Hunny
Apprentice
Posts: 195
|
Post by Hunny on Apr 11, 2012 8:40:20 GMT -5
They used to restrain someone by physically grabbing him, not by acting scared and just shooting him with an electric gun, because they're afraid to get hurt You obviously don't know what it's like to arrest someone who is violent and/or amped up on drugs. Tasing the recalcitrant suspect is for his/her protection as much as it is for the peace officer making the arrest. They still don't. A tased suspect is amenable to arrest. It is not in the interest of a trained law enforcement officer to injure someone who is going to jail anyway. And yet none of them were injured, were they. A criminal is a criminal. It doesn't matter what sex you are, or how old. To a place where they have to pummel a suspect to put him in handcuffs? I don't suppose you're married to a drug addict, are you. It's not a disease. It's a choice. Certainly brain chemistry may make one predisposed to overindulge in toxic substances, but it's still a choice. I'd rather have these people in prison than on my block. If the law-abiding are forced to support them one way or the other, we at least have the right to protect ourselves from their behavior. Sure they do. Ask the Europeans here how fun it is to support drug addicts with their tax dollars, how enjoyable it is to suffer the narcissism and indolence of brain-damaged, zoned-out zombies while trying to feed their own families. Because they are grossly, disproportionately contemptuous of the law. In the United States, they have the freedom to end up in prison, if they want to. And many make that choice. Who are you to tell them not to? They're not there for using drugs. It's possession for sale that gets them in trouble, and rightfully so. You can't help someone with a bad attitude. That's what gets someone thrown in prison. Most people who screw up in life are law-abiding. Most black people are law-abiding. The convicts you feel sorry for knew what they did was wrong and did it anyway. They knew the risks. It's personal to me too. Very personal. A lot of people have the reaction you did to what I think. And there are people who agree with me. But it doesn't matter. Once I've stated how i feel, if you feel otherwise and say so, that's ok. I shouldn't argue back. I shouldn't even have posted this. (I will consider your thoughts though, and I have been wrong here and there too, so *shrug* I admire your idealism and passion, but I am not one who believes in redemption. We can't allow drug addiction to be a socially acceptable choice, which is what blind legalization of narcotics would do. I don't have a solution, other than to bludgeon children over the head, every day, nonstop, that users are losers, the way we used to, and to keep at it until addiction is seen for what it truly is. Don't feel you have to temper your opinions here. We're all grown-ups. You can speak your mind. What you have here isn't so much facts as it is beliefs you seem to value. Some of what you said, I can see the logic. But generally you seem just dead against what I wrote. Well... You answered me line by line though, and that's a bit of work to communicate with me. Thank you. And I can see you come by your opinion honestly, you feel what you know is right. I would be happier if the TV -and the media in general- didn't fictionalize life the way they do. I'd like it if, instead of the latest popular court case for instance, the news would put as piece out about "Profit in Prisons" (for incarcerating Americans is actually lucrative for some folks who have varying amounts of control of the situation). And I'd like it if they did pieces on "racial profiling" ( we have a big problem with cops doing that. *shakes head* We weren't just "racist" in the past, we used black people as slaves, and even when we stopped we hung them while the "law" looked the other way, we denied them entrance to restaurants, we considered them filthy. And even when that was over, still it left the fear of black people that Caucasians suffer from. (You know what I mean,like if a white guy runs down the street he's thought of as "jogging" or "hurrying to somewhere", but if a black man runs down the street "what the hell is he up to?" "he must be running from a crime he committed". These thoughts, these slanted impressions, have come to many white people automatically, probably because we abandoned the cities at some point, in favor of living in the suburbs, but blacks typically couldn't afford that, so they stayed in the city and we took to calling their areas "ghettos", and if they lived in public housing because of the poverty our prejudice left them in, then even just the word "the project" makes us scared to go there because it conjures the image of violence and drugs and gangs