I thought of a better program years ago, similar to this one. Give ALL heroin and crack addicts the drug they are addicted to---with certain conditions. This would also lower the prison population.

1. You have to prove you are an addict to get the drugs free. Non adicts are not eligible for the free drugs.

2. All prisoners imprisoned only for selling drugs would be released.

3. Addicts can't give or sell their drugs to anyone, go to prison for 5 years, with no probation.

4. If an addict wants to quit, the rehab program is free of charge.

5. Importing illegal drugs nets a 10 years prison sentence with no option for parole.

If you take the money out of drugs---you stop the spread of addicts. Drugs is a business based on money--take the money out, and you stop the sales.

Forgot some things.

6. The addicts would not have to do the drugs on the premises.

7. Their participation in the program would be completely anonymous. No exceptions.

8. Any increase in drugs the addicts craved would be allowed. eg from a gram a week to two grams a week--on and on.

As long as there is money involved, there will be a problem. You have to get the money out of drugs to stop the continued spread. Legalizing would only perpetuate the problem into the future---as far into the future as money is involved.

I have to say, I am surprised at Diablos response also. It is a very liberal thought.

Releasing a crip or blood does not seem like a good idea.

#8 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-09-29 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why would that be bad? They wouldn't be selling drugs. They might have to get a job.

Giving it away is wrong!!!

Legalize it and let them buy reasonably priced pharmaceutical grade stuff if they want to

#9 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-09-29 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag

As long as there is money involved---any money---the problem will perpetuate through generation after generation. Giving it awa under the guidelines I described will end the drug problem in one generation. No more street sales--no more peer pressure to try drugs. No more accessability to drugs. One generation and done. Legalizing will see generation after generation falling victim to drugs.

Well, buffalo chip, try reading my posts before spouting off at them and you might actually figure out where I stand on things.
P.S. It's a libertarian, not liberal, opinion to legalize drugs. I do not see many liberals favoring it outside of Barney Frank.

#10 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-29 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag

I've read your posts. You come across as someone who calls someone names, and has no capability for rational thought. That's why your post surprised me. Some examples that made me come to that conclusion.

I gotta say it: Ted Kennedy!

#3 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-28 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag

Gee, how can two simple words bother you so much, corky? TK was a 'hero,' right?

Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-14 10:54 AM | Reply

You mean "liberals" might censor me, 101? Perish the thought.
Ted Kennedy

Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-14 10:41 AM | Reply

All I can say, Vernon is: Ted Kennedy.

The "liberal lion" LOLOLOL!

Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-14 10:30 AM | Reply

Ted Kennedy

Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-14 10:09 AM | Reply

Ted Kennedy

Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-14 09:59 AM | Reply

That's pretty fucked up right there.

True liberals say let people do as many drugs as they want, and don't throw them in jail for it--liberals are for freedom. Libertarians are republicans with no balls or brains.

The facts remain--legalizing will perpetuate the problem through generation after generation. Giving it away stops it in one generation.

I don't know. Unless you make them do the free stuff right there on site, they could conceivably go home and share it with friends, perpetuating the problem.

#14 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-29 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

You missed #3.

3. Addicts can't give or sell their drugs to anyone, go to prison for 5 years, with no probation.

Have you ever been a smoker? If you have, you would understand--addicts won't give away their drugs if doing so will cost them getting more drugs. What incentive would their friends have for wanting to do drugs? If someone offered you heroine--would you take it? Why do you think others are different from yourself?

Who is talking about Free Speech? How did that pop up in this conversation?

Cap and trade is a liberal NOT libertarian concept...and it is anti-freedom.

#20 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-09-29 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag

If it is anti freedom--it isn't liberal.

But everyone who is addicted to it had it offered to them by somebody they knew initially.

#21 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-29 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag

Exactly---now--why was it offered? It was offered to get a new addict. Why did the person doing the offering want a new addict? The person offering wanted a new addict so he could sell to them and make money to support his own heroin habit. With no incentive to sell, and a steady supply of heroin---and the threat of going to prison for 5 years, the heroin addict would have no incentive to offer it, and would have every incentive to not offer it.

