Mayor Pete Wants to Decriminalize 'Meth, Coke, Ecstasy,' Not Just Pot

Pete

Repete
exactly.....
Mayor Pete has this one right.

what do we do with them now?
See I am torn. It is easy when there is no emotional connection to an addict who offs themselves. It is arguable that not all addicts are the scuzzy bottom dwellers who dies in some abandoned building covered in scabs and lice. That's what we are led to believe form TV and movies. I absolutely don't care what someone else puts in their body so long as I am not paying for their food, housing, and medical care, surviving children and so on. Unfortunately that is the result of most drug abuse. That said if all drugs are legalized and drugs become as available as a Coca Cola there will be many who make that step where they otherwise would not.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
With that said, this is a terrible idea. Why? Because people addicted to serious drugs (not marijuana) tend to take more than one person down with them, who didn’t take on this burden voluntarily. Addicts of hard drugs will steal from and lie to family until they are finally kicked out and then they become a problem for society at large to fix/deal with. That’s but one path. There are others, of course, some more violent than others.
Most of the damage from meth and heroin is the result of the criminal conditions under which they are produced and traded. If you can buy a days worth of pharmaceutical grade meth or heroin for $20, most of the criminality and negative health effects go away.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
I am assuming Mayor Pete is applying fundamental principles of economics to his position. Drug treatment and rehab cost thousands per person multiple times. Many of them are on welfare, Medicaid and Section 8 costing us even more. Enhanced law enforcement, jail costs boost these drains on society even more whereas a paupers funeral is only several hundred.

My son has 3 half siblings. His birthday is the day after Christmas. This year his oldest sibling a 35 year old sister with 3 kids, OD'd and died in her sleep for her oldest daughter to find in the morning. Happy birthday!
There shouldn't be any government run welfare of any kind.
My bestie's younger brother had his final chase the dragon this past summer, he was 40 years old and not once had he paid a utility bill.
He was the father of two, stole from many including family, in and out of jail and prison his entire life, never paid any child support, he would get out of prison and get the mandatory job and work 3 weeks and get a full check them buy a new phone and within another week he was gone again.
He was found by the smell creeping out of vacant row home in Baltimore. Coroner stated he had been there about 3 weeks.
His teenage son is following in his footsteps and the second child is only a few years old and one set of gparents have custody of her.
The few times I was around him he would laugh about being brought back to life from LE or paramedics, it happened many times.
It was interesting to be on the sidelines with this, his friends and family were sad he was gone, but nobody really missed him.
He was the kind if guy if you got sucked in to giving him a ride somewhere and you stopped to get a coffee, he would steal all the change out of your console. Not just the quarters, all of it... He used way way more then he ever gave.......
 

glhs837

Power with Control
exactly.....
Mayor Pete has this one right.

what do we do with them now?

Not much, it's in and out of the foster system and then back to the addict between bouts of treatment and jail until the addict dies and then into the system for good. And if you decriminalize these harder drugs, you need to have a plan for the tens of thousands of aditional children who will be functionally orphaned, unless your plan is not have one and let them go into whatever alley they can find. Thats one reason for the drug laws we have now, is that there was a gargantuan social toll to not taking action. It's one of those cases where libertarians butt up against the needs of a society to care for those unable to care for themselves. I'm a firm believer in letting people go to hell in whatever type of handbasket they desire. I dont believe in helmet laws or seatbelt laws, as long as you carry insurance to ensure society doesn't pay for your choice. But once children enter into it, no, your choices affect them, and leaving them uncared for falls back on society.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
exactly.....
Mayor Pete has this one right.

what do we do with them now?

Not much, it's in and out of the foster system and then back to the addict between bouts of treatment and jail until the addict dies and then into the system for good. And if you decriminalize these harder drugs, you need to have a plan for the tens of thousands of aditional children who will be functionally orphaned, unless your plan is not have one and let them go into whatever alley they can find. Thats one reason for the drug laws we have now, is that there was a gargantuan social toll to not taking action. It's one of those cases where libertarians butt up against the needs of a society to care for those unable to care for themselves. I'm a firm believer in letting people go to hell in whatever type of handbasket they desire. I dont believe in helmet laws or seatbelt laws, as long as you carry insurance to ensure society doesn't pay for your choice. But once children enter into it, no, your choices affect them, and leaving them uncared for falls back on society.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
Most of the damage from meth and heroin is the result of the criminal conditions under which they are produced and traded. If you can buy a days worth of pharmaceutical grade meth or heroin for $20, most of the criminality and negative health effects go away.
So where does the Addict get your supposed 20 dollars from to begin with? and the next day where do they get this cash flow?
They still are going to fall into what drug addicts eventually do, they prostitute themselves, steal, burglary, share needles and practice a non safe lifestyle. We will still have Hepatitis, HIV and all the other wonderful things that non functioning drug addicts have.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
See I am torn. It is easy when there is no emotional connection to an addict who offs themselves. It is arguable that not all addicts are the scuzzy bottom dwellers who dies in some abandoned building covered in scabs and lice. That's what we are led to believe form TV and movies. I absolutely don't care what someone else puts in their body so long as I am not paying for their food, housing, and medical care, surviving children and so on. Unfortunately that is the result of most drug abuse. That said if all drugs are legalized and drugs become as available as a Coca Cola there will be many who make that step where they otherwise would not.
I never said that all addicts are scuzzy bottom dwellers or that they are even bad people who deserve a bad life. not every addict is a heroine junkie on the corner. I would venture to guess that your relation wasn't one of those being she died in her home and was found by family.


