Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Migrant Caravan, Part Deux: This time, it's Timed to the Election

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    I've made my position clear on that issue before. The US can't march in with troops, nor an army of prosecuting attorneys. I'd agree that would be counterproductive. However, we can increase funding for CICIG-style investigation teams, organized within UN agencies (Organization of American States, in this case). From there, we base aid on how many corrupt politicians are convicted, resulting in a lowering of their "corruption index". Similar to countries bragging about how they have lowered their violent crime index.
    So our corrupt politicians are going to "fix" the corruption occurring in the leaders, the politicians of other countries... convict them...

    Sounds to me like a recipe for even more corruption.. or war.

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    Unlike Uncle Sam stumbling in to "help" one politician over another (as it has in the past), it would provide additional resources to back a popular program that would make those countries' governments more effective against crime, thereby increasing employment. Naturally, almost all political parties in Central America give verbal support for these programs. Following thru with the programs will show everyone just which parties really support sending their most corrupt up the river. A very large majority of voters in central america obviously favor CICIG style prosecution.
    It does sound good, it really does. But our own culture & government is our big problem right now, not the governments of other countries. We fund a lot of their troubles down south with our big appetite for their drugs. I do wonder if that may be the real reason many argue so powerfully against a wall, a real border. . of course using other items to argue over LOL "The children, birthright citizenship"... all the other bogus 'arguments' we currently see

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    There is no practical option for the US to "do nothing" about the corruption, because that will force panic-based immigration as a permanent condition. Doing nothing only helps corrupt politicians in CA, their organized criminal contacts, and US politicians who depend on panicked US voters to choose a representative that claims to keep "the invaders" out. We will only benefit from a manageable number of panicked immigrants, when the corruption index is below a given level.
    The corruption index below a certain given level WHERE ?

    Here ?

    There ?

    This will not be solved by corrupt liars here OR there and all real solutions will never occur because of the corruption everywhere. We'll hear a lot of great stories and wonderful things that will "be done" .. that will add up to nothing. The corrupt can't make the corrupt clean.

    ?


    • #47
      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

      So our corrupt politicians are going to "fix" the corruption occurring in the leaders, the politicians of other countries... convict them...

      Sounds to me like a recipe for even more corruption.. or war.



      It does sound good, it really does. But our own culture & government is our big problem right now, not the governments of other countries. We fund a lot of their troubles down south with our big appetite for their drugs. I do wonder if that may be the real reason many argue so powerfully against a wall, a real border. . of course using other items to argue over LOL "The children, birthright citizenship"... all the other bogus 'arguments' we currently see



      The corruption index below a certain given level WHERE ?

      Here ?

      There ?

      This will not be solved by corrupt liars here OR there and all real solutions will never occur because of the corruption everywhere. We'll hear a lot of great stories and wonderful things that will "be done" .. that will add up to nothing. The corrupt can't make the corrupt clean.
      You put your finger on the two weak links in the chain -events that have to happen, before the American Hemisphere starts to see the light after a long, dark night. The first one is corrupt politicians accepting an end to "the fix".
      That's the first question: Why would a sociopath simply give up his source of income, or his natural inclination to abuse things and people around him?

      Then we have the other end of this relationship; a large number of common citizens who find themselves in a bad place. English-speaking countries like Canada and the US call them "weekend warriors". Some Spanish-speaking countries call them "parranderos". "Parranderos" translates -roughly- to a "reveler", or one who parties a lot. The lubricant for parties will more often than not be alcohol or other intoxicating drugs.
      That's the second question: How does society minimize the party damage? -And I'm talking about a lot more than just damaged chandeliers that were used as swings for adults.

      Two very difficult questions. Both of these issues go back centuries, not just decades. Also, some serious differences of opinion on how to manage the problem. You and I might disagree on how to fix them. But we're off to a good start, because you and I recognize it is a global problem (not just the fault of one side -US or Latin America).

