IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New A rational approach to the drug problem
From [link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/02/68.html|Auntie Pinko] at Democratic Underground.

extract-
To "legalize" drugs would be for our government to legally sanction (in the sense of permit or allow) the free entry of drugs into the realm of commercial commerce and general use. To "decriminalize," on the other hand, involves continuing to sanction (in the sense of 'apply penalties to') the sale or consumption of drugs, without applying criminal penalties - as in, for example, locking people up in jail.

"Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought."
-Terry Pratchett
New Here's my "solution."
It's not an ideal solution, but it's probably a hell of a lot cheaper than our current solution - which is to lock them up, then let them out 5 years later with no real treatment.

Set up drug "centers." People go in, pay a minimal fee, get a fix, and are kept there until they come off their fix. Any profits realized are turned around into drug treatment programs to help people get off the addiction.

The way I look at it, people are going to get stoned no matter how many laws we pass - prohibition proved that. I know that people and families are torn apart by drugs, but I do not believe that the drugs themselves are the issue - they are merely a tool that the individuals use to escape their responsibilities. Even if they were not availible, the individuals in question would escape some other way.

The key is to let those individuals escape, provide help (and make it easy to get!) and stop providing a gigantic black market that gives $$$ to terrorists. Hey, guess what, the drug war is funding terrorists! I'm serious about that comment - the only thing the drug war has done to the drug cartels is driven up their profits.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
New That's a good beginning.
I'd also add a multiplier for actual crimes committed while under the influence.

There are certain individuals in society that will dope themselves up and rob people for more money. These individuals must be caught, secured and treated (if possible). If you're arrested for a crime, you are tested. If you are convicted of a crime, and you tested positive, your sentence (not fine) is extended and you are put in drug treatment.

The majority of the population will not have any more problem with decriminalized (or even legal) drugs than they have with legal drugs such as alcohol.
New Re: A rational approach to the drug problem
Anyone who has a "rational approach" is almost by definition irrational.
The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
New Cigarette Solution?
Legalize them, but then tax the hell out of them? Do you treat a patient who stumbles into an ER in a drug induced stupor? What if the "customer" asks for enough drugs to kill themselves? Do you sell it to him?

Also, cigarettes seem to run a course where society condemns them, and then some "rebel" smokes one in a PR-event, and then they're cool all over again to the youth.

Perhaps the solution should be for a cigarette smoker to have to take care of a lung cancer patient full-time for about 6 months. And perhaps have a "low-level" addict ( marijuana ) to have to watch someone die from a heroin or cocaine/crack overdose in the ER. If addicts worked the ER, then maybe, just maybe...

If you legalize drugs, then there has to be some things in place. Like whether or not they are refused medical treatment in the ER if they OD. Like what you do with pregnant moms on crack and their kids.

I'm all for rehab, but I want Dr. Phil rehab (like time in the ER managing drug addicts and watching people die from drugs and guns ), not some pansy wanzy group therapy.

<RANT ON>
Then again, if I were king for a year or two, prisoners would be picking cotton, pounding rocks, and the death row guys would be on the ground in Iraq as "front line soldiers" for our military invasion, provided they were not insane. For those who refuse to serve in the high risk operations in the military, death row prisoners get 2 appeals, but the sentence must be carried out within year of the original conviction.

Addicts get to buy drugs, but the hospital is not allowed to revive them if they O.D. If a drug addict kills someone or commits a crime of robbery or higher while high (accidental or on-purpose), they get the death penalty.

CEO's, CIO's, CFO's, etc. who "cook the books" get jail time, and I mean real jail time like Huntsville, TX or Angola, where 300 pound violent offenders turn them into ladies. All of executives assets (and I mean homes, cars, wife's jewelry, designer clothes, furniture, kid's gameboy, TV's, etc. ) are sold at auction unless the wife/kids could prove that they purchased the assets with money not received from the husband. No Florida bankruptcy homes. The wives and children are put on the street with 1 set of clothes and the help wanted pages from the newspaper.

Sex offenders / rapists get the death penalty for 1st offense, provided the evidence is incontravertable.

