One of my nuttier political opinions.

[ironsides]

I am not interested in drugs, but I have thought for a long time that we ought to give judges the power to decide if a criminal was incorrigable. Hopeless, in other words.
Why doesn't the US and/or Canada buy an isolated island in the south Pacific somewhere, and dump them? Cuts down on the costs of keeping them in prison, and they can fight it out on their own turf. I'm not saying let them starve to death - send a ship by with supplies once a month.

I wonder what would happen.:roll: It also eliminates the death penalty, which so many of you dislike.

Uncle

I think you sort of on the right track, but why something nice like the south Pacific, plenty of unused islands up in the Artic.

 

[unclepercy]

What would happen?

I think you sort of on the right track, but why something nice like the south Pacific, plenty of unused islands up in the Artic.

Believe me, I thought of that too. Canada surely has a few islands in the Northwest Territory that it could donate. But, then we'd get into all those human rights issues, and before you know it, we just as well build prisons. I thought the South Pacific would eliminate housing. Send 'em hammocks!

If we were to do that - what do you really think would happen? We could call it
Exisle.

Uncle

 

[ironsides]

Believe me, I thought of that too. Canada surely has a few islands in the Northwest Territory that it could donate. But, then we'd get into all those human rights issues, and before you know it, we just as well build prisons. I thought the South Pacific would eliminate housing. Send 'em hammocks!

If we were to do that - what do you really think would happen? We could call it
Exisle.

Uncle

Hammocks and coconuts, other than the cost of the hammocks cheap too. Ok with me

 

[taxslave]

Believe me, I thought of that too. Canada surely has a few islands in the Northwest Territory that it could donate. But, then we'd get into all those human rights issues, and before you know it, we just as well build prisons. I thought the South Pacific would eliminate housing. Send 'em hammocks!

If we were to do that - what do you really think would happen? We could call it
Exisle.

Uncle

England had just such a place at one time. They called it Australia.
One of the things missing or perhaps deliberately ignored when discussing drug dependancies is the abundance of people addicted to prescription drugs. Many of these are worse than the recreational drugs that are illegal. All depends on to who and how much you donate to politicians I guess.
Opiates, which are mostly illegal are better and less addictive than some of Big Pharma's products and have the benefit of being natural and if used would create a good income in places like Astan.
YJ: glad you are with us on this one and your reasoning is sound as well. It costs far less to treat an addiction than incarceration. Never mind the collateral damage like theft , crime and health care.

 

[gopher]

I would prefer to use the term ''de-criminalization'' of drugs. And yes, by classifying them as controlled substances they would be subjected to regulation and taxed thereby increasing revenues designed for social services. This would lessen our jail population, reduce crime, while increasing much needed tax revenues.

 

[Niflmir]

Legalizing it will not stop organized crime, it will be taxed and those connected will get it cheaper, crime will just shift to something better that we will eventually be legalized also using the same argument down the road. . No one is being forced to do anything. There is no need for recreational drugs, if your live needs enhancement of some sort there are plenty of other ways to kill yourself without involving the public. Life alone should be all the feeling good you need.

Let me show you how ridiculous your stance is:

Legalizing it will not stop organized crime, it will be taxed and those connected will get it cheaper, crime will just shift to something better that we will eventually be legalized also using the same argument down the road. . No one is being forced to do anything. There is no need for recreation, if your live needs enhancement of some sort there are plenty of other ways to kill yourself without involving the public. Life alone should be all the feeling good you need.

The biggest point is: recreational drugs do not involve the public. When I drink a cup of coffee, does it affect you? When I get home after a long day and drink a beer, does your house suddenly burst into flames? When I go to a cafe in the Netherlands and smoke a joint, do your children suddenly contract brain damage?

It is a personal issue. Read the damn study, because you really don't have any evidence. It doesn't harm anyone in general and it certainly isn't guaranteed to kill someone in general.

 

[ironsides]

England had just such a place at one time. They called it Australia.
One of the things missing or perhaps deliberately ignored when discussing drug dependancies is the abundance of people addicted to prescription drugs. Many of these are worse than the recreational drugs that are illegal. All depends on to who and how much you donate to politicians I guess.
Opiates, which are mostly illegal are better and less addictive than some of Big Pharma's products and have the benefit of being natural and if used would create a good income in places like Astan.
YJ: glad you are with us on this one and your reasoning is sound as well. It costs far less to treat an addiction than incarceration. Never mind the collateral damage like theft , crime and health care.

And France had Devils Island. What we were referring to was sending the drug dealers put there permanently.
No question about it, there are quite a few addicted to prescription drugs, that is why there should be a national data base set up that doctors must access and use under threat of prosecution, to see if a patient is being treated with the same drug by someone else. When a doctor writes a prescription for a drug, that doctor should make sure the patient is not getting it from another source. In the case of abuse of prescription drugs, doctors are the pushers. Doctors should be held responsible for their actions.

