Thoughts on legalizing heroin

[tous]

Consider, if heroin and whatever other narcotic is made legal and sold as a product, how many addicts have jobs or are in a condition where they can show up on time and be productive in commerce?

Unless said happy drugs are being given away free, the addicts will continue to be on the public dole and when they exhaust that, they will steal what they have to to get what they want.

Does anyone imagine that alcoholics all have well-paying jobs, don't inhabit the tent jungles and are loath to steal your wallet for their drug of choice?

Or that heroin users would be different?

 

[Borg warner]

Let's say we legalize heroin nationally like some states have done with Marijuana (and I live in one of those states so I know something about it even though I'm not a user.) as soon as it was allowed to be produced and sold as a legal product. People emerged that wanted to go into the business and then other people came forward to operate the dispensaries and tax dollars were not needed to provide the product to the end users.

But with marijuana. where do you think the seeds came from to grow all the plants? They came from plants that were previously illegal and were available in a sizeable quantity. The state government did not supply the seeds to grow the marijuana. Back in the 60's most of the pot came from Mexico but since then people have been growing if in the US and no one bothers smuggling 2.2 pound "Bricks" of MJ into the states from Mexico anymore since it's easier to smuggle processed heroin and cocaine and now most of the pot in the US is provided by large and small-scale growers, legal and other wise.

But as far as heroin, the lower quality black tar heroin cones from Mexico, and the better white powder heroin also comes from Mexico but a lot of it comes from Columbia and other parts of south America and also from Southeast Asia. So for heroin to be legalized on a national basis, the Federal government would have to go into heroin production on a large scale Andnot only production but distribution and any time the government is involved in anything it becomes a major cluster****.

And there's a big difference between marijuana and heroin as far as making it available to the general public. Heroin is highly addictive. And it isn't something you can just try a few times just for fun and then go on with you life. Once you're an addict your life is different. I've known people who kicked heroin but it wasn't easy. So once heroin is legalized by the government, then the government is responsible for the people using it many of whom will not be able to function in society without provide food, clothing and shelter. In other words a whole new welfare class.

So maybe instead of legalizing heroin so more people could become addicts we'd be better off just bringing back the Opium den. That way anyone who just wants to spend their life in oblivion would just need a few bowls of rice and a minimum amount of food every day, a cot to sleep on, and running water and a toilet and maybe a shower would be a good idea too.

 

 

 

[Wyzz Kydd]

2 minutes ago, tous said:

Consider, if heroin and whatever other narcotic is made legal and sold as a product, how many addicts have jobs or are in a condition where they can show up on time and be productive in commerce?

Unless said happy drugs are being given away free, the addicts will continue to be on the public dole and when they exhaust that, they will steal what they have to to get what they want.

Does anyone imagine that alcoholics all have well-paying jobs, don't inhabit the tent jungles and are loath to steal your wallet for their drug of choice?

Or that heroin users would be different?

 

Good point. However, if those drugs were legal, the reduction in the cost of production due to there no longer being a potential incarceration premium would result in lower prices and less need to steal to feed a habit. Put simply, supply would go up and prices would fall. 

Add in regulation for potency and purity and you also get less accidental ODs.

[Wyzz Kydd]

8 minutes ago, Borg warner said:

Let's say we legalize heroin nationally like some states have done with Marijuana (and I live in one of those states so I know something about it even though I'm not a user.) as soon as it was allowed to be produced and sold as a legal product. People emerged that wanted to go into the business and then other people came forward to operate the dispensaries and tax dollars were not needed to provide the product to the end users.

But with marijuana. where do you think the seeds came from to grow all the plants? They came from plants that were previously illegal and were available in a sizeable quantity. The state government did not supply the seeds to grow the marijuana. Back in the 60's most of the pot came from Mexico but since then people have been growing if in the US and no one bothers smuggling 2.2 pound "Bricks" of MJ into the states from Mexico anymore since it's easier to smuggle processed heroin and cocaine and now most of the pot in the US is provided by large and small-scale growers, legal and other wise.

