The US President has stated that he supports tougher penalties for those involved in the distribution of opioids, including companies.   He has also indicated a willingness to back the death penalty for drug dealers.   Do you agree that his drug policy is a step in the right direction?

 

You may chose more than one option.

 

Please feel free to leave a comment. 

The US is going through a terrible crisis with opioids; I came across a stat a while ago (sorry, don't remember where) that noted that when the crack epidemic was hitting, it hit something like 1 in every 300 people or so, but the opioid epidemic is hitting about 1 in a 100 or so.

 

Should the companies be sued? Well, it is a legal drug, isn't it? If the authorities can show that the companies are distributing it illegally, then sure. If not, then sued for what exactly? That said, isn't it the doctors who are proscribing it? That is where I would focus; are doctors proscribing it correctly? If not, then throw the book at them...

 

I would make a general observation. Historically, there has been a 'law and order', 'hard-love' approach to drugs, and it simply hasn't worked. Perhaps the time has come to legalize some drugs (weed especially) and for the rest put the focus on prevention and dealing with addictions; long prison sentences have done little or nothing to combat the harmful side of illicit drug use.

 

 

Overall, drug policy should steer away from criminal issue and toward a social issue.

 

Criminalizing drugs does the following:

>>>  makes users go 'underground', therefore avoiding cops, social workers, cleanliness/purity standards

>>>  enriches dealers, including helping people like El Chapo and Escobar billionaires.

>>>  ensures the quality (and dose) of drugs is questionable - leading to more disease and deaths. Dirty needles is in this category - thereby increasing incidence of HIV transference. 

 

Fentanyl is probably the #1 most harmful drug now in N.America. Not only US, but Canada is getting hit hard by it. It's horribly addictive but again, should be dealt with by social workers, not by jailers and executioners.  Jared Kushner is the Drug Czar in the US, but he's as effective as a rubber band motor on a 747 jet.  Sessions is no better.  The US needs people in charge who have knowledge and a modicum of compassion relating to the situation. Trump's people have neither.

Looking at the bar graph (ok, I acknowledge it's v. early stage of the survey), the two bars should show 100% each, rather than 44.44 and 55.56 respectively.  

37 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Looking at the bar graph (ok, I acknowledge it's v. early stage of the survey), the two bars should show 100% each, rather than 44.44 and 55.56 respectively.  

No, because people can cast as many votes as they want.  They can vote for one, or more than one of the options.  

 

For the people wanting death penalty for dealers, I have a two questions for them:

 

>>>  if your son or daughter was caught selling a bit of pot, would you be ok with them getting executed?

>>>  Right now, there are a number of young Thai women in prison for life - in Vietnam.  Their crime: taking a package from an African man - on a plane to another airport.  The African charmed them and told them they would get a lot of money, and that there were no drugs in the package.  Were the women stupid, gullible and greedy for money?  YES.   Should they be locked in prison for 40 years or, in some cases, executed (Indonesia) - for a 1 time offense?   

 

Prohibitions don't work.  Never have, never will.  They simply make criminals out of otherwise decent people. 

Instead, there should be some serious soul searching as to why this is such a problem.  Why there is such a tendency to want to 'escape' life instead of dealing with it. 
Start with being honest.  For example, with close to 100 million people out of the workforce, a young generation who can only obtain low-paying or part-time jobs if they can find a job at all, yet a government that pats itself on the back and tells the country that everything is simply rosy (For whom?  The rich?).  There's a lot of souls out there who have simply given up, and finding an escape though drugs be it alcohol to opioids seems to now be the trend. 

Large illegal supplies of fentayl into the US come from China and Mexican cartels.

Nothing in Trump's proposal addresses this. Requires cooperation of Canada and Mexico to stop the flow. You know, the two countries now targeted by Trump for a trade war and the same ones Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA.

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

Large illegal supplies of fentayl into the US come from China and Mexican cartels.

