Huge Cocaine haul off sailing boat!

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

I think that what Mark j was saying in that he is a drug " resistor " rather than a drug "capacitor". Probably a good thing given his general location. Nothing "cruiser like" about criminal cartels.
I think history has shown that prohibition simply provides a profitable distortion in the market for any particular commodity that is prohibited. In the case of drugs, prohibition of a wide range of substances (harmful and non harmful) creates an enormous black market. Its a jobs program for criminals and cops alike. You want less of something? Legalize it and tax the crap out of it. Just sayin, "Prohibition" is a lousy method of social control that promotes crime and corruption.

Should folks be using drugs is a whole different subject. "Just say no!" Is the least problematic condition. Who needs drama?

Here is a common sense approach. The War on Drugs is really a joke considering its effectiveness although it sure employees a lot of people.

While everyone gets excited about something like Cocaine lets talk about something very legal in our society...smoking. Yes simple smoking kills more damn people than you will ever be able to account for compared to hard drugs yet we all accept it, hell we sell them in Drug stores. Doesn't that tell you something about the way an average person thinks. Quit believing all the ******** put out by the Government that is designed to scare you and use some common sense.

[Sand crab]

I think we should prohibit alcohol.
Oh, wait..............

[Vronsky]

Can someone please explain what the fuss about cocaine (and other hard drugs) is all about, while alcohol is generally accepted (except in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? Damage to society from cocaine e.a. is negligible compared to that from alcohol.

V.

[robert sailor]

Common sense ain't very common

[ontherocks83]

and now the drug debate starts

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Here is a common sense approach. The War on Drugs is really a joke considering its effectiveness although it sure employees a lot of people.

While everyone gets excited about something like Cocaine lets talk about something very legal in our society...smoking. Yes simple smoking kills more damn people than you will ever be able to account for compared to hard drugs yet we all accept it, hell we sell them in Drug stores. Doesn't that tell you something about the way an average person thinks. Quit believing all the ******** put out by the Government that is designed to scare you and use some common sense.

This I believe puts things in a proper perspective. There is no denying that drug use can ruin lives but if you look at the ultimate consequence on people's lives, death, the use of tobacco has a far greater impact that all illegal drugs combined.

In the US it is estimated that 400-500,000 people die every year as a direct result of smoking or second hand smoke. The deaths from all illegal drugs combined is estimated to be in the 10-20,000 range.

Excessive use of alcohol is estimated to cause almost 90,000 deaths per year in the US (including deaths from DUI) and also significantly reduces the estimated life span of thousands more. Again, many times higher than the deaths from illegal drugs.

I have two family members in health and social services and their personal experiences reflect this, especially in the poor and lower educated populations. In the ER the most frequent problem patients are those that are really drunk.

And the war on drugs? It is a joke and it has been lost. Any high school or even younger kid can easily obtain any kind of drug. In fact some studies have shown that illegal drugs can be easier for kids to buy than alcohol since the illegal drugs by their nature are forced into an unregulated distribution system.

Like alcohol prohibition, one of the biggest impacts of drug prohibition has been to create a global criminal enterprise. Prior to alcohol prohibition the mafia was a small time operation mainly involved in protection, gambling and petty theft. Prohibition created a huge business opportunity for the mafia that made them trillions of dollars and funded an organization that remains a global problem today. The quote has become a cliché but it is still valid and correct. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

- drug prohibition has not reduced the supply of drugs
- drug prohibition creates and supports more crime by creating a huge illegal economy.
- drug prohibition leads to extremely expensive drugs forcing addicts into crime to support the habit, creating even more crime.
- drug prohibition leads to adulterated, counterfeit drugs or wide variations in potency that cause more deaths.
- many casual users are arrested resulting in a criminal record and possibly lifelong consequences
- drug users facing arrest, lose of job, etc are reluctant or unable to seek counseling or rehab to deal with their problem.
- the billions of dollars wasted in the war on drugs could be much better spent trying to treat those with a drug problem.

One big benefit to the war on drugs, it makes a great sound bite for politicians to use to excite the voters.

[a64pilot]

You know funny thing is, I try to tell those that think we should outlaw guns, that yes we should, look how well it has worked for drugs

See, some should be proud, I brought guns into it

[a64pilot]

But you know honestly, using tobacco and alcohol as examples of why we should legalize all drugs sort of makes the point for those that are against legalization doesn't it?

