PP…you have the burden to show the existing order of things should be changed. Your failure to show specifics, even though I asked you the questions, shows an amatuer-like reasoning.
YOU dont seem to understand what a drug court does. If the person doesn’t stay off drugs, or fails a P test, and refuses to go to a rehab or other treatment…THEY GO TO JAIL.You want to keep drug courts…great…there is hope for you yet. Drug courts exist to force someone to go to treatment and get the record expunged instead of go to jail. Thats the only way to get people to treatment because addicts (physically or psychologically) dont want to give up drugs. Whats funny is to read your posts.
You think alcohol is “regulated” now? Ask any teen…he can get booz anytime. No sense to legalize pot…that would make it more available, and then see the system fail like it has for booz?/ No way. Dont make the same mistake. Too late to do anything about booz because of the availability and curtural acceptance—not so for pot. No one in their right mind would want to make the same mistake with pot…pot and booz are different. Booz is ingrained into society,part of the fabric of culture with legalization, advertising…Show me a person who takes pot for something other than getting high (often times meaning mellow)(not talking about medical.) I can drink a few beers without a buzz, because I like it.
So…cite me to something other than yourself.
i take back everything i said. there is no need to legalize drugs. you can thrust your brain into reality bending goobledy goo land just by reading the catholic answers forum. here we have a former prosecutor who presumably passed the bar exam stating that alcohol is not regulated. his evidence: because teens can obtain it. In that case, you might want to alert the ATF for a name change.
Also, what was the “specific” question you asked me? Here’s what you actually said:
YOU show me a study that show the results you raise
what are the “results” that I allegedly raised? I believe i asked you to clarify a claim you made.
Here’s another example. In your post you just made another claim. Your claim:
“*Drug courts exist to force someone to go to treatment and get the record expunged instead of go to jail. Thats the only way to get people to treatment because addicts (physically or psychologically) dont want to give up drugs. *”
For that claim to be true, logically, no one could ever have given up drugs or alcohol without having been forced by the legal system. Can you show me some evidence that no one has ever gotten treatment without going to drug court?
not that you’ll believe me, but i do know how drug courts work. i think they are a step in the right direction, but still a poor substitute for further decriminalization.
As to who has the “burden of proof.” If you notice, I mentioned that i believe you do, but I also acknowledged that this is my “opinion.” That’s exactly what your belief is as well. There is no absolute law of argumentation regulating this. Furthermore, I’m not sure why you are repeating this in multiple posts. Clearly, by posting on here people are attempting to present the arguments in favor of legalization, thereby shouldering this “burden.”
Also, I’m sure you were earnest in your work as a prosecutor in trying to protect your constituents from the effects of crime. I believe that is noble work, and I’m sure your current beliefs are supported by many of the circumstances you witnessed first hand.
That said, when I argue for decriminalization I am doing so because I think it will reduce the harmful effects of drug commerce, eliminate unnecessarily punitive consequences of being caught possessing drugs, and allow for greater focus on putting away violent offenders.