But as far as heroin, the lower quality black tar heroin cones from Mexico, and the better white powder heroin also comes from Mexico but a lot of it comes from Columbia and other parts of south America and also from Southeast Asia. So for heroin to be legalized on a national basis, the Federal government would have to go into heroin production on a large scale Andnot only production but distribution and any time the government is involved in anything it becomes a major cluster****.

And there's a big difference between marijuana and heroin as far as making it available to the general public. Heroin is highly addictive. And it isn't something you can just try a few times just for fun and then go on with you life. Once you're an addict your life is different. I've known people who kicked heroin but it wasn't easy. So once heroin is legalized by the government, then the government is responsible for the people using it many of whom will not be able to function in society without provide food, clothing and shelter. In other words a whole new welfare class.

So maybe instead of legalizing heroin so more people could become addicts we'd be better off just bringing back the Opium den. That way anyone who just wants to spend their life in oblivion would just need a few bowls of rice and a minimum amount of food every day, a cot to sleep on, and running water and a toilet and maybe a shower would be a good idea too.

 

 

 

Why on earth do you think the government would have to produce it? Do you really think there would be a shortage of companies looking to make a profit off of addicts? Have you ever heard of cigarettes? Phillip Morris anyone?

Have you read about smartphones and the research that lead to our current generation of addicts? Apple is in the business of creating addicts, deliberately. I guarantee you Steve Jobs, if he were alive, would be on top of his kid’s cell phone usage.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Wyzz Kydd

[Mrs.Cicero]

I remain unconvinced.  My "feelings" say the gov't should get out of the business of saving stupid people, but that's just because I have no patience with idiots, not because I have any logical grounds to say that.

[PATCHMAN]

51 minutes ago, ASH said:

what about  Colorado  ?

 

Yeah, I can see Colorado idiotic enough to legalize heroin but places like SF and Seattle have already beaten Colorado to it.   

[PATCHMAN]

As I've said over and over agin, once you legalize/normalize marijuana and drug use, you'll end up normalizing sexual exploitation of children.  Same arguments apply: tax revenue, regulate the industry to make it "safer" for everyone; aggrieved parties would avail themselves to the courts and the law; costs of production would go down, etc...    

[Wyzz Kydd]

5 minutes ago, PATCHMAN said:

As I've said over and over agin, once you legalize/normalize marijuana and drug use, you'll end up normalizing sexual exploitation of children.  Same arguments apply: tax revenue, regulate the industry to make it "safer" for everyone; aggrieved parties would avail themselves to the courts and the law; costs of production would go down, etc...    

I think a legitimate argument can be made that drug consumption only harms the consumer. That’s clearly not true about exploiting minors.

[ASH]

Just now, Wyzz Kydd said:

I think a legitimate argument can be made that drug consumption only harms the consumer. That’s clearly not true about exploiting minors.

just ask joe biden lol

[Historian]

2 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I agree with a lot of what you said, most especially that my rights end when they impinge on yours and vice versa. But, semantically your answer is still non-responsive to the question of whether the government has the right to dictate what individuals do to themselves. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of victimless crimes or crimes where the victim and the perpetrator are the same person.

 

Thank you for your kind comments.

If i may continue.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime.  The nature of the word indicates...someone has been wronged.

Government intrusion starts with the government by the people and for the people.

The elected officials of our nation and states have agreed this product is unlawful for many of the reasons. That was established by virtue of your elected officials and the passing of laws.  In all cases, at the state and federal level, heroin has been declared a dangerous unlawful product.

The people who made these choices...are your elected officials.  If you had elected El Chapo you could have had all the nose candy you want at market prices.

As long as the legislative officials agree something is illegal you will have a judicial system that enforces that law.

As long as you have a law to enforce you will be someone chartered to carry out that order.