      The first question: Start with a subset of politicians who are not too corrupt and more rational than organized crime figures. Yes, they do exist. Public prosecutors, judges, even a few of the elected officials, all of whom see no future in the worst types of corruption, "fixing" society (law, culture) almost solely for one's own benefit. The LA version to repair the damage has already done some work in Guatemala and Honduras. Link: https://www.insightcrime.org/news/an...-when-it-wins/
      ...Reading thru the article, one is unimpressed until we see this as a first effort. The bad guys are going to win the first rounds of the fight, because they've fixed the system for centuries. The good news is, information spreads quickly in this era and bad behavior is more difficult to hide. There are historical examples in both zones of the Americas, of reform efforts that had positive effect. My impression of the MACCIH and CICIG efforts are positive because they provide an excellent career path for prosecutors who like to bring down the worst politicians as well as travel to different countries. History demonstrates prosecutors ("inspector generals") that initially rooted out corruption, but they were always domestic, therefore exposed to threats by their homegrown political leadership. It's the "roving band of prosecutors" part that holds great promise IMO. They operate with nationals (the target country), but threats from national politicians can become just another layer of evidence to convict corrupt politicians, rather than a tool to defend corruption's "turf". I believe there will be no shortage of public prosecutors who would like nothing better than to send the worst public officials up the river, while traveling to nice places around the hemisphere. I also believe that this strategy can be adopted to clean up some of the mess we suffer here in the US. It's a regional strategy, requires a majority of prosecutors that are acculturated (same language/customs, mostly from different countries) and a minority that are not acculturated (unfamiliar legal/investigation strategies, aka the "curve ball"). That answers the first question -on corruption. The sociopath doesn't give up, but he does go to jail.

      The second question is a bull-by-the-horns problem. A lot tougher because it's a big population with some even bigger "issues". I'd like to think you'd agree with a CICIG-style prosecution, even if we have differences in just how to execute that here in the US (and the proportion of lefties/righties going into the slammer). What about the mass of "weekend warriors"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would disagree that the "War on Drugs" was a waste of time and other resources, for the most part. That's what I believe: The war on drugs is/was generally a waste of time. It started a very long time ago (around 1910) in part because much more powerful drugs were being developed -heroin and cocaine- with no history or custom on how to deal with them. -Unlike established customs for dealing with much older, "natural" drugs like opium, marijuana or alcohol. We agree that all intoxicants -when abused- are a corrosive influence on society. The individual suffers damage to their mental and physical health. Society loses the productivity of individuals who are "disconnected" from the rest of us. Instead of the war on drugs, I propose something closer to the strategy used before that: The asylum. Once a person is identified as abusing drugs and causing a public nuisance, they go into the mental health system. Not the prison system. Unlike the mental health system of 1890, we have much more effective treatments available today. For those who do not respond to treatment, "the farm" is their final stop. They work on the farm, earn visits to the city and improved living quarters for good behavior (fe restricted use of drugs, they pay a better portion of their costs for housing). Otherwise, they live a subsistence lifestyle, and get a minimum dose of their drugs only after completing their chores. People who are repeat offenders for "public nuisance" (ranges from sleeping/defacating in public to "bar fights") go to clinic first, then to the farm if they fail to respond. The farm contains only drug abusers, no criminals. Those who are repeat or severe offenders against property (theft, vandalism) or people (violence, grifters) should be the only druggies who do prison time. That should be the extent of the "war on drugs". Compared to what we spend today on incarceration, I think we could save money and get better results using a mental health (sometimes involuntary) system, with a jail system reserved for crimes against others.

      ?


      • #48
        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        You put your finger on the two weak links in the chain -events that have to happen, before the American Hemisphere starts to see the light after a long, dark night. The first one is corrupt politicians accepting an end to "the fix".
        That's the first question: Why would a sociopath simply give up his source of income, or his natural inclination to abuse things and people around him?

        Then we have the other end of this relationship; a large number of common citizens who find themselves in a bad place. English-speaking countries like Canada and the US call them "weekend warriors". Some Spanish-speaking countries call them "parranderos". "Parranderos" translates -roughly- to a "reveler", or one who parties a lot. The lubricant for parties will more often than not be alcohol or other intoxicating drugs.
        That's the second question: How does society minimize the party damage? -And I'm talking about a lot more than just damaged chandeliers that were used as swings for adults.

        Two very difficult questions. Both of these issues go back centuries, not just decades. Also, some serious differences of opinion on how to manage the problem. You and I might disagree on how to fix them. But we're off to a good start, because you and I recognize it is a global problem (not just the fault of one side -US or Latin America).

