🚀 go-pugleaf

No taxpayers money should ever be spent on giving criminals
free drugs.  Tougher penalties are the only way to go when dealing
with hardened criminals.




"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127569036.149284.165400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Premiers of provinces around Canada claim to be very happy with federal
> government decision to increase penalties for amphetamine offences.
> Are they really stupid or just pretend I to be?  The history of war on
> drugs proved again and again that tougher penalties just do not work.
> I can tell you what will be the result of increased penalties.  Drugs
> will get more expensive, addicted people will have greater difficulty
> to satisfy their needs and will more often resort to robberies and
> other violent crimes to get the money.  So, the crime will not
> decrease, but rather will increase.
>
> Drugs do not create crime, absence of drugs does.  I have been an
> observer in jail for over 13 years.  Majority of people in jail are
> using drugs.  When a person is stoned, he either sleeps or smiles to
> everybody, is very happy and does not attack anyone.  When a person is
> sober and needs drugs, this is when he is dangerous.  He will not
> hesitate for a second to kill a taxi driver for $10 to get his next
> fix.  Is not it obvious that a much better solution is to give every
> addict drugs for free plus a safe place to use them?  It is none of the
> government business to put people in jail, just because they are
> harming themselves.  People have absolute fight to their bodies.
>
> The money saved on incarcerating people should be used to pay for
> detoxification programs and free drugs.  In exactly the same way as end
> of Prohibition finished with bootlegging, distribution of free drugs
> will spell an end to organised crime, since nobody will be buying from
> them drugs at their exorbitant prices.
>
> Fabrikant
>

Sparky wrote:
> No taxpayers money should ever be spent on giving criminals
> free drugs.  Tougher penalties are the only way to go when dealing
> with hardened criminals.
>
>

And how about facts? Do the facts support your notion? Look at
Americans: you cannot go tougher than they did. One gram of anything
will get you 30 years in jail. They jailed more than 2 million people.
Did they win war on drugs? Even they don't claim it.

And now about taxpayers money. It costs about $70,000 per year of
taxpayers money to keep each prisoner in jail. It costs close to
nothing to give this prisoner as much drugs as he wants and leave him
alone. 

Now, what is the best way to use taxpayers money?

Well you gotta go with the Chinese way.
Thanks to the British mostly China was a nation of Opium addicts.
The manner in which they got their population of drugs was, well severe.
Anyone  caught with, using, possing opium was summarily executed on the 
spot.
They were beheaded, without trial or appeal.

I don't know how many people died. I just know China has not been strung out 
on Opium for decades.

But even today China's record on human rights is not so popular.
It may be  when there are so many human lives it decreases their value?
Who knows?

You are right, drug addicts just want to shoot up and get high.
They are no real problem for you and for me. But kids playing in the parks 
where they shoot up and share their needs, leaving them behind with AIDS and 
HEP C for little kids to step on and get infected is about the worse they 
do, when they are high.
And yes, addiction can overwhelm reason, logic, sense, and people will and 
can do things they would never do in their right mind.
And they arenot in their right mind when withdrawl begins. Chemical changes 
begin to occur. Their thought process can be affected.
That is why they may not care that killing you and taking your money is the 
road to their next fit. Or breaking into your house, stealing $25,000 worth 
of good and jewelry, then pawning it for $100 to get a few highs. Yup thats 
when drug addicts become a big problem.

Yes, many people have said that drug addiction is not and should not be 
treated as a criminal matter.
It actually is and should be a medical matter. It's a medical problem, and 
the money is better spend in the medical system than in the legal system, 
the correctional system and the black market. You are right. I would rather 
pay for a guys hit of anything, than the premium drug addicts stealing 
property has has jacked up my insurance rates. It's a lot cheaper. Wouldn't 
you rather spend 100 million on drugs with your tax payers money, or pay 
billions of dollars in extra premiums? Wouldn't you rather the police and 
the judiciary and the prisons could actually devote their resources to otehr 
things rather than go after people with medical conditions that cause them 
to be addicts?