The system is designed to allow intrusion under the court of law...when...lawful.  Anything else is a crime.   Thus the rules of the street. Miranda. Terry stops. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are all lawful intrusions.   All the way to detainment, arrest, and first appearance.  It's all about incremental intrusion based on a checks and balance system.

As for your comments regarding legalization and how it would reduce crime?  The reality is you move your costs from prison systems to moving it into mental health and health systems. The vast majority of these people will be arrested for associated crimes. You trade one problem for another.

As long as the product there you will deal with the issues the product causes. 

The morality issue is very clear to me.    Where is the morality in allowing a product who's only purpose is to addict and kill the user at the expense of nations, cities, communities and families?   How can a government based on the rule of law as imposed by the people let stand something as evil as heroin"? I see no compassion or morality in a government that allows such evil to be the norm.

Go ahead...we don't care...try the black tar.  If you live...you'll want more...and stop at very little to get it.  Want something new? How about some Mexican brown?

The system is not designed this way. Nor would it be a moral system that places any individuals rights as more important than any other citizen's rights.

You keep focusing on the individual.  I keep trying to say it's much bigger than just the person and their choices.  You keep saying a person should be able to make choices without due care to the system they are part of.  It doesn't work that way with this drug.

Heroin is not a personal choice.  It's a choice that affects a lot more people.  What ends up in the spoon...came from somewhere, supports other issues, and affects more than one person.   I think i established that with my previous posts.

As for seat belts:  That was a decision made by Robert McNamara (first president of Ford Motor Cars without the last name of Ford) and was done to make money as well as preserve lives.   Most states didn't have seat belt laws until the late 80s or 90s.   But the choice to put them in cars....was McNamara's.

I don't agree with seat belt laws: But think your nuts if you don't use them.  I also don't use low flow toilets...and may or may not have some Canadian standard capacity toilets at home.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Historian

[railfancwb]

Opium first,  then heroin.
China kinda rolled with it.

Didn’t the British actually fight war(s) with China because China tried to end the opium trade and the British merchants wanted that highly profitable business to continue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Borg warner]

4 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

Why on earth do you think the government would have to produce it? Do you really think there would be a shortage of companies looking to make a profit off of addicts? Have you ever heard of cigarettes? Phillip Morris anyone?

Have you read about smartphones and the research that lead to our current generation of addicts? Apple is in the business of creating addicts, deliberately. I guarantee you Steve Jobs, if he were alive, would be on top of his kid’s cell phone usage.

Why on earth do you think the government would NOT be involved if the drug was legalized nationally? And if not in production, sales and distribution then in dealing with the social consequences of making the drug more widely available to a greater proportion of the population?

As far as cell phone usage that's another issue but it has indeed become an addiction but we don't need more addictions of any kind in this country especially with something that's not only psychologically addicting but physically addicting and physically debilitating as well.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Borg warner

[G26S239]

9 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

What business is if of the government what adults do in the privacy of their homes?  

Hmmm. Junkies having homes to slam dope in. That is an interesting notion. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Gram Parsons, John Belushi and Jerry Garcia all clearly had the means to pay for their preferred drug and a home but I doubt they represent the norm as far as junkies go. People who slam dope generally aren't considered top notch employee material so a heroin addict maintaining a job while getting high daily on cheap legal heroin doesn't seem like a realistic expectation. The entertainers noted above paying their own way doesn't mean that addicts who are not wealthy will do as well paying their own way. The junkies making their home in the Civic Center BART Station in SF certainly don't pay their own way and neither do the alcohol addicts who reside there in spite of their alcohol being legal.

As for the opioid Crisis, that is just addicts being self absorbed scum. Let them die. Every one of them that checks out choking on vomit, dying from Hep C or hypothermia is one less POS being a public nuisance or worse.

[G26S239]

.....

Edited April 3, 2019 by G26S239
Double tap.

[minervadoe]

Heroin is highly addictive.  An overdose will kill you.

Any comparison to legalizing marijuana is not valid past this point, since you cannot die from an overdose of marijuana.  Also, pot is not physically addictive. 

