Hand gun ownership in the U.S.

[Viola]

*********
No, It is your answer did not include word one about drug rehab only alcohol and I asked specifically about drug rehab.

How about yes, does that count as a word? Yes, I do. Its not a lot of fun. Nor can I say that any of the drugs dragged the guys in question into an alley and forced themselves onto them.

And honestly, I know more guys who manage to keep it as a hobby and hold down jobs. Especially marijuana, but other things as well. I don't really want to have a conversation with a person I like about how "coke's got nothing on meth..." but hell he worked 50+ hours a week.

-Viola

 

[Viola]

What about the innocent person he hurts? San Francisco and Oakland are full of people who started out using drugs recreationally and are menace's to society and to people walking on the street. Someone else should not be harmed merely because a selfish person wants to exercise his "right" to; smoke crack, inject horse or such. Why should all of society be walking on pins and needles, looking over their shoulders and adjusting their lives for the selfish few? Taking illegal drugs to an extreme is not the same as riding in the back of a pick-up truck, riding a bike without a helmet, driving without a selt belt, or shooting off piccolo pete's on Independence Day.

Your problem isn't the smoking up or injecting then, is it? Its the violent crime. And we could keep people who commit violent crimes off the street a lot longer if we weren't jailing addicts and non-violent dealers.

I personally get a lot more up in arms about guys doing LESS THAN A YEAR for assault than I do about guys who sit home looking stupid smoking.

-Viola

 

[John in Covina]

In the past these things came to a head, in the day when smoking opium was legal, peoples lives were destroyed. To which many said fine. But it was when after the weekends, the dead bodies started piling up and someone had to pay to collect them and bury them did people object to the expense and bad image it made for their city.

So, I guess for some it is a question of how many bodies are too many?
Between total freedom with anarchy and the totalitarian state is a fine balance of law and order. Bad things happen, some people do bad things and a question is should you try to stop them or just let it go?

 

[Viola]

How many bodies are too many in the War on Drugs? Are we actually seeing any great reduction? That's what I wonder. Is it not even safety vs. freedom? I don't see a whole lot of safety. I see a direct analogue of Prohibition; expensive, messy, murderous, and putting very bad people in power through a black market.

Budweiser kills many fewer people than Al Capone.

-Viola

 

[carebear]

Viola got it.

There's no way to prevent risk, especially in a free society. If we worried about criminalizing only acts of violence against others and not about pre-emptively saving folks from themselves with hugely ineffective prohibitions we would free up all those currently wasted law enforcement resources (since what we're doing now isn't working and is getting more expensive) to do two things.

It would free up prison space (currently used to warehouse non-violent drug offenders) and money for enforcement of violent crime laws and it would also leave more funds available for diversionary programs and treatment within such institutions if the addict wants the help.

One thing legalization would do would remove much of the need to commit crime to fuel habits, also remember that much use of meth and other more processed artificial drugs came about due to restrictions on "natural" drugs like heroin and cocaine in the first place. More pure pharmaceuticals have fewer degrading effects to people than multiply-cut street garbage and can be used in smaller quantities to achieve the same high.

Drug abuse has always been with us, from opium dens to OTC laudenum and coke and prohibitions have never worked.

As far as second-hand smoke goes. Private property rights.

If you don't want to breath smoke, stay on property where smoking is banned by the owner. Don't associate with smokers, don't patronize or seek employment at businesses that allow smoking and you'll be fine.

If you're out in public, in the open air? The case for harm is a bit specious as studies don't support harm in such diffusion, especially given the ability to move upwind or away and considering the amount of other particulates present in urban air.

 

[John in Covina]

Your problem isn't the smoking up or injecting then, is it? Its the violent crime. And we could keep people who commit violent crimes off the street a lot longer if we weren't jailing addicts and non-violent dealers.

I personally get a lot more up in arms about guys doing LESS THAN A YEAR for assault than I do about guys who sit home looking stupid smoking.
-Viola

********
Here smoking a cigarette in a bar or restaurant is treated as a form of assault.

Personally, I say let them do what they want but don't expect me to pay for their problems. If a parent flakes out and their kids go on welfare, it becomes my problem. You seem to be of a similar mind but have less ability to see consiquences to what you'd like to have allowed. Their are reports that the results of what you are pushing for have not been as rosy as claimed in the Netherlands.

There is always that drive to improve what is there, search for the ultimate experience and that leads to unintended results. An old story is that scientists found a way to stimulate a monkey's brain so that the monkey would feel all the pleasure of having sex. Then they gave the monkey a button that he could push to stimulate its brain and have that feeling. The monkey held the button down until it passed out. But people aren't the same you might say, no after waking up the first time, most people I know would simply figure out to TAPE the button down.

The moral of the story is that too much of a good thing can be bad and for many they can't figure out that they have moved over to the bad territory until they are way in it, in spite of all the warnings that more experienced people may give.

Social darwinism says those people should die. Just like anyone that can't figure out bringing a plugged in blowdryer into the shower can kill you.

 

[Viola]

You seem to be of a similar mind but have less ability to see consiquences to what you'd like to have allowed.

