The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: bigheadfred on May 13, 2017, 04:18:55 pm
-
http://www.gq.com/story/jeff-sessions-mandatory-minimums-war-on-drugs
Full title: Jeff Sessions' Explanation for Re-instituting the Discriminatory War on Drugs Is Flagrant Bullshit
The Attorney General has reinstated an archaic, wrongheaded policy that will lead to horrifying results.
Late Thursday night, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a man who looks like the type to spend a housewarming party happily talking your ear off about the "War of Northern Aggression" as you frantically look around for a reason to extricate yourself from the conversation, quietly ordered Department of Justice prosecutors to resume the dated practice of filing the most serious provable charges and pursuing the harshest possible sentences against federal criminal defendants. This directive rolls back Obama-era policies that took aim at the onerous sentences often imposed on nonviolent drug offenders, and it will have an immediate and disproportionate impact on people of color. It is a gratuitously cruel move that lacks any empirical justification, and the meager rationale that Sessions offers in support of it is, to be frank, a breathtakingly disingenuous crock of shit
-
It doesn't help GQ's case when they start out the article with flagrant, bigoted hyperbole based on someone's looks and their stereotypes. There is a good argument to be made here but it is lost in the piss poor article.
-
It doesn't help GQ's case when they start out the article with flagrant, bigoted hyperbole based on someone's looks and their stereotypes. There is a good argument to be made here but it is lost in the piss poor article.
Sessions piss poor decision needs piss poor articles.
(What is up with the Russian? You have a fan base?)
-
Obama instituted a policy of going easy on (mostly black) supposedly non-violent drug dealers and traffickers.
Thing is, most were hardly non-violent. It was just one aspect of Obama going easy on bad people.
I applaud reversing this deceptive penal system mistake.
On another level, California has reduced jail/prison for supposedly low level criminals, thieves etc. And predictably, there has been an increase in low level crime. A stupid initiative. Might get reversed, along with initiatives to stop tax increases, and maybe oust Brown.
-
Sessions piss poor decision needs piss poor articles.
(What is up with the Russian? You have a fan base?)
I think Russian hackers have been messing with us.
-
I am not a huge fan on resources being spent on this issue, but since Obama took office the drug issue has spiraled out of control to the point Baltimore is calling for Federal assistance for their crime problem.
BTW, this article is obviously written by some petulant snowflake with a deep seeded hatred of anything to the right of Marx.
-
(What is up with the Russian? You have a fan base?)
If you are talking about Anna Chapman, I am a HUGE fan.
(http://postdefender.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CHapman1.jpg)
-
If you are talking about Anna Chapman, I am a HUGE fan.
My offer still stands to give her protective custody if she ever defects.
-
I think Russian hackers have been messing with us.
Maybe merely Russian hacks. ^-^
-
Full title: Jeff Sessions' Explanation for Re-instituting the Discriminatory War on Drugs Is Flagrant Bullshit
Everything about this article is bullshit. Drug laws aren't discriminatory, you have 3% of the young black male population committing 40-50% of all crime. Reflecting this in prosecutions and convictions is exactly what objectivity demands.
Secondly, the bad aspects of this fake so called "War on Drugs" are far less of a problem than legalizing drugs.
Legalized drugs killed 100 million people in China. The only people who want to legalize drugs are ignorant morons.
-
Everything about this article is bullshit. Drug laws aren't discriminatory, you have 3% of the young black male population committing 40-50% of all crime. Reflecting this in prosecutions and convictions is exactly what objectivity demands.
Secondly, the bad aspects of this fake so called "War on Drugs" are far less of a problem than legalizing drugs.
Legalized drugs killed 100 million people in China. The only people who want to legalize drugs are ignorant morons.
I am ambivalent to the legalization of pot, but the other stuff cannot be legalized. Everyone says that doing heavy drugs only effects the user, but this new stuff floating around can kill innocent bystanders who just happen to accidently touch the stuff. Here in PA the local DA just put a warning out for a new drug called Gray Death (the name alone should tell users it's bad) that can screw someone up just by touching it....
Gray death, a new drug that contains elephant tranquilizer, may be in WNC
http://wlos.com/news/local/new-drug-gray-death-with-elephant-tranquilizer-may-be-in-wnc
The drug, a mix of heroin, an elephant tranquilizer, fentanyl and a man-made opioid, is causing overdoses and deaths.
And then there is heroin mixed with Carfentanil that is the new rage. Carfentanil can send a human into cardiac arrest just by touching it. EMT's are at risk of dying just by trying to save a dirtbags life.
-
New Hepatitis C Infections Triple, Driven By Drug Use, CDC Says
New cases of hepatitis C have nearly tripled in the past five years, driven mostly by people sharing needles to inject drugs, federal health officials said Thursday.
Since the liver-destroying infection doesn't usually cause symptoms until it's too late, it is important to make sure people get tested — and to fight the practices that get people infected in the first place, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a new report.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/americas-heroin-epidemic/new-hepatitis-c-infections-triple-driven-drug-use-cdc-says-n758156
Just one aspect of the destruction that drugs cause.
-
I am ambivalent to the legalization of pot, but the other stuff cannot be legalized. Everyone says that doing heavy drugs only effects the user, but this new stuff floating around can kill innocent bystanders who just happen to accidently touch the stuff. Here in PA the local DA just put a warning out for a new drug called Gray Death (the name alone should tell users it's bad) that can screw someone up just by touching it....
Gray death, a new drug that contains elephant tranquilizer, may be in WNC
http://wlos.com/news/local/new-drug-gray-death-with-elephant-tranquilizer-may-be-in-wnc
And then there is heroin mixed with Carfentanil that is the new rage. Carfentanil can send a human into cardiac arrest just by touching it. EMT's are at risk of dying just by trying to save a dirtbags life.
The problem I have with weed is that it causes permanent brain damage to people under the age of 28, and it is also how most people get started doing the heavy stuff.
If they put an age limit on it, and require proof of assets sufficient to keep you off the dole, then I don't have a problem with people getting stoned on weed.
I know a bunch of retired people who smoke the stuff, and since they aren't sucking up welfare and since they aren't trying to push the stuff on young people, I don't care.
But yeah, i've known a lot of people that wrecked their and other's lives on the hard stuff. I've known several people who died as a result of crack and meth.
-
I am ambivalent to the legalization of pot, but the other stuff cannot be legalized. Everyone says that doing heavy drugs only effects the user, but this new stuff floating around can kill innocent bystanders who just happen to accidently touch the stuff. Here in PA the local DA just put a warning out for a new drug called Gray Death (the name alone should tell users it's bad) that can screw someone up just by touching it....
