samedi 6 septembre 2003

Drug War Rant

Attourney at Arms has some great stuff about how our Nation is conducting another war one that has been going on for at least 20 years has more victims than Viet Nam and touches us in the pocket book if not on a more personal level.

We see the problem we rant. What are the answers? That is a whole nother blog but here are a few of the things I know... This is a cut and paste of a comment thread the original inspiration comes from the link above.

Party on.... All drugs should be available to all people without government restrictions, let Darwin decide who lives and dies. Except when someone under the influence causes injury or death to themselves or other innocents then we can lock them up or bury them depending on what side of the line they fall.
Does that work? Will education prevent person abuse? Drugs are not abused people are...

You are right the drug war is useless fruitless and a huge waste of money.

What is the solution? Darwinism? Hard vs Soft? What is a hard drug what is a soft drug? Set setting and the amount ingested. How can we control this?

So I have a libertine leaning that says anyone can do anything any time they want. They screw up and cause loss of life, property damage etc then they pay to the full extent of the law.

Trouble is most of these poisons are subtle and take too long to weed out the stupid, puts a lot of innocents at risk meanwhile.

So while ranting against what isn't working tell us what does work. I believe in the premise I have no idea how to solve the problem and it is a problem.

This isn't a moral issue with me I've tried everything under the sun and would not lock up anyone for the crime of possession. Intoxicated or incapacitated a threat to public safety that is another issue.

But drugs that alter consciousness legal or not take a huge toll on the human race.

If we are not spending money policing we are spending money curing addictions or supporting those incapacitated by their addictions. I want to support a reasonable policy where is it?

Philip • 9/6/03; 4:17:52 PM

**** Content removed ***** comment was copyrighted by author It was of the nature that we shouldn't criminalize or demonize a large segment of our population. It was not my intent to use copyrighted material my apologies to Attourney at Arms.

Oy Vey! Shrug of the shoulders and a look to the sky. You are right.
Where does the moral stigma come from? Uncompassionate tight assed people who don't understand why someone would poison themselves and put themselves and their fellow human beings at risk?

In the United States every 12.5 minutes someone is injured as a result of the use of a legal drug. Some one dies every 30 minutes.

3000 people died on 9-1-1 and as a nation we were horrified outraged and wanting to go to war. Each year 9-1-1 happens 5 times over. A dripping faucet, a drip that is driving people fucking nuts.

This is every year coming down a bit but a steady 17K people for the past few years. These are constituents, pissed off voters lets suppose each victim had one sibling and two parents and 5 close friends that is over 100K new activists each YEAR.

That is one legal drug. What happens when we decriminalize all the rest? It is hypocrisy in the worst way to serve up alcohol and lock up the tokers, I mean pot smokers are not going to injure someone every 12.5 minutes.

Do you want to fund that experiment? Maybe it is only every thirty minutes or every hour. One innocent a lifetime is one too many for any family.

I'm not talking about you because you are ready willing and able to accept the consequence of your own decisions. I'm talking about the person coming home from work or going to school who is sharing the space with the person willing to gamble that the drug of their choice is not going to impair their judgment or ability to get from point a to point b without causing grievous harm to their fellow citizens.

I am not demonizing these people my heart goes out to everyone who alters their consciousness then proceeds to put themselves and others at risk.

They ARE criminals if they cause damage or worse as a result of their choices. Do we give them a break, you bet diminished capacity. If someone dies it is manslaughter not murder because the individual was not intending to kill someone it just happened.

So we legalize all consumption of all known compounds and live with the consequences when your spouse, child, sibling, parent or close friend is in the morgue how will you feel about those laws?

People with problems are not criminals people who fuck up as a result of those problems are. As a society how do we tackle the cost benefit analysis?

People who have an agenda against legalizing more drugs are not tight assed puritans who don't think you are entitled to get as fucked up as you want to.

Some of them have killed people as a result of their stupidity. Many more have lost loved ones. Some are just running the numbers. They are not for the most part making moral judgments they are simply living with the reality of the situation and cannot see how letting more people have access to more drugs is going to help anything.

Again I ask what is the solution? Whatever the answer is is not an answer. Rant away. There is injustice in this world, the drug war is stupid, but man you have millions of your fellow citizens living with the PROBLEM.

Find a better way lead us to the light.

Philip • 9/6/03; 9:07:15 PM

Posted by Philip at samedi 6 septembre 2003 | TrackBack
Comments

Apparently, the finer points of copyright law aren't as important to you as the finer points of tyrranical drug laws are. Of course, you are entitled to your own content and this content that I've posted here, but ...

Your false dichotomy between Darwinism and criminalization isn't even the beginning of the problem. Your tacit acceptance of the classifications of drugs by the government *is* the beginning of the problem.

Treatment and compassion solves more problem than fear and loathing.

You wanna know where people live by survival of the fittest? Prison.

Posted by: attorneyatarms at septembre 7, 2003 11:13 AM

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

OK, now that I got to the last post --

I am glad to hear you say you wouldn't criminalize simple possession. Good. Darwinism isn't the only other option, still.

P.S. My apologies for not framing the other post consistent with your latter one, and my apologies for apparently posting it three times somehow.

Posted by: Jon-Erik G. Storm at septembre 7, 2003 11:25 AM

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

I removed the extra comments and the copyrighted material my apologies. I can get behind decriminalizing possesion but what do we decriminalize?
Then what? More people killed by OD's and DUII's that seems pretty Darwinian to me.

How about safe use areas? Where you enter to purchase nice taxable drugs of choice one use non lethal quantities get screwed up as you want to be but can't leave until you are mentally competant to operate a motor vehicle?

If you want more drugs legalized fine by me. Society gets to control your consumption as a matter of self defense. Fair trade?

Why should we have to put up with 17000 plus preventable deaths each year because you know if we decriminalize more drugs that number is going up.

Posted by: Philip at septembre 7, 2003 04:23 PM

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

Feel free to leave a comment. Your email address and IP address are recorded.
Links to your web space will be displayed if you leave one, your email address will not.
If your comment does not post it may be because of my spam filters.
You can send email to
pdxpogo(at)pvassar(dot)net
Preview your comment if you wish to check your spelling.









Remember personal info?