On the management of risk in a society...

[arnisador]

I think doing drugs is your own business.

I certainly want to agree with this, and w.r.t. marijuana I certainly do. But...

And my Father was on meth when he tried to kill my family and me.[...]I suppose he payed for it by sitting his butt in jail.

That'd be small comfort if he had succeeded, I wager. As with guns, when we see that it continually affects others--like the fact that meth. drives the majority of burglaries where I live--we need to take a broader view of the problem. It's part of living by govt. rather than anarchy--it's a benefit.

 

[ballen0351]

But if you know your allergic to peanuts and still eat them then yeah your stupid time to start cleaning the gene pool

 

[Tgace]

Comparing food to the recreational use of drugs...

Uhhhh....right.

 

[Drasken]

Uh...no. You don't "just" give up your rights to a weapon. You've also hurt or killed somebody. That's really the big point here. It hurts other people.




We have food safety regulations and inspections to try to prevent the stupidity of a cook from causing food-borne illness in customers. There are legitimate public health issues out there. People causing themselves harm is unfortunate but I agree that people have a considerable right to be stupid. It's their lives. I want to be protected from the stupidity of others harming me, though, to the extent feasible. That too is a balance, but I really don't want my neighbor storing chemical weapons in his garage. His stupidity could take out a whole neighborhood.

You're choosing to live in a society if you live here. Societies have rules to better function. Don't like the very principle of govt. of, by, and for the people? Somalia welcomes you!

Well, since you talk about guns specifically once again, and rules to protect people. The 2nd amendment is there to protect us.. From each other in the case of crime. From foreign threats in the case of an invasion. And from our on government, should checks and balances fail and the government becomes tyrannical.

Saying that, I believe a foreign invasion requiring armed militia response or the need for citizen uprising to be a very improbable scenario. But not impossible. Nothing is impossible. Our forefathers were quoted in books written by them, in their diaries, etc. saying just thato
So in essence the current proposed legislations are trying to restrict a law giving us the right of protection not only from criminals and foreign powers, but also from THEM. All for a, while very sad, statistically insignifigant number of tragedies and people dead.

I understand the emotional reaction, I really do. But emotion rarely is beneficial to the use of logic.

That said, let's not derail this thread.

Rules to protect others are just that. You are cooking food for someone else? Rules are good. But some of our regulations would be like the government requiring you to follow those rules when preparing your own food in your own home. It's a good idea, but if you want food poisoning or something do whatever you want. That's all on you.

And yes if I hurt or kill someone else I have not only given up my rights. But what do you suggest? Arresting people and charging them with crimes they haven't even attempted? We need proof, what if they haven't hinted to it or there IS no proof?
"We need to regulate guns" Ok, so guns are harder to get. The people wanting to hurt others will just use something else. We will see a rise in stabbings for instance. If you have knowledge of anatomy and knives, you should know a knife attack can be pretty serious. Close up it is just as deadly as a gun.
So we have to regulate that. But people wanting to harm others will just find a NEW way to do it.

My point is, harming someone is already against the law. People that do it either expect jail time or don't feel responsible for their own actions. Overregulation does nothing but make matters worse.
Most crime happens at night. If the government issued a manditory curfew to cut down on crime, would you support it?

 

[arnisador]

Comparing food to the recreational use of drugs...

The topic was actually medical care for people who engage in behaviors with known risks.

 

[arnisador]

All for a, while very sad, statistically insignifigant number of tragedies and people dead.

No, 30K per year is not statistically insignificant. In some states gun deaths now outnumber motor vehicle (not just drunk driving) deaths (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths). Both are around 10-11 per 100K population (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).

Arresting people and charging them with crimes they haven't even attempted?

I don't know where this paranoia is coming from, but no one is suggesting anything remotely like that.

"We need to regulate guns" Ok, so guns are harder to get. The people wanting to hurt others will just use something else. We will see a rise in stabbings for instance.

A rise, yes. To the same levels, no--and knife attacks are much less likely to be fatal. Mass knife attacks cause many fewer fatalities. Guns are easy to use and give you the advantage of range. You won't see the same number of deaths.

Most crime happens at night. If the government issued a manditory curfew to cut down on crime, would you support it?

Most crime happens during the day because much crime is shoplifting, jaywalking, embezzlement, speeding, etc. But curfews happen--esp. juvenile curfews. No, it's not the case that I would support any possible effort to reduce crime. For example, I don't favor banning guns, either.

 

[Steve]

Jail?

