Your opinion on the War on Drugs

[Guest TrueMetis]

You can ignore it all you want but the consequences of addiction effect you whether you like it or not. You pay for it in higher taxes, health care costs, prices and insurance rates.

Costs that are their whether those drugs are legal or not. Though if we make them legal we are lessened the cost of having the police have to deal with them.

If an addict steals from you personaly, it is your personal problem. If an alcoholic piles their car into you, it is your personal problem.

Also their whether they are legal or not.

If you legalize something harmfull, you bear at least some of the responsibility for the consequences.

I'm responsible if someone steals something? Or do you think that if drugs became legal than everyone would do them? What exactly am I responsible for?

As far as addicts, property crime and treatment goes, the only real chance these people have is two years in a federa jail where they will be off drugs and the treatment they need is available.

No a prison would be a horrible place for these people as most of them have mental disorders. There is a place for those people though.

Trouble is the courts don't do that. They give people with dozens of convictions conditional sentences and tell them to attend a meeting once a week. When of course those conditions are breached, they get another conditional sentence.

Your right they should be sent to a mental hospital for actual treatment.

In other words, the courts have written them off just like you.

No I want those with serious issues to go to a proper treatment facility, and those who do drugs and still function properly to be allowed to live their lives.

[eyeball]

I agree....can't relate to their reasons for using....trafficking I understand very well!

Screw both.

I'm curious, do state governments run liquor stores in the US the way provinces in Canada do? Who licenses the sale of tobacco, the states or the feds?

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm curious, do state governments run liquor stores in the US the way provinces in Canada do? Who licenses the sale of tobacco, the states or the feds?

No....states and local municipalities license the sale of such legal products, while it appears that only Alberta does not enjoy a government monopoly on such sales. Tobacco sales are subject to different laws at state levels.

[Wilber]

Costs that are their whether those drugs are legal or not. Though if we make them legal we are lessened the cost of having the police have to deal with them.

If people are stealing to buy legal drugs you don't expect the police to do anything?

I'm responsible if someone steals something? Or do you think that if drugs became legal than everyone would do them? What exactly am I responsible for?

If you make street drugs available legaly, you take the place of the drug dealer. Yes, you are responsible.

No a prison would be a horrible place for these people as most of them have mental disorders. There is a place for those people though.

Your right they should be sent to a mental hospital for actual treatment.

Which mental hospital would that be?

No I want those with serious issues to go to a proper treatment facility, and those who do drugs and still function properly to be allowed to live their lives.

Again, what facility would that be? You can't effective treatment if people are free to come and go and drugs are available right outside the door. It doesn't matter if they are legal or not.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If people are stealing to buy legal drugs you don't expect the police to do anything?

Yes for the stealing part.

If you make street drugs available legaly, you take the place of the drug dealer. Yes, you are responsible.

Again what am I responsible for. They are choosing to do the drugs both now and if they were legalized. You sound like the person who accuses Macdonalds when you get fat for eating there to much.

Which mental hospital would that be?

Why not try this one. My link and I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Again, what facility would that be? You can't effective treatment if people are free to come and go and drugs are available right outside the door. It doesn't matter if they are legal or not.

Who says they are free to come and go? Once again most people who have the serious addictions are also mentally insane. Declare them as such and release them when they are sane again.

[Wilber]

Yes for the stealing part.

And do what?

Again what am I responsible for. They are choosing to do the drugs both now and if they were legalized. You sound like the person who accuses Macdonalds when you get fat for eating there to much.

The addiction part isn't really a choice, that's why they call it an addiction. Not eating isn't really a choice. There is one similarity however, there is a great relationship between a persons economic situation and the quality of food they eat.

Why not try this one. My link and I'm sure there are plenty of others.

We ship them all to Toronto?

Who says they are free to come and go? Once again most people who have the serious addictions are also mentally insane. Declare them as such and release them when they are sane again.

Dream on, we can't even keep people with 50 plus convictions for property crime off the street. Where are you going to send them, Riverview was closed years ago. Maybe the Sunshine Coast would be a good spot, you need a ferry to get back to the city.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And do what?

Why is it so hard for you to put two and two together?

The addiction part isn't really a choice, that's why they call it an addiction. Not eating isn't really a choice. There is one similarity however, there is a great relationship between a persons economic situation and the quality of food they eat.

No but the stealing is, and you still have yet to say what I would be responsible for.

We ship them all to Toronto?

Obviously we don't send them all to the same facility, the point is there are places to deal with this.

Dream on, we can't even keep people with 50 plus convictions for property crime off the street. Where are you going to send them, Riverview was closed years ago. Maybe the Sunshine Coast would be a good spot, you need a ferry to get back to the city.

