I’m not exactly for drug legalization. My probable current position is that Marijuana should be legalized and then the resultant situation should be analyzed… maybe a 10-year trial period. If things go well, then maybe the legalization can be expanded. If things go poorly, its back to being banned.
But in the interest of proposing a way to enable drugs to be legalized successfully, how about this…
You need to obtain a license for drugs that fall under a certain category (or class of categories). You pay for a medical examination (insurance won’t cover it) as well as undergo an identity check… if you pass both you get the license. Part of the terms of the license is responsible use of drugs. Drug-related crime is treated harshly. Regular medical checkups (perhaps annually) are mandated by the license to ensure continued health. Fail the medical checkup and you are disqualified from renewing your license. Perhaps 5 years later you can re-apply.
Doctors aren’t cheap, and bear in mind that beside the price of the drugs (which in most cases isn’t too high once they become legal) the medical checkups are paid for by the licensee. The lowest economic class most likely would still have to hit the black market.
Licensing, background checks, regular medical checks. A substantially regulated infrastructure in place (besides the infrastructure that supplies the drugs) is the solution.
Koontz, you did NOT need to start a thread for your latest ramblings on a topic already in full swing in another thread. That’s just rude, man.
The black market wouldn’t shrink in the least, in your system. Not only that, while you keep things safe for the middle to upper-class people, you keep the lower classes embroiled in the same horsehit that’s causing all the problems in the first place.
Way to balance things out man.
You don’t need to create new laws to make things better, you need to get rid of dozens of existing ones while upping the penalties for current ones.
Legalize drugs.
Turn drunk driving into “Driving while under the influence of a mind-altering substance” or some BS catch-all phrase.
Make the penalties pretty damn stiff the first time, then absolutely solid the next. If you manage to drive under the influence and get caught that second time, you’re not being a responsible substance user, and you’re not only going up the creek a long time, you’re gonna get help, period. Anyone who can’t control their usage and refrain from driving shouldn’t be doing drugs, alcohol or anything else for that matter.
Increase the penalties for violent crime, but keep the punishment the same regardless of state of intoxication. A rapist is a rapist, a murderer is a murderer, and what drug they were on shouldn’t stiffen or decrease the penalties either way.
Done. Give it 5 years and see crime drop 50%, drug use decrease due to increased rehab rates and better drug AWARENESS, and watch as tax revenue from legalized drug sales and drug business pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy.
Its not the same topic. This one’s about methods for legalizing drugs.
Non-medical drugs are luxury items. The lowest class should be spending its money on other things. I’m not pleased by a mother spending money on crack while her child is malnourished.
I assume your first sentence there is a joke, or at least an exaggeration.
I’m not an egalitarian.
Problem #1 is that humans cannot be trusted with self-governance. Hence the need for external government. Without laws restricting drug use, there would be substantial abuse. Libertarians (as your position is) don’t care about “substantial abuse” because of their “equal opportunity” policy by which all problems are the responsibility of the individual. I, however, care.
Problem #2 is that upping penalties raises the frequency of governmental services. The justice system would get more “work”, lawyers more money, etc. I don’t want that… my “licensing” system is an attempt to stop problems before they occur. It gives doctors and psychologists a chance to prevent problems BEFORE they reach the court system after Cokehead Johnnie kills Steve. Psychologist Joe sees Licensee-hopeful Johnnie as unfit and Johnnie thus never becomes Cokehead Johnnie.
Also, upping penalties often doesn’t deter crime, and it causes all kinds of other problems even aside from raising governmental cost.
What drug they are on can help make someone a rapist or a murderer, depending on context.
Instead of just giving a man a rope, first determine whether he is using it for industry or for a noose.
I suppose you give a distraught man a gun, then when he kills himself with it you say “a suicider is a suicider”.
All of that works with my system as well but I provide a barrier between the abusive drug user and drugs while your system is blind… more than happy to incarcerate the people my system denies helping incarcerate.
Compared to your system, mine…
Higher taxes (due to the “identity check” and oversight infrastructure… doctor and psychologist fees are paid by the licensee)
Lower justice system usage/costs
Lower crime rate/drug abuse/rehab costs
I assume the “awareness” costs would be similar since we are both apparently in favor of a considerable education push. That would have to be done by the government of course. My system incorporates government-sponsored scientific research into the effects of drugs.
Sorry guys, don’t seem to be able to make the quote button work:
“Non-medical drugs are luxury items. The lowest class should be spending its money on other things. I’m not pleased by a mother spending money on crack while her child is malnourished.”
So you’re back to square one with the whole thing. Do you think a crack addict cares whether you’re pleased or not? She’s gonna get the money to buy her favourite hit anyway, only with your system she’ll need to get more. Her kiddie won’t just be malnourished; it will die of hunger.
I think the fault with your reasoning lies in the fact that you’re considering limiting drug use, not drug abuse. Fighting drug use - forget it. It has never been successful and never will - Americans should know this better than anyone else, given all that Prohibition bullshit. Whoever wants to do drugs will do drugs, ultimately. Whether it takes three muggings or five to get the necessary amount of cash is irrelevant to the addict, although plenty relevant to the victims.
