Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 106 of 115 (598040)
12-27-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Empirical evidence
NJ writes:
And here's the thing. People love to sanctimoniously judge people who don't believe in the efficacy of government programs. It's all fine and good until they actually have to give their own money. If all of you feel so impassioned about it, then put your money where your mouth is.
But it is our money we are talking about. Right now our money is what actually goes to the War on Drugs, support our bloated prison system, pay the salaries of all the courts involved in drug cases, replace the materials and suffering caused by people feeding their habit, the loos of productivity and redirection of resources.
The Federal Government is still the one body that has a presence and authority everywhere in the United States. It simply seems reasonable that they Federal Government should be the best way to manage a reform.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2010 11:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 107 of 115 (598043)
12-27-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Empirical evidence
Okay, so here's the million dollar question: Why is it the government's role to provide funding for this, versus from private donation?
Because it's the people's problem, and the people benefit from the solutions so the people should be the ones to implement the solutions. Nobody else can be a stakeholder with enough interest to justify getting involved.
The Salvation Army isn't run under the government, PBS isn't run by the government, etc, etc, and do quite well for themselves and their constituents.
But the police is run under the government. The prisons are run under the government. The hospitals are run under the government. If there is a way for the government to reduce spending on these things - to the benefit of the taxpayers, they should consider it - yes?
You may think that it is impractical, but the private, charitable donations of United States citizens attribute the largest amount of foreign aid in the world, surpassing even the U.S. government. Of the $122.8 billion dollars spent on foreign aid, $95.5 billion was given by private donation, accounting for 79% of the total charity. That's certainly nothing to scoff at.
Not suggesting that it is something to scoff at. If some group wants to contribute costs or subsidise the schemes entirely, I'd be perfectly happy with that.
The government can't even manage its own books, it's now mathematically impossible to pay the staggering debt, and the dollar is on the verge of hyperinflation.
You make it sound like private companies can manage their own books or something, and that the economic problems are not in anyway influenced by the corruption,greed or incompetence of private companies.
But either way it is not relevant. I pointed out a government run scheme that reduced crime rates, reduced addiction, reduced usage for people who had failed all other known treatments previously.
Do you want to pay $120,000 to house each person in a secure building, pay for legal feess, feed them for a year every time they get caught or would you rather to pay $30,000 a year and stand a fairly good chance at reducing the amount of crime they commit, the amount of victims of emotionally charged crimes, the profits of organised criminals and terrorists etc etc?
And here's the thing. People love to sanctimoniously judge people who don't believe in the efficacy of government programs. It's all fine and good until they actually have to give their own money. If all of you feel so impassioned about it, then put your money where your mouth is.
I have - I pay taxes that go towards prescribing heroin to certain types of heroin addicts for instance. Did you read what I posted?
And you have too - you pay taxes to the police, you pay property insurance companies, pay for ambulance and fire services. You pay for coroners. You pay a crap load of your own hard earned cash for one of the largest prison population per capita in the civilised world (and uncivilised one for that matter). You already contribute for the social impact that drugs have on America - I'm just suggesting there may be more cost effective methods out there and you shouldn't dismiss them on the grounds that it involves the government because the current system you have already involves the government (prison, court costs etc).
So - Hyro - address what I actually said which was about saving the people money - not making them spend more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2010 11:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by xongsmith, posted 12-27-2010 1:30 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2010 1:57 PM Modulous has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 108 of 115 (598045)
12-27-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Modulous
12-27-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Empirical evidence
In an otherwise spot-on post, Modulous writes:
But the police is run under the government. The prisons are run under the government. The hospitals are run under the government.
I am not familiar with how hospitals are run in the UK. And I am not completely familiar with how they are run in the USA, but in the USA, I don't think they are run under the government the way Police & Fire are.
Just another example of how the profit motive has raped this country's health care system.
Correct me if I am wrong.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2010 12:15 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 12-27-2010 7:31 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 115 (598046)
12-27-2010 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Modulous
12-27-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Empirical evidence
Because it's the people's problem, and the people benefit from the solutions so the people should be the ones to implement the solutions.
But it's a people's problem to eat too, and to shop for necessities they need, but that doesn't become a government problem because of its indispensable nature, right?
So the question is why it automatically should be a burden to the government and the tax payer, when its other programs (the Drug War) has done nothing except squander trillions of dollars?
If there is a way for the government to reduce spending on these things - to the benefit of the taxpayers, they should consider it - yes?
They don't know how. They have no clue, as evidenced by the continued increase in budget spending. That's because they keep inventing jobs that don't serve a good purpose.
Please peruse this information at your leisure, and tell me how many of these agencies could be scrapped. I mean, holy crap! How much of this is really a job for the federal government? Fraud, waste, and abuse.
Do you want to pay $120,000 to house each person in a secure building, pay for legal feess, feed them for a year every time they get caught or would you rather to pay $30,000 a year and stand a fairly good chance at reducing the amount of crime they commit, the amount of victims of emotionally charged crimes, the profits of organised criminals and terrorists etc etc?
No, but that's the same preemptive mentality used to excuse going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We have to stop them here so they never get to us." It's manipulative and disingenuous.
I'm just suggesting there may be more cost effective methods out there and you shouldn't dismiss them on the grounds that it involves the government because the current system you have already involves the government (prison, court costs etc).
Yes, but I've been railing against that too. I don't see the need for the federal government to get involved. Justify this and you can justify everything to put some kind of spin on it so that everything we need should be provided by the government.
Case in point