With all of the restrictions that the government has put onto oxy prescriptions, I cannot imagine that there is any possibility that heroin will become legal. 

 

[Huaco Kid]

6 hours ago, railfancwb said:

Didn’t the British actually fight war(s) with China because China tried to end the opium trade and the British merchants cartels wanted that highly profitable business to continue?

Vive el King!!

[PATCHMAN]

8 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I think a legitimate argument can be made that drug consumption only harms the consumer. That’s clearly not true about exploiting minors.

Drug consumption only harms the consumer?  Only themselves are the victims?  That's the deep, blind flaw in your argument.  

Edited April 3, 2019 by PATCHMAN

[Wyzz Kydd]

I want to preface my remarks by saying I enjoy the debate and hope that all involved see it as just that, a debate, not an argument.  

Three quick points.

1. Yes laws outlawing certain drugs have been passed and are currently being enforced, I know that.  However, under our constitution you can't just pass any law you want and it's therefore legitimate.  An extreme example: can we pass a law that says every adult under 5 feet tall can't vote?  According to Randy Newman we know short people are bad. Would that be constitutional?  Clearly no, there are limits on the will of the majority.

2. Many of you keep repeating that private use of drugs harms more than the consumer, but not one of you has yet to offer an example of that other than when someone consumes drugs and then commits a separate crime.  Please give me an example, if you can. 

3. To be clear, I think drugs like heroin/coke/crack/oxy are horrible and I wish they didn't even exist.  But, I think creating a system where the government has the authority to tell you what plants you grow in your backyard, fine you for not wearing a seatbelt/helmet, require that you purchase health insurance, etc. is even worse.  When do we draw the line?  When you're doing your state mandated exercise routine in front of the visiphone?

Drug laws are the first step down the road from being a citizen to being a subject.  Seatbelt/helmet laws are another small step. Mandated health insurance another step.  Like a frog in warm water it slowly gets hotter until we're boiled.

Borg, no offense, we've exchanged posts in the past and I respect you, but your concern about the government producing is out of left field.  Cite me one example where the government has stepped in and produced a product because the markets wouldn't meet the need.  If there's money to be made someone is going to produce it and to hell with the morality of it.   The government might regulate it, and almost certainly would, but not produce it.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Wyzz Kydd

[Historian]

Wyzz, I'll play along.

It is an x-files moment that we can clearly disagree but have not become insulting.  I appreciate the open debate.

Regarding the passage of laws:  You can pass any law you want.  It will be decided by the court if it is legal.  That is part of the way our government works.   It is why we have applet courts, district courts, and a supreme court.

The constitution is very specific as to what it enforces.  Take a look at The Bill of Rights.  It is very specific on thirty-three rights the federal government has versus the states. 

Drug laws have been passed because of a national, state and local desire to ensure the rights of non-users are upheld and those who abuse the system are held accountable.

I can give you more than one example of the deadly grip of drug use affecting more than the consumer does.  And this is just a SMALL amount of information that was easy to find. 

1.       Afghanistan: Opium and heroin have funding numerous Afghan wars, warlords, and terrorists. Including, funding Al Qaida and its 9-11 operation.

2.       Brazil has had a number of terrorist organizations funding by the drug trade that have killed local and national securities forces as well as attacks on civilians.

3.       Columbia and Peru:  Both have had serious issues with right wing and left wing groups such as the Shining Path who have killed numerous officials as well as citizens.

4.       The war in Kosovo:  The Kosovo Liberation Army was known for funding itself with illegal drugs sold throughout Europe and other locations.

5.       The Irish Republican Army used drug trafficking as a way to fund itself.  Much of it going to the paramilitary units like the Ulster Volunteer Force and this resulted in hundreds of casualties throughout Great Britain on both sides.

6.       Uzbekistan has used drug money to fund its Islamic movement.

7.       Hezbollah has a major drug trafficking operation.  Most of its opium and heroin is likely to come from Iran.  They have had a major influence in Latin America among other places.

