How to fix the drug problem

[RommelTJ]

I came up with a way to solve the drug problem. Here are my thoughts.

First of all, we have to admit that the "war on drugs" cannot be won. Drugs are here to stay because anyone can make them and they generate lots of money.

Since drugs won't go away, the next best thing is to control them. I propose the almost total legalization of drugs. My way is simple: you can use, sell, possess, and do anything with drugs with the exception of make them.

I propose opening pharmacies run by the government where we would dispense free drugs to anyone who wants them. The only requirement to get drugs is that you have some kind of documentation that you are currently employed. Any kind will suffice. There is no special registration required.

The work documentation acts as a check and balance to the problem. You can get drugs for free as long as you are employed, but you won't be employed for long if you are high all the time. No productivity-no drugs.

These pharmacies will be supplied by the government. The government will make the drugs through arrangements with pharmaceutical companies. These companies would have to make sure that the drugs are of the highest qualities. In the case of some highly damaging drugs, such as cocaine and meth, the government would have to invest in developing safer versions(even when they would cost more).

The amount of money that we spend on the "war on drugs" is staggering. We could use that money to open up the pharmacies and still have lots of money left.

The rest of the money should be used in opening treatment centers. These centers would be staffed by trained psychologists and physicians who would encourage users to stop using drugs and would educate them on the safe use of drugs. If your city is lucky enough to have one of these centers, one psychologist probably deals with 40 junkies per week. This doesn't allow for follow-ups and other such things. As you know, most drug abuse problems come from mommy, daddy and rebellion issues. I propose around 20 of these centers for a large city.

What is a drug trafficker or a pusher without drugs? Nothing. Drug traffickers have no power, no education, and no influence. They are simply there because we pay for them, and they can charge high prices because we criminalize them. We legalize drugs and we eliminate these leechers.

Making drugs will be highly punished though. Anyone caught making drugs would risk a minimum of 20 years of jail. Besides, since drugs would be free and easily available, why would someone run the risk. I am of the belief that people rarely disobey reasonable laws. (ex: people should stop at red lights, reasonable since we all have to drive and don't want to crash. Migrants should come in legally, unreasonable since they won't be admitted if they follow the due process)

There is one problem I currently see with my proposition, and I hope that you guys can help me figure it out. Obviously under my criteria(employment) no one under 16 would be able to get drugs. You might think that this won't work because older people will supply drugs to younger people, and to that I have no good answer. Yes, that will happen, but we can't keep isolating our children from the world. It is up to the parents to control a child's friends before they are responsible enough to have a job. How do we get around this?

Anyway, I know that my idea seems crazy. Everyone that I've told this idea has said that to me, but at the same time, after I explained it they agreed or understood it, so I think it's a good idea.

Please comment and tell me what you thought.

[RommelTJ]

Oh, I forgot to mention something. Legalizing drugs would also solve our jail problem.

Sorry for double posting.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

4 issues;

A) Government money wasted
B) Socialism = bad
C) Doing drugs does nothing to prevent you from having a job.
D) Public outlash at the government slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people with lethal chemicals that they pump into the bodies of anyone who asks. It would be like the government funding a Russian Ruelette tournament.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/16/07 01:36 AM, RommelTJ wrote: Oh, I forgot to mention something. Legalizing drugs would also solve our jail problem.

Legalizing any crime will "solve" our jail problems.

Now, who wants to go draft some rape-legalization legislature? Anyone? Anyone at all? How about you, Senator Foley, you're a sick rapist?

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 01:38 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: 4 issues;

A) Government money wasted

Is it better to spend it imprisoning people? Is it better to spend it on new drug sniffing dogs? Contracting for a drug-sniffing dog could cost up to $10,000 per year. To buy a dog, train the dog and handler, pay the salary of a handler and provide food, shelter and medical care for the dog will cost about $50,000 per year. And this is just dogs. We have an entire agency that costs 2.4 billion dollars to run each year and staffs over 10,800 people. Is that a wast of government money when we could be treating people in the centers that I mentioned for free?

C) Doing drugs does nothing to prevent you from having a job.

Well, yes and no. If you can perform well on a job while being high, then you can do drugs all you want. And why shouldn't you? After all, you are responsible for your own life and your employer for your salary. If he wants to hire you than that's his problem. Most people though, would be fired from their job if they were constantly high.

D) Public outlash at the government slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people with lethal chemicals that they pump into the bodies of anyone who asks. It would be like the government funding a Russian Ruelette tournament.

This is just ignorance. You mention drugs and people freak. Why? Where I live, the archbishop once stated that the best way to combat drugs was through legalization. You should've heard the outcry. But once the people listened to his argument, they were reasonable. How can we combat this "Public outlash"? By having a respected public figure in informative announcements.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/16/07 02:03 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

Is it better to spend it imprisoning people? Is it better to spend it on new drug sniffing dogs?

Yes.

