Heroin. Destroys society + why you are being lied to.

Perhaps as much of a concern is the penchant for so called 'smart drugs'

They are research chemicals, and in many cases, more dangerous than cocaine etc.

 

I'll simplify the argument.
Do you want to legalize heroin or not? Yes or No

Do you want to tax payers to pay for heroin addicts to get their fix and rehab? Sim / Nao

 

The long term and best answer.

A society that is happier and has pride will not incline to using heroin.

 

You may well be right, but I think it would be irresponsible just to dismiss the idea as unworkable without looking into it. I don't mean that you personally should do anything, but policy makers should feel obliged to. The policy was tremendously unpopular as it was being considered and it took a few of the top people to just push it through against the advice of almost everybody, media included. Portugal certainly doesn't have the kind of hip hop culture we have here but when I last visited (which was just prior to the new laws taking effect) there were parts of Lisbon that seemed to have been completely written off and left to the junkies. I didn't actually wander around these parks and streets because it was made very clear at the airport that it was not a good idea. But you could see them from buses and taxis and honestly it looked like someone was shooting a film or something. Obvious open air drug markets with unconscious people (or dead people?) lying all over the place. It didn't look real.

I haven't been back since then but by all accounts these neighborhoods have recovered and there are no more open air drug markets. An approach that doesn't criminalize drug use is just about the only thing we haven't tried here, and nothing else has worked at all. The whole thing sounded bonkers right from the start but surely we (and I include myself here because I thought the only solution would have been a nuclear bomb) should be willing to suspend disbelief long enough to properly evaluate something and be open to the possibility that we have been completely wrong with our approach.

My guess is that there will always be a core group, a predictable percentage of a population who will seek out and become addicted to the type of drugs we currently make illegal. And probably some more who become junkies the way Limbaugh did, via pharmaceuticals. Incarceration does nothing to stop these people from becoming addicted because it happens after the fact. I doubt anybody who thinks he's just going give heroin a quick go and, you know, see what it's all about, thinks that this action will result, a year or two or three, in jail or death or both. And I don't think we should punish people for acquiring an addiction. We should certainly punish them if they steal to fund their habit, or do anything illegal, of course. But the main reason they end up having to rip things off all the time is they're forced to pay hundreds of dollars a day (I think - it's substantial, in any case) for a product which is worth about 25 cents.

The way it works is they haven't legalized drugs by any means - there are no cocaine shops or anything - but possession has been decriminalized. You're not going to pick up a felony for heroin possession, for example. They still go after the distributors but they've chosen to treat the users differently. If you get busted they do some kind of assessment to figure out how deeply you're in to all of it: are you a wasted student who made a dumb choice last night at that club, or have you been using the stuff for more than a decade, completely untethered from the system? And they would sentence the student to complete some kind of rehab/education type thing and that would be the end of it. But the junkies are given the option of coming in from the cold, entering a serious program that begins with stabilizing their health (heroin is on the house, boys!) and access to mental health professionals and probably a lot more. And the goal is to get them off it and back into mainstream society. And they can make use of this program as long as they follow the rules, although I'm not clear on what happens if they don't.

It sounds like a system ripe for abuse - whenever things are looking dark just get busted so you can have 6 weeks of free meals and pharmaceutical grade heroin, right? But it hasn't worked out like that - far more people are getting their lives together than anybody expected - I think they were prepared to write off the cost of maintaining these people indefinitely because it was cheaper than letting them take over several square miles and turn the city into a dump, with all the crime and policing that comes with that. But as I said, the really bad numbers are down. Pot use is up a little bit. But people are managing to stop using the stuff, which is certainly what I think should be the goal. Crime is way down. Needle park is long gone. The question is not does this approach work - it obviously does. It's whether or not it's scalable. The US is not Lisbon. Portugal has the population of greater New York City. And we might be crazier than the Portugese. But, still, we really need to try something new, don't you think?

