361–370 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using that logic, food is a criminal problem.
So you are saying we should treat drug addicts like we treat hunger - by having "drug kitchens" where addicts can come to get a free fix and by building up huge industries to mass produce drugs so they are much more accessible and affordable to addicts? That seems insane.
Yes, they exist. Yes, some communities are using them to combat opiate addiction.
Drugs were not made illegal because they're bad for your health and they don't remain illegal because they're bad for your health. Poisons are generally not illegal. Drugs are illegal because they make people feel good or make them happy which offends the Protestant Work Ethic. The Protestant Work Ethic says that the only legitimate route to happiness is through physically difficult labor which causes you to suffer.…
The reason drugs are illegal is because they are addictive. Many of them so addictive, in fact, that they can easily suck you in and destroy your life even if you resolve to only try them "just once". Some drugs like tobacco and alcohol are less addictive than most and are therefore still legal, others like whereas others like heroin are more addictive and are therefore banned.
Nobody denies that heroin is extremely addictive. Total harm and "potential for abuse" caused by alcohol and tobacco would likely land it somewhere on schedule 2 or 3 if they weren't economically useful for their profits, despite their "potential for abuse".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Agreed. >...Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists This point is a little controversial, in, as far as I know, we have to take Ehrlichman's word on this. https://www.quora.com/Is-John-Ehrlichman-a-credible-source-…
The Ehrlichman quote is controversial for more than the reason you cite. Baum claims Ehrlichman said that in 1994 while he was researching for a book he published in 1996 about the drug war. He didn't include the quote in that book, but instead published it in 2012 and again in 2016, after Ehrlichman had died (in 1999). I hate the drug war and I think it's stupid, but I don't think people should use that quote for ev…
It's not nearly the same thing. We know that there are plenty of self-serving scientists that would absolutely love the notoriety of debunking global warming if it was actually false. To believe that scientists made it all up is utterly insane if you actually have worked with real scientists. The number of physicists I've worked with that daydreamed out loud at lunch about having a law or parameter named after them is astounding. If they wanted money they could easily go into a quant job and make double or triple what they've been making and no longer have to drive their shitty 20 year old cars.
The issue you're proposing as a liberal conspiracy is purely an issue of he said, she said nonsense. We have the input and the output. Republicans yet again made life worse for the lower classes. Big surprise. Why doesn't matter and it's naive as an adult to even care about intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possession and use should remain legal in all cases. This is pretty basic privacy and body autonomy rights. Distribution can be regulated.
> This is pretty basic privacy and body autonomy rights. There are more than one party involved here. You think plain heroin is toxic, wait until you see the engineered drugs that are created by big pharma in comparison. Do you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it... Say I'm not even a scientist, I don't know the dangers of what I'm doing, should I be a…
There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms.
> you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it...
Purchase - depends on the drug. Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment, and I can see some cases where it might be warranted.
But if you somehow obtained some drug, and decided to tweak it and consume it? Sure, you should be able to. Most certainly, if you do it and survive, we shouldn't lock you up because you might have hurt yourself - that's evidently pointless.
The way to "win" the drug war, is the way you win in capitalism. COMPETITION!!! No one would go to illegal drug gangs if they could go to 7-11(or similar).
Out of curiosity, what goods and services will people in that line of business switch to? Will they exploit inefficiencies in other drugs markets that the state hasn't caught on to yet? And just accept the diminishing returns before switching to the next drugs? Will they try other lines of business, like computer hacking syndicates? Or they all magically disappear, or be cut off from appearing because there is simply…
My guess is, most will be unemployed. They aren't criminal geniuses. They've found a cheap way to make money and get high at the same time, most of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on your goal. If it's to reduce mortality, yes, decriminalize is good. But it will increase usage.
When the United States criminalized alcohol, usage went up.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibiti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is pretty basic privacy and body autonomy rights. There are more than one party involved here. You think plain heroin is toxic, wait until you see the engineered drugs that are created by big pharma in comparison. Do you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it... Say I'm not even a scientist, I don't know the dangers of what I'm doing, should I be a…
> There are more than one party involved here. There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms. > you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it... Purchase - depends on the drug. Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment, and I can see some cases where it might be warranted. But if you so…
I don't think that the public should be able to get a device which they can, using rudimentary skills, turn into a proverbial nuclear weapon.
I.e. buy cheap drug, make it better, die.
> There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms.
I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. They are a party. My point is that there are parties who engineer for profit without limits.
Though I agree with you on possession/use and prison sentences. It doesn't solve a problem worth solving.
> Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment
Hurrah, I believe we agree good sir.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are more than one party involved here. There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms. > you think I should be able to purchase any drug, re-engineer it myself and consume it? I'm not selling it... Purchase - depends on the drug. Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment, and I can see some cases where it might be warranted. But if you so…
We agree mostly. I don't think that the public should be able to get a device which they can, using rudimentary skills, turn into a proverbial nuclear weapon. I.e. buy cheap drug, make it better, die. > There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms. I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. They are a party. My poi…
You can, e.g. by taking possession inadvertently. But setting that aside, I suppose I could clarify it to possession/use/procurement - but excluding distribution. So, buying something like that shouldn't be illegal, but selling it might be (and the buyer could be subpoenaed to testify etc).
In any case, the distinction is clearly important from legal perspective - it's why our drug laws (and gun laws etc) all talk about possession and transfer separately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why does it have to about who we 'blame'? Why not go back to the CIA and how they wanted to undermine the social & political revolutions of the 60s & 70s? why not go back to 'reefer madness' and the how it was based almost solely in fear and racism, or how William Randolph Hearst's paper & publishing 'empire' was threatened by hemp? does any of that matter? Not really. We have a problem now that we need to fix. We do…
> why does it have to about who we 'blame'? Because if politicians are not held accountable for their actions, it removes the incentive to be genuine and honest on their part.
The only movement that I have seen is at the State level, where the people are literally telling the "authorities" to GTFO and legalizing (or decriminalizing) at the state level. If anything the politicians are reaping the rewards by playing both sides of the issue. Blaming them doesn't work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why does it have to about who we 'blame'? Why not go back to the CIA and how they wanted to undermine the social & political revolutions of the 60s & 70s? why not go back to 'reefer madness' and the how it was based almost solely in fear and racism, or how William Randolph Hearst's paper & publishing 'empire' was threatened by hemp? does any of that matter? Not really. We have a problem now that we need to fix. We do…
Some measure of blame and exposing the dark motives is useful if only to counteract lots of Drug War propaganda.