By: plm on 11/17/09
Give the pharmacist all the gratitude: he stopped a horror to our kids, and thank you Kevin Krieb for the follow through. Regarding the five pukes who were about to poison and perhaps kill our people: attempted murder, so away they go, to share a cell with Bubba. They absolutely do not deserve to live any further than this moment: get it: they were coming after our children, and so they need to go to their maker (I'd say parents, but that might be a hard test for them to pass) soon, and let Him deal with it. Load a bullet, load some dope: same ending. We need to stop it...now. Hopefully, the addresses of the pukes will be published, just so we no where to keep our children away from. And please,for the love of God, no "neighbors" who thought they were either "good kids", or "seemed odd". You didn't stand up, so you're part of the problem. The best way to get neighborhoods back from pukes like this is to never lose them in the first place.

By: attagirl on 11/17/09
No, plm, they're not "coming after your kids." There are very few 10 year olds addicted to meth. They are probably doing the drug themselves, not selling it.

Your solution to shoot them is just plain silly. The answer to the drug problem is not killing the addict. That's just moronic.

By: abide on 11/18/09
Maybe we dont need to kill them just cut off arms and fingers as a deterent.

By: Farmall on 11/18/09
If the addict were gone we wouldn't have the problem. Sounds like a solution to me.

By: attagirl on 11/18/09
Well, by that logic Farmall, if we just shot all the cancer patients, then cancer wouldn't be a problem, would it? We could also kill all the smokers and fat people and eliminate those problems as well. May as well go ahead and shoot the unruly kids so they don't bother us in the future while we're at it.

By: Boo on 11/18/09
attagirl- Help me understand your logic here. Having cancer, being fat, smoking, or being an unruly kid are not crimes. Making meth is not only a crime, but it is dangerous and sometimes deadly.

By: Farmall on 11/18/09
I'll admit I left that open just for Attagirl. Children and young adults I can see making every effort to help. After say 25yrs, then removing them from society I have no problem with.

By: attagirl on 11/18/09
I agree, Boo. Meth dangerous and deadly. Driving a car is dangerous and deadly, too. So is walking through a parking lot at night. But drug addiction should not be a crime. Drugs should be legal and taxed and regulated just like alcohol and tobacco. Our gov't spends way too much money punishing drug use instead of treating it. Prohibition DOES NOT WORK. If drugs are decriminalized we won't have people using violence to obtain them. People won't be scared to get help.

By: driveguy on 11/19/09
Attagirl,
Drug addiction is not a crime, it is a choice. If you legalize drugs then do you really think that an addict is going to hold down a job to pay for their drug of choice? No, they will then commit other crimes such as theft, armed robbery, and any other means to obtain the cash to pay for it just like they do now only we can't bust them for being high or holding, just if we are lucky enough to catch them committing the formentioned crimes. Your logic of legalization doesn't work because not all addicts are afraid of getting help just most are unwilling to seek it. You are not arrested if you show up at a recovery unit to get help with your addiction unless you bring drugs in with you.

By: attagirl on 11/19/09
driveguy, do you honestly believe prohibition works? Look around you. Our jails are full, our DA's and police are too busy prosecuting drug offenders to fight real crime. If people didn't have to get drugs on the black market, there would be no need to bring a gun when you make your buy. We've been there and done that with alcohol prohibition. As soon as alcohol became legal, people weren't killing each other over it any more.

Our government could make billions in taxes, just like it does with cigarettes and alcohol.