 

1830 - David Sassoon a Baghdadi Jew and Jewish banker of David Sassoon & Co., with branches in China, Japan and Hong Kong uses his monopoly of the opium trade in this area, on behalf of the Rothschild controlled British government, to traffic 18,956 chests of opium earning millions of dollars for the Rothschilds’ and the British Royal family.

1839 - Due to the rampant opium addiction in China, profiting David Sassoon, the British Royal family, and the Rothschilds’, the Manchu Emperor XuanZong Daoguang (Tao-kuang) orders the trade be stopped. He names the Commissioner of Canton, Lin Tse-Hsu, as leader of a campaign against opium. Lin Tse-Hsu organizes the seizing of 2,000 chests of Sassoon opium and orders it to be thrown into the river. David Sassoon informs the Rothschilds’ of this and they demand that the armed forces of Great Britain retaliate in order to protect their drug running interests.

Thus, the Opium Wars begin with the British Army once again fighting as mercenaries for Rothschild interests. They attack cities and blockade ports. The Chinese Army, by now decimated by 10 years of rampant opium addiction, prove no match for the British Army. The war ends in 1842 with the signing of the Treaty of Nanking. This includes the following provisions designed to guarantee the Rothschilds’ through their puppet, David Sassoon, the right to provide an entire population with opium:

1. Full legalization of the opium trade in China.

2.Compensation to David Sassoon of two million pounds for the opium dumped into the river by Lin Tse-Hsu.

3.Territorial sovereignty for the British Crown over several designated offshore islands.

[video=youtube;BGDiYofpwvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=BGDiYofpwvI[/video]

 

No, I don't want to legalize heroin. This isn't a simple issue so I can't answer your simple question with a yes or no - you would be no closer to understanding my position if I did.

I don't think you should be able to stop by a Big Lots and pick up some beer and maybe a little smack. But I think we need to look into decriminalization. I certainly don't think being addicted to something should be a crime. All the stuff that comes along with it, the theft and whatever else, obviously these are real crimes that deserve real punishment. But I don't think putting a junkie in jail or prison for possession does anything good for the junkie or for the rest of us. I'm not ok with paying to incarcerate someone, much in the same way as you're not ok with paying to get them drugs. Except we spend far more money locking people up for possession than we could possibly ever dole out on "drugs for everybody!" But that's not what I think we should do, anyway.

I think the goal should always be to get people off drugs. And since I don't see an addiction as something criminal, or even immoral in itself, I'd rather figure out a system where we don't saddle a bunch of people with felonies and the trainwreck that incarceration entails. As I described in another response, there are examples of alternatives to what we do that seem to work much better than our system, for much less money. So this would include looking into whether or not it's a good idea to provide heroin to some people as part of a program whose goal is abstinence. I can tell you just hate this idea on a gut level, but are you really willing to dismiss an idea that has worked elsewhere just based on your gut? If we were to limit the scope of the question to exclude some kind of "free heroin for life" card, would you still be opposed to programs that included the drugs as a short term measure to stabilize the patients' lives, tapering off until hopefully they stop? And during this period there are a lot of things that could be done as well - retraining, whatever. Things whose goal would always be to get someone off the street and back onto the books at the IRS. Because that's what I think would work here, if people could get rid of that gut reaction Americans always have when they think other people are getting something for nothing.

I'm curious - why are you ok with spending 40 grand a year (times who knows how many people times who knows how many years) to incarcerate someone for using drugs, but have such a kneejerk reaction to spending a fraction of that, some of which might be spend on drugs, to get the same people back into society where they belong? I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination but this seems like something conservatives would love - it involves getting rid of drug laws which just reek of big government, it would (if it works, of course) save money, keep people out of jail and paying taxes. And it rewards people willing to do what it takes to get off the drugs without doling out hyperbolic, draconian sentences to those who can't.

 

Alcohol prohibition is the strongest argument to get these drugs off the streets.

Since prohibition, the number of alcoholics in America has skyrocketed, which can be directly tracked down to legalization.