        [ people like to get high, that will never change ]

        The first question: Start with a subset of politicians who are not too corrupt and more rational than organized crime figures. Yes, they do exist. Public prosecutors, judges, even a few of the elected officials, all of whom see no future in the worst types of corruption, "fixing" society (law, culture) almost solely for one's own benefit. The LA version to repair the damage has already done some work in Guatemala and Honduras. Link: https://www.insightcrime.org/news/an...-when-it-wins/
        ...Reading thru the article, one is unimpressed until we see this as a first effort. The bad guys are going to win the first rounds of the fight, because they've fixed the system for centuries. The good news is, information spreads quickly in this era and bad behavior is more difficult to hide. There are historical examples in both zones of the Americas, of reform efforts that had positive effect. My impression of the MACCIH and CICIG efforts are positive because they provide an excellent career path for prosecutors who like to bring down the worst politicians as well as travel to different countries. History demonstrates prosecutors ("inspector generals") that initially rooted out corruption, but they were always domestic, therefore exposed to threats by their homegrown political leadership. It's the "roving band of prosecutors" part that holds great promise IMO. They operate with nationals (the target country), but threats from national politicians can become just another layer of evidence to convict corrupt politicians, rather than a tool to defend corruption's "turf". I believe there will be no shortage of public prosecutors who would like nothing better than to send the worst public officials up the river, while traveling to nice places around the hemisphere. I also believe that this strategy can be adopted to clean up some of the mess we suffer here in the US. It's a regional strategy, requires a majority of prosecutors that are acculturated (same language/customs, mostly from different countries) and a minority that are not acculturated (unfamiliar legal/investigation strategies, aka the "curve ball"). That answers the first question -on corruption. The sociopath doesn't give up, but he does go to jail.

        The second question is a bull-by-the-horns problem. A lot tougher because it's a big population with some even bigger "issues". I'd like to think you'd agree with a CICIG-style prosecution, even if we have differences in just how to execute that here in the US (and the proportion of lefties/righties going into the slammer). What about the mass of "weekend warriors"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would disagree that the "War on Drugs" was a waste of time and other resources, for the most part. That's what I believe: The war on drugs is/was generally a waste of time. It started a very long time ago (around 1910) in part because much more powerful drugs were being developed -heroin and cocaine- with no history or custom on how to deal with them. -Unlike established customs for dealing with much older, "natural" drugs like opium, marijuana or alcohol. We agree that all intoxicants -when abused- are a corrosive influence on society. The individual suffers damage to their mental and physical health. Society loses the productivity of individuals who are "disconnected" from the rest of us. Instead of the war on drugs, I propose something closer to the strategy used before that: The asylum. Once a person is identified as abusing drugs and causing a public nuisance, they go into the mental health system. Not the prison system. Unlike the mental health system of 1890, we have much more effective treatments available today. For those who do not respond to treatment, "the farm" is their final stop. They work on the farm, earn visits to the city and improved living quarters for good behavior (fe restricted use of drugs, they pay a better portion of their costs for housing). Otherwise, they live a subsistence lifestyle, and get a minimum dose of their drugs only after completing their chores. People who are repeat offenders for "public nuisance" (ranges from sleeping/defacating in public to "bar fights") go to clinic first, then to the farm if they fail to respond. The farm contains only drug abusers, no criminals. Those who are repeat or severe offenders against property (theft, vandalism) or people (violence, grifters) should be the only druggies who do prison time. That should be the extent of the "war on drugs". Compared to what we spend today on incarceration, I think we could save money and get better results using a mental health (sometimes involuntary) system, with a jail system reserved for crimes against others.
        I highlighted what I think are the best points.

        Yes, the war on drugs was a waste. People like to get high (in many different ways) and that isn't going to change. Even alcohol, which interestingly will kill in so many different ways, yet is legal ??

        Good ideas I think in general. Can they work ? Will they ever be tried ? We can have hope I guess. Probably ONLY if there's some way for someone to make a lot of money off of it... which is why we have so many problems in the first place probably...we always seem to have unholy motives LOL

        ?


        • #49
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          I highlighted what I think are the best points.

