tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post114633808131800361..comments2023-12-16T16:50:25.810-08:00Comments on The Heart of the Matter: Drugs and NukesBarry Eislerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146804986593279932006-05-04T21:56:00.000-07:002006-05-04T21:56:00.000-07:00Hey Alan D., good to have you here! And I hope to...Hey Alan D., good to have you here! And I hope to see more of you.Barry Eislerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146732021047107682006-05-04T01:40:00.000-07:002006-05-04T01:40:00.000-07:00I wrote: "b. Given the potential for drugs to harm...I wrote: "b. Given the potential for drugs to harm consumers, I would think part of legalizing drugs would be to put regulations in place, right? And some of those regulations would have to do with quality control."<BR/><BR/>Law Dawg replied: "Do me a favor. In your above sentence take out the word drug and replace it with the word fat and see how it reads."<BR/><BR/>My point exactly. We regulate food production--there is quality control in place. So you can rest assured that is fresh, pure fat you are eating, and not some rancid stuff scraped off the undersides of the counters at McDonald's.<BR/><BR/>Once you hand the government responsibility for regulating a substance, quality control becomes part of that responsibility.<BR/><BR/>I wrote: "Given the lawsuits against the tobacco industry, what legitimate company is likely to produce what were once illegal drugs that can harm the individuals using them?"<BR/><BR/>Law Dawg replied: "Aren't most of the lawsuits against them driven on the issue that the tobacco industry lied about the addiction and health issues with tobacco? Or am I reading this all wrong? It seems to me that it wasn't that they were bad for you so much as the industry covered up the fact that they were."<BR/><BR/>Hmmm. Good point. I'm trying to recall the specifics of the lawsuit that the State of Minnesota won. I think you're right.<BR/><BR/>Still, there does seem to be a trend toward expecting producers to take responsibility for the effects of their products. Lay's potato chips just switched to sunflower oil which is supposed to be better than cottonseed oil, for example.<BR/><BR/>Who knows where that trend will end up. But even if lawsuits against fast food places don't go anywhere, there is still pressure to provide healthier choices and to change products to reduce the nasty stuff in them. Producers are responding to that, even if only for marketing purposes. And they do lie in those efforts, leading regulatory agencies to create rules regarding what words like "lite" mean.<BR/><BR/>That regulation can only occur because of quality control, however.<BR/><BR/>I wrote: "Or are you proposing that we legalize these drugs and then tell people "buyer beware" and step back and do nothing regarding production and distribution?"<BR/><BR/>Law Dawg wrote: "Yes. In my worthless opinion anyway."<BR/><BR/>I think you'd have a hard time getting society to accept that. People expect regulation of legal substances. Part of that regulation is quality control. So you want pure "insert name of drug here" of known potency. If it's cut with anything--particularly anything that does harm--then consumers will be up in arms.<BR/><BR/>Of course, they might be easy to ignore, given that the majority probably won't have a lot of sympathy for junkies who are harmed by tainted drugs. Until kids are the ones who are harmed, and then I think there would be an outcry over why we are creating a separate class of regulated substances where quality control is not part of the regulation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146708650948464442006-05-03T19:10:00.000-07:002006-05-03T19:10:00.000-07:00Barry wrote: "There's no reason that the cost/bene...Barry wrote: "There's no reason that the cost/benefit approach I advocate should be applied to all drugs together; I think it would make more sense to apply it case by case. There are important differences in terms of addictiveness, the behavior induced, potential use as poison, and probably many others that should all be assessed."<BR/><BR/>This I would agree with more. I was reading you as proposing a global cost/benefit approach with an all-or-nothing outcome, and that I don't accept.<BR/><BR/>Legalizing marijuana, for example, likely makes a lot of sense. I don't think it's any more problematic than alcohol is. Maybe less so--doesn't it make people mellow, whereas alcohol can make people violent?<BR/><BR/>I think prescription meds should remain under the authority of the FDA, however, regardless. Patient safety has to take priority over some people's desire to use drugs recreationally, and I don't want to see the FDA's authority undermined.<BR/><BR/>Problems, I see, however:<BR/><BR/>a. If you only legalize some drugs, won't the people profiting off of illegal drugs simply shift to the remaining lucrative illegal ones and drop the ones that were legalized? So would this approach make any difference in the end? Except maybe to increase violence by increasing competition for market share of the remaining illegal drugs.