Laffer once you're on probation the party is over. Don't you dare contribute a cent of profit to the private prisons. The war on drugs is bullshit, Nancy Raygun can suck a fucking cock, fuck em.
Printable View
Laffer once you're on probation the party is over. Don't you dare contribute a cent of profit to the private prisons. The war on drugs is bullshit, Nancy Raygun can suck a fucking cock, fuck em.
Chapstick did Druff let you live in his guest house like you planned? haha silly rabbit...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
In his defense, Chaps' actions resulted in both a HOF thread and the end to the longrunning skatz/Druff wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrenchjockey
In hindsight, it was a great thing he did.
Putting the whipped cream and cherry on top of this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LqRRI2jKo
What do you have that in any way supports the notion that legalization leads to a large increase in people addicted to hard drugs? Considering that that's the only argument you have left, it's kinda important to get it right. I mean, if it isn't true, the whole war on drugs starts to look like a huge waste of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffHalf the population?Quote:
Originally Posted by varys
What are you talking about?
If people are selling bags of weed for essentially minimum wage, they're stupid, because they can make that same minimum wage at a regular job without risking going to prison.
I am fine with the bottom-level dealers getting off without prosecution if they assist in the arrest and prosecution of the upper level dealers.
I'm not understanding what you think should be done?
Just allow people to deal drugs without consequence?
Legalize all drugs to eliminate the drug trade, and get a large percentage of our country addicted to hard drugs?
Neither of these options are realistic.
I gave you 3 separate prohibition of alcohol cases and they all came to the same conclusion. It just wasn't working for any of them. And when they stopped prohibition, nothing of consequence happened.
Now i'll give you Portugal. In 2001 they decriminalized all drugs. They did all they could for legalization while still following UN regulations. Specifics aren't that important (you can easily look those up). They stopped wasting resources in going after the users and restructured the way they combat addiction. Instead of shooting off large amounts of resources to policing they started using those same resources in harm reduction, treatment and employment. In the late 90's they had about 100k heroin users. Now they have about 50k and most of them under substitution programs. They currently have the lowest drug-induced death rate in Europe with 3 per million residents (5 times lower than EU average). Regarding new HIV infection they went from 1,016 cases in 2001 to 56 2012.
ps. I'll leave the specifics of the drug trade be for now since it's quite complicated. Let's just say that for the large majority of the participants that are imprisoned for it, it never was quite as lucrative as Miami Vice led us to believe. Why people are part of it, when that easy money is quite risky to make and isn't a lot, requires an ability to relate to understand why it makes sense for them.
I already stated the prescription pill addiction problem as recent evidence that availability and legitimacy causes a far greater level of addiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickWhat do you have that in any way supports the notion that legalization leads to a large increase in people addicted to hard drugs? Considering that that's the only argument you have left, it's kinda important to get it right. I mean, if it isn't true, the whole war on drugs starts to look like a huge waste of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I gave you 3 separate prohibition of alcohol cases and they all came to the same conclusion. It just wasn't working for any of them. And when they stopped prohibition, nothing of consequence happened.
Now i'll give you Portugal. In 2001 they decriminalized all drugs. They did all they could for legalization while still following UN regulations. Specifics aren't that important (you can easily look those up). They stopped wasting resources in going after the users and restructured the way they combat addiction. Instead of shooting off large amounts of resources to policing they started using those same resources in harm reduction, treatment and employment. In the late 90's they had about 100k heroin users. Now they have about 50k and most of them under substitution programs. They currently have the lowest drug-induced death rate in Europe with 3 per million residents (5 times lower than EU average). Regarding new HIV infection they went from 1,016 cases in 2001 to 56 2012.
ps. I'll leave the specifics of the drug trade be for now since it's quite complicated. Let's just say that for the large majority of the participants that are imprisoned for it, it never was quite as lucrative as Miami Vice led us to believe. Why people are part of it, when that easy money is quite risky to make and isn't a lot, requires an ability to relate to understand why it makes sense for them.
Your quoting of prohibition of ages ago doesn't mean anything. Almost all adults alive then are dead now, and society is drastically different.
European countries are also apples-and-oranges comparisons to the US. Different cultures. Different makeup. Different social issues.
