First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply ACLU believes all drug use should be decriminalized
55177 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/17

MysticGon wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ACLU/status/855114851743608834

Frankly I disagree. At what point does someone's personal responsibility to obey the law get erased because they have a problem with addiction? If their addiction is tied to a larger mental health condition I agree they should not go to jail but to someone who can actually help them. If it's not then the law is the law and no one is above it.



That the thing, they won't be showing sign of addiction because they're on them, that just like beer and Cig. If you take those two away, we'll have million of people going though withdrawel from beer and Cig addiction. You know that Beer withdrawal is the worse of all?

See what I mean? If they decriminalize the drugs, it'll be like Cig and Beer. People can get them anytime they want without worrying about going though withdrawal.

I cannot live without Pop, I gotta have Diet soda, or I'll feel like shit lol.
2155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17
I agree with decriminalizing drugs for sure. It's not stopping anything and from a rational point of view it'd make more sense to remove illegality from them.
Hard drugs suck, but you're not helping an addict by throwing them in jail.
That Marijuana is a class A drug is ridiculous (but that's another talk for another day).


You want to help addicts? Get them in rehab not in jails. It's better to approach this with compassion rather than anger.

37964 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

Kavalion wrote:

Excellent point.

If I'm following you right, then you're suggesting that people aren't just going to be enablers. Senpai is going to steer us onto the right path. The state using its authority to coerce and punish people obviously is an expensive, ineffective means compared to role models encouraging healthy lifestyles at the grass roots, or having a normal life with a job, nuclear family, and social community.

So, rather than expanding the police state, a small government is best, with a focus on promoting traditional values and beliefs.


I'm not sure about promoting traditional values and beliefs (maybe you just mean a stable, supportive home and community without any of the other political and ideological baggage these phrases can bear) or asserting that a small government is best as a rule (though with regard to incarcerating non-violent drug offenders it's pretty hard to deny), but I think you pretty much follow.
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

MysticGon wrote:

I agree they should not go to jail


That's all "decriminalised" means, you know. You don't go to jail. Instead, you're fined and potentially sent to court-ordered education or treatment. Like speeding: still illegal, but you won't go to jail for it because it's not a criminal offence.
28650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17

cdarklock wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

I agree they should not go to jail


That's all "decriminalised" means, you know. You don't go to jail. Instead, you're fined and potentially sent to court-ordered education or treatment. Like speeding: still illegal, but you won't go to jail for it because it's not a criminal offence.


If you have a mental impairment that makes you addicted... Don't assume I mean that should be applied to everyone.
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 5/2/17

MysticGon wrote:

Don't assume I mean that should be applied to everyone.


Applying it selectively is a terrible idea, so I merely assumed you had better judgment than that.
28650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 5/2/17

cdarklock wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Don't assume I mean that should be applied to everyone.


Applying it selectively is a terrible idea, so I merely assumed you had better judgment than that.


Disagreement = terrible idea, bad judgment blah blah, if only you had good judgment and good ideas you'd think like me... We're done here.

Courts gauge people's fitness to stand trial all the time btw.
19401 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17
It is one of the Libertarian Principle beliefs is "we are responsible for our own bodies." However, I can see the need for there to be no mitigation of legal responsibility when under the influence of the pharmaceuticals (including alcohol), as a requirement. Minors are still SOL.
23044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17
We should just make pot legal and tax the fuck out of it like with fags. Focus our efforts on drugs that are REALLY bad like meth.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Is there any incentive, such as to curtail the cartels and to drive down law enforcement causes? I do believe the war on drugs have been primarily ineffective, due to methods from National Law not being translation well to local and state enforcement.

Also, 4/20...lulz. They asked it on 4/20.


National law focuses more on pot and minor drugs instead of the fucking zombie drugs like meth, bath salts, or krokodil.
1588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 5/2/17

Zyzoxing wrote:

They should decriminalize and leagalize them all.