Not to pry, but did she start down her road to adiction with legal or illegal drugs? Its obvious the laws didn't prevent this OD, so what laws do you think will?

Not much, it's in and out of the foster system and then back to the addict between bouts of treatment and jail until the addict dies and then into the system for good. And if you decriminalize these harder drugs, you need to have a plan for the tens of thousands of aditional children who will be functionally orphaned, unless your plan is not have one and let them go into whatever alley they can find. Thats one reason for the drug laws we have now, is that there was a gargantuan social toll to not taking action. It's one of those cases where libertarians butt up against the needs of a society to care for those unable to care for themselves. I'm a firm believer in letting people go to hell in whatever type of handbasket they desire. I dont believe in helmet laws or seatbelt laws, as long as you carry insurance to ensure society doesn't pay for your choice. But once children enter into it, no, your choices affect them, and leaving them uncared for falls back on society.
i think you are making an assumptionthat is not supported by the evidence. I dont think you will see these huge increases in adicts. I think that once you start openly and honestly discussing drugs with your kids a lot of the alure goes away. Its just like alcohol, we dont have an overwhelming problem with alcoholics and their children despite alcohol being one of the most destructive drugs.

So we take the money spent in the legal systme and the prisons and use it to build quality orpanges. what am i missing?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I never said that all addicts are scuzzy bottom dwellers or that they are even bad people who deserve a bad life. not every addict is a heroine junkie on the corner. I would venture to guess that your relation wasn't one of those being she died in her home and was found by family.


Not to pry, but did she start down her road to adiction with legal or illegal drugs? Its obvious the laws didn't prevent this OD, so what laws do you think will?


i think you are making an assumption that is not supported by the evidence. I dont think you will see these huge increases in adicts. I think that once you start openly and honestly discussing drugs with your kids a lot of the alure goes away. Its just like alcohol, we dont have an overwhelming problem with alcoholics and their children despite alcohol being one of the most destructive drugs.

So we take the money spent in the legal systme and the prisons and use it to build quality orpanges. what am i missing?
We dont really have any evidence to go on, do we? I think extrapolating from tiny other countries might not be valid, anymore than extrapolating from the late 1800s. I also think that unintended consequences are a real thing. And that no orphanage is a replacement for a decent family home.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
With that said, this is a terrible idea. Why? Because people addicted to serious drugs (not marijuana) tend to take more than one person down with them, who didn’t take on this burden voluntarily. Addicts of hard drugs will steal from and lie to family until they are finally kicked out and then they become a problem for society at large to fix/deal with.
You described precisely what happened to MY family - a sibling who got her 11 year old hooked on heroin until it nearly killed her. Lost her job, lost her savings, her career and lived with my parents - where she stole all of their valuables and hocked them for drugs. I know, because she "helped" me pick out a present for my mom for Christmas at a consignment shop - only for my mom to show me the case they were stolen from - she got me to buy BACK something she'd stolen.

Her daughter was taken from her. THAT thankfully - did it.

I’m not willing to support policy or its attendant cost which ignores this basic fact. Decriminalize pot and mushrooms, at least, at the federal level and be done.
I can get on board with that. Somewhat. I still think anyone who wastes their money on pot or shrooms is STILL every bit as likely to drive or do something where they pose a danger to others, just as people who drink do now.

But the argument about drugs is often, we have too many in for simple possession.

I once sat on a jury where the defendant was accused of dealing. The evidence for it was very good - but it wasn't enough.
He got possession - which is what happens a lot I am told - very hard to prove dealing, easy to prove possession.
So there's that.
 

Toxick

Splat
This is the sanest thing he's ever said.


