www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/fortbend/news/6443340.html To me this so called drug bust is a huge waste of tax payer money and law enforcement resources.This bust included over twenty government and law enforcement agencies which took over three years and hundreds of thousands of man hours to complete. I'm not saying steroids are a good thing but compared to all the other problems we have, illegal steroids are fairly low on the list of priorities of law enforcement. I just don't buy the whole "the streets are safer now" bit the Sheriff uses.
Streets are safer bit is purely for political purposes. Elected officials are usually most concerned with staying elected.
Why yes, I was mugged the other day by a roid-head. I guess he was desperate for his next fix. Is roid rage bad? Yes. Is it any worse than your average angry/violent drunk? Probably not. That tax money would have been better spent by sending it back to the taxpayers. But then, I guess that goes for most of the money our government wipes its *** with.
So you guys advocate free commerce of narcotics and other drugs, such as meth, heroine, etc? You guys are upset that the bust was made?
Why not? What age limit would we use? And do you think legalization would lead to increased use among minors?
The age limit for buying alcohol will work. And maybe a little at first for drugs like MJ, but people already know what the hard **** does to you, and those that do it now are the types that will do it after. Even after legalization the general societal, economic and residual legal barriers to prevent us turning into a society drugged to incapacity will remain - the stigma of being a loser, drug testing would go up slightly in certain fields, and doing many public activities under the influence will still subject one to criminal penalties and subject one to liability under tort law and so on. We've learned to handle the use of alcohol fairly well, with social costs far less than those seen under Prohibition Part I. The ramping up of Part II has only ramped up social costs far in excess of the benefit - drug use is ridiculously high despite illegality, state and local government budgets are bloated with foolish, sisyphusian outlays and, of course, organized criminal outfits have a never ending source of funding.
If you can convince me that legalizing drugs will lead to a decline in usage, particularly among teenagers, then I'll throw in with you. But I'm not convinced that's the case.
Just for conjecture, a scheme involving legalization, age limits, point of sale licensing, and intervention for abusers, may have significantly lower costs to the public in terms of outlay (vs the huge outlay of the current prosecution and imprisonment paradigm), lower costs to society by returning more folks to a productive state (again, for which prision is abysmally poor), and, yes, at the end of the road, less usage among minors. This latter is achieved by reducing the profit element for illegal sales in general, and focusing policing efforts on these particular transactions. All this seems worth trying, IMHO, versus the status quo of prisons stuffed with non violent drug offenders, drug profit motivated violence under the current scheme, and the overwhelming cost and failure of the drug war model. Yes, for the children.
What kind of drugs should be made legal? Just marijuana? If so, then that hardly eliminates the black market of the other dozen broad kinds of drugs and the destructive effects from such transactions. If more than only marijuana should be made legal, then which drugs are included? Steroids? Amphetamines? Heroin? Cocaine? Opium? To followup with Coelacanth's question, would the same manufacturers HornBud listed also supply these?
Maduro, So you think drinking and driving should be legal? That people using should not be held accountable for negligently operating heavy equipment while doped up? That employees, like, say, hospital pharmacists and athletes, shouldn't be tested, and their employers should be able to reject users. Or would it be fair to change your statement to "restrictions on drug possession."
my guess is that drug use among minors would not change dramatically with legalization. safety would increase with better product controls and more honest communication about the dangers and benefits about different substances. as a teacher, you may appreciate the relative ease of acquiring substances illegally. in high schools here, it is easier for a 17 year old to get a dime bag than a pack of cigarettes. you could distribute drugs with age restrictions(18, 21 or whatever) in retail businesses or pharmacies or coffeeshops. if you are passionate about reducing drug use in children or minors, perhaps once decrim or legalization happens, we can refocus our resource deployment on this issue from law enforcement to treatment(for those who need it) and education(for everyone). besides, we have 70 years of evidence about how the current regime does not work. maybe a few years of experimentation and data collection is what is needed.