Well, yes and no. If you can perform well on a job while being high, then you can do drugs all you want. And why shouldn't you? After all, you are responsible for your own life and your employer for your salary. If he wants to hire you than that's his problem. Most people though, would be fired from their job if they were constantly high.

People get high before and after work. Furthermore, you missed B.

This is just ignorance. You mention drugs and people freak. Why? Where I live, the archbishop once stated that the best way to combat drugs was through legalization. You should've heard the outcry. But once the people listened to his argument, they were reasonable. How can we combat this "Public outlash"? By having a respected public figure in informative announcements.

Good job avoiding the entire point. Once again, there will be to much outcry from the hundreds of thousands of corpses.

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 01:46 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 9/16/07 01:36 AM, RommelTJ wrote: Oh, I forgot to mention something. Legalizing drugs would also solve our jail problem.:

Legalizing any crime will "solve" our jail problems.

Now, who wants to go draft some rape-legalization legislature? Anyone? Anyone at all? How about you, Senator Foley, you're a sick rapist?

Rape and drugs are not the same type of crime. How many hundreds of harmless people are put in jail because they smoke weed? Junkies do a harm to themselves, while rapists affect others.

If junkies affect someone directly, then yes they should be put in jail. But if you remove all the people in jail that were put there because they were caught smoking a joint you magically solve the prison overcrowding.

Our current system would jail an 60 year old if he is smoking pot. Is that really necessary?

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 02:09 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: At 9/16/07 02:03 AM, RommelTJ wrote::

People get high before and after work. Furthermore, you missed B.

That's my entire point. If you can work perfectly fine while being high, then why shouldn't you?

I skipped B because it was vague. If you want me to discuss it, you have to be more specific. Or is that how you regularly speak? Me=Tarzan.

This is just ignorance. You mention drugs and people freak. Why? Where I live, the archbishop once stated that the best way to combat drugs was through legalization. You should've heard the outcry. But once the people listened to his argument, they were reasonable. How can we combat this "Public outlash"? By having a respected public figure in informative announcements.

Good job avoiding the entire point. Once again, there will be to much outcry from the hundreds of thousands of corpses.

Well, I thought the point was how to combat the fact that there would be an outcry. If the point is the drugs themselves, it will only be better.

Right now people die because they don't know how to use drugs or because they don't realize how dangerous they actually are or because the drugs and syringes aren't clean. By having them attending pharmacies we would have a better control of those issues through the pharmacists. Also, the psychologists and physicians that I proposed would also be there to help them deal with whatever causes them to use drugs. The Government would make sure of this, and since the syringes and drugs would be of the highest quality, "the hundreds of thousands of corpses" is an exaggeration.

Sure, there would be an outcry at first. But if you reason with the people they will understand that the Government actually cares for them. Eventually, when people realize that the number of drug related deaths would decreases the image would turn to a more positive one.

I won't argue that it won't be difficult. The mainstream media has manipulated our way of thinking.

[TheThing]

I was going to agree with you, until you started talking about "free drugs" and "proof of work".

Giving away free drugs, although solves the problem of drug dealers, only decreases us as a people. It allows everyone to have as much drugs as they want, and therefore creates a nation of people who, after taking so much of a drug, will slow down; taking LSD will give people random flash-backs, slowing production; marijuana makes you dumber in the long run; cocaine ruins your nostrils and makes it hard to breath. The list goes on.

Also, the taxes the government will be receiving will not be able to fund thousands of pharmacies, millions (or even billions) of pounds of drugs each year, and 20 rehab centers with physiologists. That's with the money they get from not fighting a drug war.

Furthermore, think the morality of giving away something known to hurt, maim and kill people freely. You know that giving someone heroin for the first time might kill them, and if they die, it's because you gave them the heroin.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/16/07 02:17 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

Rape and drugs are not the same type of crime. How many hundreds of harmless people are put in jail because they smoke weed?

0. Marijuana possession isn't an offense for which you can be sent to prison.

Junkies do a harm to themselves, while rapists affect others.

Oh yeah, I forgot that nobody ever get's high and commits crimes.

If junkies affect someone directly, then yes they should be put in jail. But if you remove all the people in jail that were put there because they were caught smoking a joint you magically solve the prison overcrowding.

How does removing 0 people help reduce prison crowding?

Our current system would jail an 60 year old if he is smoking pot. Is that really necessary?

If that was true, then no, it wouldn't be neccessary.

[TonyTostieno]

Um...how about this. Just legalize weed?
You take out about 47% of the people in jail right there, kill off a huge part of drug dealer's business, and less people will probably do it.
Why? Because there are people that exist that think that if something is illegal and they do it, they are automatically cool (mostly idiots in high school) because they're idiots.
Legalize weed, put a smoking age and a huge tax on it like tobacco, and voila! You have yourself a solution.
And yes, I know there would be a spike in the first years of people smoking it because they'd be trying something they'd never done before, but eventually the number would fall back down and probably lower than before.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/16/07 02:37 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

That's my entire point. If you can work perfectly fine while being high, then why shouldn't you?

