Baltimore Is Begging Feds To Step In To Restore Law And Order

[Bigun]

Couldn't agree more?  Mayhap you want to reread my post.  All that matters is that you be a moral agent, capable of making moral decisions, to deserve the vote.  Any system that requires taxes or property before you can vote has put material possessions over souls in determining the relative worth of individuals.

OK then!  I disagree!  If they want to vote they will find a way to lift themseves up so that they will have the ability to do so.  As opposed to allowing those who have NOTHING to lose taxing the rest of us into the poorhouse.

[Oceander]

OK then!  I disagree!  If they want to vote they will find a way to lift themseves up so that they will have the ability to do so.  As opposed to allowing those who have NOTHING to lose taxing the rest of us into the poorhouse.

But it's just fine for those who, through pure luck, own something to be able to vote to round up the poor and turn them into cannon fodder to defend the property they will never be able to enjoy?  That way lies tyranny and the false democracy of Athens.

[Bigun]

But it's just fine for those who, through pure luck, own something to be able to vote to round up the poor and turn them into cannon fodder to defend the property they will never be able to enjoy?  That way lies tyranny and the false democracy of Athens.

Luck has nothing to do with it.  Will has everything to do with it!

[rangerrebew]

Is this the sort of cruelty that passes for "conservative" comment these days?   What of the victims of such violence?   

I don't often get involved with the comments in various strands so I don't know what your tendencies are.  However, I am quite certain you somehow think conservatives should be nambypamby wimps, something I am not.  Four score and 5 years after the founding, Lincoln basically told the south to eat sh#t, slavery was going to end one way or another.  No one had the courage in those intervening years to stand up to the "peculiar institution" of the south.  People begged the south to do the "right" thing and free the slaves but the south wouldn't hear of it and would never had heard it if Lincoln hadn't had the spinal strength to stand up to what was wrong.  The mayor of Baltimore obviously doesn't have the strength to do what is right so trying to placate her would have the same result the Whigs had with the south to which Lincoln, in effect, told them to eat sh#t and became a Republican.  Without spine to stand up to liberals who create these messes and tell them enough is enough, we are fated to have this kind of thing going on forever - which is the definition of insanity; doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[Oceander]

Luck has nothing to do with it.  Will has everything to do with it!

Malarkey.  Being born with a silver spoon in your mouth has nothing to do with your own merit, will, or skill.

It fascinates me, too, that the poll tax types engage in a certain hypocrisy:  refusing to grant to non-owners the same punctilious sense of public virtue they reserve for themselves.   The argument is always that we can't give the vote to the poor because then they would use the vote to enrich themselves at our (I.e., the property owners') expense.   But they absolve themselves of any similar such venal behavior and assure us, against the weight of history, that they would never use the vote to harm the disenfranchised poor (like conscripting them to fight in wars designed to enhance only the property owners rights).

I doubt very seriously that the South would have seceded if blacks had been able to vote.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But expecting those citizens living in near poverty to move is unrealistic.  They can't even move out of their neighborhoods, much less the city.

Ridiculous reasoning.

We would have had no migration from Europe to the Americas with that mindset.  Do you believe these  people who made the journey were 'rich'? 

How about a move of thousands of miles taking weeks and months at sea compared to moving a few miles outside a city?

Keep things in perspective.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But it's just fine for those who, through pure luck, own something to be able to vote to round up the poor and turn them into cannon fodder to defend the property they will never be able to enjoy?  That way lies tyranny and the false democracy of Athens.

No one promises life is fair.  There are those born stupid and those born smart.  Some are born in a family whose wealth if higher than others. Some are in a poorer situation.

What we do promise in this country is the opportunity only to improve oneself.  Nothing more.

Look around.  There are examples of some who succeed beyond belief lifting themselves up.  Others do not.

[Bigun]

Malarkey.  Being born with a silver spoon in your mouth has nothing to do with your own merit, will, or skill.

It fascinates me, too, that the poll tax types engage in a certain hypocrisy:  refusing to grant to non-owners the same punctilious sense of public virtue they reserve for themselves.   The argument is always that we can't give the vote to the poor because then they would use the vote to enrich themselves at our (I.e., the property owners') expense.   But they absolve themselves of any similar such venal behavior and assure us, against the weight of history, that they would never use the vote to harm the disenfranchised poor (like conscripting them to fight in wars designed to enhance only the property owners rights).

