War on Drugs + War on Poverty = War on the poor

[Vol8188]

So we all see a problem, who do we vote for at this point?

There's only one candidate out there who actually wants to change any of this.


Rand Paul.

 

[n_huffhines]

Can we all at least agree that we've had 50 years of the WoP and the poverty results are relatively unchanged. Likewise, we've had 35 years of the WoD and likewise the drug use results are relatively unchanged.

Seems that ought to be sufficient evidence that major policy changes are merited.

Direct cost - War on drugs costs the government an estimated $50B per year.

Opportunity cost - property crimes and acts of violence are policed less

Hidden cost - the economy would greatly benefit from an open market for drugs. Government revenues would also increase dramatically.

Any true fiscal conservative needs to be on board.

 

[#VFL__]

Direct cost - War on drugs costs the government an estimated $50B per year.

Opportunity cost - property crimes and acts of violence are policed less

Hidden cost - the economy would greatly benefit from an open market for drugs. Government revenues would also increase dramatically.

Any true fiscal conservative needs to be on board.

Sounds like a top ten issue to me.

 

[YorkVol]

So we all see a problem, who do we vote for at this point?

There is no one at the national level who can or will solve this problem.

There is some potential at the state and local level if you get the right people to run. They just aren't.

 

[hog88]

So we all see a problem, who do we vote for at this point?

Is there even a realistic candidate running with legalization in their platform?

 

[Vol8188]

Direct cost - War on drugs costs the government an estimated $50B per year.

Opportunity cost - property crimes and acts of violence are policed less

Hidden cost - the economy would greatly benefit from an open market for drugs. Government revenues would also increase dramatically.

Any true fiscal conservative needs to be on board.

Tourism would increase as well.

 

[Kingston Vol]

I agree with his statement. Allowing companies to pay a low wage means the government ends up subsidizing their entire workforce.

Yep. :hi:

 

[hog88]

Yep. :hi:

Those jobs are supposed to be entry level not careers.

 

[BeecherVol]

It is directly responsible for removing a massive number of males from these communities.

There's plenty of evidence showing that going to prison early in life provides a kind of lifestyle modification for inmates that keeps them returning.

This is kind of an offshoot of the problem but.
It may be some magical number that really can't be known, but it would be interesting to see how many of these males were "present" (much less in a positive manner) in these communities and families. That doesn't mean they should necessarily be jailed easier because they were not but Id be curious to understand if dad being absent for a different reason really matters to the big picture for his family and kids.
If that makes sense.

 

[Vol8188]

Is there even a realistic candidate running with legalization in their platform?

It's not a part of Paul's platform, but he does want to limit sentencing, defund the war on drugs federally, eliminate racial bias in drug laws (crack for example has one of the highest mandatory sentences), and implement community treatment centers over sentencing.

 

[Vol8188]

Those jobs are supposed to be entry level not careers.

Some people are only capable of entry level work. But the government shouldn't have to subsidize any job.

 

[#VFL__]

Is there even a realistic candidate running with legalization in their platform?

I was referring to this conversation as a whole, not just legalization. I don't believe so, pharma would yank their money out from under them.

 

[BeecherVol]

So we all see a problem, who do we vote for at this point?

I think its more complex than that. Some see different problems that have different or varying results if something is changed.

 

[#VFL__]

Some people are only capable of entry level work. But the government shouldn't have to subsidize any job.

Even if they were capable of higher skilled work, we would run out of positions for them.

 

[volbeast33]

I agree with his statement. Allowing companies to pay a low wage means the government ends up subsidizing their entire workforce.

If u increase food workers salaries then u have to increase every jobs salary.....soon the market will catch up and everything will cost more...it changes nothing

 

[Vol8188]

It's not a part of Paul's platform, but he does want to limit sentencing, defund the war on drugs federally, eliminate racial bias in drug laws (crack for example has one of the highest mandatory sentences), and implement community treatment centers over sentencing.

He also wants to restore voting rights for drug offenders.

Personally I don't believe anything but treason should result in the loss of voting rights.

 

[Kingston Vol]

Those jobs are supposed to be entry level not careers.

But, I don't think they have to be. I have a cousin who has worked with Burger King for 5+ years because she likes it and they like her.

They pay less therefor people move on from them. Maybe if they paid a little more they would attract better employees who would stick around.

It's a chicken/egg argument.

 

[#VFL__]

If u increase food workers salaries then u have to increase every jobs salary.....soon the market will catch up and everything will cost more...it changes nothing

But there is enough for everyone in this world.

 

[Bigurnge]

Tourism would increase as well.

Along with crime

 

[Vol8188]

If u increase food workers salaries then u have to increase every jobs salary.....soon the market will catch up and everything will cost more...it changes nothing

So in your hypothetical economy, every eats fast food? The only thing that may rise is fast food costs. That effects nothing else. Except maybe the number of times a week you eat fast food.

 

[hog88]

Even if they were capable of higher skilled work, we would run out of positions for them.

No we wouldn't. There will always be entrepreneurs.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

84 Percent of Employers Require Pre-Employment Drug Tests - Partnership for Drug-Free Kids

Workplace/Employment Drug Testing | Drug War Facts



.

But drugs are great. The laws are bad...if they were legal america would be utopia. Using drugs isnt a bad choice. They dont kill brain cells..cause irrational or crazy behavior..cause cancer or contribute in some cases to transfer of diseases. Drugs are the answer to all of our problems. I know because i am a damn near illiterate school teacher who gets called out frequently for my terrible spelling and grammar.

What.the.hell.

How many times can you be wrong in 1 thread? Then completely ignore it when shown to be wrong? I disagree with about 99 percent of what you post 8188. Which means i am just like everyone else here...and live in reality. If you were my kids teacher i would move.

 

[hog88]

So in your hypothetical economy, every eats fast food? The only thing that may rise is fast food costs. That effects nothing else. Except maybe the number of times a week you eat fast food.

My daughter worked at McDonald's in HS and made $7.00 hour. I don't think many fast food joints are paying the federal minimum wage. So that argument is false.

 

[Vol8188]

Along with crime

No. It would actually greatly decrease crime. Drug laws turn everyday citizens into criminals.

Colorado Crime Rates Down 14.6% Since Legalizing Marijuana | Natural Society

Violent Crime Drops Where People Have Access to Marijuana, Study Suggests | Alternet

Legalization Will Reduce Crime, Free Up Police Resources

 

[volbeast33]

So in your hypothetical economy, every eats fast food? The only thing that may rise is fast food costs. That effects nothing else. Except maybe the number of times a week you eat fast food.

It effects every job...if the sandwich makers make close to more skilled jobs then their pay will also increase also....it doesn't just affect the fast food industry.