The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 5, Thread 8.

6. The hidden victims
Tue, Dec 1, 1998 - 9:28 PM/EST
Gabriele

Ah - if only it was so easy to decide that drugs are ok as long as they don't hurt anyone....as long as only consenting adults drag a few in their own home - having a bit of fun with the weeds....however, as we all know and read everyday there are victims - infants, small children, addicted parents, stressed out social service workers, fed up judges, an apathetic society.

I don't believe there ever was a Polyanna Society - every century has its own demons but no CNN.....but the circle of people ready to help may have been better organized....nowadays, families are not living in the same neighborhood - sometimes not even the same country - so strangers have to jump in to clean up the mess left by strung out Moms and Dads and out-of-control teens....and pre-teens....

Make mandatory sentences for "users" and leave the "suppliers" to find a new way to ply their trade.....most users are the guy/gal next door in the pinstripe suit or pretty dress....going off into corportate America....send them off to a little R & R at the county jail and see how much stuff they will buy in the future.

Gabriele

9. Waging war with the wrong weapons
Tue, Dec 1, 1998 - 11:29 PM/EST
Bob Cortez

The war on drugs is a worthy objective. Everyone should want a safe and healthy society. You just can't accomplish it through the criminal justice system. It didn't work with prohibition, gambling, prostitution, cigarettes, suicide or bungee jumping either for that matter.

I think *all* drugs should be legal for anyone over the age of 18 to purchase from a taxed, licensed and controlled establishment. Drug testing should be required for anyone receiving public assistance. Anyone caught selling without a license or selling to minors would be dealt with severly (just short of being shot... or maybe not)

Here are some of the benefits of doing so:

1)Drugs would be at least as difficult to get as cigarettes and alcohol are now for teenagers.

2)Less accidental Overdoses or poisoning from "bad" drugs.

3)New tax revenues in sales,sin,and income taxes which could provide more funding for treatment.

4)Monetary and workload savings in our legal systems. We could actually wage a real "war" against abuse and hate crimes.

5)Renewed economic vigor for third world countries and our own farmers looking for cash crops.

6)Return on investment for pharmaceutical companies in the research and development of other beneficial treatments.

7)A return to the standard of personal responsibility and accountability for every individual.

All in all, legalizing drugs will give us a lot more ways to fight and win the war against the results of drug use... which should be the real goal.

10. To Bob Cortez
Wed, Dec 2, 1998 - /EST
Jb

Not to mention it would remove a lot of the hypocracy under which our current gov't & society operate.

Insightful post.

11. A spaced out country - no thanks!
Wed, Dec 2, 1998 - 7:54 PM/EST
Gabriele

Sorry _ but I cannot see any benefit to legalizing drugs....or having to deal with people strung out on a little weed......drunk drivers kill and maim and so do drugs....some slow you down - others speed things up - either way, innocent people get hurt....

throw the users in jail or holding cells and maximize their sentence or take away their driver licence etc......but let's not legalize and create more of a problem than we already have.

A whole generation of babies and small children are suffering because of drug and alcohol abuse....don't tell them it is ok their parents do it legally...the consequences for them will still be the same....

Gabriele

12. War on drugs
Wed, Dec 2, 1998 - 9:45 PM/EST
Jb

Well it's clear that keeping drugs illegal isn't working. Maybe we should try something else.

Drunks are just as offensive as drug users and believe me they run many more lives than drug abusers. Look at the millions and millions of lives destroyed by tobacco use. We cannot continue to legislate morality. Criminalizing an activity because don't approve of the affects or only adds problems - doesn't solve a thing - just fills up prisons. Why don't we try something constructive for a change?

Uh oh, there's that word again..."change" (would like an echo affect here) :)

13. Me again
Wed, Dec 2, 1998 - 11:58 PM/EST
Jb

Been giving this more thought...

I honestly do not think that if drugs were legalized more people would abuse them. That is like saying if you expose students to real sex education they have more sex. I know there are statistics to suppor this and if there are statistics out there regarding drug use/legalization please let me know.

Some people are going to drink, some people are going to get high, some people are going to overeat, some have too much sex, some people are going to obstain from overindulgence altogether and lead healthy lives.

Making something illegal does not keep people from doing it because of the potential consequences because they do not expect to get caught. If they expected to get caught they wouldn't do it and, therefore would be law-abiding citizens like us.

Making things illegal however does create a sub-culture of persons who may, with mandatory sentencing be a burden on the state for a very long time, not to mention be dis-enfranchised, and possibly unemployable for the rest of their lives, financially ruined. Well you might say, so they deserved it and you may be right. But too often the dealer/user/abuser etc is poor, black and uneducated with few other choices and tempted by the easy money.

We would be better advised to invest our money in schools and teachers than prisons. We are locking people up for hurting no one but themselves. We are so outraged at dealers for selling drugs to people because they are bad. So are cigarettes. Are you mad at the Stop N Go guy 'cause he sells them? A heck of a lot fewer people have died from drugs than from cigarettes and the toll on the families is no worse. It's no harder to lose a loved one to drug abuse than it is to cancer.