Gray death, a new drug that contains elephant tranquilizer, may be in WNC
http://wlos.com/news/local/new-drug-gray-death-with-elephant-tranquilizer-may-be-in-wnc
And then there is heroin mixed with Carfentanil that is the new rage. Carfentanil can send a human into cardiac arrest just by touching it. EMT's are at risk of dying just by trying to save a dirtbags life.
Risking being called an Ass again here, but our so-called war on drug has been an abysmal failure ... comparable to Obamacare but hurting far more people.
I am for looking into (at least) the possibility of legalizing and regulating all drugs. As we all know, some of the most addictive drugs are already legal; i.e. oxycontin, etc.
No one should be sent to a regular prison for drug use.... possession should only result in mandatory time in a rehab center... no more expensive than prison and a lot more effective.
If drugs were legalized, there would NOT be more use. We almost eradicated smoking by education and fear that it was harmful. And, by the way, nicotine is consider by some scientists (the ones I believe) to be the most addictive drug. My husband could never kick it even though it was hurting him.
Drugs are more harmful.
The prohibition experiment should have taught us something. It created the Mafia, etc.
It's a huge problem and nothing could happen overnight but I think some serious studies should be done about legalizing and regulating drugs.
If you get the criminals out of the drug business, you won't have people pushing Gray Death.
If you want to call me an Ass, get in line.
-
The problem I have with weed is that it causes permanent brain damage to people under the age of 28, and it is also how most people get started doing the heavy stuff.
So what is the research? How much does one need to smoke, while under age 28, to become brain damaged?
If brain damage evidence exists, it is not widely publicized while states move to legalize medical and recreational cannabis.
So again I ask, how much usage and how much brain damage? There is evidence of brain and heart damage, from booze.
But the questions for both is how much? So there are tradeoff, hopefully with good data.
How much usage, how much damage, and how much benefit for medicinal cases (glaucoma, nausea, etc.)
-
Risking being called an Ass again here, but our so-called war on drug has been an abysmal failure ...
That is true......and I'll call you an ass if it makes you feel better.
-
Risking being called an Ass again here, but our so-called war on drug has been an abysmal failure ... comparable to Obamacare but hurting far more people.
O.M.G! I am so tired of hearing this bullshit meme constantly repeated by people who have not the slightest clue about what happens when a "war on drugs" is not fought.
China lost their "War on Drugs", and it wrecked that nation in every conceivable way. Hundreds of millions died, their assets were destroyed to feed their drug lords (the English) and the whole thing crashed and burned. It took China a hundred years to recover from what legalized drugs did to them, and they are likely not completely recovered yet.
If drugs were legalized, there would NOT be more use.
A claim disproved over and over again throughout history.
If you get the criminals out of the drug business, you won't have people pushing Gray Death.
Yes you will. They will just be legal.
Drugging a nation, the story of China and the opium curse; a personal investigation, during an extended tour, of the present conditions of the opium trade in China and its effects upon the nation
https://archive.org/details/druggingnationst00merwiala
-
So what is the research? How much does one need to smoke, while under age 28, to become brain damaged?
If brain damage evidence exists, it is not widely publicized while states move to legalize medical and recreational cannabis.
So again I ask, how much usage and how much brain damage?
There is an acceptable amount? This is a topic I have not argued in a long time, but I bet I still have a link for the information you want somewhere in my forest of links on the subject. Let me look through them and see if I can find the study about brain damage with marijuana usage in developing brains of adolescents.
There is evidence of brain and heart damage, from booze.
In old people. Not so much in young people. Old farts can drink themselves to death if they have nothing to live for, but I think the young should be more of a concern to us.
But the questions for both is how much? So there are tradeoff, hopefully with good data.
How much usage, how much damage, and how much benefit for medicinal cases (glaucoma, nausea, etc.)
Most of the people using drugs for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment palliative are older than 28. My recollection is that it only damages growing brains, it doesn't have such an effect on fully mature brains.
Here is one link I found in my collection.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2782906/The-terrible-truth-cannabis-British-expert-s-devastating-20-year-study-finally-demolishes-claims-smoking-pot-harmless.html
-
Here is another.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=persistent%20cannabis%20users%20and%20meier
-
That is true......and I'll call you an ass if it makes you feel better.
Actually, it makes me feel worse but not worse enough to do drugs.
-
O.M.G! I am so tired of hearing this bullshit meme constantly repeated by people who have not the slightest clue about what happens when a "war on drugs" is not fought.
China lost their "War on Drugs", and it wrecked that nation in every conceivable way. Hundreds of millions died, their assets were destroyed to feed their drug lords (the English) and the whole thing crashed and burned. It took China a hundred years to recover from what legalized drugs did to them, and they are likely not completely recovered yet.
A claim disproved over and over again throughout history.
Yes you will. They will just be legal.
Drugging a nation, the story of China and the opium curse; a personal investigation, during an extended tour, of the present conditions of the opium trade in China and its effects upon the nation
https://archive.org/details/druggingnationst00merwiala
You drug that China/opium thing out the last time this was discussed.
It is totally not applicable to anything today in this country.
-
You drug that China/opium thing out the last time this was discussed.
It is totally not applicable to anything today in this country.
That is right.
People can call me an ass and a moron too. But end the war on drugs. Legalize most of it. Hand out clean free heroin and let people have at it. I really don't care if they can't control themselves.
-
GQ sounds like a pure crap publication
-
That is right.
People can call me an ass and a moron too. But end the war on drugs. Legalize most of it. Hand out clean free heroin and let people have at it. I really don't care if they can't control themselves.
free drugs? hand it out?
especially children in school before the orgies, anything goes in Libertarian world, have at it! no limits!
-
free drugs? hand it out?
especially children in school before the orgies, anything goes in Libertarian world, have at it! no limits!
Yep. Education costs would plummet.
-
Here is another.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=persistent%20cannabis%20users%20and%20meier
Thanks for those two links, to studies. But neither answers my question about How Much?
How Much Marijuana, How Often, for How Long. And How Much Damage?
My position now is no drugs before reaching adult. Once 21 year old adult, pot becomes legal-like alcohol.
Education is important. Teach kids at home, and in school about the harms from both.
-
I have genuine fibromyalgia diagnosed by a neurologist. I take five pills for it so I can function, and one is hydrocodone. My doc has to go through many hoops to write the prescription and I have to go through more to get it from the pharmacy. I have no doubt Sessions will do something to make it even harder to get.