I doubt very seriously that the South would have seceded if blacks had been able to vote.

YOU may have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth but most of us were far from that. I EARNED everything, what little there is of it, I have and if i can do it anyone can.

[Emjay]

So how do you explain the fact that in the early 20th century anyone could walk in to any apothecary shop in the country and walk out with all the cocaine he had the $ to buy?  I see no indication that there were any significant problems with that back then.

BTW: Alcohol is a drug and there are currently a significant number of addicts. That's legal.

Bigun... do not try to use logic on these people.  They know everything and have no need for logic.

I remember now why I blocked diogenes for so long.

[Smokin Joe]

I wouldn't think of wasting your time.  You do that very well yourself.

To compare American society to ancient China is ridiculous.

Do you realize that tobacco use (i.e. smoking) was almost eliminated in the U.S. in the last 30 or 40 years by negative publicity and health care concerns.

Eliminated? Nope. If you include in "negative publicity and health care concerns" raising insurance rates for all types of insurance on tobacco consumers, or the laws which first made smoking/nonsmoking sections, then kicked the smokers out of the working class bars and cafes, or the pressure all that put on businesses to hire non-smokers because they had to go outside the building now to have a cigarette? Those more draconian tactics still have not eliminated tobacco consumption.

According to the CDC, as of 2015, a total of 15.1% of U.S. adults (16.7% of men and 13.6% of women) smoke, which is down from 20.9% a decade earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumption

Consider there are over two decades where the only television advertising in relation to tobacco is negative--no marketing of the product, and this really doesn't seem that effective, partly because it doesn't take into account the former smokers who are now vaping or using smokeless tobacco.

Most people are lucky enough not to have addictive personalities and would not get hooked on drugs.

No more coffee for you! (caffeine is a drug, also available in soft drinks and tea). People have a wide range of compulsive behaviours, most people exhibit one to some degree, others multiples. Physical addiction, however is a biochemical thing, and not just a question of personality.

Even the opium use you cite was driven by money and profits.  The same is true of the drug trade today.

Just as prohibition created mob bosses, illegal drugs create far more thugs and almost an industry.

All that would be eliminated if it were legalized.  Open your mind just a wee little crack.

No thanks, I don't do crack.

The same producers would still produce bootleg drugs because the only reason to legalize them is to tax them.
It was dollar signs in Colorado's eyes that led to Marijuana legalization there, and still half of the weed and consumables in the state are untaxed black market transactions.
Some people want all the money, and don't want to share with the government.

You brought up tobacco.
Cigarettes are still legal, but the tax rates in some states are high enough to create black-market opportunity for those willing to smuggle untaxed cigarettes into high tax states. When I was a child, Semi trucks loaded with cigarettes bound for New York from North Carolina were stopped and checked for New York tax stamps on US 301 in MD, where the cigarettes were bound because the outrageously high taxes on cigarettes in New York made it profitable to smuggle in untaxed cigarettes and sell them in New York, a situation that hasn't changed 55 years later. The interstate nature of the smuggling operations made it a Federal issue, and it was rumored the East Coast Mob had a big hand in the cigarette smuggling operations.https://static.nbclearn.com/files/higheredsa/site/pdf/46417.pdfhttp://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/FBI_deals_blow_to_NJ_Mafia_family_that_inspired_the_Sopranos.html

In the space of a pack of cigarettes, despite the draconian taxes, serious multiples of that value can be smuggled in other drugs, from powder or crack cocaine, to pills, to heroin, even 'just' weed. Those shipments, legal or otherwise, will be high value targets for thieves and robbers. Currently, few would mess with the types of fellows who traffic in such (illegal) substances for fear of brutal reprisal, and that likely imposes a risk profile more severe than robbing legal shipments of the same substances would have.

No one in their right mind would have robbed a speakeasy (except the revenuers), but liquor stores get 'knocked over' daily, often at gunpoint. Did the crime rate go up or down?

[Fishrrman]

LMAO wrote:
"The black family, at one time one of the strongest family units, is dead and gone. It isn't coming back..."

Absolutely true.
With 70-75% of black births out-of-wedlock (this number probably approaches 90% or higher in the inner cities), the concept of a traditional family no longer exists for the overwhelming majority of blacks.

Further, black culture -- with its hatred of anything "white" -- will demean any attempt to impose "white culture" upon lower-level blacks as "racis'" if we try to re-introduce it to blacks.

