Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure
- Thread starter redwing
- Start date
My personal view (and I don't take drugs, never have and never will - never even smoked) is that drugs should be made free and available to anyone who wants them.
Shock, horror, gasp - "how can you say that?" the people cry....
But, think about this -
1. Folk are already taking drugs in large numbers, despite the efforts of law enforcement to curtail it.
2. The crime involved as a direct result of the drug addicts trying to fund their habit, the victims of the addicts, the cost of law enforcement, the broken lives from being an addict or a family member of an addict, the overcrowded jails, the time wasted in hospitals (I worked in an ICU for 3 years and saw all this first hand, and in the ER), by paramedics, ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses, physios, by judges in courtrooms, by cops in courtrooms, funerals, insurance costs for burglaries, murders, muggings....and so on and so on - is enormous.
And don't forget the kids of drug addicts.
So, my thinking is that the Gubbmints take control.
They set up certified and supervised "consumption clinics" all over the Country - hell; all over the World and let these folk have at it - BUT; in a controlled, clean, supervised and safe environment.
Some will say this is promoting drug use.
No, it isn't - it's being sensible about the real problem that exists - and isn't going away - despite our world-wide law enforcement battle.
With all drugs being free, the crime disappears overnight, and the massive cost to our society.
I'll bet my house the drug rate doesn't climb - folk are taking drugs now anyway if they want to.
Shock, horror, gasp - "how can you say that?" the people cry....
But, think about this -
1. Folk are already taking drugs in large numbers, despite the efforts of law enforcement to curtail it.
2. The crime involved as a direct result of the drug addicts trying to fund their habit, the victims of the addicts, the cost of law enforcement, the broken lives from being an addict or a family member of an addict, the overcrowded jails, the time wasted in hospitals (I worked in an ICU for 3 years and saw all this first hand, and in the ER), by paramedics, ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses, physios, by judges in courtrooms, by cops in courtrooms, funerals, insurance costs for burglaries, murders, muggings....and so on and so on - is enormous.
And don't forget the kids of drug addicts.
So, my thinking is that the Gubbmints take control.
They set up certified and supervised "consumption clinics" all over the Country - hell; all over the World and let these folk have at it - BUT; in a controlled, clean, supervised and safe environment.
Some will say this is promoting drug use.
No, it isn't - it's being sensible about the real problem that exists - and isn't going away - despite our world-wide law enforcement battle.
With all drugs being free, the crime disappears overnight, and the massive cost to our society.
I'll bet my house the drug rate doesn't climb - folk are taking drugs now anyway if they want to.
Last edited:
I'm not against your view, and think this should be looked into further (but no government is going to touch it), but who would look after the kids whilst the druggie parents are legally stoned and incapable. It isn't as easy as letting them have drugs for free.
They (some drug addicts) already are stoned and incapable, and parents.
The whole idea is to get 'em safe, get us safe from them, and hopefully we can start at keeping their kids safe in the process, because right now the kids are not safe.
The last thing we need is over-dosed dead parents that leave orphaned kids....or worse; overdosed parents who stay alive and are permanently disabled and a burden on all of us and their kids.
In the more severe cases kids are being left alone while the parents go out for a fix, and often the kids are basically alone in the house with a parent who is out of it and unable to care for the kids anyway.
I would imagine (and if it was up to me this would be the case) the kids (if not in school or able to be cared for outside of normal school hours) would be cared for at a child-care centre attached to the facility.
My wife takes our kids to swimming lessons every Friday, and there is a childcare centre inside the facility. She leaves them both there after the lesson so she can do some laps as well by herself. It is fantastic, and the kids love it.
This would be easily do-able at these injecting centres, staffed by qualified child care workers (more jobs), and of course suitably qualified doctors and nurses, even counselors (more jobs) to help them manage their addiction.
Everyone wins.
The overall cost to the Australian population would be waaay less than the overall costs to us through the various results of drugs we now experience.
I never said it was simple, but it has to be an improvement on what we all have to foot the bill for currently.
