On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:37:52 -0400, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


And there should be provision for appropriate
medical/psychological treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Who should pay for this treatment?

The funds saved as a result of not incarcerating users would more than
pay for it.

I'm OK with the concept of doing what you will with your own body.

That is a very enlightened point of view, unfortunately not shared by
the clergy nor the majority of Americans, IMHO.

Just don't ask me to pay to clean it up.

You don't get a choice. There will always be a segment of the
population that is less productive, or in need of specialized care.
It's unavoidable least we institute executions for cripples and
incompetents. We are bigger than that, aren't we?

If one's actions run afoul of societal norms, society should not have to
pay to fix it.

That is a good argument for not incarcerating users, curtailing DARE
programs, etc. The accomplish nothing but siphoning your tax money
into the hands of privatized prison contractors, and Law Enforcement
Officers; and are proven ineffective.

Yes, incarceration is paid for by society, but the inmate pays in [loss of]
freedom.

Are you intimating that vengeance against drug users is appropriate?

If a drug user (legal or otherwise) wants to clean up, they should do it
on their own dime.

That's reasonable for those who are able. But it is society's
misguided prohibitions that are the root of most of the problems,
because they make the drugs unaffordable.