You are incorrectly assuming that most people on hard drugs are simply physically addicted and would stop if they could. That's definitely not the case here. Legitimizing and making hard drugs easily available will simply create more addicts, and many more people will try these state-sanctioned drugs, assuming that it has to be fine if it's legal. It will become a huge mess. The United States is not known for its citizenry acting in moderation. Why do you think this country has one of the worst obesity problems of large population countries?
The sad thing is that you are advocating full legalization simply to get the prison population down. Why? Nobody is forced to deal drugs. Everyone has it under their own control whether they end up in prison for selling drugs. In fact, society is better off with many of these people in prison, as they are unlikely to be productive members of society if out on the streets. Again you are assuming that a lot of these imprisoned dealers are simply good people who just got caught up in a bad thing. I am contending that this is the extreme minority of imprisoned drug dealers.
I have known friends and acquaintances over time who briefly dealt drugs to supplement their income. While these were not bad people, their reason for dealing was clear, and in fact they admitted it to me. The money was good, and it was easy. It wasn't huge money, but it was quick, easy, and far more than they could make at a full time job. They took the lazy way out when it came to acquiring money. None of these people I knew got caught, and in fact I talked some of them out of continuing before anything happened. Still, they were clearly doing it out of greed, and they knew the risks. While I wouldn't have been happy to see these people caught and imprisoned for it, I also wouldn't have shouted that it was a miscarriage of justice if it happened.
Your ignorance really is the only thing that supports your prescription pill addiction problem as being evidence of anything you claim it proves. Should i repeat again the same thing i said before about it while you keep providing nothing to support your claim? Is that how this work? Is that the only way you can keep your stance of ignorance with a warm feeling of being right about something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
So my proof of events that likely have very strong correlation are either too old or not America, while you get to keep your stance based on straight up fuck all ? You think something is going to happen against surmountable evidence because you have faith in your view.
At least it's a good thing you've shown concern about me putting words in your mouth by throwing in about 5 claims in your post that i supposedly think or advocate. None of those do i have any recollection of even suggesting, but i guess will just have to go by your word since apparently that's all that matters. Really there's no need of any kinda proof, you feeling strong about it is just as good.
And then we get to, your personal experiences. In a discussion about incarcerated individuals you decide to enlighten us with your views about individuals that were never incarcerated. That really is remarkably useful and relevant information. Mentioning apples and oranges would be kinda petty, but how long am i supposed to keep this discussion up fighting with my both hands tied behind my back.
I forgot the obesity argument. Somehow USA has let obesity get to a point where it costs society roughly the same as illicit drugs. I can totally draft a version on the War on Food if you would like to tackle this issue with the War on Drugs model.
You keep ignoring the prescription pain pill argument because it's inconvenient for your talking points.
Prescription pain pills are easy to get, legal with a prescription, and not nearly as stigmatized in society as hard drugs.
As a result, we now have a rapidly growing epidemic of their abuse.
This epidemic is due to both the legality and accessibility.
You are insane to think that hard drug usage will not sharply increase if we make them all freely available to anyone having a stressful time in life, or anyone who wants to try experiencing them.
Jeff Bezos of Amazon once stated that, with each extra click required to buy something online, sales decrease sharply.
The same thing goes for drug abuse. There is a barrier of entry to acquire hard drugs. You need to have a connection to a dealer from whom you can acquire it. You need the willingness to make contact and deal with such a shady individual. It's also illegal, and you might fear getting in some trouble for buying it. These are not insurmountable barriers, but they are barriers nonetheless.
For example, if I decided tonight that I wanted to smoke crack, I couldn't do it. I don't know anyone around here who could hook me up with a crack dealer. Once I return to Vegas, I could probably acquire it, but only because of my connection to poker, which most people don't have. Otherwise it would be difficult for me to acquire.
The person dedicated to acquiring hard drugs will find a way to do so, but this barrier shuts out the less dedicated person who might start using if it were easy, but otherwise doesn't want the hassle.
You cannot compare this barrier to what you suggest -- making it freely legal and available, and just trusting that we aren't going to get a whole lot of new addicts who suddenly find it easy and legal to acquire.
