Mexican Gangs may be moving into Meth

[cropcirclewalker]

Here's a imaginary scenario:

Let's continue on with the imaginary scenario.

So, the bad guys go back to the big city.

What do they do then?

There is still a demand for the bad stuff. Even in the little town that strangely forgot about the "Man With a Gun" 911 calls.

I think it is purely imaginary to think that some good ole boys with pickup gun racks are gonna remove the problem.

I reiterate my question.

When the illegal market for drugs dissappears, what crime are the bad guys gonna turn to?

Counterfeit Pokemon Cards?

Somebody please offer at least a suggestion.

 

[EttenBoom]

Here's a imaginary scenario:

Imagine a more likely scenario. instead of some homeboy with a "posse", it's the Mexican Mafia, Russian Mob. or the Gangster Disciples.

They're going to have the hard-eyed men and women in their pickups for lunch.

 

[Powderman]

Socrates, where do you live?

I am aware that there are some places where you can not do what I described in my short imaginary story.

However, I live in Enumclaw, Washington, population about 10K. What type of community is it?

A hunter pulled into the AM/PM store's lot with an elk he had taken. I was standing there, talking to a friend of mine. He saw the elk, got on his radio, and within 5 minutes every police officer in town was there, jawing on about the elk, and congratulating the hunter.

My son purchased a 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser for me a few years back from the local gun store. As we walked back to my truck, he (at that time just out of Boot) demonstrated the manual of arms for me--in downtown Enumclaw. This went on for a city block, in broad daylight.

Yes, there are gun racks in pickups. Yes, there are quite a few of them.

This is a town where, when the ANP (American Nazi Party) staged a march in Enumclaw, about 300 residents of the city showed up for the rally, and chased them right out of town.

 

[Powderman]

Imagine a more likely scenario. instead of some homeboy with a "posse", it's the Mexican Mafia, Russian Mob. or the Gangster Disciples.

As far as likely scenarios or participants are concerned, I grew up on the block in the City of Chicago where the man who formed the Disciples lived. I was there when the gang was formed. Can't get more likely than that, I suppose.

And, the scenario I described is not the way "la eMe" does things, believe it or not.

Russian mob? No experience, I'm afraid. What's yours?

 

[Powderman]

When the illegal market for drugs dissappears, what crime are the bad guys gonna turn to?

I don't have a specific answer--but I do remember when one of the big things used to be "running the numbers", or betting on three number combinations. Used to be quite illegal.

Now, there are lotteries in almost any state, and the game is called Pick Three, or the daily game.

CCW, a specific question. What is YOUR experience with drugs, either as an observer or past user? You seem to be quite in favor of legalizing drugs.

 

[QuestionEverything]

Powderman's opposition to drugs of any kind seems to stem from emotion, not reason. Drug use in and of itself has nothing to do with morality. When addicts harm and deprive others in order to get their fix they should be stopped, but nearly every living person has casually used drugs, whether alcohol or marijuana or caffeine or chocolate, and most emerge none the worse for it. Anyone who hails the early 20th century as "the good old days" must not remember that today's hard drugs were available for anyone to buy over the counter back then. Addiction, while unpleasant, didn't drive people to rob and kill as much as it does now because the substances were much more affordable before they were driven into the black market. And I still challenge anyone to tell me why the the purported benefits of the drug war outweigh the costs (hundreds of war zone neighborhoods and millions of dead innocents due to the illegal drug trade).

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Mr. Powderman, thanks fer asking.

I drink, coffee and alcohol, since I am an old sailor.

I used to smoke. When I had my bypass they told me to quit. I did.

I eat 1 aspirin a day along with my other prescriptions (Zocor and like that).

When they sent me home from the hospital three years ago, they gave me a jug of Perkasets (45 of them). I have 42 left.

When I was getting sewed up from getting a wolf bite at the accident room they sent me home with some Tylenol III. Haven't used any of those yet.

I don't get novacaine at the dentist. It screws up my coffee drinking.

