Posted on 06/16/2006 1:24:23 PM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
Hey...
Yes, Heroin is indeed an opiate. Afghanistan used at least to have a large poppy economy. I dont know if its still the case.
I guess its possible that peole want to terrorise addicts, but it seems to me that this is all driven by DEMAND for fentanyl laced heroin. Apparently it gives a better high.
My town is 9,700 people. We are right next to Pocatello at 51,000. The entire county numbers about 70,000 people spread over 1113 square miles. I moved from San Diego where the county was 4200 square miles with 2,813,833 people (2000). A big difference in population density and crime levels.
I just happened upon a very nice summary page of my city here
You don't get fired or not hired for having alcohol in your piss test.
Or does that only apply to users?
The proper response to the crimes of some alcohol users is to arrest them for those crimes, not to criminalize all alcohol sale and use; the proper response to alcohol criminalization's putting inflated profits in criminal hands was to end alcohol criminalization, not step it up. Do you disagree?
And that [the crime committed by users to pay those drug-war-inflated prices] won't go away unless you're proposing using my tax dollars to give away free drugs.
Straw man. It will be lessened by legalization and the resulting price drop.
Have you any data showing a correlation between crimes like burglary, robbery, and prostitution and the price of drugs to support your statement?
It's basic economics.
I thought countries like Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark had to resort to free drugs to stop the crime.
Sounds like nonsense to me ... Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark stopped crime?
Only in the sense that criminals substituted the sale of illegal recreational drugs for the sale of illegal alcohol -- legalizing drugs does no more than squeeze the balloon in one part just to have it pop up in another.
Your concern in keeping the inflated profits out of criminal hands is that "all manner of criminality is financed". OK. Then let's apply your solution: As with drug users who commit crimes associated with drug use, we should arrest drug criminals when they use these inflated profits to finance criminality.
Now we're addressing the real problem, yes?
Basic economics says that when the price drops, people buy more. Seems to me that the drug addict would keep right on stealing -- unless you can provide proof that crimes like burglary, robbery, and prostitution drop when the price of drugs drop. Which you refuse to do.
Hey, Gal! No, this is where you fascists make your futile attempts to hijack the thread.
Libertarians would be no less OR MORE sorrowful to see them OD! Anybody that uses heroin should get their proper rewards. It is a matter of time before they destroy themselves. I say give them more, and speed up their escape!
They had to resort to free drugs to stop enough of the crime in order to call the program a success.
The point being, we'd have to do the same. Admit it. Tell everyone on this board that your solution to the drug problem is to provide taxpayer-financed recreational drugs to those who can't afford them -- those who would otherwise resort to burglary, robbery, and prostitution to finance their drug habit.
The problem is, drug users are totally unaware of your plan. You see, thet're pushing for the legalization of drugs thinking that we, as society, will continue to take care of them if they get sick, or need food, or need shelter.
Before we venture down this path, maybe we should stop helping existing users. Then they'll get the message. Then, if and when we legalize drugs, at least people will know that if they use they're on their own. Sound like a plan?
Stupid drug dealers! Killing off their customer base.
Were you referring to the druggies, or the politicians?
We've had Libertarians being accepting of Heroin use saying dumb things like it is their choice before, so I get the impression you are wrong because approval or acceptance is at least passive complicity in the illegality that often leads someone to OD.
It is because the Fentanyl/heroin combination is new and the people who produce and use it haven't yet found the proper non-lethal dosage. This is a bit of a Dawinian trial and error going on until the proper mix is found.
So you have evidence that the end of Prohibition marked a sharp increase in sales of other illegal drugs? Or are you just blowing smoke?
Your concern in keeping the inflated profits out of criminal hands is that "all manner of criminality is financed". OK. Then let's apply your solution: As with drug users who commit crimes associated with drug use, we should arrest drug criminals when they use these inflated profits to finance criminality.
We should, and do ... yet the problem persists. Now we need to take the next step and stop inflating drug profits as we do by criminalizing drugs.
Just wait 'til OSHA gets a hold of the manufacturer!
The price could easily drop tenfold ... but no user could survive a tenfold increase in intake. Combine that with the fact that even drug addicts can get a certain amount of money through nonviolent means like can-collecting and panhandling (as many alcohol addicts do), and the conclusion is inescapable that crime would drop.
I'll believe this latest version of your claim if and when you supply evidence.
your solution to the drug problem is to provide taxpayer-financed recreational drugs to those who can't afford them
Incorrect as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.