251–260 of 393 posts
Government policy: prevent people from ruining their lives with drugs by ruining it for them with prison.
This arguments applies to the criminalization of possession and use, not manufacture and distribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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].
I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't seem so clear cut to me. Let's say: I have a choice to outlaw drug X or not. I can infer with near certainty that this policy will lead to a black market run by violence that gets people killed. Nevertheless, I outlaw drug X. People get killed. What responsibility do I bear? I honestly don't know, but neither "none" nor "100%" sounds right to me.
You bear no responsibility. Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions.
I have a kid, I raise him to the best of my ability, and commit no egregious mistakes. He grows up and murders someone. Am I at fault? Obviously not, just because I'm a part of the equation, doesn't mean I also should be assigned blame. If I didn't have a kid, [person] would still be alive. That doesn't mean I'm responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Crack" and cocaine are literally the same drug.
How come we hear about dangerous meth-heads and crack-heads, but not about coke-heads?
There are chemical differences between crack, meth, and cocaine, so it's likely that, ceteris paribus, crack users are more violent than coke users, but it's not the only factor. It's really hard to tease out differences in the effects of the drugs when the populations of users are so different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The laws don’t directly cause the violence, by they do create an environment in which violence is more likely (or violence around drug manufacture and trade).
Absolutely. Violence related to drug dealing is a result on the insane profit margins on heroin, cocaine, and meth. It’s possible to make 70-90% net profit on cocaine if you can get it at wholesale, which is nuts. Of course people will kill each other for the chance to make 90 cents on the dollar. If you bought some Chinese fentanyl and made “heroin” I bet it’s closer to 95-99% net, imagine having a money machine tha…
I was going to argue with you. Something something... not everyone is that bad. But then I considered all the harm large corporations do... Shit man wtf is wrong with humans?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>> This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here People may think LSD or cocaine is all well and good, but there are far more dangerous substances out there. Things like Carfentanil need to be regulated. So too all the so-called "date rape" drugs. Just because some guy wants a powerful, tasteless, anesthetic that can be readily dissolved in water doesn't mean we should…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more acceptable and state-sanctioned to sell drugs that kill people while keeping them subdued, than ones that keep them alive and open their minds. I don't want to sound like a crazy 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'hippie', but I don't know to distill this sad and truthful statement more simply than that.
You might sounds less like a 'hippie' if you avoid the phrase 'open your mind'. It implies that psychodelics provide users with some kind of enlightenment rather than just hallucinations and euphorea. Makes it seem like anti-drug politicians are trying to hide some sort of dark secret which can only be unlocked by taking LSD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not okay with this but we have no way to change the laws that are made by our Lords.
Well to be fair. If more population were concerned an actively participating in democracy, by at the least get out and go to vote, some thing would change, for sure. USA has the lowest participation on any democracy I know. Universal obligatory vote is something that does wonders and produce actual change.
Structural problems can cause lack of participation.
I don't know if I would want voting to be obligatory, but it certainly should be universal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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].
You’re not responsible legally/morally, but you did create an incentive for those things to happen
Drugs do destroy lives, and cause real societal harm. But it was never as destructive as what making it illegal has been able to achieve.