A. Jail or incarceration for drug abusers
B. Correction, rehabilitation and treatment facilities
Which do you think is far more effective?
2006-07-18 23:55:19 · 8 answers · asked by Joy RP 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I am not after laws or regulations, but on your opinion on the effectivity of either of the two choices I have given. Yes, we have already "war on drugs" campaign going on for a long time and harsh rules at that. But still, drugs are everywhere, and far more proliferate than ever. What about option b?
2006-07-19 00:07:03 · update #1
In my opinion, B is more effective. Deviants need correction.Also, the cause of such deviance needs to be tackled. Deviants failed to internalize the group norms.They are not normal psychologically.They need treatment.However,depending upon the degree of deviance, seggregation from the society can be considered.Also, detection of these deviants should be prompt, total, and the measures adopted should be uniform.If few of them are only detected and corrected out of many, then it may not be effective.Similarly, if one punishes also with jail term, if few of them are punished here and there , then also the problem will not be solved.
2006-07-19 01:05:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can see why someone would want to say 'B.'
I do not agree. I will have to go with 'A' because the only way someone is going to stop doing drugs is if they want to. For crying out loud, I saw a man do two lines of coke sitting at the bus stop yesterday when I was walking out of work. AT THE BUS STOP! DOWN TOWN! and right across the street from a daycare center. These people don't want help they want drugs and putting them in rehab isn't going to stop that. Unless you can make rehab last more then a generic 30 days. Maybe a year or two in rehab. I still have to go with 'A' if they want treatment they can get it at the jail not some comfy rehab facility.
2006-07-19 10:33:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
21 year terms for drug sellers and producers--no plea bargaining, nothing--just the 21 years. Make it so no one will profit from selling drugs. And 1 year medical rehab for all substance abusers. If they go back on drugs again, then they get 5 years in a jail with rehab. facilities.
This war can be won.
2006-07-19 07:02:53 · answer #3 · answered by Alea S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real problem with illicit drugs is that we have no way to stop the demand, other than kill the demanders. Not very humane. I think we should take the profit motive out of drugs by putting drug abusers into sealed communities and give them, yes give them, all the drugs they want. If they want out, get them into treatment programs right away. These people have to want to stop abusing drugs, and that is the hardest part of it all.
2006-07-19 14:10:04 · answer #4 · answered by correrafan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jail isn't what it was meant to be anymore. Jail does nothing for its inmates except make them worse. Sure, it may keep them off the street for a while but what about when they get let out again?
Rehabillitation shouldn't just be fore drug abusers, but molesters, rapists, and any other person with these types of problems. Jail does nothing but worsen their conditions. Period.
2006-07-19 11:45:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think public executions of drug dealers would really curtail their activities. Jailing and incarcerating users isn't very effective, and for treatment to work, people have to want to change.
Public executions of dealers would really put a crimp in things, don't you think?
2006-07-19 10:19:43 · answer #6 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say B would be more effective. cos it would slowly put he abuser off the drug.
2006-07-19 07:18:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Death to user and seller.
2006-07-19 06:57:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