What state do you live in? Users never go to jail here...diversion programs, drug court, probation. Jail?

Hardly ever.

We have all sorts of people in jail for drug related crimes. One of the issues that's arising now is what to do about all of the people who are currently in our State prison system for marijuana possession now that it has been legalized. But, as you say, jail is only part of it. Probation, diversion programs... those aren't free. Right?

 

[Steve]

I thought we were talking in a hypothetical world where if it doesn't effect others it should be legal. You said make it all legal and pay for a single payer system. I was saying once I have to pay for your decisions it now effects me. If we truly want a society where anything goes al long as it doesnt bothes or effect others then make it all legal and offer zero public funded treatment let people OD and die in the streets

Weren't you at one point working street level narcotics? I would say that affected you, but we might not define the term in the same way. If one of us is talking about a hypothetical world, it's you not me. My point remains that we pay for it all and then some already. We pay both the medical bills AND unnecessary criminal bills.

 

[Makalakumu]

No, 30K per year is not statistically insignificant. In some states gun deaths now outnumber motor vehicle (not just drunk driving) deaths (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths). Both are around 10-11 per 100K population (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).

There are about a dozen places in America where violence is a huge problem. If you remove these cities from the statistics, the overall amount of deaths in our population from violent crime is about the same as Denmark. This is a problem in these cities because of the general breakdown of family, because of the drug war, and the lack of opportunity in those areas.

It's really sad that most of America is really safe, but we allow these places to continue to crumble and get worse. Detroit has a murder rate greater than your average 3rd world central American country. Get out of Detroit and go up to the UP and you can leave your doors unlocked at night if you wish.

 

[Tgace]

There are about a dozen places in America where violence is a huge problem. If you remove these cities from the statistics, the overall amount of deaths in our population from violent crime is about the same as Denmark. This is a problem in these cities because of the general breakdown of family, because of the drug war, and the lack of opportunity in those areas.

It's really sad that most of America is really safe, but we allow these places to continue to crumble and get worse. Detroit has a murder rate greater than your average 3rd world central American country. Get out of Detroit and go up to the UP and you can leave your doors unlocked at night if you wish.

Suicide is also the bulk of most of these statistics...so if we are going down this "do what you want to yourself" road should that even matter?

 

[Makalakumu]

But this thread really isn't about one type of risk over another. It's about the whole idea of managing risk in society in general. Right now, based on lots of irrational politics, we have things that are totally legal, but dangerous as hell and things that are illegal, but have never actually killed anyone. IMO, I think this reflects the ultimate result of prohibiting dangerous activities with laws and trying to manage other people's risk. Could we find other ways of managing risk in our society rather than making a law and prohibiting it? Could we preserve people's freedom and find a way to hold people accountable for their actions?

Can a responsible person smoke a joint, drink raw milk, own a machine gun, marry three women, and grow hemp without having to fear that some guys in costumes will throw them into cages? It seems like it's really unfair to force your view of what is risky on another person. America is a big place. We could easily have smaller communities where people could join them based on the agreements made beforehand.

 

[ballen0351]

Weren't you at one point working street level narcotics? I would say that affected you, but we might not define the term in the same way. If one of us is talking about a hypothetical world, it's you not me. My point remains that we pay for it all and then some already. We pay both the medical bills AND unnecessary criminal bills.

So what's the alternative make it all legal and still pay? At least now we can require people to seek treatment thru courts. It doesn't work the first or second or third time but I have had people eventually get tired of being in the system and stay clean and come back later and thank me. Making it legal there is nothing we can do but watch people die in the streets and say oh well he was only hurting himself. (Which I personally have no problem with I have little to no sympathy for drug users all the problems they have they brought it on themselves). The legalize stuff bandwagon sounds great in theory but won't work in reality. People aren't ready for the aftermath.

 

[Makalakumu]

The legalize stuff bandwagon sounds great in theory but won't work in reality. People aren't ready for the aftermath.

People make the same argument against guns all of the time. What strikes me as so ironic is that some posters would argue tooth and nail for my right to own an assault rifle, but then turn around and say my butt needs to go to jail for growing marijuana on my porch for sale. Owning an assault rifle is statistically more dangerous than smoking a joint. What's the deal with this apparent hypocrisy?

 

[ballen0351]

People make the same argument against guns all of the time. What strikes me as so ironic is that some posters would argue tooth and nail for my right to own an assault rifle, but then turn around and say my butt needs to go to jail for growing marijuana on my porch for sale. Owning an assault rifle is statistically more dangerous than smoking a joint. What's the deal with this apparent hypocrisy?

