🚀 go-pugleaf

Sounds like a socialist nightmare to me, why not just decriminalise
all drugs and let the people be free?


fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message news:<768f7623.0410310316.2ad822bf@posting.google.com>...
> The war against drugs is lost. Any eternal war is lost. And there is
> no way to win this war. Why? Because you *CANNOT* prove you are not a
> drug addict. You *CAN* prove if you are an alcoholic or not, simply by
> taking a drink and then refraining, with a bottle in front of you. But
> how do you prove that you are not a dryag addict? By taking drugs and
> then refraining? Argggggg! No way!
> 
> What if your old high school friends conspire and tell everybody you
> DID use drugs extensively during you youth. Signed testimonies. Yo are
> done! You are now an ex addict, subject to `side effects` (see thread
> of the sae name under my name). At least WE ARE ALL EX-ADDICTS!!!!
> That`s the most we can say and prove by NOT taking drugs. But at any
> moment the POLICE can say: `he/she uses drugs` What do you do? You are
> driving alone in a highway. You are stopped. By the time you come back
> home, there is already a report that you use drugs. What comes next in
> your life????
> 
> Or smebody, even a policeman, puts some quantity of a substance in
> your car, or some powder on your suit, or in your house... How do
> youprove it is not yours? By being tortured until it is evident it is
> not yours??? BACK TO THE MIDDLE AGES!!!
> 
> And worse, yourlife suddenly grinds to a halt and goes to the sink:
> somebody spreads the rumor you used drugs. Soon all are convinced of
> it. Goodbye opportunities, etc. It may be a policeman who does this,
> maybe with reason (can`t prove you comitted a crime and wants to pin
> you down, whether he is correct or not, or just because...). Goodbye
> life.
> 
> But for the police and judges it makes their life easy. Say drugs, the
> magic word: you`re done. Anything can be justified by saying drugs.
> Mexico wants to extradite somebody? Just needs to fabricate evidence
> saying you are a drug seller. Wham!!! There you go...
> 
> Now, we don`t want drugs to be sold inthe corner store. No way! Would
> happened like with tobacco. So, the only *rational* solution is to
> CONTROL THEM.
> 
> The proposal consists in emitting a card similar to voting credentials
> with picture. You are entitled to buy weekly quantities, under medical
> supervision. You can buy from the government or speicalized dealers.
> The card is given free of charge by the government, even by the police
> itself! The federal police, the DEA. You commit a crime? NO CARD??? 
> Double penalty. A card? How much did you take, which drugs? Is it
> enough to commit a crime?, etc.
>  
> You would submit to psychiatrical evaluation pryor and... for the rest
> of yourlife, or while youhave your card. Age requirements are
> enforced. Who would trade the card? Nobody. You pay for it maybe even
> with taxes, etc. You can assure quality. No accidents. Not enough for
> you? Treatment.
> 
> This solution has the advantage that it would expose all players, both
> producers and cosummers. Once you ask for a card, you`re marked for
> life. Essentially. But then, if well controlled, once you give back 
> your card, you are free from the stigma. Again, no card? Double
> penalty. It would work as a deterrent to curiosity. It would be
> accompanied with real information as to the effects, pros and cons, as
> all things have two sides.
> 
> Budgets need not be lost by the police. Essentially, they would
> control it, the federal police, that is. Other resources would go to
> treatments, research, information, special gatherings, etc.
> 
> Not ALL drugs need be treated this way. Temptatively, only marihuana
> and maybe the most innocuous of chemical drugs would be allowed. Doses
> would make medical sense. Other drugs would be equally illegal.
> 
> Of course, the other solution is WORLDWIDE erradication. Dope and coke
> and mushrooms. Chemical drugs would be treated as they are now. My 
> hypothesis is that most people use drugs other than pot because of its
> inavailability. A trick of sellers would be to sell dope and once they
> have buyers, artificially reduce supply and augment supply of other
> drugs. This trick would no lowork. Many sellers and producers would
> opt to go through the governmental, official channel. There would be a
> residue of criminals: those would be hunted as usual. But, most
> important, addicts wuld be identified. Hypothesis is that few people
> NOT CURRENTLY USING drugs would opt NOT TO USE DRUGS. There is a
> mystery to them, making them attractive for rebel types and others.
> Users would speak more freely of their effects, good and bad, before
> they end up intratment for abuse. Abuse would be dminished a lot...
> 
> Why I write this? Because it makes sense. And because I may be
> incriminated thus.
> 
> Any comments about the path of adjustment of prices? I guess they
> would remain about the same; the excess in price due to intermediarism
> would go to the government as taxes. Other regimes may be possible.