How is knocking off the dealers going to instill fear in the user? You would have to enforce draconian penalties on the users. Are they murderers? Do the drug users have no responsibility here? Have you been watching those anti drug commercials? Do you mean the young dealers fighting over turf in the ghetto and one shoots a gun and the stray bullet kills the 3 year old girl passing by? That's murder and its a by product of the illegal drug trade. IF you could purchase your drugs legally these guys would be out of business and no gunfights would happen. What would happen is the more entrepreneurial minded drug dealer would set up a legal method to ply his trade. Then he could rely upon the police and courts to protect him against criminals! Too much of many things can kill you. How about the egg, dairy and beef industry, pushing all those high cholesterol high triglyceride food products on us. The economic costs of heart desease alone are staggering. Do they bear any responsibility for the premature heart desease so common among Americans? The crime attendant to the drug trade exists solely because of its illegal status. Decriminalize it and the crimes would cease to exist. I think you have a visceral hatred of the classic "pusherman" and you are trying to build policy around it. You make no sense at all to me.
Hey thanks hapa. Nice to see we can set our political differences aside. Yes, I was referring to soft drugs like pot, and I don't think that hard drugs should be 100% legal. After all, they are not 100% legal in the Netherlands, and there is good reason for this. The problem with hard drugs is that people who use them tend to be less than responsible when on them. But I don't think that it is legitimate to tell adults who pay taxes and assume representation of their beliefs in government that they cannot use heroin if they so desire. This sounds insane, but I believe that government should represent the voters with regard to the LAWS that the State enforces, and if there are voters who believe that heroin is good for them, so be it. However, I also believe that there is no "Touchstone For Ethics," (except for the Golden Rule -- which explains my disdain for most world religions), and thus I do not believe that it is the government's responsibility or priviledge to reflect the religious beliefs of its constituents. The Founding Fathers also believed this, and we all seem to think that they were good guys, so why why WHY do Bush and Ashcroft think it is their RIGHT TO TELL US THAT RELIGION AND GOD AND JESUS ARE ALL GOOD FOR US?? Sorry for the rant, but I'm getting sick of the blurrier distinction between church and state. This whole voters versus government thing is a huge problem in the US, and I for one, resent the fact that the people who counted on MY vote to get elected think they can legislate what is good for me CONTRARY to what I may want, and when popular opinion is on my side and not on theirs (Iraq also comes to mind here). The legalization of pot in California is an example of this. What you have is smaller localities in various parts of CA who want to de-criminalize pot, and thus the local police do not enforce the marijuana laws, nor are county judges interested in sentencing pot users. BUT the feds go in there are make arrests, because pot is illegal under federal law. This is a clear example of alienation of the local government by the feds. The government is only supposed to interfere with the State when the State is violating the civil rights of its citizens, NOT when the State is attempting to expand them. Any interference by the Federal government in the State's affairs should only be prompted when there is evidence of direct interference of the rights of the constituents by the State. The gray area in the whole matter is whether or not pot is actually, in itself, harmful (before you laugh, substitute in the word "alcohol" for pot and think again); however, drinking grain alcohol is also harmful, but I could get it at 7-11 in many states. The feds could argue that pot is harmful, addictive, damaging to families and old ladies because of blah blah blah, so it is their job to protect the old ladies and families from the law-breaking drug dealers. The reality (if you read up on the subject) is that pot is far less harmful than alcohol, actually has relevant medical use (and again, before you laugh, accept the fact that physicians have no problems writing prescriptions for HEROIN aka morphine, oxycodone, vicodin, methadone, etc. -- and encounter FAR more difficulty with the feds when prescribing pot), and unlike alcohol, which kills thousands of people -- many innocent people hit by drunk drivers -- nobody has ever OD'd from pot, nor is it believed to be possible to OD from it. However, it is ILLEGAL, which also effectively prevents PROPER medical studies from being conducted on it. The demonization of pot also makes it socially unacceptable for a scientist to study pot, including any other potential medicinal effects, besides treating glaucoma and nausea. So it becomes a big self-feeding circle, where the fact that pot is VERY illegal and VERY in-demand inspires the criminal element to become involved in its cultivation and trafficing. The illegality of pot has WASTED millions of our tax dollars prosecuting criminals who might otherwise be forced to GET JOBS instead of selling pot. Our laws are decided by our senate. The average age of our senators is considerably higher than the average age of our constituents. They are living in the past. These drug laws are not being decided 100% based on how they affect the welfare of the consituents, but 50% on that and 50% on moral beliefs of the senate. And I think this mixture of morality and civil service is horrific. Back to hard drugs, they are harmful. That is the bottom line. But I think that people can have legitimate reasons for using heroin, say stomach cancer, and doctors prescribe morphine all the time for this, provided you are in pretty deep shit; but what about people who have AIDS, or those who simply wish to end their lives? That is their decision, and I think it's fair to say that most people would not like to be told by the State that they have no authority to die if they so desire. And it is not the decision of the State to determine who needs heroin and who does not. It is OK to blow your head off with a shotgun, but NOT OK to shoot yourself up with a bunch of heroin and nod off into the night..? I think hard drugs would have to be highly regulated, but I don't know how. They could be easily available and sold by govt-regulated institutions. But maybe they should be fairly expensive in that one would have to purchase insurance to use them...my point is that the small percentage of the population who would be interested in using hard drugs would be required to pay the burden of ALL the incidental costs of using these drugs -- whether it's rehab, accident insurance, whatever. I think that hard drugs should essentially be like cars, which are also potentially lethal, in that if you want to use them, you have to be financially capable of paying for the damage you've caused.