I would probably just enforce most of the "moral law" of the Old Testament.
<RANT OFF>

Glen Austin
Expand Edited by gdaustin Sept. 23, 2002, 11:44:26 AM EDT
New I don't see why not.
Do you treat a patient who stumbles into an ER in a drug induced stupor?
The same as you'd treat a patient who is in an alcohol induced stupor.

What if the "customer" asks for enough drugs to kill themselves? Do you sell it to him?
Damn straight. He might just be stocking up for a big party.

Also, cigarettes seem to run a course where society condemns them, and then some "rebel" smokes one in a PR-event, and then they're cool all over again to the youth.
The cigarette manufacturers depend upon this "rebel" element for new smokers. And peer pressure from the "rebels".

The only problem I have with that is that the cigarette producers have been working at making their products MORE addictive so that these kids will stay hooked.

Like whether or not they are refused medical treatment in the ER if they OD.
Treat them the same as with alcohol or tobacco.

Like what you do with pregnant moms on crack and their kids.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I'm not sure what the name is for kids of heavy smokers. We can't make moms any smarter and we can't stop them from damaging their children unless we treat them as breading machines.

Sometimes, freedom sucks.

I'm all for rehab, but I want Dr. Phil rehab (like time in the ER managing drug addicts and watching people die from drugs and guns ), not some pansy wanzy group therapy.
I don't think that will work, either. Addiction is complex. It involves the body, the mind and the environment. The best I think we can hope for is to weed out the people who turn to crime to support their addiction (body, mind, environment and ethics).

Then again, if I were king for a year or two, prisoners would be picking cotton, pounding rocks, and the death row guys would be on the ground in Iraq as "front line soldiers" for our military invasion, provided they were not insane.
Security is the only problem with the chain gang. Giving weapons to death row isn't a great idea, in my opinion. :)

Addicts get to buy drugs, but the hospital is not allowed to revive them if they O.D.
I'd let them revive them. Either it will turn them around or they'll do it again. Eventually, the aid unit won't make it in time.

If a drug addict kills someone or commits a crime of robbery or higher while high (accidental or on-purpose), they get the death penalty.
I'd rather see more years tacked on (assuming they're found guilty) rather than death. Lots of kids do the "joy-riding" thing while drunk.

New Deportation?
How about revoking the citizenship of addicts and deporting them to a country where getting high IS legal?

For that matter, we could probably even afford to send $10,000 to the country willing to take them, to help defer some of their expenses. Jail is about $25,000 a year, so we could actually afford to send a lot of money. I can think of quite a few Eastern European cities or places in South America or Africa where their government would love to have $10,000 a person for each addict we send them.

If this is unreasonable, then how about setting up cities in this country where drugs and most other forms of vice are legal, and then making the crime to be high outside of those cities. We could start with most of the gambling cities, Las Vegas, Atlantic City, New Orleans, Shreveport.

You can probably name more cities where getting high would be legal.

Funny, I watched a commentary on the drug war on ABC News a few months back, and even the drug lords don't want addicts in thier town. Drug lords kill people who become addicted while working for them, and drugs are illegal to use in many cities where drug lords live. Using carries very severe penalties in these South American cities.

Glen Austin
New Wait a sec...
We already have these "vice" zones in our city. You probably do, too.

They are places where the police are paid to look the other way, and where the drug, prositution, and gambling crimes get done anyway.

Yes, there are a few occasional "token" arrests, but most the arrests occur "out of zone", or someone in the zone has decided to rob a store, jack a car, or just be a general public nuisance.

I can actually list street names, but they won't mean anything unless you live in Dallas, Tx.

So, maybe we just build a stone fence around these zones and let people do what they want?

Wait, wasn't that a movie called "Escape from New York"?

:-) Sarcasm is definitely working today...

Glen Austin

New Of course too
Yours is (like the present ideology) the Puritan approach. If it feels (too) good, it's prolly a Sin\ufffd; best not to take a chance - make pleasure Evil.

Your 'solutions' are postulated upon the same logic as made certain activities in your own home: food for the Authoritarians. Thus made citizens into 'criminals', for solely self-affecting activities. (That used to include even, Offically Prescribed / Officially Proscribed sex - not to mention the color of your partner, or whether $ changed hands = we STILL have that last one and quite a few similar restrictions - in the more backwater areas of the country)

There are plenty of laws to apply With Emphasis! to anyone who injures someone-not-Him, while under the influence of everything from chemical substances to Religious Avenger frenzy. We don't need thought crimes, even though it's technically past 1984 - Big Brother always had his adherents.