8.       Mexico has about seven major drug cartels that are currently destroying the nation and doing serious damage to the United States.

From personal experience, I have seen people try to sell their kids, enter prostitution, steel from the parents, destroy their marriages; child abuse is rampant among the drug abusing community.

Here is some information regarding criminal behavior and substance use among 18-19 year olds from 1991 from the US Department of Justice (who is required to track crime)

Criminal Activity               Alcohol, weed, cocaine                  Alcohol and weed           
Any violent crime               26.1        %                                            14.6        %
Any property crime            24.7        %                                            13.0        %
DUI                                   57.2        %                                            30.8        %
Sold drugs                          15.1        %                                            2.2          %

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

Take a look at the rest of the document.  Table 2 shows you a number of other crimes.

Look at the statistics.   Offenders commit offenses to support their habit and trafficking generates violent crime.

As for mandated government purchasing:  It has been done for years.  Seat belts in every car.  Warning labels on everything. Mandated health care.  In addition, watch, there is a big move to make your health care something that is single payer (government) owned health care.

Drug laws affect those who do drugs.  By virtue of their criminality, they become subjects. 

Do not do heroin:  You will never be arrested for having it. 

This is choice. Choice defines how you interact with the government. Remember how I walked you through reasonable suspicion, probable cause, all the way to conviction?  You are considered innocent until dozens of people prove you are guilty.

Everything you do affects the people around you.  One way or the other.  Fart in church...you'll get odd looks. Cook up some meth or heroin....you support all the issues i've mentioned and will find yourself associated with many more crimes.  

Maybe you can get away with it if you are very rich and have a support network.  But that's a very small portion of the drug use world.

[Wyzz Kydd]

28 minutes ago, Historian said:

Wyzz, I'll play along.

It is an x-files moment that we can clearly disagree but have not become insulting.  I appreciate the open debate.

 

Regarding the passage of laws:  You can pass any law you want.  It will be decided by the court if it is legal.  That is part of the way our government works.   It is why we have applet courts, district courts, and a supreme court.

 

The constitution is very specific as to what it enforces.  Take a look at The Bill of Rights.  It is very specific on thirty-three rights the federal government has versus the states. 

 

Drug laws have been passed because of a national, state and local desire to ensure the rights of non-users are upheld and those who abuse the system are held accountable.

 

I can give you more than one example of the deadly grip of drug use affecting more than the consumer does.  And this is just a SMALL amount of information that was easy to find. 

 

1.       Afghanistan: Opium and heroin have funding numerous Afghan wars, warlords, and terrorists. Including, funding Al Qaida and its 9-11 operation.

 

2.       Brazil has had a number of terrorist organizations funding by the drug trade that have killed local and national securities forces as well as attacks on civilians.

 

3.       Columbia and Peru:  Both have had serious issues with right wing and left wing groups such as the Shining Path who have killed numerous officials as well as citizens.

 

4.       The war in Kosovo:  The Kosovo Liberation Army was known for funding itself with illegal drugs sold throughout Europe and other locations.

 

5.       The Irish Republican Army used drug trafficking as a way to fund itself.  Much of it going to the paramilitary units like the Ulster Volunteer Force and this resulted in hundreds of casualties throughout Great Britain on both sides.

 

6.       Uzbekistan has used drug money to fund its Islamic movement.

 

7.       Hezbollah has a major drug trafficking operation.  Most of its opium and heroin is likely to come from Iran.  They have had a major influence in Latin America among other places.

 

8.       Mexico has about seven major drug cartels that are currently destroying the nation and doing serious damage to the United States.

 

From personal experience, I have seen people try to sell their kids, enter prostitution, steel from the parents, destroy their marriages; child abuse is rampant among the drug abusing community.

