Christie vows to ban Mary Jane (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2015-04-22 1:47 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I agree. Get it out of the shadows, start treating addicts like people with a treatable disease instead of like criminals. Control the flow of the drugs and allow people to seek help for addiction without worrying about going to jail. What do you mean by "controlling the flow of drugs"? Who is it that controls the flow? As LB said, if you want to control addiction and the crime that comes from addicts needing money, you need to give addicts legal access to the drugs in a way that can be managed in terms of the quality and frequency so that you can help people manage and hopefully free themselves from their addictions. As for the second question, I think Rush Limbaugh is the obvious choice. He's an expert on both small government AND the illicit use of prescription drugs. It's win-win. |
|
2015-04-22 1:48 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I agree. Get it out of the shadows, start treating addicts like people with a treatable disease instead of like criminals. Control the flow of the drugs and allow people to seek help for addiction without worrying about going to jail. What do you mean by "controlling the flow of drugs"? Who is it that controls the flow? I think you gain some measure of control just by legalizing them. You can't look at it as a money making, or tax revenue, venture. The price has to be CHEAP so as to completely dismantle any idea of a black market trade. It's different than marijuana.....marijuana can be used to raise revenues. Marijuana is NOT a problem....hard drugs are a HUGE problem and it will take some very forward thinkers to get a handle on the trade. First and forermost, you take the money out of it......that will solve many initial problems. There can be no ego in this by the govt. or any other entity......it's treating sick people, NOT criminals.. |
2015-04-22 3:42 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I agree. Get it out of the shadows, start treating addicts like people with a treatable disease instead of like criminals. Control the flow of the drugs and allow people to seek help for addiction without worrying about going to jail. What do you mean by "controlling the flow of drugs"? Who is it that controls the flow? I think you gain some measure of control just by legalizing them. You can't look at it as a money making, or tax revenue, venture. The price has to be CHEAP so as to completely dismantle any idea of a black market trade. It's different than marijuana.....marijuana can be used to raise revenues. Marijuana is NOT a problem....hard drugs are a HUGE problem and it will take some very forward thinkers to get a handle on the trade. First and forermost, you take the money out of it......that will solve many initial problems. There can be no ego in this by the govt. or any other entity......it's treating sick people, NOT criminals.. So what you're saying is that it can never work... haha j/k |
2015-04-22 4:20 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Master 2946 Centennial, CO | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane So for those who are for decriminalizing drugs (which I have no problem with), are you for accountability in the crimes committed during use of said drugs? One of the biggest issues I have is with drunk drivers getting a slap on the wrist and then later killing someone. I think that if you use said drug and kill someone or steal from someone or ..., you should be put in jail. Maybe you need rehab as well, but you should also pay the price for the crime you commit. The fact that your addicted is not my issue, it is yours and should not be used as an excuses like insanity is used in murder cases. Insanity often is not the fault of the person, but becoming addicted to a drug is 100% the fault of the person who took the drug, or drank alcohol. They should be held accountable for their actions. |
2015-04-22 6:17 PM in reply to: velocomp |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by velocomp So for those who are for decriminalizing drugs (which I have no problem with), are you for accountability in the crimes committed during use of said drugs? One of the biggest issues I have is with drunk drivers getting a slap on the wrist and then later killing someone. I think that if you use said drug and kill someone or steal from someone or ..., you should be put in jail. Maybe you need rehab as well, but you should also pay the price for the crime you commit. The fact that your addicted is not my issue, it is yours and should not be used as an excuses like insanity is used in murder cases. Insanity often is not the fault of the person, but becoming addicted to a drug is 100% the fault of the person who took the drug, or drank alcohol. They should be held accountable for their actions. Sure....I think everyone needs to be accountable for their actions. The good news is, once you take the money out of the really addictive drugs like Heroin, the crime associated with that drug will drop off dramatically. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that over 75% of burglaries, car break-ins, and shoplifting is drug related. You can't hold a job on a 200.00 a day heroin habit.....and you have to get the money somewhere because you will get so sick you will feel like you are dying.....heroin withdrawal is horrible. Meth isn't much better. Cocaine can be manageable until you start smoking it, then forget it.....you'll sell your soul to get more and get the money any way you can. Alcohol and drunk driving is another cat altogether. I have no idea why you can drive drunk and seriously injure or kill someone and the penalty will be a fraction of what it would be if you just shot them dead....and that's if you do any time at all. Society seems to accept it, and the courts look hard at intent. Yes, I agree with you that if you drive drunk then intention is implicit....but our court system doesn't look at it that way. There will have to be changes in legal definitions to make those laws have any real teeth.....and they need to. Again.....it's addiction we should be at war with, because THAT'S the problem. |