The idea is, if a person takes one of those prescribed pills, he/she will become an addict. That is garbage thinking. The govn. does this because they can and know people who need them will have to abide by their rules. It is easier to keep those pills from good people than go after drug dealers.
I can only get the prescription if I see the doc. He is not allowed to call in a prescription for these pills. He has to physically hand me the prescription and I have to sign a statement he gave it to me. Then, I have to physically hand the prescription to a pharmacist and listen to him/her issue me a warning how to take them. The next month, have to go see doctor again, he writes another prescription, hands it to me and I go through the same process every single month. Can only get them one month at a time.
Now, if I wanted to do myself in, I could do it with that one month's supply, just take them all at once. Or, I could drink enough alcohol at one time to kill myself. Or, I could buy over the counter drugs and take enough of them to kill me. Or, I could use a gun to kill myself. Oh, no, those little pills are much worse than other ways to do myself in. This is ridiculous.
-
The problem I have with weed is that it causes permanent brain damage to people under the age of 28, and it is also how most people get started doing the heavy stuff.
If they put an age limit on it, and require proof of assets sufficient to keep you off the dole, then I don't have a problem with people getting stoned on weed.
I know a bunch of retired people who smoke the stuff, and since they aren't sucking up welfare and since they aren't trying to push the stuff on young people, I don't care.
But yeah, i've known a lot of people that wrecked their and other's lives on the hard stuff. I've known several people who died as a result of crack and meth.
All the potheads I have known, and I have known many, are the laziest pieces of shit I ever met.
-
I have genuine fibromyalgia diagnosed by a neurologist. I take five pills for it so I can function, and one is hydrocodone. My doc has to go through many hoops to write the prescription and I have to go through more to get it from the pharmacy. I have no doubt Sessions will do something to make it even harder to get.
The idea is, if a person takes one of those prescribed pills, he/she will become an addict. That is garbage thinking. The govn. does this because they can and know people who need them will have to abide by their rules. It is easier to keep those pills from good people than go after drug dealers.
I can only get the prescription if I see the doc. He is not allowed to call in a prescription for these pills. He has to physically hand me the prescription and I have to sign a statement he gave it to me. Then, I have to physically hand the prescription to a pharmacist and listen to him/her issue me a warning how to take them. The next month, have to go see doctor again, he writes another prescription, hands it to me and I go through the same process every single month. Can only get them one month at a time.
Now, if I wanted to do myself in, I could do it with that one month's supply, just take them all at once. Or, I could drink enough alcohol at one time to kill myself. Or, I could buy over the counter drugs and take enough of them to kill me. Or, I could use a gun to kill myself. Oh, no, those little pills are much worse than other ways to do myself in. This is ridiculous.
That's a nightmare scenario .... sorry you have to go through it.
-
Yep. Education costs would plummet.
Of course not children. You have to be 21 to buy cigarettes or alcohol. It would be the same for this program.
No program will be without failures but no sensible program to control drugs by making them legal could be worse than the situation we have now.
Our entire law enforcement agencies probably spend 90% of their time on drug enforcement; on drug dealers; on murders among drug dealers.
-
We need to completely end the WOD while simultaneously eliminating any taxpayer funded drug rehab programs. We have Head Start, DARE, phys ed, health, home ec, etc. that teach kids about the perils of drug use. It's going to take people dying in the gutters to fix this problem. Here's an interesting anecdote: My husband is a full time firefighter. Creapy creaper @mirraflake can attest to that. Any hoo, first responders carry Narcan for drug ods. They do not carry Epipens. Additionally, permission is required for Epipen admin; nothing is required for Narcan.
-
Diogenes wrote:
"Secondly, the bad aspects of this fake so called "War on Drugs" are far less of a problem than legalizing drugs.
Legalized drugs killed 100 million people in China. The only people who want to legalize drugs are ignorant morons."
Bravo for speaking the truth.
-
Of course not children. You have to be 21 to buy cigarettes or alcohol. It would be the same for this program.
No program will be without failures but no sensible program to control drugs by making them legal could be worse than the situation we have now.
Our entire law enforcement agencies probably spend 90% of their time on drug enforcement; on drug dealers; on murders among drug dealers.
Of course not for kids. I should have stayed the obvious I guess.
-
Diogenes wrote:
"Secondly, the bad aspects of this fake so called "War on Drugs" are far less of a problem than legalizing drugs.
Legalized drugs killed 100 million people in China. The only people who want to legalize drugs are ignorant morons."
Bravo for speaking the truth.
Okay, I've researched the China thing some people keep bringing up. It was a totally different time and a totally different kind of society. Not applicable to the here and now in the U.S.
Mostly useful as another tool to scare fear mongers who refuse to take a look at the pros and cons of legalization.
-
Actually, it makes me feel worse but not worse enough to do drugs.
Cool. More for me.
-
Cool. More for me.
You are probably the only person on this forum who makes me LOL.
-
Everything about this article is bullshit. Drug laws aren't discriminatory, you have 3% of the young black male population committing 40-50% of all crime. Reflecting this in prosecutions and convictions is exactly what objectivity demands.
Secondly, the bad aspects of this fake so called "War on Drugs" are far less of a problem than legalizing drugs.
Legalized drugs killed 100 million people in China. The only people who want to legalize drugs are ignorant morons.
Why shoah 'nuff they's discrimineratory.
Think of all that BLACK tar heroin coming in, from Mexico. Why makin that there illegal's a discriminatory two-fer, black and mescan.
(Yes, all that was sarcasm). The author is foolish at best.
Drug abuse does not occur in a vacuum. The effects on those who are merely the 'collateral damage' of the user are incalculable, wildly destructive, impoverishing, and deadly.
That without going into the violent acts which often accompany the drug trade, and those committed by people under the influence of those drugs which would not go away with legalization.
Alcohol, which so many attempt to compare other drug abuse with causes enough problems, you'd think we'd have learned.
We won't ever eliminate alcohol, it is too ingrained in human culture, but that doesn't mean we need to set the table for other drugs by losing our resolve to fight them.
The legacy of the Obama policy?
An ongoing and blossoming heroin problem, only now, it's new, improved, darker and has Fentanyl, for that extra 'kick' (and a huge increase in ODs.).
The police in small town ND are carrying narcan, and have saved lives by administering it and CPR. Wonderful, stuff.
Continued contempt for Federal Law as States legalize pot for recreational use.
Drug tests which used to have 4 panels now have 12, and there are new compounds every day.
It's more of the Choom Gang legacy, and one more trend we need to reverse.