and anger against you for being white if you go there. I'm not saying this very well, but I was trying to get to that there is lingering prejudice, lingering bias against these people, both tangibly, and in people's minds (subtly, or hatefully for some) So it isn't just among cops that we hear about "racial profiling", it's among us all. (I was renting an apartment a while back, filling out an application, in line with others. The landlord told the black couple, "Sorry. It's rented already." They left, and then the landlord rented it to me because I'm white and well-dressed.) (Just an example). Moving on.. (we were listing things I'd like the news to report on rather than just sensationalizing lurid things to sell ad space, and to scare people into voting for someone, etc) I'd like to see the news pumping out REAL issues, for us to focus on, and they don't. They sell hype. They give wrong impressions to people. The REAL statistics of things that go on are much different than the news and the TV gives the impression of. It's very irresponsible of them too, because it causes hate on a mass scale, fear, support for ugly things etc. It warps our society as it warps our minds. For this reason, I stopped watching any "news" -since it is all just spin and propaganda for products and politicians, so I don't wish to be brainwashed by it anymore. (There is a real danger, in listening to false statements being repeated. You could end up believing them, just by repetition. I could, even though I know better. i could end up repeating things "a study" said, without having investigated and so finding that said "study" was actually fictional, staged, by a business wanting to generate awareness and popularity of their products. I have to run off, so I'm going to switch gears and leave this comment unedited (I usually really work at writing). About addiction.. Actually, I have worked for years with alcoholics and addicts. Yes, they all chose to use the first time. But we ALL do that, we all experiment in youth. For some unfortunate individuals who biologically have a predisposition to react badly to it, to become compulsive and unable to control it (Compulsion is mental illness. It isn't choice, It's loss of choice. Loss of being able to chose. The average alcoholic or addict has tried to quit and failed a thousand times. They are miserable, they are sick, and they cant get out. So I help them. And I would have them in my neighborhood, because they're just people after all. And they can do better. And most of them want to, desperately. But they need a hand to grab, to get up. I am most sad for the crack hookers I see. They actually work my street sometimes (I am in the city) I'm across from the university too, so sometimes i will see a group of young ladies going to Philosophy class, but one of them doesn't go in, she keeps looking at the drivers of cars instead. She should be in the college, like the other girls. She is someone's daughter. She is valuable. And yet cocaine is mercilessly addictive, so she is absolutely trapped in needing more, always. So there she is blowing strange men for 20 dollars (that's what a hit of crack costs now). She gives a stranger a BJ, gets a hit, then goes right back on the street to earn the cash for the next hit. They do this all day. Every day. They do it on Christmas even (I've watched it.) ...Frankly, it all makes me want to cry. it makes me want to run out there and give them some love, some money and some advice. (where to go for help). But again, it's mercilessly addictive, so the chances they will go for help rather than another hit, are slim. Most of these girls end up institutionalized (hospital or prison), or they die. My point to all this is it's impossible for me to judge these people as "their fault" and "deserving" being locked in a cage, etc. I know you value "right and wrong' just as I and we all do. But it's possible to be wrong here and there about what right or wrong is. I sure have been sometimes, and will be again. So...I'm just concentrating on the addiction issue because it sounds as if you have someone close to you that has a problem. It's not my business, and etc, but if you know anyone who has a spouse or child or friend who is a hooked on something, the sad news is there is little you can do to MAKE them quit. Alcoholics, for example: only 34.5 out of 37 of them will live to die of causes other than drinking themself to death. Because they can't chose, because they chose to quit everyday, but compulsion as I said is a form of mental illness, it has a chemical signature and cause. Some unlucky folks are born with a time bomb in them. When they try their first drink, socially, as is encouraged by our society, they trigger a chemical reaction in their brain that will snowball