Americans say country is on wrong track, but votes to stay on it

[Desk trauma]

Possessing narcotics which leads to addiction needs to be a crime.

It’s going to strain the system a bit prosecuting everyone with a sixer or pack of smokes.

 

[Servus]

It’s going to strain the system a bit prosecuting everyone with a sixer or pack of smokes.

Right and if you reduce beer and cigarettes to candy and soda pop, it gets even more taxing.

 

[Servus]

Disagree.

Why?

Personally I was a prime candidate for becoming a narcotics user when I was on my own as a teenager. The fear of getting busted is one of the primary reasons why I never tried narcotics.

 

[Desk trauma]

Right and if you reduce beer and cigarettes to candy and soda pop, it gets even more taxing.

Yeah, full nanny state would sure help with the slump in construction building all that prison capacity.

 

[Servus]

Nope that's where you shifted the goalposts.

You've tried to ascribe the entire range of political opinions to your opponents without ever really capturing it. But yeah of course I'm not going to vote for groups who have bad policies.

If you can't have a more consistent view of what's going on with both your and others positions without constant use of fallacy it makes little sense to try to have a discussion with you.

Since you keep going the fallacy route accusing me of doing this that and the other, there's no sence in talking to you either.

 

[comana]

Why?

Personally I was a prime candidate for becoming a narcotics user when I was on my own as a teenager. The fear of getting busted is one of the primary reasons why I never tried narcotics.

Using or addiction isn’t averted by fear of getting caught for many, obviously. Target the reasons one goes down the road and fund education and rehabilitation efforts over making them criminals.

 

[Aldebaran]

Regardless, addiction doesn’t need to be a crime.

Nor has anyone claimed "addiction" should be a crime. You're simply moving the goalposts.

 

[Aldebaran]

Get the government involved. Make it all available through nominated outlets. Price it at half the current street value and guess what'll happen...suppliers go out of business. And all drug related gang violence dissapears.

Control the supply and you have some leverage over the users. Safe needles. Safe rooms. Options for treatment. Less deaths. A huge drop in the number of kids getting hooked. Together with a huge drop in overdoses.

I'm struggling to think of a negative.

And if you want to eliminate crime altogether, make murder, rape, burglary, assault, carjackings and arson legal, and then you'll have fewer people being arrested for those things, and the crime rate will be low as a result.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That's why people should get fined rather than jailed.

And what happens when they can't afford to pay the fines? Your options are to make the fines so low that anyone could pay them - which would make them useless, to not enforce non-payment - which makes the fines toothless, or to throw those who don't pay in jail - which means there's no change from the current situation.

 

[Servus]

Yeah, full nanny state would sure help with the slump in construction building all that prison capacity.

Yep, doing away with laws will definitely reduce the prison population.

 

[Desk trauma]

Yep, doing away with laws will definitely reduce the prison population.

Yeah, getting rid of bad laws does that.

 

[Bradskii]

Because the "real criminals" depend on those who take narcotics. Or put another way, if people didn't take narcotics to get stoned, there would be no narcotics trafficking. Making it easier to use narcotics, is going to boost trafficking.

People will always want to take drugs. From a couple of glasses of wine to a fifth of Jack, from the occasional spliff to mainlining heroin. Now the booze we can all get from the local supermarket or even gas station. Nobody I know (ahem) gets it from moonshiners. No-one is running molasses to Canada or buying a hundred pounds of yeast and some copper line for the still out the back of Copperhead Road.

But in the US and in a lot of other countries (Australia included) we get whatever drug is our preferred narcotic of choice from a dealer. Whether it's a friend who grows some dope in his backyard to the punks who are at the end of a long chain which starts with drug cartels south of the border.

How did we stop the illegal distillation and distribution of often dangerous alcohol? We legalised it and controlled it. We said who could legally make it, who could drink it, where and when. And we gave the government leave to tax it. Did that stop alcohol problems? A debatable point but I'd say say yes up to a point. But did it stop the moonshiners. Most definitely.

So we have the same problem with drugs but you want to do the equivalent of jailing the alcoholic. Of punishing those with a bottle of gin in the cupboard. Of blaming the users instead of doing what would obviously work to prevent the those who cause the problem in the first place from operating.

Madness.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, getting rid of bad laws does that.

