mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes,
(missing the entire point of my post):


No joke.


No,_you_jumped to_that_conclusion.  It's actually an argument as
to how to accomplish the societal good of discouraging drug use
without violating individual rights.


No. _You_missed the point.  The point is, the "War On Drugs"
is a failure, and is counterproductive.


But, they are not free to be stupid and injure other people.
Admittedly, the fetal right-to-life is outside the scope of
this discussion.  However, it's ridiculous to assert, as you
apparently do, that cocaine has_no effect_on the developing
fetal nervous system.  Caffiene and nicotine have fetal effects
too, why should cocaine be any exception?


If you had read my article before writing your knee-jerk response
you would have seen that this is exactly what I advocated.


No shit, Sherlock.

[...]

Thank you.  How could you have missed the point so utterly?
What_have_you been smoking?


Obviously, importers will not be buying drugs in the U.S., under
U.S. jurisdiction.  Use your remaining brain cells.


O.K., I'll spell it out for you.  "Barter economy" means that
drug users will be permitted to grow or synthesize chemically
anything they choose, or to buy it outside the U.S. and bring
it in, if it won't grow here.  They will also be permitted to
trade with other drug users for drugs other than the ones they
themselves grow or manufacture.  They will not, however be able
to legally sell their drugs for money.  Both manufacture and
importation of noncommercial drugs will be taxed, to discourage
their use. "This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?"


Pardon me, but possession/use of these drugs is still a crime!
You cannot analogize the rates at which drug users would seek
treatment, and the comparative ease with which it could be
made available today, when these drugs are illegal to possess/use,
with what it would be were they_not_illegal to possess/use.
Decriminalizing possession and use makes treatment_much_easier.
Drug dealers are exploiting the weaknesses of those persons who
are prone to addiction, and as such, the drug users should be
left alone, not thrown in prison along with their victimizers.
Drug_dealers_are the criminals, and should be treated as such.
Drug addiction does not absolve you of responsiblity for your
criminal actions, however.


The drug test of an arrested suspect is voluntary, not coerced,
and does not therefore constitute violation of Amendment V.
Those convicted who are drug users, as evidenced by the test,
are in need of treatment for their problem.  Institutionalization
of these adddicted criminals is, I would argue, the best way to
help them straighten out.  If they refuse the test and are convicted,
their sentence can be appropriately harsher, since they, unlike the
addict, have no "excuse" for their crimes.


Why not?  My objective is to discourage drug use_and_criminal
behavior.  If fewer criminals do drugs out of fear of getting a
harsher sentence if they are convicted, why is that not a good
thing?  If fewer drug dealers (who are still criminals, BTW)
can find victims, why is that not a good thing?  If fewer drug
users, such as drunks, 'potheads,' etc., commit crimes out of
fear of being cut off from their sources of supply, why is that
not a good thing?

I'm certainly willing to debate my position.
You have to read it carefully though.