PDA

View Full Version : Compromising



Perianne
07-01-2014, 10:31 AM
My "Minorities" thread got highjacked into a talk about drugs. So, let's continue it here. One of the problems I have with drugs is the crime and health costs involved. So, let's compromise in committee.

For sake of argument, let's say that whatever we agree on here will be passed by Congress and the President will sign into law, and, the SCOTUS will agree to. But first we must reach a compromise. Let us also assume that neither side will get all they want. I will fire the first volley:

1. Legalization of all presently illegal drugs.

2. Any crimes committed by anyone in pursuit of obtaining funds to acquire said drugs will result in a felony charge, plus, the three strikes rule.

3. Any health issues that result from the usage of said drugs, as determined by a physician panel, will be paid for by the state one time. Further health issues will (a) require self-payment, or,(b) result in no required medical treatment.

4. Drug addiction treatment will be paid for by the state as medically determined by a physician panel.
Alyosha Matalese

Paperback Writer
07-01-2014, 10:51 AM
Sounds bloody excellent. Portugal has done much the same and both drug use and crime lowered.

Matty
07-01-2014, 10:56 AM
I don't know what I can add Perianne.


i vote NO against legalizing human misery.

i vote No against taxing human misery.

I vote No against forcing the taxpayer to pay for self inflicted addiction.

Now if drugs are legalized then


the government takes on the liability of the laws they have passed.
if any person in my family is harmed by a doper I want the right to sue the government who legalized these substances.

We should benefit from the lessons learned from cigarettes and booze.

Cthulhu
07-01-2014, 11:30 AM
My "Minorities" thread got highjacked into a talk about drugs. So, let's continue it here. One of the problems I have with drugs is the crime and health costs involved. So, let's compromise in committee.

For sake of argument, let's say that whatever we agree on here will be passed by Congress and the President will sign into law, and, the SCOTUS will agree to. But first we must reach a compromise. Let us also assume that neither side will get all they want. I will fire the first volley:

1. Legalization of all presently illegal drugs.

Groovy.



2. Any crimes committed by anyone in pursuit of obtaining funds to acquire said drugs will result in a felony charge, plus, the three strikes rule.

Impossible to enforce. How would we be able to determine that he was going to buy drugs with it? And not pay his delinquent cell phone bill? Or food? Punish them for the crime commited. Sentence them based on return rate.

Now if they are hopped up on drugs and commit crime while doped up? Throw the books at them. Twice.



3. Any health issues that result from the usage of said drugs, as determined by a physician panel, will be paid for by the state one time. Further health issues will (a) require self-payment, or,(b) result in no required medical treatment.

4. Drug addiction treatment will be paid for by the state as medically determined by a physician panel.

Nah. Let them reap the rewards for their decisions. Government shouldn't be a charity. Besides, identity theft and such. Easier and cheaper to just not pay for it at all.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 11:36 AM
I don't know what I can add Perianne.


i vote NO against legalizing human misery.

i vote No against taxing human misery.

I vote No against forcing the taxpayer to pay for self inflicted addiction.

Now if drugs are legalized then


the government takes on the liability of the laws they have passed.
if any person in my family is harmed by a doper I want the right to sue the government who legalized these substances.

We should benefit from the lessons learned from cigarettes and booze.

How should we compromise? For in my scenario, if we do nothing, then the present systems stands.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 11:45 AM
I don't really have an issue with it, with the exception of the three strike rule.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 11:47 AM
I don't know what I can add Perianne.


i vote NO against legalizing human misery.

i vote No against taxing human misery.

I vote No against forcing the taxpayer to pay for self inflicted addiction.

Now if drugs are legalized then


the government takes on the liability of the laws they have passed.
if any person in my family is harmed by a doper I want the right to sue the government who legalized these substances.

We should benefit from the lessons learned from cigarettes and booze.

I'm not either, or the surface, but.....

You're for the taxpayer paying for the imprisonment and every expense that goes along with that(trial, court appointed attorney, etc) of said nonviolent drug user. How does that make any sense?

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 11:55 AM
My "Minorities" thread got highjacked into a talk about drugs. So, let's continue it here. One of the problems I have with drugs is the crime and health costs involved. So, let's compromise in committee.