Since there is no way to forcibly coerce blacks back to the traditional family structure -- and make no mistake, the ONLY way this could occur is by the application of force and misery -- we must accept that this is a problem that probably has no real solution. For blacks, traditional families are like Humpty Dumpty -- once broken, there's no puttin' 'em back together again.

Since there is no "solution", per se, the only realistic option is to "contain" it as much as possible, keep it from propagating. Perhaps that is best accomplished by keeping the folks who beget the problems from "begetting", by whatever means possible.

[Smokin Joe]

LMAO wrote:
"The black family, at one time one of the strongest family units, is dead and gone. It isn't coming back..."

Absolutely true.
With 70-75% of black births out-of-wedlock (this number probably approaches 90% or higher in the inner cities), the concept of a traditional family no longer exists for the overwhelming majority of blacks.

Further, black culture -- with its hatred of anything "white" -- will demean any attempt to impose "white culture" upon lower-level blacks as "racis'" if we try to re-introduce it to blacks.

Since there is no way to forcibly coerce blacks back to the traditional family structure -- and make no mistake, the ONLY way this could occur is by the application of force and misery -- we must accept that this is a problem that probably has no real solution. For blacks, traditional families are like Humpty Dumpty -- once broken, there's no puttin' 'em back together again.

Since there is no "solution", per se, the only realistic option is to "contain" it as much as possible, keep it from propagating. Perhaps that is best accomplished by keeping the folks who beget the problems from "begetting", by whatever means possible.

The only people who can 'fix' the black family are Blacks. To be even more precise, Black Women. I would think they would want more. More for themselves, more for their children. As a schoolchild the greatest grievance I heard against slavery was that families could be broken up and sold separately, and that the family was torn apart.
 
Well, Massah done done it again.

With the common requirement that a woman and her children live separate from the husband in the event the State is going to pick up the tab (the State then hits him up for support), husbands out of work (and not limited to blacks, by any measure) were eliminated from the home, often to be supplanted by check from the Government and a 'boyfriend' who just shacked up and either lived off the monies and benefits collected or, in increasingly rare cases made whatever money he did without any legal responsibility nor official residence.

The slavery of the "Great Society" plantation broke up the Black family, and only removing that incentive can help heal that wound.

Beyond that, Black women have to demand more than to be a 'baby mama' to some 'baby daddy', and that means at least returning to some semblance of the traditional mores that existed in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. While, for many, that culture has never been quite the same as for whites, that traditional marriage with an expectation of fidelity to the wife and family unit has proven to be a solid social unit worthy of emulation, and one which has the potential to bring prosperity and stability, an environment in which to raise offspring who will prosper as well.

But Whites can't demand that. The people who want that for themselves and their children have to be the ones to demand more. All that can be done to help that is to stop encouraging the problem with a check every month, with programs which make it more profitable to take the road to bondage instead of paving their own path.

Thankfully, not all Blacks have been afflicted by the welfare problem, some have gone on to have traditional marriages, raise good kids and prosper. It is a shame more have not done so, but it is up to them to make the choice.

[Bigun]

The only people who can 'fix' the black family are Blacks. To be even more precise, Black Women. I would think they would want more. More for themselves, more for their children. As a schoolchild the greatest grievance I heard against slavery was that families could be broken up and sold separately, and that the family was torn apart.
 
Well, Massah done done it again.

With the common requirement that a woman and her children live separate from the husband in the event the State is going to pick up the tab (the State then hits him up for support), husbands out of work (and not limited to blacks, by any measure) were eliminated from the home, often to be supplanted by check from the Government and a 'boyfriend' who just shacked up and either lived off the monies and benefits collected or, in increasingly rare cases made whatever money he did without any legal responsibility nor official residence.

The slavery of the "Great Society" plantation broke up the Black family, and only removing that incentive can help heal that wound.

Beyond that, Black women have to demand more than to be a 'baby mama' to some 'baby daddy', and that means at least returning to some semblance of the traditional mores that existed in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. While, for many, that culture has never been quite the same as for whites, that traditional marriage with an expectation of fidelity to the wife and family unit has proven to be a solid social unit worthy of emulation, and one which has the potential to bring prosperity and stability, an environment in which to raise offspring who will prosper as well.

But Whites can't demand that. The people who want that for themselves and their children have to be the ones to demand more. All that can be done to help that is to stop encouraging the problem with a check every month, with programs which make it more profitable to take the road to bondage instead of paving their own path.