Anyway JMHO

14. drugs
Thu, Dec 3, 1998 - 10:13 AM/EST
Mr Shev

The drug problem is made difficult because politicians seem unable to bring themselves to discuss the issue, let alone do something constructive about it. There seems to be an extremely hysterical reaction to the drug issue from people who have largely had little experience of them, and the users themselves are made to suffer moral outrage because of this.

JB has touched on the point that removing the criminality of drug use would also sever many links that drug users have with 'hard' criminals. Once this link is cut, tackling the drug problem would be that much easier. Money could instead be pumped into preventative measures, treatment, couselling and tacking other crimes which are usually connected with drugs - murder and robbery etc. People who have a joint now and again would not be consorting with criminals. The argument that soft drugs lead onto hard drugs is true because people who start with soft drugs are introduced to harder, and more profitable, drugs by criminals whose only wish is to make money. Once the criminal chain is broken we can begin our tentative steps to tackling the drug problem.

Sorry, I've rambled a bit - but I think you see what I'm getting at...

Mr Shev

18. just a thought
Fri, Dec 4, 1998 - 10:38 AM/EST
roadtec

while we may debate the good and evil of the use of drugs .
One fact remans Drugs Kill (along with being a high profict factor)
Why is it so hard to understand that most other countrys settle this problem with a speedy trail and quick bullit to the head..(if the suspect even makes it to jail.)
Even in the us it has come to the most effican way to discouraging drug dealing is just kill off the dealer , suppliers , confiscate all money arrest and prosicute those banks that will handle the large amounts of Cash that is generated by the sale of duges. Even to the extent of seasing the banks accounts. Put the money into programs for rehablitaton.. Make it a true war empower the military to Shoot on site dug dealers.. No i'm not for suspending right to trail. But most drug dealers,suppliers,transporters all are armed.. So just shoot them the 49 cent bullit is a lot cheeper than the millions spent on trails and then housing them..They get free food , lodges , education , legal help , and medical care..
I don't I work for a living and pay taxes .. so what do u think?

19. Yeah, great idea
Fri, Dec 4, 1998 - 8:43 PM/EST
Jb

I don't know roadtec, shoot them on the spot?

It seems that there was a young hispanic man, 23 years old, married father of two small children, soccer coach, all-around nice guy. One night the police knocked on his door. Being a law abiding citizen, he opened the door. Although there were witnesses in the apartment, I do not know what followed from there, but they ended up in the man's bedroom where six police officers emptied 33 bullets into the room. He was shot nine times in the back. Twice in the head.

It seems some drunk cracker on the sidewalk below was being arrested for public intoxication. In exchange for leniency I guess, he told them he bought drugs from "up there" pointing to the second floor of the apartment complex. You can put it together from here.

That swift justice is often wrong. The man who was shot and killed was not a drug dealer, not a drug user and not a gun owner. I'd be willing to bet a month's salary that if you were the accused you'd be wanting all those civil rights you are so cavalierly giving away.

You know what bothers me most about the guy being shot? One of those officers reloaded.

21. Drug Dealer Justice...
Sat, Dec 5, 1998 - 5:17 PM/EST
Prop

Hmmm...
I am hardly a bleeding heart liberal but don't you think that the reason the drug dealers are in the trade is because of the profits to be made?

If the drugs are legalized under government control then you can control the supply and quality of the drugs. Revenues from the drugs then flow into the public coffers rather than a Colombian (or Swiss) bank account. Abusers can be identified and help given to them.

This country tried to fight a war on a different and much more deadly drug during the 1920's. That drug was alcohol and the net result of the war was that the drug lords of that day became richer and richer. Eventually the government had to repeal the laws.

The drug user on the street is the victim not the villain. The way to get the villains out of the picture is to make it unprofitable for them to continue.

In the computer field, companies are concerned with security. Some approach it with a Fort Knox type mentality. The reality is that hackers are going to get into your corporate system no matter what security method you use. Buttt... if you make it unprofitable for them (knowledge or monetarily wise) to hack your system they will leave you alone.

To adopt a hawk attitude toward drug dealers does little toward winning the war on drugs. For every dealer you blow away another one will come forward to take over the territory. But if you make it unprofitable for them to continue they will all go away. period.

Prop

22. HMMM
Sun, Dec 6, 1998 - 11:59 AM/EST
Caelain

I would hope the "war" doesn't go in the deterent direction some of you are talking about. It would mean that one of my Aunts would have received a bullet back in the 80s. Very wrong. She's recovered now and is a very beautiful person.

I don't know about legalizing heroine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamines. But I do think putting my old friend, John, away for five mandatory, federal years for growing his own pot is not a just action. John never drank, and was a productive member of society.

But, keep in mind, where there is money to be made, there are politicians to be had.