For sake of argument, let's say that whatever we agree on here will be passed by Congress and the President will sign into law, and, the SCOTUS will agree to. But first we must reach a compromise. Let us also assume that neither side will get all they want. I will fire the first volley:

1. Legalization of all presently illegal drugs.

2. Any crimes committed by anyone in pursuit of obtaining funds to acquire said drugs will result in a felony charge, plus, the three strikes rule.

3. Any health issues that result from the usage of said drugs, as determined by a physician panel, will be paid for by the state one time. Further health issues will (a) require self-payment, or,(b) result in no required medical treatment.

4. Drug addiction treatment will be paid for by the state as medically determined by a physician panel.
@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796)

I see no reason for me to pay for the medical treatment of drug addicts!

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:01 PM
So here is my rules for you to get high anyway that you want.

#1 33% tax on drugs so that the addicts pay for there own treatment!

#2 drug testing, to qualify for unemployment and welfare benefits.

#3 10 years in labor camp for furnishing drugs to a minor. And just like Guns a +5 year add on for committing a crime while under the influence of drugs.

#4 kill someone while on drugs, Manslaughter max sentence and no parole.

#5 No increase in unemployment insurance rates for employers that fire people that are on drugs and not preforming there jobs.

Matty
07-01-2014, 12:02 PM
I'm not either, or the surface, but.....

You're for the taxpayer paying for the imprisonment and every expense that goes along with that(trial, court appointed attorney, etc) of said nonviolent drug user. How does that make any sense?
Because right now that is the law. I have no choice but to pay it.

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:02 PM
I see no reason for me to pay for the medical treatment of drug addicts!

I see no reason for me to pay 12x the cost of medical treatment so that people can feel good about a miserable failure to prevent and stop drug use.

Matty
07-01-2014, 12:03 PM
So here is my rules for you to get high anyway that you want.

#1 33% tax on drugs so that the addicts pay for there own treatment!

#2 drug testing, to qualify for unemployment and welfare benefits.

#3 10 years in labor camp for furnishing drugs to a minor. And just like Guns a +5 year add on for committing a crime while under the influence of drugs.

#4 kill someone while on drugs, Manslaughter max sentence and no parole.

#5 No increase in unemployment insurance rates for employers that fire people that are on drugs and not preforming there jobs.
#4 is premeditated first degree murder.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 12:03 PM
Because right now that is the law. I have no choice but to pay it.

And in this hypothetical, it would be the law too, no?

The current law may be the law, but you've also supported the drug laws before, so wittingly or unwittingly, you support all the taxpayer dollars that go along with that.

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:05 PM
I see no reason for me to pay 12x the cost of medical treatment so that people can feel good about a miserable failure to prevent and stop drug use.

I have no issue just put a sin tax along the lines of the one on alcohol so that the drug users are paying for their own issues?

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:05 PM
I'd like to know how someone proposes to win this drug war in the next two years or else we should retreat. You can't keep wasting money on a losing battle.

We're three trillion dollars into this and more people use drugs than they did in 1970.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 12:06 PM
I am looking for a compromise.

Captain Obvious
07-01-2014, 12:06 PM
I'd like to know how someone proposes to win this drug war in the next two years or else we should retreat. You can't keep wasting money on a losing battle.

We're three trillion dollars into this and more people use drugs than they did in 1970.

We need a police state. Just bust caps in their asses.

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:06 PM
#4 is premeditated first degree murder.

I guess that mine would be minimum sentence!

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:06 PM
I have no issue just put a sin tax along the lines of the one on alcohol so that the drug users are paying for their own issues?

Ohhhh, I'm for taxing the hell out of it to pay for medical costs and for everyone in the US to have a brand new car. Seriously, if we tax this stuff we'll have more than enough to pay for a national health system if we even want it.

Plus, think of hemp oil! That alone is worth it.

Matty
07-01-2014, 12:06 PM
My "Minorities" thread got highjacked into a talk about drugs. So, let's continue it here. One of the problems I have with drugs is the crime and health costs involved. So, let's compromise in committee.