<BR/><BR/>b. Given the potential for drugs to harm consumers, I would think part of legalizing drugs would be to put regulations in place, right? And some of those regulations would have to do with quality control. <BR/><BR/>Given the lawsuits against the tobacco industry, what legitimate company is likely to produce what were once illegal drugs that can harm the individuals using them? And if legitimate producers don't step in, won't you end up with illegitimate ones setting up shop to fill demand? At which point you'll need enforcement of the regulatory laws. Which might land us exactly where we are now.<BR/><BR/>Except I don't believe we fund regulatory agencies as well as we fund law enforcement agencies. So how much enforcement would there really be for things like quality control, and how many people would be harmed because they assumed that because the substance was sanctioned and regulated by the government, that substance was "safe" for them to use?<BR/><BR/>Or are you proposing that we legalize these drugs and then tell people "buyer beware" and step back and do nothing regarding production and distribution?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146688729779442832006-05-03T13:38:00.000-07:002006-05-03T13:38:00.000-07:00There'd be far reaching consequences for a switch ...There'd be far reaching consequences for a switch to a flat rate or a national sales tax. It would require a sea change in perception and behavior. Lots of people will be looking for other careers, but brand new careers will pour in to feel that gap.<BR/><BR/>Barry, an anecdote: I was at a political fundraiser in Philly for a congressman in Montomery County. He comes up to me, shakes my hand. "What concerns you?"<BR/>"Taxes," I say.<BR/>He launches into the choreographed, taxes are bad, hard on the middle class, I feel your pain speech. I put up a hand to stop him. I start in on my taxes aren't so bad, we need police and fire and soldiers and education and roads and whatnot, but why should higher wage-earners be penalized for having reasonable mortgages, or 'gasp' no mortgage, why are schedule A deducations limited, why can't they deduct IRA's, medical expenses, property taxes to the extent most of the other people in the country can, blah blah blah. I launch into numbers and what if's, draw pictures, explain I had no issue with the graduated income tax, but I had issue with slapping people on the wrist for having higher salaries.<BR/><BR/>His eyes glazed over. Finally, I said to him. "You don't have the foggiest notion what I'm talking about, do you?"<BR/><BR/>He admitted he didn't, but he'd have an aide look into it.<BR/><BR/>I told him to point me to the aide, I'd be happy to explain it to her.<BR/><BR/>Then I did. She didn't have any notion what I was talking about either, but she, at least, pretended to be horrified for my benefit.<BR/><BR/>All in all, a delightful cocktail party.Mindy Tarquinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02970872751327021013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146682469881753802006-05-03T11:54:00.000-07:002006-05-03T11:54:00.000-07:00Uh-oh, I knew I shouldn't have brought up the sale...Uh-oh, I knew I shouldn't have brought up the sales tax... this is my fault...<BR/><BR/>Rae, I agree that a sales tax would have to be designed so as not to be too hard on lower income people. To that end, I would exempt food. You could argue for further exemptions, but the more exemptions you build in, the more complicated the thing becomes, creating complication costs including bureaucracy, interpretation, implementation, lobbyists, constant changes...<BR/><BR/>MG, I agree that if we eliminated the mortgage interest deduction, there would be some kind of adjustment in the housing market. But that's only a correction of the distortion we currently have in the form of the government subsidizing home buying.<BR/><BR/>An anecdote: when I was in law school, bar exam preparation courses typically cost about $250. Then law firms routinely started picking up the cost for their incoming associates. Within a few years, review courses cost over $1000. If people have more to spend because some third party is picking up the cost, prices will rise...<BR/><BR/>As you can see, I tend to prefer an overall cost/benefit approach in such matters to try to find out what's best for society as a whole...<BR/><BR/>JH, I have to echoe Law Dawg's question. Is the moral element of being pro-prohibition focused on an individual taking drugs, or on the costs of individual use on the larger society? Either way, you seem to be implicitly accepting that one's stance on drugs is cost/benefit based, rather than morally based. With regard to those costs, I talked about a lot more than "time and money" in my original post. To repeat: "prohibition involves costs: diversion of security, intelligence, military, judicial, border, customs, and prison resources; profits to the enemies of democracy in Latin America and Afghanistan; hostility to the US when our military assists in trying to eradicate crops abroad... [and] diverting so many resources from the war against Islamofascism increases the risk that we could lose an American city to a suitcase nuke." You seem to decry legalized gambling and prostitution. Why? And would you prefer to prohibit alcohol? Not trying to be provocative, just to understand your views.