I'm for decriminalization which is a little different than legal. Legal would mean Walmart can sell crack over the counter. Decriminalization says regardless of the reason your responsible for your actions. You get high fine but if you cause a disturbance of the peace that's against the law. If your rob or harm someone that's against the law. If you endanger a child that's against the law.


There should be no federal laws regarding any substance it's beyond the scope of federal authority. Individual communities should be able to reserve the right to restrict use of substances on their premises, same with private property owners.


But if you want to shoot up heroin at home go for it, when your strung out and homeless we let you die and move on.


Decrimilaztion of substances only works with a full assumption of individual responsibility which means no welfare. No work no eat.

 

 

I can somewhat agree with your take.

As can I.

 

The question though is Why do liberals fight tooth and nail against drug testing welfare recipients? They have come out against it every single time it has been brought up. It has been voted into law in many states, only to be overturned against the will of the people by some liberal judge.

 

Why do liberals insist that these junkies use my tax dollars to get their buzz on?  Just more proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I disagree.  Some people probably don't do drugs because of the ramifications of getting caught/busted.

 

What is the age limit?

 

Where can you do the drugs?  Second hand smoke?

 

Can you only do the drugs inside your own house?  Or would there be "Drug Bars"?

 

What are the ramifications of Drugging while Driving?  Or is that okay?

 

You said you wanted the druggies out of prison.  Even if they were doing drugs while driving?

 

When the ramifications increased in the 70s, the number of drug addicts remained the same. Logic would show that a move in the other direction would keep a status quo as well. 

 

So based on the rest of your questions, you also want alcohol and tobacco criminalized? They both have all of those same issues. Age limit? Public intoxication? Second hand smoke? DUI/DWI? Legit the same questions as with already legal substances.

 

What part of what I said would make you think I also want to get rid of DUI laws? Those already include the influence of drugs, not just alcohol.

---

So there would be no ramifications to doing hard core drugs in my own home in the presence of my own children...that sounds awesome.

---

Have you seen my baseball?

Heroin, Meth, etc...

 

You really think that should be made readily available to the public?  Good Lord man.

Not really.

 

But criminalizing addiction doesn't work.

 

No one should be arrested for smoking a crack rock.

But on the same token, we shouldn't sell crack or allow people to sell it on the streets.

 

Decriminalization of drug USE is the way to go.

Legalization of marijuana USE for adults 21+ is long overdue.

 

Also... the government shouldn't regulate what I put in, on, or around my body. It is MY body.

This goes for crack, weed, beer, thirst busters, or prostitution, imo.

 

Not everyone has my view points.. and I'm OK with that in theory.

But the general idea shouldn't be arguable.

 

Yes, the government wants to curb (or appear to want to curb) spread of disease and addiction. Education and treatment are the best way to combat these things and still allow people to live their own lives their way. We don't want to open up some crazy idea that overusing drugs is OK.

But responsible adults should be allowed to use in private.

I have known people that have held down jobs and provided for family while also using some pretty "heavy" drugs.

---

Would there be crack smoking areas at the Jaguar games...I don't see why not, if it's legal, like booze and cigarettes.

 

Are there pot smoking areas at Broncos games?

---

So there would be no ramifications to doing hard core drugs in my own home in the presence of my own children...that sounds awesome.

Actually, in the presence of children could create actual conflict and result in a problem.

 

But grasp for some more straws?

 

I drink alcohol (which is more dangerous than some "hard drugs") but I don't drink around my kids.

I'm making a smart and responsible choice, those who misuse it are still subject to punishment. In this particular case, possibly child endangerment or neglect.

 

People who use drugs and whatever else responsibly should never have to pay or be held consequence to someone else's actions.

 

If I can smoke weed and do my job well and be a good dad... why shouldn't I be allowed to?

---

I don't consider weed hardcore...so I'm not talking about weed.  Legalize it, I don't care.  I still won't buy/use it. < which kind of validates your point of addition rates not increasing.