For sake of argument, let's say that whatever we agree on here will be passed by Congress and the President will sign into law, and, the SCOTUS will agree to. But first we must reach a compromise. Let us also assume that neither side will get all they want. I will fire the first volley:

1. Legalization of all presently illegal drugs.

2. Any crimes committed by anyone in pursuit of obtaining funds to acquire said drugs will result in a felony charge, plus, the three strikes rule.

3. Any health issues that result from the usage of said drugs, as determined by a physician panel, will be paid for by the state one time. Further health issues will (a) require self-payment, or,(b) result in no required medical treatment.

4. Drug addiction treatment will be paid for by the state as medically determined by a physician panel.
@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796)


I will compromise by backing away from my stance on no taxing human misery. Tax it at 100% buy drugs for $100 dollars pay an additional tax of $100.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 12:06 PM
I see no reason for me to pay 12x the cost of medical treatment so that people can feel good about a miserable failure to prevent and stop drug use.

This.

People want drug use to stop, so instead of paying for cheaper rehabilitation, they pay more to send them to prison for long periods of time without treating the problem, and potentially turning them into more serious criminals.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/fe/91/a3/fe91a3dc38b1981226c5c025fc759674.jpg

Fucking brilliant

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:07 PM
I'd like to know how someone proposes to win this drug war in the next two years or else we should retreat. You can't keep wasting money on a losing battle.

We're three trillion dollars into this and more people use drugs than they did in 1970.

Can we end the war on poverty too? ?we are losing that one big time

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:07 PM
#4 is premeditated first degree murder.

I agree with this. Anyone killed by alcohol or drugs while someone is behind the wheel would face premeditated murder charges.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 12:08 PM
This.

People want drug use to stop, so instead of paying for cheaper rehabilitation, they pay more to send them to prison for long periods of time without treating the problem, and potentially turning them into more serious criminals.

Fucking brilliant

Okay, folks. Let's not insult. I did NOT intend for this type of thing to continue. Let's look at compromises, okay?

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:08 PM
Can we end the war on poverty too? ?we are losing that one big time

We are. When the government declares war on something it always heads south. The US ghetto system sucks. These things should be handled within states.

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:08 PM
This.

People want drug use to stop, so instead of paying for cheaper rehabilitation, they pay more to send them to prison for long periods of time without treating the problem, and potentially turning them into more serious criminals.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/fe/91/a3/fe91a3dc38b1981226c5c025fc759674.jpg

Fucking brilliant

I want them to have treatment I just want the sin tax on drugs to be large enough so they are paying for it themselves.

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:09 PM
I will compromise by backing away from my stance on no taxing human misery. Tax it at 100% buy drugs for $100 dollars pay an additional tax of $100.

They already pay 400% tax on it to pay for the illegal trafficking. This will be a bargain.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 12:10 PM
I want them to have treatment I just want the sin tax on drugs to be large enough so they are paying for it themselves.

If someone wants drug users to pay for their own treatment, I have no issue with that. The issue I have is the hypocrisy of those who complain about wasting taxpayer dollars on treatment, while supporting spending more on their imprisonment and legal costs.

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:10 PM
I agree with this. Anyone killed by alcohol or drugs while someone is behind the wheel would face premeditated murder charges.

Driving yes, high on the pier and falling or pushing your buddy and they don't come back up? It is not an accident if you are high

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:12 PM
If someone wants drug users to pay for their own treatment, I have no issue with that. The issue I have is the hypocrisy of those who complain about wasting taxpayer dollars on treatment, while supporting spending more on their imprisonment and legal costs.

No my fear is that I am a 1% now so I am paying a top rate of 39% + the 3% ACA kicker. for a total of 42%!

And I am guessing after drugs become legal and they start having problems? They are going to want another 10% from me to cover the costs.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 12:13 PM
3. Any health issues that result from the usage of said drugs, as determined by a physician panel, will be paid for by the state one time. Further health issues will (a) require self-payment, or,(b) result in no required medical treatment.


Can we agree on this?

Cthulhu
07-01-2014, 12:14 PM
No my fear is that I am a 1% now so I am paying a top rate of 39% + the 3% ACA kicker. for a total of 42%!