By: driveguy on 11/20/09
attagirl,
I am not saying the existing system does not have flaws but, what do you call a "real crime"? Again, I make my point that an addict will do anything to get the money to make the buy. Most won't hold a job for one because my experience is that they are unreliable, two, cannot pass a drug test. Even if the drug was legal, employer's are not going to have someone under the influence of drugs or, for that matter alcohol working in their plant or office for insurance reasons. "Real crime" like theft, armed robbery and B&E are most times driven by drugs so, the real crime you speak of would still take up the time with the same offenders. No, I don't think prohibition works but, legalization would not either. It is the system we have right now and deterence and an understanding that addiction is a self inflicted wound to these people must take place before we think of enabling their addiction by saying that our government could get rich simply by taxing a legal product. I do look around me and am saddened that we can't help in another way than to arrest them but, I don't think a complete left or right opinion is the answer. Somewhere in between possibly. I do enjoy your post's though. You are obviously intelligent and have an opinion that can analyze all sides so consider this, this is your 21 year old child now, they walk to the drug store, pick up a baggie of meth, and while under the influence, they step in front of a car and they are killed. Who are you mad at? Your child? The drug store that sold it? Yourself? The government for benifiting from your childs death by taxing what they bought? Tell me how legalization works.

By: attagirl on 11/20/09
Legalization works just like it does for alcohol. It's regulated and taxed to death. I'm not advocating over-the-counter meth and ecstacy and lortabs. Definitely pot should be legal but it's a weed so I doubt people would be killing each other over it.

My point is that prohibition and punishment of drug use does not deter such use. People who are gonna use are gonna use, whether it's legal or not. It is a total waste of valuable resources to punish drug use.

To answer your question, if it is my 21 year old child who chooses to do drugs and then dies from it, then I blame the child for the choice.

By: driveguy on 11/21/09
But Attagirl,
In your post's you argue that our courts are being clogged with drug offenders. Pot is a very small portion of those arrests these day's. Most are meth and perscription drugs. We can't have it both way's distinguishing what drugs we allow to be legalized. They all impair judgment and having it available like alcohol invites a choice for youth and molds their opinion of what is acceptable through the media. If you don't think pot farmers are going to advertise then we are mistaken. Opinions and choices are molded by media and childrens relationships and learning patterns from their parents. We can't blame the child for a choice if we made it available.

By: attagirl on 11/22/09
"We can't blame the child for a choice if we made it available."

Seriously? You really believe that? We are ALL responsible for our choices. Lots of bad stuff is available out there. Proper child rearing does not require that we hide all the bad stuff from the kids. I believe just the opposite. Let them know what's out there. Knowledge is power. We can't expect the government to protect us from all the bad decisions we may make.

You are incorrect when you say pot offenses are just a small part of the justice system. In fact, pot is the largest percentage of drug arrests. I personally would rather my tax dollars be used to prosecute a violent criminal than a person chillin out with some weed.

By: driveguy on 11/23/09
Attagirl,
I respect your point but still have to argue that as adults, If we make it legal and available then our children will think it's "ok". I do believe in letting them know what's out there and letting them know that it is not "ok" to "chill with some weed". C'mon, what does that tell our youth, Spend your time in a haze and don't deal with reality? Do you have kids? and "pot" is not the largest burden on our justice system. Would like to know where that fact came from. Dockets are filled with "possesion of a controlled substance" not possesion of pot or meth or prescription drugs, that is not detailed. My sister is a bailiff and believe me, more meth than anything else. Personally, I want my tax dollars for police work to go toward upholding all laws and as of right now, pot is against the law. We, as adults, are responsible for "our" choices but our children are not. We as parents are responsible for their choices until they are 18 and I for one will send a clear message to my children that "pot" or any kind of drug is not a responsible choice and if I were to say we should legalize it then that would not be the message sent. My tax money will not be the deciding factor in what I teach my children. I don't expect the government to protect me in any of my decisions but, will not allow them to harm me or my family either just because a liberal feels we spend to much time or tax dollars on something that would be "easier" if we didn't have to deal with it or prosecute it.

By: attagirl on 11/24/09
Yes, I have grown children. I work in the court system and I see the defendants come and go every day. I'm around cops all day. Pot is the most common arrest. Just check the statistics. The fact that I choose not to smoke pot, and I teach my kids not to do drugs, doesn't mean it should be illegal. Even if it's legal, I'll teach them the same thing. I dont' like seeing my tax money wasted on a losing battle. Pot is less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal and I teach my kids to stay away from it. There are plenty of things that are legal that I teach my kids to avoid.

By: driveguy on 11/24/09
Amen,
Good discussion! Points on both sides but, we will agree to disagree.