Nothing in Trump's proposal addresses this. Requires cooperation of Canada and Mexico to stop the flow. You know, the two countries now targeted by Trump for a trade war and the same ones Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA.

Srikcir, you're right.  Trump should people like you and I in charge of trying to stem the flow of Fentanyl into N.America.  But Trump and Sessions are doing things ass-backward.  They're as effective as a mop made of overcooked spaghetti.   Trump is determined to hire the worst people for jobs.  He hired someone to direct HUD who has campaigned for dismantling HUD.  He put another man to head EPA who is an avowed anti-environmentalist.  Putin smiles.

1 hour ago, connda said:

Prohibitions don't work.  Never have, never will.  They simply make criminals out of otherwise decent people. 

Instead, there should be some serious soul searching as to why this is such a problem.  Why there is such a tendency to want to 'escape' life instead of dealing with it. 
Start with being honest.  For example, with close to 100 million people out of the workforce, a young generation who can only obtain low-paying or part-time jobs if they can find a job at all, yet a government that pats itself on the back and tells the country that everything is simply rosy (For whom?  The rich?).  There's a lot of souls out there who have simply given up, and finding an escape though drugs be it alcohol to opioids seems to now be the trend. 

That is not the point.

You have to provide education first. With good education you'll find a job. And with good education you would see to vote if it comes to election. So you got the chance for a change!

Jails are already full of people who didn't injure anybody but just had drugs.

How can anybody not totally insane could think that jailing more people would change anything ?

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS LOST. DEFINITIVELY. All idiots who still do not understand this deserve the death penalty, this, I am sure.

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

The US is going through a terrible crisis with opioids; I came across a stat a while ago (sorry, don't remember where) that noted that when the crack epidemic was hitting, it hit something like 1 in every 300 people or so, but the opioid epidemic is hitting about 1 in a 100 or so.

 

Should the companies be sued? Well, it is a legal drug, isn't it? If the authorities can show that the companies are distributing it illegally, then sure. If not, then sued for what exactly? That said, isn't it the doctors who are proscribing it? That is where I would focus; are doctors proscribing it correctly? If not, then throw the book at them...

 

I would make a general observation. Historically, there has been a 'law and order', 'hard-love' approach to drugs, and it simply hasn't worked. Perhaps the time has come to legalize some drugs (weed especially) and for the rest put the focus on prevention and dealing with addictions; long prison sentences have done little or nothing to combat the harmful side of illicit drug use.

 

 

Not to be a nit-picking editor, but a misspelling (twice) of a word changes the meaning of the sentence: it's prescribing, I think he means, not proscribing, which would mean the opposite.

 

Is this poll about Thailand or the US?

43 minutes ago, Mac98 said:

Not to be a nit-picking editor, but a misspelling (twice) of a word changes the meaning of the sentence: it's prescribing, I think he means, not proscribing, which would mean the opposite.

You are correct.

 

True to topic, one should never post unless one's caffeine levels are at an adequate level...

 

Cheers

Legalized drugs are bad for the economy. The economy is what brings meaning to our existence. 

12 minutes ago, Bikeman93 said:

Legalized drugs are bad for the economy. The economy is what brings meaning to our existence. 

I would say legalised drugs bring in taxes, why would they be bad for the economy?

I was being sarcastic. Illegality is used as a control method targeting race or social classes.

Many law enforcement officials are admitting drugs are an insoluble problem. Arresting people and building more jails simply doesn't work in any country. Those countries that have partly decriminalised drug use are finding drug-related crime is down, because addicts can legally access drugs they would otherwise be committing crimes to buy.

I wouldn't care if all drugs were made legal. The only caveat I have is that anyone who commits a crime while under the influence of drugs is not allowed to use that as a copout. They get treated in the legal system exactly the same as a person in full possession of their faculties.

8 hours ago, gamesgplayemail said:

Jails are already full of people who didn't injure anybody but just had drugs.

