RS7, thanks for your reply. Again, you have brought up good points. To wit: Absolutely right. I think you misunderstood me. My point is, if drugs are cheaper, don't they then become available to a broader segment of the population that could not otherwise afford them? One of the reasons people stay away from drugs is the knowledge that they're so expensive. So if they're no longer expensive, you may get a flood of new addicts who decided to sample on the basis that they believe they can now afford to have a habit. Then, once they're hooked, we all know that it leads to poor performance on the job and eventual firing. So now you have all these unemployed addicts. The fact that drugs are cheaper is irrelevant, because now they have no money at all anyway. Result? They need to go out and steal and commit crimes to get money to buy more drugs. You may have a situation where instead of one addict needing to commit a single robbery to fund a $200 a day habit, you now have 4 addicts each needing to commit a crime to fund a $50 a day habit. Thanks for the clarification. Hmmm. I was not aware of the Rockefeller Laws. I'll have to research that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Having said that, I don't know if making dealers more desperate is in itself a good enough reason. Not to sound cold, but law enforcement is a dangerous business that carries risks. We don't stop pursuing criminals simply because they may act violently when cornered. Again, thanks for your reply. Good stuff to chew on. Peace.
Well, when one is called " a f****n idiot" merely for expressing his/her opinion in a non-offensive way it's nice to try and at least get a sense of who the name caller is. Now that I know you're a one-legged monkey I feel better. Interesting rant, sweeping in scope but bereft of common sense. Specifically, your statement that "drug dealers are no more responsible for drug use than the devil is responsible for all of mankind's 'evil' doings." Okay, so drug dealers are inconsequential pieces of the drug abuse epidemic? ROFL! Once your hysteria is boiled down, it becomes apparent that all you've really managed to say is that there's a demand, so there's going to be a supply. I won't argue with that. So what then do you propose? It would be helpful if you could follow crass insults and philosophical ravings with a worthy idea or two.
I'm for legalization and education. However, if you want to stop drugs you will have to have some severe penalties. Execution is about what it would take considering how easy it is to make so much money. People say prohibition of alcohol did not work. The pay for bringing a small boatload of booze from Canada via the great lakes was $50 and the penalty was $50. They never really put big enough penalties on it to make prohibition succeed. I don't think everything would be so great if we legalized, excessive use of drugs is pretty destructive typically, I just don't like the idea of locking up all these users and all the crimes they do to get $ for their habits. Just how destructive they would be to society if drugs were legal is a big question I have no answer to but basically I don't think drug use would go much higer were it legal but the quality of stuff and choices of less destructive drugs would increase you would think. Max
Please note, I am in no way advocating for people to do what I am talking about in the next paragraph. Considering the fact that, for whatever reason, the government has been unable to stamp out drug dealers I am surprised that parents whose son or daughter has been hooked on drugs haven't taken the law into their own hands and started to knock off such low lifes as drugdealers. Governments appear unable or unwilling to tackle the subject seriously. For example a daughter of one of the past Prime Ministers in Australia had a serious drugproblem. One would have thought that someone leading the government would have been able to muster all the power necessary to tackle that task. I am not at all saying that he may not have tried. What I am saying is that the only logical conclusion as far as I can see is that there are such big powerfull forces at work undermining any such task. I am not even talking about the few police officers who get caught being involved in drugs. The real enemy clearly must be much higher up than that. Or is it that the government is intimidated by the do-gooders who advocate 'no death' sentences ? BTW, in my opinion a police officer who after all is in a position of trust and thence breaks public trust in this way 'deserves' more than a mere jail sentence. freealways
That's some deep thinking there Hap-a-boy. You cannot think of anything (and this I believe, I really really do) so why not kill some people to fix the problem. We now have an advanced model for a maturing society. Come and collect your Nobel.
Your initial post was offensive for anyone with 1/2 a brain... And if executing drug dealers is your idea of 'common sense' then we truly have nothing to talk about... Wake up man...
I think there should be a severe penalty for drug dealers. However, I think it should have to wait in line in behind murderers, rapists, and asaulters. It's funny how people don't mind having very harsh penalties for criminals where lots of money is involved. But to execute a rapist? how inhumane? how unforgiving? Aside from that it's obvious why they don't stop the drugs, they don't want to. It's an industry, just like the oil industry. Only we the public can't trade this industry legally.
You obviously require a lot of stroking (ego, that is, don't know about anything else), so without further ado, let me just say: You are da man! Excuse us lesser folk for trying to debate an issue in a forum for which you are a supposed "moderator." And, to be honest Herr Moderator, you obviously have all the answers, so I wouldn't dare try and compete with you for a Nobel, especially when you throw in the dairy, beef, and egg industries! I mean, who can argue with that? Your logic is unassailable and your wisdom unquestionable. The Nobel is just the beginning for you (and this I believe, I really really do). ROFL!
You're definitely right that we have nothing to talk about since you have given us nothing to talk about save insults. You still have not illuminated your stance, only that the one I have proposed is ridiculous to you, which I have really have no problem with at all. But character assaults on someone you've never had a discourse with, not even on a previous thread, is not the proper way to begin an intelligent debate. So if you want us to just ignore each other, that's way fine with me.
Dgabriel, you said "...............so why not kill some people to fix the problem." What is it that you don't understand about 'the fact that a dead drug dealer will be unable to commit any further offenses. I would even go as far as to say that the principle of 'you are either for or against us' should apply to any country which lets drug growing or manufacturing be carried on. freealways (we hope) from moderators holding a brief for drug dealers