If we had a mental health facility that could deal with them sure. Now how about you start thinking of solutions instead of whining.

People like you are pathetic your a completly willing to attack a solution yet never come up with your own.

[Mr.Canada]

This socialist garbage makes me want to puke. Addiction isn't the addicts fault? Lol.

Give me a break. The addict chose to stick a needle in his or her arm. He or she chose to smoke crack. He or she chose to drink alcohol. He or she chose to smoke cigarettes. He or she chose to gamble. The list goes on and on.

Lack of personal responsibility is the reason society is going in the crapper. Everyone is blaming someone else for their troubles instead of rightly looking in the mirror.

[bloodyminded]

It's the same old crack vs. cocaine debate. Well heeled suburban users and traffickers of illegal drugs think they are "superior"....laughable rationalization.

But that wasn't his point. His point--one agreed with by most moral and legal codes (including American and Canadian ones, thankfully) is that possession of an illegal substance is a lesser crime than theft and robbery.

It's a basic truism.

[ba1614]

.... and prisons filled with law abiding citizens whose crimes consist merely of possessing illegal narcotics for personal use.....

I am pro-legalization, or at the very least, decriminalize it. BUT, that is simply not true. If you can produce facts to support that claim I may change my mind, but I have never seen the evidence, nor has anyone been able to produce evidence to back up such a claim.

[Wilber]

Why is it so hard for you to put two and two together?

Why is it you are having that problem. People steal to feed addictions. The legality of the item they are buying with what they steal has nothing to do with it.

No but the stealing is, and you still have yet to say what I would be responsible for.

If you say it is OK to do something you have a least a moral responsibility for the results. I could be wrong but as far as I know there hasn't been a rash of people breaking into homes and vehicles just so they could eat at McDonald's.

Obviously we don't send them all to the same facility, the point is there are places to deal with this.

Where? This is your assertion, back it up.

If we had a mental health facility that could deal with them sure. Now how about you start thinking of solutions instead of whining.

People like you are pathetic your a completely willing to attack a solution yet never come up with your own.

If we did, maybe we could. I've been saying that we should put people who commit multiple crimes to support their habit in prisons for a fixed period where they can get treatment because in reality that is the only effective means we have of dealing with them at this time. I'm not saying it is the best possible approach but right now it is the only one available that has a chance of success. You have said we should commit people who have committed no other crime than being mentally ill to institutions for an open ended period. I have yet to see any ideas from you other than letting people do anything they want and ignoring any negative fallout as long as it doesn't effect you.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Wilber

[Sir Bandelot]

I am pro-legalization, or at the very least, decriminalize it. BUT, that is simply not true. If you can produce facts to support that claim I may change my mind, but I have never seen the evidence, nor has anyone been able to produce evidence to back up such a claim.

It might be a reference to the United States, look to the statistics on prison population there. It's easy to find.

One in every 31 American adults, or 7.3 million Americans, are in prison, on parole or probation. Approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored.

In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandated sentences that came about during the "war on drugs."

The United States has the highest documented per capita rate of incarceration of any country in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Prisons

http://november.org/graphs/

http://november.org/graphs/FedbyOffense.gif

---

Land of the free

Edited December 14, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[BrassTax]

I believe we should legalize marijuana, cocaine, Psilocybin, LSD. We should sell sweet old mary jane like they do cigarettes and tax the crap out of it. The other three should be controlled by prescription. Things like meth/crack/ecstasy should remain illegal as these are particularly unhealthy drugs. The money we would save from the justice system should then be put into health and education. We'd save a ton of money used to buy toys n tazers for the popo, then we can put this money back into the hands of the population by investing in the population.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why is it you are having that problem. People steal to feed addictions. The legality of the item they are buying with what they steal has nothing to do with it.

Well duh, people stealing is illegal regardless of what they are stealing for. People steal to buy cigarettes and alcohol to. If the reason is identified as an addiction then send them to a mental health facility because prisons don't work for that.

If you say it is OK to do something you have a least a moral responsibility for the results. I could be wrong but as far as I know there hasn't been a rash of people breaking into homes and vehicles just so they could eat at McDonald's.

If It is legal that SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE STEALING FOR DRUGS NOW WILL BE THE SAME PEOPLE STEALING THEN THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE. So what the hell am I responsible for, a zero change?

Where? This is your assertion, back it up.

I already did.