Your Reign for a few years - would just be another like Robespierre's. Gestapo by any other name would smell as sweet.

No Vote here.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
New Ashton...
I'm not completely advocating Puritanical lifestyle, but I'm clearly stating that I think the pendulum has swung too far to the anarchy (hang loose, do what feels right) side of the equation, and I do think that people need to learn to restrain themselves, or have authority restrain them.

I don't really give a darn if you do drugs, hire a prostitute, masterbate, watch lots of X-rated movies, watch Gladiator, etc. in your own home until it spills out on the street where my 7, 5, and 2 year old are watching (presuming you were my neighbor).

However, I do believe that when it does spill out in the street it has to be answered in order for a society to remain civil and for the city/state/country to remain safe.

I will tell you though, that whatever you sow, you will reap. And if you choose to fill your mind with filth, then that's what your life will become. You can't NOT be affected.

I'm not telling you can't smoke pot, but I am telling you that if you do it in my neighborhood, or outside of the places where it's expected, then guess what? I think you're breaking the law.

All the more reason to have places where these kind of activities CAN be done.
Ya'll have a good time (and leave me out of it).

Thanks.
New We might grow up (?) then again..
Many people have their equivalents of, as ye sow... Karma comes to mind as representing meaning to probably the largest slice of world population. But 'karma' or other (always merely human concepts for ineffable matters) doesn't belong in laws applied to all.

Billions of words have already been written about the absurdity of US drug laws, the overtly-Christian basis for our control of even pain-relieving drugs PLUS our per-capita usage of mutitudinous kinds of drugs! unequalled by any society in history. But Certain ones - we reserve the kinds of punishment for, as most sane societies reserve for murderers. Etc. We are a mass of contradictions and especially of hypocrisy.

I have no beef with Christians defining their personal life-rules by their tenets. I have lots of problems with the same tenets being enforced by the police of a society: the part that is Caesar's.. not Jesus's OR Mohammed's. And it's the latter that is behind most-all the draconian and arbitrary Drug Warz idiocy of today. Now militarized, yet!

I don't know what consensus would be for 'street behaviour', but I doubt that it is necessary (or desirable) that all permissible actions are to be measured by "what is good for children". Or we must all remain children - umm, maybe our culture does tend to promote this idea.

Ditto your last. Trouble is, in the US today: there is no place safe from busybodiness; from Authority imposing itself under the guise of Morality and not mere maintenance of social 'order' (unless order means homogenization to some LCD). Certainly not even in your own home, not even when your actions affect only yourself - are you safe from the censor variants. (Of course the richer one is, the less expected everyday surveillance, infrared checks etc. But that is our Other problem - the one about distribution of 'things', not wisdom)


Maybe in another 100 years we'll get over minding everyone Else's business. Maybe.

Ashton
New The Far Right utters...
Your analysis stands if and only if your behavior affects you exclusively. The impact of non-therapeutic use of psycho-actives, however, DOES indeed affect the society at large - and quite often results in death and/or dismemberment of innocents (children and adults), to speak nothing of the millions of dollars spent on publicly funded rehabs, hospitals, halfway houses, etc.

All the arguments pro-private drug use depend upon one fallacy: non-therapeutic use of psycho-active drugs affects only the user. That's wrong and since it is wrong, all arguments dependent upon that premise are without value.

Putting on my armband and jackboots now,
Mikem
New Yes, that is our 'logical' Catch 22
between individual rights to ride motorcyles, climb mountains, walk tight-wires VS the cost of hospitalization -- and the general preference of every Authoritarian that -- everything be orderly, homogenized and safe. (Which is called 'morality' by many too lazy to think)

As to the proper approach to the problem of escalating *desire* for psychoactives: my preference is ever to seek root causes just as, My Other computer is your IIS Server suggests.

What is it about our present daily milieu which drives an increasing percentage of our 'consumer ex-citizens' to seek escape from our environment: At Any Cost, including the threat of draconian jail sentences exceeding those given axe-murderers and CIEIOs who steal millions?

