obama caves again

[JoeB131]

Why should we pay for treatment or incarceration?

Well, I would say simple humanity, but I don't think you know what that word means.

 

[del]

Get help.

have another doughnut

Look what we have here!!! Another CG ass kisser!!! Good luck with that. You'll need it.

more mashed potatoes?

 

[del]

What the hell?? Are you an obnoxious teenager??? Grow up.

What Del is trying to uncerremoniously trying to tell the like of you is to grow up and leave people to thier own devices and liberty...and it is YOU that need to grow up.

Speak for yourself and don't try to help other idiots like Del. You have all you can handle yourself.

another piece of pie, tubby?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should we pay for treatment or incarceration?

Well, I would say simple humanity, but I don't think you know what that word means.

I keep telling you that laws are not supposed to be humane.

 

[JoeB131]

Why should we pay for treatment or incarceration?

Well, I would say simple humanity, but I don't think you know what that word means.

I keep telling you that laws are not supposed to be humane.

No, they should be. That's why we have judges. And Juries. Otherwise, we should just have rulings handed down by computers...

obviously, to go back to your original point, let's say we don't incarerate them or treat them. What then? Seriously?

Just "Let them Die"? Or wait until they do damage to someone else? That doesn't seem smart or practical.

 

[California Girl]

Why should we pay for treatment or incarceration?

Well, I would say simple humanity, but I don't think you know what that word means.

I keep telling you that laws are not supposed to be humane.

They aren't. People often overlook that. Justice is supposed to be blind, applied equally to everyone. No 'humanity' required.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I would say simple humanity, but I don't think you know what that word means.

I keep telling you that laws are not supposed to be humane.

They aren't. People often overlook that. Justice is supposed to be blind, applied equally to everyone. No 'humanity' required.

No law that is absolute is just. Again, it's why we have juries and judges.

I'm still waiting to hear what your solution is to the drug addiction problem.

 

[saveliberty]

Rinata doesn't bring anything to the table, except utensils.

 

[saveliberty]

No law that is absolute is just. Again, it's why we have juries and judges.

I'm still waiting to hear what your solution is to the drug addiction problem.

Juries don't interpret law Joe. They decide guilt or innocence.

We have a solution to the drug problem, you just don't like it or want to pay for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I would say simple humanity, but I don't think you know what that word means.

I keep telling you that laws are not supposed to be humane.

No, they should be. That's why we have judges. And Juries. Otherwise, we should just have rulings handed down by computers...

obviously, to go back to your original point, let's say we don't incarerate them or treat them. What then? Seriously?

Just "Let them Die"? Or wait until they do damage to someone else? That doesn't seem smart or practical.

No, we have judges and juries to make the laws just.

If it isn't illegal to do drugs there would be no need for the public to pay for incarceration or treatment.

 

[JoeB131]

No law that is absolute is just. Again, it's why we have juries and judges.

I'm still waiting to hear what your solution is to the drug addiction problem.

Juries don't interpret law Joe. They decide guilt or innocence.

We have a solution to the drug problem, you just don't like it or want to pay for it.

I don't like it because IT DOESN"T WORK.

We have a 70% recidivism rate with our convicts.

Compare that to Japan where only 1% of their convicts re-offend.

Throwing a drug addict in jail doesn't cure his problem. It just makes him unemployable (because no one hires convicts) and a burden on society. It's a waste of material.

Treatment gets people back to being productive members of society.

It isn't just about humanity, it's about efficiency.

Lock them up doesn't work. We can't afford it anymore. States are releases these people in droves because, hey, we might have to deprive a rich person of his polo pony to keep them locked up.

 

[JoeB131]

No, we have judges and juries to make the laws just.

If it isn't illegal to do drugs there would be no need for the public to pay for incarceration or treatment.

Oh, so you want to legalize them? Okay.

So then what do you do with the addicts at that point? They are still a problem, they are still a drain on resources that have to be dealt with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No law that is absolute is just. Again, it's why we have juries and judges.

I'm still waiting to hear what your solution is to the drug addiction problem.

Juries don't interpret law Joe. They decide guilt or innocence.

We have a solution to the drug problem, you just don't like it or want to pay for it.

I don't like it because IT DOESN"T WORK.

We have a 70% recidivism rate with our convicts.

Compare that to Japan where only 1% of their convicts re-offend.

Throwing a drug addict in jail doesn't cure his problem. It just makes him unemployable (because no one hires convicts) and a burden on society. It's a waste of material.

Treatment gets people back to being productive members of society.

It isn't just about humanity, it's about efficiency.

Lock them up doesn't work. We can't afford it anymore. States are releases these people in droves because, hey, we might have to deprive a rich person of his polo pony to keep them locked up.

Recidivism in Japan is a bit higher than 1%.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, we have judges and juries to make the laws just.

If it isn't illegal to do drugs there would be no need for the public to pay for incarceration or treatment.

