and I dare say that I personally deal with as many of the dregs of society and danger posed in life as you do.

You and I differ on the cause and effect.

I have a problem with most proactive laws, thats why I made the statement that I did, I think there has to be a victim or injured party for a crime to have occurred.

When I hear that the victim is "society", I look at that with a jaundice eye.

You can stand there and say what if this shamus and what if that shamus, but it means nothing, you have no idea what will happen.

BTW, I am not in favor legalizing all drugs, but I am of the opinion that the "war on drugs", even tho you don't believe it is going on anymore, has done more harm to the country than anything else thats happened in the last 40 years.

shamus

It looks like we have to agree to disagree about the "effects on society" thing.  The discussion about legalizing dangerous drugs has been around a long time, and I think most of us who are interested in the issue know both sides of the argument by heart.  

I think the crux of it is whether or not you believe that legalizing dangerous drugs like crack will make it easier to experiment with and more socially acceptible because of the decriminalization, resulting in more crack addiction than we have now, and whether or not you agree that  it has a negative impact on people who have to live around it.

Even so, I'm not necessarily flying the flag for the "War on Drugs."  (I'm not sure it even exists as it was in the 70's.)  

I agree with some aspects of it concerning foreign policy,  but i'm against enforcement emphasis on possession as opposed to trafficking - if that exists anywhere.  

I can tell you that a roach found in your ashtray on a traffic stop in the '70s would have been field tested with reagents and would land you in the hoosgow, whereas today, it may cause a K-9 officer to stop by for a walk around your vehicle, but the roach - if that is all you have - will likely be field stripped and thrown down.  Nobody has time for that stuff anymore.  This does not sound like Nixon's "War on Drugs."

[lazs2]

I think that every meth addict that would exist already does.. no law will stop future meth addicts from existing in the same numbers as no law..   if they still have their licence they will run into you law or no law.

prohibition didn't stop drunks or drunk driving..  what does have an effect is stiff penalties for using any drug (including booze) in a manner that is dangerous to society.

We have perhaps all heard the arguments for and against legalization but to think that you are protecting drivers by the war on drugs is pretty silly.

If the "war on drugs" were working and keeping meth heads off the road then we wouldn't need the DOT program for truckers would we?

lazs

[Gunthr]

I think that every meth addict that would exist already does.. no law will stop future meth addicts from existing in the same numbers as no law.. - Lazs

i dont buy that.  who came up with this idea that the numbers of addicts to any drug will always remain at some certain magical percentage of the population regardless of factors like availability, price, legal status, quality, and level of social acceptance???  was there a study or something?

 active crack addiction, for example, fluctuates wildly relative to availability - just observe your local crack town.  everybody knows when somebody is cooking up a big batch, and you can see the crack potatos start walking almost overnight.  they smoke that crack up untill its gone.  you can extrapolate that to the entire population of the united states.  if its there for people to try with no fear of legal consequences, there are going to be more people trying it.   and because there are no casual crack users, the more available it is, the more addicts there will be.  the more addicts there are, the more socialist your world will become.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Gunthr
i dont buy that.  who came up with this idea that the numbers of addicts to any drug will always remain at some certain magical percentage of the population regardless of factors like availability, price, legal status, quality, and level of social acceptance???  was there a study or something?

looking for the official study, but found this...

"In 1910, officials estimated that about 1.3 percent of the American public was addicted to drugs. When President Nixon called for the current war on drugs, he said 1.3 percent of Americans were addicts. Today, after spending a trillion dollars and arresting millions the estimate is...1.3 percent!

What has changed is the millions of lives ruined, not by drugs, but by drug prohibition. Thousands of students have been denied financial aid for college because of a drug conviction. Countless families have been torn apart, countless children have been orphaned and entire neighborhoods have been ruined. Prisons are overcrowded, courts are clogged, police are corrupted, countries have been invaded and civil rights have been taken away. All this in the name of drug prohibition."

active crack addiction, for example, fluctuates wildly relative to availability - just observe your local crack town.  everybody knows when somebody is cooking up a big batch, and you can see the crack potatos start walking almost overnight.  they smoke that crack up untill its gone.  you can extrapolate that to the entire population of the united states.  if its there for people to try with no fear of legal consequences, there are going to be more people trying it.   and because there are no casual crack users, the more available it is, the more addicts there will be.  the more addicts there are, the more socialist your world will become.

everybody knows, eh?  sounds like pure speculation to me.

[Gunthr]

bsdaddict, im starting to think you might be brain damaged from too many drugs.  First you tell me this in an earlier post:

fair enough, sorry for overreacting then. I'm very suspicious of people who try to sway me with emotional arguments. The "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" crys are a pet peeve of mine. I hear that and I tend to discount anything else that person has to say.

[/b]

And now, apparently on a cut 'n' paste rampage, you tell me this:

...countless children have been orphaned and entire neighborhoods have been ruined.

[/b]

I hear that, and I'm starting to discount anything YOU have to say.  

Besides, didn't you tell me in an earlier post:

pfft, don't patronize me. I've repeated myself enough already and you're ovbiously too emotionally attached to this issue to reason with, so I'm done debating this with you.

Why are you debating with me, and making those "pfft" noises?