If we did, maybe we could. I've been saying that we should put people who commit multiple crimes to support their habit in prisons for a fixed period where they can get treatment because in reality that is the only effective means we have of dealing with them at this time. I'm not saying it is the best possible approach but right now it is the only one available that has a chance of success. You have said we should commit people who have committed on other crime than being mentally ill to institutions for an open ended period. I have yet to see any ideas from you other than letting people do anything they want and ignoring any negative fallout as long as it doesn't effect you.

Prisons do not and have not ever solved a person with addiction problems. The only facilities that have that capability are mental health facilities which have the capability of treating the underlying medical illnesses that thee people suffer. If prisons worked than there would be no addiction in America. I;m saying we should commit them for being a danger to themselves and others as most of these people who are willing to steal for are. As for me letting people do whatever they want where the hell did I say that? And where the hell did I say ignore the negative effects? Have you not noticed me saying they should go to a mental health facility to get proper treatment? Pretty sure that has a better chance of working than your method of sending them in and out of prison hoping that somehow that will solve their mental issues.

[Sir Bandelot]

Prisons do not and have not ever solved a person with addiction problems.

Especially now that the CPC party has removed rehabilitation programs that were offered to drug convicts in the past, and closed down programs like Insight in BC which was designed to minimize harm and give addicts a potential way out. The Cons impose mandatory prison time, and remove any possibility of meaningful rehab. They would prefer to incarcerate addicts for life if they could.

[GostHacked]

You don't think studies have been done on how toxic they are? Anyone who produced those drugs legally would get their asses sued off by their victims which means they would still be produced illegally. We already have a system where drugs which are potentially dangerous are sold legally. It's called by prescription. If you could show me a doctor who would prescribe cocaine, meth or crack, I would show you a dangerous quack.

Cocaine is still used in many prescriptions to this day. It may not be specifically prescribed but it is mixed in with other drugs. I worked for an inventory company some years ago, I was one of the ones to count all the drugs including the narcotic safe. 15 grams of cocaine runs the pharmacy about 20 dollars

Mr. Canada

This socialist garbage makes me want to puke. Addiction isn't the addicts fault? Lol.

Give me a break. The addict chose to stick a needle in his or her arm. He or she chose to smoke crack. He or she chose to drink alcohol. He or she chose to smoke cigarettes. He or she chose to gamble. The list goes on and on.

Studies proven the addictiveness of nicotine in cigarettes.

Studies proven the addictiveness of alcohol

Studies proven the addictiveness of crack, heroine, ect ect ect ect.......

Ever wonder why there are so many alternatives to get people to quit cigarettes? They are addicting, and in many cases you need more than just willpower to overcome those addictions.

Lack of personal responsibility is the reason society is going in the crapper. Everyone is blaming someone else for their troubles instead of rightly looking in the mirror.

I do agree with this statement.

[eyeball]

Who could blame a fetus?

The real perversity is that Canadian prisons are filled with so many people that were mentally damaged in their wombs by the alcohol that governments provided to their mothers. And we're supposed to believe the government is or should be some sort of authority on the dangers or immorality of substance use and addiction, never mind prohibition?

I still recall my old man lecturing me on the dangers of drug use with a double in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Poor old guy died of emphysema and liver damage. According to some my old man didn't have a choice. So who did?

in loco parentis...

The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent" or "instead of a parent,"[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from British common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.

To me the analogy of my old man suggests the government is also applying this function in the area of substance use but in a very irresponsible and especially unethical manner.

What kind of example is that for a parent/government to set?

Edited December 14, 2009 by eyeball

[Mr.Canada]

To many on here fetuses aren't human beings so they don't matter and are free to be abused as they aren't life. An unborn fetus isn't a human being and isn't afford the same rights we have according to the majority on this board. According to them people are free to abuse their fetuses as they see fit. They can drink alcohol while pregnant, smoke crack, shoot heroin. All these things are wonderful and perfectly legal and the socialists on this board will actually congratulate you if you do these things while pregnant as it's your body and an unborn child isn't a human being so drink snort and shoot away, it isn't a human being anyways, right?

[Mr.Canada]

Cocaine is still used in many prescriptions to this day. It may not be specifically prescribed but it is mixed in with other drugs. I worked for an inventory company some years ago, I was one of the ones to count all the drugs including the narcotic safe. 15 grams of cocaine runs the pharmacy about 20 dollars

Mr. Canada

Studies proven the addictiveness of nicotine in cigarettes.

Studies proven the addictiveness of alcohol

Studies proven the addictiveness of crack, heroine, ect ect ect ect.......

Ever wonder why there are so many alternatives to get people to quit cigarettes? They are addicting, and in many cases you need more than just willpower to overcome those addictions.

I do agree with this statement.

Right but it was the persons own choices that led to their addiction.