It is not governments position to protect you from yourself. As we have seen laws against drugs do not prevent drug use. People who want to use will use and they should have every right to do so. It is not harming anyone except themselves. Is it a bad idea to harm yourself? Certainly, but who are we to tell anyone how to live their lives if they are not harming anyone. Many will argue that people who do drugs are likely to commit crimes which may be true but in many cases the reason crimes are committed is because drug prices are artificially inflated due to the difficulty of getting them. They're also significantly more dangerous than if a private pharmacy or company could develop a safer variation that's no more dangerous than cigarettes.

Let's also look at the issue of drug dealing. Because it's illegal a drug dealer or customer cannot recieve justice for being harmed or screwed over by their customer or seller. This leaves the only option available to solve disputes as violence. If a dealer could open a tab and then take the customer to court for failure to pay or the customer could take the dealer to court for harmful chemicals added then you would have less crime disputes that are based on drugs. So by keeping drugs illegal we in fact create more crime because we do not allow them to have a civil way of solving disputes and problems.

So lets talk on the last part of self ownership. A person has every right to do what they want to their body. Preventing drug use for "Reasons" is no different than allowing drug use for "Reasons" Caffine, Asprin, Cough Syrup are all drugs that can be OD'd on and harmful in large doses not much different than crack or heroin. The difference is one is legal to purchase because government feels they have a use and the others are not free to purchase because government feels they don't have a use. Because of this we have police chasing down and putting themselves at risk over non-violent crimes. This puts them at risk of violence because there's no telling what state of mind the person is in. Do they want to kill a cop to avoid going to jail for possesion? Let's look at possession as well. To own a drug or parafinalia you can go to jail we're wasting taxpayers dollars chasing people for owning items. Bleach is a poison and allowed to be kept in your house yet weed is a plant and you're not allowed to grow it. How absurd is it that ownership of something is a crime. It would be no different than if it became illegal to own Mercedes Benz. It's as stupid as it sounds... "You have an item therefore you've committed a crime." All because some person decided to make an item illegal to own. In the extreme of this... a person could techincally own a nuke. does that make them dangerous or is the perceived danger of the nuke being used what people fear? At the same time many think that the possibly of committing a crime is a crime itself and that's a slippery slope when the thought police show up.

If you can't tell I'm a Libertarian.


So in other words, it is the Government's job to clean up your mess when it goes bad? Who do you think goes out on those 911 calls cause some idiot decided to OD? Oh right the local EMS which is paid for by tax payers and is an extension of Government services. So yes, -it- is the Government's position down the road to protect you from idiotic choices, whether or not is through legislation or through services rendered out by the government funded organizations.

Drug crimes increasing because illegal nature? You mean like how Colorado has made them legal and has seen a spike in children coming into Emergency Rooms because of consuming marijuana? Right the legalization has really made an effect of not increasing issues on the community right there.

"justice for being harmed or screwed over by their customer or seller" I thought it was not the Government's position to protect you from bad decisions? Bad business practices or otherwise picking terrible customers is your decision. If you want to say its not their position to protect you, then guess what it applies to when you choose a bad business to buy from, or choose to sell to poor customers. So this whole thought in itself contradicts your whole first statement.

"non violent crimes" right, possession is not the issue, the issue is the potential results. Because sure owning is not wasting tax payer dollars till we have to apprehend, but when you own this parafinlia and OD, or cause other harm to others, or yourself you ARE wasting tax payer dollars when EMS has to come fix your mess.

Hell, if you want to throw this whole "Government is not there to protect you" guess we can fairly assume that it is not the Government's job to respond with EMS when you do OD? Should it be fair that all Emergency services are waived when found to have drug in your system? Should all legal protections be waived as to make you entirely susceptible to civil litigations?

Possession is illegal because of what can happen, same with speeding laws, driving while intoxicated, and so on. It is to stop the issue before it does end up harming people.
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17

MysticGon wrote:
Disagreement = terrible idea


No, studied for 35 years and found it doesn't work = terrible idea.

It kinda goes like this. You have some crime or other, and you say "some people will go to jail THIS long, and some people will go to jail THAT long."

