U.S., Russia swap prisoners Reed and Yaroshenko amid war tensions

Excuse me, isn't Biden's son an addict? Oh that's right, special priviledge.

 

There are plenty of addicts around, but the question was why Russia would want to trade an American prisoner for a Russian cocaine smuggler.

Do you know?

 

Oh... your a druggie... I should have known. That explains a lot. Have a nice orbit.

 

300,000 years of human evolution. Intoxicating substances were used since before written history. And only about 60 years ago we started to put people in prison for using these substances. Where is the logic? And more importantly, why imprison people who don’t hurt anyone? We have an entire department of our government dedicated to fighting this “crime” - why not spend that money on voluntary prevention and addiction treatment instead of breaking families and lives?

 

Normally such things are typical when an exchanged person is from the intelligence service. I would not be surprised if later it happens that Russian pilot was a Russian intelligence service agent.

 

Breaking families and lives? Like being high and driving a car? Like performing an appendectomy while high? Or perhaps being engulfed in the wonder of a flame as it spreads through an apartment building?
Maybe it just keeps you on welfare, burdening society, when you have the talent, but not the focus to be contributing member of society?

 

Very interesting point of view. Never looked from this perspective.

 

Why are drugs illegal at all? The drug trade is big business for the powers that be and prisons are for-profit **businesses**.

They won't fix it because it's their gravy train.

 

Here is interesting note from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/politics/paul-whelan-left-behind-statement/index.html
Paul Whelan who was detained for espionage in Russia and sentenced to 16 years in prison is surprised that the US government has exchanged Russian pilot for a Texas student rather than for him. That is kind of strange. A person who was on government service should have a priority in terms of exchange over a drunken marine.

 

That's what I said earlier (maybe he is Russian version of Barry Seal who smuggled guns drugs for the CIA & Reagan)

 

Yes. Putting someone who had a job and was a functional member of society in prison over something they used to put into their body is wrong.

Alcohol is legal, but not everyone is driving drunk. I don’t smoke, but if I were to smoke a cigarette while driving I’d get very high for about 5 minutes because my body did not build up tolerance to nicotine. Can you imagine the horrors of cigarette smokers driving around?
The point it - these substances can be regulated and we have experience doing so - alcohol.

How many surgeons conduct surgeries while drunk on legal alcohol?
Another point - if you want to imprison people who do drugs only because they “might” hurt someone by driving or working, why not imprison all functional males for rape - after all, they all are capable of committing such crime.

That’s actually something that’s possible only with those who are very drunk.

90% of adults that I know have tried marijuana. About 50% tried cocaine. I don’t hang out with welfare recipients. In fact, all highly successful people I know have tried these drugs and they are doing fine. If drug laws worked 100%, all of these people would be sitting on welfare because their criminal records would ruin their careers.

Opposition to the war on drugs is nothing new in the west. I just think the effort is a huge waste of resources. Prison population should only consist of killers, rapists, murderers, thieves, and wife beaters. Non-violent drug offenders should not be in prisons, as placing them there just breeds more crime.

Yes - it’s a giant waste of money that fights crime that has no victims. I think the DEA should be disbanded and the funds should be used for free addiction counseling and treatment as well as marketing campaign to discourage underage use, similar to what we see with anti cigarette smoking campaign in schools.
To my fellow conservatives here - elimination of DEA is not the same as “defund the police”, something that I absolutely oppose. It just allows the police to spend their resources on fighting real crime that has real victims instead of working on entrapments that catch people who never hurt anyone.

 

300,000 years ago, one's future didn't depend on being able to study in school, concentrate on achievements other than spearing a wooly mammoth, drive a car, provide medical care, operate machinery, pilot an aircraft, and similar things. Now it does.

 

Have you considered the possibility that the effects of drug use you described above are actually caused by the war on drugs? Public humiliation of drug use and criminal records probably impact one’s ability to finish their university a heck of a lot more than an occasional joint.
Added:
If you want students to be able to concentrate better, then you might want to legalize cocaine and make it available in every lunch room.

 

You make some good points, that there are a lot of things in life that one should not be messed up to do.
But you also make it sound like anyone who uses drugs (alcohol is a drug) can't function in life, and you couldn't be more wrong.
In fact, you would be shocked if you learned who smoked pot. Most I know are responsible, functioning adults who like to imbibe occasionally. They own businesses, hold jobs and pay their taxes and bills, raise kids, pet dogs, do crossword puzzles, etc. Some of the harder drugs bring on more issues, but there are better ways to handle it, pointed out by @Thedimon .
Interesting that you believe in many freedoms, and are very passionate about some of them, particularly guns, but you want to limit what others are allowed to do, because you don't like them.
You like selective freedom. You do have to realize that society doesn't/can't work that way, because we each have our likes and dislikes.
Try this on for size: I don't like guns, so we should ban all guns in America. Forget the 2A. Delete it. And guns are used to kill WAY more people and have more of a negative impact on our everyday lives than marijuana ever will, IMO.
BTW, NO, I'M NOT ADVOCATING TAKING YOUR GUNS, I'M MAKING A POINT, before all the outrage begins....
The harder drugs (fentenyl, crack, meth) aren't very good for people, but could be better managed than just throwing people in jail.
I could go on, but I think you get the gist of it.