That is my drug history.

I knew some fellow sailors back in the sixties that did pot. It didn't seem to harm the performance of their duties.

Now, I would like to present an imaginary scenario.

Biff is walking down the street.

Pancho drives up in his tricked out pimpmobile, pulls over, powers down the window and shouts, "Hey, Chewie, Ka Pasa?"

"Not too much." says Biff

Pancho, "Where is Chip? I haven't seen him lately."

Biff, "He checked himself in down at rehab. He's doin just fine."

Pancho, "How about you? Need any smack?"

Biff, "Sorry, no, I got all I need at the Wally World Pharmacy."

Pancho, "Hows about I give you twofer one?"

Biff, "Sorry, you still can't match those low prices."

Pancho, "OK, then, hows about some cheap Pokemon Cards?"

Biff, "Sorry, man, I'm trying to quit."

Pancho, "OK, Hasta Lueago"

 

[Old Dog]

Powderman's opposition to drugs of any kind seems to stem from emotion, not reason.

Seems to me that his opposition to drugs stems from personal experience, having seen first-hand what life with an actual addict is life, and from dealing with users, dealers and the rest of the criminal activity resultant from drug activity. Some of you with NO experience dealing with addicts or drug crime may be able to say that yours is the voice of reason, not emotion ... However, many of those invoking emotion here have the experience. So whose point is valid?

Anyone who hails the early 20th century as "the good old days" must not remember that today's hard drugs were available for anyone to buy over the counter back then. Addiction, while unpleasant, didn't drive people to rob and kill as much as it does now because the substances were much more affordable before they were driven into the black market.

Best continue your research. There was just as much robbing and killing -- proportionally speaking, in terms of population --, only it was a bit more restricted to the areas where the drug activity was maintained, the "other side of the tracks" or the "wrong side of town" as it were. Now -- the robbing and killing is in the nightclubs on the "good" side of town, at the malls where Mrs. Soccer Mom shops at Macy's, and the 7-11 where you stop for gas and smokes.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

There was just as much robbing and killing -- proportionally speaking, in terms of population --, only it was a bit more restricted to the areas where the drug activity was maintained, the "other side of the tracks" or the "wrong side of town" as it were.

Linky?

 

[Ivy Mike]

Old Dog, just because you may have experience with addicts and drugs, doesn't mean an emotional outburst lends any more credibility to the point. The problem I keep seeing is that many opposed to decriminalization seem to think that we're only going to be rewarded with addicts and drug problems while nearly fooling themselves into thinking prohibition is actually working. If prohibition is working, why is it just as easy today as it was ten years ago, to go out and get whatever you want in about an hour? Why is teen drug use up?

Last time I looked, prohibition didn't exactly stop these things. So, what are we gaining by having government waste our money and throw non-violent drug users in jail?

Just because drug use may offend one persons morality, doesn't mean it offends anothers, nor does it mean a drug should be illegal. We aren't accomplishing anything by locking up addicts. We can accomplish something by actually treating the addiction. Treat it like the medical problem it is, rather than a criminal problem that doesn't actually exist. I don't know about anyone elses morals, but I've got a real problem locking up someone who hasn't actually committed a crime.

 

[Skywarp]

Speaking from experience, my uncle has been in jail as long as I've been alive. He's an addict and will admit it readily.

In talking to him I've learned that prison is a great place to make contacts for when you get out, drugs are readily available there and that after a long while of being locked up it becomes a lifestyle.

He got out a few years ago and finally got into a rehab center and was doing better until he had a relapse. Rather than continue on that path he turned himself in to the court mandated system. He got arrested and they were gonna send him to jail for life (three strikes). The judge being at least moderately intelligent realized that going to jail forever wouldnt help him or his situation (obviously it hasnt worked before)and took the fact he turned himself in into consideration and gave him a reduced sentence and mandatory rehab upon release


Treat it as a health issue and not a moral issue and things will improve but the WOD is a colossal failure except for pork barrel spending for LEA

 

[Powderman]

Old Dog, just because you may have experience with addicts and drugs, doesn't mean an emotional outburst lends any more credibility to the point.

