Say Anything Blog

I’ll smoke to that.

As I implied in an earlier post, the incarceration costs of victimless drug crime are staggering.

But it’s not “victimless”. It hurts other people around them! Just like fat people dying early and causing grief, annoying people who shorten others lives because they are frustrating, people who wear loud colors, stinky people, people who talk too loud, people who are always angry,… We have to outlaw everything that hurts other people! Now we can all go sit in our own rooms and never talk or interact with anybody else because that is where that kind of logic leads.

I knove I’ve been through this with you guys before, but not all drug use is victimless.  Crank heads almost always victimize those around them.  There is no upside to that drug.  They get stoned, they get crazy and then they hurt people.

It should be outlawed.

When you guys say that all drugs should be legalized you’re just being flat-out dumb, which is why the “legalize drugs” movement never gets anywhere.  It’s an “all or nothing” proposition for you, and that just doesn’t make sense.

I say we take them on a case-by-case basis.  First we legalize weed.  Then we can look at what else can be legalized.  Ecstasy maybe?  I don’t know.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob said, When you guys say that all drugs should be legalized you’re just being flat-out dumb...

Naw. I just prefer freedom. The good, the bad, and the ugly. I don’t care if crackheads kill themselves off. They can knock themselves out. If you are worried about burned out houses - we have zoning laws against that. If you are worried about public intoxication - we have laws against that. If you are worried about any crime crackheads and smackheads might commit - we also have crimes against those. It’s all taken care of! If not, then talk to your local zoning board, politician, or community leaders.

Lik is right stinky people need to be in Prison.

Question if we know all of this then why do we continue to sink money into a fight we know can not be won? Glad you asked, it is an industry. Somebody’s income would go away if we let the pot smokers go unpunished or anybody else for that matter.

Instead of incarcerating users, why not just fine them?  Something really hefty, like $500 for the first offense, escalating with subsequent violations.  Maybe pulling the driver license after a certain number of violations.  We could turn the potheads from a money drain into a money-maker, especially for small jurisdictions.

If you are worried about any crime crackheads and smackheads might commit - we also have crimes against those. It’s all taken care of! If not, then talk to your local zoning board, politician, or community leaders.

Spoken like someone who doesn’t own their own property.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Drug laws are stupid.  You don’t incarcerate people for taking drugs.  You incarcerate people for taking drugs irresponsibly.  You wanna smoke, shoot, snort, swallow, or rub it in your belly?  Fine.  But you don’t get a free pass if you steal, burgle, rape, or pillage to get the dough.  You don’t get a free pass if your family is on welfare because you don’t provide for them.  You go to jail for the irresponsible behavior RESULTING from your drug use.

Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  I am sick and tired of the do-gooders (on both sides of the political spectrum) who want to pass laws for our benefit--and to suit their agenda.  I don’t do drugs, but you’re welcome to--as long as you do it responsibly.

For the 103rd freaking time:  America wasn’t founded so we could all become better.  America was founded so we could all become whatever we damn well please.  (Responsibly, of course.)

Regards…

richard said, Question if we know all of this then why do we continue to sink money into a fight we know can not be won?

The simple answer on some of the harder drugs: the feds don’t like it when you cut into their business. They will act like the mafia if you do.

The simple answer for the rest: going after and jailing non-violent drug users is BIG BUSINESS! You have questionable asset seizure (legal theft) and loads and loads of growing bureaucracies. It’s a win-win for both local and federal governments. Nevermind the fact that government, more often than not, makes any problem it tries to solve worse and never mind the fact that the government tries to ridiculously label some drugs such as ecstasy (statistically safer than aspirin) as a “dangerous drug”. Also, nevermind and nevermore to the reality that a government bureaucracy’s job number one is process, not solving any problem it is tasked to solve.

robert108 said, We could turn the potheads from a money drain into a money-maker, especially for small jurisdictions.

Potheads are a money-maker today.

Rob said, Spoken like someone who doesn’t own their own property.

How? I would just rather the focus be on what I perceive to be the more egregious actions. No need to get personal.

LoadTheMule said, You go to jail for the irresponsible behavior RESULTING from your drug use.

BINGO!

Under the ADA you may not discriminate against someone due to past drug use.

If someone claims to be able to do whatever they want to do, shouldn’t an employer be able to hire and fire over that person’s choices?