 

Only a true hater of self would demean himself and say that he's better under the influence of drugs than he is free of drugs. I'm all for you being able to do all the drugs you want... but nly when incarcerated so tat you won't fly the airplane I'm on, drive the bus I ride, lead the corporation that provides the dividends I depend on, wield the scalpel cutting me open, carry the gun in combat that defends me, rides the horse I'm betting on, fix the pipes that provide my water, wire my house, well.... you get my drift...

 

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about drugs. There IS, however, about the right to bear arms. If you wish to change or eliminate the 2d Amendment, you merely have to get both Houses of Congress approve the matter, then get 3/4 of the states to agree. Drug use is simply not protected like that your analogy is hogwash.

 

Your endless tome isn't bad. But I'll keep it simple. Anyone that thinks that drugs are not a threat to our society should rethink their position.

Look at the tens of thousands who died, and continue to die, from fentanyl, the thousands that have died from heroine and yes, those that have died from complications with cocaine... sniffed stuff... other injected stuff.

So you'll say that approval would not be for ALL drugs. Can you see a bunch of conservatives sitting down across from a bunch of druggies to decide which drugs will be banned and which won't? One side of the table would want most banned, the other would want none banned. At the end of the day there would still be bans and restrictions, meaning that the situation we have right now would only be somewhat modified, not really changed.

 

The 2A, just like the rest of the constitution, is words on a paper that can, as you pointed out, be changed.
I think it's very much the same, and I think what I said stands, that you only want things allowed that you like, and what you don't like shouldn't be allowed.
If you really got your way, you would be surprised, and you would be without electricity, running car, house, etc.
72% of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, with another 15% or so being neutral. Only 10% or so oppose legalization, so what does that tell you.
Sometimes the hogs gotta get washed. You have an unrealistic, myopic view of life, imo. But you are welcome to it! We all have opinions.

 

By the same token, the constitution says that anything not mentioned in the constitution is delegated to the states.
Where does it say in constitution that marijuana is illegal and that the federal government should enforce such prohibition? The constitution used to ban alcohol, but then the ban was removed. Where is the ban on marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs? Who makes the decision that alcohol is OK, but weed is not? Why is our federal government wasting taxpayers money on eradication of a chemical that poses no threat to anyone in its natural form? If you are a true conservative who advocates for small government, how can you justify the existence of an entire department in our federal government dedicated to imprisoning people who use or distribute such substances?

 

There ya go! Leave it to the states. This is a perfect example of "one size does not fit all". Let the people of every state decide. Your Constitutional reference is spot on. Its not in the Constitution, so up to the states.

 

So, I assume you are OK with the federal government erasing all drug laws and disbanding the DEA?

 

@zoom_copter66

When I was in my 20s I hang out with several groups of young professionals, like me - accountants, doctors, engineers, law students, etc. We all threw parties where cocaine was openly used by all.
We grew older and stopped and continue to be functional members of society, the high earners, professional class. If we all were busted for blow, we’d all be on welfare with criminal records. How would the society benefit from such outcome, where tax-paying high earners who contribute to the society are turned into a drain on society because of the need to prosecute, fund prison stay, and then welfare due to ruined criminal record making us unemployable?
As for weed - that stuff is everywhere, I’m sure 90% of all adults tried it at least once in their lifetimes and I can tell you with confidence that the amount of ruined lives from this exploration stands at 0.

Why alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are legal, yet marijuana, cocaine, and LSD are illegal, especially if one were to take into consideration the fact that the legal substances are a lot more addictive than the illegal substances? I easily stopped using cocaine, as it has no physical addiction, just mental, yet I struggled for years to quit smoking cigarettes. You see a lot of functional alcoholics in offices wondering if it’s 5 o’clock somewhere, yet I never see potheads openly craving weed like that.
The war on drugs is a drain on society, plain and simple. Legalize and regulate them all - that’s the only rational way to reform and streamline our law enforcement and reduce our prison population.

 

When things like fentanyl (and many more DANGEROUS drugs) remain banned or restricted in order to save the thousands of lives currently being lost, there will still be a need for DEA and laws. But, as I said, the list of which drugs are cleared and which drugs remaining too deadly to clear, will have to be established first.