Posted on 11/06/2017 9:11:50 AM PST by Brian Griffin
> So you want to starve them to death? <
Nope. They’d have a food allowance (as was mentioned). The garden would be part of a work program. Having a neat and productive garden would be one requirement for being released.
Not exactly breakin’ rocks in the hot sun...but something to keep them busy, and focused.
> That works if druggies would pay the bill for their choices. Unfortunately, it’s everyone else that gets stuck with the bill - family and taxpayers. <
Good point. In my next of the woods the ambulance services are being strained to the breaking point because of all of the overdoses. And that’s increasing the wait time for folks who have”traditional” injuries.
Why bother with any action that delays the inevitable? After, the government's responsibility should end with giving the next of kin a phone call or e-mail.
Otherwise, take the body to the city dump. Gulls and starlings should have a chance to eat...
I read the food allowance. It would be wasted and they would likely starve if left on their own.
This can’t possibly be what FreeRepublic has become . . .
Logic fail
“How about banning all [recreational] drug users from any government aid or assistance?”
If Dave Doper can waste $2,400 to $3,000 per year he certainly has no moral right to welfare.
> It would be wasted and they would likely starve if left on their own. <
Oh, I see your point now. Yeah, there’s truth in what you say. I guess it boils down to personal responsibility. Food would be delivered to the exile’s doorstep every day. It’s up to them to open the package, or not.
“there is no such thing as ‘legalizing’ something that has such a deleterious potential”
Recreational drugs were federally legal until 1909.
“Sentence drug users to internal exile”
That’s another possibility.
End medical welfare benefits.
No hospital or doctor ever has to treat anyone they have not agreed to treat.
No money, no care.
The deadbeat addicts wear out their welcome, and die far younger and having caused far less pain then what we see now. And lets publish every death so young people know the danger.
I graduated at the height of the PCP fad. A lot of my classmates didn't make it until graduation, or died in the next couple of years. The lethality convinced a lot of the heads I went to school with to work at rehab until it worked. The high initial mortality rate saved lives over the long haul.
Just plug them into The Matrix.
Many, in fact, I’d say almost everyone in Hollywood takes legal prescription drugs—drugs to wake up and drugs to go to sleep. I know this for a FACT. The difference in these people and drug addicts lying in the gutter are they get theirs legally from prescriptions their doctors write for them. They have people who look out for them, make sure they eat, etc. They live to be ripe old ages.
Sure, there are a few that go off the rails, but for the most part, this works well for them.
The picture of Weinstein’s drugs in his carry-on is exactly how these people live.
I think you’re on to something.
>
Do I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for the various medical conditions and treatments with which habitual drug-users routinely deal?
Do I have to pay for their lifestyle by supporting them on the public dole?
>
You mean in the Republic of our founding or the Democracy coup we’ve allowed?
Are we not to be beholden per our 4th/5th & 13th Amendments to that which you call ‘welfare’ (legalized theft)?
Why the stigma associated re: ‘illegal’ drugs? Why not the outcry on those POOR poor peoples ‘on the dole’ re: smokes, alcohol and the myriad of other vices we’re supporting? As PP doesn’t pay for abortions, welfare doesn’t pay for the vices *WINK WINK nudge nudge*
“You’d still be enforcing the drug laws against people without the license”
As I wrote:
Possession of a bottle without a label with the possessor’s picture except by a retailer, distributor or manufacturer would be punishable with a $100 fine per bottle.
“which might be most people”
There would always be some people who don’t follow the rules, but I’ve tried to set the fees and taxes at affordable levels, but high enough to discourage far broader usage.
The biggest problem would be non-users who buy and resell.
For opiates, these non-users would get yellow solutions which wouldn’t be of much interest to people on red levels.
For cocaine, sellers might try to evaporate or boil and make crack. There might be a technical solution to this, such as putting sugar in the manufactured beverage.
And then they were made illegal. They also weren't "recreational" in the modern usage of the term. They were sold as cures for various ailments. None of them were marketed as "Let's get high!" entertainment.
I’ll know the government is serious about drugs when it doesn’t supply Sinaloa with rifles.
I’ll know the government is serious about drugs when the banks that launder and invest the billions of cartel dollars are seized and the bankers who knowingly did it are arrested.
I’ll know the government is serious about drugs when the CIA doesn’t use cartels as a tool in their trade and the military isn’t forbidden from harming Afghan poppy fields.
When the illicit money is attacked, they i will know it’s real.
“Otherwise, take the body to the city dump.”
I’d prefer the local junior or senior high school for educational purposes.
I find no authority for the DEA nor FDA, let alone the ‘war on XYZ’. Nor do I find the right of travel to be within the purview of govt (in any way, matter, shape nor fashion as one shall wish to do so) and even less so the right to work (IMO, contracts between 2+ willing entities).
Local doesn’t detain/arrest nor revoke the DWI\illegal in many cases. Local doesn’t revoke those of AGE (no further tests of the 90yr old after they ‘passed the *test*’ @ 16).
GOVT is N-E-V-E-R the solution.
Ref your three part plan, i notice no action against the banks who handle the cartel cash? Without support of the banks, the trade would be dealt a HUGE blow.
For example, HSBC literally started as a drug smuggling bank to support the opium trade the Brits raped China with.
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.