Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(September 3, 2016 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Want to win the stupid fucking war on drugs? Here's how you do it:
1. Make all drugs (literally, ALL) legal.
2. Supply the drugs free of charge (at government cost) to any adult who wants them.
3. Dispense the drugs only at 'Use Centres' - you come in, get your drugs, go into your little room, take your drugs, and you're not allowed to leave until you're no longer under the influence.
By making the drugs free and a government monopoly, you'd 1) save a fuck tonne of cash, 2) free up prison space, 3) eliminate the crimes associated with drugs 4) shatter the drug cartels.
Oh, sure, you can have rehab (also at no cost to the user) for people who want to get off drugs, blah blah blah.
Boru
If you're going to do that why not just have people pay for the drugs rather than forcing people who don't want to use drugs to pay also pay for them along with the drug users?
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
September 3, 2016 at 11:47 am (This post was last modified: September 3, 2016 at 11:51 am by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(September 3, 2016 at 8:16 am)paulpablo Wrote:
(September 3, 2016 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Want to win the stupid fucking war on drugs? Here's how you do it:
1. Make all drugs (literally, ALL) legal.
2. Supply the drugs free of charge (at government cost) to any adult who wants them.
3. Dispense the drugs only at 'Use Centres' - you come in, get your drugs, go into your little room, take your drugs, and you're not allowed to leave until you're no longer under the influence.
By making the drugs free and a government monopoly, you'd 1) save a fuck tonne of cash, 2) free up prison space, 3) eliminate the crimes associated with drugs 4) shatter the drug cartels.
Oh, sure, you can have rehab (also at no cost to the user) for people who want to get off drugs, blah blah blah.
Boru
If you're going to do that why not just have people pay for the drugs rather than forcing people who don't want to use drugs to pay also pay for them along with the drug users?
Because a significant part of the societal problems associated with drug use is what people have to do to get the money to pay for the drugs in the first place. If governments were to subsidize (at 100%) drug use and rehab, you wouldn't have pensioners being beaten senseless by people who need a fix.
People who don't and never will use hard drugs are already paying for the cost of drug use, in terms of ludicrously high costs of catching, prosecuting, and (in many cases) jailing and warehousing drug users, not to mention investigating and prosecuting associated crimes. Since under the Boru Plan you wouldn't have to do all that, the drug-related cost to taxpayers would drop like a paralyzed falcon.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Of course, illegal drugs are only one part of the equation. Here in the U.S. we're having an even bigger problem with legal prescription drugs...
Quote:(Drug Overdose Deaths in the US and Involvement of Pharmaceutical Drugs, 2010) "In 2010, there were 38,329 drug overdose deaths in the United States; most (22 134; 57.7%) involved pharmaceuticals; 9429 (24.6%) involved only unspecified drugs. Of the pharmaceutical-related overdose deaths, 16,451 (74.3%) were unintentional, 3780 (17.1%) were suicides, and 1868 (8.4%) were of undetermined intent. Opioids (16,651; 75.2%), benzodiazepines (6497; 29.4%), antidepressants (3889; 17.6%), and antiepileptic and antiparkinsonism drugs (1717; 7.8%) were the pharmaceuticals (alone or in combination with other drugs) most commonly involved in pharmaceutical overdose deaths. Among overdose deaths involving opioid analgesics, the pharmaceuticals most often also involved in these deaths were benzodiazepines (5017; 30.1%), antidepressants (2239; 13.4%), antiepileptic and antiparkinsonism drugs (1125; 6.8%), and antipsychotics and neuroleptics (783; 4.7%)." - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_o...mKXt4.dpuf
Between doctors over-prescribing due to monetary incentives and the big-wigs at the pharmacetucal companies using shady tactics, like hiding how truly addictive these drugs are, our streets are flooded with these powerful drugs. OxyContin is essentially medical grade heroin, and then there's fentanyl(what killed Prince), which is so potent that it's prescribed in micrograms. On top of that, people that get hooked on legally prescribed drugs often turn to street drugs like heroin when their prescriptions dry up.
Between opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, et al, you can get your fix all with drugs that were legally produced.
Then, of course, there is the federal government's ridiculous classification of addictive substances. Oxy and fentanyl(which are highly addictive and deadly) are both schedule II(the second highest classification of addiction) while drugs like marijuana and LSD are in schedule I(the highest classification). Then the benzodiazepines(Ativan, Xanax) are only schedule IV, but they are nearly as addictive as opiates and not only can you O.D. on, you can die from their withdrawls and they are deadly to combine.