[Group9]

At some point, we, as a society, have to come to grips with the fact that you just can't save people from themselves.

The drug addiction rates, have not changed a lot since the late sixties and early seventies (and where they have changed, they have increased). There are a lot of reasons why drug use, after being fairly moderate for a hundred years (after the deaths of most of the morphine addicted civil war soldiers), suddenly exploded. But, it doesn't matter. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. We have historic drug addiction rates when you add in prescription painkillers, and anti-anxiety drugs like Valium and Xanax. Probably approaching 50 per cent of our population.

And, ultimately, in my life experience, drug addiction is a symptom of a problem, rather than the underlying problem. And, that underlying problem is mental illness. But, if you think the war on drugs was expensive, try financing a war on mental illness. There is a finite point to which you can take money from one half of the people to solve the problems of the other half.

That is my feeling toward legalization, too.

[waggy]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

Who needs drama?

Bored people. Which is typically young people.

[DanDanDan]

Originally Posted by Group9

At some point, we, as a society, have to come to grips with the fact that you just can't save people from themselves.

Yep. Education makes sense, treatment for those that want it makes sense, trying to protect a person from themselves is silly.

The same is true with motorcycle helmet laws and seatbelt laws. If the only person at risk is me then I should get to decide. If you want to force me to buy insurance so the avoidable cost of my medical care is not borne by society that's fine.

If you want to make purchasers of drugs pay a tax that supports rehab and treatment facilities I'm all for it. Society doesn't want crack addicts on every corner, but if someone wants to smoke some crack without bothering anyone else who are we to say they shouldn't?

Freedoms gets lost somewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by DanDanDan

The same is true with motorcycle helmet laws and seatbelt laws. If the only person at risk is me then I should get to decide. If you want to force me to buy insurance so the avoidable cost of my medical care is not borne by society that's fine.

I was going to object to your statement about helmet laws until I read the last line. With that qualifier I have to agree. Anyone wants to ride without a helmet guess that's there choice but don't make me pay the medical bills when they fall and crack their skull.

[DanDanDan]

Isn't the same thing true with drugs?

Want to shoot some heroine after being informed of the risks? Great.

Want to rob a house to support your habit? Go to jail.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I was going to object to your statement about helmet laws until I read the last line. With that qualifier I have to agree. Anyone wants to ride without a helmet guess that's there choice but don't make me pay the medical bills when they fall and crack their skull.

Nor should I be expected to support you for the rest of your life because your now disabled either.

Army had what they called a "line of duty investigation"


a. The Army’s Line of Duty system stems from one basic premise: every soldier whose
service is interrupted by injury, disease or death while conducting himself properly as a member
of the Army is entitled to certain benefits. These benefits include pay and allowances; accrual of
service and leave; and, in some instances, disability retirement. The important phrase is “while
conducting himself properly as a member of the Army.” The Line of Duty system is utilized to
determine who is eligible to receive these benefits. AR 600-8-4, Line of Duty Policy,
Procedures, and Investigations, dated 4 September 2008, prescribes standards and considerations
used in determining line of duty status.
b. Basically, a line of duty determination is required whenever a soldier incurs an injury or
disease, which incapacitates him or her from the performance of duty. It is important to realize
that a line of duty determination involves answering two questions concerning “line of duty” and
“conduct.” Line of duty investigations are conducted essentially to arrive at a determination of
whether misconduct or negligence was involved in the disease, injury, or death and, if so, to what degree


If you break you back and can no longer work because you were drunk, are disabled because you were not wearing a motorcycle helmet, or injured because you were not wearing a seat belt, guess what? You don't get the benefits.

There is lots more to the regulation of course, I just cut out part of it. It is unusual to find a soldier to be not in the line of duty, but it does happen.

There is a precedence to hold people accountable for their actions

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

If you break you back and can no longer work because you were drunk, are disabled because you were not wearing a motorcycle helmet, or injured because you were not wearing a seat belt, guess what? You don't get the benefits.

There is lots more to the regulation of course, I just cut out part of it. It is unusual to find a soldier to be not in the line of duty, but it does happen

Friend that was in the Navy told me something similar. If a sailor got sunburned to the extent that he/she was unfit for duty it was a court martial offense. Basically it is the sailors' personal responsibility to guard against sunburn.