Considering their fondness for Cloward-Piven, it seems as if they were out to commit as much destruction to America and American Culture as possible to effectively put the next administration in a situation of having to do repairs so extensive that any actual new policy would be difficult to implement.
-
Okay, I've researched the China thing some people keep bringing up. It was a totally different time and a totally different kind of society. Not applicable to the here and now in the U.S.
Mostly useful as another tool to scare fear mongers who refuse to take a look at the pros and cons of legalization.
:silly:
Because when we do things doomed to failure, we'll get it right? **nononono*
-
:silly:
Because when we do things doomed to failure, we'll get it right? **nononono*
You seem to be assuming that is is not a horrible failure with what we are doing right now.
-
You seem to be assuming that is is not a horrible failure with what we are doing right now.
There are many issues that I have with what is being done now.
Asserting that there is a "War" on while some jurisdictions undermine the effort by legalizing drugs or refusing to prosecute.
I'm damned unhappy with the way the Bill of Rights gets trashed, but the war on drugs isn't the only excuse waved to do that.
If we are going to fight it, and we should fight it IMHO, let's make sure the Constitution and Bill of Rights are abided by, that convictions are achieved within the Rule of Law, and then that the punishments for breaking the law are harsh enough that they will be a real and serious deterrent.
The problem with the 'war' is that under Obama the 'generals' have been slacking and telling their people to not bother. What have we gained during the Obama Administration? The enrichment of violent Mexican and Central American drug cartels who have been aided and abetted by immigration enforcement policy, BATFE and DOJ assisted gun running, and lax drug enforcement policy. There's a war all right, and the Obama Administration has been waging it--on America. Paybacks! Get those cracker kids hooked.
We can win if we fight it. It's past time to point the 'troops' in the right direction and fight for a change.
-
Thank you Jeff Sessions. This is definitely a fight I want to see fought for many reasons.
-
My husband is a full time firefighter. Creapy creaper @mirraflake can attest to that.
Really? Creapy creaper? You mentioned you was a teacher and your husband was a FF at least 5 times on this site and when I mentioned your professions on another thread it to make a point you said I was stalking you.
You are a hoot.
@goodwithagun
-
Really? Creapy creaper? You mentioned you was a teacher and your husband was a FF at least 5 times on this site and when I mentioned your professions on another thread it to make a point you said I was stalking you.
You are a hoot.
@goodwithagun
You "was" a hoot, also.
-
Really? Creapy creaper? You mentioned you was a teacher and your husband was a FF at least 5 times on this site and when I mentioned your professions on another thread it to make a point you said I was stalking you.
You are a hoot.
@goodwithagun
Nice nipples, by the way.
-
creepy creeper
Definition: the guy at the party that stands in a corner and talks to no one, but stares at all the women
Swaney was a real creepy creeper at Club 33...
#creepy#creeper#creepycreeper#loner#stalker
According to Urban Dictionary, you're a bad dude mirraflake. 8-O
Had to look it up as I've never heard the term "creapy creaper" before.
Unless he meant "crepey crepier", which in that case, you should try applying some lotion to your arms before you make your crepes. :shrug:
And I want even mention a "crappy crapper". :nometalk:
-
creepy creeper
Definition: the guy at the party that stands in a corner and talks to no one, but stares at all the women
Swaney was a real creepy creeper at Club 33...
#creepy#creeper#creepycreeper#loner#stalker
According to Urban Dictionary, you're a bad dude mirraflake. 8-O
Had to look it up as I've never heard the term "creapy creaper" before.
To go through somebody's web history in order to gain info on them is called "creeping." For example, "Don't post that pic in case my boss creeps my Facebook page." Plus the nipple avatar seals the deal.
-
To go through somebody's web history in order to gain info on them is called "creeping." For example, "Don't post that pic in case my boss creeps my Facebook page." Plus the nipple avatar seals the deal.
His avatar is a pic of you, goodwithagun?
Shame on you, @mirraflake ! :chairbang:
-
His avatar is a pic of you, goodwithagun?
Shame on you, @mirraflake ! :chairbang:
Close, but after nursing three kids a year each those boobs are certainly more . . . um . . . unnatural than mine. I'm okay with that, though. I wear my pregnancy marks like battle scars with better stories!
-
To go through somebody's web history in order to gain info on them is called "creeping." For example, "Don't post that pic in case my boss creeps my Facebook page." Plus the nipple avatar seals the deal.
LOL I never went through your thread history. You have posted you and your hubbies professions so many times how could we not forget.
BTW @Wingnut also has nipple slip but no one says a word because he is one of you. But you don't like my stance on a few issues and you attack, attack, attack.
@goodwithagun
-
LOL I never went through your thread history. You have posted you and your hubbies professions so many times how could we not forget.
BTW @Wingnut also has nipple slip but no one says a word because he is one of you. But you don't like my stance on a few issues and you attack, attack, attack.
@goodwithagun
Hey @Wingnut , apparently you are "one of" me? I'm not sure what the op means, but he/she needs to learn to take a complement :silly: It's like a Sinfeld episode :silly: Mulva?
-
Mamma always said..... if you sucked on my tiitties you better buy me a mother's day dinner.
I wish you were here so I could buy you dinner.
-
LOL I never went through your thread history. You have posted you and your hubbies professions so many times how could we not forget.
BTW @Wingnut also has nipple slip but no one says a word because he is one of you. But you don't like my stance on a few issues and you attack, attack, attack.
@goodwithagun
You've got some great boobs there @mirraflake , but I like my guns better. :P
I never noticed @Wingnut 's "nipple slip", but since you mentioned it, I enlarged his avatar so that my old eyes could see. By golly, he does! Her shirt looks like it's wet to boot. All this time I thought he chose her for her hips and thighs. LOL That wing nut is a sneaky devil. ;) Nice boobs too.
-
Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit!
-
The war on drugs has been going on for quite some time and obviously it isn't working we have hit an epidemic in many cities. Over 50,000 people died last year from drug overdose (legal and prescription). Heroin deaths rose 23 percent in one year, to 12,989. Deaths from synthetic opioids, including illicit fentanyl, rose 73 percent to 9,580. And prescription painkillers took the highest toll, but posted the smallest increase. Abuse of drugs like Oxycontin and Vicodin killed 17,536, an increase of 4 percent.
I have brought thus up before, but I really think we need to take a look at Portugal; they have decriminalized ALL drugs. Those that are caught have two choices; get the treatment and counseling offered or go to jail. Overdoses have dropped dramatically. People are getting the help they need. Addiction is an illness. Too often facilities that are successful in treating addicts are not affordable to the average person. The person with an addiction is affording their addiction and don't have the money to get help and many don't have health insurance. So in essence ... these people who could get back to being productive citizens never get the help that they need. I see it as a real tragedy.
