Ann Arbor
Detroit
Dearborn - well, mostly East Dearbornistan, unfortunately, that too is creeping west.
Dearborn Heightsistan
Eastpointe
Ecorse
Flint
Hamtramckstan
Highland Park
Inkster
Lincoln Park
Pontiac
Redford Township
River Rouge
Romulus
Royal Oak Township
Taylor
Wayne
Ypsilanti

Also protecting myself from the challenges of Novi Dumb-o-cRAT - "cite your references."

I guess that I have to stand corrected, it's your show. Just remember, that respect is earned for it to mean anything.

We owe it to our ideas to win and random name calling doesn't earn you any points in forensics class.

Just saying.

Just saying.

Has it worked to keep `protecting myself from challenges' with those `higher standards than the bad guys', for whatever it's worth, I believe this is why Michigan is a blue state.

Ask yourself, do they act that way? Are they in control?

Batman won't use a gun.  The Joker does.  The good guys don't kill even though the bad guys do.  It's tough to hold yourself to a higher standard but it's ultimately necessary to prevent becoming what you fight.

If we decriminalize consensual, adult drug use where will people buy drugs?

The stores that will now sell them legally, of course. People will not chance walking through an alley to buy drugs from a thug anymore because they no longer have to.

What will the street gangs do with nobody wanting to buy drugs from them? They will wane in influence.

Legal drugs will cost far less since you no longer have to smuggle them or risk arrest. So addicts will be less inclined to rob others for drug money, since they will need far less.

What about the health epidemic if drugs are legal? There is no evidence that there will be one, since anyone who wants drugs today can get them anyway on any day.

Plus the money saved from jailing addicts and fighting street gangs can be put toward treatment programs for addicts to get them healthy again.

Of course all law enforcement people hate the idea of decriminalization, because they would rather have the billions of dollars wasted on the drug war flow through their hands than have it stay in your pocket or be spent on treatment.

Big governments love, Love, LOVE big wars. Especially prohibition and perpetual drug wars. All the sweet money they can take from citizens and all the power they can accrue to fight this endless big war.

Liberty, even the liberty to make mistakes with your personal health, must prevail over the demands the collective has to gain control over the lives of individuals.

Point is, Condino's bills don't legalize herb.  They don't dry up the black market.  The gang violence.  They don't regulate and tax it.

Remember, it is the Democrats who want the government to run your life. Republicans should support the individuals right to run their own life as long as they are not violating someone else's fundamental rights.

Republicans and Democrats agree we need some form of government, and it's really arguable about how much we need.  The exact phrase you use is more libertarian... and that's okay, because I usually like it and prefer to adhere to it.  

Except that use of drugs like cocaine and marijuana affects those.  Alcohol is legal, and we see the problems with public behavior, drunken driving, and the deaths attributed to it.  Most drug behavior is contained and hidden, because it's illegal.

If we decriminalize consensual, adult drug use where will people buy drugs?

The stores that will now sell them legally, of course. People will not chance walking through an alley to buy drugs from a thug anymore because they no longer have to.

Just like I can buy vicodin and oxycontin?  Oh thats right, with prescriptions because of their dangers to my body when abused.  Are you advocating for unrestricted sale of other prescription medications... Morphine, Cocaine, Codeine, etc.?

What will the street gangs do with nobody wanting to buy drugs from them? They will wane in influence.

Gangs have existed before drugs gained popularity.  Street gangs will continue to draw people who have little hope of rising above their situation.  It's like saying you can treat the fever of a flu by standing in the snow.  It addresses a symptom, not the problem.

Legal drugs will cost far less since you no longer have to smuggle them or risk arrest. So addicts will be less inclined to rob others for drug money, since they will need far less.

I think this is partially true.  Prices will just come to a new equilibrium, based on supply (which you theorize will increase) and demand (which may or may not increase).  Who would now supply the "shops" that will sell these drugs?  Drug dealers or the opium farms in Columbia?  Why would they supply more, and drop their profits?  

What about the health epidemic if drugs are legal? There is no evidence that there will be one, since anyone who wants drugs today can get them anyway on any day.

And it's the same health epidemic that draws public dollars to pay hospitals for uninsured overdoses and people to live on welfare.  The addictiveness of stronger narcotics like morphine and cocaine brings about similar problems like alcohol.  And besides, if its available at "just any shop" that now carries it, why would use of drugs stay low?

Plus the money saved from jailing addicts and fighting street gangs can be put toward treatment programs for addicts to get them healthy again.

So no actual savings, just taking public money from one pocket to another pocket.  It doesn't take decriminalization for this to be accomplished.  I have a feeling if criminal drug rehab was a cost savings, we could be doing it already.  But because it's not, it becomes a cost increase to provide the best "betty ford" rehab to every criinal.

Of course all law enforcement people hate the idea of decriminalization, because they would rather have the billions of dollars wasted on the drug war flow through their hands than have it stay in your pocket or be spent on treatment.

Finally, talk about saving me money.  Of course, it has nothing to do with being unable to adjust to the new and possibly unpredictable crimes that would crop up.  People rob stores for liquor today, just imagine when they have morphine next to the cigarettes.

Big governments love, Love, LOVE big wars. Especially prohibition and perpetual drug wars. All the sweet money they can take from citizens and all the power they can accrue to fight this endless big war.