 

Here is some information regarding criminal behavior and substance use among 18-19 year olds from 1991 from the US Department of Justice (who is required to track crime)

 

 

 

Criminal Activity               Alcohol, weed, cocaine                  Alcohol and weed           
Any violent crime               26.1        %                                            14.6        %
Any property crime            24.7        %                                            13.0        %
DUI                                   57.2        %                                            30.8        %
Sold drugs                          15.1        %                                            2.2          %

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

 

Take a look at the rest of the document.  Table 2 shows you a number of other crimes.

 

Look at the statistics.   Offenders commit offenses to support their habit and trafficking generates violent crime.

 

As for mandated government purchasing:  It has been done for years.  Seat belts in every car.  Warning labels on everything. Mandated health care.  In addition, watch, there is a big move to make your health care something that is single payer (government) owned health care.

 

Drug laws affect those who do drugs.  By virtue of their criminality, they become subjects. 

 

Do not do heroin:  You will never be arrested for having it. 

 

This is choice. Choice defines how you interact with the government. Remember how I walked you through reasonable suspicion, probable cause, all the way to conviction?  You are considered innocent until dozens of people prove you are guilty.

 

Everything you do affects the people around you.  One way or the other.  Fart in church...you'll get odd looks. Cook up some meth or heroin....you support all the issues i've mentioned and will find yourself associated with many more crimes.  

Maybe you can get away with it if you are very rich and have a support network.  But that's a very small portion of the drug use world.

It is an x-files moment! Nice way to put it!

Points 1-8 all arise from the fact that drugs are illegal and therefore criminal enterprises have stepped in to meet the demand.  Every one of those points would not exist if drugs were legal.  Why would an organization resort to crime, risk death/imprisonment to produce and market its product if the product can easily be produced and marketed legally?  The answer is they wouldn't.  If heroin were legal bringing it to market wouldn't be much different in terms of cost than bringing flour to market.  Grow the poppies in a field, harvest them, process them, package them and ship that crap out.

All 8 points you mentioned are arguments in favor of my position.  None of those organizations would be able to make money off the drug trade if drugs were legal UNLESS the taxes on drugs were so high that they could undercut legitimate distributors.  Cigarette taxes in NYC are a perfect example of that happening.  The taxes are so high it's profitable to bootleg cigarettes into the city.  This is not my opinion, it's basic economics.  If there's a demand for a product someone will try to bring it to the market.  If the product is illegal then by definition those who bring it to the market will be criminals.  Once they're criminals for that additional criminal activity means little to them.  You can only be executed once.  What sane person would choose to conduct criminal activity to market their product when they can easily stay within the law to do it?  Try to think of a product which is OTC legal where criminals compete with businesses to meet the demand.  There are none.

I'm a former history and economics teacher and I'm going to respectfully disagree with your statement about the federal government having rights.  The federal and state governments have powers, not rights.  Only people have rights.  It's an important distinction.

I think the most powerful argument you make is the conduct of the vast majority of people who do drugs like heroin etc. is very bad.  That's indisputable and I totally agree with you on that.  However the bad conduct you mention is already illegal without regard to what caused it.  There is no substantive difference between arguing that people who do drugs commit more crimes and therefore drugs should be illegal and the argument that people use guns to kill other people and therefore guns should be illegal.  The logic of those arguments is identical.

Stating that government mandated purchases have been around a long time (they have) is not an argument that supports government mandated purchases any more than stating that murder has happened for a long time and therefore is OK.

We live in an imperfect world.  People are flawed, they do stupid things.  The government should protect me from stupid things other people do that have a direct impact on me.  They shouldn't protect me from people farting in church, not wearing helmets, not having health insurance, and in my opinion ruining their lives with drugs.  I say let them kill themselves, they're stupid and weak and we would be better off without them in the gene pool. If they're abusing or neglecting their kids then there is direct harm occurring, take the kids away from them.  If they break the law to feed their habit, arrest them.  Many drugs are bad, that's not in dispute.  Giving up your rights to the government in order for a little security is also bad, in my opinion and many others, including Ben Franklin.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

To me the liberty to be in control of your body and what you do with it is more important than being protected from the potential consequences of someone else shooting up.  It's a slippery slope and we're already sliding down it.  As a historian you should know what all governments throughout history have done given time, taken the rights of their citizens and increased government power.  That was perhaps the biggest concern of the founding fathers and we've come a long way in a bad direction from what they had in mind.  Many of our current laws would appall them.  