Did you not read? BEFORE AND AFTER WORK. Not during work. No one can work whilst high; that's why junkies shoot up off duty.

I skipped B because it was vague. If you want me to discuss it, you have to be more specific. Or is that how you regularly speak? Me=Tarzan.

Fine; you supported government socialism in the way of nationalization. Bad is when something isn't good. Need some more explanations?

Well, I thought the point was how to combat the fact that there would be an outcry. If the point is the drugs themselves, it will only be better.

A bunch of words won't drown the complaints of the family and friends of the hundreds of thousands of corpses lying around.

Right now people die because they don't know how to use drugs or because they don't realize how dangerous they actually are or because the drugs and syringes aren't clean.

And because drugs themselves kill people.

By having them attending pharmacies we would have a better control of those issues through the pharmacists.

Overdosing on Meth is no less dangerous when you got the meth from a pharmacy.

Also, the psychologists and physicians that I proposed would also be there to help them deal with whatever causes them to use drugs.

What, like them just liking drugs?

Not everyone snorts coke because daddy hit them. Some people just like coke.

The Government would make sure of this, and since the syringes and drugs would be of the highest quality, "the hundreds of thousands of corpses" is an exaggeration.

No, it really isn't.

Sure, there would be an outcry at first. But if you reason with the people they will understand that the Government actually cares for them. Eventually, when people realize that the number of drug related deaths would decreases the image would turn to a more positive one.

Lol, decrease? 15 thousand a year die, how would making more drugs available to more people in higher doses make drug deaths "decrease"? That's like saying giving everyone free guns, whatever model they want, will reduce gun-crime.

I won't argue that it won't be difficult. The mainstream media has manipulated our way of thinking.

Not to mention the whole 15 thousand a year dead from drugs issue.

[TonyTostieno]

Now that I think about it, giving out free drugs would be rather stupid.
It's like giving out free candy, soda, food, cars, there's no damn profit, having drugs and syringes of the "Highest Quality" is wicked expensive, which is one of the many reasons that dealers cut heroin and coke with rat poison and god knows what else.
And no matter how high the quality and purity, drugs are still deadly.

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 03:03 AM, TheThing wrote: I was going to agree with you, until you started talking about "free drugs" and "proof of work".

Giving away free drugs, although solves the problem of drug dealers, only decreases us as a people. It allows everyone to have as much drugs as they want, and therefore creates a nation of people who, after taking so much of a drug, will slow down; taking LSD will give people random flash-backs, slowing production; marijuana makes you dumber in the long run; cocaine ruins your nostrils and makes it hard to breath. The list goes on.

I agree that drugs only decrease us as a people. I think there is no denying that. But if a problem has proved to be unsolvable, it is better to try controlling it instead of continuing to enforce laws with mixed results.

Also, the taxes the government will be receiving will not be able to fund thousands of pharmacies, millions (or even billions) of pounds of drugs each year, and 20 rehab centers with physiologists. That's with the money they get from not fighting a drug war.

Ok. The US spent 30 billion dollars in direct prohibition enforcement expenditures, and as such only represent part of the total cost of prohibition. This $30 billion figure rises dramatically once other issues, such as the economic impact of holding 400,000 prisoners on prohibition violations, are factored in(Wikipedia).

Furthermore, think the morality of giving away something known to hurt, maim and kill people freely. You know that giving someone heroin for the first time might kill them, and if they die, it's because you gave them the heroin.

How can hurting yourself be illegal? If I punch myself in the face, should I be put in jail? I forgot to mention this in my first post, but I would like to make a distinction among the drugs:
Soft drugs would be easily and freely available in the pharmacies.
Hard drugs are different than soft drugs in that they are physically addictive. This means that we can't just freely distribute them. Instead, we have to create a drug that has the same effect without the addiction. For example: Pot, Peyote and LSD would be fine, while Heroin, Cocaine and Meth would have to be researched and come up with non-addicting variants.

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 03:21 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 9/16/07 02:17 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

Rape and drugs are not the same type of crime. How many hundreds of harmless people are put in jail because they smoke weed?

0. Marijuana possession isn't an offense for which you can be sent to prison.

You can't be put in jail for Marijuana possession? Somebody must tell the FBI then. "Cannabis users have been arrested at the rate of 1 every 40 seconds. About 88% of all marijuana arrests are for possession - not manufacture or distribution." Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/in dex.html

Junkies do a harm to themselves, while rapists affect others.

Oh yeah, I forgot that nobody ever get's high and commits crimes.

Yes. My point is that hurting yourself is not and shouldn't be illegal. Listen to what I say. If someone were to drive while high, or use alcohol or drugs in a public place, or any other crime he or she deserves to be punished.

How does removing 0 people help reduce prison crowding?

More like 786,545 arrests in 2005. See FBI link.

Our current system would jail an 60 year old if he is smoking pot. Is that really necessary?

If that was true, then no, it wouldn't be neccessary.