How can anybody not totally insane could think that jailing more people would change anything ?   THE WAR ON DRUGS IS LOST. DEFINITIVELY. All idiots who still do not understand this deserve the death penalty, this, I am sure.

The war on drugs is similar to the Spanish Inquisition, and to what Immans do in Arab countries.  A group of old white men band together and, by having the power of weapons and money, force their underlings to adhere to their edicts. 

Q. Which inquisition has destroyed more innocent lives? ....the inquisitions in Europe where millions of innocents were put in dungeons, tortured and killed.

....or the US inquisition which has put mostly non-whites in prisons.  And in some countries, like SE Asia, ....under US/FDA influence (not much different than Christian/Rome influence in former times) state-sanctioned death awaits people who dally with drugs.

 

It's no coincidence that the only legal recreational drug, generally, in the world, is alcohol.  Alcoholic drinks are also the most harmful, cumulatively.  Although it could be argued that Pharma drugs are as, or more harmful, than alcohol, pound for pound.  Regardless, both alcohol and pharma individually cause more harm and deaths than all illegal drugs combined.

 

 

Edited March 4, 20188 yr by boomerangutang

Poorly worded poll. Dealers in opioids only? 

 

read the latest Jack Reacher?

 

Drugs have caused two major disasters in my family. One died of a heroin  overdose. Another has ruined her life due to crystal meth.

 

Legalising marajhana is fine. For the others, death is appropriate for pushers.

If I am the president of a country I want to legalize ALL DRUGS and sell them over government shops!!!

 

The complete income gone into the health system, clinics, education campaigns, education videos and .....!!!

 

How long they fight against drugs but you can buy it almost everywhere!!! Billions of dollars yearly gone but nothing change.

 

To legalize it and sell it over government shops is a much more better solution.

 

The drugs will than be much cleaner and healthier as now. And the money will be used for a better health system and not gone to drug dealers.

 I happen to have had recent experience on both subjects.

       First , my best friend age 51 died a couple of years ago due to painkiller overdose. He was involved in a pretty bad work related accident where a steel plate fell on him and cressed some bones, (he had a good legal case and had turned down a 4 million dollar settlement) a year later he was on the mend, was walking with the use of a  crutch and had gone on his first getaway to Florida where he was visiting some friends in Panama city and then was going to stay at my house in Palm Coast, (I was in NYC at the time). He was on pain, go easy access to  Pain Killers, had a bunch of drinks at the Tiki Bar , later went to sleep and never wake up.

I miss him terribly, friends like that one does not make again.

    Second , my 19 year old then daughter , was pulled over and a quantity larger than the "for personal use" of weed was found in her car. Not that she is an angel but the pot belonged to her boyfriend that had some prior pot arrests and to keep him from going to jail took the fall. ( Young love! they are not even together anymore).

If this had happened in NY it would had being the same as getting a speeding ticket and small fine, but it was in FL and the prosecutor's boss  was running for reelection. 

$12,000 in lawyers later , she  got 1 year probation ending in a couple of months, and we hope to have the record sealed after that , because she is going to School and hopes to teach at the local high school upon graduation.

Both different case with a lot of issues. 

   First Opioids are everywhere! Even though it is legal to produce, they are  controlled substances and their  distribution is controlled, Pharmaceutical companies should take more care in their distribution and be held liable .

   Second, the prosecution (at least in the US as far as I know) is unequal throughout the country, and even locally it has political influences. A stupid youthful indiscretion can ruin someone's life.

 

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Many law enforcement officials are admitting drugs are an insoluble problem. Arresting people and building more jails simply doesn't work in any country. Those countries that have partly decriminalised drug use are finding drug-related crime is down, because addicts can legally access drugs they would otherwise be committing crimes to buy.

I wouldn't care if all drugs were made legal. The only caveat I have is that anyone who commits a crime while under the influence of drugs is not allowed to use that as a copout. They get treated in the legal system exactly the same as a person in full possession of their faculties.

