Friday, July 12, 2019

I Don't Want to Legalize and Tax

Legalize and tax? Not my idea, except for pot. All the harder stuff, I want to legalize it and give it away.

What we have now is a system. There are addicts. They won't work so they commit crimes. Rob people, commit burglary, strip copper out of vacant buildings, whatever they can do to get the money for their drugs. There is so much of this crime that if your house or car is broken into, all the police do is give you a report for the insurance claim.

This results in high insurance rates, unsafe neighborhoods, homelessness, and as you mention, cartels and drug gangs and all the evil associated therein. It also costs for the prisons, the police, and the courts that are all the big beneficiaries of this whole process. We pay for that, too. It's called taxes.

Nothing we have done and nothing practical that we could do is going to even put a dent in it. This war is as lost as Hitler's war was when he and Eva retired to the bunker.

Nope, I want to legalize it all the way to the coca and poppy fields. And give it away. You can not undercut my price. It's free. Just line up and we'll give it to you. No need to rob, to commit property crime, that's too much like work. Here, take it.

No need to arrest anyone, no drug courts, no one going to jail for the crimes committed to get the drug, the crime of possessing or selling, or the violence associated with protecting turf   their markets. The money the gangs and cartels have been raking in? Gone. They're broke. I read recently that pharmaceutical grade cocaine costs about the same as sugar to produce. Let's put some Yankee ingenuity into bringing that price down.

The attacks on the 4th and 6th Amendment? The militarization of the police? The fact that we incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other country in world? No need.

The terrible part of this is people are going to use till they die. Like those lab rats that keep hitting that lever. But that's happening now. Just like alcohol, we are going to have accept we can't fix it for individuals that are going to use, we have to try to save what we can of the society.


Miguel GFZ said...

"Nope, I want to legalize it all the way to the coca and poppy fields. And give it away"

Taxpayer funded Heroin?

Glen Filthie said...

Go do a volunteer stint in a soup kitchen, BP. Try to console the family when their lived one is carried away by drugs or booze. Think of the damage these people will do before they succumb. The elders at my church go up against that all the time. It is one thing to talk about it but it’s quite another to face it and deal with it yourself. I admit up front I can’t and won’t do it. Every single on of those derelicts was once a perfectly good human being that went awry with one beer, one toke, one hit.

I would like to see the war on drugs actually fought. If I were the king of the world, I’d give the cartels 24 hours to turn themselves in and dismantle their operations. After that - the hunter/killer squads would go out, the drones, the SEALs - whatever it takes. Those guys gotta die to the last man. Possibly their families and friends too. There can be no mercy for those men. As for drug addicts, I’d put them in jail, on bread and water and locked up for 90 days. If they survived they would come out clean. If you get caught dealing you get the firing squad. Don’t whine to me about human rights, the first thing drug fiends lose to their addictions is their humanity.

You may or may not have a duty of care to addicts... but you DO have a duty to protect innocents. If you’re going to kill the druggies and turdies (and let’s be honest, you will if you feed their habits) - grow some balls and be honest about what you’re doing - and do the job right.

ASM826 said...


ASM826 said...

It's happening now, as you point out, and then all manner of evil and stupid is piled on top by the government response. Time to try something else. I get that drug addiction destroys people and my solution protects the country, not the addicts. I've decided You can't say in one paragraph that I have a duty to protect innocents and in another that you want military hit squads to kill drug dealers and their family and friends and call my idea the immoral one.

Anonymous said...

I think I'm going to side with Mr. Filthie on this one, at least partially (but sorry, Glen, there's no compassion here, Every single on[e] of those derelicts was once a perfectly good human being that went awry with one beer, one toke, one hit may be true, but that was those people then, they're not that now, they're now druggies who are a hopeless burden and a bottomless money and time sink).

If the "War on Drugs" is a war, then treat it like one. Until entire communities in drug-growing and drug-producing areas look like downtown Hiroshima on August 7th, it's not a war; until the survivor rate in those communities matches the 1945 survival rate of Japanese on Iwo Jima it's not a war; until you're ready to Dresden any place that provides materials and support to the drug trade it's not a war.