2015-04-23 9:52 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane I am going to totally lib out here I think but I think maybe we treat people too hard sometimes. I been thinking about this in regards to one of my best friends. He one of the smart, hardest workers I know. Salaried employee who was making $10 an hour who worked 60 hours a week but only got paid for 40 as a lab tech. He taken strangers into his house to give them a place to live. He married a friend of his because she was going to lose health insurance and she has medical issue. He also got into drinking to escape wife who completely dependent on him for everything and stress of working. Slowly over time it his drinking got worse and worse. He got so drunk one night they had to admit him to the hospital for serve dehydration.. He completely blacked out. Only time he has ever done that. He was told he got out of bed at night looking for water and hit and orderly trying to get him back to his room. He went to court pleaded guilty and paid the $250 fine. He figured he probably did it and wanted to do the right thing. 7 years later and completely sober that whole time he tells me is conscientiously deciding to go back to drinking. I reminded him how drinking destroyed his life. He pointed out its already destroyed because no one will hire him because of this crime record He gets work here and there for couple months at a time but nothing steady. The employers tell him he is too smart for the jobs they have him doing and can not hire him permanently because of the record. They hire him for the taxes breaks they get for hiring someone out of work for a period of time. He tried to get it removed but to no luck. Now he is thinking about basically drinking himself to death. Of course not sure how he will get he money because he can barely afford to live off his wife disability payments. |
|
2015-04-23 10:13 AM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by chirunner134 I am going to totally lib out here I think but I think maybe we treat people too hard sometimes. I been thinking about this in regards to one of my best friends. He one of the smart, hardest workers I know. Salaried employee who was making $10 an hour who worked 60 hours a week but only got paid for 40 as a lab tech. He taken strangers into his house to give them a place to live. He married a friend of his because she was going to lose health insurance and she has medical issue. He also got into drinking to escape wife who completely dependent on him for everything and stress of working. Slowly over time it his drinking got worse and worse. He got so drunk one night they had to admit him to the hospital for serve dehydration.. He completely blacked out. Only time he has ever done that. He was told he got out of bed at night looking for water and hit and orderly trying to get him back to his room. He went to court pleaded guilty and paid the $250 fine. He figured he probably did it and wanted to do the right thing. 7 years later and completely sober that whole time he tells me is conscientiously deciding to go back to drinking. I reminded him how drinking destroyed his life. He pointed out its already destroyed because no one will hire him because of this crime record He gets work here and there for couple months at a time but nothing steady. The employers tell him he is too smart for the jobs they have him doing and can not hire him permanently because of the record. They hire him for the taxes breaks they get for hiring someone out of work for a period of time. He tried to get it removed but to no luck. Now he is thinking about basically drinking himself to death. Of course not sure how he will get he money because he can barely afford to live off his wife disability payments. It sucks when we see people we care about make bad decisions no matter what the substance of choice is. No matter if it's drugs or alcohol, when people use substances to medicate feelings, it's rarely a good result in the end. Often times people blame the bottle or the pills for ruining their lives, but it's really much bigger issues that people refuse to address and simply go to the bottle to cover them up. |
2015-04-23 10:19 AM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane I agree with everything LB has said and really appreciate that he is willing to offer the expertise and experience to our discussion. With the assumption that the war on drugs is a complete failure, there has to be significant changes in federal, state and local policies. There must be a plan to transition to decriminalization and then probably to legalization. In my experience, the majority of politicians are, at best, fickle and shortsighted. Add to the mix a governmental structure which promotes gridlock, and I don't have much faith that there will be meaningful reform.
|
2015-04-23 12:42 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by Hook'em I agree with everything LB has said and really appreciate that he is willing to offer the expertise and experience to our discussion. With the assumption that the war on drugs is a complete failure, there has to be significant changes in federal, state and local policies. There must be a plan to transition to decriminalization and then probably to legalization. In my experience, the majority of politicians are, at best, fickle and shortsighted. Add to the mix a governmental structure which promotes gridlock, and I don't have much faith that there will be meaningful reform.
I can't say I do either, but the legalization of marijuana will be a big first step. As far as the seizing of assets go, for local and state police departments, marijuana is BY FAR the biggest cash cow. I think that's mostly because it can be grown locally and the (for now illegal) operations that sell it don't tend to be as sophisticated as the cartels that deal in heroin and cocaine......so the money is easier to find. At any rate.....there will be a weaning from the asset forfeiture trough......after that happens there won't be near as much incentive to keep drugs illegal.....then we'll see. |
2015-04-23 1:55 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
New user 1351 Austin, Texas | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by Left Brain I taught DARE in our schools.
I have had friends over the years who are drug users and they say that the DARE program only encourages kids to dabble with drugs because the "fear tactics" as they put it only make drugs seem like a forbidden fruit. Just wondering how you feel about it since you have so much experience teaching it. |
2015-04-23 2:00 PM in reply to: trijamie |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by trijamie Originally posted by Left Brain I taught DARE in our schools.
I have had friends over the years who are drug users and they say that the DARE program only encourages kids to dabble with drugs because the "fear tactics" as they put it only make drugs seem like a forbidden fruit. Just wondering how you feel about it since you have so much experience teaching it. We talked about that same thing in my college class: individual and social patterns of drug use. Kids who go through dare are more likely to do drugs. |
|
2015-04-23 2:13 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by trijamie Originally posted by Left Brain I taught DARE in our schools.