 

[YukonJack]

"It's your body. You should be able to do whatever you wish with it."

As long as you don't expect me to pay for it, if you screw up.

 

[ironsides]

It is against the law in the U.S. to attempt suicide, so using any recreational drug that could cause death by overdose is against the law.

 

[Niflmir]

"It's your body. You should be able to do whatever you wish with it."

As long as you don't expect me to pay for it, if you screw up.

Technically, that is what we are currently doing with drugs. Paying to deal with the people who we believe are screwing up their body. Legalizing it and taxing it would be forcing the users to pay for it.

 

[Niflmir]

It is against the law in the U.S. to attempt suicide, so using a gun that could cause death is against the law.

This should convince you that your legal opinion is meaningless. Heck, by your argument it would be illegal to drink alcohol or smoke nicotine.

 

[Machjo]

I am not interested in drugs, but I have thought for a long time that we ought to give judges the power to decide if a criminal was incorrigable. Hopeless, in other words.
Why doesn't the US and/or Canada buy an isolated island in the south Pacific somewhere, and dump them? Cuts down on the costs of keeping them in prison, and they can fight it out on their own turf. I'm not saying let them starve to death - send a ship by with supplies once a month.

I wonder what would happen.:roll: It also eliminates the death penalty, which so many of you dislike.

Uncle

Hmmm... are you describing a treatment method, whereby they'd have no access to the drug until it leaves their system?

 

[taxslave]

It is against the law in the U.S. to attempt suicide, so using any recreational drug that could cause death by overdose is against the law.

Yes but if you are successful how are they going to prosecute? Dumb law. The definition of a real loser- Someone who even fails at suicide.

 

[Machjo]

Yes but if you are successful how are they going to prosecute? Dumb law. The definition of a real loser- Someone who even fails at suicide.

I wouldn't mock that. I've known two persons in my life who'd had to combat depression, and it's not funny.

 

[Tonington]

Legalizing it will not stop organized crime, it will be taxed and those connected will get it cheaper, crime will just shift to something better that we will eventually be legalized also using the same argument down the road.

Nobody is claiming it will stop organized crime. It makes it harder for them to make their illicit money when they are no longer in a one horse industry. That's one advantage to society. Tax revenues from the sale of those goods provide revenue for treatment programs. Society gains here again. Users are now funding their own treatment instead of non-user tax payers.

There is no need for recreational drugs, if your live needs enhancement of some sort there are plenty of other ways to kill yourself without involving the public.

Nearly everything we do is enhancement of life. Get off your high horse. Do you ever have fun? Everyone has a different definition, and it's fascist of you to suggest that it's your way or none at all. Congratulations, fascist. It's a rare bird that earns that title legit.

Life alone should be all the feeling good you need.

Yup. Eat, sleep, breathe, drink water, and make babies. That's it I guess... Throw your computer away, hypocrite.

 

[unclepercy]

And France had Devils Island. What we were referring to was sending the drug dealers put there permanently.
No question about it, there are quite a few addicted to prescription drugs, that is why there should be a national data base set up that doctors must access and use under threat of prosecution, to see if a patient is being treated with the same drug by someone else. When a doctor writes a prescription for a drug, that doctor should make sure the patient is not getting it from another source. In the case of abuse of prescription drugs, doctors are the pushers. Doctors should be held responsible for their actions.

We have that database, thanks to Ross Perot. It's over 30 years old and has resulted in so much suffering because doctors are afraid to prescribe opiates to those who really need them. My family dr. won't prescribe them if you have CANCER...you have to go to a pain management dr. Don't mess with the drs. and make them paranoid.

Uncle

 

[ironsides]

What exactly is a recreational drug, something like having a couple of drinks with dinner, or like going to a bar and getting yourself smashed?

Is a recreational drug something you can stop at anytime, or something that becomes the driving force in your life.

 

[Tonington]

What exactly is a recreational drug, something like having a couple of drinks with dinner, or like going to a bar and getting yourself smashed?

There's no difference here as far as the drug is concerned. It's a recreational drug. One example shows moderation, and the other shows abuse of the same drug.

Is a recreational drug something you can stop at anytime, or something that becomes the driving force in your life.

We could say the same thing about writers and their novels...

 

[Tonington]

What exactly is a recreational drug, something like having a couple of drinks with dinner, or like going to a bar and getting yourself smashed?

There's no difference here as far as the drug is concerned. It's a recreational drug. One example shows moderation, and the other shows abuse of the same drug.

Is a recreational drug something you can stop at anytime, or something that becomes the driving force in your life.

We could say the same thing about writers and their novels...

 

[ironsides]

There's no difference here as far as the drug is concerned. It's a recreational drug. One example shows moderation, and the other shows abuse of the same drug.



We could say the same thing about writers and their novels...

I should have said the driving destructive force in your life.