No flame intended, but you want credibility? For heaven's sake, just look at the news! Look on your streets! What more do you want?

My credibility does not come from internet links. Neither does my experience.

My experience comes from watching a beautiful and talented girl who used to run 6 minute miles without breaking a sweat turn into a waif who smelled of formaldehyde.

My experience comes from arresting a woman for possession of methamphetimine and solicitation of prostitution. This woman--in a former life--was an RN, used to work at Swedish Memorial. Now she's on the stroll. Lost EVERYTHING.

My experience comes from talking to one to many people with dead teeth and ulcerating sores.

My experience comes from seeing skinny guys toss around five or six big beefy fellas who are trying to handcuff him.

My experience comes from stuff like this:

Contacting a homeless guy; store owner called us because the guy was loitering. I make contact; he's OK with attitude, and also clear and current, ID only.

We talk--he seems like a nice fellow. He admits to meth use. He had a bit on him; I told him to dump it and he did. After talking to him for a few minutes, I looked him in the eye and said, "Hey, fella--you know that there are treatment centers that can help. Get off the street--get some help. Kick this monkey. You can do it, don't you think?"

This poor soul looked at me. The despair in his eyes was almost indescribeable--for a moment I saw a tortured soul, tormented almost beyond sanity. He spoke in a whisper, "I can't. No matter what I try, I can't. Please remember me, and say a prayer for me. I can't do this."

A single tear formed in his eye as I heard this. I have been to a lot of places and done a lot of things--but I have NEVER seen such sadness and despair in one person.

A serious question:

Why are so many of you trying to justify this stuff? Why are you trying to minimize it? Are you users yourselves? Why do you not see this stuff for what it is--a deadly poison? I am quite literally dumbfounded by your acceptance of filth.

 

[TimboKhan]

I disagree with the logic of using prohibition, and here is why. Prohibition did, in fact, lead to a crime filled system of bootlegging and murder. Men like Al Capone rode that trade to fame, fortune and notoriety.

Prohibition ends. Now, there are no gangsters shooting it out to transport hooch, but we DO end up with a very serious addiction problem. Most of us can consume reasonable amounts of alcohol responsibly and never suffer any negative side-effects (from sclerosis to a DUI) from it. There are many who can't. Look, alcohol can kill you. I think we can all agree on that. Legalizing it removed a certain criminal element from society, but legalizing it hasn't exactly been peaches and cream. I have said it once in this thread already, but I will say it again: You want to legalize weed, more power to you. You want to legalize hard drugs? In my opinion, your nuts.

As a side note, in various reported surveys whose credibility I can neither vouch for or villify, Colorado has the highest percentage of pot-smoking citizens per capita in the US. Our last election we had a bill that would have made possession of an ounce or less of Marijuana perfectly legal. That bill not only was defeated, it was crushed soundly. To me, this means that the population is speaking, and what they are saying is that they don't want drugs legalized. What the reasons for this attitude are, I have no idea, but that seems to be what we want as a state.

Also, whats wrong with an emotional basis for arguing this topic? Logic and emotion can exist side by side in an argument, and I think it is perfectly logical to demonize a drug that you have seen ruin a persons life. What wouldn't be logical, to me, is to see that happen and then rely on statistics, hypothesis and theory to form your opinion. Emotional or not, it is FACT that I have seen Meth ruin my friends life, and it is FACT that she is just one of many people whose lives have been ruined by this drug. It is OPINION that legalizing drugs will help anything. Maybe you guys are right and I am wrong, but when I weigh the facts as I know them against conjecture that hasn't been proven, I know which side of the argument I will come down on.