<BR/><BR/>Dtodeen, thanks for the kind words about the Rain books. My leftist friends think I'm a rightist; my rightist friends think I'm a leftist. It's one of the reasons I could never be elected to public office. As for, "Right is Right, wrong is wrong," I doubt anyone would disagree.<BR/><BR/>Back to LD's question... is there a moral element to prohibition? If so, what is it? Is it immoral to use a substance that induces pleasure? Yes, but only if doing so harms the user's health? Yes, but only if use hurts society as a whole? I ask because I don't see a connection between drug use and morality any more than I see one between overeating, obesity, and morality, but it seems that others do.Barry Eislerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146681392637596242006-05-03T11:36:00.000-07:002006-05-03T11:36:00.000-07:00being once again allowed to deduct the interest on...<I>being once again allowed to deduct the interest on home mortgage</I><BR/><BR/>Whoops! On STUDENT LOANS.<BR/><BR/>my bad. Off to clean glasses.Mindy Tarquinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02970872751327021013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146681328435168342006-05-03T11:35:00.000-07:002006-05-03T11:35:00.000-07:00You're absolutely right, Adam. From Zero Tax Brack...You're absolutely right, Adam. From Zero Tax Bracket to a top of...36 or 39 percent now, I think - I'm not sure. however, the real taxes people pay are much lower than that, because of mortgage deductions and that's a great big chunk of the middle class. Also, they are in the best position to take advantage of tax advantaged items like deductions for higher education expenses, Roth and traditional IRAs, being once again allowed to deduct the interest on home mortgages and enjoying full deductions on Schedule A adjustments, being able to deduct sales tax. Over about 130K or so, I'd have to check, I don't keep up on it like I used to, the taxpayer pays higher marginal tax rates, plus have the amount of schedule A deduction they may take squeezed down. In addition, there's an, IMHO, punitive tax called the alternative minimum tax which seems to penalize those with higher incomes for being frugal and wise in their investments.<BR/><BR/>I've been wondering what a flat tax, or national sales tax in lieu of income taxes would do to property values. Without the deductions for interest, I'd theorize it would put tremendous downward pressure on the market, as potential buyers fall by the wayside. They may or may not be able to afford to buy if values adjust downwards, but that likewise presumes a seller can afford to sell. Obviously, the effects to the economy in general would be far reaching. It would be interesting if somebody did a study on general and specific effects and how long before markets corrected. Also, the effect on interest rates in the long and short term.Mindy Tarquinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02970872751327021013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146676034382308302006-05-03T10:07:00.000-07:002006-05-03T10:07:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adam Hurtubisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17193951132941597473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146672238947420812006-05-03T09:03:00.000-07:002006-05-03T09:03:00.000-07:00Barry,Gotta disagree with you about the national s...Barry,<BR/><BR/>Gotta disagree with you about the national sales tax. It's unfair to lower income folks. I'd rather have a very simple sliding-scale flat tax. Under 25,000 - no income tax at all. 25,000 - 50,000, maybe 10%. And so on.<BR/><BR/>You asked <I>Or is the objective to declare the immorality of drug use by making it illegal?</I> That gets back to the point I talked about earlier. Trying to legislate morality is simply not going to work. Every time we try, we fail miserably. Unfortunately, there are too many elected officials whose constituencies demand morality-based positions on issues, so they're not able, even if they want to, to approach the problem pragmatically. <BR/><BR/>In my view, that's why we can't agree on means. We can't think clearly about the problem because we get stuck debating our views on the morality of drug use - we are unable to take a step back and be thoughtful about it all.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, these are contentious times. Civil discourse and debate are rare, particularly inside the Beltway - I don't see a way to intelligently solve the problem in the current environment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146671980605837452006-05-03T08:59:00.000-07:002006-05-03T08:59:00.000-07:00Sorry for the typos guys...Gunny Smith failed to g...Sorry for the typos guys...Gunny Smith failed to give us english classes. I hate publicly commenting anyway.<BR/><BR/>Barry BTW: the new book, one word, fantastic!!! Amazing!