What we have now is a very well-funded hobby.

The terrible part of this is people are going to use till they die. Why is that terrible? If I were to invest my retirement funds in Beanie Baby futures or Lawrence Welk records would you make my mortgage payment when I can't? Why not? Have you no compassion? You selfish bastard.

If you're going to make the drugs free, make the treatment free, too......for the first visit. After that, sorry, Charlie, you're on your own. So, then, let the Compassion Warlords provide the solace and treatment that government won't? Absolutely not. One trip to rehab then done with them, too. You go back to drugs after that, not our problem. We'll have the guys with forklifts on their tractors and dumpsters deal with it when your corpse hits the pavement. Good composting material.

We need to make up our collective mind - is this anti-drug thing a hobby or are we serious about it. If we're serious, then resolve it; accept the pain, accept the conflict, accept the bloodshed, accept the whining and crying from the Compassion Industry but resolve it. Otherwise, stop wasting my money and patience on it.

Murphy(AZ) said...

As I see it from the above conversations, we have two basic choices: we continue on as we are now, fighting a war we either do not recognize or don't really want to win, or we change direction completely, admit that all this up till now has been a joke, give the people what they want at no cost, then baby them when their addiction becomes a life-crisis. One way or the other, people who have no part in this are going to be left with the bill.

I can see the logic, either choice we make, in going after the leaders of the cartels and wiping their bloodline completely off the face of the planet. But we have already seen that others will rise up to take their place, so until we can convince the second- or third-level junior managers in Drugs, Inc. that stepping up is just not worth the price they'll pay, there's always going to be another target (sounds a little Tom Clancy, doesn't it?)

And what will happen if we were to allow them to walk away with a promise that they will never make another gram of illegal drugs? I have read that some of these cartels have control of world-wide funds in excess of $1 Trillion. What happens if they decide to go all "legitimate businessman"? What businesses might they buy into? What investments could they make?

What political races will they donate to, or politicians will they buy?

To my way of looking at it, as long as there are addicts, there will be addicts committing crime. It's not just getting enough money for their drugs; even when drugs are free, they're still going to want money for housing, transportation, and groceries.

Or are we going to give those things away free, too?

There's a lot of things my taxes pay for that I don't agree with, but I grumble and spit and pay up anyway. Speaking just for myself, I don't think I'm going to want to pay up so the druggies can have an easier life. Let them have a choice: one last dose of a pure quality drug of their choice, (no Narcan,) or step up and clean up. I'd rather pay for funerals than pay to continue keeping these people enslaved to their addictions.

Borepatch said...

Glen, your argument is the same as those who blamed anti-prohibitionists for alcoholism. ASM826's proposal is aimed squarely at destroying the black market. We can expect that the resistance to this will be the traditional alliance of Baptists and Bootleggers.

Glen Filthie said...

ASM I would never say you or any of the other bums like NFO, BP or Peter Grant are immoral. I read you guys every day and know for a fact that you are all deeply principled men.

The problem with drugs is that they are so evil, so corrupt and so wrong that none of our ideologies and morals can deal with it. My Christian principles won't, your libertarian ones won't. I look at both our solutions and I think they both suck … so all that leaves is the issue of practicality and body counts.

I would ask you how you intend to pay for your program - both to administer it and deal with the consequences of it? In this day where our seniors and vets, who through no fault of their own - are on the streets with those feral zombies?

Body counts: I think my 'final solution' would end up killing far less people than your will, both guilty and innocent. Other than that - I think my solution is every bit as unethical as yours. Sometimes the only way to fight immorality is with immorality.

Glen Filthie said...

Up here in Canada we just legalized weed, BP. Already, the papers are reporting that illegal weed is getting cheaper, and legal grass is getting more expensive. The economics are going to carry the day: the illegal stuff is of higher quality on average too - or so I have heard. (I personally consider drugs as something for degenerates and refuse to use them).