"Instead of incarcerating users, why not just fine them? Something really hefty, like $500 for the first offense, escalating with subsequent violations.”

So now, instead of just stealing to support their habit, the hard core druggies are going to have another reason for helping themselves to other people’s property?

The Whistler said, Under the ADA you may not discriminate against someone due to past drug use.

Well that’s just bullshit.

If someone claims to be able to do whatever they want to do, shouldn’t an employer be able to hire and fire over that person’s choices?

Yes. And you can. Just keep your mouth shut about it because it is somehow illegal to make decisions on how you spend your own money.

Want to eliminate the drug laws?  Fine by me.

Just be sure not to suggest that I am obliged to pay for someone else’s rehabilitation.  I am not so obliged unless I decide to assume that burden myself.

And don’t even think of taking me to task for shooting someone who enters my home searching for money or items to steal and sell to support his habit.  For someone to enter my house without an invitation, implicitly threatening my family and my property, is an open invitation to a very abrupt and permanent change in life-style.

docdave said, By the way, Rob, I do own a house in a very mixed neighborhood which includes a broad section of humanity.

Oh!!! I guess it was spoken like someone who owns their own property.

Well,...I’m out for a week to attend my sister’s marriage (barefoot on the beach - how nice is that?), partake in some choice illegal substances, have meetings with family and friends, take some more illegal substances, and then if plans work out - three days of the Detroit Electronic Music Festival and illegal warehouse afterparties with my old raver buddies judiciously mixed in with a healthy dose of illegal substances and straight up wicked dancing. Ha! Take it easy everybody and see you next Tuesday.

I believe the numbers in this post are horribly misleading.

I think the number of people behind bars is given as an estimate of the average number of people behind bars at any given time.  This is very different from counting the number of people arrested over a year. 

To be more correct, you first need to calculate the number of man-days taken up by all prisoners in general (2.2 million x 365).  Then you have to multiply the average time spent in jail in days over the year by the 771,000 people arrested for pot related crimes. 

Assuming that all 771,000 of the people arrested spent an entire year in jail is, in my opinion, a very bad assumption.

I am sick and tired of the do-gooders (on both sides of the political spectrum) who want to pass laws for our benefit--and to suit their agenda. I don’t do drugs, but you’re welcome to--as long as you do it responsibly.

You know what I’m sick and tired of?  Our cops put in danger when they respond to a loud music call at a house full ot tweakers.  My father worked that job for two decades.  Until some of you “let’s legalize all the drugs” guys live close to that for a while you can all kindly jump off a cliff.

Hell, I’m not even law enforcement and I have to deal with it.  I serve eviction papers, and do you know how often I fear who is going to answer the door at some of these slum apartments?  And what they’re going to be on?

I’ve had my life threatened.  I’ve had my arm slammed in the door.  I had some guy come after me with a pipe.  Not pretty stuff...but hey, I guess it’s their right to get ripped and abusive.

“But if there are already laws against them hurting you or your property.” Yeah, so when some tweaker shoots my daughter while robbing a convenience store I’ll get warm fuzzies when he is charged with murder.

Great.

You know what the dumbest thing about this whole discussion is?  I am actually pretty open to talking about legalizing certain kinds of drugs.  But then you all turn it into an “all or nothing” proposition and common sense goes right out the window.

This is why no progress is ever going to be made on this issue.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You know what doesn’t surprise me at all?  Is how must “let’s legalize all drug” activists are the ones furthest away from having to clean up the messes some of these drug addicts create for themselves.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The price of drugs is overwhelmingly in their
prohibition.
What would a pound of pot cost if it were legal?
More than spinach?
If sugar were $600/lb and coffee $1000
people would be stealing your car to buy a
medium coffee and a donut.

Rob.  You’re usually a pretty rational guy, but you’ve let your emotions get in the way of your good sense on this one.

You know what I’m sick and tired of? Our cops put in danger when they respond to a loud music call at a house full ot tweakers. My father worked that job for two decades. Until some of you “let’s legalize all the drugs” guys live close to that for a while you can all kindly jump off a cliff.

Who said people have the right to get zonked and then get away with their bad (illegal) behavior?  Certainly not me.

Hell, I’m not even law enforcement and I have to deal with it. I serve eviction papers, and do you know how often I fear who is going to answer the door at some of these slum apartments? And what they’re going to be on?

