131–140 of 252 posts
A lot of comments about why decriminalization of drug use is a no brainer. I'd like to point out that it's not that simple. From what I understand from different "experiments" like Portugal, it's a lot depending on context (eg culture) and how it's done. For example, easier access (lower taxes) on alcohol caused a rise in alcoholics and alcohol related deaths in Finland). Not everyone living in Colorado is happy abou…
It's as though I think the United States Constitution is a great thing — as in fact I do — and say, "The radical US Constitution has worked. Why hasn't the world copied it?" You can't lift one feature of a culture out, apply it in isolation, and expect it to function as it did in context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you trolling? It would seem obvious that such things are distributed exactly the same no matter what ones social status or ethnic background is. It would be very surprising if it wasn't.
It’s an interesting question. For example, gender-at-birth should be evenly distributed, but in wealthy families kids skew towards male much more frequently than expected. As another factor, some social structures and norms will make it more difficult for LGBTQ people to come out - even with identical odds, there will be less visibility and personal experience within those groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately those in power are not nearly as badly affected by the drug epidemic as the poorer people. Even if they develop a habit or some complication related to it they will have access to the best care and treatment options. So there is very little cost to being 'tough on drugs' until the effects are also felt at all layers of society. Portugal, a country that is a lot more relaxed about many things than the US…
Some of those in power benefit from keeping drugs criminalised. See for example the way that possession of crack cocaine - used on the street - carries much heavier sentences than powder cocaine, used by the middle classes. And the way large parts of the US jail system are run as a for-profit work camp. This results in miscarriages of justice, unjustifiably long sentences for trivial possession, and outright corrupti…
Only 26 years before decriminalizing drugs, Portugal was a right-wing dictatorship with concentration camps and which was waging war on Africa to keep its slave colonies. The '74 revolution brought on two years of heavy left-wing power, during which many feared (and others hoped) it could become a communist state attached to the USSR.
There's no lack of culture of political extremism in Portugal.
> Why hasn’t the world copied it? Because there's too much money* to be made in keeping the status quo. * I use the terms "money" and "power" to mean the same here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t know anyone who’s ever been robbed at gunpoint or something like that? I think it might depend on who you define as a victim, but if you include suicides and robberies that didn’t result in a homicide this claim doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. I guess one thing is that it may be generational, as violent crime was far higher 20-50 years ago. Since the mid 1990s violent crime including gun crime has dropped…
> You don’t know anyone who’s ever been robbed at gunpoint Uhhh, no? Is that a question you would expect people to answer Yes to?
If you live in the US, then yes, I think it wouldn't be too uncommon. In fact if you listen to 2A advocates, crime is rampant and they love telling stories about how having a gun saved their bacon.
Two different kids in my high school that I personally knew, in the suburbs west of Chicago, killed themselves with guns (separate incidents), early 1980s. I'm sure there have since been other suicides, but I'm out of touch with my HS classmates.
Sunnyvale, 1986: I was in a 7-11 waiting to turn onto a street, but I had to cross lanes quickly to get to into turn position. Traffic started moving but I was unable to cross. The guy in the car behind me got irate that he was stuck behind me, pulled his car next to mine, and waved a gun in my direction. I pulled into traffic even though it lead me in a direction I didn't want to go to. The guy followed me, pulled up in parallel, rolled down his window and was shouting at me, spitting mad, to pull over ... I guess he wanted to fight. Fat chance. Although the trigger wasn't pulled, it sure felt like an assault.
Mid 1990s -- a good friend was robbed at gunpoint at an ATM in downtown Palo Alto at about 7pm.
About 2011 -- my sleepy neighborhood in Austin got the news that a murder had been committed and the killer was on the loose. The house was about one block away. It was a nerve-wracking 24+ hours until they caught the guy. It turns out he and his girlfriend were visiting friends for the 4th of july weekend, and after a night of drinking, he shot her and fled.
I've always lived in low crime areas, and yet I can think of the above situations. I'm sure I know others who have experienced gun violence but I simply don't know about it.
I think drug addiction is really misunderstood and this leads to bad policy. The two popular narratives that drug addiction is a moral failing or a disease are both wrong. In some ways it is more simple than that: drug addiction is a coping mechanism. Most people who get addicted to drugs are using them to escape pain. This is occasionally physical but usually mental. It is memories of traumatic experiences or abuse,…
>drug addiction is a coping mechanism. That's reductionist. The bigger picture is: why do some people end up with drug addiction as their coping mechanism, but others don't. Why aren't all abuse victims drug addicts? What separates the ones who fall down that hole and the ones who don't? Opportunity? If not opportunity, then what is that X factor? That's why you get to the larger questions of disease, responsibility,…
Telling someone who is already in more pain than they can handle that they are sick, weak or immoral is not a good idea. After all, they might decide it is true.
Same-sex marriage never achieved enough support to be legalized [0][1]. It was voted against throughout the country including liberal states such as California. Same-sex marriage was legislated by a small number of judges. I'm not making an argument for or against so please don't debate me on the merits of this issue. I am merely pointing out that the people did not decide this issue. A very small number of elites di…
The relevant vote took place in 1868, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment.
A very small number of elites did.
And by "elites" you mean "Tax-exempt churches doing everything they possibly could to subvert, deny, and if possible eliminate peoples' existing rights." [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8