LOL...so in your opinion...none of these drug related issues that require the use of drug enforcement...should be included in drug related costs by the government? And this is the argument you are presenting against my post about me not wanting my tax dollars to go toward paying for increased social programs and/or Medicaid/Medicare dollars toward the abusers rehabilitation? Seriously?<quoted text>Wow. Did you really ignore my reply again? I'm beginning to believe this is intentional. I will post it one more time, and after that I'm giving up. You are focusing on my one off reply to your obnoxious remarks, not the bulk of my argument.
I suppose my false dichotomy earlier wasn't really false.
One thing though - no, enforcement is not "directly related" to drug abuse. First of all, your example conflates a criminal issue with drug enforcement. Driving drunk and hurting others is a criminal act, and therefore not related to what I mean when I say drug enforcement. Drug enforcement includes the billions spent on busting small time pot users; setting up stings to catch coke dealers; raiding pot dispensaries; paramilitary swat teams that run raids against nonviolent individuals and, as an added bonus, sometimes break into the wrong house and kill elderly people. That's enforcement. Drunk driving is criminal. Drug use is a vice. Learn the difference.
The post that you are *supposed* to be responding to will follow shortly.
I really love how you add "paramilitary swat teams that run raids against nonviolent individuals" as if it makes a difference if the person is violent or not. If someone is selling drugs, violent or not, they should have a swat team go in and take them down. i mean seriously now you want the government to spend millions to rehabilitate the users but you think they should leave the dealers out on the streets just because they aren't violent? See we're different Timn...you seem to lack foresight...I mean if we leave the non-violent dealer on the street do you think he/she is gonna say..."oh don't try to sell to that guy...he just got out of rehab." Let me answer that for you...That ain't happening! The dealer is going straight to that person or sending a flunky to do it...they know just a little enticement and they're getting another paycheck. Then...all that money you advocate spending on rehab goes right back down the drain. Foresight...it's imperative when attacking an issue as widespread and out of control as drug abuse.
As for your smart remark about the drunk driver....You can call me stupid and ignorant all day long...as you did in another post...but who in God's name do you think you're fooling by stating..."Drunk driving is criminal. Drug use is a vice" as if drug addicts never commit crimes that affect innocent people negatively...or like drug abusers never get behind the wheel and end up killing innocent people. If that ain't the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black...I don't know what is. Anyway, since you're being petty...I'll clarify that...replace drunk with substance abuse (non-alcoholic related)... However, if you go back and review the whole conversation...you'll find where I also mention my distaste on how alcoholism and drug abuse is now considered a "disease" and these people are receiving federal disability or state funded Medicaid, which pays for their care. I have a real problem with that. I'll find your next post and respond accordingly.:)