| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2006 08:22:15 PM · #26 |
"For those that are addicted to drugs and want help, they could seek professional help without simply being thrown in jail. Addiction to a drug is a problem, not a crime"
I was in Cleveland this weekend and a friend of mine has to do background searches for potential employees for her husbands company. Would you believe that half of the people in jail are in jail for years at a time for simple drug possession, while the goverment is letting child molesters off with probation and 6month sentences. Where are our priorities???
Drug addiction is a problem - as stated by Justin_Hewlett - not a crime, yet we punish these people more than the ones who are hurting our children.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 10:17:13 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by frisca:
How does legalizing drugs do anything about the number of break-ins and car thefts associated with drug addicted people looking for money to fuel their habit? |
I think you answered your own question. If legalized, drugs would become more accessible and considerably cheaper. Someone addicted to drugs wouldn't have to steal to get their drugs - they would be readily accessible. And should they decide to break their habit, help would be just around the corner without fear of the government jailing them.
What it comes down to is whether we want criminals regulating the drug trade or the government. I choose government.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:11:26 PM · #28 |
Legalizing drugs?? ARE YOU ALL INSANE??? Have you never watched that public service documentary "Reefer Madness"?? It would be complete chaos - loose women, sex-crazed men, uncontrollable laughter...
...come to think of it, I guess nothing would be that different. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:21:35 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by frisca:
How does legalizing drugs do anything about the number of break-ins and car thefts associated with drug addicted people looking for money to fuel their habit? |
I think you answered your own question. If legalized, drugs would become more accessible and considerably cheaper. Someone addicted to drugs wouldn't have to steal to get their drugs - they would be readily accessible. And should they decide to break their habit, help would be just around the corner without fear of the government jailing them.
What it comes down to is whether we want criminals regulating the drug trade or the government. I choose government. |
How do you respond to the points outlined here by the DEA? |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:30:54 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by dahved:
How do you respond to the points outlined here by the DEA? |
I would start by saying that any information put out by an organization to counter a movement that would put them all out of a job would be higly suspect and much of it discounted as propaganda. The DEA has much more of a personal stake in NOT legalizing since they also get all the "spoils of war" by confiscating anything and everything that may or may not have been obtained as a result of drug sales.
Even looking at their "facts" - they leave out the cost to society in throwing so many people in jail for even small personal use.
I know you were directing this at Justin. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
03/30/2006 10:23:28 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by dahved:
How do you respond to the points outlined here by the DEA? |
I would start by saying that any information put out by an organization to counter a movement that would put them all out of a job would be higly suspect and much of it discounted as propaganda. The DEA has much more of a personal stake in NOT legalizing since they also get all the "spoils of war" by confiscating anything and everything that may or may not have been obtained as a result of drug sales.
Even looking at their "facts" - they leave out the cost to society in throwing so many people in jail for even small personal use.
I know you were directing this at Justin. Just my 2 cents. |
What he said :)
|
|
|
|
03/31/2006 11:00:16 AM · #32 |
Just an FYI, Summit County in Ohio (Akron Area) is currently trying to pass a county wide law to ban smoking in all public places including bars. Of course there is a rider here that is... drum roll here... waiving it for businesses in Akron and Cuyahoga Falls.
That is totally rediculous! The law makers do not have any citizens' interests in mind here. It's the almighty dollar.
Why isn't it illegal? Well people are pissed that the cigarette companies have blatenly lied to the public in the past so the pendulum is swinging that direction. But the other side of the fence is getting caught in deception now. truth.org would have you beleive that every case of lung cancer or heart disease is caused by first or even second hand smoke.
That's false - they tried to say that Dana Reeve, Christopher Reeve's wife, who died of lung cancer, was the result of second hand smoke. People are starting to realize that even truth.org has no reservations about lying.
Now, I'm not someone who believes that smoking is NOT harmful. I understand that smelling smoke in a diner is offensive. As a smoker, I hate to smell smoke while I am eating, or otherwise not interested in smoking.
Smokers need to have courtesy or learn manners. We aren't the only people in society - but we are here too.
Yes, cigarettes contain known carcinogens but here are a few others that may or may not be known.