and cannot be stopped or erased. They're desperate souls. But you generally just have to let them fail, and wait for them to "hit bottom" as we call it (become desperate to the point of having a spiritual experience. (I don't mean "find god", but a major change within them that I can only describe as a "spiritual experience",a major shift within themself). When it happens, as it occasionally does, that one manages to quit - though they need a helluva lot of hand-holding in the first few months! (That's what AA and also Narcotics Anonymous ("NA") are for. The meetings. They go there instead of to the bar, or to the street. It is possible to ask a person with a problem to accompany you to a meeting, by lying pretty much that it's you that needs to go and you're nervous and will they come with you for moral support? Once there, we have seen a percentage of them identify with the things people there are saying, and they get interested in doing the "12 steps" themselves, and in joining a meeting to go to every day if that's what it takes to get through withdrawal. So that's one way to get them off of it. But it doesn't work 100% of the time, and generally, as I said, you just have to let them fail, hoping they 'hit bottom" finally and reach upward for help. This means you cant force them to quit, and knowing they need to quit wont make them do it, and desperately wanting to quit wont make them do it....only this "hitting bottom" phenomenon, that radical change within themselves where they finally feel a connection to the rest of the world, and voluntarily hold onto it (alcoholics/addicts tend to be entirely isolated from life, from addressing any of their problems or wants..and it's because they isolate. Well, i tried real hard to explain it, but it probably sounds a bit like "magic" I'm suggesting is the cure. But this is what I know, this is what I have experienced. And this is what I have worked with others to get done. (yep. I'm an alcoholic. recovered. 14 years). Oh I left out, part of the AA/NA 12-step program , part of what actually gets people sober, is they help others. Helping people. ( It saved my life. ) (I got an awful lot of personal stuff i don't seem to mind letting hang right out there, huh? Ah, it's all human! I seriously don't like posting a "first draft" though, with all of it's sloppy babbling writing, but i have an appointment. You all have a good day
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 9:36:08 GMT -5
What you have here isn't so much facts as it is beliefs you seem to value. Some of what you said, I can see the logic. But generally you seem just dead against what I wrote. I'll accept at face value the abuse of tasers by some police, but not by all of them. You want the technology put on the shelf, but I see the good in it when handled properly. I also find your comments about blacks to be demeaning toward blacks. I'll ask my question again. Why is it that black men end up in prison, but their black sisters, who were raised in the same environments, don't? Well... You answered me line by line though, and that's a bit of work to communicate with me. Thank you. And I can see you come by your opinion honestly, you feel what you know is right. I respect your opinions, and there are many that share them. However, I've known too many black men from the ghetto (my stepfather being one of them) who had character, who didn't resort to crime when times were tough, who faced the same choices as their criminal brethren, but made the right choices instead. To blame society for crime is to say character doesn't count. I'm sorry, but I can't embrace that point of view. I might agree with you that our penology needs to change, that we should be "helping" people rather than punishing them, if you're willing to advance a genetic theory of crime. No one has ever been able to rule that out, but no one wants to talk about it, and I'm not sure I do, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 9:40:49 GMT -5
Actually, I have worked for years with alcoholics and addicts. Yes, they all chose to use the first time. But we ALL do that, we all experiment in youth. No, we don't. For some unfortunate individuals who biologically have a predisposition to react badly to it, to become compulsive and unable to control it (Compulsion is mental illness. It isn't choice, It's loss of choice. Loss of being able to chose. So you're saying people who are compulsive have a birth defect? They're born with it? I would think about the answer very carefully, if I were you. The average alcoholic or addict has tried to quit and failed a thousand times. They are miserable, they are sick, and they cant get out. So I help them. I submit that you are less effective in that regard than an enforced three-strikes law.