Thats an emotional argument, but it is based on emprical evidence. The fact is, I am not a particularly compassionate person, at least as it applies to other people. I never have been, and likely never will be. I keep my little circle of friends and family close, and to be blunt, I really don't care a whole lot about what goes on outside that circle. As such, I don't care if a junky can get his drugs cheaper. I don't want drugs around me or mine, period. I do care that the people that supply this crap get long, assault-filled jail sentences. Why? Because if they are pre-occupied with Bubba, maybe that little chunk of poison never reaches my circle.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Hey, Mr. Powderman, I love you like a brother, but..........

You gotta get some counseling.

You got your priorities all screwed up.

 

[Sindawe]

Our last election we had a bill that would have made possession of an ounce or less of Marijuana perfectly legal. That bill not only was defeated, it was crushed soundly.

Eh, I'd not classify the rejection of CO. Amendment 44 as a crushing defeat. From CNN:

Yes 557,758 40%
No 819,579 60%

Counties where the Yes vote won are:

Boulder(no suprise there), Denver, Clear Creek, Eagle and Gilpin.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/ballot.measures/

40% of those who voted approved the measure. If that figure were below 25%, that would be a crushing defeat in my eyes.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

bet?

I'm willing to bet good money that the people who have the ho-hum attitude about meth have never tried it, and that the majority of you have never seen what it can do in the long run.

how much good money you wanna bet?
and if its not to forward share with us your experience with the jenny crank weight loss program

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Some of you with NO experience dealing with addicts or drug crime may be able to say that yours is the voice of reason, not emotion ... However, many of those invoking emotion here have the experience. So whose point is valid?

My experience? Seeing a kid loose his leg to a 7.62x25 pistol round. Shattered the bone. Still not saying guns should be illegal. He made a tiny mistake, one second of error, and his leg is gone. Talk about dangerous. One second of mental misjudgement, and you can't walk. I mean you don't become a tweaker in a second, it takes a lot more than that.

Oh, you want a different emotional and controversial subject matter? Watched my cousin, a talented promising young artist absolutely destroy her life and nearly those of her kids with smack. What a complete waste. But, that was her choice.

Arguments like this:

I'm willing to bet good money that the people who have the ho-hum attitude about meth have never tried it, and that the majority of you have never seen what it can do in the long run.

Are the same thing as those saying gun laws would've saved the leg of the young fellow I mentioned.

What I see here as a huge stumbling block is that it seems the general public, and most politicians, want to label all drugs the same....kind of like those who equate machine guns to nuclear bombs. Or course this is all talk. Here's my take on it:

1) Personal use of anything, from earl grey tea to cyanide, should be perfectly legal for any "of age" mentally competent adult.

2) Dealing of manufactured or "nuclear" level drugs should be severly punished.

There we go. We find a meeting point between those libertarian types like myself that know that people are going to do stupid irrational things (like own M11 SMGs and jump out of perfectly good airplanes) and don't give a flying handshake what they do until they encroach on somebody else...

....and we follow through with a "but xyz serves no useful purpose" folks.

If you wanna make it for yourself, knock yourself out. You start selling it? 10 years. No plea bargining, no whining to the judge, you decided to sell it, you're out of the game.

I'm in favor of decriminalizing marijuana and other plant matter, in their natural state. Wanna grow poppies? Have fun. Sell heroine? You're outta here buddy.

To me anything else starts to become a "nanny state". It's sad what people do to themselves, but that's going to happen. Asking the DEA to play nanny to everyone with poor judgement obviously isn't stopping it.

 

[XD Fan]

For what its worth, I am with Powderman and Timbokahn on this one.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Demand? What Demand?

When I was in school, back in 1825, we didn't have any "demand" for LSD, pot, cocaine, heroin, blah, blah, blah.

The demand was imported.

It turns out that kids whose home life and/or social life is sufficiently broken can be seduced into trying stuff. We all know the drill. "Hey, Tommy, try this! This is cool stuff! Man, it just makes you feel soooo good!"

Under normal circumstances, with something resembling a comprehensive upbringing with decent moral and rational foundation, a kid will not have any demand for creepy, mentally corrosive, physically debilitating chemicals.