I have had friends over the years who are drug users and they say that the DARE program only encourages kids to dabble with drugs because the "fear tactics" as they put it only make drugs seem like a forbidden fruit. Just wondering how you feel about it since you have so much experience teaching it. Yeah, I ended up not being too impressed with the program because many of the kids who I could have identified as "at risk" for drug abuse as they got older ended up being people who did actually use drugs. I'm not sure about your friends psyco-babble.....maybe they're right. I doubt it....since the other alternative is to pretend that heroin and other hard drugs are no big deal? (taking the whole forbidden fruit argument out of it).......that doesn't make much sense to me. My money would be on the idea that your friends had other issues. I use "fear tactics" with my own kids. Hell, if you don't fear getting addicted to heroin, meth, or crack then you're just stupid or you don't really know what it looks like. Edited by Left Brain 2015-04-23 2:22 PM |
2015-04-23 2:42 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 4482 NJ | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Hook'em I agree with everything LB has said and really appreciate that he is willing to offer the expertise and experience to our discussion. With the assumption that the war on drugs is a complete failure, there has to be significant changes in federal, state and local policies. There must be a plan to transition to decriminalization and then probably to legalization. In my experience, the majority of politicians are, at best, fickle and shortsighted. Add to the mix a governmental structure which promotes gridlock, and I don't have much faith that there will be meaningful reform.
I can't say I do either, but the legalization of marijuana will be a big first step. As far as the seizing of assets go, for local and state police departments, marijuana is BY FAR the biggest cash cow. I think that's mostly because it can be grown locally and the (for now illegal) operations that sell it don't tend to be as sophisticated as the cartels that deal in heroin and cocaine......so the money is easier to find. At any rate.....there will be a weaning from the asset forfeiture trough......after that happens there won't be near as much incentive to keep drugs illegal.....then we'll see. Another financial factor - perhaps variable, depending on the state - is the privatization of the prison system. I don't think its a stretch to assume that low risk inmates generate more profit...on both a percentage and volume basis. Those orgaizations have to see legalization of marijuana as a business risk/threat. How effective their lobbying efforts will be over the longer term....don't know. |
2015-04-23 2:46 PM in reply to: kcarroll |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by kcarroll Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Hook'em I agree with everything LB has said and really appreciate that he is willing to offer the expertise and experience to our discussion. With the assumption that the war on drugs is a complete failure, there has to be significant changes in federal, state and local policies. There must be a plan to transition to decriminalization and then probably to legalization. In my experience, the majority of politicians are, at best, fickle and shortsighted. Add to the mix a governmental structure which promotes gridlock, and I don't have much faith that there will be meaningful reform.
I can't say I do either, but the legalization of marijuana will be a big first step. As far as the seizing of assets go, for local and state police departments, marijuana is BY FAR the biggest cash cow. I think that's mostly because it can be grown locally and the (for now illegal) operations that sell it don't tend to be as sophisticated as the cartels that deal in heroin and cocaine......so the money is easier to find. At any rate.....there will be a weaning from the asset forfeiture trough......after that happens there won't be near as much incentive to keep drugs illegal.....then we'll see. Another financial factor - perhaps variable, depending on the state - is the privatization of the prison system. I don't think its a stretch to assume that low risk inmates generate more profit...on both a percentage and volume basis. Those orgaizations have to see legalization of marijuana as a business risk/threat. How effective their lobbying efforts will be over the longer term....don't know. I think your point is probably valid, but I don't know much about the private prison business.....but any entity that profits from marijuana being illegal should not be trusted in the discussion. |
2015-04-23 2:47 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Christie vows to ban Mary Jane Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by trijamie Originally posted by Left Brain I taught DARE in our schools.
I have had friends over the years who are drug users and they say that the DARE program only encourages kids to dabble with drugs because the "fear tactics" as they put it only make drugs seem like a forbidden fruit. Just wondering how you feel about it since you have so much experience teaching it. Yeah, I ended up not being too impressed with the program because many of the kids who I could have identified as "at risk" for drug abuse as they got older ended up being people who did actually use drugs. I'm not sure about your friends psyco-babble.....maybe they're right. I doubt it....since the other alternative is to pretend that heroin and other hard drugs are no big deal? (taking the whole forbidden fruit argument out of it).......that doesn't make much sense to me. My money would be on the idea that your friends had other issues. I use "fear tactics" with my own kids. Hell, if you don't fear getting addicted to heroin, meth, or crack then you're just stupid or you don't really know what it looks like. We always used a form of fear as well, but we also had some good examples in our family of what it does to you. "Do you want to turn out like your Cousin Paul?" yeah, I didn't think so... Don't do drugs. |
|
Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on racial preferences in university admissions Pages: 1 2 3 | |||
Incandescent light bulb ban Pages: 1 2 | |||