|
|
Hunny
Apprentice
Posts: 195
|
Post by Hunny on Apr 13, 2012 9:24:45 GMT -5
What you have here isn't so much facts as it is beliefs you seem to value. Some of what you said, I can see the logic. But generally you seem just dead against what I wrote. I'll accept at face value the abuse of tasers by some police, but not by all of them. You want the technology put on the shelf, but I see the good in it when handled properly. I also find your comments about blacks to be demeaning toward blacks. I'll ask my question again. Why is it that black men end up in prison, but their black sisters, who were raised in the same environments, don't? Well... You answered me line by line though, and that's a bit of work to communicate with me. Thank you. And I can see you come by your opinion honestly, you feel what you know is right. I respect your opinions, and there are many that share them. However, I've known too many black men from the ghetto (my stepfather being one of them) who had character, who didn't resort to crime when times were tough, who faced the same choices as their criminal brethren, but made the right choices instead. To blame society for crime is to say character doesn't count. I'm sorry, but I can't embrace that point of view. I might agree with you that our penology needs to change, that we should be "helping" people rather than punishing them, if you're willing to advance a genetic theory of crime. No one has ever been able to rule that out, but no one wants to talk about it, and I'm not sure I do, either. Well statistically, in a poor area, there's more crime - and that applies to any race. People are just people. They tend to react the same to similar conditions. I am sorry if it seemed I was demeaning to blacks, that certainly wasn't intended. The truth is I actually cried (I was overwhelmingly happy) when Obama was elected, because i saw it as the culmination of King's "Dream", and the end of any remaining racial limits. That was a great thing to happen, and it doesn't matter if Obama has been a good president or not, just that we gave the Oval Office to a black man made me feel proud. So I have no demeaning thoughts.. Perhaps where I miscommunicated was when i said a disproportionate number of black men are jailed. It's not that they commit more crime. It's that statistically cops are rougher on them, they go after a black man where they would have let a white man go. It's a form of nepotism. As to why there are less women who get jailed, that's also true among any race; it happens because women tend to stand aside while men act (and the actor is the one who gets arrested).
|
|
Hunny
Apprentice
Posts: 195
|
Post by Hunny on Apr 13, 2012 9:49:49 GMT -5
Actually, I have worked for years with alcoholics and addicts. Yes, they all chose to use the first time. But we ALL do that, we all experiment in youth. No, we don't. So you're saying people who are compulsive have a birth defect? They're born with it? I would think about the answer very carefully, if I were you. The average alcoholic or addict has tried to quit and failed a thousand times. They are miserable, they are sick, and they cant get out. So I help them. I submit that you are less effective in that regard than an enforced three-strikes law. Well.. 1-Are you saying you have never taken a drink? I mean there are some who never do, but it's kind of rare. In the case of alcohol, as an example, it's just part of society that people drink on certain occasions. 2-Yes, alcoholism is caused by a birth defect if you want to call it that. (I prefer to just say what we know: there are those who have a certain set of genes which predispose them. I'll stay with alcoholism, for the moment: It is the result of a chemical which forms in the brain of certain individuals (with said genes). That chemical is called tetra-hydro-isoquinaline (THQ). It is not found in most people, it just occurs in some, and it causes an ever-worsening compulsion to ingest more alcohol. (The THQ wants to make more of itself, and it irritates the brain). When the person answers the craving with a drink, a little more THQ is created, so now the craving is stronger, so they drink again, and it gets stronger, And so on, and so on. THQ never leaves the brain. Once there it's effect is permanent and progressive. The American Medical Association therefore classifies alcoholism as a "primary disease" (meaning it causes itself, it is not considered the result of behavior) (it would be called a "secondary disease" if it was). As for addictions to other drugs (yes, alcohol is a drug, it's just a legal one, and in liquid form), whether those are primary or secondary is debatable. However in Heroin addicts' brains, THQ is formed, we found. I don't know all the research that has been done regarding each individual type of drug - but I know that if a substance is addictive, then whether it's their own fault for trying it or not, once they have, they're