          Yes, the war on drugs was a waste. People like to get high (in many different ways) and that isn't going to change. Even alcohol, which interestingly will kill in so many different ways, yet is legal ??

          Good ideas I think in general. Can they work ? Will they ever be tried ? We can have hope I guess. Probably ONLY if there's some way for someone to make a lot of money off of it... which is why we have so many problems in the first place probably...we always seem to have unholy motives LOL
          Yes, good point about the money angle. Take a certified public accounting agency, hovering over the inventory of corrupt politicians and organized crime figures on trial. If (and only if) convicted, the inventory is divided up. Perhaps 10% for the law enforcement (from patrol cops to prosecutors) as a one-time bonus, another 10% for the victims, with the rest going into the public treasury. The figures could change, depending on need, impact on victims, police corruption concerns, etc, etc. For security, the CPR's need a tight lid on their identities, and the inventory/money itself is yet another sting operation to keep thievery to a manageable level. I'm still a big fan of a crime fighters show to boost public morale and put a bit more into anti-corruption efforts. "Up the River", versions in both Spanish and English (Portuguese, almost forgot Brazil). The corrupt will always play cat 'n mouse with society, but that part can be managed IMO.

          Managing the great number of people "checking out" is grizzly bear in this picture. Like you note, people getting high will be with us just as long as corruption and other criminal behavior. It's a difficult balance for intoxication, though. We can't ignore it altogether, but we can't be kicking down everyone's door to see who is abusing their paint supply, either.

          ?


          • #50
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            Yes, good point about the money angle. Take a certified public accounting agency, hovering over the inventory of corrupt politicians and organized crime figures on trial. If (and only if) convicted, the inventory is divided up. Perhaps 10% for the law enforcement (from patrol cops to prosecutors) as a one-time bonus, another 10% for the victims, with the rest going into the public treasury. The figures could change, depending on need, impact on victims, police corruption concerns, etc, etc. For security, the CPR's need a tight lid on their identities, and the inventory/money itself is yet another sting operation to keep thievery to a manageable level. I'm still a big fan of a crime fighters show to boost public morale and put a bit more into anti-corruption efforts. "Up the River", versions in both Spanish and English (Portuguese, almost forgot Brazil). The corrupt will always play cat 'n mouse with society, but that part can be managed IMO.

            Managing the great number of people "checking out" is grizzly bear in this picture. Like you note, people getting high will be with us just as long as corruption and other criminal behavior. It's a difficult balance for intoxication, though. We can't ignore it altogether, but we can't be kicking down everyone's door to see who is abusing their paint supply, either.
            Yeah LOL Who is huffing paint thinner/toluene ... people do the craziest stuff.

            I don't know. Sometimes I think we should legalize all drugs - people destroy themselves with them whether they're legal or not. But to condone it like that ( legalizing )... should it be done ?

            Don't know. As much as govt loves money, you'd think they would, they're making a killing off legal pot now ! Can you imagine how much they'd make off all the other plants & fungi that contain "happy" substances ?

            ?


            • #51
              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

              Yeah LOL Who is huffing paint thinner/toluene ... people do the craziest stuff.

              I don't know. Sometimes I think we should legalize all drugs - people destroy themselves with them whether they're legal or not. But to condone it like that ( legalizing )... should it be done ?

              Don't know. As much as govt loves money, you'd think they would, they're making a killing off legal pot now ! Can you imagine how much they'd make off all the other plants & fungi that contain "happy" substances ?
              People have suggested complete legalization, but without an involuntary treatment step, that would allow public users to continuously pose a danger to others as well as themselves. It sounds like incarceration for "poor judgement", but once it rises to the level of reckless endangerment it can and should proceed to longer term treatment in a mental health facility.

              That means arguments against the left and right (or libertarian) need some refinement. To the left's argument about "human dignity" and "compassion", I'd answer that the one who is publicly intoxicated -putting others' safety in danger- also lacks compassion for others around him. The public drunk shows little to no human dignity, but values his addiction to alcohol. To the libertarian who claims the public drunk has harmed no one, no "force, fraud or coercion". That is true up to the moment the drunk imposes a trauma on others due to his condition, or costs the responsible taxpayer money (starting with police or paramedics removing the drunk from harm, fe extreme cold or heat). From the second incident on the drug addict has proven he may suffer from relapse; he places himself on the radar -longer periods in treatment, and the quality of that treatment goes to a "caretaker" level if the addiction cannot be controlled despite repeated attempts.