1. Plastic - know to cause cancer because of the plasticizers. That includes the PVC pipes that are piping water in 75%+ of homes today.
2. Concrete contains a good amount of carcinogens.
3. Asphalt - is nothing more than motor oil, carcinogens, with a high viscosity and rocks. Our children play in asphalt playgrounds. EPA disallows oil disposal on the ground - why do they allow asphalt roads?
4. Most household cleaners contain carcinogens, even in airborne form.
5. Pestacides and many commercial fertilizers are carcinogens.
What we need to do with smoking and these other things is to really hold the manufacturers and law makers to the same standards as we hold each other. You and I basically believe that once the law makers make a law, everyone must abide by it. That really means you and me. The lawmakers will pass new laws to circumvent current laws. happens ALL THE TIME. (Triva: This is the reason why Washington, DC is not a state - to bypass the laws that they themselves make - The White House (or any other 'federal agency' does not have to comply with ANY labor laws))
Rick |
|
|
|
03/31/2006 11:52:02 AM · #33 |
The (UK) company I work for moves to a brand new site in October. The new smoking policy has already been communicated ...
NO Smoking.
Not inside.
Not outside.
Not even on the car park, in your own car with all the windows closed.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2006 11:54:07 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by bod:
The (UK) company I work for moves to a brand new site in October. The new smoking policy has already been communicated ...
NO Smoking.
Not inside.
Not outside.
Not even on the car park, in your own car with all the windows closed. |
This is a little different. This is a private company policy. Not a public law. This is the sort of thing that swings with the pendulum.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/31/2006 12:22:49 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem:
This is a little different. This is a private company policy. Not a public law. This is the sort of thing that swings with the pendulum. |
Well the smoking *in* the workplace part soon will be public law. We are being told that the smoking outdoors ban is due to forthcoming EU regulations, but as I quit smokes over a year ago I don't have to call billshut on that one : )
I don't expect the pendulum to ever swing back to be honest.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2006 12:33:48 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by bod:
but as I quit smokes over a year ago I don't have to call billshut on that one : )
|
Why not?
There is a little known saying:
When they came for the Jews I did not speak because I wasn't Jewish. When they came for the blacks I did not speak up, because I wasn't black. When they came for the Russians I did not speak up, because I wasn't Russian. But when they came for me no one spoke up me, because there was no one left.
If you think it's wrong, say something, if you think something is right, say something - don't let others decide for you.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/31/2006 12:55:55 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem:
There is a little known saying:
When they came for the Jews I did not speak because I wasn't Jewish. When they came for the blacks I did not speak up, because I wasn't black. When they came for the Russians I did not speak up, because I wasn't Russian. But when they came for me no one spoke up me, because there was no one left.
If you think it's wrong, say something, if you think something is right, say something - don't let others decide for you.
-Rick |
For what it's worth, this is a variation (there are many) on something said by Martin Niemöller, a German who commanded a submarine in WW I and later became a Lutheran pastor. He was an outspoken opponent of Adolf Hitler. The statement is actually very famous, and has been repeated/retranslated/assimilated countless times. There's a version of it in Boston at the New England Holocause Memorial that reads as follows:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Just a little bit of history, because I think this is one of the great utterances of the 20th century, and it deserves to be remembered and attributed.
Peace,
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-31 14:04:49.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2006 02:00:24 PM · #38 |
Robert,
Thanks for getting the quote and author correctly quoted. I have been searching high and low for that and who with out being about to find it.
-Rick
|
|
|
|
04/02/2006 02:51:50 PM · #39 |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 11:18:36 AM · #40 |
Since there was a bump...
The short answer here is you shouldn't legislate morality. If there is a topic that is 'wrong', smoking, abortion, seat belts, etc. No matter how signifigant it is - the response should be the right path - remove the want or need, remove the root cause.
Laws are in place as a deterant to crimes - when and why does it become insignifigant is the greater issue. It's my opinnion that, as a rule, laws aren't broken for the sake of breaking them. Someone will rob a store or bank for a reason - and that is the problem. Removing the reasons for crime will go a long towards fighting crime.
How does this apply to smoking? Well lets look at the causes of smoking. I started smoking in my teens because that was the crowd I wanted to be in. Our school in Akron, Ohio allowed us to smoke in a smoking area. So, I guess it started then or before then.