legitimately sick. They have compulsion (which, again, is a form of mental illness; and a LOSS of control, loss of ability to chose). So once an addict is an addict, they get treated just as an alcoholic does, since it's identical illness, at the effects level. The interesting thing is reading the AMA's definition of "alcoholism", where you find a scientific body of the west, no less, saying that it is in part a spiritual disease! (They define it as a three-part disease: 1-a physical addiction 2-with a mental compulsion and 3- spiritual isolation.) Fascinating. Well, to me it was. 3- They can get alcohol in prisons. Statistics are that some few do get sober and remain that way, in spite of availability if there is some. They work on recovery the same way other prisoners work on a law degree and weight training (they need something to do. In the case of the alcoholic, there are AA meetings to go to in jail). But most jailed addicts/alcoholics just go right back on the street and first thing they do is use again. One of my clients referred to going to jail as "going on vacation". She didn't care if she was in or out (as she was alternately); she just thought of it as a period of abstinence, cleansing the body of toxins, so when they get out and use again it's supposed to be more enjoyable. Many alcoholics actually volunteer to be incarcerated (at detox facilities), and for that same reason, to clean up a little, then start over fresh so they can enjoy it again. (If you use a quart of booze every day you can get quite run down! lol So they go in occasionally and "freshen up" I probably won't make this clear, but addiction -as a disease- runs a course, and you generally can't stop it until it has run its course. (Jail, loss of wife and kids, loss of job, knowing they need to quit, desperately wanting to - none of these things will make an addict "decide" or "chose" to quit and be able to. Only when a phenomenon we call "hitting bottom" occurs in someone, does that downward progression end, and an upward one ensue. And only a few actually do "hit bottom"(most never quit.) Again: it's LOSS OF CHOICE, and most of them can't recover ever. (34.5 out of every 37 alcoholics die from it, for example). So considering that, I could hardly go along with the estimation that caging people would be effective or humane treatment for an illness they have. It costs a lot of money to keep a person in jail; it'd make more sense to plow the money into research, to try to solve the problem, rather than corral the symptoms. They actually can be locked away in a detox facility, you know, if they agree to it. (You can "section" them into one (have them committed) but the law says you can't force them to stay in longer than 3 days). But I've seen patients so sick and fed up they volunteered for 6 months in a detox, just locked away from any access and doing AA meetings (or NA meetings, for drugs). Sadly, they tend to always relapse upon release though We just don't know how to cure this problem. What I've described is all we really have to try and help them with. So as to your idea of locking away drug users to straighten them out, no, it doesn't work. In fact, jail doesn't work apparently, for anything (because we've got more of our own populace in jail than any country in the world, yet there is just as much crime. We'd be better off de-criminalizing drugs and providing help, and getting a message to the kids before they start, than we are thinking we can criminalize a problem and then win a "war" against it. (That's insane. It isn't intelligent to do what doesn't work and keep doing it.) And decriminalization /providing help instead probably wouldn't work either, to eliminate drug use, but at least we'd be helping people rather than abusing them. I went a long way here, but, it's making me wonder: how is it the government's business anyway, what people do in the privacy of their homes? If they want to smoke weed and drink budweisers,so what? If they're not hurting anyone but themselves, why should we care?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 16:45:01 GMT -5
Well.. 1-Are you saying you have never taken a drink? I mean there are some who never do, but it's kind of rare. In the case of alcohol, as an example, it's just part of society that people drink on certain occasions. 