 

Also, DUI consequences should be harsh. No pity for people who put innocent in danger. But if you get high at home, I wish you to enjoy as long as you can <3 (and share with me :-) )

 

 

Colombia producing more cocaine than ever before, UN figures show

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/colombia-cocaine-united-nations-figures

 

 

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Poorly worded poll. Dealers in opioids only? 

 

read the latest Jack Reacher?

 

Drugs have caused two major disasters in my family. One died of a heroin  overdose. Another has ruined her life due to crystal meth.

 

Legalising marajhana is fine. For the others, death is appropriate for pushers.

Heroin overdoses are usually caused by inconsistent product, and meth is popular because it can be locally manufactured and easily transported. Many deaths and crime might be avoided if drugs were legal.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, sirineou said:

...He was on pain, go easy access to  Pain Killers, had a bunch of drinks at the Tiki Bar , later went to sleep and never wake up.

    Second , my 19 year old then daughter , was pulled over and a quantity larger than the "for personal use" of weed was found in her car. Not that she is an angel but the pot belonged to her boyfriend that had some prior pot arrests and to keep him from going to jail took the fall.

<truncated>

   Second, the prosecution (at least in the US as far as I know) is unequal throughout the country, and even locally it has political influences. A stupid youthful indiscretion can ruin someone's life.

Sorry for those set-backs. Yet, you mentioned your friend ".....had a bunch of drinks ...went to sleep and never wake up."

As you know, combining drugs can exacerbate harmful effects of such drugs.  Which had the more fatal effects in that scenario? .....pain killers or alcohol?   So, an autopsy would likely say it's attributed to both, however a news report would attribute it to the non-alcohol drug.

Similarly, when Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Marylin Monroe, and other famous people died - the news reports always report the non-alcoholic drugs which were found in the bodies.  They always downplay the fact that those people (and millions of others) were also alcoholics. 

 

As to your second point, re; a daughter:  it reminded me of a similar scenario.  I had just become romantically entwined with a woman in the US.  The man she was married to had been busted for growing some pot plants.  Because he had 'a prior' he compelled his then-wife to take the heat.  She divorced him, but not before the police were focused on her.  She had 4 boys at the time, ages 7 months to 6.  By the time the cops put her in jail, I wound up babysitting the 4 little boys for six months.  The point here:   legal repercussions from pot has ruined (or tried to ruin) millions of lives in the US and, by extension, throughout the world.   

 

We can thank alcoholic Nixon for getting that ugly ball rolling - but there were many other black-hearted right-winger assisting him - in ruining millions of peoples' lives. 

For those that voted against death penalties for dealers would surely change your tune if one of your sons or daughters died as a result of drugs bought off of a drug dealer.  What are you going to say?  They knew what they were getting into when they went down this road? So, let's not blame the dealer for all the death he or she is spreading on our city streets.

25 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Sorry for those set-backs. Yet, you mentioned your friend ".....had a bunch of drinks ...went to sleep and never wake up."

As you know, combining drugs can exacerbate harmful effects of such drugs.  Which had the more fatal effects in that scenario? .....pain killers or alcohol?   So, an autopsy would likely say it's attributed to both, however a news report would attribute it to the non-alcohol drug.

Similarly, when Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Marylin Monroe, and other famous people died - the news reports always report the non-alcoholic drugs which were found in the bodies.  They always downplay the fact that those people (and millions of others) were also alcoholics. 

 

As to your second point, re; a daughter:  it reminded me of a similar scenario.  I had just become romantically entwined with a woman in the US.  The man she was married to had been busted for growing some pot plants.  Because he had 'a prior' he compelled his then-wife to take the heat.  She divorced him, but not before the police were focused on her.  She had 4 boys at the time, ages 7 months to 6.  By the time the cops put her in jail, I wound up babysitting the 4 little boys for six months.  The point here:   legal repercussions from pot has ruined (or tried to ruin) millions of lives in the US and, by extension, throughout the world.   

