When a party is desperate for voters...they are definitely more "inclusive".

Total nut job. Do you think he'd light the WH with rainbow colors too? I know, he would.

you could tell him to go **** hyimself, but you know he enjoys that sort of thing.

Alcohol destroys more family's and cost America more than both of those drugs. Government needs to get out of telling people what they can put in their bodies. If you dont send Alcoholics to prison for their addiction. Then why would you send a drug user for theirs?

I dont believe he wants to Decriminalize the selling or making of the drug...only the using. I agree with that because why should government get to choose which drug is OK to destroy people and which isnt?

If you drink your 2 or 3 drinks of alcohol each night...you are a drug user. Those that drink 5,6,7...each and ever night are addicted to a drug just like the heroin and any other drug. Same goes for smoking...nicotine is a drug.

Both cause more deaths and more damage and more money to America than all other drugs combined. As we seen with prohibition, a lot of the people on this board would be criminals if their drug of choice was outlawed. No different than the person needing their fix on their drug of choice....

other than laws criminalizing the use of one and not the other

If I want to hurt my body or kill myself with alcohol, smoking, heroin, the government shouldnt tell me which one is OK to use. Over time all 3 will likely do just that

So his logic is guns are terrible but meth is great?

Because Crackheads and Methheads vote too, will they might vote if they're not stoned out of their mind.

They need medical help and not prison time.

(02-09-2020 03:22 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

When a party is desperate for voters...they are definitely more "inclusive".

He's just theorizing about how many more Democratic voters each state would have if they could enhance substance abuse and register their voters at CVS and Walgreens.

(02-09-2020 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  They need medical help and not prison time.

RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

(02-09-2020 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 03:22 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

When a party is desperate for voters...they are definitely more "inclusive".

He's just theorizing about how many more Democratic voters each state would have if they could enhance substance abuse and register their voters at CVS and Walgreens.

Dems could actually get out the vote by taking crackheads to the polls then drop them by the nearest dealer with a $20. We've got it all figured for dems.

It won’t make me vote for him but the war on drugs is an abject failure. Redirect the funds towards treatment

(02-09-2020 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  They need medical help and not prison time.

RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

Like no one that drink alcohol ever commits another crime? Tell me how many crimes would a heroin user commit if their drug was the price of a cheap beer? How about pot do pot? I would bet pot smokers have a lower crime rate than those that drink alcohol or at least close to it. The main reason, cost of their drug of choice...

is affordable

Just like with everything else, government should put rule/laws on use, when it affects someone else. They need to stay out of what people want to put in their bodies. ...by choice

(02-09-2020 06:28 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  It won’t make me vote for him but the war on drugs is an abject failure. Redirect the funds towards treatment

Yep.

(02-09-2020 07:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  They need medical help and not prison time.

RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

Like no one that drink alcohol ever commits another crime? Tell me how many crimes would a heroin user commit if their drug was the price of a cheap beer? How about pot do pot? I would bet pot smokers have a lower crime rate than those that drink alcohol or at least close to it. The main reason, cost of their drug of choice...

is affordable

Just like with everything else, government should put rule/laws on use, when it affects someone else. They need to stay out of what people want to put in their bodies. ...by choice

Unless he is making it legal, the cost would remain the same.

(02-09-2020 07:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  They need medical help and not prison time.

RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

Like no one that drink alcohol ever commits another crime? Tell me how many crimes would a heroin user commit if their drug was the price of a cheap beer? How about pot do pot? I would bet pot smokers have a lower crime rate than those that drink alcohol or at least close to it. The main reason, cost of their drug of choice...

is affordable

Just like with everything else, government should put rule/laws on use, when it affects someone else. They need to stay out of what people want to put in their bodies. ...by choice

If these drugs were legal someone would come up with something more powerful, addicts will always be addicts. Unlike some drugs like Crack, people aren't instantly addicted to alcohol. There are few that use crack, meth, heroin, etc. in moderation. Not many drunks out stealing copper from homes, or turning tricks to pay for a drink.

(02-09-2020 07:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 07:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  They need medical help and not prison time.

RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

Like no one that drink alcohol ever commits another crime? Tell me how many crimes would a heroin user commit if their drug was the price of a cheap beer? How about pot do pot? I would bet pot smokers have a lower crime rate than those that drink alcohol or at least close to it. The main reason, cost of their drug of choice...

is affordable

Just like with everything else, government should put rule/laws on use, when it affects someone else. They need to stay out of what people want to put in their bodies. ...by choice

Unless he is making it legal, the cost would remain the same.

If you make them legal you take the revenue out of the hands of enemies and put it in the hands of those we can tax for the sake of funding the rehabilitation facilities. Then you can release law enforcement to target human trafficking, police the streets for the violent and predatory, and the prime motive for smuggling people across the borders goes away.

(02-09-2020 07:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 07:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  They need medical help and not prison time.

RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

Like no one that drink alcohol ever commits another crime? Tell me how many crimes would a heroin user commit if their drug was the price of a cheap beer? How about pot do pot? I would bet pot smokers have a lower crime rate than those that drink alcohol or at least close to it. The main reason, cost of their drug of choice...

is affordable

Just like with everything else, government should put rule/laws on use, when it affects someone else. They need to stay out of what people want to put in their bodies. ...by choice

Unless he is making it legal, the cost would remain the same.