2-Yes, alcoholism is caused by a birth defect if you want to call it that. (I prefer to just say what we know: there are those who have a certain set of genes which predispose them. I'll stay with alcoholism, for the moment: It is the result of a chemical which forms in the brain of certain individuals (with said genes). That chemical is called tetra-hydro-isoquinaline (THQ). It is not found in most people, it just occurs in some, and it causes an ever-worsening compulsion to ingest more alcohol. (The THQ wants to make more of itself, and it irritates the brain). When the person answers the craving with a drink, a little more THQ is created, so now the craving is stronger, so they drink again, and it gets stronger, And so on, and so on. THQ never leaves the brain. Once there it's effect is permanent and progressive. The American Medical Association therefore classifies alcoholism as a "primary disease" (meaning it causes itself, it is not considered the result of behavior) (it would be called a "secondary disease" if it was). As for addictions to other drugs (yes, alcohol is a drug, it's just a legal one, and in liquid form), whether those are primary or secondary is debatable. However in Heroin addicts' brains, THQ is formed, we found. I don't know all the research that has been done regarding each individual type of drug - but I know that if a substance is addictive, then whether it's their own fault for trying it or not, once they have, they're legitimately sick. They have compulsion (which, again, is a form of mental illness; and a LOSS of control, loss of ability to chose). So once an addict is an addict, they get treated just as an alcoholic does, since it's identical illness, at the effects level. The interesting thing is reading the AMA's definition of "alcoholism", where you find a scientific body of the west, no less, saying that it is in part a spiritual disease! (They define it as a three-part disease: 1-a physical addiction 2-with a mental compulsion and 3- spiritual isolation.) Fascinating. Well, to me it was. 3- They can get alcohol in prisons. Statistics are that some few do get sober and remain that way, in spite of availability if there is some. They work on recovery the same way other prisoners work on a law degree and weight training (they need something to do. In the case of the alcoholic, there are AA meetings to go to in jail). But most jailed addicts/alcoholics just go right back on the street and first thing they do is use again. One of my clients referred to going to jail as "going on vacation". She didn't care if she was in or out (as she was alternately); she just thought of it as a period of abstinence, cleansing the body of toxins, so when they get out and use again it's supposed to be more enjoyable. Many alcoholics actually volunteer to be incarcerated (at detox facilities), and for that same reason, to clean up a little, then start over fresh so they can enjoy it again. (If you use a quart of booze every day you can get quite run down! lol So they go in occasionally and "freshen up" I probably won't make this clear, but addiction -as a disease- runs a course, and you generally can't stop it until it has run its course. (Jail, loss of wife and kids, loss of job, knowing they need to quit, desperately wanting to - none of these things will make an addict "decide" or "chose" to quit and be able to. Only when a phenomenon we call "hitting bottom" occurs in someone, does that downward progression end, and an upward one ensue. And only a few actually do "hit bottom"(most never quit.) Again: it's LOSS OF CHOICE, and most of them can't recover ever. (34.5 out of every 37 alcoholics die from it, for example). So considering that, I could hardly go along with the estimation that caging people would be effective or humane treatment for an illness they have. It costs a lot of money to keep a person in jail; it'd make more sense to plow the money into research, to try to solve the problem, rather than corral the symptoms. They actually can be locked away in a detox facility, you know, if they agree to it. (You can "section" them into one (have them committed) but the law says you can't force them to stay in longer than 3 days). But I've seen patients so sick and fed up they volunteered for 6 months in a detox, just locked away from any access and doing AA meetings (or NA meetings, for drugs). Sadly, they tend to always relapse upon release though We just don't know how to cure this problem. What I've described is all we really have to try and help them with. So as to your idea of locking away drug users to straighten them out, no, it doesn't work. In fact, jail doesn't work apparently, for anything (because we've got more of our own populace in jail than any country in the world, yet there is just as much crime. We'd be better off de-criminalizing drugs and providing help, and getting a message to the kids before they start, than we are thinking we can criminalize a problem and then win a "war" against it. (That's insane. It isn't intelligent to do what doesn't work and keep doing it.) And decriminalization /providing help instead probably wouldn't work either, to eliminate drug use, but at least we'd be helping people rather than abusing them. I went a long way here, but, it's making me wonder: how is it the government's business anyway, what people do in the privacy of their homes? If they want to smoke weed and drink budweisers,so what? If they're not hurting anyone but themselves, why should we care? Your work with drug addicts is laudatory, Hunny. Your compassion, empathy and heart of gold are indisputable. Your arguments, however, fail on a few points. 