Let's talk about drugs

[paulpablo]

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 completely get your point. I'm saying I disagree with your point.

While their are some drugs that are heavily physically addictive there are others that aren't.
I see no difference in someone robbing an old lady to get money to go to the theme park and robbing an old lady to get marijuana or a wide screen tv.
My opinion is similar with other drugs such as mdma, lsd, mushrooms, Mcat, and so on.

Using marijuana as a prime example, I don't want my taxes being spent on someone else getting stoned.

I know if you were in charge I wouldn't get a choice but I'm choosing right now to say what I think about your idea.

And drug users would have a choice, either buy the drugs illegally and go out to night clubs, house parties and wherever else, or take the drugs legally and do whatever it is the government allows them to in this designated area.

Also your idea of monopolising the drug trade seems not that much different cost wise to what's happening right now.
The government would still have to compete with the hundreds of gangs battling for control of illegal drug sales.
Resulting in similar amounts of death, shootings, government spending on arrests and so on.

[account_inactive]

Legalise weed and tax the absolute shit out of it.

Keep "harder" drugs illegal.

[Silver]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I completely get your point.

No, I don't think you do. More on this to follow.

I'm saying I disagree with your point.

That much is clear, at least.

While their are some drugs that are heavily physically addictive there are others that aren't.

You have a keen grasp of the obvious.

I see no difference in someone robbing an old lady to get money to go to the theme park and robbing an old lady to get marijuana or a wide screen tv. My opinion is similar with other drugs such as mdma, lsd, mushrooms, Mcat, and so on.

The topic is drugs, not theme park admissions.

Using marijuana as a prime example, I don't want my taxes being spent on someone else getting stoned.

People getting stoned on your tax money is incidental. I find myself unsurprised that you don't get this.

I know if you were in charge I wouldn't get a choice but I'm choosing right now to say what I think about your idea.

As I explained already, even with me NOT in charge, you don't get to choose where and how your tax money is spent. If you live in a place where you can submit a checklist along with you tax payments as to where your money goes, you're unique.

And drug users would have a choice, either buy the drugs illegally and go out to night clubs, house parties and wherever else, or take the drugs legally and do whatever it is the government allows them to in this designated area.

Once again, you show that you aren't getting the point - there would be no choice, because there wouldn't be a way to buy drugs illegally.

Also your idea of monopolising the drug trade seems not that much different cost wise to what's happening right now.
The government would still have to compete with the hundreds of gangs battling for control of illegal drug sales.
Resulting in similar amounts of death, shootings, government spending on arrests and so on.

Last try: If drugs are legal and free at point-of-use, there would be no market for illegal drugs. Let's try an analogy, shall we? Your government has monopolized the bread market. The government owns and manages all phases of bread production and distribution. Right next to your local supermarket is a Government Bread House. You can go into the market and get a loaf of bread for $3, or into GBH and get the same loaf for $0 dollars. How long do you think your market is going to have bread on the shelves?

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Legalise weed and tax the absolute shit out of it.

Keep "harder" drugs illegal.

Why do you want to keep harder drugs illegal?

Boru

[paulpablo]

I completely get your point.

No, I don't think you do. More on this to follow.

I'm saying I disagree with your point.

That much is clear, at least.

While their are some drugs that are heavily physically addictive there are others that aren't.

You have a keen grasp of the obvious.

I see no difference in someone robbing an old lady to get money to go to the theme park and robbing an old lady to get marijuana or a wide screen tv. My opinion is similar with other drugs such as mdma, lsd, mushrooms, Mcat, and so on.

The topic is drugs, not theme park admissions.

Using marijuana as a prime example, I don't want my taxes being spent on someone else getting stoned.

People getting stoned on your tax money is incidental. I find myself unsurprised that you don't get this.

I know if you were in charge I wouldn't get a choice but I'm choosing right now to say what I think about your idea.

