Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/4/2015 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

Works for me, as long as you are not harming anyone but yourself.


Gun ownership for everyone who wants one except the confirmed people
harmers. Roger that. ;-)

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

===

I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your
words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack
cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or
other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective
customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is
abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need
to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one
sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling
drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the
possibility for all kinds of violence.

So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of
known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of
drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals?

We've already got the latter so what is there to lose?

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

===

I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your
words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack
cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or
other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective
customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is
abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need
to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one
sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling
drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the
possibility for all kinds of violence.

So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of
known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of
drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals?

We've already got the latter so what is there to lose?

I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies
unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to
overdosing en masse.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

===

I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your
words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack
cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or
other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective
customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is
abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need
to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one
sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling
drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the
possibility for all kinds of violence.

So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of
known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of
drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals?

We've already got the latter so what is there to lose?

I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies
unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to
overdosing en masse.

===

What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses?

A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/4/2015 5:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

===

I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your
words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack
cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or
other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective
customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is
abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need
to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one
sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling
drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the
possibility for all kinds of violence.

So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of
known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of
drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals?

We've already got the latter so what is there to lose?

I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies
unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to
overdosing en masse.

===

What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses?

A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people.

You assume that junk makes a junkie happy and or law abiding. :-)

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/4/2015 5:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

===

I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your
words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack
cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or
other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective
customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is
abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need
to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one
sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling
drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the
possibility for all kinds of violence.

So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of
known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of
drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals?

We've already got the latter so what is there to lose?

I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies
unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to
overdosing en masse.

===

What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses?

A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people.



I have two close friends who have been struggling with their respective
kids' heroin addictions. Both situations have been going on for many
years. The kids survive on "free" opiate substitutes like methadone
between their "falling off the wagon" episodes.

I've gone round and round about addiction ... be it drugs or booze.
For a while I was convinced by the experts that it's a disease but
I've come full circle back to believing it's a choice. A bad choice,
but a choice nonetheless.

Advocates of the "disease" theory are mostly rehab counselors who, in
most cases, are recovering addicts themselves. They point at abnormal
MRI brain scans of addicts. Of course they are abnormal. They have
been under the influence of drugs or booze for years. Interestingly
though, MRI scans taken after lengthy periods of abstinence (over a
year) look normal again.

Providing free drugs isn't a serious or viable option, IMO. One of the
reasons we have such an explosive rise in opiate type addictions is
due to the willingness of doctors to write prescriptions for just about
any reason. This has to stop. Same with "anti-depressants". A recent
report said that over 70 percent of prescriptions written for depression
are medically unnecessary. It's become a fad, and to the users ...
almost a badge of honor to brag about the drugs they are on.

We need more of old school doctoring ... "Take two aspirins and call me
in the morning".

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/4/2015 6:22 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 17:48:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 5:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

===

I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your
words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack
cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or
other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective
customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is
abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need
to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one
sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling
drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the
possibility for all kinds of violence.

So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of
known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of
drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals?

We've already got the latter so what is there to lose?

I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies
unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to
overdosing en masse.

===

What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses?

A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people.



I have two close friends who have been struggling with their respective
kids' heroin addictions. Both situations have been going on for many
years. The kids survive on "free" opiate substitutes like methadone
between their "falling off the wagon" episodes.

I've gone round and round about addiction ... be it drugs or booze.
For a while I was convinced by the experts that it's a disease but
I've come full circle back to believing it's a choice. A bad choice,
but a choice nonetheless.

Advocates of the "disease" theory are mostly rehab counselors who, in
most cases, are recovering addicts themselves. They point at abnormal
MRI brain scans of addicts. Of course they are abnormal. They have
been under the influence of drugs or booze for years. Interestingly
though, MRI scans taken after lengthy periods of abstinence (over a
year) look normal again.

Providing free drugs isn't a serious or viable option, IMO. One of the
reasons we have such an explosive rise in opiate type addictions is
due to the willingness of doctors to write prescriptions for just about
any reason. This has to stop. Same with "anti-depressants". A recent
report said that over 70 percent of prescriptions written for depression
are medically unnecessary. It's become a fad, and to the users ...
almost a badge of honor to brag about the drugs they are on.

We need more of old school doctoring ... "Take two aspirins and call me
in the morning".



There is certainly an "addiction" gene or some other genetic disorder.
The drug may change but the addiction problem doesn't usually change.
It can be diverted to religion, certain types of hard work or some
other drug but it will still be there.

I always considered myself luck I dodged it because it is in my family
but I have no problem walking away from anything. I can smoke with my
buddies for several days and never think about it again after I leave.
Same with anything else I am willing to try. I do avoid opiates at all
costs. I have gutted it put after a lot of things where I had a
prescription for some knock out drug I wouldn't fill.



I disagree with you about the "addiction" gene. A responsible gene
suggests physiological evidence that can be isolated and identified.
To my knowledge, no such gene has ever been discovered. Many medical
docs and researchers have reported that there is "no" evidence or proof
of a medical reason for addiction. The ones claiming "disease" are
shrinks and other addicts.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:32:34 AM UTC-7, Justan Olphat wrote:
On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.

===

crickets

Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes?


Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or
fattening. ;-)

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Aren't we doing that now?