Furthermore, as I stated earlier, those involved in the current drug trade are not simply going to shrug their shoulders and return to normal society.
Much like broke poker players have a hard time returning to regular employment (especially at a low wage), so would displaced drug dealers.
Again, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Do you think that most currently imprisoned for drug dealing would be leading productive lives within society, if only we could strike down drug laws and legalize everything? Because I find that highly doubtful. You seem to want a bunch of criminals released who at best will resort to illegal activity to score easy money, and at worst will get deeply involved in illegal, violent enterprises to do so.
Unfortunately I think too many people see our eye-popping prison numbers, and either think "conspiracy" (omg private prisons, trials must be rigged) or think "instead of changing the people, let's just change the laws so what they're doing isn't illegal anymore".
Not the right approach.
I'll just call you Dan DARE Program Nancy Regan Druff from now on.
nice to meet you.
also a hypocrite as well. Won't answer the drug scheduling question bc you know you think it's "correctly" scheduled because the government says so.
you play illegal online poker. remember that.
say it with me now:
Hypo-crite
feels good doesn't it.
until you can reply to the question I've posed numerous times here, I'm going to undoubtably think you're full of shit. years worth of Drug War propaganda shoved down your throat it's coming out all orfaces. you need to get with the fucking times here because it's 2016, not 1986 Regan Era just say no anymore.
or go back to posting stories about your college days and trying to get your free meal you paid for.
oh yeah, I already shut down your private prison argument you seem to have up there when I linked to the Kids For Cash Scandal and also the video on private prisons.
but you haven't acknowledged that either.
that guy on the radio last week leveled you and he was right. he said "yeah you might not be right all the time but you believe what you say"
edit: You've been lurking on this thread for a few minutes now, so you're either in the middle of typing a TL;DR asinine response or you're answering the one question I really want an answer to. the last piece of the puzzle. which is it.
at this point, a simple yes or no would suffice.
do you agree with our governments drug scheduling program which schedules cannabis the same as heroin (schedule 1 controlled substance) and would you also agree under that logic, that canabis is just as addictive as heroin, but less addictive than cocaine or nicotine or alchohol.
because this scheduling is a big factor in our mass incarceration numbers.
Regarding the Kids for Cash Scandal:Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryLaffer
I know all about that scandal. However, this was an isolated incident involving a few corrupt officials in one county in Pennsylvania. Was this a horrible abuse of power and a travesty of justice? Yes. Do I believe that those responsible should have received life in prison? Yes (sadly, they didn't). But is this a widespread phenomenon across the country? No. In fact, this scandal could not take place in larger population centers, where there are too many judges, and it would be literally impossible to corrupt all or most of them without someone finding out.
You cannot cite this isolated incident as evidence that sentencing for kickbacks has infected our justice system to a large degree. It just hasn't.
I did not know that pot and heroin are scheduled as the same level substance. I won't bother to look this up, and will take your word for it. However, this situation could be fixed by reform, and not by dismantling all criminalization of drugs.
Read through a lot of thus thread and see a problem that wont go away with any amount of debate. Somebody herr said this
"In fact, society is better off with many of these people in prison, as they are unlikely to be productive members of society if out on the streets."
This sounds pretty bigoted to me. How can who said this make such a blanket statement about people?
Gimmick et. al.:
You (we) are may be wasting our time trying to reason with Druff on this matter.
Why? Because regardless of how you might use logic and facts to discredit his stance on the matter, he simply is emotionslly unable to let go of it, as evidenced by the blatantly bigoted statements he has already made once one strips away all of the ancilliary arguments and verbiage he offers up. Read them and weep, America. The judge of human nature has spoken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And all of this time that Druff has been staunchly defending the War on Drugs, he was ignorant about a huge component of why marijuana busts and incarcerations have skyrocketed since Nixon bullshitted the majority of American voters into going along with his War on Drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
But, never you mind, folks. Because when a fact provided to him can be conveniently pushed aside as irrelevant to the key component of his argument ("America is different"), Druff will readily concede to you being correct. Just that it won't matter one bit to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Which leads me to wonder, and offer up to Druff to fill in the address:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
In what way is America, and the people in it, so different from people in the rest of the world -- Hell! In America 90 years ago! -- that drug policies that would work elsewhere -- and in the past -- be so horribly ineffective for America today?
