Quote:
Originally Posted by drgoodtrips
I think you'd be more in the same vein if you eliminated drug use by declaring that narcotics are no longer drugs. If you presided over such a thing, you could accurately claim to have reduced drug use by 100%.
|
It's a valid point and well made. But.... shooting the addicts would, in the long term, be far more beneficial economically. No addicts, no demand, no requirement for drugs.... Work with me here it's gonna go on a couple of tangents....
No addicts = no drugs.
no drugs = no DEA enforcement so we shave a few $mil off the budget.
Downside, we throw a few DEA officers onto unemployment but.... I'll get back to that...
No drugs = no drug war - we solve daniels obsession with that little war.
And...
No addicts - less demand on the services provided to care for them. The charities that work with them can focus on more worthy (ie not self-inflicted) causes.
No addicts - far less crime - we can can a chunk of police officers.
We could definitely shave another $100m off that budget.
No, all in all, I think eliminating the addicts is the answer.
__________________
We are United States Marines, and for two and a quarter centuries we have defined the standards of courage, esprit, and military prowess.
Gen. James L. Jones, USMC (CMC); 10 November 2000
"On my signal, unleash hell"
