Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Security Asks Woman to Remove "Hoodie"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Well, we can agree on one thing. We can agree to disagree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Mistreating our bodies by abusing drugs demonstrates contempt for the gift of life.
    I agree 100%. Just because I support the decriminalization of most drugs does not mean that I think doing drugs is a good idea. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    That's why the government sets forth some laws to protect those who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves and avoid harming others. Do you see what I'm getting at?
    Absoultely. I just do not agree that it is the function of government to protect individuals from themselves. One of America's greatest strengths is that we have the freedom to polietly disagree with each other, even though I understand your position and respect it. In other countries such disagreements could lead to violence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by histfan71
    Mr. Security,

    You make an EXCELLENT point about healthcare.!
    Thank you sir.

    Originally posted by histfan71
    In my 18 years of combined police and security experience I have NEVER heard a drug abuser say they committed their crimes in order to pay for health care. They committed their crimes in order to get money to BUY drugs!
    That's because emergency rooms are required by law to treat life-threatening medical problems and also due to government funded programs like Medicare and the like. Abusing one?s body is like taking a precious gift and ruining it. Imagine how you would feel if you gave someone a Lexus and he or she used it to haul manure? Similarly, life is precious, even more so than a gift. Mistreating our bodies by abusing drugs demonstrates contempt for the gift of life.

    That's why the government sets forth some laws to protect those who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves and avoid harming others. Do you see what I'm getting at?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Mr. Security,

    You make an EXCELLENT point about healthcare. I do not pretend to have ALL the answers. However, here in California at least, there are social service agencies that provide medical care and other such services to the indigent drug abusers. This includes counseling and drug abuse treatment for both the user AND their families. I believe they receive some taxpayer support, but most of their funding comes from donations and like. I could be wrong; I know little about these agencies other than that they exist.

    In my 18 years of combined police and security experience I have NEVER heard a drug abuser say they committed their crimes in order to pay for health care. They committed their crimes in order to get money to BUY drugs!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by histfan71
    I.....
    No, I do not think the government should bear the burden of their health care costs. They should be paid for by the dummy. If the dummy cannot afford health care or insurance? Too bad, so sad for the dummy.....
    OK. Let's play your scenario out. Thousands of so-called "dummies" need medical care because of substance abuse. They have no health insurance and don't qualify for Medicare. Now what? If you plan on not treating them unless they can pay for medical care, then they must find a way to get the funds needed or die. Since most will not choose to die, how will they get the money? That's right. Theft and/or robbery accompanied by the violence associated with such criminal activity. Guess what? You're right back where you started; more crime and overcrowded prisons.

    Now, what about the innocent victims of drug abuse, i.e., family members, crime victims? Will you deny them the psychiatric/psychotherapy care and the financial aid that they need to recover? After all, they didn't choose to use drugs. Who will help them, besides the government?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by ff000525
    Herion is considered an opiate, yet you can still die from the WITHDRAWL side effects when you're trying to beat it, yet you don't think it is dangerous?
    Yes, herion is one of the most dangerous drugs out there. But if you abuse herion the only one you are hurting is YOURSELF. If you want to destroy your life by sticking a needle into your vein, so be it, but you accept the personal responsibilities and consequences (i.e. death) of your actions.

    With hallucinogens, the potential for hurting people other than yourself is much greater, and why I think they should remain illegal. I once had to deal with a young man who was high on PCP and nearly beat his mother to death with his bare hands. The man hallucinated that his mother was actually an alien who was going to kill and then eat him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I never claimed that decriminalizing drugs would eliminate crime, just greatly diminish it. And yes, I know that kids would still be able to get ahold of drugs under my theory, just as they are able to get their hands on alcohol and tobacco nowadays. Where there is will there is a way. If underage kids are caught with drugs they would still be arrested and prosecuted under my theory.

    As far as driving under the influence of drugs, that would still be illegal under DUI laws, and would be arrested and prosecuted. The same as being under the influence of drugs in a public place, that would still be illegal. That is one of the reasons I say DECRIMINALIZE, rather than LEGALIZE.

    Tired of this thread?!? You have to admit, I have stirred up some lively debate and gotten people thinking and talking. I thought that was the whole purpose of this board?