It is true, and I've seen it happen many times. Especially with black old men. It is actually more common than you think, at least for me.

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 03:29 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 9/16/07 02:37 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

That's my entire point. If you can work perfectly fine while being high, then why shouldn't you?

Did you not read? BEFORE AND AFTER WORK. Not during work. No one can work whilst high; that's why junkies shoot up off duty.

You say that I can't read? Ok, let me explain again. An employer doesn't care about what his employee does on his spare time. He only cares about him doing his job at his scheduled time. If someone can get high and still be able to show up to work on time then he or she should have the right to do drugs.

Fine; you supported government socialism in the way of nationalization. Bad is when something isn't good. Need some more explanations?

Ok. If you hate socialism so much, what do you propose? A for profit drug selling company? My whole idea is based on the fact that Drug use is a public health issue. Being a public issue, it should be dealt by the government.

A bunch of words won't drown the complaints of the family and friends of the hundreds of thousands of corpses lying around.

Well, I think that the hundreds of thousands of corpses(thats >100,000) that you say are lying around are an exaggeration. If not, then it's up to you to prove it to me. I've only seen 1 dead junkie corpse lying around. 1 is not 100,000s. More people die from alcohol and tobacco than for weed, yet the government allows and regulates alcohol and tobacco.

In the UK, an average of 500,000 people take ecstasy each weekend resulting in an average of only 10 ecstasy related deaths per YEAR. As a comparison, there is one death a day as a result to acute alcohol poisoning.(Source: Wikipedia)

Right now people die because they don't know how to use drugs or because they don't realize how dangerous they actually are or because the drugs and syringes aren't clean.

And because drugs themselves kill people.

Yes, drugs are "bad" as you say. We all know that.

Overdosing on Meth is no less dangerous when you got the meth from a pharmacy.

Yes. That's why I said that for the hardest drugs, we should study them and develop a variant of that drug that creates the same effects but without the physical problems.
Also, the psychologists and physicians that I proposed would also be there to help them deal with whatever causes them to use drugs.

Not everyone snorts coke because daddy hit them. Some people just like coke.

True, but the majority have family issues or are victims of peer pressure.

The Government would make sure of this, and since the syringes and drugs would be of the highest quality, "the hundreds of thousands of corpses" is an exaggeration.

No, it really isn't.

Again, prove it. There is simply not that many people dying as the media tells you. You've been brainwashed.

Lol, decrease? 15 thousand a year die, how would making more drugs available to more people in higher doses make drug deaths "decrease"? That's like saying giving everyone free guns, whatever model they want, will reduce gun-crime.

This is how: "The long-run elasticities provide a basis for estimating potential benefits from changing the current policy mix away from enforcement and interdiction and towards education and treatment. Applying the estimated coefficients, a 10 percent reduction in expenditures on enforcement (about 1 billion dollars by the late 1990s) would be associated with a long-run reduction of over 20% in both the number of deaths and the age-adjusted death rate. This would imply that close to 3,000 deaths a year might be avoided with a shift away from enforcement approaches to drug control. Adding the billion dollars to education and treatment would represent an 18% increase in 1998. The estimated elasticity of 1.59 implies a reduction of close to 5,000 drug-induced deaths per year as a result. Thus, the underlying estimates suggest that very substantial improvements in public health may be achieved by emphasizing education and treatment over enforcement and interdiction."

Source: Source: Shepard, Edward & Paul R. Blackley, "US Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement Versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes," Journal of Drug Issues, Vol. 34, No. 4, Fall 2004, pp. 781-782.

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 04:25 AM, jokerscard wrote: Meh. I agree with legalizing drugs. If anybody died from overdosing it would be because they ingored state pamphlets about same drug use. It would lower crime beacuse a lot of crimes are committed from people looking to get drugs. Don't give drugs for free but cheap. That way the state is not at a total loss and people won't want to cut that if the staTE is at a budget crisis.

The reason I would give it for free is because I woulnd't want people making their own drugs. They would have no incentive if it were free. Also, I wouldn't want people mass buying and then reselling.

[Me-Patch]

At 9/16/07 01:36 AM, RommelTJ wrote: Oh, I forgot to mention something. Legalizing drugs would also solve our jail problem.

Legalizing drugs would create a jail problem. The U.S. prison system keeps millions of people in jobs, if we legalized drugs it would nullify 50% of the prison population, and create a steep drop in gang violance another main staple of the prison population. Jobs would be lost, and we can't have that, besides only the poor go to jail.

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 11:25 AM, Transkar wrote: At 9/16/07 01:34 AM, RommelTJ wrote::

My way is simple: you can use, sell, possess, and do anything with drugs with the exception of make them.

I stopped reading right here. You don't realize that people will still make the drugs even if its illegal. Your theory goes back to the wars on drugs. People are still going to disobey the government no matter what.

Yeah. Like I said before, people disobey unreasonable laws. If the government tells you don't do drugs, you will make them. But if the Government tells you: Don't do drugs, we will give them to you free and cleaner. Now that's a more reasonable law, don't you think?