CNN Wrote:According to the FDA, between 2004 and 2011, the number of overdose deaths involving the combination of both drugs nearly tripled. In addition, the number of patients prescribed both a narcotic and a benzodiazepine in that same time period increased by 41%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
So, yeah, the real problem with drugs is that we've never taken a scientific approach to dealing with them and we've let big business corrupt the whole process.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(September 3, 2016 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Want to win the stupid fucking war on drugs? Here's how you do it:
1. Make all drugs (literally, ALL) legal.
2. Supply the drugs free of charge (at government cost) to any adult who wants them.
3. Dispense the drugs only at 'Use Centres' - you come in, get your drugs, go into your little room, take your drugs, and you're not allowed to leave until you're no longer under the influence.
By making the drugs free and a government monopoly, you'd 1) save a fuck tonne of cash, 2) free up prison space, 3) eliminate the crimes associated with drugs 4) shatter the drug cartels.
Oh, sure, you can have rehab (also at no cost to the user) for people who want to get off drugs, blah blah blah.
September 3, 2016 at 12:51 pm (This post was last modified: September 3, 2016 at 12:53 pm by paulpablo.)
(September 3, 2016 at 11:47 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(September 3, 2016 at 8:16 am)paulpablo Wrote: If you're going to do that why not just have people pay for the drugs rather than forcing people who don't want to use drugs to pay also pay for them along with the drug users?
Because a significant part of the societal problems associated with drug use is what people have to do to get the money to pay for the drugs in the first place. If governments were to subsidize (at 100%) drug use and rehab, you wouldn't have pensioners being beaten senseless by people who need a fix.
People who don't and never will use hard drugs are already paying for the cost of drug use, in terms of ludicrously high costs of catching, prosecuting, and (in many cases) jailing and warehousing drug users, not to mention investigating and prosecuting associated crimes. Since under the Boru Plan you wouldn't have to do all that, the drug-related cost to taxpayers would drop like a paralyzed falcon.
Boru
I agree to everything about that plan with just some exceptions.
If I'm reading it correctly you're saying legalize and subsidize all drugs and the rehab for the drugs.
I already mentioned my perspective on legalization, I think it might be morally questionable, maybe not, and I do predict it would be the best route to take. So I'm for the legalization.
The rehab, also makes sense.
The subsidizing all drugs and having a designated place to take them is where I think the plan fails in certain aspects.
I can see it working with heroin, as far as I understand it, heroin isn't a party/recreational, social drug. This along with other painkillers and opiates is psychologically and physically addictive, I have sympathy for vulnerable people who are addicted to those kind of drugs and I'm sure some of them will be happy being in a government subsidized room with their heroin.
But I disagree with the subsidizing of more recreational drugs for 2 reasons.
1) I don't want to pay for a bunch of teenagers to have a good weekend and I imagine many taxpayers feel the same way.
2) I can't imagine any recreational drug takers agreeing to be stuck in a government funded room while they take their drugs. As someone who was an ecstasy user I can say that would have been my idea of a nightmare to be stuck in a room while I've got all that energy where I just want to get up and dance, I imagine if that person is taking meth or crack that energy is even more intense although I've never taken either of those so I can't say for certain how it effects behavior, I just can't imagine they want to be stuck in a room.
Unless it's basically a government funded nightclub you're talking about which brings me back to point 1, I don't want to pay for someone's amazing weekend out of my pocket.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
(September 3, 2016 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Want to win the stupid fucking war on drugs? Here's how you do it:
1. Make all drugs (literally, ALL) legal.
2. Supply the drugs free of charge (at government cost) to any adult who wants them.
3. Dispense the drugs only at 'Use Centres' - you come in, get your drugs, go into your little room, take your drugs, and you're not allowed to leave until you're no longer under the influence.
By making the drugs free and a government monopoly, you'd 1) save a fuck tonne of cash, 2) free up prison space, 3) eliminate the crimes associated with drugs 4) shatter the drug cartels.
Oh, sure, you can have rehab (also at no cost to the user) for people who want to get off drugs, blah blah blah.
Boru
That's a terrible idea.
Why?
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
September 3, 2016 at 5:46 pm (This post was last modified: September 3, 2016 at 5:47 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
Quote:I agree to everything about that plan with just some exceptions.
If I'm reading it correctly you're saying legalize and subsidize all drugs and the rehab for the drugs.
