161–170 of 252 posts
Portugals policy seems deeply flawed to me because it does not legalise the sale of drugs. This keeps a strong criminal element and does not protect drug users from contaminated drugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this true? Almost no one in my social circles knows a victim of gun violence, and I live in one of the most violent cities in the country. Even if you count suicides (and you really shouldn’t), I would be surprised if this were true. I suspect most people in the country don’t know a victim or offender of gun violence, while they do know several law-abiding gun owners leading them to believe that inner city issues—…
Why would you arbitrarily exclude suicide from gun violence? Guns are a distinct problem because they make serious injury/death incredibly easy and simple. That's just as true for murder as it is for suicide, and in a world without guns both acts would have a far lower success rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m assuming the parent comment referred to “legal” actors lobbying to keep drugs illegal, as opposed to the cartels themselves. Do you think cartels have an interest in drugs being illegal, and if so could you explain why? I’d expect cartels to welcome the change as they can do away with fighting the law (where they no doubt pour a lot of their resources into) and start operating as legitimate businesses.
Your definitions of cartels & force are different to mine :) Legitimate opiate producers compete in the same market with illegitimate ones. The force they use is police, dea, etc., instead of guns directly, but the techniques are the same. After all, a state is what happens when organized crime expands its time horizons.
The state happened when people get fed up of being trodden on by tyrants, warlords and robber barons and decide to implement concepts like law, order and justice.
That it's not perfect doesn't mean it should be reduced to a trite, intellectually bankrupt, soundbite.
I don't have a strong opinion on Portugal's drug policy. But I do think there's a flaw in the premise of this article: the success of Portugal's policy here was dependent on Portugal's culture, history, population, and a host of other factors that can't be replicated in another country. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know anyone but in my first year living in the US someone got shot in my street and I could see the blood stain on the sidewalk. Chicago, uptown, near the L. I have a friend who got a gun pointed at them too in Chicago (by a fake landlord). I've also overheard people bragging that they were carrying guns in the L. I was freaking out. I will never visit any state with open carry.
What is so scary with open carry? We have policemen that open carry in every country, are they not scary? We are talking about humans with guns, not about Batmans and Jokers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For most intents and purposes, the difference between legal and fully decriminalized is not significant. Parent talked about profit, but in Portugal the production, distribution and sale are still a crime, and therefore the people profiting from those activities are still the same.
The profit is in enforcing the law. Defense contractors and prison guard unions don't make any money when something is nominally illegal but nobody is actually spending any money trying to stop it.
So why not in Germany, the UK, France, Sweden, Italy? Why just Portugal? That is the question.
Less US-centric thinking!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
salt, sugar, and flour aren't natural?
They aren't typically found in nature in the form in which we consume them. They require human processing (even if it's much less processing than what goes into making a frozen pizza).
There is, though, some need to account for culture. I doubt, for example, that replicating gun control laws from the UK to the US would result in similar gun violence stats.
That said, at the very least, country wide decriminalized marijuana seems like a good start for the US. It's probably less overall harm than alcohol. The long window of employment THC tests probably holds this back.
I recently read some something that had the following premise: Immigrants leave their family and friends behind. People who are more empathetic have a harder time doing this. Therefore, countries with net emigration will grow more empathetic. Countries with net immigration will grow less. While just anecdotal, this is something that I've confirmed with my experiences. I'll add in that countries which were founded on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you arbitrarily exclude suicide from gun violence? Guns are a distinct problem because they make serious injury/death incredibly easy and simple. That's just as true for murder as it is for suicide, and in a world without guns both acts would have a far lower success rate.
Taking guns away from mentally healthy people who like them under the justification that you'll also be taking them away from suicidal people will never fly. If you don't like guns then the issue is whether you'd rather have one group of people who aren't you enjoying guns, or another group of people who aren't you being saved from themselves. If you do like guns, then you'd be guaranteed to not vote for any politici…