5 ms·
Imagine you are trying to keep a city functioning well. You've never met most of the people. Then some parts of the city start falling apart, and you notice a l
by jeffdavis 10y ago
Imagine you are trying to keep a city functioning well. You've never met most of the people. Then some parts of the city start falling apart, and you notice a lot of people using drugs, fighting, and not working.
The correlation would be obvious to anyone. You don't need a grand conspiracy to imagine why a leader might try to stop drug use.
That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. But it can be easily explained without ulterior motives.
- HeroOfAges 10y agoI think the more effective approach to preventing parts of a city from being overrun by drug use and violence, is to find out why people are turning to drug use and violence in the first place and then address those underlying issues. And yes, there are ulterior motives behind criminalizing certain activities, especially if you know the actions you take will disproportionately harm a specific group of people. edit grammar
- jeffdavis 10y agoI didn't say it was a good way, nor did I say there are never ulterior motives.
- matt4077 10y agoIf you're running a city, you should be part of the community to a degree that there are no parts were you're just operating on the level of some sort of 19th century explorer living with indigenous tribes. In fact, I think your allusion to some caricature of a (probably black) inner city and its problems is part of the problem more than the solution. Unless you're talking about a mayor from the projects who outlaws coke after hearing of its rampant use among investment bankers, and their propensity to fight each other over territory. In that case, I'd love to see the movie.
- jeffdavis 10y agoI said clearly that I was not implying that it was right. Just that it could clearly be explained without ulterior motives, which was a direct relply to another post.