 

Illegality causes crime in the case of drugs. It also causes unknown 'cutting' agents and unknown potency the two main causes of Heroin deaths outside of criminal violence. Legalize it, regulate it like alcohol (purity and content) and let market forces ensue, sell it cheap and be done with the whole problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Well...Since one couldn't GET alcohol during prohibition without committing a crime, it's obvious that we are consuming more alcohol NOW.

 

Yes, singling out a particular group and murdering them has always worked out well for humanity. Perhaps we could take a more nuanced approach by taking some money away from this inane "war on drugs" and invest it into the disease rather than the symptoms.

 

Legalizing heroin and other drugs can really open up the potential to extremely cheap medicine and many other benefits as well..... Dont know many people who would go out and buy it and become addicts just because it comes legal... but perhaps a few.

 

Whos murdering them? Im not doing anything except getting up and going to work every day. No its not the Heroin addicts fault, its my fault for not paying for their drugs? Im murdering them because I dont want to pay for their filthy little habit? I stand by my statement. I hope they OD and die. And I hope it hurts a little on their way out the door. They are the scum of the earth and deserve nothing. Until any of you have stayed up all night standing in your back yard to protect your stuff from being stolen by a squad of desperate heroin addicts you have no business telling me how I should think or feel about drug addicted filth. You are uninformed. I am not because I am dealing with it first hand.

 

umm you didnt answer the second question. You answered the first you said no.
Secondly I am fine paying whatever to incarcerate someone who exhibits dangerous behavior for one simple reason. The lives of my family are priceless and I do not want any drug addicted filth running around my neighborhood with trained attack pitbulls or breaking into my home when I am not here to protect my family. My daughter has to stay inside the house because I am afraid their pitbull that they train to hang on rope and train to attack small stuffed animals for entertainment is going to get loose when they get high and rip her throat off. Do you need a better answer than that? because there isnt one. I punish bad behavior severely. Its my tax money and that is how I want it used. You want to condone bad behavior. SO if thats the case, then you pay for their drugs and more importantly you have them move into your neighborhood where you can be taught a valuable lesson about the difference between a law abiding citizen and house full of drug addicts who pound on your windows a 3 am just to get a rise out of you. Until that day comes I want them in prison behind bars no matter what it costs. All I know is when they were in prison for two months, everything was back to normal. no pitbulls, no vandalism, no stolen items, no console ripped out of y car because it had 1.67 in change, no cars coming and going at all hours of the night, no yelling at 3 am........Now Im back to patrol duty thanks to the liberal MA judges and people like you who think we need to coddle these Pieces of fecal matter. I mean they only got caught home invading four times across three states and burning down a church. Im sure they are really good people that just need a chance? Right? They even post their mugshots on Facebook like its a right of passage and them joke about what a joke the system is.

Ive already donated enough of my time and money. Its your turn.

 

I think I did answer it, in quite a bit of detail. What did I miss?

As far as the money thing, unless something changes you're never going to stop paying. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that I don't care about real crimes - property damage, theft, assault. These shouldn't go unpunished. But I don't think being addicted to something should be a crime.

Anyway, you obviously don't want to solve the drug problem. You just want revenge for stuff done to by people in the past exacted on people who haven't done anything yet. And you're willing to pay through the nose for it.

That's cool, I guess. I do object to the way you continually misrepresent my position, though. You seem incapable of understanding that I think actual crimes should be punished as usual. I don't advocate coddling anybody. But if someone's only crime is getting busted with a drug would you call them fecal matter? I wouldn't, any more than I would an alcoholic who hasn't run anybody over yet.

So, again,I'm going to try to end this conversation. You have far too many preconceived ideas about what I believe to actually pay attention when I explain it to you. I'm tired of correcting you in this regard. Good luck with the neighborhood.

 

Your position is morally repugnant and philosophically inconsistent. And you have indicated you hoped they would die. Your position on this, and your inability to understand another position (despite my having corrected you over and over again) seems endemic with conservatives. The fact that you would be happier spending far more money to no good purpose than spend less with a chance of ameliorating the problem to everyone's benefit says everything anybody needs to know about the bankrupt moral code that is American conservatism.

 

If the drug were to be legalized, addicts would not become desperate in the first place. It is the illegality, not the drug.