As I explained already, even with me NOT in charge, you don't get to choose where and how your tax money is spent. If you live in a place where you can submit a checklist along with you tax payments as to where your money goes, you're unique.

And drug users would have a choice, either buy the drugs illegally and go out to night clubs, house parties and wherever else, or take the drugs legally and do whatever it is the government allows them to in this designated area.

Once again, you show that you aren't getting the point - there would be no choice, because there wouldn't be a way to buy drugs illegally.

Also your idea of monopolising the drug trade seems not that much different cost wise to what's happening right now.
The government would still have to compete with the hundreds of gangs battling for control of illegal drug sales.
Resulting in similar amounts of death, shootings, government spending on arrests and so on.

Last try: If drugs are legal and free at point-of-use, there would be no market for illegal drugs. Let's try an analogy, shall we? Your government has monopolized the bread market. The government owns and manages all phases of bread production and distribution. Right next to your local supermarket is a Government Bread House. You can go into the market and get a loaf of bread for $3, or into GBH and get the same loaf for $0 dollars. How long do you think your market is going to have bread on the shelves?

Boru

I just explained why I think there would be a market for illegal drugs and other people have pointed it out.
It's not just the fact that it's illegal it's combined with the designated drug taking area you proposed.

If the drug is recreational people want to go to recreational places to enjoy the drugs, for example night clubs, sporting events. Any social event you can name. People drink alcohol, smoke and drink caffine at funerals, weddings so on and so on.

[Banjo]

I agree with decriminalizing drug use and favor rehabilitation over incarceration, but have a problem with how the argument is presented. Your bulleted items aren't necessarily untrue, but lack the perspective of degree. Befriend a heroin addict and see if alcohol, tobacco and caffeine still register equivalent effects. The line of reasoning is unconvincing.

Why Cato? He was an arsehole?

Sorry off topic.

"Give your slaves so much vinegar" "Carthage must be destroyed".

Cato? Seriously?

How about the Gracchi?

I have no other thoughts on the matter.

I do enjoy pizza. Off topic though it is. I would never eat a pizza named after Cato. Even if it did have artichoke hearts on it.

Speaking of artichokes.......

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I agree with decriminalizing drug use and favor rehabilitation over incarceration, but have a problem with how the argument is presented. Your bulleted items aren't necessarily untrue, but lack the perspective of degree. Befriend a heroin addict and see if alcohol, tobacco and caffeine still register equivalent effects. The line of reasoning is unconvincing.

Why Cato? He was an arsehole?

Sorry off topic.

"Give your slaves so much vinegar" "Carthage must be destroyed".

Cato? Seriously?

How about the Gracchi?

I have no other thoughts on the matter.

I do enjoy pizza. Off topic though it is. I would never eat a pizza named after Cato. Even if it did have artichoke hearts on it.

Speaking of artichokes.......

The Gracchi brothers weren't fit to like the pig shite off of Cato's sandals (either Cato, for that matter). Stupid Gracchi got what they deserved for their cynical ploy to grab power in the Republic.

Boru

[Banjo]

Why Cato? He was an arsehole?

Sorry off topic.

"Give your slaves so much vinegar" "Carthage must be destroyed".

Cato? Seriously?

How about the Gracchi?

I have no other thoughts on the matter.

I do enjoy pizza. Off topic though it is. I would never eat a pizza named after Cato. Even if it did have artichoke hearts on it.

Speaking of artichokes.......

The Gracchi brothers weren't fit to like the pig shite off of Cato's sandals (either Cato, for that matter).  Stupid Gracchi got what they deserved for their cynical ploy to grab power in the Republic.

Boru

You're a republican?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Gracchi brothers weren't fit to like the pig shite off of Cato's sandals (either Cato, for that matter).  Stupid Gracchi got what they deserved for their cynical ploy to grab power in the Republic.

Boru

You're a republican?

It depends on how you mean the term. In the American sense, no.

Boru