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146671722138451522006-05-03T08:55:00.001-07:002006-05-03T08:55:00.001-07:00I am saying these things without Randy's knowledge...I am saying these things without Randy's knowledge. He's at work clearing porno from sickos PC's before there wifes catch them.<BR/><BR/>The Heart of the Matter: While I was in the Gulf watching grown men unable to fire there weopons, after Gunny Smith told them they were trained killers, Randy was in the jungles combating the War on Drugs. As a side note randy has seen the devastation drugs do at home too. <BR/><BR/>So while I told Randy ya gotta read this Eisler guy. He's seriously the best writer out today. That is damn near fact too.We both where taken a back by Barry's blog. Dude, I said sorry, I had no clur this guy was this libral. Neither did we know the commenters would be this libed. <BR/><BR/>Not hear to defend Randy, he's a great friend of mine. He's seen things beyond. "Fine Sctoch Whiskey" and judo classes. More then anyone of us. <BR/><BR/>The problem being Randy and I don't ponder our thoughts over whiskey. Right is Right, wrong is wrong. <BR/><BR/>I said a couple of weeks ago I was not going to post here. well I wanted to clarify Randy. I brought him here because frankly Barry is an assest to our country as an author. Hell not only does he drive a section of our econmy, he creates strong readers. To that I say thanks to Barry. Please understand that there our more then veiws then Frisco PoliticsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146671708801958262006-05-03T08:55:00.000-07:002006-05-03T08:55:00.000-07:00Law dawg fed, you don’t believe that most laws are...Law dawg fed, you don’t believe that most laws are based on some morality of right and wrong? What do you think they are based on? Theft, murder, rape, etc., are all based on some degree of what the society feels is right versus wrong. <BR/><BR/>Barry, you are suggesting it seems to me whether the fight against drugs is worth the time and money. Since you write that Mexico is coming to their senses by legalizing some drugs, it implies that you have already made your decision, and now want facts and figures that give weight to your views. That view in my opinion is why we now have prostitution and gambling legal in some areas. If you can’t fight em . . .<BR/><BR/>The point I was trying to make is that the decision has to be made on if the fight is right or is it wrong. If it is right, then the war should be fought as efficiently as possible. Drugs use is not victimless crime. All of society pays in one way or another. We have numerous laws on driving regulations. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars enforcing laws against drunk drivers, driving under suspension, and other licensing crimes. These laws do not prevent drivers from driving illegally. Since we can’t stop it, and it cost us money to enforce it, then maybe we should just let everyone drive without driving tests, eye tests, safe vehicles, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146638280806562892006-05-02T23:38:00.000-07:002006-05-02T23:38:00.000-07:00Barry - take your pick - flat tax, or National sal...Barry - take your pick - flat tax, or National sales tax to replace the income tax. I'm all for it. Hell! I'll lead the parade -<BR/>'Si! Se puede!'<BR/>'Tax Amnesty for the Rich!'<BR/>'Alternative Minimum Taxes for EVERYONE!'<BR/>'Nobody is Exempt!'<BR/><BR/>Of course, my reasons for supporting it are completely non-altruistic. Most of the rest of the country would end up paying through the nose. And there's the problem of prying the noses of all those financial gurus out of the Internal Revenue Code. <BR/><BR/>With respect to Joe. I'm all for personal responsibility. And I love it when parents do their jobs. But there's a reason CPS stays so busy. Until we can find some way to train, test, license and regulate parents, there have to be laws in place to protect kids from themselves and from people who would exploit, neglect or abuse them. There's a reason we call them MINORS.<BR/><BR/>Regarding legalizing 'drugs' (and that's the point, I've been trying to make. Not all drugs are created equal.) my objectives, interests, would be in saving money, reducing legislation and bureaucracy and providing a safe and healthful environment to citizens of this fair country.<BR/><BR/>We pay now for people who hurt themselves through lousy lifestyle choices. I guess we could troll the savings derived from legalization into covering those costs. Taxing the hell out of it is a great idea. This kind of government inspired larceny does much towards returning welfare checks back to government coffers. - Think State Lotteries. Yet, the proceeds effectively shift the output from the recipients to services for the elderly.<BR/><BR/>Or...maybe we could shuttle it into social security? How about education? A national healthcare system that doesn't make people stand in line for subpar care, or tie physicians into knots filling out those silly little forms? Or maybe a really strong, tall, big block fence along the border with Mexico? With razor wire. And cameras. And sufficient numbers of big, burly Border Patrol guards?