 

The criminals who have always controlled the opium trade will do everything they can to make sure that it remains illegal and that the prices are grossly inflated. The international bankscum depend on the heroin trade and have for centuries. Heroin could be produced and sold profitably for less than a hundred bucks a pound. As far as I am concerned it should be sold right along side of rot gut wine and cheap beer for ten bucks an ounce. That way no one would have to rob your house to get a fix. You ever hear of people burglarizing houses to get a quart of Ripple?

 

In the US most of the prison services are now private.

Which means they need a steady flow of 'clients'.

Low crime rates, would mean few prisoners, which would mean loss of money for them.

That is why they and the state have no real interest in true policies that would reduce crime, indeed, they invent new laws to increase the flow.

 

Where on earth do you live that you're fighting off roving bands of heroin addicts? Because, forgive me, but that sounds like the plot to a Steven Seagal film. Regardless, problems endemic to any segment of society should be held up to the whole, not left to rot on the vine.

 

Youre the one that has a morally repugnant position. And out of the two of us I am the only one that has first hand knowledge of the heroin situation and the problems it causes. My position is to put drug addicted criminals behind bars and keep them there until they learn how act like adults. If thats morally repugnant to you then that is simply too bad. Also, you have not corrected me on anything. You failed to answer a yes or no succinct cogent valid question with a simple yes or no. If you want to spend taxes on giving free drugs to drug addicts and dealers then simply say "YES" without a bunch of worthless word salad. As I stated, another point you failed to acknowledge or simply dont comprehend, in your little world of liberal rose colored glasses you think all drug addicts will want to rehabilitate and get jobs and plant flowers, back in reality where I live, the vast majority of drug addicts will never act responsible no matter how much money you dump on it. I therefore am smart enough to know its best to keep them behind bars where they cant hurt anyone. You on the other hand want to set them free and frolic with them while rainbows and sunshine come out the tailpipe of the prius you are driving them to rehab in.
Excuse me if you find it repugnant that I dont want my daughters throat to be ripped out by a trained viscious pitbull at the hands of your drug addicted filthy little feel good hobbies. Until you have them move into your neighborhood you have no business saying you are correcting me on anything. Secondly it shows you how smart you are that you think you have corrected someones opinion. If it werent for you liberals letting these filth out on the street in the first place we wouldnt even be having this conversation. Behind bars they cannot hurt my family. With your ideology, they are let out to harm innocent hard working people.
sigh no wonder these drug addicts smile in their mugshots like its a joke. Its because it is a joke. People like you enable them.

 

What a steaming pile. There was a guy addicted for his entire adult life...and all he did was revolutionize medicine. William Stewart Halstead, cofounder of Johns Hopkins and the father of modern surgery, was a drug addict!

 

Yeah you know how successful heroin addicts turn out all the time, I mean they should be passing this stuff out for free! LOL oh wait thats what you guys want. Sure you should be able to get a job no problem. You could even save the company a lot of effort by telling them you are a heroin addict during your interview. Im sure they will agree with you and hire you on the spot.

Raise of hands, who here thinks its a good idea to have your children near heroin addicts? If not then why.

 

Oh I forgot, since you said "what a steaming pile". Are you saying heroin addicts didnt break into my house and destroy it? Because I can supply pictures and the detectives reports if you need proof.

 

Your point?

Wait, you have none. Never mind.

 

That depends entirely on the legality of the stuff. If it's legal, cheap, and as easy to get as aspirin, and they know their tolerances well enough to be "stable" while on the job (i.e., full of enough of the drug to keep withdrawal symptoms away but not enough to be high), then yes, they absolutely COULD and WOULD try to get and hold a job. On the other hand, when prohibition has made it expensive enough that a normal job won't pay for the habit, and getting it requires spending a few hours on the street hoping that certain people of disreputable character will show up at the right place and time, and using it can result in a criminal history that discourages employers from hiring you, then stealing becomes a more practical option.

Hmmmm.

 

It is called narco terrorism, a new form of war, for the new millennia.

Big in Russia.