World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[jp1]

One could argue those jobs were built on National debt. Which goes directly against the "small government" idea.



You could apply the same analogy to the criminal justice system and it's being held up by the entirely ineffective "war on drugs" keeping non violent offenders locked up for decades. We can thank his daddy for that one.

How many jobs from arrest, to prosecution, to incarceration would take a significant hit if there was a reform on these ridiculous and ineffective policies?

[Sarge]

Well, the key to the military and police is that they get to the primary purpose of government: to protect its citizens.

Of course, there is certainly waste in military spending. My Dad was military, and he saw plenty of waste. They could certainly be more efficient with their resources, and it should be as much a point of priority as any other spending program in Washington.

The war on drugs is another matter. I don't think it's been completely ineffective, but it's a hard problem to solve, much as asymmetrical warfare is for our military. In the end, the ultimate solution there is to change hearts and minds so there isn't a demand for drugs; a tough problem, that.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I just want to mention how nice it would be if actual candidates for meaningful political offices were having discussions on this level...I am a pretty liberal guy, but I could be see myself voting for a Sarge/Ack ticket in 2020. (Ack would never be satisfied with the vice-presidency. however, and if I didn't vote for them, it would only be out of concern for Sarge's safety. )

[Sarge]

[jp1]

Well, the key to the military and police is that they get to the primary purpose of government: to protect its citizens.

Of course, there is certainly waste in military spending. My Dad was military, and he saw plenty of waste. They could certainly be more efficient with their resources, and it should be as much a point of priority as any other spending program in Washington.

The war on drugs is another matter. I don't think it's been completely ineffective, but it's a hard problem to solve, much as asymmetrical warfare is for our military. In the end, the ultimate solution there is to change hearts and minds so there isn't a demand for drugs; a tough problem, that.

The military spending has been touched on before, and I still think if a great portion of that money was spent supporting veterans rather than throwing them away when they are no longer useful it would be a different case altogether. Seeing the national deficit double because of things like "shock and awe" is something that I can never get behind. Supporting the veterans and their families on the other hand would be an easy issue to come to agreement on.

The war on drugs, I simply don't think we can agree on this issue. This money needs to be put into recovery and rehabilitation programs as well as better education for the youth about the real consequences of drug abuse. People who want drugs will get them, blowing billions of dollars trying to prevent it isn't helping anyone. Meanwhile, like I mentioned non-violent offenders on charges as small as possession of marijuana are spending years in prison.

Personal use should be a choice, the purchase of which is regulated and taxed. At least so far as weed is concerned. Other more harmful drugs become a concern because you have parents using them and keeping them around children.

The problem is I've never met a drug addict that didn't have access to drugs. You can't become a drug addict unless you have a steady supply. So the war on drugs is clearly not effective. Unless you count the appearance of more dangerous synthetic drugs that have even worse detrimental effects on their users than the alternative as effective. I don't.

A little note: I am not anti-military or anti-police. I know both of these are necessary portions of our government and am just as grateful as anyone else for the services they provide. The problem is with the policies made by the people who tell them how to do their jobs and what those jobs should be.

[Sarge]

I still think that keeping drugs criminalized reduces the number of folks that will risk trying to get them. Whether the sentencing is too strict or too lax is another debate, of course.

I actually don't disagree with recovery and rehab at all, though. I think you can work the problem from both ends, try to discourage its use as well as attempt to get those that are using off of the stuff. I don't believe marijuana is as harmless as its proponents would lead you to believe, but at the same time, it's clearly not as deleterious to personal (and others') health as other "hard" drugs.

In some ways, I actually see it as a bit akin to alcohol, but the difference is that alcohol isn't going anywhere; we all know how well Prohibition worked, and that was passed after it was already a huge part of society. But drug use is a much smaller sliver of users than alcohol when that went into effect, and keeping that door shut isn't a wasted endeavor, in my mind. I would rather not see it established and normalized.

Short version: I don't want to throw my hands up and say it's hopeless on enforcement, and I also think we can do a better job trying to rehab users. And I think you have to hit dealers hard.

[MrPopo]

In some ways, I actually see it as a bit akin to alcohol, but the difference is that alcohol isn't going anywhere; we all know how well Prohibition worked, and that was passed after it was already a huge part of society. But drug use is a much smaller sliver of users than alcohol when that went into effect, and keeping that door shut isn't a wasted endeavor, in my mind. I would rather not see it established and normalized.

I definitely agree with you on this point. I've seen many marijuana decriminalization proponents point to alcohol as being more harmful, and I agree with them. But alcohol is so baked into human culture across the world (thanks to the millennia we've been involved with it) that you can't get rid of it. But that doesn't mean we should be using it to justify allowing other substances.

[jp1]

In some ways, I actually see it as a bit akin to alcohol, but the difference is that alcohol isn't going anywhere; we all know how well Prohibition worked, and that was passed after it was already a huge part of society. But drug use is a much smaller sliver of users than alcohol when that went into effect, and keeping that door shut isn't a wasted endeavor, in my mind. I would rather not see it established and normalized.

I definitely agree with you on this point. I've seen many marijuana decriminalization proponents point to alcohol as being more harmful, and I agree with them. But alcohol is so baked into human culture across the world (thanks to the millennia we've been involved with it) that you can't get rid of it. But that doesn't mean we should be using it to justify allowing other substances.

I feel like you two may be underestimating the percentage of the population that smokes marijuana, which is obviously higher than the percentage that will admit to it. I don't see it going anywhere either. Nor has it ever been, or will it ever be hard to get. So what is the law accomplishing on this front?

[Sarge]

If that percentage is significantly higher than reported, it's most certainly a recent occurrence. In my own dealings with people, it's about as common to come across a weed user as it is to come across a non-drinker. That number could be higher, of course, but I doubt it's anywhere near the proliferation of alcohol, even with the increased usage.

I also have to wonder if the increase in usage is tied to some of the misinformation out there on it. I've heard so many proponents claim it's harmless, when it's definitely not. The numbers of kids that have tried it are probably mind-boggling, but that doesn't mean I want it normalized, regardless.

[jp1]

If that percentage is significantly higher than reported, it's most certainly a recent occurrence. In my own dealings with people, it's about as common to come across a weed user as it is to come across a non-drinker. That number could be higher, of course, but I doubt it's anywhere near the proliferation of alcohol, even with the increased usage.

I also have to wonder if the increase in usage is tied to some of the misinformation out there on it. I've heard so many proponents claim it's harmless, when it's definitely not. The numbers of kids that have tried it are probably mind-boggling, but that doesn't mean I want it normalized, regardless.

Having been a user myself before my kids were born, so many people used that weren't open about it. There is a stigma attached that isn't there with alcohol.

I'm curious how you know it is definitely not harmless? At least when compared with cigarettes and alcohol. The science doesn't seem to support that claim.

Also, while I understand you don't want it normalized, I really want to know what you think the law accomplishes as far as keeping people who want to use it from obtaining and using it? This is the problem, it is a completely wasted resource.

EDIT: Rereading this I realize it has become largely tangential and semantic. I can see you basically already answered that last question previously, albeit in a different context. Please, forgive the derail. I'm not trying to be pushy.