Someone has to make the decision, and that someone is invariably biased. So what you end up with is a reflection of someone's prejudices, not of actual issues with public safety, and accordingly you don't get the desired benefit.

However, you do get all the negative effects of letting someone unfairly punish the people they don't like. Like prison overcrowding, and disproportional sentencing of minorities.

Experts have been trying to find a solution to this since the early 1980s, and they've produced no meaningful results. The best current practice is not to use selective sentencing at all.

28650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 5/2/17

cdarklock wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Disagreement = terrible idea


No, studied for 35 years and found it doesn't work = terrible idea.

It kinda goes like this. You have some crime or other, and you say "some people will go to jail THIS long, and some people will go to jail THAT long."

Someone has to make the decision, and that someone is invariably biased. So what you end up with is a reflection of someone's prejudices, not of actual issues with public safety, and accordingly you don't get the desired benefit.

However, you do get all the negative effects of letting someone unfairly punish the people they don't like. Like prison overcrowding, and disproportional sentencing of minorities.

Experts have been trying to find a solution to this since the early 1980s, and they've produced no meaningful results. The best current practice is not to use selective sentencing at all.



I actually agree with this, except when it comes to harder drug use. I'm not down with the whole, "well we can't stop them so we'll just give it to them." mentality. Doesn't work with kids, and it doesn't work with adults.
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 5/2/17

MysticGon wrote:
I actually agree with this, except when it comes to harder drug use. I'm not down with the whole, "well we can't stop them so we'll just give it to them." mentality. Doesn't work with kids, and it doesn't work with adults.


Depends on what you mean by "work." If you want people to not use drugs, then no, it doesn't work.

If you want people to learn how they can use drugs and still participate productively in society, however, it works a whole hell of a lot better than screaming "JUST SAY NO" and throwing them in jail.

The thing is, I know a lot of users. I used to use a lot of drugs, myself, but then I quit because I just didn't see the point of spending all that money on risky illegal drugs from shifty people on the street... when I could buy a case of FDA-regulated beer for twelve bucks. Meanwhile, a lot of my friends just kept using drugs and carrying on, mostly smoking weed.

But a substantial number of them are using cocaine and prescription opioids, and a handful are on heroin and meth.

The public perception of what these people are like is just plain not accurate. Yeah, the guy cooking meth in his garage is probably skinny and shivering with no teeth and last showered during the Bush administration. But I know someone at a rather well-known corporation who is dropping $300 a week on crystal. And I know a master machinist at a metal fabrication plant who shoots up on his lunch break every... single... day. I think just about every freelance artist or designer I've ever hired smoked pot.

These are productive, working members of society with families and mortgages. Nothing gets better if you put them in jail.

I think things might get better if they stopped using drugs, of course, but I don't fool myself that anyone could say or do anything to make that happen. So I tend to lean in directions where they would pay the government to keep doing what they're doing, instead of the government paying to repeatedly try and fail at making them stop until their lives are ruined and they're still on drugs anyway.

I mean, imagine if we take someone with a drug problem and send them to treatment. They leave treatment and go right back to drugs, because not only do they have an addiction problem, they have a "FUCK THE MAN" problem where they just plain want to use drugs. What now? Are we going to send them back to treatment and waste more money on nothing? Are we going to send them to prison and pay for several years of housing and food and medical care?

Why not just give them a $200 ticket, and make them pay for the privilege? Seems like a win-win situation to me. I mean, sure, you have people who won't pay it and then end up being arrested anyway. But those people are probably the ones out on the street committing crimes, not the productive ones with jobs and families.

