YOU solve America's Drug Problem

[Anttech]

People do not have a freedom or right to enjoy illicit drugs, as long as tax money goes to support their health care. Taxing those same drugs won't come close to paying for this.

Why do you think cigarettes are a fundamental right? How does the right of a smoker to enjoy a small 'high' on nicotine outweight the economic damages caused by thousands of middle-aged people dying of emphyshema? Social rights like health care are a doubled-edged sword. If the government is obligated to pay for health care, then it logically has the right to enforce laws to protect public health. Hence laws on dangerous drugs, minimum age laws for cigarettes and alcohol, helmet laws, infectious disease quarantine laws, etc.

The current annual budget of the DEA is around $2 billion (wikipedia). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/406901_4" in the Am. J. of Health estimates the 1984 annual health cost of smoking to be $53.7 billion. Drug enforcement is cheap and at least somewhat effective. Health care costs are cripplingly expensive.

Slightly off topic, the epidemic of preventible type-2 diabetes was the front-page headline of the New York Times on Monday: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/n...eases, Conditions, and Health Topics/Diabetes

Why would you need the tax money need to go to health? You already pay health insurance, so If you are a drug user your premium would probably go up... its the same as banning fast cars, because the road tax you pay isn't going to health in case you crash... If you legalise drug use, or decriminalise it (for softer drugs like in NL) you will not find that consumption goes up, what you will find is that Police resources are freed up to tackle other more serious crimes... Which in turn will decrease the amount of money tax payers have to pay to the state police.

 

[Azael]

I don't know how trustworthy this site is when it has a very clear agenda. But I guess they haven't pulled the numbers out of there ass. War on drugs is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

 

[ray b]

the war mind set is very good at making a bad situation worse
why not give peace a chance

Alcohol ban was tried and failed but the mob made out very very well

danger would be less with pure drugs as would health effects
but too many cops and others would need to find real work

btw penguin fill out some forms and pay some fees and get a class3 fed gun dealer license and you can have your machine gun

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't understand this reasoning. AFAIK there's no significant way the federal government can effect change in the social and psychological roots; their various programs and such only go so far.

Education and treatment might help, but maybe that's the point. It's not the Federal Government's job to solve all problems. In fact this is supposed to be a state and not a federal issue...another example of how the Constitution takes a beating.

But there is a great benefit in attacking the symptoms of the problems - the drugs - even with partial success.

Really, can you show where this has worked and not only made the problem worse? Drug addicts are already victims. Victimizing them further all but gaurantees that we make lifetime criminals out of them; for one by creating an arrest record, and next by forcing them underground and into a dangerous black market.

Obviously, the health care savings. And a reduction in drug-related crime.

Drug related crimes result mainly from the drug laws. Have you checked the cost of prisons lately?

I don't really see how privacy is involved here - wiretaps on drug dealers involve court orders, the illegal NSA stuff isn't used for this.

The day that I had to pee in a bottle in order to get a job, I felt violated. AFAIC, when I leave the job, the boss has nothing to say about how I choose to live; and he is certainly not entitled to my pee; though I thought to offer something from the rear, at the time! Obviously certain jobs carry public safety concerns, and these issues must be carefully considered, but in principle I see this as a violation of privacy - illegal search, which makes it a federal issue. So in this sense it is part of the entire picture. Next, the same applies for alcohol. Did you know that some employers now test for booze as well...and cigarettes? How about fat next? And should we have to pass a cholesterol test? How about heart disease; don't want to hire one of those guys... And get the DNA tests and make sure this guy isn't liekly to cost us a fortune in medical insurance... Get the idea? And did you hear about the incident in Illinois in which the cops went to a womans house, and right in front of her children, arrested and hauled her off for smoking cigarettes in front of the kids - child endangerment? The law that made this possible was repealed, but for a long time now I have watched in horror as basics concepts of privacy go up in smoke.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...though it would be an interesting twist on Dawinism if the day comes when only genetically superior people are desirable for hire.

 

[Azael]

gattaca :)

That would be a sad future since I doubt the great people in history was geneticly superior.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The day that I had to pee in a bottle in order to get a job, I felt violated. AFAIC, when I leave the job, the boss has nothing to say about how I choose to live; and he is certainly not entitled to my pee; though I thought to offer something from the rear, at the time! Obviously certain jobs carry public safety concerns, and these issues must be carefully considered, but in principle I see this as a violation of privacy - illegal search, which makes it a federal issue. So in this sense it is part of the entire picture. Next, the same applies for alcohol. Did you know that some employers now test for booze as well...and cigarettes? How about fat next? And should we have to pass a cholesterol test? How about heart disease; don't want to hire one of those guys... And get the DNA tests and make sure this guy isn't liekly to cost us a fortune in medical insurance... Get the idea? And did you hear about the incident in Illinois in which the cops went to a womans house, and right in front of her children, arrested and hauled her off for smoking cigarettes in front of the kids - child endangerment? The law that made this possible was repealed, but for a long time now I have watched in horror as basics concepts of privacy go up in smoke.

To some extent I agree with Drug Testing for jobs. Most places test you once and that's it. Personally I'm not sure if I want someone working for me that can't clean up long enough to take a drug test so he can have a job. I also know plenty of people that smoke pot and most often they do so AT work. It's kinda scary.
I know that certain police stations around here just recently made it so you can't smoke if you work for them. I kinda understand that one if you are supposed to be able to run after suspects and there's no question that smoking reduces lung capacity. Also people that are offering you life time benefits probably should be allowed to know if you are a smoker or not. There are other sorts of jobs where they don't let their employees smoke mostly in the medical industry I think and other places that are sensitive about contaminants. The booze one I have never heard of before.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

gattaca :)
That would be a sad future since I doubt the great people in history was geneticly superior.

Oh and Gattaca was great. I loved that movie.
I worked at a Blockbuster Video back then and about slapped a couple of ditzy blonde chicks that said it sucked.