And I am guessing after drugs become legal and they start having problems? They are going to want another 10% from me to cover the costs.

Which is why the gov should get out of the healthcare biz altogether. Entirely.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 12:16 PM
No my fear is that I am a 1% now so I am paying a top rate of 39% + the 3% ACA kicker. for a total of 42%!

And I am guessing after drugs become legal and they start having problems? They are going to want another 10% from me to cover the costs.

I hear ya, but do you have an idea of the costs of the drug war? You have to pay for prisoners, and cops, law enforcement, lawyers, etc, are all heavily, heavily subsided.

You're paying for it all already.

Matty
07-01-2014, 12:16 PM
We are. When the government declares war on something it always heads south. The US ghetto system sucks. These things should be handled within states.
How can states handle it when Obama is importing hundreds of thousands to fill the states without their permission. Fuck putting that on the states. Unless it a democrat state like NY, CA, Il. Then they can load em up.

Cthulhu
07-01-2014, 12:17 PM
Can we agree on this?

Nope, don't make the state pay a blessed penny for another's idiocy than it has to. They want fixed, they can pay for it themselves. This isn't an ankle sprain that happens by accident.

This is deliberate drug usage with tangible consequences. Expecting another to pay for wanton stupidity in practice is asinine.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 12:17 PM
I hear ya, but do you have an idea of the costs of the drug war? You have to pay for prisoners, and cops, law enforcement, lawyers, etc, are all heavily, heavily subsided.

You're paying for it all already.
The Xl, you are very, very correct. Thus, this thread on how WE would compromise to make the situation better.

Matty
07-01-2014, 12:18 PM
I hear ya, but do you have an idea of the costs of the drug war? You have to pay for prisoners, and cops, law enforcement, lawyers, etc, are all heavily, heavily subsided.

You're paying for it all already.
So then you can guarantee his taxes won't go up? Since he's paying already?

Perianne
07-01-2014, 12:19 PM
Nope, don't make the state pay a blessed penny for another's idiocy than it has to. They want fixed, they can pay for it themselves. This isn't an ankle sprain that happens by accident.

This is deliberate drug usage with tangible consequences. Expecting another to pay for wanton stupidity in practice is asinine.
Cthulhu, I work in the medical field, remember? I absolutely agree with you...but, I am looking for a compromise.

I cannot count how many young drug addicts I have cared for who wound up with endocarditis/valve replacement related to drug usage.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 12:19 PM
@The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865), you are very, very correct. Thus, this thread on how WE would compromise to make the situation better.

I agree with most of what you posted, with the exception of the three strike rule. I'd just charge them for the crimes as they are, without the ability to use being under any influence as an excuse.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 12:20 PM
So then you can guarantee his taxes won't go up? Since he's paying already?

Obviously, I can't guarantee anything, but if this sort of system replaced the other one, I'd say it's a good bet.

Cthulhu
07-01-2014, 12:22 PM
@Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872), I work in the medical field, remember? I absolutely agree with you...but, I am looking for a compromise.

I cannot count how many young drug addicts I have cared for who wound up with endocarditis/valve replacement related to drug usage.

We got put into this place we're in by compromising. You mention a panel of doctors. What stops favoritism? Is there an appeals process? What happens during the appeals process? Can they still get treatment?

The moment you mentioned a panel the entire idea was tainted with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy does only one thing - grow. And when it does it never gets more effective or efficient.

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:22 PM
I want them to have treatment I just want the sin tax on drugs to be large enough so they are paying for it themselves.

You pay more for them to not get treatment now. Just sayin'. :D

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:23 PM
I hear ya, but do you have an idea of the costs of the drug war? You have to pay for prisoners, and cops, law enforcement, lawyers, etc, are all heavily, heavily subsided.

You're paying for it all already.

Well CO will be a good test market.

I know that in construction Pot smoking is a bit of an epidemic, and I have yet to be able to count on someone that smokes pot on a regular basis,

It is always the same, they start out OK they start coming in late and then missing days all together. Unemployment treats it as an illness so they are granted there unemployment even though they were missing work, and I get a raise in my unemployment insurance rates

zelmo1234
07-01-2014, 12:23 PM
You pay more for them to not get treatment now. Just sayin'. :D

I pay more if they slip through my drug screening process too!