Oh, so you want to legalize them? Okay.

So then what do you do with the addicts at that point? They are still a problem, they are still a drain on resources that have to be dealt with.

Are they? Or do you just buy into that because you buy into the talking points of the people who make money off of it?

 

[del]

Juries don't interpret law Joe. They decide guilt or innocence.

We have a solution to the drug problem, you just don't like it or want to pay for it.

I don't like it because IT DOESN"T WORK.

We have a 70% recidivism rate with our convicts.

Compare that to Japan where only 1% of their convicts re-offend.

Throwing a drug addict in jail doesn't cure his problem. It just makes him unemployable (because no one hires convicts) and a burden on society. It's a waste of material.

Treatment gets people back to being productive members of society.

It isn't just about humanity, it's about efficiency.

Lock them up doesn't work. We can't afford it anymore. States are releases these people in droves because, hey, we might have to deprive a rich person of his polo pony to keep them locked up.

Recidivism in Japan is a bit higher than 1%.

40+% is higher than 1%?

i'm shocked

 

[saveliberty]

No law that is absolute is just. Again, it's why we have juries and judges.

I'm still waiting to hear what your solution is to the drug addiction problem.

Juries don't interpret law Joe. They decide guilt or innocence.

We have a solution to the drug problem, you just don't like it or want to pay for it.

I don't like it because IT DOESN"T WORK.

We have a 70% recidivism rate with our convicts.

Compare that to Japan where only 1% of their convicts re-offend.

Throwing a drug addict in jail doesn't cure his problem. It just makes him unemployable (because no one hires convicts) and a burden on society. It's a waste of material.

Treatment gets people back to being productive members of society.

It isn't just about humanity, it's about efficiency.

Lock them up doesn't work. We can't afford it anymore. States are releases these people in droves because, hey, we might have to deprive a rich person of his polo pony to keep them locked up.

Making the drug legal does little to stop crime. It still takes money to buy and the same people who steal or kill for it will. In fact, you just give them MORE opportunity by being out on the street.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't like it because IT DOESN"T WORK.

We have a 70% recidivism rate with our convicts.

Compare that to Japan where only 1% of their convicts re-offend.

Throwing a drug addict in jail doesn't cure his problem. It just makes him unemployable (because no one hires convicts) and a burden on society. It's a waste of material.

Treatment gets people back to being productive members of society.

It isn't just about humanity, it's about efficiency.

Lock them up doesn't work. We can't afford it anymore. States are releases these people in droves because, hey, we might have to deprive a rich person of his polo pony to keep them locked up.

Recidivism in Japan is a bit higher than 1%.

40+% is higher than 1%?

i'm shocked

Me too.

 

[JoeB131]

No, we have judges and juries to make the laws just.

If it isn't illegal to do drugs there would be no need for the public to pay for incarceration or treatment.

Oh, so you want to legalize them? Okay.

So then what do you do with the addicts at that point? They are still a problem, they are still a drain on resources that have to be dealt with.

Are they? Or do you just buy into that because you buy into the talking points of the people who make money off of it?

Yes, unemployable people with addictions are a problem.

Because unlike you, most people will not let people just starve to death.

Which is probably okay with folks like you. "Let them die".

The GOP has good ideas, but the heartlessness is offputting to most civilized people.

When Bush called himself a "Compassionate Conservative", he was ridiculed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh, so you want to legalize them? Okay.

So then what do you do with the addicts at that point? They are still a problem, they are still a drain on resources that have to be dealt with.

Are they? Or do you just buy into that because you buy into the talking points of the people who make money off of it?

Yes, unemployable people with addictions are a problem.

Because unlike you, most people will not let people just starve to death.

Which is probably okay with folks like you. "Let them die".

The GOP has good ideas, but the heartlessness is offputting to most civilized people.

When Bush called himself a "Compassionate Conservative", he was ridiculed.

Why the fuck should i have to pay for some loser drug addict when it was his choices that got him where he is?

Sooner or later people have to start being responsible for themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

Are they? Or do you just buy into that because you buy into the talking points of the people who make money off of it?

Yes, unemployable people with addictions are a problem.

Because unlike you, most people will not let people just starve to death.

Which is probably okay with folks like you. "Let them die".

The GOP has good ideas, but the heartlessness is offputting to most civilized people.

When Bush called himself a "Compassionate Conservative", he was ridiculed.

Why the fuck should i have to pay for some loser drug addict when it was his choices that got him where he is?

Sooner or later people have to start being responsible for themselves.

That's not the point.

The point is that addiction is an illness. (Yes, even for poor addicts, not just Rush Limbaugh). We are treating a medical problem like a criminal one, we lock up more people than any country in the world, and we've created a permanent criminal class.

Every other country got this and treated it like a medical problem. America figured out that there was a way for Rich people to make money, so we got the War on Drugs.