|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jun 4, 2011 1:26:12 GMT -5
It can be prevented and treated, but we're not going to go about doing about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 4, 2011 8:28:34 GMT -5
No shit. Society needs to focus on treatment for addicts, and end marijuana prohibition. Doing so won't magically end addiction, crime and gang activities, but if it's combined with continuing to prosecute illegal operations, it could at least reduce some of the problems. In any case, the whole "tough on drugs" approach isn't working.
I've always supported legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana sales. As with liquor, there should be restrictions on its use/sales:
- All product checked for safety/quality.
- Merchants required to have a license to sell it.
- Can not be used or bought by anyone under a certain age.
- Can not be intoxicated while operating heavy machinery (e.g., driving while high).
- Being high and disorderly in public treated the same as being drunk in public.
- Limits on where it can be smoked/ingested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Jun 4, 2011 16:22:18 GMT -5
Ending prohibition may increase use temporarily, but that use will be much safer. There would be standards in dosing, and purity, neither of which exist now. People could get help with addiction without the fear of being locked up in jail and having their life ruined by the law(possibly worse than from the drugs themselves). Putting drugs in the hands of legitimate companies also means environmental regulations will be followed (For example, forest land being destroyed by fertilizers from hidden pot farms, or the toxic wastes produced by meth labs). A possible slight increase in (much safer) use is well worth eliminating most of the problems caused by the current system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 4, 2011 20:10:28 GMT -5
An increase in marijuana use wouldn't be the end of the world, either. I mean, it's not like everyone is going to start getting high all of the time -- liquor is legal, and society isn't drunk 24/7. In fact, most arguments against legalizing marijuana fall flat as soon as you compare it to alcohol -- which, for the record, is significantly more dangerous than weed.
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jun 4, 2011 20:13:50 GMT -5
But if we legalize drugs the terrorists will win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 4, 2011 20:15:42 GMT -5
Yeah, but we'll be too high to care.
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jun 4, 2011 20:20:07 GMT -5
Which is when they'll strike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 4, 2011 20:24:46 GMT -5
But everyone will be missing work because they're too busy getting stoned in their basements, so no one will be hurt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jun 4, 2011 20:25:29 GMT -5
Thye're just now figuring this out?
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jun 4, 2011 20:26:58 GMT -5
But everyone will be missing work because they're too busy getting stoned in their basements, so no one will be hurt. Then the economy will suffer. Suffer more that is. |
|
|
|
Post by gadfly on Jun 4, 2011 20:28:06 GMT -5
Guess who rejected the report? Of course the war on drugs isn't working, but that doesn't mean it's going to stop anytime soon. So, wait, the best way to prevent and treat addiction is to criminalize the addictions and throw their lives and potential away into the black hole of the privatized prison system? Riiiiight. Because we all know that pot is more harmful than alcohol or tobacco! Wow, Obama's administration really is as brainless as Bush's if this is the quality of critical thinking from one of his top guys. Guess there's not much "change" there, huh? Man, I almost feel like voting for Ron Paul just so that there can be some voice of (relative) sanity on the whole drug thing. However, the rest of Paul's policies are probably gonna be crap, and like any other politician, just like Obama and Bush, when/if he gets into the White House he'll probably go chickenshit and renege on what he said he would do. And there will be no change on an issue that needs it. |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 4, 2011 20:41:55 GMT -5
"Using harsh methods, including executions, the Communists were able to rid China of its drug problem almost over night." factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=139&catid=11&subcatid=74Exterminate the market and you destroy the drug trade. Plus you don't have overcrowded prisons. The war on drugs will work when it is fought like an actual war. If the government is not prepared to go that far, then it will remain a waste of money. If you want to solve a problem with force then you can't be restricted in what level of force you use. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 4, 2011 22:25:22 GMT -5
As much as I dislike the war on drugs, I'd rather they did what they're doing now than go "all the way" and start executing people for it. The waste of money is far from being the only, or even the worst problem here.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 4, 2011 22:48:19 GMT -5
I'm reasonably confident that the political will does not exist in this country, except perhaps among the saintly moral majority, to execute people for minor crimes (that we classify them as end-of-the-fucking-world crimes is frankly immaterial). We prefer to exacerbate the problem by preventing those who partake from having any chance of breaking free of brutal cycles of poverty, ignorance, and bigotry. That will teach them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 5, 2011 0:20:45 GMT -5
If we start executing people over minor crimes we might as well put the gulags in place as well. And the big executioners with their black robes and axes.
Executing is not the answer. Proper education is. Proper programs to get people away from drugs-- to stop putting drugs in place of other things, to stop using drugs to get away from their problems-- is the answer.
|
|