              As for people selling the stuff, strict financial regulation of a tax as well as repayment according to damages might be the answer. Everyone pays a tax on glue for treatment of "huffers", but the manufacturer is otherwise unaffected because it provides a product with clear value -when used as directed. On the other end of the spectrum, there are extreme examples. Someone who manufactures and sells crystal meth has no "clear value" defense, but has caused only harm. That damage can be estimated, the dealer can pay that debt back by X-dollars via Y years in prison, or reduce his sentence by turning state's evidence against others trafficking in that substance. That, in addition to the surrender of his valuables after conviction. The trick with segregating tax to pay for specific "intoxication treatment" programs, is keeping politician's hands off of that particular tax. -If it's used for another project, it defeats the purpose of a 'substance abuse" tax.

              ?


              • #52
                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                People have suggested complete legalization, but without an involuntary treatment step, that would allow public users to continuously pose a danger to others as well as themselves. It sounds like incarceration for "poor judgement", but once it rises to the level of reckless endangerment it can and should proceed to longer term treatment in a mental health facility.

                That means arguments against the left and right (or libertarian) need some refinement. To the left's argument about "human dignity" and "compassion", I'd answer that the one who is publicly intoxicated -putting others' safety in danger- also lacks compassion for others around him. The public drunk shows little to no human dignity, but values his addiction to alcohol. To the libertarian who claims the public drunk has harmed no one, no "force, fraud or coercion". That is true up to the moment the drunk imposes a trauma on others due to his condition, or costs the responsible taxpayer money (starting with police or paramedics removing the drunk from harm, fe extreme cold or heat). From the second incident on the drug addict has proven he may suffer from relapse; he places himself on the radar -longer periods in treatment, and the quality of that treatment goes to a "caretaker" level if the addiction cannot be controlled despite repeated attempts.

                As for people selling the stuff, strict financial regulation of a tax as well as repayment according to damages might be the answer. Everyone pays a tax on glue for treatment of "huffers", but the manufacturer is otherwise unaffected because it provides a product with clear value -when used as directed. On the other end of the spectrum, there are extreme examples. Someone who manufactures and sells crystal meth has no "clear value" defense, but has caused only harm. That damage can be estimated, the dealer can pay that debt back by X-dollars via Y years in prison, or reduce his sentence by turning state's evidence against others trafficking in that substance. That, in addition to the surrender of his valuables after conviction. The trick with segregating tax to pay for specific "intoxication treatment" programs, is keeping politician's hands off of that particular tax. -If it's used for another project, it defeats the purpose of a 'substance abuse" tax.
                Good points.

                The problems, social, health, mental etc caused by peoples use of substances - and COSTS - aren't small and irrelevant. They're very high.

                Even with things illegal, it's very costly to us all.

                Would legalizing bring those costs down or make them go up ?

                And who gets to manage the systems in place to deal with those troubles etc etc etc.

                Maybe it's only a recipe for worse problems/bigger costs ?

                People get addicted to/abuse things from sugar to sex, alcohol to heroin - it's a problem for all of us, even those who aren't personally addicted to something, because what others do often affects US - car accidents, family member dies of substance use/abuse etc.

                What to do with it all ??? Another thorny problem we humans have LOL

                ?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  Good points.

                  The problems, social, health, mental etc caused by peoples use of substances - and COSTS - aren't small and irrelevant. They're very high.

                  Even with things illegal, it's very costly to us all.

                  Would legalizing bring those costs down or make them go up ?

                  And who gets to manage the systems in place to deal with those troubles etc etc etc.

                  Maybe it's only a recipe for worse problems/bigger costs ?

                  People get addicted to/abuse things from sugar to sex, alcohol to heroin - it's a problem for all of us, even those who aren't personally addicted to something, because what others do often affects US - car accidents, family member dies of substance use/abuse etc.

