As you probably know, President Barack Obama recently appointed Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as his White House "drug czar," more formally known as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
That means that the U.S. Senate will soon hold a hearing to question and confirm Chief Kerlikowske. Historically, the drug czar confirmation hearings are held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the panel that handles crime and courts issues.
But, since many observers - including the president himself - have said that drug abuse is primarily a health concern, don't you think that the drug czar confirmation should be handled by the lawmakers who oversee such issues?
That's why I'm writing you today.
Please take one minute to visit Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and send a letter to your two U.S. senators, asking them to support moving the drug czar confirmation hearing to the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, a much more appropriate forum
Addiction is not a "health issue" per se, as it ultimately derives from voluntary if unwise choices and actions.
This seems like circular reasoning.However, addiction should not itself be considered a crime issue, nor should drug usage. If drug usage is not criminal, then the selling of drugs should be legal, and so that also is not a criminal issue.
As for the behaviors in which addicts engage, if those behaviors are criminal, they are criminal according to their own merits; addiction is not relevant to that discussion. A robbery is not altered because the motive was money to buy drugs; a murder is not more heinous because it was in a drug frenzy.
I agree with the first two. The second one is dependent on other laws. It is illegal to sell alcohol to a 10 year-old. This is drug distribution and should be criminalized...which it is.In all cases, addiction, drug consumption, and drug distribution should not be criminalized.
The biggest drug problem is prohibition.
Addiction is both a health problem and a criminal problem. And the problems vary from drug to drug. Even without prohibition, alcohol causes a huge criminal problem as a result of violence, sexual abuse, among other issues. Smoking may not directly cause criminal activity, but it causes quite a few medical problems.
There's not a drug out there that doesn't carry some baggage with it. If there were a drug that made us all happy, harmonious, productive and generally improved the level of functioning of our society... every society would have already embraced it.
:2wave:
Sure legalize all drugs so its abuse can spread like the plague and place even more burden on the average worker to support these scatter brains that end up manic depressive, etc. via social security, mental health programs, plus
Easy enough to deal with.
Stop taxing the worker to support the useless.
Sounds fair to me.
In theory that sounds great. Unfortunately the 'useless', if left to their vices, eventually resort to anti-social activities, such as panhandling, petty crime, or more dangerous means to feed and clothe themselves.
So the taxpaying workers end up footing a bill one way or the other.
:doh
Then you shoot their asses when they break into your house, and you feed them garbage if they get put in jail, and you make being in prison so damn upleasant that they don't want to go there, ever. Prisoners need exercise? Okay...let 'em walk around in circles until they collapse, don't give them free-weights to bulk up with.
Drug addiction is...not my problem. I should neither taxed to prevent it, nor taxed to treat it, nor taxed to subsidize it (ie, tobacco growing subsidies).
I fully agree, unfortunately under the current prohibition, Drugs are everyone's problem, and we are paying for them, heavily.
I fully support heavy taxation of intoxicants, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, you name it. Let the users themselves pay via taxes for the self imposed issues that can potentially occur, treatment, health care, all can be offset via taxation, we can take this problem off form the shoulders of the entire nation, and place it on those who choose to accept the risks of their own behaviors for themselves.
Unfortunately with many addicts the problem eventually lands right back on the taxpayers' shoulders anyway. My uncle was an Ivy-league educated man who ended up drinking himself to death. The family could only do so much, short of having him committed I suppose, which wasn't an option until the very sad end of many problematic years. His private health insurance covered his hospitalizations up to a point... but after numerous legal, financial, and an onslaught of related health issues... he ended up on medicaid and Social Security in the end.
See?
An excellent argument for the termination of Medicaid and Socialist Security if I ever saw one.
Perhaps... but then, without these programs many of these addicts would end up on the streets or in jail. So back on the taxpayers' dime one way or the other. Which has been my argument from the start.
The streets are free.
NYC Budget Analysis, 2001Spending for homelessness driven by shelter needs. In the
1980s, the city entered into a number of consent decrees that
established a “right to shelter” for homeless single adults; this
right was later extended to families. DHS is responsible for
complying with these decrees by providing emergency shelter
for anyone who requests it, and who is without other housing
options. In 2001, DHS spent $476 million; this year’s budget
(fiscal year 2002) is currently $531 million—up $34 million
from the amount adopted in June.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?