It's usually the laws that a person is convicted of breaking that the person believes is "bad".

 

[Aldebaran]

People will always want to take drugs. From a couple of glasses of wine to a fifth of Jack, from the occasional spliff to mainlining heroin. Now the booze we can all get from the local supermarket or even gas station. Nobody I know (ahem) gets it from moonshiners. No-one is running molasses to Canada or buying a hundred pounds of yeast and some copper line for the still out the back of Copperhead Road.

But in the US and in a lot of other countries (Australia included) we get whatever drug is our preferred narcotic of choice from a dealer. Whether it's a friend who grows some dope in his backyard to the punks who are at the end of a long chain which starts with drug cartels south of the border.

How did we stop the illegal distillation and distribution of often dangerous alcohol? We legalised it and controlled it. We said who could legally make it, who could drink it, where and when. And we gave the government leave to tax it. Did that stop alcohol problems? A debatable point but I'd say say yes up to a point. But did it stop the moonshiners. Most definitely.

So we have the same problem with drugs but you want to do the equivalent of jailing the alcoholic. Of punishing those with a bottle of gin in the cupboard. Of blaming the users instead of doing what would obviously work to prevent the those who cause the problem in the first place from operating.

Madness.

Alcohol production and sales is already regulated here in the USA. However, drunk drivers are still killing people, and the police are busiest on Friday and Saturday nights answering domestic abuse calls right after bar closing time.
But the government makes money off of alcohol licenses and taxes on beer sales, so they're cool with it. Government usually doesn't get very tough with industries that they make money from.

 

[Servus]

Using or addiction isn’t averted by fear of getting caught for many, obviously. Target the reasons one goes down the road and fund education and rehabilitation efforts over making them criminals.

People go down that road because getting stoned feels good. Making it easier isn't going to detour either addiction or trafficking.

Addiction starts off with taking small amounts of a soft narcotic. But people build up a resistance, and then need something stronger, and they need it more often. Stronger and more, stronger and more. That's what the narcotics trade depends on. They say drug dealers start people off with free drugs for that very reason.

 

[Desk trauma]

It's usually the laws that a person is convicted of breaking that the person believes is "bad".

Odd, I have no criminal record yet still consider our drug laws bad.

 

[Bradskii]

And if you want to eliminate crime altogether, make murder, rape, burglary, assault, carjackings and arson legal, and then you'll have fewer people being arrested for those things, and the crime rate will be low as a result.

You didn't understand what I was suggesting at all. I find that difficult to believe. How on earth is burglary or assault comparable to drug dealing? Everything you mentioned is a one off individual crime. Drugs are a supply and demand problem. There is zero compatability whatsoever. It's growers, smugglers, suppliers and dealers that are part of a systemic problem which results in drug use. And there's no way whatsoever that you can completely shut down that supply chain.

But what you can do is make it redundant. Make the supply of narcotics exactly as was done with alcohol and tobacco. Control the manufacture and distribution yourself. That supply chain then collapses. They'd have nothing to sell that anyone would want to buy. Then you can concentrate on the problems that some narcotics cause.

I'm quite prepared for any reasonable and justified argument against that. Let's knock it around for a while to see where we get. But I am not the slightest bit interested in listening to nonsensical retorts such as yours.

 

[comana]

People go down that road because getting stoned feels good. Making it easier isn't going to detour either addiction or trafficking.

Addiction starts off with taking small amounts of a soft narcotic. But people build up a resistance, and then need something stronger, and they need it more often. Stronger and more, stronger and more. That's what the narcotics trade depends on. They say drug dealers start people off with free drugs for that very reason.

There is not one simple road to addiction. You sound like the “just say no” classes I had jr high. Some people occasionally use various drugs to feel good and never reach addiction m. Others seek drugs/alcohol to numb their lives. It’s much more individual and complicated. Treat, don’t punish.

 

[Servus]

Yeah, getting rid of bad laws does that.

Do you think narcotics traffickers are in favor of or against decriminalizing narcotics use?

 

[Servus]

There is not one simple road to addiction. You sound like the “just say no” classes I had jr high. Some people occasionally use various drugs to feel good and never reach addiction m. Others seek drugs/alcohol to numb their lives. It’s much more individual and complicated. Treat, don’t punish.

So will eliminating deterrents decrease or increase narcotics use?