Educate the children in a 'tough love' setting. Not just smoking is bad. Show them the effects - even show them tar being removed from a lung. Some may say that teenagers are hard headed and won't listen out of spite or rebellion, well that's another topic - lets raise our children right. Raise them to listen more and be less spiteful. It's my opinnion that spite is no excuse for good parenting.
I'm not saying the root causes are limited to the above - we could all sit down and identify the details - but the problems will have a root. Smoking or crime is just the result.
My wife and I have tried to quit several times and each time it's been a terrible failure.
In the end - you can't and shouldn't legislate this type of morality - it will blow up because people, not just Americans, hate and won't tollerate the any government telling them how to live.
-Rick |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 04:41:14 PM · #41 |
Smoking is one of the most selfish things a person can do.
No matter how you go about it, it can only have negative effects towards other people.
Even if you sit alone in a little smoke proof box so that no one has to inhale your smoke, you are hurting anyone who loves you who will have to worry about what's going to happen about you, and then in turn suffer for your habit when they go through the pain of losing you to some horrific disease.
This is not something that only effects a smoker, it effects everyone that has to be affected by their choice to smoke.
Kids don't have a choice. They can't get up and leave a restaurant, they can't ask their parents not to kill them by smoking near them. They can't run into the street to avoid the smoke on the sidewalk.
Smoking around your children should be considered child abuse.
You're killing them! How could anyone be so selfish, so ignorant, so cold hearted as to hurt your child like that??
My dad died May 18, 2005. He was 52. Cancer in the lungs, and throughout his body. He didn't even live to see me graduate, married, nothing.
Both his parents smoked.
He never touched a cigarette himself in his life.
They're murderers.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2006 11:46:56 AM · #42 |
Points to be made:
“Cigarettes are bad for you, therefore they should be illegal.”
My point-Cigarettes are not the only harmful thing that people use to pollute their body. What will be illegalized next for being “bad” for you? Processed food? Alcohol? Chemical cleaners? Bleach?
“They endanger the lives of people around you.”
My point-What about the chemical cleaners used in peoples’ houses? What about the exhaust from the cars? Should cars that use gasoline as their primary source be made illegal as well? What about the chemical pesticides that travels through the air?
“If drugs are illegal, cigarettes should be illegal.”
My point-Cigarettes, unlike Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc, do not drug you, or alter your state of consciousness. When a person is taking drugs, he/she cannot perform professionally. Cigarettes don't do that.
“They did this to themselves, our tax dollars should not pay for their chemotherapy.”
My point-Many scientists have said that all of the toxins that you put in your body cause abnormal cell growth. So, the processed food, the chemical house cleaners, the exhaust from your cars; all contribute to cancer that people get. They use the chemical cleaners, they use their cars, they eat all of that terrible stuff in processed food, yet you are not against your taxes going towards their chemotherapy.
Why do people what to control what others do to themselves? They have no right to take that responsibility away from an individual.
This is the type of thinking that causes individuals to believe they should be provided for and cared for by a government.
It's an example of people losing faith in freedom. |
|
|
|
05/02/2006 12:14:36 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem:
Originally posted by bod:
but as I quit smokes over a year ago I don\'t have to call billshut on that one : )
|
Why not?
There is a little known saying:
When they came for the Jews I did not speak because I wasn\'t Jewish. When they came for the blacks I did not speak up, because I wasn\'t black. When they came for the Russians I did not speak up, because I wasn\'t Russian. But when they came for me no one spoke up me, because there was no one left. |
Sorry, missed this a month ago, but yes, you\'re absolutely right. I should storm up to the MD\'s office immediately thereby cutting out the blacks, the Russians and everybody else and making me the target now ; )
As you yourself said, this is a private company, and they can set whatever policy they want, bull or no bull. I merely inserted that because it may actually turn out to be true.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 11:17:06 AM · #44 |
However, I do agree that parents should not smoke in the same room/car with their children. My friend suffers from emphasima and asthma because of that.
-Cami |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 10:04:58 AM · #45 |
I'm all for 'live and let live' but when it comes to smoking...