I would say that street goes both ways. I don't see what's so marvelous about the War on Drugs, the non-violent offenders clogging the courts, the inflated black market worth that causes the property crimes, or giving the Crips and Bloods their power-base.

You act as though it is impossible to try somebody for theft, or physical assault, or murder, unless you also try them for pot and pills. Or that I implicitly approve of violence. Not 'zactly so.

-Viola

 

[carebear]

John,

I see exactly what the consequences will be and I feel that they are a reasonable trade off short-term until people readjust to the fact that decisions and choices have those consequences.

We certainly aren't improving the situation doing what we're doing. All we have managed to do is criminalize more and more activities and trample all over Constitutional protections in return for not even a credible feeling of safety and certainly no real improvement in drug interdiction.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions expecting a different result. By that definition the War on Drugs is insane.

The stuff that is working, education and gradual societal disapproval, isn't flashy and so doesn't get the funding that SWAT teams and roadblocks do.

 

[John in Covina]

You act as though it is impossible to try somebody for theft, or physical assault, or murder, unless you also try them for pot and pills. Or that I implicitly approve of violence. Not 'zactly so.-Viola

***********************

No one on drugs has EVER commited a crime...

While many that are criminals are not on drugs, many are and that is a fact.

As to Budwiser:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving would tell you that people drinking Bud and driving while drunk have killed more people than Al Capone. (And for that matter how many people after a shortened lifespan have drank themselves to death where Bud was the beer of choice.) Can it be that there is use and misuse for some things but for some things any use is misuse?

The war on drugs is a losing battle in the sense that all sides misrepresent their side in many ways which creates distrust. And the legitamacy suffers for it.

Out here, there have been waves of drugs and destruction of lives that follow it, coke, crack, meth and a recent resurgence of meth. It affects across all line of color and economic standing but the poor suffer most.
In a perfect world no one would drunk drive, or feel the need to commit suicide. Or have a bad "trip" or overdose or become a junkie, but this isn't a perfect world. Bad things happen to good people. Compassion for your fellow human being should demand some type of action. A lack of compassion is that social darwinism I was talking about.

 

[John in Covina]

I see exactly what the consequences will be and I feel that they are a reasonable trade off short-term until people readjust to the fact that decisions and choices have those consequences.

***********
Much like alcohol.

I guess you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs.

People are not being educated with the idea that there are consequences to their actions today at all.

 

[Diamondback]

Out here, there have been waves of drugs and destruction of lives that follow it, coke, crack, meth and a recent resurgence of meth. It affects across all line of color and economic standing but the poor suffer most.
In a perfect world no one would drunk drive, or feel the need to commit suicide. Or have a bad "trip" or overdose or become a junkie, but this isn't a perfect world. Bad things happen to good people. Compassion for your fellow human being should demand some type of action. A lack of compassion is that social darwinism I was talking about.

John, compassion is trying to offer the person a hand--but there comes a point where even Mother Teresa would have to step back and let nature take its course.
And I'm going to leave this horrendously lost-off-topic thread with a single thought...

"You can't keep what you can't protect." This goes for loved ones as with tangible assets...

When we're off politics and back to guns, my signature shall come to pass.

 

[John in Covina]

The stuff that is working, education and gradual societal disapproval, isn't flashy and so doesn't get the funding that SWAT teams and roadblocks do.

***********
It often is consciously worked against especially by those in media. The simple "Just Say No' was more effective then they liked.

 

[John in Covina]

John, compassion is trying to offer the person a hand--but there comes a point where even Mother Teresa would have to step back and let nature take its course.

***************

Well it isn't real politics, this is more of a philosiphy discussion. It hinges on values and social mores more than political drives.

Compassion to protect the weak and the vunerable is what I am speaking of here. In the same vein as the idea of Child Labor Laws maybe. There is an explotation that does not sit right for me and for others in this.

 

[carebear]

And I have no problem with folks voluntarily getting together to take care of such things. Heck, reality-wise I don't have a problem with some sort of public safety net in the interim.

What I'd like to see though is that before we create that net, we save some money by stopping the wasteful and ineffective prohibition we have now.

If you want to treat people, first quit criminalizing them for non-violent use and possession.

 

[John in Covina]

America has a wide streak of Puritanism in there and it does come out with a vengence sometimes (like Prohibition). It tends to come down to the sneaking suspician that: somewheres, some place, somebody is having fun! And we can't have that.

 

[John in Covina]

Great discussion everyone! I hope i didn't get anyone too pissed off. Just hoping to make some valid points and ask some good questions.

 

[Viola]

Great discussion everyone! I hope i didn't get anyone too pissed off. Just hoping to make some valid points and ask some good questions.

Same here, want a beer?

-Viola

 

[John in Covina]

Yup! I'm up for some microbrewed ale on tap right about now.

 

[carebear]

That microbrewed ale is of the Deh-veel.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Yes! Let's drink some beers and shoot the empty bottles off the back fence! lol
It's our constitutional right, dammit!
(But seriously, I like the discussion here so far, it's just that more voters need to go to the polls,...)