-
@Wingnut 's is much more subtle @mirraflake . You don't need to throw those at every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes along.
-
Hey @Wingnut , apparently you are "one of" me? I'm not sure what the op means, but he/she needs to learn to take a complement :silly: It's like a Sinfeld episode :silly: Mulva?
Normally I would have spiffy replay. Gulp replay.... But me and Frank are half into a bottle... wtf...
-
Normally I would have spiffy replay. Gulp replay.... But me and Frank are half into a bottle... wtf...
Cheers! I'm a glass into a bottle of Kim Crawford!
-
This thread has me confused?
-
This thread has me confused?
I commented on @mirraflake 's nipples. He commented on yours. Craziness ensued.
-
I commented on @mirraflake 's nipples. He commented on yours. Craziness ensued.
Okay then :nometalk:
-
Okay then :nometalk:
Long story short, his avatar is jealous of your avatar.
-
:threadjack: :threadjack: :taz: :threadjack: :odrama:
-
Long story short, his avatar is jealous of your avatar.
That summed it up nicely.
-
:threadjack: :threadjack: :taz: :threadjack: :odrama:
But jacking is so much fun!
OK. I'll refrain. :whistle:
-
There are many issues that I have with what is being done now.
Asserting that there is a "War" on while some jurisdictions undermine the effort by legalizing drugs or refusing to prosecute.
I'm damned unhappy with the way the Bill of Rights gets trashed, but the war on drugs isn't the only excuse waved to do that.
If we are going to fight it, and we should fight it IMHO, let's make sure the Constitution and Bill of Rights are abided by, that convictions are achieved within the Rule of Law, and then that the punishments for breaking the law are harsh enough that they will be a real and serious deterrent.
The problem with the 'war' is that under Obama the 'generals' have been slacking and telling their people to not bother. What have we gained during the Obama Administration? The enrichment of violent Mexican and Central American drug cartels who have been aided and abetted by immigration enforcement policy, BATFE and DOJ assisted gun running, and lax drug enforcement policy. There's a war all right, and the Obama Administration has been waging it--on America. Paybacks! Get those cracker kids hooked.
We can win if we fight it. It's past time to point the 'troops' in the right direction and fight for a change.
Okay, I am so through with this fight.
-
Okay, I am so through with this fight.
I don't have a dog in this fight. But...
There's always a but...
I am perfectly happy for them to legalize everything and let God sort it out as long as we don't have to pay for rehabilitation programs.
On the other hand, I am perfectly happy that Sessions used the reversal to arrest a bunch of gang-bangers and illegals. Removing such types from the streets is a good thing. I'd prefer they make it all legal, but still be able to use it to get rid of these nasty people because I think once drugs are legalized, they'll all move on to trafficking in children or something equally horrible. They have to traffic in something to keep the dough rolling in and they will find it. But that's just my take on it which is pretty much worthless as I admittedly do not know much about it.
I guess I'm just perfectly happy one way or the other. :shrug:
-
Abuse of drugs like Oxycontin and Vicodin killed 17,536, an increase of 4 percent.
@libertybele
There it is, I take Vicodin (hydrocodone) for fibromyalgia. Earlier in this thread, I wrote about how much time and paper work the doc and I have to go through to get one month of Vicodin pills for me and do it all over again the next month because you can only get one month at a time. One month for me is 60 pills. I could take as many of those 60 as I wanted, at one time, so making it difficult to get them isn't going to stop a person taking too many at one time. My doc knows I need them and he also knows I'm not going to kill myself.
There are ways to stop giving people pain pills just because they want to get high or they want to fuzz out as Vicoden would do. Part of my EMT training was in an hospital emergency room. A woman came to the emergency room saying she needed pain pills because she had a migraine headache. I was helping the doc at that time. The doc told her there was something better than pain pills and he would give her this shot that would make the headache go away. She said she didn't want a shot and she left the emergency room. The doc told me that was how they distinguished between someone just wanting pills and those that really had that type headache. If someone really has a migraine, he/she wants that terrible headache to stop and would hold their arm out to get that shot. Even people with a fear or needles would still get that shot to stop that terrible pain.
I have had one migraine in my life and the pain was so bad, I literally could not see straight. I had to have a friend drive me to my doctor. I would have accepted someone with a sledge hammer hitting me in the head to stop that pain. A needle was nothing like that pain - if he had put ten needles in me, I didn't care, just stop the pain. Later, when my bank statement came, the check I wrote was in there and I don't know how the bank cashed the check because my writing was all over the check - I couldn't see well enough to write a decent check. I feel sorry for anyone who has migraines.
-
You drug that China/opium thing out the last time this was discussed.
The truth doesn't go away just because you don't like it.
It is totally not applicable to anything today in this country.
Because obviously Chinese people are physiologically different from people in the United States. Chemical addictions can't happen to us because our bodies use completely different chemical reactions than do Chinese Humans.
-
That is right.
People can call me an ass and a moron too. But end the war on drugs. Legalize most of it. Hand out clean free heroin and let people have at it. I really don't care if they can't control themselves.
Ramp it up. Turn it into a real war on drugs. Start killing drug dealers and drug distributors.
Make it have a body count so the other side will stop selling poison to innocent people.
-
Yep. Education costs would plummet.
So would the nation. We've seen this picture before. Here in fact. (https://archive.org/details/druggingnationst00merwiala)
-
Thanks for those two links, to studies. But neither answers my question about How Much?
How Much Marijuana, How Often, for How Long. And How Much Damage?
Apply the same question to radiation poisoning. Apply it to how much sewage water can be added to a punch bowl. Isn't the answer "Any amount of marijuana, any length of time, and any amount of damage?
-
All the potheads I have known, and I have known many, are the laziest pieces of shit I ever met.
Me too, but I am assured by the various libertarians with whom I occasionally discuss this issues that there are lots of high intensity productive pot users.
I just don't happen to know any such people that fit that description.
-
This thread has me confused?
It seems like if a thread lasts more than 3 days, it turns into internecine warfare.
Mystery? Mystery?
-
Okay, I've researched the China thing some people keep bringing up. It was a totally different time and a totally different kind of society.
Time periods and "societies" are irrelevant to a CHEMICAL BASED ADDICTION. Humans are susceptible to chemical based addictions, and they have been susceptible for millions of years.
