Another war we're losing....

Luis G said:
Make consumption a felony too ;)
Click to expand...

That's actually one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen posted here. Obviously you know absolutely nothing about the nature of addiction. I've known people who'd steal, rape, murder, or sell out their own mother for another hit of dope. Making everything a felony is not a sufficient deterrent. There are a lot of addicts doing time, and it hasn't even begun to curb the problem.
 
Professur said:
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It is a very bad thing. Dealing with societal problems from a standpoint of utter and complete ignorance to the nature of the problem is a horrifically bad thing.

That's like saying that in dealing with terrorism it's not important to know anything about how the terorist thinks, again another moronic post.
 
markjs said:
That's actually one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen posted here. Obviously you know absolutely nothing about the nature of addiction.
Click to expand...

My fault, I've never been a junkie, I'm sorry I'm not qualified enough to talk about it. However I fail to see how wanting to make consumption a felony is idiotic. Do not send them to clinics, send them straight to jail to sweat their drugs. Ohh and make consumption of marihuana illegal too.

That's like saying that in dealing with terrorism it's not important to know anything about how the terorist thinks, again another moronic post.
Click to expand...

Make terrorism a crime!!! Ohh it already is, and if it isn't it should. :p
 
This is why Luis, and it's not not having been addicted that makes you not qualified, it's your absolute wealth of ignorance on the subject.

Locking more people up is proven to be unsuccessful. This is from an old study about the recidivism rate:

The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders


The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).
Click to expand...

It should be crystal clear that prison isn't the answer. Long term residential treatment is far more likely to have an impact. This study clearly shows a far greater success rate among long term community based treatment programs.

So I ask you which makes more sense, making society bear the burden of "punishing" addicts and paying the costs of keeping them in prison where they hone their criminal skills only to end up back in the system, or treat the problem and make them productive members of society again? Seems pretty simple and clear cut to me.
 
Mark, I think it's obvious to everyone, addict or not, that the only truly effective method of attack it to stop it before it starts. Ramping up the cost of getting caught even once is the best defense on that front. Right now, everyone sees Hilton and Lohan being caught with drugs ... and getting a slap on the wrist. Make that serious time and a record ... and you'll stand a better chance of keeping it outta the hands of first timers.

Frankly, hardcore users unable to stop simply need to be removed from the general populace. I think that's what Luis was getting at. He wasn't talking getting them off their addiction.
 
Further, consumption isn't illegal for a very simple reason Luis, in this country we have a thing called civil rights, perhaps you've heard of them? There is a constitutional amendement against illegal search and seizure, and with most drugs there is no way to have sufficient probable cause to prove that anyone is intoxicated if they are not on probation. But possesion of marijuana is a misdemeanor that carries a mandatory jail sentence in my state, and possesion of any other drug aside from alcohol is already a felony. What more do you want?
 
Professur said:
Mark, I think it's obvious to everyone, addict or not, that the only truly effective method of attack it to stop it before it starts. Ramping up the cost of getting caught even once is the best defense on that front. Right now, everyone sees Hilton and Lohan being caught with drugs ... and getting a slap on the wrist. Make that serious time and a record ... and you'll stand a better chance of keeping it outta the hands of first timers.

Frankly, hardcore users unable to stop simply need to be removed from the general populace. I think that's what Luis was getting at. He wasn't talking getting them off their addiction.
Click to expand...

Well if any of you studied the problem at all you'd see that mandatory treatment, and by that I mean long term programs, are far more effective than criminal prosecution, but by all means lock everyone up! Yeah that solves it! I mean out of site out of mind right? It costs the taxpayer bigtime and makes the addict a criminal, making it harder for them to get out and rehabilitate, get a job, all that stuff, then guess what? They re-offend and end up back in prison on the taxpayers dime.
 
For either of you two to talk about solutions to this problem is quite literally the blind leading the blind. I have training in chemical dependency counseling and have been on both sides of treatment. This is a subject a large part of my life has been dedicated to, so I am infinately more qualified to speak on it than anyone on this bulletin board, with the possible exception of S&P. Other than he and I, none of you knows your head from your ass frankly.
 
Duh! Do you suggest we just give addicts a life sentence? How about lethal injection? Great idea huh?

Look I have presented a well reasoned argument backed up by facts. You and Luis have thrown out some ridiculous and moronic notions on how to solve a problem you know next to nothing about, and yet you continue to try and speak on it? All I can say is it's a damn good thing the two of you aren't in a position to make policy.
 
S&P, I'd really like to hear your opinion on the issue because regardless of whether I agree with it or not, at least I can respect your opinion as someone who actually knows a little something about what you're talking about.
 
markjs said:
Duh! Do you suggest we just give addicts a life sentence? How about lethal injection? Great idea huh?

Look I have presented a well reasoned argument backed up by facts. You and Luis have thrown out some ridiculous and moronic notions on how to solve a problem you know next to nothing about, and yet you continue to try and speak on it? All I can say is it's a damn good thing the two of you aren't in a position to make policy.
Click to expand...


Ah, so all lawmakers need to 'understand' the criminals???

As for the lethal injection .... it's only getting the inevitable over and done with. Unless they make the choice to radically change themselves, rehab has a 100% failure rate.

Oh, and with the frequency of alcoholism in my family tree ... I'll thank you to keep your mistaken opinion of my knowledge of the effects of addiction to yourself.
 
Addicts were not always addicts, there's always a first time. Set the example of long-term jail and I assure you the number of first timers will decrease. It won't solve the problem for those who are already addicts, but it will surely deter people willing to experiment.

Mark, I know what civil rights are. I'm not sure where are you heading with that, if what you say is true then not even a cop can stop an alcoholic driver if he's not under probation?
 
Maybe it's because I don't have "an addictive personality" but I simply don't see why I should have any sympathy for someone that can not control themselves.

Now before you attack me, Mark, I am not saying that we should throw "addicts' to the wolves but I really don't believe their treatment should be my issue nor do I think my tax dollars should pay for it.
 
Alcoholic consumption can be easily detected by the telltale smell. Erratic driving is also probable cause to investigate. Consumption of drugs is a far different thing, there are ways to tell, but generally it'sa lot more subtle and is not sufficient to hold up in court as probable cause.

And profesur, I am sure you know something about the effcts of alcoholism or addiction, just about anyone can make that claim. You do not, however know much about the science of the disease itself and treatment, or what works and what doesn't, nor do you have any first hand experience about what it's like. Granted one has to want to quit to quit, but I've seen a lot of people forced into treatment that went from grudging acceptance to wanting it. Especially long term programs.
 
long term treatment would probably work for the majority, but trying to convince the general public that it is worth their tax dollars AND letting them set up centers in their neighborhoods would amount to an insurmountable obstacle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top