For J2, I know you wanted to talk rush

[Fromagepas]

Then again these where not illegal drugs to be in possesion of with a prescription, which he had.

Fair point.

[vidcc]

Yeah Rush just committed fraud and got off with an agreement and fine.

He has been accused of it, not convicted (although it seems by this "deal" that he did it) But he didn't hold up a bank or feed the "underground" to feed his addiction. He went to different doctors. His payment for the public money spent investigating (seems low to me) and the condition of getting treatment IMO is more likely to get anyone off an addiction than locking them up in prison where they will come into contact with a whole range of negative influences.
It could be argued that court ordered treatment is punishment. The point I am trying to make is about locking people up is the wrong way to go, because addiction is a "sickness" not a "crime"

However, are you saying that for example if Frumpagus is an addict and gets caught with an eight-ball (cocaine) that she should simply get help but if I, a non-addict, get caught with a dime bag (marryjewwanna), I should get jail time?

Lets assume these are third offenses.

I said simple possesion for personal use shouldn't be a crime, for an addict or not.
Your question goes to should drugs as a whole be legal or not, which is a huge debate. Making drugs illegal isn't going to stop them beng used, in fact the argument that soft drugs lead to hard is probably only true because the soft drug user has to get his stuff from the hard drug dealer. IMO If we just legalised weed and sold it at the pharmacy, that contact would be removed. But then I see no difference between soft drugs and alcohol.... I use nor do I wish to use either but it seems a double standard to me to ban one while drinking the other.

[Busyman™]

He has been accused of it, not convicted (although it seems by this "deal" that he did it) But he didn't hold up a bank or feed the "underground" to feed his addiction. He went to different doctors. His payment for the public money spent investigating (seems low to me) and the condition of getting treatment IMO is more likely to get anyone off an addiction than locking them up in prison where they will come into contact with a whole range of negative influences.
It could be argued that court ordered treatment is punishment. The point I am trying to make is about locking people up is the wrong way to go, because addiction is a "sickness" not a "crime"

Mmk, fraud is illegal. Possession of illegal drugs is illegal. I said nothing of addiction being illegal. Yes I know he was charged with fraud and "settled". Yes I know the drugs he had were not illegal. Mmk?

However, are you saying that for example if Frumpagus is an addict and gets caught with an eight-ball (cocaine) that she should simply get help but if I, a non-addict, get caught with a dime bag (marryjewwanna), I should get jail time?

Lets assume these are third offenses.

I said simple possesion for personal use shouldn't be a crime, for an addict or not.
Your question goes to should drugs as a whole be legal or not, which is a huge debate. Making drugs illegal isn't going to stop them beng used, in fact the argument that soft drugs lead to hard is probably only true because the soft drug user has to get his stuff from the hard drug dealer. IMO If we just legalised weed and sold it at the pharmacy, that contact would be removed. But then I see no difference between soft drugs and alcohol.... I use nor do I wish to use either but it seems a double standard to me to ban one while drinking the other.

That makes some sense. Drunk drivers kill tons of people every year. I don't want certain drugs legalized, however. Some o dat shit makes people too nutty. I have seen this first hand.

The more something is accepted, the more people will partake in it.