Personally, I would love to see all drugs legalized. Not medicinal, no age-limits, no restrictions.... total free for all.

(OK.... maybe age limits - because kids are stupid, and have no accountability)

There would be a transitional period, and some unfortunate collateral damage, but it wouldn't take a great deal of time before balance is restored as all the tweakers, nodders, speedfreaks, crackheads and other various and sundry junkies will very quickly remove themselves from the gene pool, by either overdosing, or darwining themselves out of existing in a drug-induced fugue.

Thereby, leaving the rest of us (those of us with enough goddamn sense to not ingest poison) in peace.





Some of you may die.
But that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make!
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
i think you are making an assumptionthat is not supported by the evidence. I dont think you will see these huge increases in adicts.
Actually, , the closest evidence we have is the "legalized" pot in some states. In those states, the use of pot has gone up. So, the evidence directly supports that if drugs are decriminalized, usage will increase.

I think that once you start openly and honestly discussing drugs with your kids a lot of the alure goes away. Its just like alcohol, we dont have an overwhelming problem with alcoholics and their children despite alcohol being one of the most destructive drugs.
But, the addictive property of alcohol is exceptionally lower than the addictive property of many of the drugs in question.

To openly and honestly discuss drugs would be to tell the kids it is beyond harmful, beyond acceptably addictive, will likely destroy their lives, and has absolutely no upside. Kids, being kids, will hear the honesty and thus drugs will retain the allure.

what am i missing?
The list is more characters than this forum can handle.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I never said that all addicts are scuzzy bottom dwellers or that they are even bad people who deserve a bad life. not every addict is a heroine junkie on the corner. I would venture to guess that your relation wasn't one of those being she died in her home and was found by family.


Not to pry, but did she start down her road to adiction with legal or illegal drugs? Its obvious the laws didn't prevent this OD, so what laws do you think will?


i think you are making an assumption that is not supported by the evidence. I dont think you will see these huge increases in adicts. I think that once you start openly and honestly discussing drugs with your kids a lot of the alure goes away. Its just like alcohol, we dont have an overwhelming problem with alcoholics and their children despite alcohol being one of the most destructive drugs.

So we take the money spent in the legal systme and the prisons and use it to build quality orpanges. what am i missing?
We don't really have any evidence to go on to support either case, do we? I think extrapolating from tiny other countries might not be valid, anymore than extrapolating from the late 1800s. I also think that unintended consequences are a real thing. And that no orphanage is a replacement for a decent family home.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
We don't really have any evidence to go on to support either case, do we?
We do, here in the US

In recent years, illegal marijuana use has risen faster in states that have legalized medical marijuana than in states without such laws, a new study finds.

In addition, the percentage of people with "marijuana use disorders" — people who use the drug in unhealthy ways, or abuse it — has also increased at a higher rate in these states, according to the study.

States that legalized recreational marijuana have seen an increase in problematic pot use among teens and adults aged 26 and older, a new study finds.

The researchers compared marijuana use in Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon -- the first four states to legalize recreational marijuana -- before and after legalization. The investigators also compared trends in those states with states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.


And, there ARE repercussions to the innocent population:
Car crashes were up as much as 6 percent in states where the recreational use of marijuana has been legalized, said two studies.

According to research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute, the frequency of collision claims filed to insurers were higher in four states where marijuana is legal: Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The studies were presented Thursday at the Combating Alcohol- and Drug-Impaired Driving summit.


It's NOT a victimless crime, legalizing illegal drugs DOES lead to more use, and the more use causes more problems for taxpayers and other innocent people.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
We do, here in the US



And, there ARE repercussions to the innocent population:

It's NOT a victimless crime, legalizing illegal drugs DOES lead to more use, and the more use causes more problems for taxpayers and other innocent people.
so do we repeal the 21st amendment?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
so do we repeal the 21st amendment?
I would have no issues with that, personally.

However, it would be very low on my list of prioritized changes to the Constitution. Repealing the 17th would be first on the list.

But, given that the likelihood of being addicted to alcohol is orders of magnitude lower than being addicted to coke, meth, etc., it seems really problematic to discuss alcohol like it is coke, meth, etc.

If the argument is singularly for pot, the argument is much more valid to discuss changing the FDA's classification of THC than the totality of the things this thread has as its subject.

My point was simply that we do have proof, in the US, in the most recent of times, that states ignoring federal law show a noticeable increase in the use of illegal drugs when they stop enforcing the federal law. This was in answer to the question of whether or not we have proof of that. We do have proof, and the proof is drug use increases when the law does not get enforced.

Your question seems more to be on the lines of whether or not there should be the law in the first place, which is an entirely different question.
 
Top