I mean yeah, if you view fruits from a forbidden tree as poisoned/immoral. The logic is sound. So, they probably don't like dem apples, they're poisoned.
Except it's quite possible that the LSD supply chain had no violence associated with it, so it's pure conjecture biased by a "drugs are bad, m'kay?" attitude. Those apples are far from guaranteed to be poisoned. I've seen the same argument about cannabis, and while some may come from cartels, much of it comes from indy growers and that supply chain is more than likely violence free. As mentioned by another, the whole…
I'm with you on that. I'm only trying to say that if you believe drugs are bad. I.e. if taking drugs is itself inherently immoral the logic is still sound. I don't believe the drugs are inherently immoral I do believe that fruit from The forbidden tree is poisoned.
The possibility of someone else's trauma shouldn't infringe on my freedom to ride a bike without a helmet.
You may do so on your own private property. If you wish to use public roadways, you must abide by the laws set by your state, which must balance the costs to society of your choices against your ability to make them.
You see giant protests occupying cities for weeks and your first thought is that americans are totally OK with the state of things? All those folks on the street in Hong kong - they must just be out there celebrating their loss of liberties! It's a big party!
There may be giant protests, but Americans continue to elect leaders that refuse to serve their interests.
Continued gerrymandering keeps the incumbents in power. Ongoing voter suppression targeted at minorities silences their political voices and swings elections, denying democracy its due. Since 1990, the Republican party has won the popular vote for president once, but won the presidency 3 times. 2018 was a wave year where the left picked up a huge number of seats in the house. And the federal government isn't everything. State and local governments hold enormous power, and where progress can be made, progressives are elected. Theres also huge amounts of money in politics thanks to a really destructive supreme court ruling. And do you really think the people in Minneapolis protesting are going to vote for trump and support officials that refuse to serve their interests? I understand you might not be familiar with why people are protesting and the ways the political system is broken. Hell, I don't know what's going on in the UK with brexit and their protests everything for example, and I dont know what the electoral dynamics and structural problems are. And that's fine, because I'm not going around oversimplifying issues I dont understand and saying "wow these dumb Brits are so self destructive why do they keep voting for dumb stuff." Same thing. I'd recommend actually understanding what's going on before making sweeping incorrect statements about how America works. Again - Americans electing leaders that refuse to serve "their" interests. Do you think this deeply politically divided country is some sort of monolith? Do you really think the people protesting are the ones that voted for Trump?
Not sure I’d agree with “harms noone.” I have taken LSD and easily walk in the middle of the road with no cause for concern. Imagine a child accidentally eating some of it, etc. Could be worse than a loaded gun. I’m all for legalizing natural stuff (mushrooms, cannabis, even coca plants) but once chemists start concentrating things or turning them into droplets it becomes extremely dangerous. For instance, mushrooms…
Imagine a child eating Tide Pods too. Or eating blood thinners. Or ...
Eating nails! We need to ban nails immediately. 20 years prison per nail!
It's a lot harder to write a coherent response than downvote, but given there's so much misinformation around the internet, you could do nothing but try to correct it by replying, 24/7 and still get nowhere. Downvoting hides bad comments, and depending on your metrics comments that are based on a flawed premise should be hidden. Buying drugs do not meaningfully fund terrorism. So to criminally prosecute someone for b…
OP mentioned terrorism clearly as an after thought. The bulk of their message was focused on crime. This gives your position a sort of "knee jerk" air about it. To then be given a low effort downvote option to facilitate your low effort analysis simply enables your perpetuation of a reactive culture. And you're not one person against the world. You don't need to correct every single misinformed opinion on the entire…
I did, I replied to you.
But OP did their argument a huge disservice. Even considering I wasn't focused on that aspect given I specifically chose "bad guys" instead of terrorists. Or that their concept that drugs are necessarily connected with crime. Their argument with or without adding in terrorism is based upon a either a lie or a misunderstanding. One that would wrongly have additional credibility seeming to be true if it got up voted.
But I'm curious to why you're blaming me (rhetorically) for perpetuating a reactive culture when not only am I not even sure what that means, but I didn't even downvote him.
The possibility of someone else's trauma shouldn't infringe on my freedom to ride a bike without a helmet.
You may do so on your own private property. If you wish to use public roadways, you must abide by the laws set by your state, which must balance the costs to society of your choices against your ability to make them.
This logic applies against all 'victimless' crimes, including drug possession & use.
You may do so on your own private property. If you wish to use public roadways, you must abide by the laws set by your state, which must balance the costs to society of your choices against your ability to make them.
Government policy: prevent people from ruining their lives with drugs by ruining it for them with prison.
There should be no victimless crimes! This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here. This can be applied to seatbelts, helmet laws, etc.
> 20 years for each one That is incredible. For a crime that harms noone.
I mean, the organized crime groups that sell these drugs do harm people, by way of murders, human trafficking, violent crimes and property crimes. Funding criminals and terrorists is surely worthy of punishment, do you not agree? But I agree that twenty years is excessive. A week of prison or two would be enough.
Criminals also profit from legitimate businesses. This comment is irrelevant.
No, you have your logic backwards. The conclusion that with lax drug laws, there'd be less violence associated with drug manufacturing and selling is correct. But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. If I outlaw [drug], I'm not responsible because you kill someone trying to sell [drug].
> But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. This is untrue. The vast majority of the US drug trade is done without violence. There’s violence in the powder/pill drug game because the profit margins are so high, creating an immense amount of competition. Sometimes you can 5-10x your money off powder, that isn’t really possible with marijua…
You're correct, I was speaking somewhat abstractly, and only meant to include the smaller subset of the drug market that has a large amount of violence associated with it.