 

We can thank alcoholic Nixon for getting that ugly ball rolling - but there were many other black-hearted right-winger assisting him - in ruining millions of peoples' lives. 

 Human nature has not changed significantly lately,so what has changed that has created this opioid epidemic. 

 I don't discount personal responsibility, but ready availability has a significant part to play.also. IMO.

As far as weed is concerned, when it is made illegal, it forces those who use it to associate with criminals.

When I was young and we went to score a dime or nickel bag of weed the dealer would say " hey I also have some Black beauties, or Mesc, or ...."  with the obvious results.

 

Opioid addiction (and other substance addictions) often go hand-in-hand with suicidal/fatalistic tendencies.  That's why all those cans of worms should be dealt with as mental health issues.    To set the dogs of law-enforcement after them, then lock 'em up ($65k/yr on average, in the US) and execute them (costs millions $$'s per person) .....is mean and counter-productive.

 

The War on Drugs is like if you had a some sick dogs in your neighborhood, you take a sledgehammer and crush some skulls.  "There, the sickness is abating. Problem solved"    ....except you use sledgehammers made of Titanium and all your dog-killing equipment cost 100 times more than if you bought it at a local store. 

 

That's another factor of the failed Drug Wars that gets little attention.    It shovels tens of billions of dollars into law-enforcement / politicians' / suppliers' (weapons, uniforms, hotel costs, etc) pockets.  If a government agency told me they would give me $15 million (plus new houses, new cars, new computers) .....to eradicate bumblebees on my property, ....I would probably accept it - whether or not I had ever seen a bumblebee. 

 

Edited March 5, 20188 yr by boomerangutang

2 hours ago, PhonThong said:

For those that voted against death penalties for dealers would surely change your tune if one of your sons or daughters died as a result of drugs bought off of a drug dealer.

 

No I wouldn't, because that would make me a hypocrite.  I've considered many potential outcomes including the possibility that some one in my family might suffer because of a position I advocated.

 

2 hours ago, PhonThong said:

What are you going to say?  They knew what they were getting into when they went down this road? So, let's not blame the dealer for all the death he or she is spreading on our city streets.

 

"Let's not blame the dealer" is not the same as "let's not kill the dealer".  If my daughter dies because she bought some drugs from a dealer, then we kill the dealer?  Great - now we have two dead people instead of one.  Aside from satisfying some knuckle-dragging, reptilian-brained need for revenge, how has that helped my situation?

 

If I am doing my job as a parent, and society is doing its job of providing safe communities and support systems, then my daughter shouldn't be going down that road in the first place.

43 minutes ago, attrayant said:

No I wouldn't (be against death penalty for drug dealers), because that would make me a hypocrite.  I've considered many potential outcomes including the possibility that some one in my family might suffer because of a position I advocated.

Here's a little mind exercise:

1.  Alcoholic drinks are drugs. 

2.  Everyone involved with alcohol drinks (farmers, distillers, bottlers, truckers, retail outlets, restaurants, hotels, party hosts, drinkers) is therefore involved with dealing drugs.

3.  Therefore, according to your missive, everyone involved with alcohol should be executed.

 

Oh wait, what's that you say?  Alcohol is legal.  Ok (except for Muslim countries).  But then look at why there's only one recreational drug in the world which is legal, and all others, generally speaking, are illegal.  It couldn't be because the 1 trillion alcohol industry is lobbying gov't officials (many of whom are alcoholics) ...could it?  Nah - just a coincidence. 

 

Oh and pay no attention to the fact that alcohol is #1 most harmful drug in the world.  No, death-to-drug-dealers only want to see alcohol as a social drink, which gets people loose and laughing, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.   All other rec. drugs are addictive, harmful at any dose, family-wrecking, horribly wicked, etc.