                  What to do with it all ??? Another thorny problem we humans have LOL
                  Yes, this one is near the top of the "thorny problems" list. We do have comparisons between hands-off policy (fe, around year 1850) and the "War on Drugs" at the other extreme. It would be worth giving the "public health" strategy a try. To keep costs down, maybe do a pilot study in a 4-5 state region. Only scale it up nationally if the study proves ....
                  -Relapse for addiction/abuse goes down.
                  -Overall abuse declines (measure as "public nuisance" type incidents, stats from police, paramedic/fire fighters).
                  -Other indicators improve significantly (fe, prison recidivism, work productivity, rates of family dysfunction etc.) to the extent they were related to drug abuse.
                  The public announcement angle should also be tried -honest testimonials from friends and drug abusers themselves, on why things went wrong (or how they healed).

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    Yes, this one is near the top of the "thorny problems" list. We do have comparisons between hands-off policy (fe, around year 1850) and the "War on Drugs" at the other extreme. It would be worth giving the "public health" strategy a try. To keep costs down, maybe do a pilot study in a 4-5 state region. Only scale it up nationally if the study proves ....
                    -Relapse for addiction/abuse goes down.
                    -Overall abuse declines (measure as "public nuisance" type incidents, stats from police, paramedic/fire fighters).
                    -Other indicators improve significantly (fe, prison recidivism, work productivity, rates of family dysfunction etc.) to the extent they were related to drug abuse.
                    The public announcement angle should also be tried -honest testimonials from friends and drug abusers themselves, on why things went wrong (or how they healed).
                    It is.

                    It will never go away either.

                    Self destructive tendencies are a part of us in so many different ways.

                    Can we fix ourselves ?

                    Probably not, but I guess we have to try.

                    Many of us believe that's why God gave us an instruction manual for good living called the Bible.

                    Sadly this incites massive hatred and outlandish negative reactions in many of us today.

                    Proving the dire need for the word of God to help us out of, or through our broken state.

                    ?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      It is.

                      It will never go away either.

                      Self destructive tendencies are a part of us in so many different ways.

                      Can we fix ourselves ?

                      Probably not, but I guess we have to try.

                      Many of us believe that's why God gave us an instruction manual for good living called the Bible.

                      Sadly this incites massive hatred and outlandish negative reactions in many of us today.

                      Proving the dire need for the word of God to help us out of, or through our broken state.
                      The founder of Alcoholics Anonymous was religious, and he accepted the less than religious. Link:
                      Its often noted that the early language of AA represents the era in which it was created. But it also reflects the beliefs of AA co-founder Bill Wilson, who underwent a dramatic spiritual experience in the depths of his addiction that led him to believe a reliance on a higher power was essential to recovery. He hoped others would come to the same conclusion but wanted to leave the door wide open to all, regardless of belief or lack of belief. In a 1946 essay in the Grapevine, the journal of AA, he wrote: So long as there is the slightest interest in sobriety, the most unmoral, the most anti-social, the most critical alcoholic may gather about him a few kindred spirits and announce to us that a new Alcoholics Anonymous Group has been formed. Anti-God, anti-medicine, anti-our Recovery Program, even anti-each other these rampant individuals are still an A.A. Group if they think so! (Italics in the original.)
                      https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ithout-the-god

                      One size may not fit all. However, two or three sizes might. It is impractical for those in recovery programs -whether patients or treatment professionals- to discount agnosticism or religious beliefs. At a crossroads on this and so many other issues, it is time for both sides of the religious/agnostic argument to devote more healing to human frailty, rather than trying to prove who is right.

                      ?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        The founder of Alcoholics Anonymous was religious, and he accepted the less than religious. Link:

                        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ithout-the-god

                        One size may not fit all. However, two or three sizes might. It is impractical for those in recovery programs -whether patients or treatment professionals- to discount agnosticism or religious beliefs. At a crossroads on this and so many other issues, it is time for both sides of the religious/agnostic argument to devote more healing to human frailty, rather than trying to prove who is right.
                        I can't disagree.

                        your point is noted.

                        Which supports what we both stated about humanities many thorny problems.

                        We're our own worst enemy in almost every case of misery we find ourselves in, or creating.

                        We can only try to solve them - often times making things worse instead of better - but giving up... is that an option ?

                        It IS, but not one I think we'd ever willingly choose.

                        ?

                        Working...
                        X