Chances are if these were legal dems would tax the hell out of them to pay for the addiction treatment. Don't forget Bloomer's thought, taxing the poor takes their money so they can't hurt themselves. So if legal chances are taxes would keep these drugs at the same price.

(02-09-2020 07:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 07:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 07:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  They need medical help and not prison time.

RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

Like no one that drink alcohol ever commits another crime? Tell me how many crimes would a heroin user commit if their drug was the price of a cheap beer? How about pot do pot? I would bet pot smokers have a lower crime rate than those that drink alcohol or at least close to it. The main reason, cost of their drug of choice...

is affordable

Just like with everything else, government should put rule/laws on use, when it affects someone else. They need to stay out of what people want to put in their bodies. ...by choice

Unless he is making it legal, the cost would remain the same.

If you make them legal you take the revenue out of the hands of enemies and put it in the hands of those we can tax for the sake of funding the rehabilitation facilities. Then you can release law enforcement to target human trafficking, police the streets for the violent and predatory, and the prime motive for smuggling people across the borders goes away.

People still smuggle cigarettes across state lines to avoid taxes.

California and Colorado aren't able to control the illegal pot shops. People are avoiding taxes. Something Democrats really don't understand. People don't like to pay taxes and find every way they can to get around it, some illegal.

(02-09-2020 07:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 07:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  They need medical help and not prison time.

RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

Like no one that drink alcohol ever commits another crime? Tell me how many crimes would a heroin user commit if their drug was the price of a cheap beer? How about pot do pot? I would bet pot smokers have a lower crime rate than those that drink alcohol or at least close to it. The main reason, cost of their drug of choice...

is affordable

Just like with everything else, government should put rule/laws on use, when it affects someone else. They need to stay out of what people want to put in their bodies. ...by choice

Unless he is making it legal, the cost would remain the same.

First off if government stayed out of it...heroin and meth use wouldnt be at the levels they are. Heroin use was at a all time low till the government started going after Dr on pain meds. Someone hurting or just like the feel and it gets them through the day....

will not stop just because the government makes it harder to get. Nope they move on to something they can get with ease. Meth now comes into this country (mexicans) in higher rates than before the government started tracking the sell of cold meds. It also increased the amount of people using those drugs

The crackdown on pain meds increased the price of Heroin and Meth...supply and demand. That isn't only for things we buy, like cars, clothes, food.

Before the crackdown on pain meds the going rate was around $3 for a 10mg hydrocodone. Today it's $10 to $12 and someone addicted is looking at 4 to 6 at one time.....Heroin is way cheaper and so is Meth

10mg hydrocodone is not what is killing people in this war on opioids. It's the fentanyl coming from China. It's also the reason Heroin deaths are up because it's cheaper to cut it with low cost fentanyl

This war on drugs and sending users to prison for personal use....

is driving up deaths and making felons out of addicts. It's also making addicts out of people who are truly in pain. You dont know what pain is till you see someone you thought was strong and that person rather be dead than to be in the pain they were in. If a person is in their home, not hurting anyone else....government shouldn't have the right to tell them what they can do. I dont have the answer to how to get people off drugs. What my neighbor does shouldnt be a concern of mine unless its affecting my life

(02-09-2020 07:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 07:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 07:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 07:26 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  RIGHTTTTT... because no one that posses these drugs ever commits another crime.

Like no one that drink alcohol ever commits another crime? Tell me how many crimes would a heroin user commit if their drug was the price of a cheap beer? How about pot do pot? I would bet pot smokers have a lower crime rate than those that drink alcohol or at least close to it. The main reason, cost of their drug of choice...

is affordable

Just like with everything else, government should put rule/laws on use, when it affects someone else. They need to stay out of what people want to put in their bodies. ...by choice

Unless he is making it legal, the cost would remain the same.

If you make them legal you take the revenue out of the hands of enemies and put it in the hands of those we can tax for the sake of funding the rehabilitation facilities. Then you can release law enforcement to target human trafficking, police the streets for the violent and predatory, and the prime motive for smuggling people across the borders goes away.

People still smuggle cigarettes across state lines to avoid taxes.

California and Colorado aren't able to control the illegal pot shops. People are avoiding taxes. Something Democrats really don't understand. People don't like to pay taxes and find every way they can to get around it, some illegal.

Believe it or not production of these kinds of drugs is cheap. There is plenty of profit margin below street prices to leave room for the tax and still make them more affordable than the dealers could deliver them illegally. The whole organized crime angle would switch to human trafficking and that would be a much easier war to win. The idea is to take the profit away from those funding revolution. In the 90's Cubans started muscling in on the Columbian cartels and using the funds to destabilize Venezuela and other South American regions and to start fomenting issues in Guadalajara Mexico. This followed the Cuban's successful forays into Honduras and Nicaragua in the 80's.

Right now a great deal of the drug revenue is going to support our regional enemies.

Human trafficking would have a much broader and deeper base of opposition. Take away the profit in illicit drugs and you dry up the need for mules and force our adversaries into more unsavory lines of work which makes them much less sympathetic targets.

It also allows South American and Caribbean states to legitimize their own drug operations and use them in trade, which also cuts the overhead and cost and that too cleans up other illicit enterprises that piggybacked off of drugs.

It makes users identifiable, permits those who use to pay for rehab facilities, allows the FDA to eventually control potency and quality which decreases death rates. Then attacking the industry like the government has done with cigarettes is your educational effort to reduce use.

But right now we are paying those through the trade enough revenue to recruit and arm insurgents. And that has to end.