I cannot fathom the thinking of people who believe that customs and lifestyles of different cultures has any bearing at all on chemicals tampering with people's endocrine systems. Chemical narcotics will have an affect on any human, and the language they speak has no bearing on it whatsoever. The god or gods they worship will not change this. The sort of food they eat will have no effect.
The kinds of shoes they wear won't alter addiction. Their clothing isn't going to stop it. How they wear their hair won't affect it.
Just stop already with the incredibly stupid claim that culture/time period will interfere with addiction. If you are human, you can get addicted to drugs.
Not applicable to the here and now in the U.S.
Yes it is. Chinese humans are exactly like American humans. We have exactly the same physiology. Culture is completely irrelevant to chemical addiction.
Mostly useful as another tool to scare fear mongers who refuse to take a look at the pros and cons of legalization.
Or point out to people just how brainlessly and ignorant stupid is this idea. You would unleash a wildfire of disaster on us all, just because you don't want to learn the lesson that History has already taught humanity.
-
Ramp it up. Turn it into a real war on drugs. Start killing drug dealers and drug distributors.
Make it have a body count so the other side will stop selling poison to innocent people.
Like I said, I am not an expert on this subject; so take what I'm going to say with a grain of salt...
But it seems to me a body count doesn't seem to make much of a difference. There is already a body count from people dying due to taking drugs. It doesn't seem to deter them any. People will do what they want to do as they tend to believe it won't happen to them, get caught, etc.
Capital punishment doesn't appear to be deterring people from killing cops. We'd have to institute real fear in these people Saddam Hussein style and that will never happen as it would be "cruel and unusual." Easier to let "Survival of the Fittest" to take its natural course in society. We allow people to drink themselves to death. Why not allow those that wish to drug themselves to death the same freedom? They're going to do it anyway; so why keep the dealers flush with cash by keeping it illegal? Just my rather naive approach to it. :shrug:
-
Why shoah 'nuff they's discrimineratory.
Think of all that BLACK tar heroin coming in, from Mexico. Why makin that there illegal's a discriminatory two-fer, black and mescan.
(Yes, all that was sarcasm). The author is foolish at best.
Drug abuse does not occur in a vacuum. The effects on those who are merely the 'collateral damage' of the user are incalculable, wildly destructive, impoverishing, and deadly.
That without going into the violent acts which often accompany the drug trade, and those committed by people under the influence of those drugs which would not go away with legalization.
Alcohol, which so many attempt to compare other drug abuse with causes enough problems, you'd think we'd have learned.
We won't ever eliminate alcohol, it is too ingrained in human culture, but that doesn't mean we need to set the table for other drugs by losing our resolve to fight them.
The legacy of the Obama policy?
An ongoing and blossoming heroin problem, only now, it's new, improved, darker and has Fentanyl, for that extra 'kick' (and a huge increase in ODs.).
The police in small town ND are carrying narcan, and have saved lives by administering it and CPR. Wonderful, stuff.
Continued contempt for Federal Law as States legalize pot for recreational use.
Drug tests which used to have 4 panels now have 12, and there are new compounds every day.
It's more of the Choom Gang legacy, and one more trend we need to reverse.
Considering their fondness for Cloward-Piven, it seems as if they were out to commit as much destruction to America and American Culture as possible to effectively put the next administration in a situation of having to do repairs so extensive that any actual new policy would be difficult to implement.
Exactly right on everything you said. It is good to read clear headed and informed thinking.
-
You seem to be assuming that is is not a horrible failure with what we are doing right now.
It is a mild failure compared to doing the opposite. Legalized drugs would be a massively horrible failure.
-
Like I said, I am not an expert on this subject; so take what I'm going to say with a grain of salt...
But it seems to me a body count doesn't seem to make much of a difference. There is already a body count from people dying due to taking drugs.
Those people are victims. I am talking about a body count for the perpetrators. I thought I made that clear.
It doesn't seem to deter them any. People will do what they want to do as they tend to believe it won't happen to them, get caught, etc.
Drugs will do that. This is why we need to exterminate the people supplying them. Once people get addicted, they will do incredibly stupid things that might cause their deaths. The solution is to prevent the addiction in the first place, and the way to do it is to make the cost of doing business in drugs too high for those who profit from it under the current status quo.
Capital punishment doesn't appear to be deterring people from killing cops.
Okay, this is a whole nother can of worms, but how much "deterrence" do you get from a punishment that has a 13 year wait time before it is carried out, and that is *IF* it ever gets carried out?
On February 15, 1933 Giuseppe Zangara shot Anton Cermak.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Giuseppe_Zangara_mugshot.jpg/220px-Giuseppe_Zangara_mugshot.jpg)
Cermak did not die of his wound until March 6, 1933. Zangara was executed March 20, 1933. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara)
That's how it's done.
We'd have to institute real fear in these people Saddam Hussein style and that will never happen as it would be "cruel and unusual." Easier to let "Survival of the Fittest" to take its natural course in society.
You have more or less stated something which I have said countless times before. The reason our "war on drugs" is a slow motion train wreck is because it's not a war, it's a holding action. The American people would become upset if we actually fought it like a war, so they are content to tolerate the current degree of suffering caused by not smashing the drug producing system.
So long as the American people want a milquetoast approach to stopping drugs, some of it is going to continue to flow into our system.
We allow people to drink themselves to death. Why not allow those that wish to drug themselves to death the same freedom? They're going to do it anyway; so why keep the dealers flush with cash by keeping it illegal? Just my rather naive approach to it. :shrug:
Because
(http://www.balettie.com/texas/ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl.jpg)
Drug addiction, if tolerated, will spread like a disease. It is only confined now because of the constant pressure we keep on it to hold it down.
People don't know this, but the reason the United States adopted anti-drug policies at the turn of the 20th century was because addiction and overdose was getting worse. People also had the example of what was happening in China at the time, and so everyone could see where this road was heading.
We here a century later have forgotten (or never learned) the lesson that was all too apparent in 1910, that addiction was becoming an increasing problem that needed to be addressed before it got out of control.
-
Like I said, I am not an expert on this subject; so take what I'm going to say with a grain of salt...
But it seems to me a body count doesn't seem to make much of a difference. There is already a body count from people dying due to taking drugs. It doesn't seem to deter them any. People will do what they want to do as they tend to believe it won't happen to them, get caught, etc.