Thankfully, not all Blacks have been afflicted by the welfare problem, some have gone on to have traditional marriages, raise good kids and prosper. It is a shame more have not done so, but it is up to them to make the choice.

Very well stated! And absolutely true!  One plantation to another and they seem to be perfectly alright with that.

[goatprairie]

It's sad about the Black family and almost certainly attributable to the Great Society.

But expecting those citizens living in near poverty to move is unrealistic.  They can't even move out of their neighborhoods, much less the city.

"But expecting those citizens living in near poverty to move is unrealistic."
That's been contradicted by history over thousands of years including black Americans in the last century.  During and after WWII millions of blacks barely surviving as sharecroppers or doing other menial jobs migrated from the south to north seeking better lives.
People WILL! move if the incentive is high enough.  Cutting off gov. benefits to families who have been on gov. assistance/welfare for generations is one step.

[goatprairie]

LMAO wrote:
"The black family, at one time one of the strongest family units, is dead and gone. It isn't coming back..."

Absolutely true.
With 70-75% of black births out-of-wedlock (this number probably approaches 90% or higher in the inner cities), the concept of a traditional family no longer exists for the overwhelming majority of blacks.

Further, black culture -- with its hatred of anything "white" -- will demean any attempt to impose "white culture" upon lower-level blacks as "racis'" if we try to re-introduce it to blacks.

Since there is no way to forcibly coerce blacks back to the traditional family structure -- and make no mistake, the ONLY way this could occur is by the application of force and misery -- we must accept that this is a problem that probably has no real solution. For blacks, traditional families are like Humpty Dumpty -- once broken, there's no puttin' 'em back together again.

Since there is no "solution", per se, the only realistic option is to "contain" it as much as possible, keep it from propagating. Perhaps that is best accomplished by keeping the folks who beget the problems from "begetting", by whatever means possible.

"Perhaps that is best accomplished by keeping the folks who beget the problems from "begetting", by whatever means possible."

You are of course talking about the Black Underclass for whom hundreds of gov. programs have been created with the intention of dragging them out of their crime-ridden, gov. dependent lifestyles.
I think many people have come to the same conclusion you have....it will  be well nigh impossible to integrate them into normal American society.  Other people have suggested sterilization.  As soon as you do that, you're called a Nazi.
But seriously, who believes one hundred years from now these people will be living as normal, contributing Americans instead of being the tremendous crime-prone, tax sucking leeches they are?
I would at least broach the idea of large payoffs to people with low IQs who undertake voluntary sterilization.  Or any white liberals as well.  I don't know if liberalism is genetically caused, but if white liberal females will undergo sterilization, I'm all for giving them my tax money to do so.
But absolutely nothing can be done to make virtually all the denizens of the BU contributing Americans. It's all been tried and failed. Sterilization is probably the only cure for the problem.

[Bigun]

"Perhaps that is best accomplished by keeping the folks who beget the problems from "begetting", by whatever means possible."

You are of course talking about the Black Underclass for whom hundreds of gov. programs have been created with the intention of dragging them out of their crime-ridden, gov. dependent lifestyles.
I think many people have come to the same conclusion you have....it will  be well nigh impossible to integrate them into normal American society.  Other people have suggested sterilization.  As soon as you do that, you're called a Nazi.
But seriously, who believes one hundred years from now these people will be living as normal, contributing Americans instead of being the tremendous crime-prone, tax sucking leeches they are?
I would at least broach the idea of large payoffs to people with low IQs who undertake voluntary sterilization.  Or any white liberals as well.  I don't know if liberalism is genetically caused, but if white liberal females will undergo sterilization, I'm all for giving them my tax money to do so.
But absolutely nothing can be done to make virtually all the denizens of the BU contributing Americans. It's all been tried and failed. Sterilization is probably the only cure for the problem.

I think you and many others would be very surprised at what could be accomplished over time with the right leadership and the will to do what's necessary but it will take many times more than one presidential term even if there was the will to do it!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@To-Whose-Benefit?

I'm With you on legalizing/decriminalizing them, but not on monitoring.  Not one cent for monitoring or rehab. Let them use and die on the street.