They have to be SOLD. I mean sold with a sales pitch. The demand has to be fabricated. Tommy will have neither the need nor the want without direct intervention.

You can, however, cultivate a fertile ground for planting such "wants" and the creation of such a demand.

Drive a wedge between the parents and the kids. "Educate" the kids into believing that "feeling good" and "self esteem" are more important than productive activity and demonstrated competence. Do this in the schools, using authority figures. Make it clear that authority is more important than whatever "quaint" things you're taught in your family.

Tell the kids, over and over and over and over that "kids are smart, parents are dumb; kids are cool, adults are lame; naughtiness is the true path to happiness and acceptance, moral conduct is boring and restrictive" and so on. Do it with cartoons on popular kids' programming channels.

Eliminate any of the belief systems that act as carriers for morality. Religion has got to go.

I could go on. Those of you who have your eyes open will already understand.

More and heavier layers of laws won't help. Legislators would rather look good than be effective. The stuff they write consists largely of codified posturing.

Our modern school system is an i.v. drip of ideas that are antithetical to morality and even rationality. The television programming of the day is effectively an electronic sewer, delivering the highest quality effluent to your living room.

A friend of ours (call him Jeff, since that's his name) disconnected his cable. Used the TV to play VHS & DVD movies and other selected material only. Pulled his kids out of public school. It took two years, but his "average" kids began outperforming the "A" students across town. And they quit getting into trouble. This guy took a pay cut and a lower stress job to ensure he had time to spend with his family. The kids' former "friends" have been in and out of trouble and had messy family situations pretty much consistently.

We followed his lead and home schooled for five years. The main difference was that we kept our cable. We put our kids back in public school when we moved to Arizona. Horrible mistake. Our son managed to overcome the handicaps visited on him and has turned out okay. Our daughter is another story. Jeff had the guts to do the whole package, and has had enviable success. We didn't follow through, for whatever reasons, and have had mixed results. Somehow, our daughter has managed to stay out of the chemistry. For this we are thankful. She has friends who . . . will end badly; some already have.

I must agree that the "War On Symptoms" methodology is simply not working. The political animals who are responsible for converting our schools into "socialism indoctrination centers" wring their hands along with the rest of us but, convinced of the rightness of their grand narrative, are willing to live with the collateral damage.

Raise your own kids. Don't trust the "public" systems. Don't trust the "entertainment" systems. Teach them right/wrong and how to take care of themselves.

If you don't permit the "demand" to develop, the symptom won't be a problem.

 

[EttenBoom]

Seems to me that his opposition to drugs stems from personal experience, having seen first-hand what life with an actual addict is life, and from dealing with users, dealers and the rest of the criminal activity resultant from drug activity

Here's a little of my experience.
One night, fresh out of a detox, I shot up two bags of dope with a friend.
Two was a little too much, and I passed out and collapsed, either in a subway station, or on the train (I'm not sure). Some good soul must have dialed 911, because the next thing I knew, I woke up in the back of an ambulance, in a state of delirium. They brought me to the ER, and after laying on a stretcher for a couple of hours, I walked out and went home.
When I got home, I shot up again. My family, my ex wife, and my friends had to put up with this for almost 20 years, you'd have to ask them what it was like for them.

A few months later, the same thing happened to my friend. No one was around to dial 911, and he's no longer with us.

I know one person who amputated one of his limbs with a coping saw, in a cocaine induced psychosis.

I've known many dealers, some were pure scumbags, and others were just addicts trying to support their own habit.

I will not go into any detail regarding my criminal activities, other than I'm grateful I don't have to engage in any anymore.

I'm very lucky, because I come from fairly wealthy family, who helped me pay for several treatments. Most addicts aren't so lucky. I also consider myself extremely lucky that I never tried meth.

My credibility does not come from internet links. Neither does my experience.

Yeah, mine neither. Yet I still believe that treating the problem as a criminal problem, and not a medical/social problem, does more harm than good. Don't confuse that with condoning drug use.