<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I'm going off topic. Objective - save money, make life nicer and safer for people.Mindy Tarquinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02970872751327021013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146634346731648382006-05-02T22:32:00.000-07:002006-05-02T22:32:00.000-07:00I don't object to people frying their own brains.....I don't object to people frying their own brains...although the genetic gene pool is getting weaker by the generation. The drugs used by my generation (60's, 70's)have had a contribution to the physical and mental health of today's generation.<BR/><BR/>What I object to is the rising costs of mental and physical health care for these debilitated people that always falls to the states in the form of higher Medicaid costs. Right now in New York, each county and in turn "we the taxpayers" wind up with the burden, that is higher than in any other state.<BR/><BR/>Use the alcohol Prohibition...back in the day, as an example. When prohibition ended, it didn't do anything to reduce the number of people that were drinking. Look at the state of alcholism in this country today. Now it is considered a disease rather than a choice, and these people can collect Disability from the Federal Gov't...my tax dollars at work! I can't afford to pay any more taxes for people who choose unwisely!<BR/><BR/>Barry, you didn't say which drugs we're talking about legalizing!Bonnie S. Calhounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11769607640246518804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146630490054825732006-05-02T21:28:00.000-07:002006-05-02T21:28:00.000-07:00Peregrine, agreed, just because we got certain res...Peregrine, agreed, just because we got certain results when we ended prohibition for alcohol doesn't mean we'll get the same results if we end prohibition for other drugs. I would want my proposed cost/benefit approach to be applied case by case. More on this below.<BR/><BR/>Joe, you raise an interesting point about protecting people from themselves. More on this below.<BR/><BR/>Oakknoll, there's an interesting thought experiment in there... if it looked as though the US were going to end to drug prohibition, would drug cartels be glad, or distraught? I would guess the latter.<BR/><BR/>MG, don't get me started about a flat tax... okay, you already did, so I'll raise you: abolish the income tax in favor of a national sales tax! Yeah, we'll probably end prohibition first... Oakknoll, talk about your embedded bureaucracies! Congress would have nothing to do if it couldn't fiddle with the tax code.<BR/><BR/>Bonnie, you raise an interesting point about social costs. More on this below.<BR/><BR/>JH, I don't see anyone suggesting that we look to money to decide our morals. Where did you get that? From my proposal for a cost/benefit study? I'm using the word cost to cover much more than financial costs -- I'm trying to factor in all the items I mention in my original post (and I'm sure there are many more). As for the murder case you refer to, how is allowing people to use drugs the same as allowing them to murder?<BR/><BR/>You seem to articulate a philosophy wherein if the government thinks a behavior is undesirable, it follows that, morally, the behavior must be declared illegal (if I'm misunderstanding or mischaracterizing your stance, please straighten me out). More on this below.<BR/><BR/>JD, good point. There's no reason that the cost/benefit approach I advocate should be applied to all drugs together; I think it would make more sense to apply it case by case. There are important differences in terms of addictiveness, the behavior induced, potential use as poison, and probably many others that should all be assessed. It would probably be as short-sighted to advocate a cost/benefit appoach for all drugs together as it would be to argue for across the board application of prohibition.<BR/><BR/>Okay, let's see if we're getting closer to the heart of the matter here...<BR/><BR/>Let's talk about objectives for a minute. With drugs, the possible objectives all seem to come from things we're worried about. Are we worried that, if drugs weren't prohibited, people would hurt themselves with them? Or that they would hurt others -- for example, in a violent meth frenzy? Or that, in the aggregate, they would hurt society? Or is the objective to declare the immorality of drug use by making it illegal? Are there other possible objectives that I'm missing in this list?<BR/><BR/>Let's bounce those questions about objectives around a little and see what we come up with. Because I'm getting the feeling that our (and our society's) disagreement over means stems from an underlying and less obvious disagreement over objectives.<BR/><BR/>Thanks everyone for keeping this civil and productive. Very interesting conversation.