That may "work" in theory, but the political reality is that you are never going to get "let them die on the streets" as a national policy.  So what you're really going to get is legalization, plus a government economic/medical safety net.  The political dynamic is such that the more widespread the usage, the more people have family members/friends who have drug issues, and the more likely they are going to support drug rehab centers, etc..  That's the exact dynamic that is happening here in Ohio.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@DiogenesLamp

The problem with this idea is that the infection won't stay put.   Those addicted will constantly try to recruit among the non addicted to support their habit.   


I have quite a lot of experience with people involved in illegal drugs,  and I know very well how they operate.   They deliberately chat up young girls in a friendly manner until they can get them to try some weed.   After days,  or weeks of getting them using weed,  they start lacing the weed with crack or meth.   Pretty soon they have the girls smoking straight crack or meth,  all of which was supplied for free or for very cheap.   

Then they start having the girls turn "tricks"  to pay for their drugs.   I have personally known several drug dealers and pimps,  and this is how they work that business.   
Now this is how it works under current conditions in which it is illegal.    If people could get as much crack or meth as they wanted for relatively low costs,  they would very likely kill themselves from overdoses.   They would also recruit people to do drugs with them,  because druggies like to have likeminded company.   
The infection would spread and keep spreading just the way it happened in China from 1840 to 1910. 

All true.  And this country simply would not support a "let 'em all just kill themselves then" approach.  So we'd end up with those of us who aren't addicts supporting the vices of those who are.

[Smokin Joe]

@To-Whose-Benefit?

That may "work" in theory, but the political reality is that you are never going to get "let them die on the streets" as a national policy.  So what you're really going to get is legalization, plus a government economic/medical safety net. 

Obamacare which requires treatment/rehab coverage already provides the safety net. Which invites an incredible amount of charlatanry in the rehab/treatment sector, medication, etc. Which isn't free.
Which means the productive members of society are going to pick up the tab--repeatedly, because the recidivism rate is huge. When multiple family members are involved, it's even higher.
 
We won't just be paying for the projects they got addicted in, likely for them to get addicted, but for them to go through multiple cycles of rehab.
 
Let's head this off at the pass. Stop subsidizing poverty.

The political dynamic is such that the more widespread the usage, the more people have family members/friends who have drug issues, and the more likely they are going to support drug rehab centers, etc..  That's the exact dynamic that is happening here in Ohio.

I'm all for rehab, but that is only part of the picture.

Without some sort of cultural pushback, why bother? Without up front consequences of drug use, what is to deter people until they are physical, mental, and psychological wrecks?
Keep the laws against it. Legalization is a step in the wrong direction.

Obviously, mere peer pressure in the spawning grounds of social problems is not going to be enough. We have 50 years of experience which shows things do not get better, they only fester until the very people who have been supported in their continuing malaise resent those who have shelled out to support them.
 
Frankly, I think we all could have lived better, with less inflated currency (one way to get out of debt is to inflate the currency and then pay the debt off in devalued 'money'), less crime, and those we supported all this time would have had to stand on their own two feet--a fine incentive to become skilled, educated, and develop a work ethic. Funny how hunger can be a motivator.

Instead, we have the fattest and most ungrateful poor people on the planet, who ever demand more, and hate "whitey" and all those "oreos" for holding them down.

The problems are not independent, even though reasonably well to do kids get addicted, too, but part of that comes from the boredom and lack of parental supervision in a culture where two parents work for material things and to pay the taxes that support the people who are dealing drugs to their kids.

The solution is not tacit cultural or legal acceptance of drug abuse. By all means, make treatment an option, rehab an option, but limit it to those who want to quit. The success rate will go up, recidivism will go down, because those who have no desire to quit will not be using up the resources needed for those who do.

One of the reasons AA has limited success is that people in court ordered rehab are putting in their time, doing the requisite number of meetings to satisfy the terms of their sentence for an alcohol related offense. They'll go to meetings fresh from the bar and whine in front of the counselors about how they slipped and want to quit, and promptly return to the bar after the meeting.  That makes a program that is effective among those who genuinely want to become sober less effective, and putting people in rehab who are determined to return to the behaviour that put them there is a waste of time, rehab slots, and resources.

[Smokin Joe]

@DiogenesLamp

All true.  And this country simply would not support a "let 'em all just kill themselves then" approach.  So we'd end up with those of us who aren't addicts supporting the vices of those who are.

We already are.

[Bigun]

I'm all for rehab, but that is only part of the picture.