This may or may not be true.  I think it's immaterial for two reasons.  1)  The government is made up of people like you, me, and Jennifer Granholm... we're people, not some ambiguous "big Governments"... so really, you're just restating the "law enforcement people".  2)  It's immaterial, because people can agree whether it's legal or illegal... attributing some larger motive like this is unprovable and draws upon some ambiguous fear of "big governments", not anything substantial or material.

Liberty, even the liberty to make mistakes with your personal health, must prevail over the demands the collective has to gain control over the lives of individuals.

If only it were that simple, right?  My individual right to keep money that I legally earn, versus paying increased costs for health care, car insurance, and taxes that go to welfare, prisons, drug treatments, etc.... So my individual rights to keep my money, against someone else's right to purposely make mistakes.  I think that's an easy one.  

I forget which European country it was but they had a such a drug problem they decided to legalize it in one district of a city.  people were dying at such an alarming rate from drug overdoses that they to had to rethink what they had done.

Legalizing drugs produces more problems than it solves.  Overall crime does not go down and the health problems of the addicts go up, and we the people are then stuck trying to cure these dopers.  If you wish to decriminalize drug use then by all means do it.  But, you have to say when these addicts want help or medical treatment they have to pay, not the taxpayers.  These are self inflicted wounds or addictions and they and their families should pay for any treatment.  

I think we also have to look at what happens to the innocent people who will be killed on the road because of your legalization of drugs.  People will be driving while high as a kite and the death tally will be enormous.  

What good does it do to lock up drug offenders (outside of the dealer)? What threat do they pose to society as a whole unless they are driving while high.

Sentencing reforms would save the prison system 3,300 beds over the next three years -- half of that by raising the felony threshold on property crimes to $5,000 from $1,000.

Now I have a hard time lowering the penalties on property crimes and violent crimes. Theft, assault, etc are serious crimes that need to be punished. I do think that there can be a mass reduction on the "Strict Liability" stuff though.

I'm a cynic. A crime is simply whatever government says is a crime.
[clip]
Too much stuff is illegal nowadays, and that means there is less and less respect for the law in general.

Then certainly, let's look at all of the laws, and evaluate them.  Picking a controversial one like drug decriminalization might be a place to start, but I don't think the government will get anywhere.

What good does it do to lock up drug offenders (outside of the dealer)? What threat do they pose to society as a whole unless they are driving while high.

Actually, you have two major ways of catching these dummies.  While they are driving or while they're buying.  The punishment for low-level drugs (pot, mdma, etc) is a fine and probation.  They end up in prison because they can't pay the fine or the probation fees.  

I think getting heavier drug users off the street is a benefit, too.  Cocaine, crack, heroine, morphine are all pretty heavy stuff.  The more expensive drugs bring on crime to pay for them.

Sentencing reforms would save the prison system 3,300 beds over the next three years -- half of that by raising the felony threshold on property crimes to $5,000 from $1,000.

And that might be fair... how long has the threshold been $1000 for a felony?  Inflation has driven down the point where a crime becomes a felony.  

Now I have a hard time lowering the penalties on property crimes and violent crimes. Theft, assault, etc are serious crimes that need to be punished. I do think that there can be a mass reduction on the "Strict Liability" stuff though.

Wait, I thought you said (above), that crimes are only what the Government says they are?  Is the government telling us that "Theft, assault, etc" are serious crimes?  Going with your drug-user theory, what good does it do to put a thief in jail - as long as the property gets returned?  Just think of all the beds you could save that way!  Car thieves return the cars, and pay to replace the broken glass... no harm, no foul, right?

I think drug posession should be a civil infraction or at least a no jail misdemeanor. They need help, not jail. But on the same note - as the Steppenwolf song goes - "G**Damn the Pusher."

First and second offenses for less dangerous drugs usually are "no jail misdemeanors".  When you continuously get busted, they increase the penalty.  If a person can't afford the fines, they go to jail.  

As for needing help, not jail... considering the recidivism of private-care drug rehab... why should we pay public dollars to help criminals?  Or is this along the lines of "if it helps at least one person, it doesn't matter how much it costs"?  

Also, you can't predict who's going to become an addict.  Some people can drink casually, but never become alcoholics.  But some drugs are known to have quick addiction rates - like heroin - because the area of the brain that it stimulates.

However, some people can be casual drug users (of less potent drugs) without ever being "addicts".  

And when you look at the history of drugs, you see that a lot of these "illegal" drugs were "legal" at some point, but because it was determined that they were "dangerous" they became "illegal".  

It's human nature to be curious about "the forbidden".  

In Europe, you don't see the "binge drinking" because people can start drinking legally at a younger age and they don't have the cultural history of Prohibition - and it isn't unusual for wine to be served at family meals.   When I lived in Russia, you'd see little kids buying alcohol from kisoks.  Not a big deal.  

Honestly, I would love to be able to go to Meijers and buy some liquor-filled chocolates.  Talk about a tasty treat!   But these just aren't sold in the States.  (What a huge disappointment!)

If we really want to solve this problem, then we've got to address the "core issues" as to why these people are buying and selling drugs in the first place.  

Selling drugs is good money.  Buying/Using drugs is a way to escape the reality of some situation that the person doesn't want to face.  Addicts will tell you that they feel good when they are high - and that's the whole point - they want to feel good/better about their lives, instead of feeling like crap all the time.

I don't know what the answer is, but how do you punish someone for the crimes they committed while they were a drug addict while recognizing that there are underlying reasons as to why this person is an addict/seller?