I would be all for taking drugs if the impact of taking drugs was solely upon the user. I would put it in my "behind closed doors" category and "none of my business". But taking drugs does not stay behind closed doors, and there are so many ways it impacts others. Will there be anyone else on the roads when someone high gets behind the wheel? When Mary Jane finally causes someone to lose his or her job and requires unemployment, welfare, health care, food stamps, and other support mechanisms, whose money pays for that? Who picks up the tab when a meth freak defaults on all their loans, their credit cards? And when someone whose focus is taking dope fritters their life away and falls short of being able to contribute to society, who picks up the slack? When a crackhead is breaking into cars or robbing homes to get things to sell or trade for more crack, is anyone else impacted? Do druggies pay a lot of taxes so that they can be given hots and a cot? Or so that others can be protected for crimes they commit? What kind of kid usually comes out of a dope infused family situation? Any mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers and friends suffering mental and financial anguish because a loved one is taking drugs? Someone please convey how drugs fall under the rules of "privacy" and personal choice. Please make even one argument that would demonstrate that others are not affected.
No one said that others are not affected by someone using drugs. The problem is the policies that are in place to deal with drug users...They are NOT working.
12:29: Most of the problems you describe constitute separate crimes (DUI, breaking and entering, robbery, child abuse, etc). I don't think anyone will argue that these should be excused by the fact that the perpetrator is a drug addict.Regarding the welfare issue, I would suggest that this problem could be solved by drug testing welfare recipients.I would also point out that even the most ardent supporters of legalization or decriminalization would not suggest that the abuse of drugs by anyone is a good thing, even if the abuser is not committing other crimes. Addicts are a drain on society, as you correctly point out. So are chronic smokers and alcoholics. These are problems that need to be addressed in some way other than locking the people into cages.I'm not arguing that addicts are "victims", or even that they have a "disease". Just that they have a problem that needs a solution other than incarceration.One other thing that should be mentioned in this connection is the fact that there are many responsible drug users in this country. These people generally do very little (if any) harm to themselves or those around them. Why make them criminals?
This has nothing to do with the war on drugs but more to do with him making a bunch of money selling videos to dopers looking for ideas on how to beat the cops.
watch for the full centerfold spread in an upcoming issue of High Times, no doubt...
Good! Save me some money on taxes! Wont have to pay to keep a NON-VIOLENT "criminal" in prison.It's stupid that we throw a guy in prison for somking pot but let a drunk who beats the crap out of people off with probation...I don't support pot. But hey I for one am tired of paying taxes to keep these very low risk people in prison.
8:20...you are absolutely right on!!Merry Christmas to you and yours
10:50 Glad somebody agrees with me.Merry Christmas to you aswell.
Prisons are FULL of people who were SURE they KNEW how to get away with crime.
Mzcheif, your missing the point! Prisons are full of people that dont need to be there! We throw pot heads and minor theft offenders in prison but yet we let sex offenders, bank rodders, and guys who get drunk and kill somebody go free al lthe time.
What are bank rodders?
Post a Comment