Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

Post by tatersolid » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 12:49 PM UTC

stupidcar wrote: post #270

yAnonymous wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there's a bunch of people that say it's going to cause the corruption of society Well, just look at the US. Political correctness is getting totally out of hand and the same is happening more and more in European countries. Changing traditions causes a lot of entitlement in people who also feel that they should get a special treatment and it seems that there's no end to it. In a democratic society, entitlement from…

It's hilarious to me that conservatives will talk about political correctness getting "out of hand", while downplaying or ignoring pathologies that result from their own beliefs that have caused, and continue to cause, extraordinary amounts of death, torture, poverty and suffering. Come back when lynch mobs have literally hanged thousands of people for being politically incorrect. Or when millions of people are being…

Post by major505 » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 12:51 PM UTC

afsina wrote: post #300

major505 wrote: post #285

Each country needs to have its own thing. In Brazil for example, a measure like this wold not have any impact because we do not have control over our borders. Take smoking for example. Even if tabacco its alowed, its really expensive to buy legalized cigarrets. So peoplo just smoke cheap ones, that enter from Paraguai border, with no quality control, and brougth in Brazil by organized crime, or even produced in cland…

Governments heavily tax tobacco with the hope of lowering the associated health costs (and tax money is always juicy). But almost all the time it backfires and these happen: -People just keep smoking -It creates an economical burden in house holds with smokers because of the prices and difficulty of quitting -Smuggling or bad quality tobacco consumption increases. So, like most things government does, intervention wi…

Post by ambicapter » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 12:52 PM UTC

owebmaster wrote: post #283

Nursie wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They absolutely need to have it called marriage Yes, because that's equality. We've tried "separate but equal" before, haven't we? It doesn't work out, and it's used as an excuse for continuing discrimination. This is not entitlement, it's equal treatment.

Gay marriage is like plant-based/fake burgers. Some people will say it is burger, some will say it is not. I'm more inclined to say that it is a "fake marriage", but I have nothing to do with the relationship of any two-person out there.

Post by mratzloff » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 12:54 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #254

rusk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there may be something to this. Though perhaps a better term than "rebuttal" is "backlash". The conservative backlash has long been mooted by social commentators. It's likely a large cohort of Trumps voters were those who were incensed by "central government interfering in local affairs", in particular the case of Kim Davis springs to mind. Never mind that Trump doesn't exactly embody conservatism, I'd imagin…

>I'd imagine a large amount of conservative voters, alarmed by social progress would have voted him out of spite. Most conservatives are driven almost entirely by spite: http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17971903-to-figh... >When the more expensive CFLs were sold without environmental messaging — but touted the fact that CFLs last 9,000 hours longer than the less expensive incandescent bulbs and reduce ener…

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 12:59 PM UTC

andrenth wrote: post #263

daemin wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it does, Australia. That's the prime example of fewer guns = fewer deaths.

Australia also had reduced number of gun-unrelated deaths. In fact the percent reduction in those cases was larger than the reduction of gun deaths. So the stricter gun laws can't be considered the sole explanation for fewer deaths.