In other words, you have to allow people to do what they want to some extent. You forget that we live in a democratic society. We should dictate what the Government does, not the other way around.

I believe that if you give drugs for free, you will remove the incentive to make them. Why would someone make drugs if they were available for free? Why would someone make drugs if they were punishable with 20 years of prison? And what is better, even if they made drugs, who would they sell them too if they were available for free? In the rare case they would do them for personal consumption I would be sad for them, but they would be a small problem since it would be .000000001% of the cases. Very few people have knowledge of how to make drugs.

As for the guy that said legalizing drugs would remove jobs. Unfortunately it is true. We have built this MASSIVE industry fighting the war on drugs and this is unfortunate. But think of it this way: All those people were hired for one thing, to keep people from doing illegal deals. Once the job was completed they would've been fired. Since they don't want to fire people, there was no incentive to end the war on drugs.

[LordZeebmork]

At 9/16/07 02:36 PM, Korriken wrote: Here's MY take on solving the drug problem.

That will never work, and it seems to me that it would make the world of 1984 one step closer... DRUGS ARE DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD CRIMETHINK.

legalizing things like Heroin or Cocaine would be like giving a child a gun, taking him into public and telling him, "Ok do what you did on grand theft auto."

How?

I think that at least marijuana should be legalized.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/16/07 04:14 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

You can't be put in jail for Marijuana possession? Somebody must tell the FBI then. "Cannabis users have been arrested at the rate of 1 every 40 seconds. About 88% of all marijuana arrests are for possession - not manufacture or distribution." Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/in dex.html

A) You said prison, not jail. There is a HUGE difference.
B) Arrested =/= imprisonment. I got arrested for shoplifting once, taken to the precinct, and was allowed to go home.

Yes. My point is that hurting yourself is not and shouldn't be illegal. Listen to what I say. If someone were to drive while high, or use alcohol or drugs in a public place, or any other crime he or she deserves to be punished.

Yes, and thats going to INCREASE when you give people all the drugs they want. Jesus.

More like 786,545 arrests in 2005. See FBI link.

More like 0 people in prison. See reality.

You just pulled the equivilant to listing the number of people who did drugs in 2007 and saying that's the number of people that overdosed in 2007.

It is true, and I've seen it happen many times. Especially with black old men. It is actually more common than you think, at least for me.

No, it's not more common then I think. It doesn't happen. I tell you what; I live a few miles from San Quintin, how about I go ask how many are there for smoking pot?

[robattle]

Doing drugs causes people to fail at life, because all they think about is getting more drugs.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/16/07 05:04 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

You say that I can't read? Ok, let me explain again. An employer doesn't care about what his employee does on his spare time. He only cares about him doing his job at his scheduled time. If someone can get high and still be able to show up to work on time then he or she should have the right to do drugs.

Yes, exactly, and people CAN do that. So why in the hell would you think that legalizing drugs would lead to drug-user unemployment? That's not even going into how badly that system would be abused.

Ok. If you hate socialism so much, what do you propose?

Not being Socialist, duh.

A for profit drug selling company? My whole idea is based on the fact that Drug use is a public health issue. Being a public issue, it should be dealt by the government.

Socialism. Socialism bad. Bad Socialism, bad. We do not weaken the private sector, no we do not.

>=(

Well, I think that the hundreds of thousands of corpses(thats >100,000) that you say are lying around are an exaggeration. If not, then it's up to you to prove it to me. I've only seen 1 dead junkie corpse lying around. 1 is not 100,000s. More people die from alcohol and tobacco than for weed, yet the government allows and regulates alcohol and tobacco.

Fine, need me to cite the statistics that say that 15,000 a year die from drug use?

In the UK, an average of 500,000 people take ecstasy each weekend resulting in an average of only 10 ecstasy related deaths per YEAR. As a comparison, there is one death a day as a result to acute alcohol poisoning.(Source: Wikipedia)

Wonderful. Exctasy isn't the only drug. Furthermore, there are more alcahol related deaths then simply alcohol poisoning.

Yes, drugs are "bad" as you say. We all know that.
Yes. That's why I said that for the hardest drugs, we should study them and develop a variant of that drug that creates the same effects but without the physical problems.

What "variant"? It isn't the shit in them, it's the drug themselves. It doesn't matter what type of metal you use in "bullet variants", they're still going to kill you when someone blows your brains out.

Also, the psychologists and physicians that I proposed would also be there to help them deal with whatever causes them to use drugs.

This again? Listen to me; some people don't do meth because daddy fucked them, they do it because they like meth.

True, but the majority have family issues or are victims of peer pressure.

Source time.

Again, prove it. There is simply not that many people dying as the media tells you. You've been brainwashed.

Jesus fucking christ your a moron. TEH OHZ NOEZ, THE DOJ CONTROLLS THE MEDIA!!!!