Powderman,
I have no doubt you have seen a lot of suffering as the result of drug use.
Regardless of whether or not I believe you let your emotions get in the way of reality, you have a right to believe what you do.
What I question is this. What has the war on drugs done to
1) Help addicts that want help receive it.
2) Reduce crime.
3) Prevent kids from using drugs.
4) Reduce the overall harm caused by drugs.


Would it not be better if we quit fighting an endless, unwinnable battle, and put the vast, wasted resources towards providing realistic help for people that need (want) it? Does treating them as criminals help them?
As I have stated before, science has yet to even find out what causes addiction, let alone the best ways to treat it, but instead of doing research,
we fight this so called "war", which has more to do with politics and money that any individual's quality of life.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

want the same thing go different roads

I suspect the things I wish for my family and the world are the same as marshalls and powderman. I suspect that we all would love a world where the horror of addiction was only a memory. I would diverge from their road to that goal in that in my view we have tried their approach and it has/is failing. And not because the cops and others aren't trying/caring enough. powdermans description moved me to tears. more so because but for gods grace the addicts he described were me. There is a cut off the head approach to current legal trends. I would propose cutting off the roots and allowing the plant to die that way.
I never want to go to another sensless funeral. While I believe some things are worth dying for being a slave to a chemical is not one of them.
I share and understand their anger/frustration with being involved in mopping up the carnage but my experience on both sides as well as my study of history lead me to believe we spin our wheels with our current approach.Tempting as a wall and and a bullet sounds for dealers the cash incentive is such that we face a situation similar to the human waves in korea.We can kill plenty but they keep coming

Heres a thought though I was enslaved in one form or another for 20 plus years. 14 years a free man ( and to an addict that phrase holds the kinda meaning once associated with a refugee who escaped the berlin wall) and still involved daily with dozens of clean and active addicts my belief is that we can best fight the scouge as well as minimize the damage by changing our current path.

that said i do understand the feeling other expressed and understand where they come from at one time i thought the same. one of the curses of age is that i'm no longer so adamantly sure that i'm right about things anymore or that even if i'm right it no longer follows that someone else has to be wrong as a result.
( who was the french guy that said {"its is not enough that i win.... all others must also lose})

 

[miconoakisland]

Legalize/Keep Illegal Debate

Alcoholisim is a bad thing. People still work and are productive and their insurance takes care of their medical problems.
Smoking pot is prevalent among a good proportion of hard-workers and they hold down jobs.
Crack addicts, heroin users, coke-heads and such also hold down jobs and are provided insurance.
I would venture to say, without any facts to back me, that most drug users are recreational. Same as most people that drink alcohol are not alcoholics.
Most violence with drugs come from within competing drug suppliers.
I think we need to eliminate the profit for the dealers, importers and suppliers.
Take the monies involved with interdiction, incarceration, prosecution of users and recreational users, and invest it in rehab. It would make all the current money spent yearly on rehab seem piddly!
Yes, we will have more addicts, but less criminals. Less money spent on inefectual out-patient rehabs, less money spent on jails and free up space in jails and prisons for the truly violent offenders.
Same rules apply for alcohol---drive=jail, cause disturbance=jail, beat someone=jail, etc.
Most companies have drug tests for hiring already.
The high profit/loss ratio of drug running is what fuels crimes, not the drug itself.
If it's legal, some will not use, some will use recreationally, some will become addicts(and require taxpayer support). If it's illegal, some will not use, some will use recreationally, some will become addicts, though most will be criminals and will require jail space, rehab, and continuing taxpayer support.