 

As far as I know, it is not illegal for me to drink beer around minors.  But, would it be legal to do hardcore drugs around minors?

 

As far as pot smoking areas at Bronco games...I have no idea.  But since smoking pot in Colorado is legal...why not?

---

Have you seen my baseball?

What says that addiction rates would increase with legalization? The percentage of addicts has remained the same for almost 50 years now even with exponentially more spending in enforcement. I'm also fine with moving money from one pot to another if it's from the cartels to legitimate businesses and the government.

I've never done drugs, but even if I had wanted to, I wouldn't have the first clue how to go about finding them. Stick them down at the 7/11 and that's a whole other ball game. You don't think making it more accessible would increase addiction just from the fact more people would be using it?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I'm for decriminalization which is a little different than legal. Legal would mean Walmart can sell crack over the counter. Decriminalization says regardless of the reason your responsible for your actions. You get high fine but if you cause a disturbance of the peace that's against the law. If your rob or harm someone that's against the law. If you endanger a child that's against the law.


There should be no federal laws regarding any substance it's beyond the scope of federal authority. Individual communities should be able to reserve the right to restrict use of substances on their premises, same with private property owners.


But if you want to shoot up heroin at home go for it, when your strung out and homeless we let you die and move on.


Decrimilaztion of substances only works with a full assumption of individual responsibility which means no welfare. No work no eat.

 

Eric I think you and I dream of a similar world. With that being said, it's not going to happen. That would be a loss of control for the federal government and there's no way they do anything that loosens their stranglehold of the states.

---

What part of it is ridiculous exactly? Expecting adults to make their own choices about what they do to their bodies?

Let's start With your neighborhood first. I'll set up a Meth Stand and hand out free samples.

---

So there would be no ramifications to doing hard core drugs in my own home in the presence of my own children...that sounds awesome.

That would be child endangerment the same as you can't get ragging drunk in your home in front of your children.

---

I don't consider weed hardcore...so I'm not talking about weed.  Legalize it, I don't care.  I still won't buy/use it. < which kind of validates your point of addition rates not increasing.

 

As far as I know, it is not illegal for me to drink beer around minors.  But, would it be legal to do hardcore drugs around minors?

 

As far as pot smoking areas at Bronco games...I have no idea.  But since smoking pot in Colorado is legal...why not?

 

Yes, smoking pot is legal in Colorado, but there's virtually nowhere which allows open consumption. In fact, there's a direct ban on bars and restaurants with liquor licenses from allowing consumption on prem.

 

As far as being around minors, I would agree that parents who get high and neglect their children should be punished the same as parents who don't get high and neglect their children. Neglect is neglect.

---

I don't consider weed hardcore...so I'm not talking about weed.  Legalize it, I don't care.  I still won't buy/use it. < which kind of validates your point of addition rates not increasing.

 

As far as I know, it is not illegal for me to drink beer around minors.  But, would it be legal to do hardcore drugs around minors?

 

As far as pot smoking areas at Bronco games...I have no idea.  But since smoking pot in Colorado is legal...why not?

I'm not sure about the places that have legalized and how it works for public use.

 

But simply put. Any drug used in the privacy of your home should be no one's business but your own.

HOWEVER... it is not illegal to drink around minors, it could be cause for neglect.

If you decriminalize say, heroin use, you could use it or have it without getting in  trouble. But using or having it around a minor would be illegal. Because it has been decriminalized and not legalized.

 

Personally... I don't think you should drink around young children, period. 

I don't think you should ever smoke pot or do crack around kids either.

 

As with anything, if you legalize it, the government will regulate and rule over it and tax it.

If you decriminalize you just stop feeding jails and prisons with nonviolent drug offenders.

 

I don't think in either case drug use would go up for adults or minors.

 

Why? Because prohibition doesn't work. If you want dope, you can get dope, and if you don't then you don't.

You think there is a ton of people out there just like... "man I wish this was legal so I could shoot up some smack!"

 

nah....

 

If anything MAYBE with weed you have a select population that is like "nah, if it was legal though......"