I know this won't sit well with you, but I don't see our problems with drugs as a drug or marketing problem - it's a morality problem. When we make excuses for, or enable druggies, we are only going to make things worse. That is not what those guys need. They need to be punished, they need to suffer for the consequences of their actions and there can be no sympathy for them. Being stupid and irresponsible SHOULD be painful.

I look at the poor kids these days, being sexualized, and politicized and marginalized even in their early teens - and I don't think we need to be putting this crap in front of them - and that is where your black market will go if you somehow manage to drive them out of the adult market.

ASM826 said...

Glen, I'm going to pay for it with a fraction of the cost of the interdiction, arrests, court, and incarceration. Plus the actual cost of these drugs is very low, current prices are a result of an artificial choking of supply. If heroin and cocaine cost the same as aspirin, my program costs are mostly in personnel.

Glen Filthie said...

How so? When you start mainstreaming those drugs you are going to get more harm, more victims and more addicts. If anything you are going to increase the costs substantially. Aesop is flipping his lid on his blog about this and I get that; if I understand him correctly he’s a medic and has to clean up after druggies. He said he’s getting more pot heads in the ER all the time and I was surprised to hear that. Up here in Canukistan pot heads are seen as mild and harmless. To hear them talk, pot is a harmless herb. As far as drugs go maybe it is when you compare it to the far more dangerous chemicals. If the ERT guys are seeing fallout like that from mere pot... I can just imagine the chit storm that would result from free crystal meth.

But whadda I know?

Albertasaurus said...

A modest proposal: Kill off the addicts via a self administered program. To wit: people found using illegal drugs would be placed in camps. Not gulag type camps, rather kid type summer camps that happen to be surrounded by very tall fences topped with razor wire. Upon arrival at camp each user is issued with an insulin type pump containing opioids. Each pump has a dial with ten settings; from 1, which delivers a light buzz, all the way to 10, guaranteed fatal oblivion (depending on the user lower settings may also be fatal). The user controls the setting and frequency of use. In case of an overdose a strict DNR policy applies.

Most users are dead within a month. Any user still alive after a month is released back into society as he has proven he can control his addiction.

The first year of operation there will be a huge death toll as the pool of addicts is drained; thereafter you would only be dealing with newly hatched addicts. It would be like weeding a garden each year.

The long term financial savings are obvious.

There are long term emotional cost savings as well. The overdose death of a twenty year old addict will cause his family pain, but less than the cumulative pain they will suffer if he manages to wreck havoc for an additional fifteen years before his inevitable overdose. It all boils down to ‘pay now, or pay later’.

This is not a ‘final solution’, there will always be addicts; call it a ‘9.4% solution’.

McChuck said...

Cut out the middle man and corruption. Just shoot the addicts. Saves money and time, and is less immoral.

McChuck said...

Successful drug rehab requires a minimum of 9 months in a specialized facility. And that is only for the well behaved people who want to be there, and have a serious consequence if they fail to pass the program. It takes 90-120 days for the average druggie to finally admit to himself that he actually has a problem, and that problem is the drugs. Rehab starts the day after that breakthrough. The average stay is 12-15 months.

Real rehab centers have to teach druggies how to be human. This is neither easy, quick, nor cheap. Once they have mastered how to human, then they are taught how to be an adult.

The staff to patient ratio is around one to one. Staff members are on a two year rotation, because they burn out fairly quickly.

Aesop said...

Got it.

The government that can't run the VA, the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, the State Department, BATFE, Social Security, welfare, food stamps, the Post Office, the census, the Park Service, AMTRAK, or even the DoD, not even the parts of it in charge of driving Navy ships without hitting container ships - the absolutely biggest, slowest ships on the ocean - will suddenly be able to make and distribute drugs, for free.

And it will totally work.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Patrick Henry, the 2nd said...

And that some government who you say can’t do any of those things nor give drugs away for free will suddenly be able to run a War on Drugs than can stop drugs? Really?

Thank you for proving our point. The War on Drugs is stupid.