Hapaboy you are an idiot... This mentality is as much to blame for the current drug epidemic as the dealers themselves... You are living in a state of illusion! WAKE UP!
>>Shoot the drug dealer. Wow, inventive solution. Does that include your 16 year old nephew who dealt a couple of joints to his freinds?<< My outlook is that in a free world someone is quite entitled to do harm to him or herself as long as they don't look towards the community to foot the bill and also as long as they don't try to induce others to follow their selfdestructive path. So, yes, one advantage would be that by shooting the drugdealer we wonât get any repeat offenders. This means that he will not be able to repeat his crime. (at least not in this world). (hurrah). Also, in Saudi Arabia there is a law which states that if a wife steals then the husband can be held responsible (and he will finish up being flogged and put in jail). Coming to think of that, it may not be a bad idea to introduce a similar law here as well. And Dgabriel, if that means that that if your nephew is dealing then you, as his uncle, could be held accountable then so be it freealways
Thanks for the kind compliment.... Um, who the hell are you? Pleasantries aside, how is "this mentality as much to blame for the current epidemic as the dealers themselves"? So the fact that I detest drug dealers is somehow responsible for the drug epidemic? Interesting. I had no idea that such a correlation could exist. I suppose the fact that I hated Phil Donahue's show is somehow responsible for all the conservative talk shows, hmm? And man, do I ever despise lima beans! So there must be a bumper crop somewhere of, oh, corn or something as a result. If I'm living in a state of illusion, you're living on an entirely different planet. Have a great day.
Thank you. Just because we're on different sides of the political fence doesn't mean we can't be civil. And ya know, I don't think drugs should be a political issue. This crap affects all of us. You've touched on a lot of issues, some I agree with and some I don't. But for the sake of keeping this thread on track, I won't go into them. I will say that there are certain conditions, i.e. medical ones you've mentioned, that I do believe should warrant the use of otherwise illegal drugs. Peace.
Hey Mr. Moderator, please see previous posts. I'm not just talking about those ghetto dealers, but their sources as well. Yes the drug users have responsibility...I don't know if I buy that legalizing drugs would eliminate crime. Sure, it would make drugs cheaper I suppose, but wouldn't that also contribute to more people experimenting with it and thus getting hooked? And if you're a loser crack head you're gonna still need to rob for your habit, albeit a cheaper habit. Beyond gunfights (if the dealers kill each other, BTW, all the better), what about the crimes the users commit? That's the central problem. So if you have cheap illegal drugs, aren't you going to have more people commiting crimes to feed their habits? It's not like junkies who commit the worst offenses have the sense to say to themselves "Okay, I've got $100 dollars. I'll spend $50 on crack and the rest on food for my kids." Nope, they spend all they have, $100 or $1000, on crack and forget about their kids. If they have $1000 and the price of crack drops because it's now legal, they're going to be able to buy that much more crack! Yay! Good grief, here we go again. Let's extend this proposal out to everything that is bad for us! Yeah, you're on the right mark - I eat too many eggs. I now advocate killing all the poultry farmers. Are you really a moderator? I do have a visceral hatred for drug dealers. Don't you? I'm not trying to build a policy around it - I hardly have expectations that anyone in the gov. is going to log onto ET, click on this thread, then PM me an invitation to suddenly become the next drug czar. This is simply for discussion, OF COURSE! And if you can't understand me hating drug dealers, be they in the classic "pusherman" mold or not, well, you must be living in the safest community in the country and never have had the misfortune of experiencing what drugs can do to your family or your friends. You're very lucky.
Crack is some bad shit. But I would rather take some interdiction funding and put it toward rehab for the crackhead. And eliminate the netherworld aspect of the crack trade. Yes, I really am a moderator! You have identified a source of desease, decay, addiction and great economic cost. While Alcohol, Nicotine, and bad food lack the the criminal element, they share all these other fundamental elements found in drug abuse and addiction. Only a mild dislike, unless they step on their stuff too much. I don't care if you hate drug dealers, I really don't. What I do care about is society's utter failure to deal intelligently and effectively with drugs. Criminal legislation on drug use and possession has been a total and complete failure in this country. Leniency in European countries has led to decreased crime and addiction. It is a model worth emulating. The racial disparity of drug felons should be a concern as well, as black drug felons far outnumber white one, despite proportionate drug use and drug commerce among blacks and whites. I grew up and still live in NYC. Hardly a safe and drug free community. My experiences qualify me to speak on this matter.
I don't care. I really don't. I don't care. I really don't. Heh-heh! You're not only a moderator, but a FUNNY one! Oh, wait a minute. I don't care. I really don't care. I don't care if you don't care if I hate drug dealers. I really don't. I totally agree. But ya know, I don't care what you think. I really don't. (Applause) I don't care. I really don't.
especially for our esteemed moderator, dgabriel, please try to limit this topic to drug (narcotics) dealers and not the egg, dairy, and beef industries, sugar processors, monosodium glutomate (msg) makers, soy sauce manufacturers, McDonald's/Burger King/Wendy's/KFC/etc., the manufacturers of the various faulty baby seats, the rap music industry, the sky-diving industry, the space shuttle tile inspectors, all the auto industries because they make products that if driven too fast can kill you, the makers of Viagra (can cause heart attacks you know), the carnival industry (for those dangerous rides), and the Lord our Savior (for not making us bulletproof, heatproof, coldproof, smashproof, and able to breath underwater). Oh, and in case I forget, any other product/industry/cause that can result in death.