Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (8564)	1/9/2006 3:03:19 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541326

I think most importantly, addiction wouldn't be under the carpet. I think the main problem with addicts is that they can't get help for their addiction, without exposing criminal acts. I think if help were legal, and available, we would see more people avail themselves of help. I would be 100% for spending a big chunk of what we spend now on prisons, to help addicts of all substances get off their drug of choice- or at the very least, find ways to maintain them so they function well. That would be a humane and HUGE step in the correct direction, imo.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (8564)	1/9/2006 3:27:43 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541326

The war on drugs is like the classic definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over with the same result then expecting that the result will be different next time. Drugs are now cheaper, stronger and more available than they were 30 years ago, yet we will keep fighting until we win. Huh?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (8564)	1/9/2006 3:35:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541326

These drugs are being abused no matter if they're legal or not. I think we all agree on that (or probably should.. ;0). And all people tend to exceed the speed limit, or make reckless driving maneuvers... So the logic implies that we should do away with driving laws, right? Of course not.. ;0) I think what we're really debating here (correct me if I'm wrong), is how do we protect our own individual rights to not be victimized by drug users and the perceived increase in violent crime associated with it, versus their (and everyone's) right to treat their bodies as they see fit. And that's a more expansive argument.. If we legalize certain behavior, what happens with participants in that behavior violate the rights of non-participants? What happens with legal drugs create more addicts or causes already poor people to wind up on welfare roles? When people violate the rights of others, should they not be punished, or sequestered until they are no longer committing those violations and can display self-control? I personally could care less if someone gets high, or "spun", or whatever state of narco-nirvana they seek to achieve. It's when those people violate my rights not to be victimized by their behavior, financially, physically, or mentally, that I say that they have abrogated their right to engage in that behavior anymore. And that entails a debate what whether becoming a ward of the state, either through drug dependance, crack babies, or prison, does not justify some kinds of preventative laws to discourage such behavior. Or should we just say that, once you've become a ward, you lose your personal freedoms (coercive de-tox, workfare, community service and/or jail) until such time that you can prove you're capable of being self-responsible? I don't really know the answer. But I guess that's why we're debating.. ;0) Hawk