---

Well, I obviously disagree with most of you...I'll just leave it at that.  Unless you strike a nerve with me on something else ridiculous.

---

Have you seen my baseball?

You don't think making it more accessible would increase addiction just from the fact more people would be using it?

Making it more accessible increase addiction?

 

No.

 

Increase use? 


No.

 

Increase accessibility?

 

Yes.

 

You may not know where to start looking for "drugs"... but if you were so inclined to I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be hard to find, no matter where you are.

Depending on your age... you may have known someone back in the day that would have been your hook-up... etc etc.

 

I smoke and that's about it.

But if I wanted X I know the club to go hit.

If I wanted cocaine, I know the spot to probably run into the right guy.

 

However... if it's in 7/11 it sure is safer than the guy on the corner or the slug in the club.

---

I'm for decriminalization which is a little different than legal. Legal would mean Walmart can sell crack over the counter. Decriminalization says regardless of the reason your responsible for your actions. You get high fine but if you cause a disturbance of the peace that's against the law. If your rob or harm someone that's against the law. If you endanger a child that's against the law.


There should be no federal laws regarding any substance it's beyond the scope of federal authority. Individual communities should be able to reserve the right to restrict use of substances on their premises, same with private property owners.


But if you want to shoot up heroin at home go for it, when your strung out and homeless we let you die and move on.


Decrimilaztion of substances only works with a full assumption of individual responsibility which means no welfare. No work no eat.

I agree with you however the reality is compassion would not allow us to let addicts die on the streets.  Sadly there will always be a percentage of the population that just can't function to societal norms.  What are your thoughts on what to do with these individuals?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I know where to go to buy my beer.  I don't have a clue where to begin looking for weed, X, crack, opium, heroin...not a clue.

---

Have you seen my baseball?

What says that addiction rates would increase with legalization? The percentage of addicts has remained the same for almost 50 years now even with exponentially more spending in enforcement. I'm also fine with moving money from one pot to another if it's from the cartels to legitimate businesses and the government. 

It almost sounds as if you are saying addiction will remain flat and the government can save money by not prosecuting and housing for drug offenses. Is this correct? Addiction is a developed disease and escalates over time. Why would you want to add to one of the major risk factors (availability) and think addiction would remain flat and not increase? Not only can the increased availability increase addiction, the fact that it becomes more plentiful can increase overdoses. Believe it or not, there is a monetary value attached to these, such as healthcare.  While you state addiction hasn't increased, that also requires reporting through a physician. I'm pretty sure that is not fact either. Doesn't seem logical if prescription and non-prescription overdoses and death have skyrocketed.

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm

 

https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics...statistics

---

There are many problems to solving the "ultimate problem", that being drug addiction/abuse.  Let's look at one of the problems that would need to be solved.  Price and taxation.

 

No matter what, there will always be an "underground" for narcotics.  Let's take crack as an example.  Let's say that on the street right now a gram of crack costs $10.  You sell it legally for $10 and tax it, it will still be cheaper to buy it on the street than it would be to buy it legitimately.  You could lower the price a bit, but the underground is still going to undercut the price.  Pretty soon the price gets low enough to where the tax that it brings in isn't enough to really fund the legal sale of it.

 

I would argue that the profit margins would decrease by so much that they would look to other means of income. The legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington have already seen hits to the black market for the same. It's not like CBP would just ignore imports for restricted items (which drugs would be). There would still be a risk to moving product.

---

I've never done drugs, but even if I had wanted to, I wouldn't have the first clue how to go about finding them. Stick them down at the 7/11 and that's a whole other ball game. You don't think making it more accessible would increase addiction just from the fact more people would be using it?

 

Even with all of the allocation of funds going towards prevention and incarceration addiction numbers have remained steady for almost half a century. Meanwhile, funding for these programs has increased exponentially. I'll concede that there may be a slight increase simply due to curiosity, but I would also argue that it should be your own decision what you decide to put in your body.

---