The amount of money spent on SWAT teams, entry teams, CI's, investigations, prosecutions, NARC squads, VICE squads, corrections, interdiction, intelligence, surveilence, etc, etc, would be more than enough to re-focus on prevention and rehab! For all the time police spend on enforcing drugs and drug-related crimes, it could be better used for other crimes and community involvement. That would also mean less funding for individual departments and cut-backs. So, of course, law enforcement would be anti-legalization.
I know that most LEO's get sick and tired of dealing with drugs and drug-related crimes! Most LEO's are sick and tired of dealing with alcohol-related crimes! Most gun-related crimes involve drugs. Some alcohol related crimes crimes involve guns.
Underage drugs are gonna be just as much of a problem as underage drinking. Just making a law against something isn't gonna make something disappear!
Where are the violent moonshiners? The violent rum-runners? The violent mob members enforcing secret "speak-easies", the clandestine alcohol factories? Out of business! Same conclusion could be reached with legallizing drugs and making it a tax-producing state-run institution. The precident is available! History is a well-founded basis for legalization of societal ills.

 

[TimboKhan]

What I question is this. What has the war on drugs done to
1) Help addicts that want help receive it.

No offense dude, but there is plenty of help around for addicts that want it, from hi-dollar rehab facilities like Betty Ford to low to no cost facilities run by the state and churches. If your an addict, and you really want to kick it, there are options. My ex-wife worked for Colorado Coalition for the Homeless for awhile, and there were at least 10 different and free rehab programs available to the guys and gals that wanted it.

Also, let me ask you this: You stated that you went through several programs. Obviously, it was not a one shot deal for you to get off of the stuff. If I interpreted your post correctly (and I very well may not have), I get the impression that you feel that the government should be putting the money spent on enforcement towards rehab. Why? You related some fairly horrifying s***, and yet it still took several treatments for you to kick the stuff. Why is spending money on rehabilitation that may or may not work any better than spending money on enforcement? Is it a bigger waste of money to intercept drugs and dispose of them, or to keep them around and waste time on people who can't, or won't, take the opportunity to get off them? I submit that your probably peeing up the same tree on that one.

Secondly, laws are nothing more than rules for proper social behavior. If we are to treat this as a medical/social issue, then what is changing? We treat HIV/AIDS as a medical social issue, and it is sure enough illegal to go around spitting on someone when you have AIDS. Many criminals have mental issues that can be treated medically. Of course, laws are still enforced whether your crazy or not (unless your really, really, really wacky).

Further, there is plenty of scientific evidence as to why people get addicted and how. Here, for example, is a link explaining the biological basis for addiction:

http://addictionscience.net/ASNbiological.htm

Dude, if anyone should know how bad it can get, it should be you. Would you have kicked your addiction if drugs were legal? Would you have done more drugs if they were cheaper and easier to get? Less? What would your incentive have been to kick the habit? Would your friend not have sawed his leg off (or whatever limb he amputated) if drugs were legal? You say that you "had" to do crime, and maybe that would have stopped, but would you really have been better off? I mean, the drunk that never gets caught drinking and driving is still a drunk drinking and driving, right?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

not really

"there is plenty of help around for addicts that want it, from hi-dollar rehab facilities like Betty Ford to low to no cost facilities run by the state and churches. "


not sure if its different in colorado but in the last 15 years the number of available rehab beds has gone down in the tri state area here.even in cash flush montgomerycounty md htere were 7 rehabs 16 years ago there are 3 now.
and its not unusual for there to be a long weight to get a slot in one
isurance comapanies will no longer foot the bill for multiple attempts and as a result the buisness has shrunk.
with the increase in addicts and the decrease in beds things are not looking good.

funny though we have lots more prison beds today

 

[Ivy Mike]

so Powderman, by your own admission, you are saying that our prohibitive laws aren't working. Your sad, sad stories are just showing me that no matter how strict the laws and how tough the penalties, people will still do these nasty drugs.

Now, does it make more sense to keep them criminal and feed the violent drug dealers?
Or does it make sense to remove profits from drug dealers and tax the substances to generate revenues to further fund rehab. Would it not be wise to control quality and purity instead of having some clown cook it up in a trailer down the street from schools (ooh, theres that children reference )

I'm sorry you've seen the downside of drugs, but you've made it perfectly obvious that prohibition isn't working.