71–80 of 293 posts
Oh the hypocrisy. Drugs legalization being trendy, you play the libertarian card. Yet, when it comes to guns or privacy, the same arguments don't hold true anymore. Cherry picking at its best. Gotta love the HN crowd.
Drugs kill their users. Guns often kill others as well.
I'm not sure about legalizing it all, but me and the world is pretty sure about decriminalizing it, just watch what happened here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWpXYOg4OQ TL;DR: Highly successful strategy of not marginalizing (both socially and legally) and actually helping addicts: cuts costs, cuts problems, decreases addicts.
The problem with decriminalization without legalization is that it addresses demand but not supply. Black market supply is where a lot of the harm from prohibition materializes.
http://www.wnyc.org/story/legalization-best-way-win-war-drug...
The link seems to be broken for me, ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at how much money CCA spends on lobbying and supporting candidates that are friendly to their business. It is vastly larger per dollar of revenue than Apple (or Walmart). So much so, that it's one of the things people talk about when taking about whether Hillary Clinton (for example) is influenced by the money coming from the prison industrial complex. Nobody is accusing Hillary of being bought by Apple. Though…
Teachers unions spent $20 million on the 2012 election alone, no doubt funding candidates who were friendly to their pensions. I can go down the line and list off several more trade unions and their political spending. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=l1300 Why is there seemingly not a peep about this from those who oppose the private prison complex?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whilst I am very liberal (classical sense) on many issues, including guns, you can't compare drugs with guns. Much more meaningful to compare hand guns with explosives and other weapons, and drugs with alcohol and generally self-harm.
There is essentially no difference between drugs and guns. - Guns can be used for self-harm. - Drugs can be used to harm others. Why aren't people ready to accept that people will die?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gotta love the HN crowd. Please don't. The "crowd" includes you, and such generalizations are mostly bias.
Am I wrong to assume that most people here: - Want to legalize drugs. - Want to ban guns. - Want a right to privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at how much money CCA spends on lobbying and supporting candidates that are friendly to their business. It is vastly larger per dollar of revenue than Apple (or Walmart). So much so, that it's one of the things people talk about when taking about whether Hillary Clinton (for example) is influenced by the money coming from the prison industrial complex. Nobody is accusing Hillary of being bought by Apple. Though…
Teachers unions spent $20 million on the 2012 election alone, no doubt funding candidates who were friendly to their pensions. I can go down the line and list off several more trade unions and their political spending. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=l1300 Why is there seemingly not a peep about this from those who oppose the private prison complex?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gotta love the HN crowd. Please don't. The "crowd" includes you, and such generalizations are mostly bias.
Am I wrong to assume that most people here: - Want to legalize drugs. - Want to ban guns. - Want a right to privacy.
- I don't think ingesting chemicals or compounds should be illegal but there's probably a benefit to some level of restriction on their sale and use
- I don't think guns should be made illegal but there's probably a benefit to some level of restriction on their sale and use
- I think there should be certain guarantees in terms of privacy but there's probably an argument to be made that these rights can be restricted in some cases for some individuals (ie: in the course of prosecuting a crime)
Either way, it's hard to make blanket statements about complex issues so you get appropriately wishy-washy responses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's rhetorically effective, in that shallow thinkers have been trained for years to reflexively revile Nixon. If we argued merely on the merits, they might worry about LEO jobs or housewives hooked on patent medicines (i.e., stupid arguments we've seen before). It's best to short-circuit all that detailed disputation with a simple "Drug War = Nixon = Bad". Very few thinking people without a personal economic…
Ouch, such a gross way of thinking. And people wonder why things are getting so divisive. No matter who you are, there are lots of people who disagree with you on public policy who aren't morons. Treating them like morons encourages them to hate you and not listen to anything you say.
If that doesn't raise one's blood pressure, nothing on this Earth will.
Let the tone policing commence!
[EDIT/PS:] I never said "morons". I used a literally descriptive term. Those wilting violets (uh-oh, more characterization!) who are upset by such a bland description should just try thinking a bit deeper.