For starter's you have no constitutional right to smoke a joint. In fact drugs are not mentioned at all so its a choice left up to the states to decide. I got no problem if Washington or Texas makes pot or crack or meth legal but be ready for the fall out. Its not going to be all rainbows and unicorns that people think

 

[arnisador]

Suicide is also the bulk of most of these statistics...so if we are going down this "do what you want to yourself" road should that even matter?

Suicides make up around 18k with homicides being the bulk of the remaining 12k (plus some accidental deaths). The point with suicide is that if it's the result of an immediate reaction to a traumatic event or mental illness then the person may not want to try again after the urge passes. It's not the same as someone with cancer deciding the time has come.

 

[arnisador]

The legalize stuff bandwagon sounds great in theory but won't work in reality. People aren't ready for the aftermath.

We have to restrict people's rights and freedom for their own good and the good of others, you're saying?

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm..this may ramble a bit so bear with me I'm just free flow thinking here.

This debate always seems to circle around the "they are not hurting anyone" point. It's always framed as the harmless joint smoker. The mellow hippy growing weed in his basement, someone just using heroin as a hobby...whats the harm to anyone else but them thing.

I'm a vice cop so I work with this sort of thing and these sort of people day to day. Lately I have been working up some info on prostitutes working my area. I have the ability to mine some data via the internet and LE sources to identity some of these women and look through various police contacts hey have had. To a person almost every one of them have pretty sad lives filled with drug abuse, assaults on their persons, driving under the influence of drugs, johns starling their cars, wrecking their vehicles while under the influence of narcotics, children being taken from them by protective services, suicide attempts, getting swept up in homicide cases where their "boyfriends" were killers, winding up dead themselves in garbage totes..and on and on. Drugs, prostitution...they don't attract a very savory crowd. Would you like to raise a family next door to a working girl doing incalls all day long? You want that sort of drama intruding on your life? I won't even bother listing the drama the run of the mill hype brigs with them.

Is this a chicken egg argument? Do "losers in life" get drawn to dope or does dope create them? I don't know but the need to get the dope is the common thread through a LOT of these hard luck stories. And I'm not talking about "civil disobedience" law breaking (a la speak easies during prohibition or bathtub booze)..I'm talking about burglaries, robberies and theft simply to buy an envelope of powder.

A large chunk of my job is fielding complaints of "drug activity going on at my neighbors house"...most of which isn't really about the drugs as much as it is about the types of people who are drug users contaminating the neighborhood with their ********. These people are not going to suddenly turn into the Cleavers simply by legalizing cocaine/heroin/etc.

Some people say "make drugs legal" and all that other crap goes away. I call ******** on that. When you are physically addicted on something you have to pay for you will need money to feed the master of puppets legal or not. As it is heroin per-day costs is getting pretty close to cigarette costs. Thinking that gvt legal dope is going to be that much cheaper than street dope after all the sin tax is added is a pipe dream. Except you don't typically see people robbing or stealing to buy a pack of smokes.

Of course weed and heroin are not equal in same way that cigarettes and heroin are not the same. I've been on record here before saying that legalization of personal use weed wouldn't drive me crazy even though I don't agree with the idea.

To wrap up this disjointed list...in the end the people in my Town obviously don't want drug users/dealers/prostitutes in their neighborhoods based on the calls, complaints at public meetings and letters I receive and I do what I can to plug the dike for them.

 

[ballen0351]

We have to restrict people's rights and freedom for their own good and the good of others, you're saying?

Where is it written you have a right to smoke crack I missed that amendment. So who's rights am I restricting?

 

[arnisador]

For starter's you have no constitutional right to smoke a joint. In fact drugs are not mentioned at all so its a choice left up to the states to decide.

That doesn't follow at all. Things not enumerated explicitly by name can fall under other headings like the equal protection clause, say. For example, it doesn't explicitly mention education but was the basis for Brown vs. Board of Ed.

 

[Steve]

So what's the alternative make it all legal and still pay? At least now we can require people to seek treatment thru courts. It doesn't work the first or second or third time but I have had people eventually get tired of being in the system and stay clean and come back later and thank me. Making it legal there is nothing we can do but watch people die in the streets and say oh well he was only hurting himself. (Which I personally have no problem with I have little to no sympathy for drug users all the problems they have they brought it on themselves). The legalize stuff bandwagon sounds great in theory but won't work in reality. People aren't ready for the aftermath.

Historically, whenever we legalize something, it actually does help.