First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
ACLU believes all drug use should be decriminalized
20762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

Paunchi wrote:
Also, "the law is the law" is a ridiculously antiquated statement.


"The law is NOT the law," however, is a moronic one.

20762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

MysticGon wrote:

At the end of the day I think attacking supply and demand is the best way.


Dangerous, though. Economic effects tend to be the result of human action, but not human intent... so when you try to make the economics go in some particular direction, you frequently end up doing something else entirely.

Like when we banned ephedra, because people were abusing it directly, the drug companies came up with pseudoephedrine which was really a whole hell of a lot better for making meth. So we had to crack down on that, which meant the companies using it legitimately cut back on their usage, and all the OTC cold and allergy medication stopped working. That sent people to the doctor for prescription meds instead, which dinged the insurance companies and gave a little boost to big pharma. Meanwhile, the meth business stopped being as profitable here in the US, so it dropped off until the Mexican cartels perked up and smelled an opportunity. So now, instead of your typical biker-gang crank filtering around the country, we've got a full-on torrent of high-end crystal flowing up over the border.

I don't think anyone expected that when they said "we have to do something about this literally deadly weight loss supplement."
528 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

cdarklock wrote:


Paunchi wrote:
Also, "the law is the law" is a ridiculously antiquated statement.


"The law is NOT the law," however, is a moronic one.



I think you missed my point. Hearing or reading "the law is the law" as some form of backing argument to any debate or in a rebuttal is tiring. Perpetuating that stance is just a hindrance to the development of man made law. I didn't mean that the law is not the law. I meant that the law is the law withstanding further evolution of thought and governing practices among any body of people. Or the law is the law today not tomorrow. There is always room for growth and any form of control should be monitored and questioned; following law without question is something that dictatorships are found upon. I'm not saying go out and break the law because majority rules or some nonsense. We cannot function as a people without some form of structure and guiding force. I'm saying that it is not set in stone and right and wrong are not black and white. I'm saying our current laws and process by which we develop them is merely an approximation using an algorithm without all the correct variables. We don't quite know exactly what the salt to sugar ratio is to bake the perfect cake yet. That is all I'm saying. Trial and error with more sustained error than trial.
29022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

cdarklock wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

At the end of the day I think attacking supply and demand is the best way.


Dangerous, though. Economic effects tend to be the result of human action, but not human intent... so when you try to make the economics go in some particular direction, you frequently end up doing something else entirely.

Like when we banned ephedra, because people were abusing it directly, the drug companies came up with pseudoephedrine which was really a whole hell of a lot better for making meth. So we had to crack down on that, which meant the companies using it legitimately cut back on their usage, and all the OTC cold and allergy medication stopped working. That sent people to the doctor for prescription meds instead, which dinged the insurance companies and gave a little boost to big pharma. Meanwhile, the meth business stopped being as profitable here in the US, so it dropped off until the Mexican cartels perked up and smelled an opportunity. So now, instead of your typical biker-gang crank filtering around the country, we've got a full-on torrent of high-end crystal flowing up over the border.

I don't think anyone expected that when they said "we have to do something about this literally deadly weight loss supplement."


The cartels saw money in it because the demand was still there despite it being illegal. Demand will only grow if it was decriminalized. If you go after the supply prices will increase and demand may drop. People will look for cheaper alternatives. Kind of like how unsafe supercars are priced out of most young people's reach.

Sure some may turn to modifying shit but the rest just won't bother.
37600 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17
If decriminalization has helped countries like Switzerland and Portugal why not try it in the US? It might not work as well, but I can't see how it could make things worse.
1997 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 5/3/17
Having a drug addiction was once a disability, yeah you would get money from the government for doing drugs. Like who the heck even thought that would be a good idea, thankfully it's been shut down but omg. Look, people say when they do drugs they are only hurting themselves but that's not true. Drugs turn people into monsters who will steal from people they know or even kill, I've seen videos of the drug cartel executing people because they tried to stop their business.
20762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

MysticGon wrote:
The cartels saw money in it because the demand was still there despite it being illegal.


It was already illegal. It's just that before the widespread availability of pseudoephedrine, cocaine was easier to produce than crystal meth. And when purchase wasn't regulated or monitored, domestic production more than satisfied the demand. When we decided to crack down on people buying cold and allergy meds, domestic production dropped off sharply because we didn't have any large-scale meth operations; we didn't need them. You can make meth in a public toilet. So choking off the small producers meant choking off all production, leaving a demand with zero supply.
29022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

cdarklock wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
The cartels saw money in it because the demand was still there despite it being illegal.