What should be done right now, regardless of whether any extra drugs get legalised or not, is the introduction (or possibly reintroduction) of a law against criminal intoxication. I live in Canada where the law treats intoxication solely as a mitigating circumstance. In essence, this is correct, for while intoxicated one is not wholly responsible for one’s actions. However, getting into that state and subsequently causing damage and/or harm should be penalized. So while a guy who kills someone in a drunken brawl might get a relatively light manslaughter sentence, he’d also be hit with a sentence for, essentially, failure to remain responsible for his actions.
From what I’ve seen in life, there’s no more dangerous drug than alcohol. It’s the only drug that’s food (other stuff doesn’t have the calories, even though it may be eaten), and it can kill you outright if you have too much in one sitting. Try doing that with pot… Or maybe just compare how you feel the next day. So frankly I think the whole discussion about the dangers of legalizing other drugs is ridiculous. It sort of reminds me of the time when I was in the States and visited a place called a DRUGSTORE, and right next to the cashiers there were those pyramids of booze - literally - vodka in one, scotch in the other, rye in the next… And above those mounds of booze hung a sign: THIS IS DRUG FREE WORKPLACE. In a place called drugstore. Oh and they had stacks of Ephedrine, too - 100 hits for $10. Yeah, this sea air in California, it sure gets you congested. When one looks at the whole thing objectively, it belongs in a surrealistic novel.
Why don’t you ask a cop which drug users he has most problems with - making clear that by drug users you include drinkers. Or maybe check out the number of homicides commited by drunken idiots, and compare the total with all the homicides caused by drug gang warfare. My bet is the numbers don’t even come close.
Just to make things perfectly clear, I enjoy booze as well as other drugs.
She won’t need to get more… drug prices will plummet. Prices on the black market will also lower considerably, since they are now in semi-competition with the legal market.
This system does not help out some of the people who are deemed unsuitable for receiving a legal license, however. Those people enter the black market and get many more hits due to the lower cost. Thus the time till the money runs out gets extended. An unfortunate side effect of the system.
My system limits drug abuse among those with licenses. Those without licenses who are found using drugs face harsh penalties, since its been established in advance that they are unfit for drug use.
No system I’ve ever seen (including the Libertarian “legalize it freely”) destroys drug abuse or crime to pay for drug abuse.
As percent of the qualifying population (percent of drinkers versus percent of gang members involved with drugs) the numbers are far higher with gang drugs.
You know what Koontz, while we’re at it, why don’t we require a license for drinking alcohol, as well? Alcohol-related deaths far exceed those of the drug-related ones and the gang violence combined.
It sounds to me like alcohol is a very volatile substance which has negligible social benefits and astounding negative repercussions. I think perhaps we should consider requiring an alcohol license in order to purchase liquor, or perhaps we’d be better with flat our criminilization.
OH WAIT, THEY ALREADY DID THAT, AND IT FAILED MISERABLY.
After prohibition, they did not PHASE the rights back in. The opened up the floodgates of liquor wholesale, and I challenge you to dig up a statistic that says there was a skyrocketing rate of alcohlism following the 21th Amendment’s acceptance.
The fact was, alcoholism and alcohol-related crime increase during prohibition, and declined afterward.
As far as I’m concerned, the federal government is not granted the power to declare legality of drugs.
Federal law bans the possession of drugs deemed illegal. But if a simple federal law can ban these drugs, why did Prohibition of alcohol require a constitutional amendment?
Why did it take a 2/3 Congressional vote in 1919 to pass the 19th amendment and criminalize the sale and possession of alcohol, and a subsequent 2/3 vote in 1933 to pass the 21st to repeal the 19th, but such measures were not needed in order to “schedule” these drugs and declare them “controlled substances”?
I wouldn’t terribly mind a license for alcohol. Since a large amount is known about the effects of alcohol abuse (liver degradation for example) it would be relatively easy for the doctor to determine during the license renewal whether the person is fit or not.
My system works well with the idea of responsible use of drugs.
The problem I see with making alcohol licensable is the sheer cost. Perhaps instead of regular doctors doing the tests interns or nurses would oversee them (once it became determined they could handle the tests adequately) to cut cost.
Also to cut costs, all of the licensing would be done at the same time. So once a year, you go to the doctor and say what licenses you are trying out for (or renewing for).
People should have obstacles put in their way on their path to annihilating themselves and pulling others into that wake.
I don’t believe any drugs were banned back then. Opium maybe, but this was before the widespread use (or knowledge of bad effects) of many of the drugs you are familiar with.
Unlike currently, there was no precedent for banning drugs. So they thought a constitutional amendment was the way to go. Since such a thing is (ironically enough) supposed to be permanent, it was more favored than simply a law against it.
I suppose I’ve answered that.
Those being financially subsidized by the government have their spending overseen by the government. The idea of governmental financial assistance is not to have that assistance be funneled into a crack habit.
Non-medical drugs are luxury items. The poor also don’t get to buy a new Porsche with governmental funds.
It is not the government’s job to meddle in the life of someone if the only person they are hurting is themself.