This is how: "The long-run elasticities provide a basis for estimating potential benefits from changing the current policy mix away from enforcement and interdiction and towards education and treatment. Applying the estimated coefficients, a 10 percent reduction in expenditures on enforcement (about 1 billion dollars by the late 1990s) would be associated with a long-run reduction of over 20% in both the number of deaths and the age-adjusted death rate. This would imply that close to 3,000 deaths a year might be avoided with a shift away from enforcement approaches to drug control. Adding the billion dollars to education and treatment would represent an 18% increase in 1998. The estimated elasticity of 1.59 implies a reduction of close to 5,000 drug-induced deaths per year as a result. Thus, the underlying estimates suggest that very substantial improvements in public health may be achieved by emphasizing education and treatment over enforcement and interdiction."

Funny, that actually does nothing to address how giving out free drugs wouldn't lead to a massive increase in deaths, as opposed to a decrease.

[Videogamebrvs1]

Hmmm, I like it, except drugs could possibly used as money? maby? If you let people use the drugs, the world would sink into anarchy, because everybody would be extremely high... and is there really a drug problem? how about everybody just stopl using them?

[Videogamebrvs1]

so... many... long... posts... I can't take it!!

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 03:18 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 9/16/07 05:04 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

Yes, exactly, and people CAN do that. So why in the hell would you think that legalizing drugs would lead to drug-user unemployment? That's not even going into how badly that system would be abused.

It won't. See, as long as you can consume drugs and remain functional you should be able to work. Eventually you will be so high that you won't be able to work. You don't realize this? And if people can continue to work whilst high until retirement than they deserve to.

How can my system be abused? I made this topic so I could get feedback, and so far you've been very helpful. Nevertheless, it is much easier to just say something without supporting it with an argument.

Not being Socialist, duh.
Socialism. Socialism bad. Bad Socialism, bad. We do not weaken the private sector, no we do not.

Do you think it's better to support an industry that contributes NOTHING to society except drain it of people and other resources? Law enforcement only removes our freedoms. Having psychologists and doctors around for free BENEFITS society. Having people supporting junkies BENEFITS them.

Fine, need me to cite the statistics that say that 15,000 a year die from drug use?

No. I believe that number, but 15,000 is not >100,000s like you said. Thousands are not hundred thousands. This is what I call an exaggeration. But please pull the number if you want.

If 15,000 die each year, the number would DECREASE not increase under my plan. It would decrease because they would have a doctor and a psychologist to go to. It's simple.

Wonderful. Exctasy isn't the only drug. Furthermore, there are more alcahol related deaths then simply alcohol poisoning.

Thanks for IMPROVING my point. Think: If more than one people die from alcohol each day, why is it legal? Alcohol actually causes hundreds of thousands of corpses.

What "variant"? It isn't the shit in them, it's the drug themselves. It doesn't matter what type of metal you use in "bullet variants", they're still going to kill you when someone blows your brains out.

Well, drugs aren't bullet. They behave differently. I have a chemistry background so I can go into detail about this, but let me put it simple: Meth has a chemical structure that excites a pathway in your brain and makes you "high". A side-product of meth is that the pathway remains open for a long period of time. We can close that pathway and make addiction and withdrawal symptoms better.

Also, the psychologists and physicians that I proposed would also be there to help them deal with whatever causes them to use drugs.

This again? Listen to me; some people don't do meth because daddy fucked them, they do it because they like meth.

True, but the majority have family issues or are victims of peer pressure.

Source time.

Time? What do you mean? The majority of meth users like meth with time? But why do they start doing meth? What are the causes?

Again, prove it. There is simply not that many people dying as the media tells you. You've been brainwashed.

Jesus fucking christ your a moron. TEH OHZ NOEZ, THE DOJ CONTROLLS THE MEDIA!!!!

Oh no? The American media doesn't brainwash you? Go to cnn.com and what is the first article you see? OJ Simpson has been arrested. Fuck that, who cares.
Go to news.bbc.co.uk and what do you see? Scores killed in deadly Thai crash. 87 people died. I care.
Go to any news source that isn't American and you would find the Thai crash on the first page. CNN has it insconpicously there. What does it tell you? That Sports dude is more important than 87 others? What does it tell you about our moral values?

Funny, that actually does nothing to address how giving out free drugs wouldn't lead to a massive increase in deaths, as opposed to a decrease.

To all the people saying that legalizing drugs would lead to massive cases of drug abuse: You are making that up. It is called being ignorant. There is a stigma attached to drugs and you are proof of that. Take a look at countries where drugs have been decriminalized and you will find your proof. Is Europe a continent full of junkies? Most of the countries there have decriminalized pot.

[RommelTJ]

At 9/16/07 03:55 PM, Videogamebrvs1 wrote: so... many... long... posts... I can't take it!!

Sorry mate. I tried to make it shorter, but the moment you say legalize drugs you better be ready to explain it. Otherwise you get dozens of people telling you OMG UR so STUPID

[SallyZattepodz]

Free roofies..and...LSD and heroine..um..eh..

