Illegal drugs corrupt the police. They corrupt the judges. They cause gangs to fight and kill each other for turf. They kill innocent bystanders.
We waste money on jailing users while we can not find funding for clinics to help them quit when they want to.
We support Narco governments whose greatest export is drugs. That corrupts their governments too. They pay off our officials and politicians . So they are corrupted.
Prohibition of a crop that makes huge profits does not work. When you take one dealer and distributor down another takes their place.
It does not work. It wastes money. It corrupts everybody involved.
I’m not qualified to participate in any such debates, but this:
is a comment which is full of win.
Thanks for the story, Larry Mudd. Sorry about your brother.
While claiming not to have the manpower to even look into property crimes like burglary.
My garage broken into? “Here’s your case number for the insurance” is the closest the Minneapolis Police came to being involved. Unless you want to argue that they’ve basically decriminalized burglary by refusing to investigate, and I might go in on that argument.
I’m not sure I’m convinced of that, or that “figuring booze out” decreases your chances of drinking and driving. Repeated drunk drivers (meaning caught repeatedly) are typically alcoholics, so they can’t “figure booze out.”
The first time offender may just be someone who was regularly making bad decisions.
Anyway, of the people I’ve known who drank and drive a lot, they essentially did so until they got caught the first time and then most of them quit. The ones who didn’t all are what I would call alcoholics (and one of the key signs you have a serious drinking problem is when you have a major negative consequence of drinking but continue to drink the same way you did before, someone who drinks and drives out of habit but never does so again after their first DUI is demonstrating the ability to decide to control their drinking in a way an alcoholic cannot.)
Well, yes. But if you’re an alcoholic at 15, or 18, you’re going to be one at 21 too. Addictive personnalities don’t flip off at a magic cutoff date.
That raises an interesting question: are addictive personalities born or made*? And if “made,”** is there perhaps something about immersion in a consumption-based culture that increases the likelihood that an individual will develop one?
- or some combination of the two
** to whatever degree is applicable
I think addictive personalities are certainly born but can also be made. How many advertisers spend millions of dollars a day trying to get you addicted to anything and everything? Mind you I think there is an important difference between an actual addiction and a cultural one. An exchange on Boston Legal summed it up nicely:
(Marketing guy for a video game company is on the stand. Company is being sued over their “addictive” game)
Lawyer: Have you ever been employed by a heroin dealer?
Marketing guy: Excuse me?
Lawyer: Of course not. Heroin dealers don’t need a marketing department because the product they sell actually is addictive.
(BTW I don’t think marijuana is addictive. However in the absence of traditional marketing techniques it manages to sell itself quite well. I detect a current of fear surrounding this- look how easily and quickly it sells as is! Turn today’s Mad Men onto it and no one will be able to resist! Forgetting of course that the imposed regulatory structure would make it much more difficult to buy.)
Consumer culture tries every day to get you hooked on something. Another reason why being against legalized marijuana doesn’t make any sense to me. Every aspect of our culture tells us every day “You must consume… you must consume… you must consume MORE!.. except that bag of weed over there, don’t consume that. But that case of beer is fine. In fact, it’s better than fine. If you drink that beer, beautiful women will want to have sex with you!” :rolleyes:
This issue, like most political issues, is about the money.
The system that has developed over the years rewards local and state law enforcement agencies with matching federal dollars for enforcement of drug laws. Confiscation of assests tied to drugs contribute to the problem. When a local agency cannot afford extra overtime for enforcement the money comes as a federal grant. If an increase in the problem can be shown, federal money. It’s a cash cow that gets milked.
The impact of the loss of money for law enforcement agencies should even minor drugs like pot be legalized has turned these agencies into what amounts to political lobbyists to protect the revenue source.
Follow the money. Who benefits from the perpetuation of pot laws? Who would lose the most money if it were legal?
Money, it’s the question and the answer.