Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:17:11 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/7/2014 12:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:50 -0600, Califbill wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:59:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/7/14, 10:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:46:00 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Yeah, what we have created in this country is a growth industry for the

privatization of penal institutions. The corporations pressure the

legislators to pass more laws and stiffer sentences so more people can

be imprisoned for longer periods of time and so the private slams will

be guaranteed more income. It's a wonderful system and requires a lot

less brainpower than something that might actually work.



What would you do to handle the drug problem?



I don't claim to have *the* solution, but I do know that creating a
growth industry in prisons for the private sector ain't it. I think
decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would be a good
starting point, though.

I suppose that's for all the drugs up through heroin? I suppose you
disagree with the idea of
marijuana being a stepping stone to the 'better' stuff. So where would
you draw the line?

Heroin is actually not a really bad 'hard' drug. Lots of heroin addicts
were functioning members of society. Lots turned to crime because of the
costs to procure, but heroin may kill you in the end because of paranoia.
Ray Charles was a heroin addict for years. Lots of other examples. There
are drugs too nasty to legalize, but the country will not come to an end
with most drugs available. Alcohol probably causes more deaths than hard
drugs. Including the drug wars for sales territory. You have a friend, I
think it was you, who is hooked on OxyContin. Is he still a functioning
member of society? What the hell is accomplished by sending someone to
prison for use? Puts their family in the welfare system, costs to
incarcerate, and ruins any prospect for a decent job later. If they commit
a crime to pay for the drugs, then jail them. But if costs are low enough,
they will work and pay for the drug, just like alcohol. This was supposed
to be a free country. We are being controlled more, and observed more than
a lot of western countries these days. And it is both major parties
responsible, not just one side or the other.

I'm no expert on drugs, and don't have an oxycontin hooked friend, that
I know of. I suppose the
cost of incarceration are more than the costs for emergency OD care, so
stopping the incarceration
may be a good idea. It's obviously not much of a deterrent.


I have a good friend who's daughter got hooked on oxycontin and then went
to heroin because it's cheaper. I have a niece who has followed the same
path. Both started as teenagers in high school. Both have been through
rehab, one twice, the other three times. Both have stolen money, jewelry
and other items from their parents, grandparents, other relatives and
former friends to fund their addictions. Failed marriages, abortions,
and heartbreak for the parents. My 61 year old sister-in-law (mother of
the niece) is now in therapy and is taking anti-anxiety pills because
she's coming apart emotionally due to her daughter's lifestyle.

Anyone who tells me heroin is "not a really bad hard drug" has a lot of
convincing to do to me.

But is the heroin the problem or the screwed up person using? And if was
more legal, how screwed up would they be? Maybe not need to take up a life
of crime to pay for the drugs.

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and
then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom
might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

Then addiction is finished.

Humanitarianism expressed by those on the far right always impresses me.