Again, so what?  You get paid to serve those papers?  Yes, I thought so.  People being pissed about it goes with the territory--drugs or no drugs.

I’ve had my life threatened. I’ve had my arm slammed in the door. I had some guy come after me with a pipe. Not pretty stuff...but hey, I guess it’s their right to get ripped and abusive.

No, it certainly is NOT their right to get ripped and abusive.  It’s just their right to get ripped--and then pay for their bad behavior, if any.

“But if there are already laws against them hurting you or your property.” Yeah, so when some tweaker shoots my daughter while robbing a convenience store I’ll get warm fuzzies when he is charged with murder.

Yeah, just the same as I’d get warm and fuzzy if some I-can-drink-15-beers-and-still-drive asshole mows down my daughter.  Get a grip.

You know what the dumbest thing about this whole discussion is? I am actually pretty open to talking about legalizing certain kinds of drugs. But then you all turn it into an “all or nothing” proposition and common sense goes right out the window.

No, Rob.  What’s dumb is trying to draw some artifical line saying you can ingest (a) but not (b).  I for one and a l’il tired of big daddy telling me all the things I have to do/not do for my own good.  I’ll take care of MY own good and you’re welcome to do the same.

This is why no progress is ever going to be made on this issue.

Actually, the reason there’s never going to be any progress is because the nanny-state just can’t stand to see responsible adults making decisions for/about themselves.

Again, I don’t do drugs, but I have no issue if you do.  I will, however, nail your ass to the wall IF your doing them results in irresponsible behavior.

Regards…

PS--I really like your new, improved, looks- exactly-like-you, gravatar.

LTM:

Rob. You’re usually a pretty rational guy, but you’ve let your emotions get in the way of your good sense on this one.

Perhaps.  Having spent two decades as a cop’s son worrying about his dad and what some cracked-out asshole is going to do to him will kind of do that to you.

No, it certainly is NOT their right to get ripped and abusive. It’s just their right to get ripped--and then pay for their bad behavior, if any.

Right.  After they’ve knocked out a few of my teeth.

Great.

What’s dumb is trying to draw some artifical line saying you can ingest (a) but not (b). I for one and a l’il tired of big daddy telling me all the things I have to do/not do for my own good. I’ll take care of MY own good and you’re welcome to do the same.

I’m not convinced that people who take drugs like meth are capable of ingesting it and staying out of my business.  They take the drug, they get ripped, and they cause problems for everyone around them...from their neighbors to their families.  And those that take it almost never quit it.  The recidivism rate (is recividism the right term for someone who goes back to using drugs?) is in the 90%’s for meth users.

And you’re telling me that this is something we should legalize?  I think you’re nuts.  You’re right to decide what you ingest ends at the spot where it makes the community at large less safe, and if you think otherwise I have a family of tweakers who would like to move in next door to you.

Earlier docdave did a post about victimless crimes.  Something aside from drug use he labled as a victimless crime were traffic laws.  He apparently sees speed limits and traffic lights as infrigements upon basic liberties.

I just can’t get with that kind of thinking.  Traffic laws are written (or should be written) with the intent to keep our roads safe for the maximum number of users.  Safe, dependable roads are necessary for our communities.  I normally fall on the side of personal responsibility and personal liberty, but there are some areas where community safety must be taken into consideration as well.  Traffic laws are one of these areas, and I think drug laws are as well.

I think this same thinking applies to certain types of drugs.  Wide-spread meth use makes our communities inherently less safe, therefore I think our communities have the right, the duty, to ban it.

Now, that being said, I don’t feel that way about all drugs.  I think our drug laws have certainly become too draconian and there are an number of drugs which could be safely legalized for public consumption.  Just as there are certain traffic laws that could be done away with.

But just because some of these laws are silly doesn’t mean we should do away with all of them, just as we shouldn’t do away with all traffic laws.

You probably feel differently, but that’s how I see this.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

PS--I really like your new, improved, looks- exactly-like-you, gravatar.

Not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic or not, but thanks.  All I did was turn it to a black and white image...mostly because I didn’t want you guys to see that my fiance had made me wear a pink shirt that day.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No, Rob. What’s dumb is trying to draw some artifical line saying you can ingest (a) but not (b).

I suppose you are all for abolishing the speed limit as well.  Who cares how fast (or how drunk) someone drives, so long as he never crashes?