Um...how about this. Just legalize weed?

That sounds better.
More people are incarcerated for posessing pot than those other stuff..and it's the least harmful. To the user and those around them.

Also; all the psychologists you're proposing will be paid by the government? I really don't think you'll have enough money with your plan =\

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/16/07 04:51 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

It won't.

Of course, I forget that we live in a rule where nobody breaks the rules.

See, as long as you can consume drugs and remain functional you should be able to work. Eventually you will be so high that you won't be able to work. You don't realize this? And if people can continue to work whilst high until retirement than they deserve to.

Of course, I forgot that in this fictional fairyland no one will simply get massive quantities of drugs they don't want and give it to unemployed friends for favors.

How can my system be abused? I made this topic so I could get feedback, and so far you've been very helpful. Nevertheless, it is much easier to just say something without supporting it with an argument.

Fine. I have a job. I don't do heroin. A female is so addicted to heroin that she can't work. I go, get my free heroin, and give it to said female for sexual favors.

Do you think it's better to support an industry that contributes NOTHING to society except drain it of people and other resources? Law enforcement only removes our freedoms. Having psychologists and doctors around for free BENEFITS society. Having people supporting junkies BENEFITS them.

Ah. So now your anti-police?

Anyway, good job ignoring my point that Nationalized socialism weakens the private sector.

No. I believe that number, but 15,000 is not >100,000s like you said. Thousands are not hundred thousands. This is what I call an exaggeration. But please pull the number if you want.

Christ, you're dumb. That's the number that die EACH YEAR, not all the people that have ever and will ever die.

If 15,000 die each year, the number would DECREASE not increase under my plan. It would decrease because they would have a doctor and a psychologist to go to. It's simple.

What? 15,000 people don't die of drugs because they don't have a psychologist. Having a psychologist doesn't make heroin any less deadly, or driving high any less deadly, or any of that shit. It doesn't matter if you have a quarter million doctors in a room with you when you blow your brains out, your still going to die.

Thanks for IMPROVING my point. Think: If more than one people die from alcohol each day, why is it legal? Alcohol actually causes hundreds of thousands of corpses.

That wasn't your point; your point was the legalization of all drugs, not the illegalization of Alcahol.

Well, drugs aren't bullet. They behave differently. I have a chemistry background so I can go into detail about this, but let me put it simple: Meth has a chemical structure that excites a pathway in your brain and makes you "high". A side-product of meth is that the pathway remains open for a long period of time. We can close that pathway and make addiction and withdrawal symptoms better.

Yet you can't do shit to change the fact that meth kills you.

Time? What do you mean?

Source time. As in time to give me a source.

The majority of meth users like meth with time?

...Are you on fucking crack?

But why do they start doing meth? What are the causes?

Meth being fun to do.

Oh no? The American media doesn't brainwash you? Go to cnn.com and what is the first article you see? OJ Simpson has been arrested. Fuck that, who cares.

A) Telling me the truth (O.J has been arrested, BTW) isn't brainwashing me.

Go to news.bbc.co.uk and what do you see? Scores killed in deadly Thai crash. 87 people died. I care.

B) I don't go to bbc.com.uk, so they can't possibly be brainwashing me.

Go to any news source that isn't American and you would find the Thai crash on the first page. CNN has it insconpicously there. What does it tell you? That Sports dude is more important than 87 others? What does it tell you about our moral values?

I don't know, but you sure as hell have yet to tell me how I've been brainwashed.

To all the people saying that legalizing drugs would lead to massive cases of drug abuse: You are making that up. It is called being ignorant. There is a stigma attached to drugs and you are proof of that. Take a look at countries where drugs have been decriminalized and you will find your proof. Is Europe a continent full of junkies? Most of the countries there have decriminalized pot.

My god your idiotic. "Giving people drugs won't lead to more people having drugs! You made that up!"

And actually, every single country that legalized Marijuana saw an increase of Marijuana use. And no countries have legalized all drugs whatsoever, since they all realize how utterly moronic this idea is.

[RommelTJ]

At 9/17/07 01:59 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 9/16/07 04:51 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

Of course, I forget that we live in a rule where nobody breaks the rules.

Rules are broken because they are unreasonable. You can't have a rule that says don't steal, when someone is poor. That kind of rule is unreasonable for them.
Another example is stopping at a red light. Everybody obeys that rule because if we don't we all crash. That is reasonable.
If we say: don't make drugs, we'll give them to you. That's a reasonable rule.

How can my system be abused? I made this topic so I could get feedback, and so far you've been very helpful. Nevertheless, it is much easier to just say something without supporting it with an argument.

Fine. I have a job. I don't do heroin. A female is so addicted to heroin that she can't work. I go, get my free heroin, and give it to said female for sexual favors.

Good point. Thanks. I still think that an abused system is better than an oppressive system which is abusing the people.

