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: KLP who wrote (8598)	1/10/2006 12:41:54 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541299

We actually have been discussing what you mention. Everyone can't just make the stuff now- you need a drug lab- and since they often blow up, I'd guess it's not all that easy to manufacture drugs, and really, who is going to want to be involved in that? Criminals, who are willing to take large risks for large gains- ok, so you've got a business that attracts and breeds criminals- a sort of criminal incubator- and that's a good idea? And don't you think the crimes committed are mostly committed to support the drug habits of users- because at the moment the drugs aren't cheap- because the business is illegal, and that keeps the price artificially high. Further, we've already discussed the territorial fights of rival drug dealers, and the general lawlessness of the business, breeds violence. So, if you legalize, you won't have "everyone" making drugs, and you might see a lot fewer trailers blowing up with the wife and kids inside, because they were living in a meth lab with their husband, and you will surely see less drug related crime, because drugs will be cheaper. I think the state should probably dispense drugs to addicted people, if they agree to get in to maintenance programs or treatment programs. Many addicted people can function just fine if put on maintenance doses- and if you want to combine that with treatment that's fine. We pay the cost now in a crappy underclass of violent drug dealers. I would rather pay to make a more humane system where people can get their drugs cheaply and safely, and get treatment if they want it. Either way you are paying- don't be fooled. At the moment you are paying in murders, and prison sentences, and lives ruined by both drugs and the penal system. I think it would be more humane to just pay to fix the broken people in our society, without criminalizing their behavior. I'm sorry for people who feel they need drugs- but there are a lot of them out there- whether the drug is alcohol, or cigarettes, or illegal drugs. There but for the grace of whatever, go you and I. I think it's probably a biochemical thing, and if you won the genetic lottery, and don't happen to be addicted to anything, the least you can be is compassionate toward those folks who weren't so lucky.

To: KLP who wrote (8598)	1/10/2006 7:21:54 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541299

It is talked about as if just legalizing drugs in general, will make those drug gangsters just "go away." What happened to the huge criminal gangs that grew up under prohibition? I thought most of those actually did just "go away"... some, I presume, turned to other criminal activity, but that's hardly an argument one way or another (we can't legalise X or the criminals will turn to Y??). What these people never discuss is what homemade drugs, like LSD, and "Meth" do to a person, what crimes are committed under these influences, how readily nearly everyone can make the stuff And again, as the equivalent, what about the huge cottage industry of moonshine - illegally distilled alcohol, often cut with meths and with no real regard for purity? That went away once legal commercial product - weaker, but cheaper, easier and safer - was available. Meanwhile, once the criminal surroundings are taken away, there will be less concept of 'gateway' drugs to begin with: as with the end of prohibition, I expect the criminal element itself to greatly shrink [possibly violently] as it won't provide a living. Then without the threat and stigma of being a criminal to begin with, those with drug problems may be more inclined and able to seek help and less driven into crime themselves. Although I would not be inclined to treat leniently anyone committing crimes because of their consumption of (now-legal) drugs, in fact the reverse... with the freedom to take them comes the responsibility not to harm others.

To: KLP who wrote (8598)	1/10/2006 8:00:35 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541299

What these people never discuss is what homemade drugs, like LSD, and "Meth" do to a person, what crimes are committed under these influences, how readily nearly everyone can make the stuff, (evidently from recipes over the internet), and the cost to society....both in human life, and in the physical cost of rehabing the person, or prison if they commit crimes while under the influence. It is the "elephant in the room" when it comes to discussing drug legalization. Basically, although discussed in terms of personal rights versus societal order, there is inevitably going to be a social cost, either in criminal victimization, or medical expenditures. No matter which way we look at it, the hard drugs are not something a person can use without tremendous physical dependency potentially developing. And that means the cost will be born by the rest of society to get them cleaned up, whether it be the health care system, or the government. But I have to admit that I have a strong predilection towards individual rights (to screw ourselves up) being protected. But y'know.. It's like I tell people, with regard to religion. If you have coerce or admonish someone to believe something, they are naturally going to rebel and ignore you. So maybe just a bit more "demand reduction" education in our schools might help a few kids off of them. Essentially, people using hard drugs (IMO) often suffer from a lack of self-esteem. They use them to "fit in" with the "cool" crowd, alleviate some sense of anxiety or insufficiency. In fact, while I'm sitting here, I'm asking myself why I actually starting smoking cigarettes. Some excuse that I use, where some work associates tended to tease me (I was in my early 20's) for smoking a pipe, so I converted to cigarettes. The pipe was bad.. but certainly better smelling and less harmful than breathing that smoke into my lungs... But I digress... ;0) Bottom line, I'm definitely torn on this issue and can readily argue either side of it. It's going to be interesting to read other people's opinions and arguments, both pro and con. Hawk