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2010 12:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2010 2:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 112 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2010 8:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 110 of 115 (598051)
12-27-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2010 1:57 PM


Re: Empirical evidence
But it's a people's problem to eat too, and to shop for necessities they need, but that doesn't become a government problem because of its indispensable nature, right?
Food distribution, storage, and management is very much a government concern.
So the question is why it automatically should be a burden to the government and the tax payer, when its other programs (the Drug War) has done nothing except squander trillions of dollars?
The fact remains it presently is a burden to the tax payer. And the case I brought forward shows alternatives might be a lesser burden.
I'm not interested in a debate about the role of government, just ways for the taxpayer to be less out of pocket. Whatever happens - other people will pay a price for others addictions. Drug addiction is a social burden... ignoring it doesn't work, an iron fist doesn't always work, and where it fails, providing a drug in a medical environment can succeed.
They don't know how. They have no clue, as evidenced by the continued increase in budget spending. That's because they keep inventing jobs that don't serve a good purpose.
But I presented empirical evidence for how. Obviously the American government aren't doing it, this isn't a competence hearing for your elected officials. This was a suggestion for a policy that might lower costs, not one that American politicians are likely to find attractive! (Though if you read the article I posted you would note that it has won votes in at least one country, and it is - to a limited extent, law in the UK)
No, but that's the same preemptive mentality used to excuse going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We have to stop them here so they never get to us." It's manipulative and disingenuous.
The people I referenced are habitual offenders, and this system reduces their criminal activities and reduces the money they pump to organised crime, terrorism etc. This is an empirical claim for which there is some evidence.
Yes, but I've been railing against that too. I don't see the need for the federal government to get involved.
It doesn't matter who is involved - the point is that the tax payers presently lose money because of addicts. They lose money putting them in prison when they commit property crimes. They lose money by having to pay increased insurance premiums (or just losing their stuff/cash etc). They lose money paying for police officer to protect them from black market interests.
The tax payer is losing money. I have proposed a method where the tax payer could be losing less money.
I didnt think you'd be objecting to that. Whether or not your idea is better, depends on your benchmarks - but if burden to the good people of the USA is one of them, surely you agree that my suggestion could be better than the present system you guys have?
Since it is our mutual problem - how do you suggest we all work together to sort it out? What evidence do you have that it will work better than the idea I presented?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2010 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 111 of 115 (598071)
12-27-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by xongsmith
12-27-2010 1:30 PM