Not a simple question. I don't think anyone has the perfect answer, really. I mean, when people talk about what tweakers are like, I think of my ex and go "she was absolutely nothing like that." But I don't think that description comes from nowhere. There have to be people like that, you know? The question is whether the solution for those people is the same for the kind of people I know. I don't really think it is.
528 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17
They're obviously idiotic laws.. Barring consumption of anything is absurd. It's a natural right. It's a human right. Don't expect the governing body/judiciary/law to think rationally or for the individual. It's a frivolous and flawed thing built upon for generations to control the masses in the least effective way possible because the governing body of any people is never filled with the best minds of those people; only the most convenient and/or conveniently biased. Man made law is just a mix bag of hit or miss arbitrary and sometimes nonsensical "equivalence" to the thought experiment that is human morality mixed with greed and people trying to attain power. It's an ever evolving system. We'll get there eventually, but don't expect legalization of all consumables at any point before the end of your or my lifetime. Also, "the law is the law" is a ridiculously antiquated statement. The law is more like a hardened gelatin than it is a stone.
28650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/26/17

cdarklock wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
I actually agree with this, except when it comes to harder drug use. I'm not down with the whole, "well we can't stop them so we'll just give it to them." mentality. Doesn't work with kids, and it doesn't work with adults.


Depends on what you mean by "work." If you want people to not use drugs, then no, it doesn't work.

If you want people to learn how they can use drugs and still participate productively in society, however, it works a whole hell of a lot better than screaming "JUST SAY NO" and throwing them in jail.

The thing is, I know a lot of users. I used to use a lot of drugs, myself, but then I quit because I just didn't see the point of spending all that money on risky illegal drugs from shifty people on the street... when I could buy a case of FDA-regulated beer for twelve bucks. Meanwhile, a lot of my friends just kept using drugs and carrying on, mostly smoking weed.

But a substantial number of them are using cocaine and prescription opioids, and a handful are on heroin and meth.

The public perception of what these people are like is just plain not accurate. Yeah, the guy cooking meth in his garage is probably skinny and shivering with no teeth and last showered during the Bush administration. But I know someone at a rather well-known corporation who is dropping $300 a week on crystal. And I know a master machinist at a metal fabrication plant who shoots up on his lunch break every... single... day. I think just about every freelance artist or designer I've ever hired smoked pot.

These are productive, working members of society with families and mortgages. Nothing gets better if you put them in jail.

I think things might get better if they stopped using drugs, of course, but I don't fool myself that anyone could say or do anything to make that happen. So I tend to lean in directions where they would pay the government to keep doing what they're doing, instead of the government paying to repeatedly try and fail at making them stop until their lives are ruined and they're still on drugs anyway.

I mean, imagine if we take someone with a drug problem and send them to treatment. They leave treatment and go right back to drugs, because not only do they have an addiction problem, they have a "FUCK THE MAN" problem where they just plain want to use drugs. What now? Are we going to send them back to treatment and waste more money on nothing? Are we going to send them to prison and pay for several years of housing and food and medical care?

Why not just give them a $200 ticket, and make them pay for the privilege? Seems like a win-win situation to me. I mean, sure, you have people who won't pay it and then end up being arrested anyway. But those people are probably the ones out on the street committing crimes, not the productive ones with jobs and families.

Not a simple question. I don't think anyone has the perfect answer, really. I mean, when people talk about what tweakers are like, I think of my ex and go "she was absolutely nothing like that." But I don't think that description comes from nowhere. There have to be people like that, you know? The question is whether the solution for those people is the same for the kind of people I know. I don't really think it is.


It may not be. They contribute to society and all. I some weedmen that I'd feel comfortable opening a business with. The amount of knowledge they have on what they are growing is amazing. They'd also never hurt anyone, they just wanna get high and make money.

That said the same could be said for gunrunners I may or may not know. Doesn't make it right and just with the white girl and other strong stuff it'll end up in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing or has less than noble intentions and someone will end up dead. Not to mention dealers are always looking for new clientele and the young an impressionable are usually their first targets.

Most people get hooked on this shit when they are little. Some make successes of themselves like in your circle but like you say that's not always the case.

At the end of the day I think attacking supply and demand is the best way. If some people are priced out because of low supply that's a plus too. Get drunk, smoke a black... I'm gunning for the legalization of weed so once prohibition ends on that start burning up.

But like with speeding in a car, go too fast the fine turns into an arrest.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.