Do you think it's better to support an industry that contributes NOTHING to society except drain it of people and other resources? Law enforcement only removes our freedoms. Having psychologists and doctors around for free BENEFITS society. Having people supporting junkies BENEFITS them.

Ah. So now your anti-police?

Yes, I am anti-police in the sense that I don't want the government telling me what to do. Who are you to judge me? Obviously, if we want to live in a society we have to have some kind of rules to follow, but we can police ourselves. Many tribes and families did that for hundreds of years without a problem.

Anyway, good job ignoring my point that Nationalized socialism weakens the private sector.

I didn't. Nationalized socialism weakens the private sector. I said that it would destroy the anti-drug industry. So? This is just a small part of a private sector. I'd rather have someone alive than rich. Don't you think so?

No. I believe that number, but 15,000 is not >100,000s like you said. Thousands are not hundred thousands. This is what I call an exaggeration. But please pull the number if you want.

Christ, you're dumb. That's the number that die EACH YEAR, not all the people that have ever and will ever die.

Ohhh! That's what you meant. Well, 15,000 people die each year and that is sad. We all agree on that, right? Still, the population of the USA in 2000 was 282,338,631. This means that only .00531277% of the population die from drugs. As you can see, the percentage is small and yours was an exaggeration. And please don't call me names because I haven't.

If 15,000 die each year, the number would DECREASE not increase under my plan. It would decrease because they would have a doctor and a psychologist to go to. It's simple.

What? 15,000 people don't die of drugs because they don't have a psychologist. Having a psychologist doesn't make heroin any less deadly, or driving high any less deadly, or any of that shit. It doesn't matter if you have a quarter million doctors in a room with you when you blow your brains out, your still going to die.

Maybe. But it can prevent them from taking them or help them in quitting if they already are.

Thanks for IMPROVING my point. Think: If more than one people die from alcohol each day, why is it legal? Alcohol actually causes hundreds of thousands of corpses.

That wasn't your point; your point was the legalization of all drugs, not the illegalization of Alcahol.

My point there was that hundreds of thousands of people die from alcohol each month. Yet, you don't see people protesting because of it. There might be a few Organizations here and there complaining, but it's not the massive outcry that you speak. Now, if this doesn't happen with alcohol, why would it happen with drugs that are less dangerous?

Well, drugs aren't bullet.

Yet you can't do shit to change the fact that meth kills you.

No, but we can build a substitute. That's what I'm talking about.

Time? What do you mean?

Source time. As in time to give me a source.

Ok. If you say so.

The majority of meth users like meth with time?

...Are you on fucking crack?

Ok. If you say so.

But why do they start doing meth? What are the causes?

Meth being fun to do.

I know very well that drugs are fun, yet I don't do them. Why? Because I have a strong character and I don't succumb to peer pressure. Since it is a problem of self-esteem, it can be treated by a psychologist.

Oh no? The American media doesn't brainwash you? Go to cnn.com and what is the first article you see? OJ Simpson has been arrested. Fuck that, who cares.

A) Telling me the truth (O.J has been arrested, BTW) isn't brainwashing me.

No it's not.

Go to news.bbc.co.uk and what do you see? Scores killed in deadly Thai crash. 87 people died. I care.

B) I don't go to bbc.com.uk, so they can't possibly be brainwashing me.

Lack of information. If I hadn't told you, you would've never found out that there was a Thai crash.

Go to any news source that isn't American and you would find the Thai crash on the first page. CNN has it insconpicously there. What does it tell you? That Sports dude is more important than 87 others? What does it tell you about our moral values?

I don't know, but you sure as hell have yet to tell me how I've been brainwashed.

The American media shifts our values of what is important. In this example, they considered a sports figure being arrested more important than an 80+ tragedy. I think that is brainwashing, but call it as you want. The American media will do that. They gradually steer you away from the important subjects so that you only think about sports or entertainment.

I think that if more people vote in American Idol than in a Presidential election, they've been brainwashed. But call it like you want.

To all the people saying that legalizing drugs would lead to massive cases of drug abuse: You are making that up. It is called being ignorant. There is a stigma attached to drugs and you are proof of that. Take a look at countries where drugs have been decriminalized and you will find your proof. Is Europe a continent full of junkies? Most of the countries there have decriminalized pot.

My god your idiotic. "Giving people drugs won't lead to more people having drugs! You made that up!"

I am saying that giving people drugs will lead to more people WANTING drugs to begin with. The people that do drugs will die, and eventually no one will want drugs(which is unlikely).

And actually, every single country that legalized Marijuana saw an increase of Marijuana use. And no countries have legalized all drugs whatsoever, since they all realize how utterly moronic this idea is.

So they saw an increase in Marijuana use. So? Your point? Do we see a decrease in productivity? No. Do we see an increase in addiction rates? No. What we do see is a marked increase in people seeking treatment for addiction, and that is a GOOD thing.

The reason they don't legalize drugs is because of people like you that are so close minded. It would take time to convince them, but it will happen.