Why do people always want to punish others? Why don't they just want to help 
people that have fucked themselves up?
I mean it's not like we can't do something for them.We can, and it can save 
us billions if we just would treat their medical conditions.
It's very odd how society perceives drugs. All drugs are drugs. Illegal 
drugs are just a legitimate drugs as pharmacuticals, if you can get them 
without the cut. Drugs that have no apparent medical use for the most part 
may not be used. All drugs can be and are dangerous. Pretty much every drug 
has a side effect. Not all drugs will kill you though some can in the wrong 
doses, or with the wrong reaction to your chemistry, and if mixed with other 
chemicals. But there are many drugs with no medical use, that provide 
recreational use. Heroin is a drug with medical use. Show me a drug that 
provides more relief from acute pain. You can't. The next best thing is 
sister Morphine, but she is a weak cousin in comparision. Drugs like LSD can 
duplicate schitziophrenia, but it won't kill you, unless you are having a 
hallucination, and jump of the bridge flapping your arms, believing that you 
are a bird, and never knowing, then splat. But unless you have an event 
along those lines LSD doesn't kill people. Cocaine? Well it depends if you 
are snorting it or shooting it. In either case Cocaine is very caustic. It 
can raise the heart beat too fast causing death. It can eat away your 
septum, so I am sure it must be realyl bad for your bllod system too. But it 
is highly addictive, more so psychologically than physically. Not like 
Heroine, which is extremely addictive. If you are going to live, they don't 
want to even consider giving you herione, because you will be an addict, and 
they may not be able to get you off the stuff. You can get it anyhwere,even 
though it is not used medically in Canada or the USA, but they use it in 
Britian on terminal patients, since they will die before the addicition 
becomes a problem :) Well wel have E, which is really MDMA, which is 
actually modified MDA, which was the love drug of the 60's. Totally 
different highs of course, but a re-arrangement of molecules does that ya 
know. You have Speed and Methedone, Anphetimines and Barbituates, you know 
uppers and downers, you know if the music just isn't setting the right 
mood....lol And of course for the animal lovers there is PCP, just so you 
can identify with the pooch that needs to be drugged into a stupour for one 
of those long car drives....no the gravol for puking, but the tranqs cuz 
they freak out in the car. It scares them. But you have to drive the dog a 
long way for some dumb reason. That kind of stupour. Then there is this 
drug. It might have been studied more than any other drug. And that is good 
old pot and it's derivitives. Good shit man. It's natural. It's good for 
what ails ya. Bob Marley is still advertising it.

See self medication is more popular than people give themselves credit. Look 
at all the reasons people drink? I mean for medicinal purposes. A lot of 
people do drink really just for medicinal purposes, because they have found 
out erhaps in theri college drinking days that for certain things some 
alcohol provides a degree of relief. And in certain instances it does, 
because face it or not, alcohol is actually a drug. It is a chemical and it 
interacts without own chemisrty. It alters our chemistry, and for somethings 
we suffer, that chemical change addresses a symptom of an ailment.A lot of 
peole with chemical imbalances find that some drugs they come across 
actually provide benefits. And even if that benefit is just thinking that 
you are feeling less discomfort, deos it matter that much that it was a 
drink that did it. I knew a person with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hypertension 
Disorder) who happened to discover that Cocoaine worked to allow him to 
focus his attention like a normal person does. He found it extremely 
beneficial. But it led to his bankruptcy and criminal charges. The criminal 
charges were dismissed because he submitted a lot of distinguished 
publications stating that Cocaine did indeed have a marked ability to treat 
ADHD, and had been proven in several trials. You can't really convict a guy 
that was medicating himself. And that is sort of the deal with pot. Only pot 
can treat more conditions than drug companies care to admit. As a matter of 
fact if you look at all the studies that say negative findings about pot, 
you will see that their funding came from drug companies with a vested 
interest in keeping such a wonder drug from competing with so many in their 
lines of drugs. And the problem is none of them own the patent on pot, or 
any of the 1,000s of unique chemicals found in pot. Before the drug 
companies it was the cotton industry, when it was still considered big 
business. They were the ones who lobbied to put pot on the prohibition 
legislation, which was the first time in history that pot was made illegal. 
Common people have benefitted from this drug for centuries, upon centuries. 
The Romans ever wrote about it's use, though Romans clearly prefered wine 
for their recreational drug.
But it is because people have the right to self medicate that the laws on 
pot possession had to lighten up and allow people with treatable medical 
conditions access. They can't grow pot worth shit. So how are these people 
suposed to get it. Stupid Americans. It's their pressure. If we grow, if we 
allow business to legitimize pot, they'll be royally pissed at us. May have 
consequences we do not wish to pay. Hey we will do just as good of a job 
keeping the flow of pot out of the USA, as they do keeping the flow of guns 
out of Canada.




"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1127569036.149284.165400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Premiers of provinces around Canada claim to be very happy with federal
> government decision to increase penalties for amphetamine offences.
> Are they really stupid or just pretend I to be?  The history of war on
> drugs proved again and again that tougher penalties just do not work.
> I can tell you what will be the result of increased penalties.  Drugs
> will get more expensive, addicted people will have greater difficulty
> to satisfy their needs and will more often resort to robberies and
> other violent crimes to get the money.  So, the crime will not
> decrease, but rather will increase.
>
> Drugs do not create crime, absence of drugs does.  I have been an
> observer in jail for over 13 years.  Majority of people in jail are
> using drugs.  When a person is stoned, he either sleeps or smiles to
> everybody, is very happy and does not attack anyone.  When a person is
> sober and needs drugs, this is when he is dangerous.  He will not
> hesitate for a second to kill a taxi driver for $10 to get his next
> fix.  Is not it obvious that a much better solution is to give every
> addict drugs for free plus a safe place to use them?  It is none of the
> government business to put people in jail, just because they are
> harming themselves.  People have absolute fight to their bodies.
>
> The money saved on incarcerating people should be used to pay for
> detoxification programs and free drugs.  In exactly the same way as end
> of Prohibition finished with bootlegging, distribution of free drugs
> will spell an end to organised crime, since nobody will be buying from
> them drugs at their exorbitant prices.
>
> Fabrikant
> 

Rather than "give" the addict thier drugs at the taxpayers expense, there 
should be a government regulated program to make them available for sale, 
and subject to taxation. The proceeds from the legal sale of them would then 
finance the detox and rehabilitation programs. The crime element will be 
taken care of with the de-criminalization of the trafficing. If there are no 
massive profits to be made, the crime will stop.