All the rest IMho is merely the expected Spy VS Spy Cant VS Cant - which drowns out any prospects for facing-up to just how Fucked has become our kultur! (perhaps simplest guess to summarize: for the poverty of its daily aims? the fleecing of suckers = that which everyone thinks everyone else Is?)

Got some root solutions?


Ashton
New Re: Yes, that is our 'logical' Catch 22
As to the proper approach to the problem of escalating *desire* for psychoactives: my preference is ever to seek root causes just as, My Other computer is your IIS Server suggests.

Some people just have some genetic affinity toward some types of drugs. I'm not saying it's predistined that they'll be addicted (gawl got too much of that predestination stuff in college) but some *will* be almost, not always, addicted.

Others will try, and discard, drugs like coke or marijuana.

Dammit, there's a much bigger problem to society posed by alcohol than marijuana, or cocaine, or damn near any other drug available (legally or illegally.)
New Yes to all: __ "Welcome To The Monkey House"__ (Kurt V.)
New Are you baiting me? Or just jesting?
What is it about our present daily milieu which drives an increasing percentage of our 'consumer ex-citizens' to seek escape from our environment: At Any Cost, including the threat of draconian jail sentences exceeding those given axe-murderers and CIEIOs who steal millions?


What is it? Please. You know what it is.
New Just asking a 'root' question.
Which happens to be.. tragico-comic in its implications.

I'm sure that most any of us could write an essay, from entire experience - trying to capture the ingredients of the suckiness (see, already I need to use a technical term).

Look.. we're a clinical basket case! It's that ol war of opposites again:

Puritan sanctimoniousness VS the joy of sex and other pleasures.
Mind your *own* business VS the Authoritarian Need to watch, to 'correct', to discipline: ultimately to crush! opposition to a nice Orderly Homogenized group of "comfortable people just like Me".
Xenophobia VS variety - and *liking* that variety.
Hypocrisy VS noting one's own propensity to become most angry at.. seeing 'what I always do' - in another.
The concept of Original Sin\ufffd - and *all* that implies: screw society = people; get Raptured out and watch the suckers burn, while chortling over your Gooodness. (Daddy will give you a New play pen, next.)

Mainly: [our version of] the built-in, guaranteed massacre of peaceful coexistence which is promised by the tenets! of the world's organized religions - that Albatross around the neck of most of the world's population: created by the Priest-Power class, ever guarding its sinecure of Man-constructed fantasies about the Unknowable.

And the rest of the long list of contradictions here - where sex sells but.. pleasure is Suspect (and most likely the work of that ol Debbil) + the rest of related fantasies.

Our material 'wealth', and the means we have used to obtain it, while largely ignoring the exploited balance of the planet? That's just the Machiavellian aspect of our hypocrisy. (It's also the easiest 'symptom' of our depravity - as $$ happens to be our actual God here, no matter what the priests reassure the flock.)

Maybe on some future bright morning, when all (but token copies for the museum) of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. are burned actually or symbolically -- can mental health be far behind the shedding of those fantasies (?)



Bon appetit; lunch time. Now you can straighten me out - correct all the above scurrilous Lies about our obvious Wonderfulness ;-)



Ashton
merely passing through
Yep - it's just a play
     A rational approach to the drug problem - (Silverlock) - (16)
         Here's my "solution." - (inthane-chan)
         That's a good beginning. - (Brandioch)
         Re: A rational approach to the drug problem - (wharris2)
         Cigarette Solution? - (gdaustin) - (1)
             I don't see why not. - (Brandioch)
         Deportation? - (gdaustin) - (10)
             Wait a sec... - (gdaustin) - (9)
                 Of course too - (Ashton) - (8)
                     Ashton... - (gdaustin) - (7)
                         We might grow up (?) then again.. - (Ashton) - (6)
                             The Far Right utters... - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                 Yes, that is our 'logical' Catch 22 - (Ashton) - (4)
                                     Re: Yes, that is our 'logical' Catch 22 - (wharris2) - (1)
                                         Yes to all: __ "Welcome To The Monkey House"__ (Kurt V.) -NT - (Ashton)
                                     Are you baiting me? Or just jesting? - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                         Just asking a 'root' question. - (Ashton)

No! No! Not E.T.! Kill! Kill! Kill E.T.! Glock E.T.!
86 ms