|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3779 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 31753 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Of course. And I don't see the correlation that you claim.
But even if it were true, so what? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3811 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
Hi, iano. Your market analysis seems to have some counterintuitive elements.
How would addicts receiving free fixes at a state clinic have any price effect elsewhere? If the free clinics are devastating to black market drug supplies (and you seem to agree they would be), what other source of drugs could become cheaper?
How would addicts receiving free fixes at a state clinic have any impact on street corners or alleyways? It's not as if folks would be able to present themselves to the clinic and say, "I'd like to become an addict, please." I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past. -J. Mellencamp Real things always push back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 31753 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
But if they did show up and say that they wanted to try drugs, at least there would be professional councilors there to guide them towards less hazardous options. AbE: Also there would be an assurance that the quality and portion control, instructions and warnings would be included. Edited by jar, : add material Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Of course what?
You don't see the correlation between dismanting fences to consumption and increasing consumption?
I would imagine you'd want to do a cost-benefit analysis before making currently illicit drugs more freely available. Consider that your action could produce more people addicted to/negatively affected by drugs than the current policy does. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 31753 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
If so, and I doubt that, so what?
What is wrong with being addicted? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I was dealing with a view which would:
Currently drugs cost folk money. This policy would ensure drugs cost no money. A current (significant) impediment to consumption eliminated would produce (according to the aforementioned rule of thumb) an increase in drug consumption. That doesn't strike me as an intelligent policy. Your point seems to deal with only addicts so perhaps we're ships passing? Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It's generally considered a negative thing. If a policy produces a negative result then it's not usually considered a good policy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 6879 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Can you show any evidence that the fact drugs cost money is an impediment? If it was such an impediment why is drug dealing such a lucrative profession? Oh yeah, people steal and kill to get money for drugs, Yes I can see how that is much better for society. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 31753 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
So let's examine the position. Note that many companies have "random drug testing". There is a reason for that. A big one is that most drug use simply can't be detected without drug testing. The people continue to function and perform their jobs. Now granted, there are a few jobs where zero tolerance might be applicable, but for the majority of positions it is just silly. The current position is as clearly a failure and it is time to step back and try something different. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Fair enough. If you don't see increased consumption of addictive/damaging substances as a negative thing then there really isn't much to discuss.
-
The current system is a relative failure. Relative to a better system that is. Unless the alternative can reasonably be expected to improve on the current then there is no reason to change. The fact that the current has failings doesn't mean anything else is better. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3811 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
Well, I'd not have the government supply "soft" drugs--just get out of the way, and let our gardening genius operate. Drug cartels can't compete with the homegrown movement. So we're probably ships passing while preparing broadsides at all ports. I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past. -J. Mellencamp Real things always push back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 2049 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Do you have a problem remembering what the fuck you are talking about? The fact that alcohol and cigarette consumption is dropping directly contradicts your baseless assertion:
You claim that legalising substances increases their consumption. Your claim that legalising drugs increases their consumption is still just an assertion lacking any support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 31753 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Increased consumption of addictive/damaging substances was simply an assertion that YOU made. The question is still an open one and if the program I outlined was implemented I do not believe we would see an "Increased consumption of addictive/damaging substances". In addition, not all of the currently illicit drugs are damaging. Finally, I would say that the current system is not a relative failure, it is far more destructive to society than the drugs themselves. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Message 35
That's certainly the easiest philosophy... but what about the people that need help? That's who were talking about here. There's plenty of people using drugs with no problems, and they should be left alone, yes. But there's also people who have problems, and leaving them alone doesn't help and only makes things worse.
The last thing we should do is let addicts fend for themselves on the streets, no?
That's not all they do. Consuling, treatment, and education are all part of the facilitation too.
Well sure, if all they did was leave a basket of free drugs on the doorstep, then you might have a point. But there's a lot more to it. How many time have you been treated for drug addiction? How do you know what you know about it?
Drug addiction treatment facility workers are not enablers. The goal is to stop them from using.
Yeah, they bring in an expert from a facility and they come in and show the family how to stop enabling the addict and then take them to a facility where they can get treatment, which includes free drugs.
Because being an addict sucks... I think most addicts do want to be clean, they are just unable (hence them being addicts). But we can limit this to just those who don't. Now, we can assume that there are going to be some happy-to-be addicts that would rely on everyone else for free drugs and a place to do nothing. There's going to be some cost associated with that upon the rest of society, regardless of how we handle them. So, if the cost to house them and enable them was less than the cost to fight them, would you be for it then?
I get you not wanting people to have to pay for others to be unproductive, but its inevitable. Why not go for the one that is going to cost people less?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Member Posts: 5863 From: Austin, TX Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Okay, so here's the million dollar question: Why is it the government's role to provide funding for this, versus from private donation? 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. 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. 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. Now we have a president who apparently thinks you can just print more money. He's dwarfed the budget of both Reagan and Bush Jr. (which seems impossible), and I simply have no confidence in his abilities as a leader. 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. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019