No one forced them to do drugs, they chose to do it. They should bare the consequences of their actions. Next thing you know some people will start getting away with murder because of the way they grew up. In the ghetto, no father or their mother beat them...boo hoo. Life's tough, get a helmet you damn wimps.

I lived on the streets of Toronto for years and I managed to pull myself together just fine. So I have zero sympathy for these losers. I did it , they can do the same.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Wilber]

I already did.

Bullshit, you cited one facility in Toronto. You keep referring to facilities in BC that don't exist.

If It is legal that SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE STEALING FOR DRUGS NOW WILL BE THE SAME PEOPLE STEALING THEN THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE. So what the hell am I responsible for, a zero change?

From a practical point of view no, but you will be sanctioning the source of their addiction.

Prisons do not and have not ever solved a person with addiction problems. The only facilities that have that capability are mental health facilities which have the capability of treating the underlying medical illnesses that thee people suffer. If prisons worked than there would be no addiction in America. I;m saying we should commit them for being a danger to themselves and others as most of these people who are willing to steal for are. As for me letting people do whatever they want where the hell did I say that? And where the hell did I say ignore the negative effects? Have you not noticed me saying they should go to a mental health facility to get proper treatment? Pretty sure that has a better chance of working than your method of sending them in and out of prison hoping that somehow that will solve their mental issues.

If you can't even put people in jail for committing real crimes how are you going to forcibly incarcerate people in mental facilities who have committed none? Facilities that don't exist. Under what law are you going to commit them against their will? You will be up to your eyeballs in Charter challenges from the Pivot Legal society and every other civil rights organization.

You've referred to addicts as "dumb asses who let drugs control them". Many of those dumb asses had normal and sometimes quite successful lives before circumstances lead them to where they are. People may choose to take a drug for whatever reason but they don't choose to be addicts. I for one am not so arrogant to assume that such a thing could never happen to me and if I found myself in such a position, I would be strong enough to drag myself out of it.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Wilber

[Guest TrueMetis]

Bullshit, you cited one facility in Toronto. You keep referring to facilities in BC that don't exist.

I never said there were facilities in BC I said facilities exist for this type of thing. Although BC does have a service for this http://www.bcmhas.ca/default.htm

From a practical point of view no, but you will be sanctioning the source of their addiction.

And if it's legal than what does it matter?

If you can't even put people in jail for committing real crimes how are you going to forcibly incarcerate people in mental facilities who have committed none? Facilities that don't exist. Under what law are you going to commit them against their will? You will be up to your eyeballs in Charter challenges from the Pivot Legal society and every other civil rights organization.

If they commit a crime because of their addiction a better place would be a facility designed to deal with this, and there are laws that allow admitting a mentally ill person My link.

Involuntary admission to hospital

The rules for hospitalizing a person against their will are stricter. A person can become an involuntary patient by doctor’s certificate or court order. As well, the police can take a person to hospital in an emergency - see below for details.

While a voluntary patient may be admitted to any hospital with psychiatric services, involuntary patients can be admitted to only certain hospitals in BC. If a hospital doesn’t have a bed available, they may not be able to admit a person. In that case, the person would be sent, under supervision, to another hospital that has room.

You've referred to addicts as "dumb asses who let drugs control them". Many of those dumb asses had normal and sometimes quite successful lives before circumstances lead them to where they are. People may choose to take a drug for whatever reason but they don't choose to be addicts. I for one am not so arrogant to assume that such a thing could never happen to me and if I found myself in such a position, I would be strong enough to drag myself out of it.

And I know plenty of people who do drugs but didn't allow those things to happen at all. The biggest reason most addicts are like that is a previous mental illness they are trying to self medicate.

[eyeball]

To many on here fetuses aren't human beings so they don't matter and are free to be abused as they aren't life. An unborn fetus isn't a human being and isn't afford the same rights we have according to the majority on this board. According to them people are free to abuse their fetuses as they see fit. They can drink alcohol while pregnant, smoke crack, shoot heroin. All these things are wonderful and perfectly legal and the socialists on this board will actually congratulate you if you do these things while pregnant as it's your body and an unborn child isn't a human being so drink snort and shoot away, it isn't a human being anyways, right?

Sometimes their fate makes them seem even more human than those of us who have been born.

I'm a socialist, apparently, and I don't think these things are very wonderful or legal.

[Wilber]

I never said there were facilities in BC I said facilities exist for this type of thing. Although BC does have a service for this http://www.bcmhas.ca/default.htm

They have one facility which has a grand total of 256 beds for all psychiatric cases in BC.

And if it's legal than what does it matter?