Hospitals
And I am not completely familiar with how they are run in the USA, but in the USA, I don't think they are run under the government the way Police & Fire are.
You need to get out to rural America. Corporations can't make money off of hospitals in a lot of small towns so there are many publicly owned rural hospitals. If the local taxpayers didn't pay taxes to fund the hospital in the town I live in the nearest emergency would be 45 mins away. I imagine it is like this in a lot of the US
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by xongsmith, posted 12-27-2010 1:30 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 112 of 115 (598080)
12-27-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2010 1:57 PM


Re: Empirical evidence
Hi again, Hyro.
I read your Case in Point. I found lots of outrage from tax critics, but I didn't find any suggested alternatives, nor an argument for why it would be cheaper to let addicts miss their methadone appointments, increasing the odds that they will relapse.
Methadone impairs driving ability. Its long-acting effect on opioid receptors is what makes it useful for treating addicts, so having the addict wait until she is competent to drive home is impractical: I can hear you now, should the state give them hots and cots for the night.
Nor are recovering addicts generally allowed to have doses of methadone at home, because there is a street market for it.
The laws establishing these programs--including the shuttling of addicts to clinics for methadone administration--were passed because economic analysis showed it was cheaper to treat addicts than to accept the economic burden of their behavior when they are free and the huge cost of incarcerating them.
So what would be better? How much economic damage would all those Bean & Cod addicts do if they fell off the methadone wagon? How much would it cost to incarcerate them?
Tax and government critics are generally opposed to programs that don't benefit them directly, and, IMHO, they do poorly at understanding indirect, complex benefits. They tend to throw around quotes of costs without offering a more economical solution.
Do you have one?


Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2010 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 113 of 115 (598147)
12-28-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
12-26-2010 10:32 AM


Re: Not a matter of generosity or obligation, but only enlightened self-interest
When one is addicted to something, education alone wont necessarily solve the problem. I can know what is bad for me and even why, but if it were so easy to simply choose to quit, I would have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 12-26-2010 10:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 12-28-2010 5:08 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 114 of 115 (598149)
12-28-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Phat
12-28-2010 4:40 PM


Re: Not a matter of generosity or obligation, but only enlightened self-interest
And no one said it was.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Phat, posted 12-28-2010 4:40 PM Phat has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 115 of 115 (598270)
12-29-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 7:10 AM


I recently caught 4 Bahamian drug runners off the coast of Cuba about 3 weeks ago. We recovered 45 bales of marijuana.
Don't take this the wrong way (any time someone starts off like that you should totally take it the wrong way) but, if you don't think marijuana is a narcotic, how on earth can you do your job if you don't agree with it in principle?
And I know lots of people do things they don't want to do for the money, but you don't do your job just for the money, do you? Yours isn't that type of job. It seems more like a career that you seek because you truly believe in the work being done.
But you don't...at least when it comes to marijuana you don't, and that's what you mostly go after.
So how do you do it? How can you arrest people, at gun point I imagine, for transporting something that you don't even consider a narcotic?
But there is another way of handling things that I also disagree with, and those are the people who facilitate addicts.
Then your beef should be with the job market and unemployment and a bad economy, and etc, etc, etc. That is what usually sends people to the drugs in the first place.
But besides, addicts aren't at a shortage of people who will facilitate drugs and things to help them shoot up with, that's a fact. Like Chris Rock said, "You don't need to sell drugs, drugs sell themselves."
What these facilities do is provide a safer way to do what they were already going to do. Which has a greater overall benefit to the user and society too.
These people are complicit in the deaths of the very people they try to help because they're enablers.
Look at it this way, do you know how many people have died from marijuana use? Zero
Do you know how many people have died because marijuana is illegal? A shit load
In a controlled manner, it is rare for a drug to kill a person. But on the streets it kills people by the shit load.
So which would you rather have legalized drugs under the watchful eye of trained personel, or illegal, uncontrolled use on the streets? That's what it boils down to.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 7:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024