 

[Moshe]

15 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I'll mark that down as non-responsive your honor since I specifically said in the privacy of your own home and as long as you didn't do other things that were already illegal.

 

So I ask again, if the person isn't violating any other laws why is it your business Moshe?

It never stops there.  It is an expensive habit, that destroys families and jobs.  Which, leads to homelessness, and violence.  So, if we could lock you in your home, assuming you own it, and you could phone dial a crack would that be okay?  Eventually, you will assume you need that next fix, and if you loose your finances, how do you think you will get it?  Violence.  That is where this all goes.  I own plenty of firearms.  I have carried firearms for work that the public can't own.  I have come within a frog's hair of having to drop the hammer several times, which would have been good shoots.  But, here is they the thing.  I have never had to kill anyone-yet.  But, the way society is going with more and more home invasions, and robberies even around here, for someone on illicit addicting drugs for their next fix, if may be inevitable.  Guns don't breed violence, person behind the trigger does.  However, the guy with the gun, that he stole to use to invade someone else's home to get money for his next fix does. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

[Wyzz Kydd]

43 minutes ago, Moshe said:

It never stops there.  It is an expensive habit, that destroys families and jobs.  Which, leads to homelessness, and violence.  So, if we could lock you in your home, assuming you own it, and you could phone dial a crack would that be okay?  Eventually, you will assume you need that next fix, and if you loose your finances, how do you think you will get it?  Violence.  That is where this all goes.  I own plenty of firearms.  I have carried firearms for work that the public can't own.  I have come within a frog's hair of having to drop the hammer several times, which would have been good shoots.  But, here is they the thing.  I have never had to kill anyone-yet.  But, the way society is going with more and more home invasions, and robberies even around here, for someone on illicit addicting drugs for their next fix, if may be inevitable.  Guns don't breed violence, person behind the trigger does.  However, the guy with the gun, that he stole to use to invade someone else's home to get money for his next fix does. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

Definitely not OK!  I don't even like taking tylenol, no way I want to take crack or heroin.  Offer me a nice Kentucky bourbon on speed dial and you'll get a different answer.  And yes, I do own my home. 

No offense, but again your statement isn't responsive to the question regarding the government dictating what you do with your body.  Lots of things can lead to violence and we don't outlaw them.  Maybe we should outlaw the NBA finals.  I also own firearms, carry them, and have used them in a self defense situation twice. What has that got to do with the question I posed?

People do home invasions to steal money to buy TVs, want to make them illegal too?  Alcohol can lead to homelessness and violence, want to make that illegal?  Where does it end?  Are you going to regulate every aspect of people's lives?  As I said once we move down that road, and we have, it becomes a question of where the line is drawn and most importantly who decides.  I suspect you may feel a little differently on this subject when AOC is president and takes your cars, your steak, your guns and your freedom away, all for your own good of course since she knows better than you what you do and don't need.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Wyzz Kydd

[Historian]

I felt we should have actually alerted Eric.  A civil debate has occurred.  He might want to post a Wiki page on the topic.  It can happen.  It might actually…be a first in internet history.

I will give you the rights versus power. I should have expressed that better. All powers not enumerated in the constitution belong to the states.  However, companies have rights.   They are considered people in the eye of the court. 

Nevertheless, I digress.

Historically speaking I think many of the laws you think would appall our founding fathers have been created by situations and events that would have appalled them in the first place.    The world is not the same place it was in 1776. 