1. People who merely consume narcotics don't go to prison. Being high is not a felony. You go to prison for having too much on you, and/or for trying to sell or distribute it. 2. Rehab doesn't work and never will. As the drug addicts I've known will attest, nothing feels better than being high. The addict who manages to stay clean recognizes, and has to accept, a chemically inferior state of being. 3. You cannot decriminalize a crime and tell children, with a straight face, that it's still wrong. They know you're lying and won't believe you. And why should they? 4. I read somewhere that the vast majority of emergency room physicians are vehemently opposed to legalization of narcotics. Their reasons are self-evident. 5. The libertarian argument in favor of legalization, which you seem to embrace, is decidedly antihumanist, which doesn't comport to your image as an empathetic, caring human being. Compulsion is not disease or mental illness. Every one of us is compulsive about something. It's human nature. The only difference between myself and the drug addict is that the latter is a narcissist, while I have character. Well, some character anyway. I don't feel all that noble, but I have limits to my own self-destruction. As compulsive as I am, I know my feelings and petty grievances are not the most important thing in life. I have obligations to my fellow citizens NOT to indulge every personal whim. I acknowledge my participation in the social contract. Legalization of narcotics doesn't change the fundamental differences between abusers and non-abusers. It would only create more drug addicts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 16:54:16 GMT -5
As to why there are less women who get jailed, that's also true among any race; it happens because women tend to stand aside while men act (and the actor is the one who gets arrested). The difference is merely one of attitude. That's all. And attitudes are within one's power to change.
|
|
Hunny
Apprentice
Posts: 195
|
Post by Hunny on Apr 13, 2012 19:23:55 GMT -5
Your work with drug addicts is laudatory, Hunny. Your compassion, empathy and heart of gold are indisputable. Your arguments, however, fail on a few points. 1. People who merely consume narcotics don't go to prison. Being high is not a felony. You go to prison for having too much on you, and/or for trying to sell or distribute it. ...3. You cannot decriminalize a crime and tell children, with a straight face, that it's still wrong. They know you're lying and won't believe you. And why should they? 4. I read somewhere that the vast majority of emergency room physicians are vehemently opposed to legalization of narcotics. Their reasons are self-evident. 5. The libertarian argument in favor of legalization, which you seem to embrace, is decidedly antihumanist, which doesn't comport to your image as an empathetic, caring human being. ...Legalization of narcotics doesn't change the fundamental differences between abusers and non-abusers. It would only create more drug addicts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 20:11:18 GMT -5
[/center][/quote] Marijuana isn't the issue, but I voted against legalizing that, too.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 14, 2012 3:24:11 GMT -5
[/center][/quote] Marijuana isn't the issue, but I voted against legalizing that, too.[/quote] Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 10:49:41 GMT -5
Because I know what pot does to people. I've seen it with my own eyes.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 14, 2012 11:43:28 GMT -5
Because I know what pot does to people. I've seen it with my own eyes. So what do you think its done to me?
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Apr 14, 2012 20:20:45 GMT -5
Joe, I don't know about the people you saw but this is what I see. If you get an addict that smokes weed it will be somebody that takes other stuff too. The marijuana will be the least of it.
But if a non-addictive person smokes I have never seen it turn into trouble. I smoke some here and there and I work 2 jobs, have a couple kids, treat my wife right, own my house and mortgage. If you are not an easy addict, it's not a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Apr 15, 2012 7:42:26 GMT -5
Smoked some myself in my younger years.......never have had an addictive personality.......was never an issue.....know a few people that like Dex mentioned.....smoke one here and there.......I don't look at it any differently that having a beer. Same deal with alcohol.....a whole lot of people that drink responsibly and don't have a problem......then a set of people that can't manage it.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 15, 2012 10:33:22 GMT -5
Count me in. Pot is a lot less harmful than alcohol. I've never heard of anyone who got high and killed someone.
|
|