Perianne
07-01-2014, 12:24 PM
We got put into this place we're in by compromising. You mention a panel of doctors. What stops favoritism? Is there an appeals process? What happens during the appeals process? Can they still get treatment?

The moment you mentioned a panel the entire idea was tainted with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy does only one thing - grow. And when it does it never gets more effective or efficient.

If you could agree on treatment for only one time, then we could negotiate how to determine if the illness is drug-related. I agree, the panel thingy sucks.

Matty
07-01-2014, 12:32 PM
@Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872), I work in the medical field, remember? I absolutely agree with you...but, I am looking for a compromise.

I cannot count how many young drug addicts I have cared for who wound up with endocarditis/valve replacement related to drug usage. Perianne our heart surgeons won't touch you if you're doing cocaine. You're outta luck.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 12:34 PM
@Perianne (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=762) our heart surgeons won't touch you if you're doing cocaine. You're outta luck.

Ours here give you one chance. That is where I got the idea. If you mess up again, you gotta go looking elsewhere.

BTW, Matalese, you know we are in 100% agreement on this issue? I was just looking to see if anyone would compromise. I held my nose and posted something I would agree to.

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:35 PM
I pay more if they slip through my drug screening process too!

Again, maybe you do. It's an unscientific experiment that you have conducted. You have no idea if they drink, too, or if its caused by their general personality.

I would refer back to Wolf of Wall St. That guy made literally billions of dollars and was a total drug addict, even doing it at work.

Everyone is different.

Matty
07-01-2014, 12:40 PM
Ha! They just ran a story on Fox. Colorado is selling pot, a federal crime, they are collecting taxes on breaking federal law, money laundering, and evidence if the Feds ever decide to prosecute. :)

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 12:41 PM
Let them enforce the law and send in troops.

Polecat
07-01-2014, 01:04 PM
It is apparent that everyone is only talking about drug abusers that are out of control. Slow down and think about that. I will venture a guess that almost all drug use is done much more discretely. You take a room with 100 drinkers in it and pull out the ones that will kill someone with their car you got 100 people? 50?

This whole matter needs to be approached in a rational manner without the explosive emotion associated with extreme cases being considered the norm. It is unrealistic to think it will cost any taxpayer more for unrestricted drug laws. The fact is that the money being squandered on the DEA, packed prisons and wasted police work far exceeds what it would cost to field the relatively small number of crash & burn drug abusers.

I do not support any "sin tax" because I feel the very idea is unconstitutional. Normal sales tax should be applied to anything that is taxed at the point of sale. If you don't like other people trying to dictate what your morality will be then why on earth would you want to let our incompetent government do so?

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 01:10 PM
Mostly I think that the sin tax is a good compromise.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 01:14 PM
Mostly I think that the sin tax is a good compromise.

So, (holding my nose) all now-illegal recreational drugs will be legalized but will be taxed at 100%. That covers #1.

Can we agree on #3 with the panel thingy up for further compromise?


3. Any health issues that result from the usage of said drugs, as determined by a physician panel, will be paid for by the state one time. Further health issues will (a) require self-payment, or,(b) result in no required medical treatment.

Captain Obvious
07-01-2014, 01:15 PM
Is this like a big circle jerk?

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 01:17 PM
So, (holding my nose) all now-illegal recreational drugs will be legalized but will be taxed at 100%. That covers #1.

Can we agree on #3 with the panel thingy up for further compromise?

Sure.

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 01:18 PM
Is this like a big circle jerk?

Actually, no, Perianne and I disagree on this issue but are looking at a compromise. It's actually kind of a cool experiment.

nic34
07-01-2014, 01:20 PM
This is great, people can come together and compromise.

Contrary to what the tea-party has been telling us.....

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 01:21 PM
We can, people in Washington can't. K Street gives them their opinion.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 01:31 PM
Is this like a big circle jerk?

We're playing Congress and seeing how to compromise. I like it.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 01:32 PM
This is great, people can come together and compromise.

Contrary to what the tea-party has been telling us.....