In a democracy, we draw artificial lines all the time.  There’s no “higher law” that says we cannot—We the People can draw any damn line, any damn where we please.  And you can either respect the rights and wishes of your neighbors, or, you can tell them all to go eff themselves.  But the line will remain wherever We the People care to put it.  Cross it, and you know what to expect.

Even that is irrational because the most deadly drug, nicotine, is not on the prohibition schedule.

I hardly think that nicotine is more deadly than, say crack cocaine or meth.

And while no one here may not have used the words “let’s legalize all drugs,” they have certainly advocated for that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Another problem with posted speed limits is that they don’t and can’t reflect the road conditions when driving at the posted speed is actually dangerous. Responsible drivers adjust to the conditions regardless of the posted speed which again renders speed limits moot.

This sounds like a reason to advocate for speed limits being set for safety as opposed to pollution/fuel consumption/government revenue through tickets...not a reason to oppose speed limits altogether.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

One would think that you’re comparing long term effects of tobacco versus short term effects of “illegal drugs”.  (OD’s and so forth).

Guess again, rob, here are the death statistics for the year 2000 which should be representative. Note that the top killer was tobacco at 435,000 deaths whereas for ALL illicit drugs 17,000 deaths. Deaths from adverse affects from subscription medicine were even higher at 32,000 deaths and deaths from alcohol were 85,000. So please don’t tell me that the drug laws are needed to protect the people cause the statistics does not support that assertion.

Going off the total number of deaths attributed to each drug is hardly a good way to determine that drug’s level of danger.  Obvoiusly, more people smoke cigarettes than smoke crack.  If you want to compare you have to determine a ratio between the number of users and the number of deaths and then compare the resulting number.

Which, frankly, is sort of hard to do given that there aren’t any very reliable numbers for illicit drug use.

So color me unconvinced.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Man I just love you people who bitch about smokers while you drive behind big-rigs and stand there waiting for the bus.

Need I remind you that Europe got less of a canser rate than we do, and they smoke where ever the hell they want practically.

You anti-smoker people are nuts, of curse I believe a cigarette a day keeps the doctor away.

Doc, you just can’t compare the numbers.

Look at it this way: More people die every year in car accidents than from rattlesnake bites.  Does that mean that getting bitten by a rattlesnake is safer than riding in a car?  No.  The reason more people die in car accidents is because more people ride in cars than get bitten by snakes.

Just as more people smoke cigarettes than shoot heroin or snort cocaine.  Thus, the sheer number of deaths from tobacco use in no way indicates that it is inherently more dangerous than cocaine.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Clearly, it is time to pull out of the war on marijuana.

Come on!  Don’t be a girl.  It’s time to END the war on drugs… ALL DRUGS! 

I couldn’t get to this on my show today.  Wednesday’s Miller Report will have some fireworks.

Yes, cut and run.  That’s the ticket!  Leave the kids to the drug pushers.  Good call.

docdave: death rates would be more relevant than raw numbers, as Rob has pointed out.  You know, the percentages of those who die from each cause.

I think we need to re-address which drugs we’re banning and how we’re enforcing the laws on the books, but legalizing all drugs makes about as much sense as getting rid of all the traffic laws.

Next time you’re wondering why no one takes libertarians serious, Dave, remember this moment.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"If sugar were $600/lb and coffee $1000
people would be stealing your car to buy a
medium coffee and a donut.”

Woof, you can’t be that stupid.  Drug addiction and compulsion is a serious matter.  Your schoolyard logic doesn’t cut it here.

Doc, I tried to get those numbers yesterday but couldn’t find any concrete enough to give us a broad picture.

One problem is that illicit drug use is hard to quantify as most drug users to broadcast their activities.  Another problem is all the different classifications of drugs.  Cocaine as opposed to crack cocaine, for instance.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The problem with all of those numbers, though, is that the sheer number of smokers in America dwarfs the number of people use illicit drugs.

You’re trying to support the idea that nicotine is the most dangerous drug out there, yet when I look at meth I see people have their bodies destroyed in under a year from using it.  I’ve known people who have smoked for 40 years and aside from some coughing and wrinkly skin are just fine.

Obviously, common sense tells us that there are some nastier drugs out there than nicotine.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The death rate from cyanide is pretty close to 100%.  This is true of many things, which would make them deadly, even though most people are intelligent enough not to use them.
The truth is, about 95% of cigarette smokers will eventually contract emphysema.  That is the disease of smoking.