You do know Buffoon_Boob that your idea will be as successful as the "War On Drugs" don't you? A good percentage of people have craved intoxicants ever since one of our ancestors 1st ate a fermented fruit and it ain't gonna ever stop.

I never said craving intoxicants would stop Gimme a Crotch---I said the spread of heroin and cocaine addiction would be reduced. Reduced to the level it was in 1776.

Legalization of ALL drugs with significantly bring down crime, prices and strangely enough the desire to do drugs in the 1st place for those who start doing drugs because it's verboten now.

You still miss the point Crotchless--as long as money is involved--the spread of heroin and crack addiction will be with us for all time. My way--it is over in one generation

Now go smoke a lunar smokestack before I beat you silly with the antenna I stole from you while you were reading my post

I'll still take that car antenna over the gun you can't get to---and I'm still waiting on your explanation for what is on the moon.

what about the crack and meth heads?

#27 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-09-29 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag

Crack was included--you should have read the thread--it wasn't that long of a read--the same rules would work for meth.

"Exactly---now--why was it offered? It was offered to get a new addict."

Not all who offer are dealers, bob.

#28 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-29 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag

Why do you only deal with one sentence and think you have answered a post? Why can't you write down every sentence in a post and answer it like I do?

No one said all offers were from dealers--most of the time it comes from "friends" who just want to sell enough to cover their own addiction costs-they hope to become mini dealers--not major players---that's how the addiction spreads. These "friends" become salesmen--with my plan, you take the salesmen out of the equation, and give them an incentive not to try to sell anymore. As in any business--no salesmen--no sales.

hell if it's free i'll take a hit.

#29 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-09-29 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag

You missed #1, and #3 in the first post. You couldn't get it free unless you can prove you already have it in your system. I doubt an addict would risk losing his supply and ging to prison for 5 years just to give you a hit from his stash.

Question for Buffoon_Boob did you take me off your ignore list? You've answered me directly twice in just this thread!

I thought I explained last time--but here goes again. First--if you talk to me first, I MAY, or may NOT respond--it is my decision. Second-- this is one of my pet concepts---how to get rid of drug addiction in the United States. Third--I always enjoy watching people have a cuo of STFU when it comes to the car antenna and Smokestack on the Moon.

And you KNOW I'm right about legalization

I know you are mistaken, and would destroy you in a debate on the subject. As long as there is money involved--any money---the problem will spread from generation to generation. The benefits you describe and comprehen, would still be in place, except that those benefits would be enhanced a hundred fold with my plan. With your plan of legalization the problem persists forever. With my plan of free drugs, the problem is gone in one generation. Very few addicts from then on---those addicted to pain medication from hospital stays, and those who become addicted while in foreign countries would be the only ones left, and they would be helped once they were back in the US.

just as I KNOW you don't believe your little games about smokestacks on the moon

What makes you think I am kidding about the Smokestack on the moon? It is from NASA--Apollo 8--and is available for anyone to see who can spend $20 for the DVD--"To the Moon"--from Nova.

and car antennae for self-defense you're just having fun pulling peoples' legs

I am absolutely serious about the car antenna. It is better to have a car antenna in your hand than a gun you can't get to--I could have said a carrot---or a piece of asparagus. The point of the car antenna was not that a car antenna was a serious defense weapon, the point was--if you can't get to your gun, the gun is useless in self defense. Since the bad guy always makes the first move, your gun is often useless---that's how and why cops get killed--the bad guy makes the first move, and his gun is often never given a chance to be a part of the scenario.

cause you're an ornery old fart just like me.

I can't dispute your point.

But your politics still SUCK!!!

Yes--freedom and health care for all---I can understand you being against such things--you have lots of company.

Have a nice day Boob

Your deflection failed.

I'll agree with Bob only if the government simply decriminalizes and the rest is left up to the private sector. Haight Ashbury clinic is a good example. They get some funds from government but are private. Many businesses would be interested in funding such programs as a broad co-op would be vastly cheaper than losses from drug related crime.

