Airplane shot down in Colombia

Blueskies wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment
does work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we
could treat every addict in the country for a tenth of what we're
spending on the WoD.

Unfortunately, treatment of drug and alcohol addiction is an abyssmal
failure, far surpassing the failure to stop the flow of drugs.


Citations?



95% failure rate for 12 step programs

www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

[...] But society's rejection of drug users should
be based on their unacceptable behavior or incompetence, not the mere
use of a drug.

The difficulty is that unacceptable behavior is neither rigidly defined
nor equitably enforced, whether or not drugs are involved.

Neil

("Bob Noel" wrote)
Jay, you have an aviation-theme for much of your hotel. I don't know what
an "air-themed motel" is... :-)


http://www.oxynate.com/OxygenBar.html
It starts in the bar :-)


Paul-Mont

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


And there should be provision for appropriate
medical/psychological treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Who should pay for this treatment?

I'm OK with the concept of doing what you will with your own body. Just
don't ask me to pay to clean it up. If one's actions run afoul of societal
norms, society should not have to pay to fix it. Yes, incarceration is paid
for by society, but the inmate pays in freedom. If a drug user (legal or
otherwise) wants to clean up, they should do it on their own dime.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

"Dallas" wrote in message
.. .

Police states are an extremely effective and economical way to control
crime.


Unfortunately they usually control criminal activity (and corruption) by
running it. We could accomplish the same thing (and save the
citizen/taxpayer some big money?) by subcontracting police, and justice (and
tax collection) work to the Mafia and the Hell's Angels. I doubt that the
citizen/taxpayers would consider it a bargain. Of course some would suggest
that we already have.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:03:55 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:


95% failure rate for 12 step programs

What of Antibuse for alcoholics?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:26:00 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

[...] But society's rejection of drug users should
be based on their unacceptable behavior or incompetence, not the mere
use of a drug.

The difficulty is that unacceptable behavior is neither rigidly defined
nor equitably enforced, whether or not drugs are involved.


While that may be true currently, it is no excuse for failing to
address the issues you raise, unless, of course, the motivation is
other than to address the negative impact of drug use.

What would happen to DEA funding, DARE funding, military funding of
drug interdiction programs, prison operation contractor funding, ...,
if such a rational approach to the issue were instituted?

Follow the money.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:37:52 -0400, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


And there should be provision for appropriate
medical/psychological treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Who should pay for this treatment?

The funds saved as a result of not incarcerating users would more than
pay for it.

I'm OK with the concept of doing what you will with your own body.

That is a very enlightened point of view, unfortunately not shared by
the clergy nor the majority of Americans, IMHO.

Just don't ask me to pay to clean it up.

You don't get a choice. There will always be a segment of the
population that is less productive, or in need of specialized care.
It's unavoidable least we institute executions for cripples and
incompetents. We are bigger than that, aren't we?

If one's actions run afoul of societal norms, society should not have to
pay to fix it.

That is a good argument for not incarcerating users, curtailing DARE
programs, etc. The accomplish nothing but siphoning your tax money
into the hands of privatized prison contractors, and Law Enforcement
Officers; and are proven ineffective.

Yes, incarceration is paid for by society, but the inmate pays in [loss of]
freedom.

Are you intimating that vengeance against drug users is appropriate?

If a drug user (legal or otherwise) wants to clean up, they should do it
on their own dime.

That's reasonable for those who are able. But it is society's
misguided prohibitions that are the root of most of the problems,
because they make the drugs unaffordable.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:26:00 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

[...] But society's rejection of drug users should
be based on their unacceptable behavior or incompetence, not the
mere use of a drug.

The difficulty is that unacceptable behavior is neither rigidly
defined nor equitably enforced, whether or not drugs are involved.


While that may be true currently, it is no excuse for failing to
address the issues you raise, unless, of course, the motivation is
other than to address the negative impact of drug use.

I'm not completely sure I'm following your train of thought here. The
issues I've raised are that our society is ambivilent about which
behaviors are acceptable, and those deemed to be unacceptable are not
independent of the individuals exhibiting those behaviors. If we are
unwilling to address these basic facts, all it would do is provide a
"cover" for such rejection that is far less objective than whether one is
found to be a user of a particular substance.

What would happen to DEA funding, DARE funding, military funding of
drug interdiction programs, prison operation contractor funding, ...,
if such a rational approach to the issue were instituted?

Follow the money.

The buck starts at the top. Considering the container loads of illicit
substances that make its way into the country on a daily basis, it's
unreasonable to think that those in authority are ignorant of how and
where this is happening. In much the same way, the airplane that was shot
down could not be be involved in "known drug traffic" unless the
authorities saw it being loaded with drugs (and could have intervened at
that point). This is another silly exercise in making it appear that
something is being done to address the drug problem when it's really
highly unlikely.

Neil

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


If a drug user (legal or otherwise) wants to clean up, they should
do it on their own dime.

That's reasonable for those who are able. But it is society's
misguided prohibitions that are the root of most of the problems,
because they make the drugs unaffordable.

Even if drugs were "affordable"*, users wanting to clean up should do so
with their own funds. They're able to find the money for the vice, they
should be able to find the willpower, funds, etc. to kick the habit they
formed of their own free will. This is not to say privately funded or
volunteer organzations shouldn't or wouldn't exist to help with this task. I
just don't think it's a fair or wise expense of tax money.

* One can argue they're "affordable" now since there is still a significant
demand despite the inflated prices of the black market.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________