It was already illegal. It's just that before the widespread availability of pseudoephedrine, cocaine was easier to produce than crystal meth. And when purchase wasn't regulated or monitored, domestic production more than satisfied the demand. When we decided to crack down on people buying cold and allergy meds, domestic production dropped off sharply because we didn't have any large-scale meth operations; we didn't need them. You can make meth in a public toilet. So choking off the small producers meant choking off all production, leaving a demand with zero supply.


That's the goal. No supply so mean whittling down demand. People will seek out alternatives, hopefully legal ones.
20762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

MysticGon wrote:

That's the goal. No supply so mean whittling down demand. People will seek out alternatives, hopefully legal ones.


You're not paying attention.

We intended to cut off all supply, and the only supply was domestic because there was no profit in it.

So we cut off domestic supply. This created a demand for an alternate supply, manufacturing a profit for international cartels.

Now there's a supply we can't cut off because we have no control over it. It's there as a result of our actions, but not our intent.

That's usually how markets work. Trying to control them tends to turn them into things you can't control.
29022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

cdarklock wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

That's the goal. No supply so mean whittling down demand. People will seek out alternatives, hopefully legal ones.


You're not paying attention.

We intended to cut off all supply, and the only supply was domestic because there was no profit in it.

So we cut off domestic supply. This created a demand for an alternate supply, manufacturing a profit for international cartels.

Now there's a supply we can't cut off because we have no control over it. It's there as a result of our actions, but not our intent.

That's usually how markets work. Trying to control them tends to turn them into things you can't control.


The boarder is getting harder to cross. If it becomes too costly to meet the demand younger people will be priced out and hopefully that hits the cartels' wallets as well. There will always be a market but the more niche it becomes the better. Imo
20762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/17 , edited 4/27/17

MysticGon wrote:
The boarder is getting harder to cross.


There are other borders. Heroin still gets into the country from Afghanistan, you know.


There will always be a market but the more niche it becomes the better. Imo


Adderal is not that different from meth, and we're just handing that out to schoolkids. There's a doctor out there somewhere who teaches tweakers how to get Adderal prescriptions to save money and potentially drop the street drugs entirely; I had a conversation with him on Skype that was pretty interesting. He's actually converted some people from a mild meth habit of about $200 a month into an Adderal prescription completely covered by their health insurance.

I am not entirely certain this constitutes an improvement, myself.
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

BlueOni wrote:
I'm not sure about promoting traditional values and beliefs (maybe you just mean a stable, supportive home and community without any of the other political and ideological baggage these phrases can bear)


I wouldn't disentangle tradition from its political and ideological meaning, no. Bears further research. Societies go through events like industrialization and have to deal with the social upheaval and discontent that can create.

Anyway, China had a similar opium crisis with millions of addicts they were apparently able to solve. They treated the addicts as victims and didn't punish them, and that does sound like the correct way to go about it. Instead, they killed all the drug dealers. Isn't the Philippines going through that? Perhaps that's how it's done.
10 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/3/17
The ACLU, which is absolutely not a criminal organization btw, advocates the decriminalization of personal use and possession of drugs for two main reasons:

First is that the war on drugs has lead to massive incarceration increases and has lead to a long list of unintended consequences. Long story short, people are having their lives effectively ruined not for being drug dealers or for committing horrible crimes, but for having trace amounts of specific drugs on them. The ACLU thinks this is messed up and needs to be fixed through decriminalization.

Second, the ACLU argues that drug abuse should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal issue. They absolutely do not advocate drug use; they actually promote programs across the nation attempting to solve drug abuse issues and increase prevention efforts.

When the ACLU says they want decriminalization of personal use and possession, they are saying they want to shift efforts toward preventing and ending abuse, instead of the current model of locking everyone up for outrageous amounts of time and ruining lives for what could often be a fairly small mistake.

Actual ACLU article on the subject for those interested: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/its-time-decriminalize-personal-drug-use-and-possession-basic-rights-and-public

P.S. signed up for a crunchyroll account to watch anime, did not expect to spend an hour diving through forums on political issues I work on in my daily life. Makes the account seem even more worth it now.
38305 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

Kavalion wrote:

I wouldn't disentangle tradition from its political and ideological meaning, no. Bears further research. Societies go through events like industrialization and have to deal with the social upheaval and discontent that can create.

Anyway, China had a similar opium crisis with millions of addicts they were apparently able to solve. They treated the addicts as victims and didn't punish them, and that does sound like the correct way to go about it. Instead, they killed all the drug dealers. Isn't the Philippines going through that? Perhaps that's how it's done.


Even putting the human rights issues aside, down that path lies use of drug trafficking accusations as an excuse to murder one's political opponents, so I'm inclined to be against it.
9324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / MtF / PA
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/4/17
Kill anyone that does any kind of drug.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.