Re: Doonesbury

You are the one who asserted that it is not illegal to buy or use drugs in the Netherlands. I disputed that, sort of. I showed you that it is illegal in The Netherlands to "possess" virtually all drugs. By buying or using drugs, one is "possessing" them, therefore both of those conditions are illegal.

It is now up to you to validate your claim.

Go f*ck yourself asshole. Let's see how much crap you can generate from that. Should be quite a lot because you're full of it.

Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of sensitivity. Your words above. Being so cavalier must mean that you don't make mistakes like your hypothetical person above. That's where my rant came from. Hope you never have to deal with a similar situation.

That was the most entertaining post in this thread. It made my night.

Any ggogleing of "Netherlands Drug Policy" will show that oan walk into a restaurant in the Netherlands and buy drugs off a menu.

Technically, they are unlawful however the official policy is that the law is not enforced. The same is true in Portugal. If you want to call something done in accordance with official government policy "illicit" go right ahead.

"J. Clarke" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local:

Only true for a "coffeeshop" a Dutch euphemism for a pot cafe. Restaurant are different establishments.

Technically correct. But since jurisprudence is important in Holland, as it is here in the US, it is difficult to reverse the Dutch laissez faire attitude that regards soft drugs as tolerated openly.

The same situation with our current immigration "policy" versus our immigration laws.

This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses their shop dog.

The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back to the groin, and painted cherry.

In my state, incarceration is way cheaper. In 2003, we paid $2.5 billion to lock up 148,000 inmates. That's a bit over $17,000 per inmate per year. Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.

There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth, the other in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national centers (drug-free after being released for one year) is six percent. Compare this to the 30% of released criminals who do not return to prison and you'll see that jail has a better outcome than treatment for addiciton.

Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the taxpayer money in reduced crime.

I'm glad you finally agree with my statement above, "EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to possess in the Netherlands."

If you want to discuss police and prosectorial malfeasance, corruption in government, and subverting the rule of law, that's a whole 'nother thread.

And pukey ducks. Can't forget the pukey ducks.

The policy in Portugal is implemented by public law. So how is that "police and prosecutorial malfeasance, corruption in government, and subverting the rule of law"?

Sorry, but you really need to get your head of the DEA's ass and start doing some research on your own--the DEA has a vested interest in making us believe that drugs are an immense problem that can only be resolved by draconian measures implemented by the DEA busting all and sundry.

I forgot pointy sticks too, my humblest of apologies.

And you're back to your home turf, grade school insults (since that's the best you're capable of).

Let's see, that would make the score:

Everybody Else 99 You 0

Even pulling the goalie is no longer an option Mr. Screen Name. Better luck next time.

Go f*ck yourself.

A simple response is adequate for you since you don't have the brain power to deal with anything more complex.

I have no problem with restoring rights to cons who have overwhelmingly demonstrated that they have reformed and walked the straight and narrow since being released. But an automatic restoration of the right to own guns simply because the guy hasn't been busted for five years doesn't work for me. I want to see pay stubs and glowing reports from his PO and lots of character references from respected members of the community (no politicians)--not just a lack of recent convictions.

People can clean up, I used to have a guy working for me who had been a full-on crack addict who had lost everything. He turned it around, he is sober and hard-working and is on good terms with his ex-wife and kids, works in a hospital today.

But there needs to be solid evidence of rehabilitation, not just an absence of recent arrests. People who choose to commit serious crimes have to justify our trusting them again, they put themselves in that situation.

On 2/17/2011 12:44 PM, DGDevin wrote: >

+1

All your opinions are contingent on anybody giving a rat's ass about your views. Nobody cares what you think, Devin. Nobody.

Put 'em to work. They earn money while in jail, and it's paid out when they're released if there have been no problems. Some of the money goes directly to their family if the family is on support. If there's a victim, a percentage, based on the severity of the crime, goes to the victim.

And every man is an island, right? Who's supporting the incarcerated's family while they're in the pokey? Oh, right - you and me.

You are a Jedi Master at cherry picking data and ignoring variables.