#1 - Second hand smoke is toxic. Choosing to kill yourself is one thing, but poisoning others around you (your family, children, waiters/waitresses, etc)???
#2 - Yes, it is your choice - but your medical costs become my medical costs. Smokers should not burden non-smokers with their expenses.
#3 - Ever participate in an 'adopt-a-highway' clean up? We found more butts on the shoulder than gravel. No exageration. I've heard it said that by definition, smokers are rude, ingnorant and selfish. I can't say that I totally agree with that assesment, but judging by the smokers litter, it must apply to a good number of smokers. NY used to post signs "$500 Fine For Littering". If we could enforce that for cigarette butts, NY could be a tax free state! |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 10:29:09 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by fingerlakes:
NY used to post signs "$500 Fine For Littering". If we could enforce that for cigarette butts, NY could be a tax free state! |
I don't see why you couldn't. A girl I was friends with many years ago got a $1,000 ticket for littering here in California when she threw a cigarette butt out the window.
Come to think of it through.... we still have many, many taxes. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:38:10 AM · #47 |
50 Billion Dollars ! ???
That quite a bit of money from tax on one item. Where did you get this figure? |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:34:53 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by deapee:
So I began to think why doesn't the government just step in and make cigarettes and alcohol illegal like marijuana or cocaine? Well, I think I found the answer myself. If I was getting fifty billion dollars a year, I wouldn't do away with anything either. It's greed. |
Because, the worst two crimes waves were due to government prohibitions on substances. The first, was the prohibition against alcohol. This led to what many call the "mob". Organized crime. This provided such a strong footing for the mob and an immense cash flow.
The second major crime wave which we have experienced for the past few decades has had direct ties to substance abuse. We've called it the 'drug war'. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands dead in it's wake.
I've heard a great suggestion. There is one government entity which is notorious for getting criminals and convicting them. The IRS. I am of the opinion we do the following: a) legalize all such substances b) allow the seller of substances to be held liable for injury or death c) add a 1000% tax.
The result the illegal narcotics market will find itself riddled with more malpractice lawsuits than all the doctors in New Jersey. Plus burdened by immense tax burdens. As well as licensing. Sure, we'll create entities akin to our modern pharmaceutical companies. However, the drugs these entities are selling won't be required for medical reasons...just recreational. We'll create a business model that is unprofitable.
And even if it fails, all the added tax revenue would go toward paying down the deficit. (Though I think 50% of the revenue should go to add campaigns against recreational drug use.)
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:54:18 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
b) allow the seller of substances to be held liable for injury or death c) add a 1000% tax. |
Or just drop the above two and we'll be good to go. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 01:09:57 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
c) add a 1000% tax. |
That should lower the current street price by about 75%.
Originally posted by theSaj:
However, the drugs these entities are selling won't be required for medical reasons...just recreational. |
What makes you think that many of the "pharmaceuticals" sold today aren't for "recreational" use? What's the argument in favor of improving one's mood with Prozac or Valium but not with marijuana? It is only an economic one -- rich white folks control the "pharmaceutical industry," while rich brown folks largely control the "drug trade."
Legalization/regulation has other "side effects" as well: if drugs are reasonably priced, users don't have to steal to support their habit, lowering insurance costs and law enforcement/criminal justice/penal system costs. The "drug war" is largely supported by those with a vested interest in maintaining a huge penal industry (guess what -- Haliburton and Bechtel build prisons); we had a state ballot proposition in California some dubbed the "Prison Guards Full Employment Initiative." The US currently has a larger percentage of its population in prision than any other "first world" country -- a huge percentage of them for using (not selling) "recreational" drugs.
You also don't have people machine-gunning each other (and innocent bystanders) all over our streets -- you'd think these policy-makers had never seen The Untouchables.
I've worked in a drug-treatment program for over 20 years. All kinds of "normal" people get additicted for a variety of reasons. In treatment, they are generally able to lead "normal" lives, without resorting to criminality. A year's worth of treatment, including medication, counseling, and some medical follow-up costs about $4,000. Bust that person and put them in prison and it costs about $40,000 to keep them there. You do the math.
Message edited by author 2006-07-25 13:11:47. |
|
