Doug,
First have you considered giving the family member a VCR and a map to the nearest BlockBuster < grin >

Second, it will be interesting (as in the Chinese curse I'm afraid) to see what California does with its latest move in the decriminalization area. Starting July 1, 2001 anyone arrested for drug use and possession (and NO other crime) will be sent to a treatment center instead of jail at least for the first 2 offenses. After watching addicted/alcholic friends and relatives refuse treatment despite high education levels and the pleading of family members I don't know if this will do any good at all for the majority of users. Let's look back in a year after the program has run for 6 months.

This law was passed with a VERY close vote. Lots of people in the drug treatment business said it wouldn't work because it was required not voluntary and users would return to the drugs immediately. Others said anything was better than prison for crimes without violence. My gut feeling is with the former group - if people won't stay off drugs to keep their unborn baby healthy they sure won't do it for a year when they could take a 2 month jail sentence instead.


>Evan,
>
>Understood. Look, my 'take' on drugs are that they are bad with little or no redeeming intrinsic value - apart from any possible medicinal issues of course. I think that they are an escape just like alcohol or going to the movies every night (I know someone who goes almost every night - a family member - and I think it's just as much an escape as drugs). Some folks would look at me and say that they think my faith is equally an escape from reality. <g> I'd disagree of course but I can see where it could be for some folks.
>
>I guess I just want to live my life and not escape from it and I think drugs are an escape.
>
>As far as the legal stuff goes I do have mixed feelings. I'm tending towards going easier on the casual user and reducing the 'three strikes' stuff and throwing the book at dealers, including and up to public executions like a good old hanging. Might sound harsh but those who peddle are a lot more 'evil' IMO than the weak individual who cannot resist. Singapore has little or no crime but don't spit on the sidewalk. <g> I think they go a little too far but you must admit it works. There has to be a reasonable tradeoff somewhere I'd think.
>
>The problem with going easier on the casual user is that they still will provide an incentive for the pusher and as long as there's a market people will take the risks. You might be surprised to find that William F. Buskley, no liberl there, is in favor of legalizing drugs like marijuana. I believe he wants to tax them like cigarettes. If you could assure the removal of the criminal element that might not be a bad avenue (though I still believe drugs are intrinsically harmful)to go. At some point we idealists need to also recognize the nature of human nature and I think that's what Mr. Buckley is trying to do.
>
>I see no reason why someone couldn't get some rehabilitative help but the pusher should be punished IMO.
>
>Just my anachronistic opinion... <g>