War on Drugs to end?

[d***@rocketmail.com]

On Nov 17, 7:33 pm, "viet nam vet." <***@humboldt1.com>
wrote...

While President-elect Obama is not going to make ending the drug war his
#1 priority, he has said that America should start treating drug use as
a health issue instead of a criminal justice issue. He supports
repealing the federal syringe ban and ending the DEA's raids on medical
marijuana patients. He is also co-sponsor of Senator Biden's bill to
eliminate the 100-to-1 crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity.

Socialists don't approve of drug use, because stoned workers are lazy
when they should be working harder to pay the taxes needed to support
all the expensive social programs. Treating drug use as a "health
issue" means locking up druggies in mental hospitals instead of
prisons, and paying Dr. Fucking Phil $500/hour to chant rehab slogans
at them. Prison guards naturally support treating drug use as a
criminal offense while psychologists support treating it as a
"medical" offense, but in either case the drug user is deprived of his
freedom and humiliated. Prison is actually cheaper, because
psychologists earn a lot more than prison guards.

Moreover, many in leadership positions in Congress support drug policy
reform, ranging from Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Representative Dana
Rohrabacher.

If Nancy Pelosi supports drug policy reform, then I oppose it. I
demand that all drugs be legalized and that Americans be allowed to
use them without restrictions and without having their mental health
questioned for their personal choice of recreational activity. No
"medical" marijuana - either everyone gets to smoke pot or nobody
does.


= = = = = = = = =

"Si no hay mota para todos, no habrá para nadie!"
-- Che Guevara

[The Master]

Post by d***@rocketmail.com
Socialists don't approve of drug use, because stoned workers are lazy
when they should be working harder to pay the taxes needed to support
all the expensive social programs.

I disagree. Socialists wouldn't care about drug use, because they will
just increase taxes when need be. So what if people pay 80%?

[d***@rocketmail.com]

On Nov 19, 1:45 pm, The Master <***@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote...

Post by d***@rocketmail.com
Socialists don't approve of drug use, because stoned workers are lazy
when they should be working harder to pay the taxes needed to support
all the expensive social programs.

I disagree.  Socialists wouldn't care about drug use, because they will
just increase taxes when need be.  So what if people pay 80%?

The socialists would also oppose drug use on the grounds that it
increases health care costs, and the socialist national health system
in the UK is already refusing to treat obesity-related illnesses if
the patient refuses to lose weight and even locks up severely obese
people in mental institutions (for their own protection?). If a
system can tell people what to eat and force them to exercise for
their own good, it is natural to assume they would restrict
recreational drug use, especially if it saves tax money.

Socialism is the opposite of freedom - if you accept any part of
socialism because you benefit from the "free" money, you agree to
losing personal liberties. If you want "free" national health care,
you agree to lose more of your wages to taxes, and you agree to the
government running the system as efficiently as possible, which means
intruding in your personal lifestyle to keep costs down. Money can be
saved on liver transplants by identifying and "treating" alcoholics
before they develop cirrhosis, lung cancer can be prevented by
imprisoning tobacco users, fat people can be locked up in mental
hospitals and force-fed nutrition pellets until their weight is
acceptable to the government, and so on.