The US Government is the biggest drug trafficer in the world. There should 
be no problem with supply.

- NuTs


"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1127569036.149284.165400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Premiers of provinces around Canada claim to be very happy with federal
> government decision to increase penalties for amphetamine offences.
> Are they really stupid or just pretend I to be?  The history of war on
> drugs proved again and again that tougher penalties just do not work.
> I can tell you what will be the result of increased penalties.  Drugs
> will get more expensive, addicted people will have greater difficulty
> to satisfy their needs and will more often resort to robberies and
> other violent crimes to get the money.  So, the crime will not
> decrease, but rather will increase.
>
> Drugs do not create crime, absence of drugs does.  I have been an
> observer in jail for over 13 years.  Majority of people in jail are
> using drugs.  When a person is stoned, he either sleeps or smiles to
> everybody, is very happy and does not attack anyone.  When a person is
> sober and needs drugs, this is when he is dangerous.  He will not
> hesitate for a second to kill a taxi driver for $10 to get his next
> fix.  Is not it obvious that a much better solution is to give every
> addict drugs for free plus a safe place to use them?  It is none of the
> government business to put people in jail, just because they are
> harming themselves.  People have absolute fight to their bodies.
>
> The money saved on incarcerating people should be used to pay for
> detoxification programs and free drugs.  In exactly the same way as end
> of Prohibition finished with bootlegging, distribution of free drugs
> will spell an end to organised crime, since nobody will be buying from
> them drugs at their exorbitant prices.
>
> Fabrikant
> 

some drugs, like people, are worse than others.

i have a friend who died on saturday from a one year crack binge.  his 
family is destroyed, two kids, a wife, a home, two cars, good job, all gone. 
crack actually does kill.  anyone dealing crack should be shot and pissed 
on.  cocaine is too popular with the power brokers of our world to be made 
illegal, and crack is very easy to make from cocaine, so there is a problem 
there.

and when you talk about 'smiling' and being happy because they're high, i'm 
not sure how much crack you've smoked, but you get kinda itchy after about 
20 minutes of the hit.  you're no longer 'happy'.  if the role of government 
was to supply SOMA to the people, great.  but that's not their role. 
watching people die from their addictions is not pleasant.  for every one 
person who is spared the fate of a dying addict, the government spends its 
money wisely.  it's a fucking nightmare.

legalize pot, great, it's not addictive.  but selling crack or heroin or 
cocaine is a recipe for disaster.  highly addictive drugs with terrible long 
term side effects.  extended cocaine use shuts down dopamine production in 
the brain, meaning you can't feel happy anymore without the drug.  great. 
no, government should not be a part of that.  you have the right to do what 
you want to your body, but once addiction kicks in, you don't want to do it 
any more.  you are not 'you'.  you are a slave to a drug.  you don't want to 
be addicted any more.

the idea that we should legalize these drugs has some benefits, in terms of 
government control, regulation, and revenue.  but would you want your 
wife/kids/best friends/parents out on a saturday night smoking crack until 8 
in the morning, then taking paxil and some sleeping pills to get to bed? 
and then sunday night, too?  and monday then tuesday, etc?  surrrrrrrrrre 
you would.




"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1127569036.149284.165400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Premiers of provinces around Canada claim to be very happy with federal
> government decision to increase penalties for amphetamine offences.
> Are they really stupid or just pretend I to be?  The history of war on
> drugs proved again and again that tougher penalties just do not work.
> I can tell you what will be the result of increased penalties.  Drugs
> will get more expensive, addicted people will have greater difficulty
> to satisfy their needs and will more often resort to robberies and
> other violent crimes to get the money.  So, the crime will not
> decrease, but rather will increase.
>
> Drugs do not create crime, absence of drugs does.  I have been an
> observer in jail for over 13 years.  Majority of people in jail are
> using drugs.  When a person is stoned, he either sleeps or smiles to
> everybody, is very happy and does not attack anyone.  When a person is
> sober and needs drugs, this is when he is dangerous.  He will not
> hesitate for a second to kill a taxi driver for $10 to get his next
> fix.  Is not it obvious that a much better solution is to give every
> addict drugs for free plus a safe place to use them?  It is none of the
> government business to put people in jail, just because they are
> harming themselves.  People have absolute fight to their bodies.
>
> The money saved on incarcerating people should be used to pay for
> detoxification programs and free drugs.  In exactly the same way as end
> of Prohibition finished with bootlegging, distribution of free drugs
> will spell an end to organised crime, since nobody will be buying from
> them drugs at their exorbitant prices.
>
> Fabrikant
>