The US judicial system

[Seth]

Haven't those states decriminalised smoking dope? If so, the "stoners" won't be committing too many crimes...

That falsely presumes that the crimes involved are merely getting stoned. They aren't. The crimes are usually the ones they commit in order to take other people's stuff so that they can get high, and that doesn't go away with legalization.

I don't think so. Legalised marihuana (and probably other dugs as well) is not very expensive. Generally, it is when drugs are illegal that they foster crime syndicates to sell them (at high prices), and also crime by addicts to bring in enough money to buy them. I thought your libertarian sentiments would be in alignment with decriminalisation of personal choices like drug use...

(It would also mean many fewer people incarcerated, and therefore a big saving of state expenditure...)

I didn't say I didn't think recreational drugs shouldn't be decriminalized. I said that the states with the highest social problem rates due to drug abuse are the liberal ones.

And they are, in large part because they are NOT libertarian in their policies about drug abuse and the consequences thereof. Liberal states (and cities) think of drug addicts as "victims" of their addictions and so they refuse to hold them responsible for their non-peaceable conduct of initiating force and fraud on others to support their addictions.

Drug addicts should not be incarcerated for using drugs, ever. Any drugs. They should be incarcerated for initiating force or fraud on others and for engaging in non-peaceable conduct.

Being a drug addict is a CHOICE people make, and I fully support their absolute right to choose to put whatever they want into their own bodies in whatever amounts they like.

But once they do so they will NOT be excused their antisocial or illegal activities or behaviors merely because they claim addiction. No, they will be arrested and thrown in jail for such activities and they will have to suffer the natural consequences of their bad decision making. Hopefully, if they survive withdrawal, they will decide to make better decisions in the future.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What is the withdrawal from crack like? Like heroin?

Not really. Heroin withdrawal symptoms are mostly due to the physical changes that the body undergoes when the drug is denied after long-term use. They are serious, sometimes life-threatening, physiological symptoms accompanied by intense depression which last several weeks. There are other drugs with a similar prognosis, most obviously other Opioids, but also Barbiturates and Benzodiazepines.

By contrast, Cocaine/Crack/Amphetamine/Crystal Meth withdrawal is mostly psychological. Users crave the initial feeling of the hit (euphoria). Once these effects wear off, the user knows that it can be recreated by taking another dose - and they often do this repeatedly until they run out of the drug. With Cocaine, this is usually every few minutes to half an hour - with Crack, it can be several times a minute. The longer term effects (increased alertness, suppression of hunger, among others) take longer to subside (up to several hours, depending on which drug was taken and its delivery method.) After these fade, there is a period of low mood and depression which usually lasts for a similar length of time to the effects of the drug. During this phase, there is some physical craving and users can get aggressive in their need to score more drugs. Once that wears off (usually after the user has crashed and slept the clock round) the only addiction is psychological.

Think of the difference as being similar to that between alcoholism and a chronic gambling habit.

I've never taken either Smack or Coke. But I have known a lot of people that have taken both, including a few addicts, along with some that managed to use them as an occasional recreation for years without addiction. There is proven a genetic component in how easily one gets hooked on any drug/activity.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

But once they do so they will NOT be excused their antisocial or illegal activities or behaviors merely because they claim addiction. No, they will be arrested and thrown in jail for such activities and they will have to suffer the natural consequences of their bad decision making. Hopefully, if they survive withdrawal, they will decide to make better decisions in the future.

I'm not arguing against criminal sanctions for burglary or violence committed because of addicts needing to fund their addiction. I'm saying that there would be fewer such activities in a regime where drug use is decriminalised, and therefore much cheaper.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

But once they do so they will NOT be excused their antisocial or illegal activities or behaviors merely because they claim addiction. No, they will be arrested and thrown in jail for such activities and they will have to suffer the natural consequences of their bad decision making. Hopefully, if they survive withdrawal, they will decide to make better decisions in the future.

I'm not arguing against criminal sanctions for burglary or violence committed because of addicts needing to fund their addiction. I'm saying that there would be fewer such activities in a regime where drug use is decriminalised, and therefore much cheaper.

I believe that to be true, which is why I support complete drug decriminalization at all levels and for all drugs. It's not up to the government to tell you what you may or may not put in your body. Then again, it's not up to the government to protect your or rescue you from making fatal mistakes in that regard either.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth wrote:

But once they do so they will NOT be excused their antisocial or illegal activities or behaviors merely because they claim addiction. No, they will be arrested and thrown in jail for such activities and they will have to suffer the natural consequences of their bad decision making. Hopefully, if they survive withdrawal, they will decide to make better decisions in the future.

I'm not arguing against criminal sanctions for burglary or violence committed because of addicts needing to fund their addiction. I'm saying that there would be fewer such activities in a regime where drug use is decriminalised, and therefore much cheaper.