Capital punishment doesn't appear to be deterring people from killing cops. We'd have to institute real fear in these people Saddam Hussein style and that will never happen as it would be "cruel and unusual." Easier to let "Survival of the Fittest" to take its natural course in society. We allow people to drink themselves to death. Why not allow those that wish to drug themselves to death the same freedom? They're going to do it anyway; so why keep the dealers flush with cash by keeping it illegal? Just my rather naive approach to it. :shrug:
The penumbra of destruction wrought by only one kid who gets addicted can be incredible in a family. Despite all the braying of "not hurting anyone (else)" the damage goes far and wide.
Granted, the addicts will kill themselves, given a chance. We don't go handing loaded guns, ropes, or straight razors to depressed people, why do the same for people with chemical dependencies?
When you're happy that a kid is in prison where they will have a much harder time OD-ing rather than out on the streets (where they were last found, unresponsive, saved by the convenience store clerk who saw the two skanks roll him out of his pickup and administered CPR and a cop with a shot of Narcan to reverse the effects of the Fentanyl laced heroin he did), maybe you will understand. That was one of my grandsons. He was a good kid, he had that winning smile. He was a good worker. He got into that sh*t, and ended that. Thankfully he is in rehab (again), but after that, grandma will worry until he's back in jail.
It is the dealers who make the drug available, who profit from it awash in the pain, misery, blood, and collateral crime that comes from having junkies around. They don't care. Stolen goods, broken vehicle windows and torn out dashboards, houses damaged, businesses, homes, and people robbed, storage units looted, and basically anything not tied down stolen.
If those tools were what you use to earn a living, an addict doesn't care. They are fixated on that next fix.
It also breeds unreal violence, and sexual exploitation and rape go hand in hand.
It isn't a culture we need, nor want roaming the streets--anywhere in America, and definitely not in our back yards. No place, no neighborhood, no economic class is immune.
But someone is getting a lot of money out of it. The rest of us are picking up the tab, and legalizing it will not change that. A friend who lived in Denver moved after pot was legalized there. He said police no longer responded to property crimes because they were too busy with other matters. So the official story does not reflect the crime rates there because the paperwork never got filled out. Not something you want in your neighborhood--he moved out of the state.
The "war" has not been fought to win, only to be as intrusive and onerous for the average non-user as possible, and only to 'fight' the low end user, not the major dealers. Makes you wonder why the not uninterrelated matters of deporting illegals, securing the border, fighting drugs, social problems, street violence, and even looting were not more effectively pursued by the last administration. That doesn't mean that this administration should not put the effort into all of those issues that is needed to better eliminate the problems, and drugs can be found arm in arm with all of them.
-
The penumbra of destruction wrought by only one kid who gets addicted can be incredible in a family. Despite all the braying of "not hurting anyone (else)" the damage goes far and wide.
Granted, the addicts will kill themselves, given a chance. We don't go handing loaded guns, ropes, or straight razors to depressed people, why do the same for people with chemical dependencies?
When you're happy that a kid is in prison where they will have a much harder time OD-ing rather than out on the streets (where they were last found, unresponsive, saved by the convenience store clerk who saw the two skanks roll him out of his pickup and administered CPR and a cop with a shot of Narcan to reverse the effects of the Fentanyl laced heroin he did), maybe you will understand. That was one of my grandsons. He was a good kid, he had that winning smile. He was a good worker. He got into that sh*t, and ended that. Thankfully he is in rehab (again), but after that, grandma will worry until he's back in jail.
It is the dealers who make the drug available, who profit from it awash in the pain, misery, blood, and collateral crime that comes from having junkies around. They don't care. Stolen goods, broken vehicle windows and torn out dashboards, houses damaged, businesses, homes, and people robbed, storage units looted, and basically anything not tied down stolen.
If those tools were what you use to earn a living, an addict doesn't care. They are fixated on that next fix.
It also breeds unreal violence, and sexual exploitation and rape go hand in hand.
It isn't a culture we need, nor want roaming the streets--anywhere in America, and definitely not in our back yards. No place, no neighborhood, no economic class is immune.
But someone is getting a lot of money out of it. The rest of us are picking up the tab, and legalizing it will not change that. A friend who lived in Denver moved after pot was legalized there. He said police no longer responded to property crimes because they were too busy with other matters. So the official story does not reflect the crime rates there because the paperwork never got filled out. Not something you want in your neighborhood--he moved out of the state.
The "war" has not been fought to win, only to be as intrusive and onerous for the average non-user as possible, and only to 'fight' the low end user, not the major dealers. Makes you wonder why the not uninterrelated matters of deporting illegals, securing the border, fighting drugs, social problems, street violence, and even looting were not more effectively pursued by the last administration. That doesn't mean that this administration should not put the effort into all of those issues that is needed to better eliminate the problems, and drugs can be found arm in arm with all of them.
I'm sorry that you are going through this, SJ. My heart bleeds for you as I have been there. Words cannot describe how horrible it is.
I don't believe fighting the war on drugs will work, but there was a time I believed as you did. I've since realized that these people will find a way to get high one way or another. Until they themselves make the choice to get off the drugs, they will stay on them. It's a choice they themselves have to make, unfortunately. I hope your grandson finds the courage within himself to make that choice.
-
Sessions piss poor decision needs piss poor articles.
(What is up with the Russian? You have a fan base?)
What's so piss poor about the decision?
-
I'm sorry that you are going through this, SJ. My heart bleeds for you as I have been there. Words cannot describe how horrible it is.
I don't believe fighting the war on drugs will work, but there was a time I believed as you did. I've since realized that these people will find a way to get high one way or another. Until they themselves make the choice to get off the drugs, they will stay on them. It's a choice they themselves have to make, unfortunately. I hope your grandson finds the courage within himself to make that choice.
Thank you, and I hope he makes that choice, too. His odds are pretty low, despite the wishes of family, he has been in and out of rehab so often, I think they keep the lights on for him.
My hope is that a multifaceted effort to secure the border and stop the flow of drugs will make them more difficult to obtain, and as bad as it sounds, shift the foci back to the big cities and out of the rural markets. They will be somewhere, for sure, and people will find a way to obtain them, but if they aren't as available, then fewer people will be getting started, and eventually, there will be less demand.
Border control is critical to interdiction, and the drugs which are brought in from elsewhere (Coke, Heroin, especially) won't be here. In the meantime there are synthetics like Meth and Flakka to worry about, so the problem won't be any farther than the nearest pot grow or lab.
Still, I'd like to see the war fought, and not just lip service to it and the destruction of everyone's Rights for a false war. Sadly, there are police out there, literally risking their lives, to stop something that our Federal Government has enabled.
-
I don't believe fighting the war on drugs will work, but there was a time I believed as you did.
