Re: Screw You, Pedro, Shoot Me Up


"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-136A9B.10285930042006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <1B35g.8$pI6.542@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" <Davko58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Like in the US, where greedy police agenices routinely steal people's
personal property during drug busts.

Only that bought with ill-gotten gains.

Incorrect. People arrested for possession routinely lose their cars at the
time of the arrest. Many police agencies are as gung ho as they are about
stealing personal property only because they are allowed to fence the stuff
to pad their budgets.

As for harder drugs, frankly, its none of your business what anyone puts
into their body. Its their business and and theirs alone. The laws
against
them obviously haven't wiped out drug usage, its a losing proposition all
the way, just as Prohibition was. Those interested in ruining their
lives
with heroin are already doing so. If legalized (or more accurately in
the
case of Mexico, decriminalized) there wouldn't be a rush of people eager
to
hide in corners and inject.

N onsence. Heck if nothing else, look at gambling. Becomes legal
(whether it is lotteries to riverboats) and problem gambling goes up
because people who wouldn't have done it before because it was illegal,
now do it. When the stigma or illegality is removed, then the use
increases and in the process of addictive substances (or addictive
activities like gambling) that segment of the population that is
essentially chicken *** (g), goes up as does the number of people
suceptible to addictive behaviors.

Horrible analogy. Gambling is fun, so many people want to participate in
it. Heroin use is about as far from fun as one can get. There would be no
rush to use.

But let's assume you are correct. Your argument should be used to advocate
prohibiting gambling, not to continue to prohibit other currently illegal
behaviors.

Anyone who has worked anywhere near substance abuse, knows that it
isn't even remotely a victimless crime.

Anyone who has smoked marijuana, which is about half of the nation, knows
that it causes little if any harm to anyone.

Families pay the price, society
pays a price, co-workers pay a price, etc.

Lots of things cause people to pay prices. Like greedy oil company
executives, driving race cars, hunting with the vice president, etc. Life
isn't risk free, nor should it be. The widest number of choices is always
the best, especially when the only harm is done to the person making the
choice.

This argument always boils down to value judgements. You like gambling and
presumably at a minimun approve of folks getting snockered while pissing
away their paychecks in the local VP factory. You don't like "drugs" for
whatever reason, so you want them to remain illegal. Others don't like
gambling, but may enjoy sitting on their couch at 11:00pm and smoking a
joint while watching TV before they go to bed. Everyone's ability to make
their own choices should always be respected.

I am not yet convinced that
the price is more than the price of enforcement, but to suggest that
there will no bad consequences for legalizing or decriminalizing most
substances is bunk.

There may be. But that argument didn't stop the re-legalization of alchol
(which was done for economic reasons) or the recent widespread legalization
of gambling (also done for economic reasons). Since marijuana is grown
mostly by small entrepeneurs without a large trade association making huge
political contributions, and since there are no large corporations lying in
wait to go into the pot biz, the politics aren't currently there for that
drug to be legalized. It isn't the drug or activity that matters to the
government, anything with enough money behind it has a good chance of
becoming legal. Pot isn't worse than alcohol or gambling, all the studies
show the opposite is true. It remains illegal only because of religious
moralists and money reasons.

I only ask for informed decisions...

Then all drugs should be legalized with warning labels, just like the
confirmed killer drug nicotine.

If giving criminal drug addicts a pass a on prison in favor of treatment
is
good enough for Lush Rimjob, who once called for the permanent
imprisonment
of every drug addict in the US, it should be good enough for those
without
political connections. Instead we burden our prisons with people who
have
done nothing more than have a little fun or who have made some bad
personal
choices.

Limbaugh was within the sentencing guidelines and wasn't treated
terribly different from other first time offenders who doc shopped
because of addiction to RX'ed medications. Except for being hoist on his
pertard... always a painful process. Probably worse for him than jail
time.

I doubt that............ his fat ass would be raw if imprisoned for more
than 24 hours.

Prison should be for people who have harmed someone else, who have
violated
their rights in some way, not for fun loving or stupid people who have
harmed only themselves.

See above.

The war on drugs is a miserable failure, and will always be a miserable
failure. Mexico has taken a small step towards valuing personal freedom,
and I for one give them a standing ovation.

I am giving them a sitting handclap (g).

Ok.

EGBH


.

Quantcast