VOTERS’ REMORSE: Blue state survey shows majority want to re-criminalize drugs: 'We made an enormous

Here's hoping Disney takes your bolded advice to heart

 

What could have possibly gone wrong? Now we're finding out what any idiot should have known right from the beginning.

 

Decriminalizing pot is one thing. Applying the same policy to the harder drugs is pure stupidity. It just seems to go along with this push to stop treating addicts as criminals and start thinking of them as people with a disease who apparently aren't responsible for their actions to the same degree that a non-addict is. Which is also pure stupidity.

I agree with offering drug counseling and addiction treatment to addicts both in and out of the legal system, but you don't absolve them of any culpability for their actions no matter how much they were driven by an addiction. Most of those addicts chose to become addicts. They are not guilt-free.

 

Sounds to me like the Oregon bill wasn't what people wanted, which was apparently what Portugal has....

If you are going to mirror the laws of another country, I suggest you mirror the laws of another country and not try and reinvent the wheel...

And nothing more humorous than MAGAs calling non-MAGA policies moronic.... thanks for that chuckle...

 

Like I said… some still will defend these policies even with rising suicide, homelessness, and overdoses…. And I’m the moron lmao

 

What could possibly go wrong when we make the worst sort of drugs on the planet legal for recreational use?

I mean who could have seen this coming?

This would almost require a PhD degree to foresee future events like when you defund the police and basically legalize shoplifting having the effect of an increase in crime.

 

When people don't go to jail they don't detox and never have a chance to get clean. Eventually they fry their brains.

The big problem now is you have more people than ever who have permanent brain damage from being allowed to take drugs at such a high level for so long.

They will never recover and will need to be committed. Private facilities will need to be used to house them. They will have to mark them as disabled and use their social security money to pay for their confinement. This is what they do with criminals who can't go to regular jail.

 

Bookmarked for accuracy....

 

Got to hand it to you. You honestly made me laugh.

 

I used to be very anti-drug too, but I must say that criminal charges seem a bit much. Does taking drugs have to be a criminal offense? When have criminal charges for drug use ever helped anyone?

What about drug addiction treatment? I guess nobody thought of that. Now that hard drugs are legal, they should also be available for research into drug treatment and recovery.

I don't know what these states want to do, but they face a problem, and it's only a matter of time before they figure out how to solve it.

 

So which alternative do you prefer- kicking violent criminals out of jail to make room for addicts, or paying higher taxes to pay for more jails for addicts? You can't make people not use drugs unless you keep them locked up...(and even then its not a guarantee)

These drugs were popular before they were legal. Whyever that is, the law doesn't prevent drug use. And I don't wanna pay to keep them in jail any more than I wanna pay for them to wander the streets (which is one of the many reasons I don't live in Seattle or Portland, where precisely that happens, which is why all the addicts go there...).

 

the war on drugs was a failure, this we know, people gonna do drugs regardless

the only thing the war on drugs did is fill our prisons

 

This was the voters' choice. You do believe in the principle Democratic self-government, don't you?

That said, I have to agree that it was ill-considered, to legalize all hard drugs, at once; and then to not mandate treatment. But I understand the idea: we should have the freedom to ingest whatever we choose. But, as a practical matter, the harder the drug, the more responsibility it requires of the user. And there are some synthetic drugs that just may not be realistic to ever legalize. In part because of the War on Drugs, but due to much broader trends in our society, people are just not as prepared to act responsibly, even as they once were.

Hence, it would have been much more sensible to legalize only pot, and give that a good amount of time, to see how it went. Then, additions should have begun with the milder, and the most natural, substances. If people refining it into cocaine was not a concern, I would start with coca leaves, which people in the Andes eat regularly without developing addiction (of course, small amounts of cocaine used to be in Coca Cola), not to mention animals, like lamas, browsing on its leaves, as well. Then there are mescaline buttons/peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, and so forth. Even opium-- which, of course is highly addictive, and was ruinous to China, when the British began selling it, there-- is nonetheless, not nearly as addictive as heroine, which is made from morphine, which is refined from opium.

 

Small amounts of cocaine were in Coke’s when life expectancy was shorter… hmmm legalizing drugs is not good. I would still advocate to make marijuana illegal again. Maybe not prison time but fine’s are good. Heavy stuff like coke, and others should be prison time for dealers and hard prison time. As for users they should be treated but if found reoffending should also go to prison. Drug addicts create crime we should not tolerate them.