The private sector is no solution. Having money involved will perpetuate the problem through ALL TIME. My solution ends it in one generation

The government would just blow it. Companies like their image where government doesn't care.

Your logic is completely skewed. The government handles programs very well--the government is Americans doing their job. The private sector doesn't care about the public. The private sector cares about themselves. The people who work for the government are doing a job---whatever their job might be---for the people of the United States.

The fact that addiction is a disease in need of medical attention is not a 'liberal idea.' Its vastly accepted fact.

It is a disease of which that every human is susceptible, if that is the case. But my reference to a "liberal idea" has nothing to do with adiction being a disease. The "liberal idea" part is giving the drugs to addicts, and giving free treatment to those who ask for it, instead of the conservative idea of throwing everyone in prison, and spending millions upon millions in law enforcement, prisons, and ruined lives. If such action hasn't worked in 500 years, what makes anyone think it will work in the next 500 years? Or 5000 years? or 50,000 years.

I just don't want to pay for it and I can't afford it anyway.

At $50,000 a year to keep drug offenders locked up, you are paying for far more than giving the drugs to addicts, and curbing the crime rate drastically when all criminals are released from prison who are there for drug related crimes only. Heroine and cocaine are cheap when purchased legally. It is the illegality that makes them so expensive.If the drugs are free to addicts, the released prisoners would have a tough time selling something that is being given away. They would have to find another source of income--like a job maybe---even welfare doesn't cost $50,000 a year.

#32 | Posted by wurster at 2009-09-29 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag

Does your claim that all users are mini dealers apply to heroin users exclusively? My response to you depends on that.

#40 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-29 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag

I don't think you can find a quote from me that says all users are mini dealers. "Most of the time" does not mean "ALL, and "hope to become" does not mean "are". However to answer your question, this plan would work for any addiction.

The federal Goverment shoots your arguement all to hell.

#38 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-09-29 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

How so? I missed your point---maybe because you didn't make one.

Look in the mirror. It's about 4 inches above your unibrow.

#49 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-09-29 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag

The government isn't a business, but if it were likened to a business--the IRS would be its salespeople.

When you have nothing to say, you shouldn't use so many words.

Giving children to chid molesters to help "wean" them off children?

#52 | Posted by utastaff at 2009-09-30 03:31 AM | Reply | Flag

Child molesters in prison get free health care. The health care system proposed so far is far from socialist. The health reform written so far could have been written by an insurance company. The United States elected Obama for Universal Health care--if he can't do it, we'll get someone who can--and it won't be a republican--Hillary is a strong possiblity.

But this thread is about stopping the spread of drugs and helping addicts. Helping our society now, and in the future.

Redman

I've never heard of any libertarians promote free drugs--the closest I have heard was legalizing drugs. You are correct as far as the cost goes--releasing all prisoners that are in prison for drug sales only would be a dramatic savings at $50,000 per prisoner per year---every 20 prisoners out saves a million. However you have to get ALL the money out of drugs to make it a one generation fix up, and that would include the health care of the addicts. We want to give them every opportunity to live, and if they can't afford the nominal fee you suggest, they may just continue to take the free drugs until they die.

In fairness--I don't know any liberals who advocate the free drug concept either--in fact, I am the only one to suggest it in this form---as far as I know---which goes back to posts #1 and #2. I came up with this concept around 1995, and have not found anyone who could find a flaw in it---so far.

Well, buffalo chip, if making fun of Ted Kennedy is your definition of 'irrational' then I am certainly guilty! The "liberal lion," LOLOLOL!

#55 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-30 04:46 AM | Reply | Flag

As expected, a whack job such as yourself misses the point. It isn't making fun of TK that is the problem--many people have that opinion without me thinking they are whack jobs. The point is how you expressed your point of view---showing a compulsion that is borderline obsessive---as stated---that's pretty fucked up right there. As a whack job, I don't expect you to comprehend my point, but there it is.