<BR/><BR/>-- BarryBarry Eislerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17785333622697500192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146630109873300062006-05-02T21:21:00.000-07:002006-05-02T21:21:00.000-07:00Hmmm, JD...good point! Barry, exactly which 'drugs...Hmmm, JD...good point! <BR/><BR/>Barry, exactly which 'drugs' are we debating here? <BR/><BR/>I assumed it was all drugs...but you know what assume does...LOL!Bonnie S. Calhounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11769607640246518804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146624204019708492006-05-02T19:43:00.000-07:002006-05-02T19:43:00.000-07:00One of the things that continues to frustrate me a...One of the things that continues to frustrate me about this debate is the umbrella defintion of "drugs" as if there's only one form of intoxicant. <BR/>Weed, for example, is not meth. The physical effects are different, the mental effects are different, they're just different all around. To lump them both in the same discussion about "drugs" is simplistic. So when we talk about leglaizing "drugs" lets' be clear abut which drugs we want to legalize, lest we open the door for the specious, "you want to legalize heroin for schoolchildren" crap we hear from the narco-hysterics. <BR/><BR/><I>your arguments are all pragmatic, which is a pretty useless way of thinking.</I><BR/><BR/>This pretty much says it all about "Randy", doesn't it? Screw logic, screw what actually works, let's just go with what makes us feel moral and upright. <BR/><BR/>Remember when it was supposed to be liberals who thought this way?JD Rhoadeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123361739160525998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146607939811764212006-05-02T15:12:00.000-07:002006-05-02T15:12:00.000-07:00BTW, I log in as "randy mcfab" because that's the ...BTW, I log in as "randy mcfab" because that's the blogger profile that comes up and I'm too lazy to change it.<BR/>That some of your readers believe that to be a real profile says more than I ever could about the mentality of your supporters.Randy McFabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01866762714283911783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146607582241666342006-05-02T15:06:00.000-07:002006-05-02T15:06:00.000-07:00Well lookie there, Barry. JH and I are on differe...Well lookie there, Barry. JH and I are on different sides apparently, yet we both seem to agree that your "pragmatic" approach is morally reprehensible.<BR/>Measuring the costs of the drug war in how much California chardonnay you might miss out on sipping with young UFC wanna-be's that you pick up in the Castro may make sense to you, but it is NOT how most Americans decide policy. Most of us actually consider the morality, and the personal costs, not just the wallet or in your case purse.Randy McFabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01866762714283911783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146606579946076762006-05-02T14:49:00.000-07:002006-05-02T14:49:00.000-07:00Is money what we now look at to decide our morals?...Is money what we now look at to decide our morals? Would I feel better trying to arrest a drugged out creep knowing it was now easy for him to get his drugs?<BR/><BR/>We are currently here in Toledo trying to convict a priest of murdering a nun. It happened over twenty years ago. Why waste all that money on an incident that never happened before, and most likely never happen again? Why not just make it legal for a priest to murder a nun?<BR/><BR/>Does law dawg fed really want to invalidate what he spent twenty years fighting?<BR/><BR/>I must really be missing something here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146599744871542042006-05-02T12:55:00.000-07:002006-05-02T12:55:00.000-07:00My God, Barry, I agree completely with your last t...My God, Barry, I agree completely with your last two blog entries! Once again, though, I find a strange lack of moral reasoning on your part--your arguments are all pragmatic, which is a pretty useless way of thinking.<BR/>The drug argument should begin with the question of whether or not I have the right to hurt myself, not whether or not preventing me from doing so costs you too much money.<BR/>I appreciate that you believe you are Vulcan-like in your intellectual abilities, but so does Sean Hannity. Saying you're the only one getting to the "heart of the matter" doesn't make it so, and your elitist mentality is why I continue coming here to insult you.<BR/>Kudus, though, for not relying on Slugg to write/validate your last two posts. That's a big step towards getting over an unrequited love.Randy McFabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01866762714283911783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146598113369321882006-05-02T12:28:00.000-07:002006-05-02T12:28:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adam Hurtubisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17193951132941597473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146547426878929022006-05-01T22:23:00.000-07:002006-05-01T22:23:00.000-07:00I plain wouldn't want drugs to be legalized...We h...I plain wouldn't want drugs to be legalized...We have enough of our society being dumbed down now, with the effects of illegal drugs, why make it easier for them to get!