On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:58:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

To me, severe penalties for abuse would accomplish that.

The prison system is already full and overflowing, many for drug
related crime. Not to trivialize the drug abuse issue, but I'd rather
see those cells reserved for perpetrators of violent crime, property
crime and fraud. Better treatment programs are a better bet in my
opinion, along with legalized access for the incurably addicted.

Like you said, as long as the demand is there, supply will follow.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:38:18 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:58:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

To me, severe penalties for abuse would accomplish that.

The prison system is already full and overflowing, many for drug
related crime. Not to trivialize the drug abuse issue, but I'd rather
see those cells reserved for perpetrators of violent crime, property
crime and fraud. Better treatment programs are a better bet in my
opinion, along with legalized access for the incurably addicted.

Like you said, as long as the demand is there, supply will follow.

I don't disagree with that. I don't argue for incarceration. Rather
removal of privileges is suitable to my way of thinking.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:38:21 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I don't argue for incarceration. Rather
removal of privileges is suitable to my way of thinking.

It's a good thought but "removing privileges" requires enforcement,
etc. If you have a sub-culture that is already breaking the law by
abusing drugs, is it any more likely that they will voluntarily abide
by a "loss of privilege"? As an example, there are incredible
statistics about the number of people still driving with suspended or
revoked drivers licenses. Unless you go to a total police state with
embedded ID chips and constant checkpoints, it's not likely to work in
my opinion, and let's be careful what we ask for... :-)

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:05:57 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:38:21 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I don't argue for incarceration. Rather
removal of privileges is suitable to my way of thinking.

It's a good thought but "removing privileges" requires enforcement,
etc. If you have a sub-culture that is already breaking the law by
abusing drugs, is it any more likely that they will voluntarily abide
by a "loss of privilege"? As an example, there are incredible
statistics about the number of people still driving with suspended or
revoked drivers licenses. Unless you go to a total police state with
embedded ID chips and constant checkpoints, it's not likely to work in
my opinion, and let's be careful what we ask for... :-)

Good point.

Prohibition it is then. :)

On Apr 23, 11:09 pm, Tim wrote:
Your tax dollars at work!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=29...C-RSSFeeds0312

Ooooops, looks like someone didn't get paid enough.

On Apr 24, 9:36 am, wrote:
The high cost of drug use is because it is illegal and the price is
artificially inflated to line the pockets of those in the manu. and distr.
of the illegal drugs. If they were not illegal, they could be sold for
less than alcohol.


Yup, and the other cost is in lining the pockets of the cops and other
law enforcement officials who protect those manu. and dist. Where I
grew up, if you did not feed the cops, you got busted. Even worse if
you tried to compete with their kids for the drug business.

On Apr 24, 8:54 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Do NOT send this discussion off in another direction by pointing out that
crimes are sometimes committed because people are drunk. That has nothing to
do with the legality of the substance involved.-

The discussion has already been railroad'd into another direction.

I posted the story in praise of the USCG, for rounding up a huge drug
bust.

Even though the smugglers had the stuff out in front of God and
everybody else, the situation still demands an aplause for the USCG,
and their protection of our shores.

On Apr 24, 6:28 pm, Tim wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:24 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





"JimH" wrote in message

.. .

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"JimH" wrote in message
. ..

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
. ..
In oglegroups.com,
Tim
sprach forth the following:

Your tax dollars at work!

Who cares if someone is hurting themselves?

Because drug use often results in crimes on others to obtain money to
support the habit, especially with hard drugs like cocaine.

Quiz time, Jim. Think about violence related to the manufacture,
transport and sale of alcoholic beverages. When is the last time you
heard of that kind of violence SPECIFICALLY related to booze?

That has nothing to do with Fred's question. Nice try.

It has everything to do with it. But, I'm not surprised you missed it. Hint:
Forget the words "drug use" and think about the word "crimes". Or,
substitute "violence".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

for crying out loud. It's an article about the USCG hauling the bigest
drug bust they've ever had. 20 tons of coke!

I'm really amazed that the smugglers had the cargo sitting right on
the top for all the world to see.

that's brazenly foolish.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or..... They thought they had all the enforcement (shakedown)
officials covered. You just don't get it, as much money is made by the
so called good guys in the drug business, as the bad guys.

On 25 Apr 2007 18:39:24 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:28 pm, Tim wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:24 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:






Or..... They thought they had all the enforcement (shakedown)
officials covered. You just don't get it, as much money is made by the
so called good guys in the drug business, as the bad guys.


Well, apparently not all the enforcement folks are bad guys, right?

On Apr 26, 7:52 am, John H. wrote:
On 25 Apr 2007 18:39:24 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:28 pm, Tim wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:24 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Or..... They thought they had all the enforcement (shakedown)
officials covered. You just don't get it, as much money is made by the
so called good guys in the drug business, as the bad guys.

Well, apparently not all the enforcement folks are bad guys, right?

Right. Not all are all bad, in fact, probably very few, but in so many
police departments, the bad ones seem to rule. If you have a situation
where there are one or two out of a dozen or so that are bad, and the
rest are either afraid to expose them, or turn away due to the blue
shield of silence, you got a dirty dozen. I have seen otherwise good
cops go along with bad ones on too many occasions out of fear for
their jobs, or their own personal safety. Eventually, the good ones
just seem to go along. Where I grew up, the local police ran and
protected the drug business, everyone knew it, you just kept quiet and
stayed out or their way.