Again if you sanction the use of something, you bear some responsibility for the consequences. A concept you seem to have trouble with.

If they commit a crime because of their addiction a better place would be a facility designed to deal with this, and there are laws that allow admitting a mentally ill person.

I agree that would be a better place. There are laws that allow maximum sentences as well yet the courts have as good as told government they will not apply them. There also has to be beds in facilities for them to be sent to. Folks are continually crying that we can't put people in jail because we don't have room for them. That goes double for mental patients.

"While a voluntary patient may be admitted to any hospital with psychiatric services, involuntary patients can be admitted to only certain hospitals in BC. If a hospital doesn’t have a bed available, they may not be able to admit a person. In that case, the person would be sent, under supervision, to another hospital that has room."

The courts cannot confine a person to a mental institution, they can only send them for assessment. It can only be done on a doctor's recommendation. As doctors often have enough trouble finding beds for non addicted patients, I doubt many of them are in a hurry to fill those beds with addicts.

And I know plenty of people who do drugs but didn't allow those things to happen at all. The biggest reason most addicts are like that is a previous mental illness they are trying to self medicate.

You speak as though all people are equal when it comes to addiction when we know that is not the case. Forget the personal history that might have put them on that route, kids now become addicted at birth because of their user parents. Never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome? Susceptibility to alcoholism is also genetic in many cases and that probably applies to many other drugs as well.

[Guest TrueMetis]

They have one facility which has a grand total of 256 beds for all psychiatric cases in BC.

So we need to build more. What's your point.

Again if you sanction the use of something, you bear some responsibility for the consequences. A concept you seem to have trouble with.

Seeing as you have yet to tell me what those responsiblities are I'd say there aren't any.

I agree that would be a better place. There are laws that allow maximum sentences as well yet the courts have as good as told government they will not apply them. There also has to be beds in facilities for them to be sent to. Folks are continually crying that we can't put people in jail because we don't have room for them. That goes double for mental patients.

Uh that's why we build more.

"While a voluntary patient may be admitted to any hospital with psychiatric services, involuntary patients can be admitted to only certain hospitals in BC. If a hospital doesn’t have a bed available, they may not be able to admit a person. In that case, the person would be sent, under supervision, to another hospital that has room."

See above.

The courts cannot confine a person to a mental institution, they can only send them for assessment. It can only be done on a doctor's recommendation. As doctors often have enough trouble finding beds for non addicted patients, I doubt many of them are in a hurry to fill those beds with addicts.

How long can involuntarily patients be kept in hospital?

A doctor’s certificate to send a mentally ill person to hospital is valid to admit the person to hospital for 14 days. Involuntary patients can be kept in hospital for only 48 hours after they are admitted, based on the doctor’s certificate. To keep the patient longer than 48 hours, the hospital must get a second doctor to examine the patient and produce a second certificate within the 48 hours. Then they can keep the person for up to one month. That term may be renewed for another month, then three months, then six months, and then subsequent six-month terms - each time with a doctor’s certificate, which must be based on an examination and written report.

The hospital director must give the patient written and oral notice that they are being hospitalized - at the start of the hospitalization and at each renewal of it. If the director believes that the patient does not understand the notice, the director must give the notices again as soon as they consider that the patient can understand it. The written notice must also go to the patient’s near relative (which includes a representative). If there’s no information available on a relative, then the notice must go to the Public Guardian and Trustee.

As long as the doctors examine them and believe it is neccessary they can be kept bascially indefinately. Six months seems like enough time to deal with it. 90 days to detox and 90 to identify and devise a treatment for the mental illness.

You speak as though all people are equal when it comes to addiction when we know that is not the case. Forget the personal history that might have put them on that route, kids now become addicted at birth because of their user parents. Never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome?

Which is my point not everyone ends up in the same situation from drugs. Some end up very addicted and need serious help, while others have virtually no ill effects and should be left alone.

Susceptibility to alcoholism is also genetic in many cases and that probably applies to many other drugs as well.

Source?

Edited December 15, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Wilber]

So we need to build more. What's your point.

Uh that's why we build more.

So you admit they don't exist. I don't dispute the need.

As long as the doctors examine them and believe it is neccessary they can be kept bascially indefinately. Six months seems like enough time to deal with it. 90 days to detox and 90 to identify and devise a treatment for the mental illness.

To a non existant facility.

Which is my point not everyone ends up in the same situation from drugs. Some end up very addicted and need serious help, while others have virtually no ill effects and should be left alone.

Exactly, contrary to those who maintain that somehow they became that way out of choice. No one chooses to become an addict.

Source?

Here's one