I already mentioned my perspective on legalization, I think it might be morally questionable, maybe not, and I do predict it would be the best route to take. So I'm for the legalization.
The rehab, also makes sense.
The subsidizing all drugs and having a designated place to take them is where I think the plan fails in certain aspects.
I can see it working with heroin, as far as I understand it, heroin isn't a party/recreational, social drug. This along with other painkillers and opiates is psychologically and physically addictive, I have sympathy for vulnerable people who are addicted to those kind of drugs and I'm sure some of them will be happy being in a government subsidized room with their heroin.
But I disagree with the subsidizing of more recreational drugs for 2 reasons.
1) I don't want to pay for a bunch of teenagers to have a good weekend and I imagine many taxpayers feel the same way.
2) I can't imagine any recreational drug takers agreeing to be stuck in a government funded room while they take their drugs. As someone who was an ecstasy user I can say that would have been my idea of a nightmare to be stuck in a room while I've got all that energy where I just want to get up and dance, I imagine if that person is taking meth or crack that energy is even more intense although I've never taken either of those so I can't say for certain how it effects behavior, I just can't imagine they want to be stuck in a room.
Unless it's basically a government funded nightclub you're talking about which brings me back to point 1, I don't want to pay for someone's amazing weekend out of my pocket.
First of all, you don't get to decide how your tax money is spent, that's not a part of the contract. If you could, then homebound people could refuse to have their taxes spent on public transport, and childless couples could exempt their taxes from going to fund schools.
Secondly, you miss the point entirely. The idea isn't to fund 'teenagers to have a good weekend', but to keep people from robbing a shop and shooting the clerk to fund their good weekend that way. Would you rather pay a (comparative) pittance for drug users to have a safe place to use drugs, or pay one helluva lot more to have a robbery murder investigated, court costs for defendants, and incarceration?
Third point: Recreational drug users wouldn't have to agree 'to be stuck in a government funded room while they take their drugs'. With a government monopoly on the ownership and distribution of drugs, they wouldn't have a choice (another benefit of the plan ((which admittedly just occurred to me)) would be the freeing up of law enforcement resources to track down and prosecute the vanishingly small number of private drug dealers.)
Finally, what is the option? Continue to squander public funds in what is clearly a futile, never ending effort to 'get drugs off our streets'? Come on.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Well, I guess that's a sound idea as long as people can only drink alcohol in special government rooms and not be allowed to leave until they're sober.
September 3, 2016 at 10:25 pm (This post was last modified: September 3, 2016 at 10:25 pm by Homeless Nutter.)
(September 3, 2016 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
Want to win the stupid fucking war on drugs? Here's how you do it:
1. Make all drugs (literally, ALL) legal.
2. Supply the drugs free of charge (at government cost) to any adult who wants them.
3. Dispense the drugs only at 'Use Centres' - you come in, get your drugs, go into your little room, take your drugs, and you're not allowed to leave until you're no longer under the influence.
By making the drugs free and a government monopoly, you'd 1) save a fuck tonne of cash, 2) free up prison space, 3) eliminate the crimes associated with drugs 4) shatter the drug cartels.
Oh, sure, you can have rehab (also at no cost to the user) for people who want to get off drugs, blah blah blah.
Boru
I doubt that would work very well.
First of all - people like to take drugs socially. Sure - a junkie jonesing for a fix may go into a little room for a bunch of hours, if it gets him some heroin, but most people prefer to get high at parties, and/or in familiar, comfortable environment - they'd still be buying drugs, either legally, or otherwise. You don't take cocaine or X to sit idly in a room.
Secondly - how do you propose the "customers" should be prevented from smuggling the free drugs out of the "Use Centres" and using them at their leisure, or selling them on? Full body cavity search for everybody? Most drug users are not junkies, deprived of dignity by addiction; if legal drug use involved too much hassle, or humiliation - illegal drug trade would still go on.
Thirdly - when a junkie is no longer under the influence of drugs - it's time to get another dose, meaning addicted people would essentially have to live at those "Use Centres", or - if there were some limitations on how long you can stay at one of those places - they'd be constantly rotating between them.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
September 4, 2016 at 12:48 am (This post was last modified: September 4, 2016 at 12:48 am by Excited Penguin.)
You couldn't force people to take their drugs the way you envision it, and the monopoly would never hold if you tried. It seems to me that Brian really needs to think this through and lower his confidence that his idea would work and try instead to offer more realistic solutions that don't involve such drastic measures as essentially offering addicts a morbid haven while the rest of us have all the fun taken out of drugs.