I believe that to be true, which is why I support complete drug decriminalization at all levels and for all drugs. It's not up to the government to tell you what you may or may not put in your body. Then again, it's not up to the government to protect your or rescue you from making fatal mistakes in that regard either.

True dat.

Although I do support government funding for rehabilitation for addicts/users that express a wish to get clean. If they don't want to, meh.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

But once they do so they will NOT be excused their antisocial or illegal activities or behaviors merely because they claim addiction. No, they will be arrested and thrown in jail for such activities and they will have to suffer the natural consequences of their bad decision making. Hopefully, if they survive withdrawal, they will decide to make better decisions in the future.

I'm not arguing against criminal sanctions for burglary or violence committed because of addicts needing to fund their addiction. I'm saying that there would be fewer such activities in a regime where drug use is decriminalised, and therefore much cheaper.

I believe that to be true, which is why I support complete drug decriminalization at all levels and for all drugs. It's not up to the government to tell you what you may or may not put in your body. Then again, it's not up to the government to protect your or rescue you from making fatal mistakes in that regard either.

True dat.

Although I do support government funding for rehabilitation for addicts/users that express a wish to get clean. If they don't want to, meh.

I support "roach motels' for drug addicts where they can enter, but can't leave until and unless they are one year completely clean. The trick is that while there, they can have any drug they want, in any amount they want, at any time they want. If they succeed in not dying from overdose and can remain clean for a year in that environment, then I'm willing to invest public money in their future as taxpaying citizens. Not before.

"Rehab" is a complete waste of money in most cases. Just look at Lindsey Lohan. But if we're going to offer it, it's a one-time deal. If you backslide after rehab that's it, you're done getting public money for anything, ever.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Can you actually see shades of grey? Or is everything black and white in your world, Seth? Just wondering...

[Seth]

Can you actually see shades of grey? Or is everything black and white in your world, Seth? Just wondering...

Sure I can see shades of grey. But at either end of that spectrum are black and white. When someone acts out at the black end of the spectrum I don't try to make it grey instead, I merely acknowledge their actions for what they are and demand that they suffer the consequences of their actions. That's the ONLY way that society can teach people not to step beyond the pale of civilized behavior.

The whole reason we have these sorts of problems in the first place is because we try to excuse bad behavior and as a society we facilitate people evading the consequences of their own voluntary actions, even when they don't have the common courtesy to be ashamed of what they did or resolve not to do it again, so we end up paying for their mistakes again and again and again and I'm simply not going to do that any more if I can possibly avoid it.

Screw up, be penitent and apologetic and contrite and ask politely for assistance and you're quite likely to get it from me...once. Be a dick about it, deny your culpability, evade your responsibilities, harm others, impose costs on others and arrogantly demand compensation and assistance as if you have some right to the products of my labor and you can fuck off and die in a ditch for all I care.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So you can see shades of grey but once someone is (by your dictat) a dark enough shade, they immediately and forever default on their humanity? Nice philosophy. Very... tolerant!

[Seth]

So you can see shades of grey but once someone is (by your dictat) a dark enough shade, they immediately and forever default on their humanity? Nice philosophy. Very... tolerant!

I told you, Tolerism™ does not require toleration of non-peaceable actions. A person's "humanity" remains what THEY make of it. If they act in an inhuman manner, then they forfeit their right to be treated humanely. Exceptions, however, can be made on a case-by-case basis by private individuals who feel compelled to serve and assist persons who have done evil and bad things to others. But there's no reason the public should be compelled to pay for their "rehabilitation" at all, even once, unless they are asked to do so voluntarily on each occasion.

[rainbow]

Liberal states (and cities) think of drug addicts as "victims" of their addictions and so they refuse to hold them responsible for their non-peaceable conduct of initiating force and fraud on others to support their addictions.

What a load of absolute bisonpoo!

Do you actually believe the drivel you write?

[Seth]

Liberal states (and cities) think of drug addicts as "victims" of their addictions and so they refuse to hold them responsible for their non-peaceable conduct of initiating force and fraud on others to support their addictions.

What a load of absolute bisonpoo!

Do you actually believe the drivel you write?

It happens to be the truth. The Department of Justice in DC won't prosecute street crimes such as "simple assault," most of which are drug-related.

And addicts in California (take Lindsay Lohan for example) get a pass on things like DUID and other crimes because they are addicts and get sent to rehab instead of prison because it's "cheaper" and the bleeding-heart liberals think the poor addicts deserve another chance...at taxpayer expense.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

How many street muggings has Lindsey Lohan committed? The people need to know!

[Seth]

How many street muggings has Lindsey Lohan committed? The people need to know!

She has several DUI convictions.

[JimC]

How many street muggings has Lindsey Lohan committed? The people need to know!

She has several DUI convictions.

So have any number of people who have not gone into drug rehab. This statement adds nothing to your contention.