I actually agree... but it just is not ever going to happen. It would be political suicide. Mainstream folk cannot even contemplate gay marriage, let alone legalise drug use... alas.
The people who think two people of the same sex who are allowed to marry will ruin the world just are not going to allow it.
The people who think two people of the same sex who are allowed to marry will ruin the world just are not going to allow it.
Replace inject with get drunk and this situation already happens.
Personally, legalise and tax everything. Consistent quality, minimise long term health impacts and therefore costs, get a decent revenue stream coming in. Job done.
Provide a quit line style program for smack heads to get them off it if they want to get off it.
Considering smokers contribute more to the economy than they take out, it's a win/win.
As a committed smoker I'd like to think I make a positive contribution towards government finances. But numerous articles and studies say that smoking still costs the health system more than it collects in taxes.
Tax fags at a higher rate. One thing shown to reduce smoking is higher taxes.
I'm the turkey voting for xmas!
I've looked into it a bit as part of a course I did a couple of years back. Basically if you take potential loss of income and cost to the economy into account it either does or doesn't. But health care is well and truly covered.
Drugs of addiction and high toxicity should be controlled by prescriptions but it should not be subsidised as they are superfluous to normal living requirements. People can access it if the product is genuine and if they foot the expenses for their own use.
It is only when such products are introduced to impressionable teens and lower socio-economic demographics who cannot fund their addictions that the problem starts to spread to the wider community through crime. Governments should never facilitate addiction as it will lead to later repercussions of litigations and compensations for embedding their addictions and for giving up on them by taking the expedient way for the public.
It is becoming common for government policies to be subject to re-examination and the government has to be sorry for perceived immoral policy seen in a different light and the public has to foot the compensations.
It is only when such products are introduced to impressionable teens and lower socio-economic demographics who cannot fund their addictions that the problem starts to spread to the wider community through crime. Governments should never facilitate addiction as it will lead to later repercussions of litigations and compensations for embedding their addictions and for giving up on them by taking the expedient way for the public.
It is becoming common for government policies to be subject to re-examination and the government has to be sorry for perceived immoral policy seen in a different light and the public has to foot the compensations.
I don't think active subsidization is required, just legalisation. This on its own would drop the prices dramatically and there would be little incentive for drug dealing and distribution in the manner it happens now. The fact that it's legal would also go a long way to discouraging people, especially young people, from trying it in the first place as much of the allure will have disappeared. The Netherlands is a good example of this. Marijuana is legalised over there and they have much lower use rates than Australia, the US, etc.
Alcohol is legal, and look at how young (and older) people abuse it. I'm not sure legalising drugs is the answer, but perhaps doing what is done with the methadone programme, where addicts can get a measured dose at a chemist, so it is controlled, rather than legalise it and let everyone have a go.
I know it is not perfect (and I know hardly anything about it) but I've seen documentaries showing that people can function and work whilst having access to controlled substances. If it helps someone function in society rather than steal and get wasted, perhaps that is one answer worth trying.
Hell Ya! Whip Whitaker(Denzel W) managed an impossible landing
On a serious note, I agree with Cimbom
Hell Ya! Whip Whitaker(Denzel W) managed an impossible landing
On a serious note, I agree with Cimbom
I have no idea what that is about...
AAAAAAGGGGHHHHH I hate that American term.
What's wrong with "Sorry" as per the English language.
Yo! Waddup?
FFS.
I hate that American term. What's wrong with "bloody hell ya flamin' dingo"?
Please don't bring actual evidence into a discussion like this! It never ends well. BTW, if anyone is actually interested in the drug policy of the Netherlands they can find out more here.
Marijuana isn't exactly "legal" over there but they have some interesting approaches to its cultivation, possession and use. Hard drugs are still completely illegal.
I prefer "fair suck of the sauce bottle!".
Anyway, I wonder what will happen in Florida for those people who test positive? Will they starve on the street? Will they get a chance to mend their ways? The devil is very much in the detail with these sorts of policies.
For Australia, our massive and over-riding drug related public health issue is alcohol, alcohol and alcohol. Everything else comes a distant second.