 

First, your implication about lifespan, is totally bogus. The explanation of lower lifespans has never been about extending the maximum life of humans; because it is an average, it considers all lives, including those who die long before they reach old age. So lessening the deaths of humans from infections, infant mortality, and so forth, are what have increased man's overall lifespan. There have always been people, though, who have lived as long as we do now. There are only more of us making it to that age now, because we are not dying from tuberculosis, and because we are surviving cancer, and the like.

The "drug" that has had the most deleterious effect on American's lifespans, has been tobacco. But I assume you do not advocate outlawing that. This makes your argument seem rather hypocritical. Also, I will add, the leading cause of death in children, now-- if that is the line of argument you want to take-- is guns. Therefore, if you think drugs should be illegal because they reduce our overall lifespan, then it would be utterly inconsistent of you not to also be in favor of making guns, illegal. But we know that you are still in favor of keeping guns legal, regardless of how many die by their use. This is because you think of it as an "inalienable" right, to own a gun. But not to experience drug altered states of consciousness? It is obviously a much more basic right, to decide what to put into one's own body-- whether by eating, smoking, or sniffing it-- than it is, to own a firearm. So all you are saying, in your argument, is that the rights that you, personally, care about, should be protected, at all costs, and that any deaths that go along with them, are the "price of freedom;" but any God- given rights, if they aren't ones that you would be interested in using, you are fine with trying to ban. I must say, that is not a very good look.

There is no rational basis for outlawing pot, while cigarettes are legal. Do you believe in a nanny state, or not? Do you support the principle, that government should protect us from ourselves? Again, I think there is much more logical justification for the intercession of government, when deaths are of those other than the person, choosing to exercise his "right." With drugs, it is the user, himself, who is almost always the one who pays that price. Not so, with guns.

Your comment about it only having been a small amount of cocaine in Coca Cola, is exactly my own point: it is possible to use the majority of drugs, responsibly, even if most people do not do so. I had given the coca leaf example. Those only contain small amounts of cocaine, and must be chewed for a good while, to extract it. IOW, in its natural state, we cannot get so much of it at once, for it to cause a problem, or even to become addicted. No one has ever OD'd on hallucinogenic mushrooms, either. It is only those who do something irresponsible, while on them, who get hurt or cause harm to others. Again, this is similar to alcohol-- except, of course, that a person can kill himself by drinking too much, in too short an amount of time; and the long-term, harmful effects of alcohol abuse, such as cirrhosis of the liver, are very firmly established. So, you are in favor of returning to alcohol Prohibition?

 

And that's exactly what people are doing...

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/01...-decline-is-cause-for-concern-economists-say/

...as more whacko Leftist policies are made into law, that exodus will accelerate.

 

Both of these statements are partly true. The thing about dope addicts is using dope all the time has negative consequences. Although jail is currently one of these consequences, it should be. Gives the addict time to dry out their brain and think things through if they are capable.

Besides, hardly anybody goes to jail for taking drugs. What they go to jail for is what they were doing while they were screwed up on drugs.

And nobody ever beat their wife because they smoked too much pot. Alcohol is the drug that gets the most people locked up.

 

Well these vice based social issues get muddy instantly, due to the thin lines between use and abuse. The far greater majority doesn't mind usage, but pretty much the same have no tolerance for abuse. We all have witnessed the abuse and the toll it takes as well as the punishment for simple usage. If we can draw some better boundaries I think better solutions are more easily attainable.

 

I hear a lot of homeless drug addicts are making the pilgrimage there.

The people there get what they voted for and they deserve it

 

Maybe hard drugs need to stay outlawed and we leave marijuana out of it altogether?

 

Marijuana is not as harmless as we like to think. Look up marijuana induced psychosis.

 

There also has to be programs to deal with the drug addiction as well as the decriminalisation but this is Faux news and I would not trust the results of any poll run by them.
This is the best example ever written about how to skew poll results to what you want

 

Safer than alcohol

 

guess we see if Florida is happy Disney taking their money to other States

 

We tried banning alcohol, it didn’t work out. Banning drugs hasn’t worked out either.