People should be able to drink, snort, inject, and smoke their way into oblivion. They should be allowed to determine their own fates, providing they do not infringe on the freedom of others in doing so. If they want to die, they should be given the space to kill themselves.
I find it laughable that suicide is actually illegal; I realize this is due to the fact it allows government to force someone into psychiatric care if their suicide attempt fails, but simply put, they shouldn’t be able to do that.
Call me a cynic, or scrooge, or Old Scratch, but I believe that people should be allowed to determine the course of their own existence, even if that determination is that they want to die. Sure, their problems could most likely be fixed, sure, things probably aren’t as bad as they think they are, but who are you to tell a person they have no right to terminate their own existence?
For that matter, who are you to tell someone that they cannot do something that is unhealthy?
I’m starting to wonder if your perfect world doesn’t resemble that in Demolition Man, where everything that is potentially damaging to your health is criminalized.
“Be well!” my ass. Vice is one of the goddamned beautiful aspects of humanity.
Oh yeah. Koontz: You are nucking futs. Seriously. I’d encourage you to seek mental assistance, but I would never force you to. I guess that’s the difference between me and you. You seem just as eager to tell people how to live their lives as the “religious right.”
People should be able to drink, snort, inject, and smoke their way into oblivion. They should be allowed to determine their own fates, providing they do not infringe on the freedom of others in doing so. If they want to die, they should be given the space to kill themselves.[/quote]
Killing yourself and annihilation are not the same thing.
As friends and family find out quickly, a drug addict affects their fates as well as his own. Even most hermits are not entirely non-social.
Everyone living socially is subject to that social structure.
It is NOT the government’s job to regulate the social aspects of America.
Should we stop everyone whose actions are causing emotional trauma to their friends and family from doing whatever they’re doing, even if they want to do it?
I’m sorry, that doesn’t fly with me. What’s the next step, not allowing people to get involved in relationships, because those can lead to broken hearts?
It’s not the government’s job to make sure people aren’t indirectly causing other people emotional pain, simple as that. It is not some protector from our emotions.
Ensure people don’t go around killing other people? Yes. Ensuring people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even if that happiness may emotionally injure those around them? You bet. It’s society’s job to try and solve these social issues, not the government’s.
Yes, it is, when those social aspects break down. The government (nationally and locally) is responsible for crime prevention, for crime retribution (punishment), for ensuring morality.
I’m fine with non-governmental factors providing first treatment. But when that treatment fails and problems begin, the government is there to act as a safety net.
If you prefer (which I’m sure a Libertarian would) some social regulation factors can be farmed out to private industry. Semi-private anyway… the government would still check to ensure a certain level of performance is being achieved.
Not necessarily, but communication should be required to occur where understanding is shared among the affected parties.
Something that protects us from bodily harm must logically also protect us from other types of harm. This doesn’t imply that murder or psychological trauma or anything else doesn’t have its place. Human pain is not being prevented, its being regulated. I know the current position on non-wartime/non-fetal? murder is prevention, but I’m even against that.
LOL. Corporeal death isn’t even the worst kind. Just compare the death of a serial killer to the death of whatever led to the serial killer becoming that way in the first place. Also, no matter how bad a murder is the victim doesn’t have to live with it… other types of death live on in the memory…
Again, if you want to farm out social regulation to private industry that’s fine as long as its handled effectively.
The government is effective at cleaning up bodies. They come to the scene of a crime, mark the outline like some ghostly recorder, determine the who-dunit, get the who-dunit, and apply the punishment.
As a matter of punishment everyone is a vulture. Punishment is fun. Our jails are overflowing with the punished. We smile as they sit there in their spartan cage, taking time out to eat weak cafeteria food or “exercise”. We smile even more at tales of anal rape, as if a life in an empty spartan cage is not enough. We congratulate ourselves on our “humane” treatment of the punished while we smile… they used to hang people… can you believe those savages?! I’m beginning to wonder if “humane” is along the lines of “horror movie” or “Massively Multiplayer”… a word that doesn’t mean what its supposed to mean. Perhaps Jack or Jessica could step in to say that, well, humane is just what we CALL 30-year incarceration and anal rape… it doesn’t have to mean that. Someone invented “humane” in that context… we should honor their invention.
Some murders are fine. But lets take Columbine for example…
I don’t have many details, but my understanding is that some high school students unhappy with other students and perhaps faculty decided to punish those others with the application of high-velocity pointed lead pellets and thus internal bodily displacement resulting in corporeal injury and/or death.
High school is not exactly a place with open dialogue. Everyone segregates into like-groups. The teachers take sides. Fears real or imagined are used to sustain the process. Fraternization with someone outside the group is seen as treason… its like siding with the enemy. You sit with your group at lunch… you see your group in the halls. And you maintain distance from everyone else.
Schools are now good at banning guns. Not really good, mind you, clever kids can still sneak guns in easily enough.
Tribalism is, however, alive and well. Venomous looks are still given by Groups A and B to each other. Venom that will again spill over. The schools just hope that guns aren’t involved next time. Maybe they’d prefer knives, or baseball bats with nails.
So they sit there and hope, and check for guns at the door, and they call that a solution. Machfive is proud.