<BR/><BR/>If drugs were legalized it would create a whole new million pages of additional laws, because then we'd have to come up with new frameworks for testing pilots, bus drivers, cab drivers and everyone else in the service industry that might put an innocent bystander at risk by their, now, legal behavior.<BR/><BR/>The only people I could see profitting from such a move would be the manufacturers and sellers. <BR/><BR/>That's it...the campaign to rid society of second hand smoke is now moving on to second hand drugs.<BR/><BR/>As our social woes continue to degrade our quality of life, there will always be an increasingly larger faction of society that is looking to escape, whether by legal or illegal means. <BR/><BR/>Making it easier for someone to ruin their health with legalized drugs only adds them to the roles of the physical or mentally sick burden on our over-taxed mental health system.<BR/><BR/>An if you think that by decriminalizing it less people will take them, that is wishful thinking IMHO!Bonnie S. Calhounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11769607640246518804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146467996435760402006-05-01T00:19:00.000-07:002006-05-01T00:19:00.000-07:00"I know what you mean about strange people coming ..."I know what you mean about strange people coming up to you. I am a crazy magnet. I'm not kidding, its something else. But in all that I've never been attacked by a strung out druggie."<BR/><BR/>So you understand firsthand what I mean. A lot of people don't get it. By the time the man off his meds grabbed me, I was so used to it I stayed calm, listened for a moment, thanked him for his time, then gently peeled his hands off my arm and walked away slowly. The friend who was with me was freaking out. Fortunately, fear kept her still and quiet.<BR/><BR/>Or there was the time a horrible car accident occured near my bus stop. The woman standing over my left shoulder witnessed it, screamed, plastered her body against mine, and wrapped me in a bear hug from behind. I had only heard the accident, so didn't really understand why I was under attack. I did manage to not panic and attack her. She didn't let go until I gently peeled her off either--lol!<BR/><BR/>"Keep your situational awareness up. I bet you'll be fine."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I've gotten better at it. Life's a good teacher. ;-)<BR/><BR/>"The question is - would making drugs legal increase these deaths? And even if they did do we as a society have a right to regulate people's actions in their "best interest?" That was my point about obesity, because it is far and away the number one killer of people in the US. And if we say narcotics should be illegal then how about tobacco?"<BR/><BR/>Add to that is "who dies?" As long as it's the individual engaging in the behavior, I'm less concerned, if they're an adult. If people want to kill themselves smoking, I don't get it. But I won't interfere with their right to do so, provided I don't have to breathe secondhand smoke.<BR/><BR/>"Criminality associated with drug use is almost all price driven."<BR/><BR/>It may be now, but even with studies, it's hard to predict what will happen altering the price structure.<BR/><BR/>"Sure no money and job are impediments to obtaining drugs but they are to booze as well. And what do we see? Pandhandling."<BR/><BR/>Are alcoholics as desperate for their next hit as a heroine addict, though? And is a sobering alcholic more rational in their thought/behavior than someone coming off of certain drug highs that they'll feel inhibition against violence toward others?<BR/><BR/>And I still don't want to see prescription meds go OTC. People are careless enough about dosing when they're prescribed. If they try to self-medicate, accidental deaths of people wanting the drug for health reasons would climb, I believe. It's not just doseage--it's drug interactions, and people often don't tell docs what else they've been prescribed, let alone what they're taking OTC.<BR/><BR/>"Finally, to your question as to would it be cheaper to cook your own meth or buy it? Don't know. But how many illegal stills do you know pumping out booze? None I bet."<BR/><BR/>Not illegal, no, but home brew is a big hobby. I don't want to see home brew meth supply retailers the way I see home brew for wine and beer.<BR/><BR/>Fun chatting with you, LDF. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22165230.post-1146461456243952232006-04-30T22:30:00.000-07:002006-04-30T22:30:00.000-07:00Of course social acceptance is not an acceptable r...<I>Of course social acceptance is not an acceptable reasoning for criminality, or is it?</I><BR/><BR/>That's what Mom and Dad drummed into me everytime I tried to convince them otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Hmmm...seems people drank alcohol instead of water during medieval times, didn't they? Because the water was so suspect? Or is that just wishful thinking?<BR/><BR/>Better we raise the age for going to war to 21, than lower that for drinking to 18.Mindy Tarquinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02970872751327021013noreply@blogger.com