America is number one in the demotion to number two department.
Ok let's play with prescription pain pill abuse if you really want to and can't put in any work to understand it. I'll do it for you once again. This isn't an isolated bubble that is completely separated from society. This isn't anything new. Pharmaceuticals have always been feeding the same demand that illicit drugs do. Heroin and amphetamine both started of as pharmaceuticals before their clandestine production. The drugs that have stood the test of time have done so because they do what they're supposed to do while being relatively safe from quite a few aspects.
One of the side effects of a variety of scare programs that demonize illicit drugs is that it leads to the notion that if a doctor describes drugs to a patient then it's perfectly safe to use and there's no risk of addiction. I mean, if it was anything else, then clearly it would be an illicit drug sold by some shady dealer. Silly part in this particular epidemic is that street junkies are somehow more informed than the soccer moms that are now dying. In one form or another street junkies are aware of things like drug interactions, synergy and tolerance. Soccer moms are aware that drugs are bad.
Anyway this particular epidemic started in the 90's. Big pharma came up with new super safe non addictive semi-synthetic opioids, that were to replace previous generations of opioids, since making money out of outdated patents just isn't comparable to profits from new shit. The pitch btw was the same as it was with heroin. General claim that was touted was that less than 1% of long term users got addicted, based on a conclusive study of 38 patients.
In 1996 Purdue Pharma started pushing OxyContin. They gave doctors 34000 coupons for free Oxycontin prescriptions, branded stuffed toys and coffee mugs and aggressively promoted the idea that Oxycontin was both safe and highly effective. Drug reps insisted to family-doctors that this new wonder drug had no real risks, only benefits. The end result was a good number of new addicts and in 2007 Purdue pleaded guilty to criminal charges that it misled regulators, doctors, and patients about OxyContin's addictive qualities. The bed was shat.
Now here is a short list of things that i don't think are a good idea in general: Marketing opioids, handing out free opiods, lying to the public by demonizing one product while praising a similar product and aggressive pushing opioids while wearing a white jacket from a position of medical authority. I think all of those are irresponsible as fuck and should never be allowed in any form of legislation.
The current overdose deaths are about 50/50 semisyntethics and clandestine heroin/fentanyl. Fentanyl and it's cousins have been problematic since the 80's. It's cheap to make so it's often sold as heroin in the black market. It's more toxic than heroin so it's much easier to fuck up the amounts. Currently it's sold mostly in pill form that mimic's "legal" fentanyl. Once again when prepared in a clandestine laboratory the amounts are easy to fuck up. For the purposes of killing rats fentanyl requires 5 times smaller doses than strychnine or arsenic. When prepared for the black market it's usually mixed with fillers and binders in a cement mixer. The precision apparently isn't quite there, but because it's in pill form the users think it's perfectly safe to use.
The current influx of black market heroin is feeding the demand that big pharma created with heavy marketing. The supply comes partly from Columbia. When USA started focusing on eradicating coca fields, poppy fields came to replace them. Same plot was making more money and getting less attention.
Oh and about a third of all overdose deaths come from mixing opiates with benzos and alcohol. If you intend to stop breathing, that's a good way to go. What could possibly go wrong when you mix 3 "legal" products. In an environment where everything that's bad for you is illegal obv everything that's legal is safe, right? Why bother informing the public when "just say no" works just as well.
Drug and alcohol addiction are mental health issues that we treat with incarceration. It's insane. Also almost every heroin junkie I've ever known started with prescription opioids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
I'm leaving most of the low hanging fruits be. Like this quote that's fairly amusing. It's another way of saying that "we can't learn anything from history because almost all adults alive then are dead now". It's like Micheal Angelo, except Michael Angelo is hilarious and this just sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
Winston Churchill
Fuck that foreign liberal hippy. It's not like he's alive anymore.
Get to bed Druff. Those are outdated ideals which are fantasy. Just take the role of the cops when it comes to dealing with the illegality of drugs. They are forced and some are quite willing to put you away one way or another for something akin to drinking. The crime that arises from it is both by infighting and police response to rid us of it. Ha. Making something a rare commodity puts the price up in many ways.