Massive wide-spread issues related to drug abuse and trafficking did not exist in an America with a population of 2.5 million versus the interconnected system of nations we have today with a US population of 327.2 billion last year.  We simply did not have an infrastructure, industrialization, population, or even international connectivity we do today.   Let alone our understanding of how these things meld together to the good, or bad, of the common good.

Some drugs were legal in the past.  You could buy at one time opium on the market.  But that was then. Laws have changed.  People have changed.  Values changed.  Understanding of economics, dangers, health issues all changed…mostly with the scientific and industrial revolutions.  Our laws have changed to reflected our current perspectives.

The reason the eight points are valid is that the money involved allows people to kill each other over ideology related to those two major influences of money and religion.

You could legalize the business of heroin.  However, the infrastructure to produce it will rapidly develop from the people who currently make it.   IBM is not going to stand up IB-Heroin.  It is not their interest.  In addition, the structure already is there with the large-scale cartels.  Money at this scale: Is a religion.

Heroin is a commodity.  Just like coffee.  In addition, when the value is established legally then there will be an illegal commodity market that ensures those who cannot afford Byer brand heroin can get theirs from a locally supplied unlicensed pharmaceutical distributor (drug dealer).

The cartels are not going to disappear once the product is made legal. Furthermore, there are plenty of business in the world whose purpose is to do wrong in the name of “good.”    Just look at the infiltration of Chinese business workings by their intelligence and military services.

The Chinese company that controls who enters the Panama Canal and leaves…does not have a world-wide mutual well-being in mind.  It is the Chinese exerting control. 

Even if you could replace the cartels by making the drug legal…you would be allowing people to purchase a product that is known to kill and destroy.  There is no other benefit of heroin.

My experience is that people who break laws tend to break more than one. Very few people are selective criminals.  When it comes to people who do drugs…they tend to break other laws.  Take a look at the statistics I have shown you in the previous link. 

You cannot get a DUI if you do not drink. You are more likely to get involved in a violent act if you associate with people who sell illegal drugs.  There is a proximity issue here. Your environment will increase the probability of you being involved with a crime.   In short, stupid people do stupid things.  If you keep the company of dangerous people, you can expect to be in danger.

You can remove the illegality of it...but that will not keep it from having ramifications just the same.   Removing the economic value of the drug’s street price and replacing it with a price based on the open market does not solve that problem.  It creates new problems. 

You are focused on this concept of individual liberty.   However, drug use does not affect just one person and quoted Ben Franklyn with his famous quote regarding liberty and safety.

Where is the safety and liberty of people who do not use drugs when forced to live with with people who do?   You are giving one party, the drug user, rights that supersede the right’s people who live within the same community who do not use drugs.

In fact, I dare say, those in the throes of addiction have already given up their liberty and safety to whatever brand of poison has gripped them.  Why should they trample on your rights as their lives are sucked into the abyss?

Edited April 3, 2019 by Historian

[Wyzz Kydd]

I'm glad we had a civil discussion!  I don't think either of our positions provides a perfect solution and that's not surprising since humans are imperfect. 

 

Thank you very much for an informative and fun debate.  Please remain safe out there and know that many of us civilians are very appreciative of what you and your fellow LEOs are doing. 

[Historian]

22 minutes ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I'm glad we had a civil discussion!  I don't think either of our positions provides a perfect solution and that's not surprising since humans are imperfect. 

 

Thank you very much for an informative and fun debate.  Please remain safe out there and know that many of us civilians are very appreciative of what you and your fellow LEOs are doing. 

Wyzz, i enjoyed it very much.   We differ.  But civil debate is rare.  I feel like we should take a bow for the spectators.  I did notice that not a lot of people started posting.  It was mostly you and I with some Moshe thrown in. 

We should have sold popcorn. 

Just so you now, unless your a military cop, the cops are as civilian as you are.   I prefer the term citizen.

Maybe it's my age...didn't The Lone Ranger....refer to everyone as citizen?  I think he did.

Where's my white hat?!  The horse wondered off again. 

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Historian