    Leave a comment:


  • ff000525
    replied
    Our prisions are filled with violent criminals...and most of them have priors for drug convictions. In response to your other post, about only making possesion of hallucinegens illegal. Herion is considered an opiate, yet you can still die from the WITHDRAWL side effects when you're trying to beat it, yet you don't think it is dangerous? Do you really want people driving on the roads with a prescription for crack, coke or meth? From what I hear, those drugs have no medical purpose anyway, so how will the goverment regulate them? Flood the market with pharmuecutical grade crack? Ok, I'm spent on this thread...... how 'bout that biatholon?

    Leave a comment:


  • ACP01
    replied
    Legalizing drugs and prostitution would not diminish crime at all.

    If you were to remove an illegal market then the criminals would just move on to another market. Remember about prohibition, the illegal booze market went thru the roof then after repeal the mobs just changed products.

    Even now with tobacco there is a market in un-taxed cigerettes and there will be the same for narcotics if legalized.

    Again even if these things are made legal along with age requirements etc there are those that would still sell the product to the underage.

    In referance to US and UK language differances Gen. Patton summed it up as
    "Two peoles seperated by a comon language."

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I agree that drug abusers are addicted, and that addiction is bad for their health. It comes down to personal accountablility. The dummy made the decision to take drugs, and now the dummy has to pay the consequences.

    No, I do not think the government should bear the burden of their health care costs. They should be paid for by the dummy. If the dummy cannot afford health care or insurance? Too bad, so sad for the dummy. I do not believe the government should protect individuals from themselves. Individuals should be responsible for their own health and safety. That means that individuals should not do drugs in the first place, but I believe that is an individual decision.

    Also, once plenty of room has been made in the prisons we can fill them back up with violent offenders. I would feel much safer with violent crooks locked up and drug abusers out on the streets than vice versa.

    Leave a comment:


  • wisconsinite
    replied
    HIGH FIVE, Mr. Security!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by histfan71
    ...
    The government will have to regulate drugs... the same way it currently regulates tobacco and alcohol, with many of the same restrictions. No sales to minors, no sales outside of licensed establishments, etc....
    That hasn't worked too well. Look at how many thousands are enslaved to these substances to the point where their craving is more important than good health, happy families, and productive lives. Who do you expect to pay for all the long-term staggering health care costs brought on by legalizing drugs? Let me guess. The government, right. In other words, don't tell me how to live my life, but I'm not responsible for the consequences.

    Leave a comment:


  • wisconsinite
    replied
    hist...in a perfect world, your theories may hold true. But you're forgetting the fundamental principle. Criminals wil be criminals. They're not gonna obey the regulations and rules set forth. They're gonna continue to manufacture, traffic, distribute, sell, kill to get it, steal it, etc., etc. They won't care about selling to minors, and sell outside of licensed establishments. And they'll still be high in public. Not even the ATF will have an effect. The only thing that will happen by legalizing illicit drugs is, there will be a whole lotta vacancies in prisons around the country. OK, I'll bend a little bit...legalize marijuana.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by ff000525
    Decriminalize drugs and prostitiution? That would definatley NOT work. If you decriminalize the use of meth, crack, coke, even mj what about the crimes that were committed selling, procurring, shipping or stealing those drugs? Would the severity of punishment go down also? Wisconsinite is right, this isn't amsterdam (which has one of the highest personal crime rates in the world), decriminalize status offenses for jv's don't decriminilize drugs.
    Sure it will. Since I don't want to have to write a book here, this is my idea in brief:

    The government will have to regulate drugs and prostitution the same way it currently regulates tobacco and alcohol, with many of the same restrictions. No sales to minors, no sales outside of licensed establishments, etc.

    As far as drugs go, I would decriminalize all but hallucinogens. I think that hallucinogens, especially LSD and PCP are too dangerous to allow. All other drugs should be allowed. Being under the influence of drugs in a public place should remain illegal.

    Crimes related to the selling, distribution, transportation, etc. I think will pretty much disappear since the government will regulate this. However, I am not too naive to realize that illicit sales, thefts, etc. will still occur. I do think that it will be greatly reduced, however.

    Leave a comment:


  • ff000525
    replied
    Decriminalize drugs and prostitiution? That would definatley NOT work. If you decriminalize the use of meth, crack, coke, even mj what about the crimes that were committed selling, procurring, shipping or stealing those drugs? Would the severity of punishment go down also? Wisconsinite is right, this isn't amsterdam (which has one of the highest personal crime rates in the world), decriminalize status offenses for jv's don't decriminilize drugs.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X