Without some sort of cultural pushback, why bother? Without up front consequences of drug use, what is to deter people until they are physical, mental, and psychological wrecks?
Keep the laws against it. Legalization is a step in the wrong direction.

Obviously, mere peer pressure in the spawning grounds of social problems is not going to be enough. We have 50 years of experience which shows things do not get better, they only fester until the very people who have been supported in their continuing malaise resent those who have shelled out to support them.
 
Frankly, I think we all could have lived better, with less inflated currency (one way to get out of debt is to inflate the currency and then pay the debt off in devalued 'money'), less crime, and those we supported all this time would have had to stand on their own two feet--a fine incentive to become skilled, educated, and develop a work ethic. Funny how hunger can be a motivator.

Instead, we have the fattest and most ungrateful poor people on the planet, who ever demand more, and hate "whitey" and all those "oreos" for holding them down.

The problems are not independent, even though reasonably well to do kids get addicted, too, but part of that comes from the boredom and lack of parental supervision in a culture where two parents work for material things and to pay the taxes that support the people who are dealing drugs to their kids.

The solution is not tacit cultural or legal acceptance of drug abuse. By all means, make treatment an option, rehab an option, but limit it to those who want to quit. The success rate will go up, recidivism will go down, because those who have no desire to quit will not be using up the resources needed for those who do.

One of the reasons AA has limited success is that people in court ordered rehab are putting in their time, doing the requisite number of meetings to satisfy the terms of their sentence for an alcohol related offense. They'll go to meetings fresh from the bar and whine in front of the counselors about how they slipped and want to quit, and promptly return to the bar after the meeting.  That makes a program that is effective among those who genuinely want to become sober less effective, and putting people in rehab who are determined to return to the behaviour that put them there is a waste of time, rehab slots, and resources.

Absolutely right on all counts!  Changing a culture is not an easy thing to do.  It takes time and the will to push through regardless of the obstacles encountered along the way but that is EXACTLY what must be done IF we are going to fix this.

[DiogenesLamp]

So how do you explain the fact that in the early 20th century anyone could walk in to any apothecary shop in the country and walk out with all the cocaine he had the $ to buy?  I see no indication that there were any significant problems with that back then.

This was before they realized how widespread usage of these drugs caused addiction.   It is as a consequence of all the addictions and death which were caused by this drug usage that they created the board to review drugs,  and then later ban them. 


We have the Civil War to thank for priming the pump of widespread drug addiction.   Both sides used cocaine and opium to treat war wounds,  and both sides ended up with massive numbers of men addicted to these narcotics. 


https://civilwartalk.com/threads/soldiers-disease.71460/

BTW: Alcohol is a drug and there are currently a significant number of addicts. That's legal.

Alcohol has been with humanity for many thousands of years,  and it is far too late to do anything about it.   Also,  one bad thing does not justify another bad thing.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We already are.

I agree.  It would just become an order of magnitude worse if we legalized that crap.

[DiogenesLamp]

Brain dead is any system where you have to own property or pay taxes before you can vote.  A poor man who pays no tax is just as entitled to have a say in whether he'll be drafted to go fight in a foreign war as is a rich man's trust-fund coddled child.

This is absolutely incorrect on a fundamental basis.    No system can survive when non contributors have  an equal say with the people who pay the bills.   


It is no accident that the massive explosion in federal expenditures occurred in the aftermath of the 24th amendment.   With the 24th amendment, You have just incentivized  the "free ride" mentality,   because it allows people to vote themselves largess from the public treasury.   It immediately leads to more borrowing and spending until the nation cannot pay it's bills.   


And that is exactly what happened.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Obamacare which requires treatment/rehab coverage already provides the safety net. Which invites an incredible amount of charlatanry in the rehab/treatment sector, medication, etc. Which isn't free.
Which means the productive members of society are going to pick up the tab--repeatedly, because the recidivism rate is huge. When multiple family members are involved, it's even higher.
 
We won't just be paying for the projects they got addicted in, likely for them to get addicted, but for them to go through multiple cycles of rehab.
 
Let's head this off at the pass. Stop subsidizing poverty.

Again, I agree with you completely as to the best way to address the problem.  But the reality is that we don't seem able to get "stop subsidizing poverty" passed into law regardless of what we do with drugs.  So sure, if we can get "stop subsidizing poverty" passed into law, then maybe you go to legalization.  But unless and until that much bigger change happens, legalization itself is a horrible idea.