I hate to belabor the point, but it isn't a "war" it is a holding action. If we fought it like a war, it would have been over a long time ago.
As for "work", what do you expect a holding action to do except maintain the status quo? It "works" or it doesn't "work" depending on what you mean by "work."
I've since realized that these people will find a way to get high one way or another. Until they themselves make the choice to get off the drugs, they will stay on them. It's a choice they themselves have to make, unfortunately.
The choice to become an addict is much easier if people can legally flood the streets with this stuff.
-
The choice to become an addict is much easier if people can legally flood the streets with this stuff.
QFT, even if they can illegally. That's why the market maintenance being done under the guise of a "war" is a farce. Let's fight like we mean it, within Constitutional bounds, and securing the border will help a lot. That may shift emphasis to 'lab' made drugs instead of plant derivatives, but that would be a start.
-
QFT, even if they can illegally. That's why the market maintenance being done under the guise of a "war" is a farce. Let's fight like we mean it, within Constitutional bounds, and securing the border will help a lot. That may shift emphasis to 'lab' made drugs instead of plant derivatives, but that would be a start.
Opium/Heroin and Cocaine/Crack all originate from foreign lands. Much of the ingredients for meth/crank do as well.
I'm not sure it is practical to control the borders to the extent necessary to prevent this stuff getting in, especially with advancing drone technology. There will come a time when they can simply fly that stuff across the border with drones.
I say kill the people who ship it, and it won't get shipped.
That may shift emphasis to 'lab' made drugs instead of plant derivatives, but that would be a start.
And that will be another can of worms.
-
I hate to belabor the point, but it isn't a "war" it is a holding action. If we fought it like a war, it would have been over a long time ago.
As for "work", what do you expect a holding action to do except maintain the status quo? It "works" or it doesn't "work" depending on what you mean by "work."
The choice to become an addict is much easier if people can legally flood the streets with this stuff.
This country will not fight any kind war to win as we are too civilized to do what needs doing. As for drug users, they will do/take whatever they can to get high. It's the nature of the beast. If the government was successful in stopping all drugs from entering the country and ending all prescription drugs that can be abused, we'll have to outlaw all chemicals as those same drug users will be huffing gasoline and the good Lord only knows what as they will find a way to get high. I personally think it's a losing battle that cannot be won, but as I stated before, I am no expert. I could be wrong and I hope I am.
-
Okay, this is a whole nother can of worms, but how much "deterrence" do you get from a punishment that has a 13 year wait time before it is carried out, and that is *IF* it ever gets carried out?
Dang really digging your posts. You are spot on here. Basically quoting Solomon wisdom from 2000+ years ago.
Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.
Salute.
@DiogenesLamp
-
This country will not fight any kind war to win as we are too civilized to do what needs doing. As for drug users, they will do/take whatever they can to get high. It's the nature of the beast. If the government was successful in stopping all drugs from entering the country and ending all prescription drugs that can be abused, we'll have to outlaw all chemicals as those same drug users will be huffing gasoline and the good Lord only knows what as they will find a way to get high. I personally think it's a losing battle that cannot be won, but as I stated before, I am no expert. I could be wrong and I hope I am.
You are not seeing the true nature of this beast. Currently drug usage is some small percentage of the population. So long as we maintain what pathetic interdiction efforts we have managed so far, the percentage of addicts will stay approximately where it is.
We have achieved the state of a small percentage of addicts precisely because this stuff is interdicted. Were this stuff not being interdicted, the percentage of addicts would start growing according to a logistical growth curve.
In China, during it's worst period of drug abuse, the addiction rate approximated 50% of it's population.
-
Dang really digging your posts. You are spot on here. Basically quoting Solomon wisdom from 2000+ years ago.
Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.
Salute.
@DiogenesLamp
Why thank you! I am pleased to be accused of writing things that people find interesting.
:)
-
What's so piss poor about the decision?
For your average user prison isn't a deterrent or even a stop. Drugs are readily available in prison. Turning an addict into a convicted criminal makes it worse on everybody. Prison is too much of a big business industry in America.
Making weed highly criminal in states neighboring noncriminal weed states is STUPID.
Meth is bad. That's why they give it to kids, right?
And because I want to see what happens when clean heroin is handed out for free. 21 and older of course. Call it my pet social engineering project.
-
Regarding illegal drugs and those who import and sell them:
I prefer "the Duterte solution". No apologies for saying so, either.
'Nuff said about that.
-
For your average user prison isn't a deterrent or even a stop. Drugs are readily available in prison. Turning an addict into a convicted criminal makes it worse on everybody. Prison is too much of a big business industry in America.
Making weed highly criminal in states neighboring noncriminal weed states is STUPID.
Meth is bad. That's why they give it to kids, right?
And because I want to see what happens when clean heroin is handed out for free. 21 and older of course. Call it my pet social engineering project.
Still doesn't answer the question. That's just a bunch of pro drug mumbo jumbo.
-
7 Things We Learned About The Thriving American Heroin Industry
(https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/syringerocks.jpg)
The market for heroin is a robust one, and 2017 is shaping up to be the best year yet for the gangs and cartels who import and distribute the drug in the United States. The drug is now both inexpensive to make and more addictive, but this more potent heroin is also killing its users.
https://consumerist.com/2017/05/12/7-things-we-learned-about-the-thriving-american-heroin-industry/
-
7 Things We Learned About The Thriving American Heroin Industry
(https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/syringerocks.jpg)
https://consumerist.com/2017/05/12/7-things-we-learned-about-the-thriving-american-heroin-industry/
Basically, interdiction has to come at the production/smuggler/wholesale level, and not just on the streets. Those are the crimes that have to have the level of consequence that makes them undesirable to commit, in spite of the money. The latter may slow down or temporarily save an individual user, but it won't stop the overall problem.
-
It doesn't help GQ's case when they start out the article with flagrant, bigoted hyperbole based on someone's looks and their stereotypes. There is a good argument to be made here but it is lost in the piss poor article.
Try these, then:
Jeff Sessions is a Glutton for Punishment (http://reason.com/archives/2017/05/17/jeff-sessions-is-a-glutton-for-punishmen)
How Many Drug Offenders Benefited From the Holder Memo That Sessions Rescinded? (http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/17/how-many-drug-offenders-benefited-from-t)
On Drugs, it's Back to War (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447677/jeff-sessions-sentencing-war-drugs-congress-should-change-law)
. . . and lament, anyway.
(And, no, everyone else, just because many if not most druggies would love an end to the War on Drugs, it does not follow
that many if not most of those who would love an end to the War on Drugs are druggies.)