Oh, stop, nic34. This is a nice thread. You will soon receive a spanking if you don't behave.

Perianne
07-01-2014, 01:34 PM
So, (holding my nose) all now-illegal recreational drugs will be legalized but will be taxed at 100%. That covers #1.

Can we agree on #3 with the panel thingy up for further compromise?


Sure.

So, we are accepting of this compromise Matalese Cthulhu The Xl @anyone else?

Matty
07-01-2014, 01:43 PM
So, we are accepting of this compromise @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796) @Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872) @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) @anyone else?
Yes. I'm surprised no one balks at 100% taxation. They must need those drugs badly. :)

Alyosha
07-01-2014, 01:45 PM
Yes. I'm surprised no one balks at 100% taxation. They must need those drugs badly. :)

Yes, we need those "drugs", ie "tax dollars" badly. I'd rather it come this way then through the involuntary income tax.

Cthulhu
07-01-2014, 03:18 PM
If you could agree on treatment for only one time, then we could negotiate how to determine if the illness is drug-related. I agree, the panel thingy sucks.

Allow me to propose an alternative?

Okay, fine - one time only no matter what. However it is still sort of state funded up front. But it is paid for via an interest free loan secured by their future tax returns or wage garnishment if the account is delinquent past one year. So they still can get treatment, but they will still have to pay for it - eventually.

However since I am in a negotating mood. The patient is only responsible for half of the principle owed. So the state still pays for something out of pocket.

Meet that, and I'm in.


So, (holding my nose) all now-illegal recreational drugs will be legalized but will be taxed at 100%. That covers #1.

Can we agree on #3 with the panel thingy up for further compromise?

Sure, tax the hell out of stuff I can make myself or stuff I don't use. Be my guest. But yes, if we can accommodate the previous suggestion we can move on to the panel beast.
Perianne

Perianne
07-01-2014, 03:23 PM
Allow me to propose an alternative?

Okay, fine - one time only no matter what. However it is still sort of state funded up front. But it is paid for via an interest free loan secured by their future tax returns or wage garnishment if the account is delinquent past one year. So they still can get treatment, but they will still have to pay for it - eventually.

However since I am in a negotating mood. The patient is only responsible for half of the principle owed. So the state still pays for something out of pocket.

Meet that, and I'm in.


I like your proposal. Matalese Alyosha The Xl

Matty
07-01-2014, 03:43 PM
Yes, we need those "drugs", ie "tax dollars" badly. I'd rather it come this way then through the involuntary income tax.
Well if you replace income tax with a 100% drug tax! I'm home free.

The Xl
07-01-2014, 04:55 PM
I like your proposal. @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796) @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865)

Seems fine.

Peter1469
07-01-2014, 06:25 PM
I like your proposal. @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796) @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865)

Looks good to me. What do we do with the people who already had their one shot and blew it? If we don't lock them up they will become a harm to society (not that they aren't now.)

PolWatch
07-01-2014, 07:57 PM
why not apply the same laws to drugs as are currently in use for alcohol...after all, alcohol is truly the most commonly abused drug in the nation

Cthulhu
07-02-2014, 05:43 PM
Looks good to me. What do we do with the people who already had their one shot and blew it? If we don't lock them up they will become a harm to society (not that they aren't now.)

Mourn/laugh/continue on with apathy...whatever works. Private charities could assist if they feel so inclined.

If they begin to harm people or commit other crimes against property, well, the australia solution has it's appeal. Just pick a place out in guam and sterilize all the prisoners sent so that no children can be sired.

Peter1469
07-02-2014, 06:06 PM
Mourn/laugh/continue on with apathy...whatever works. Private charities could assist if they feel so inclined.

If they begin to harm people or commit other crimes against property, well, the australia solution has it's appeal. Just pick a place out in guam and sterilize all the prisoners sent so that no children can be sired.

I would agree in general. But we have to have a majority, and a Court willing to say it is Constitutional to actually enact that policy.

Cthulhu
07-05-2014, 10:54 AM
I would agree in general. But we have to have a majority, and a Court willing to say it is Constitutional to actually enact that policy.

Courts...simultaneously useful and useless pending the issue.