3 ms·

I don't think it's "incredibly clear" at all.

by beat 7y ago

Misdicorl 7y ago
You've never met anyone who won't do something because its illegal? I suppose thats reasonable. In any event, I can assure you they exist.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Your arguments are stupidly repetitive and anecdotal. I can also assure you that people exist who make a lot of money pushing drugs because it's illegal and they're good at breaking the law. You've posted far less data and just complained about semantics of my first sentence being different from the data I've posted.
- beat 7y ago
  Ok, let's put this a more complex way. There are problems caused by drug prohibition that have nothing to do with addiction - namely, the black market. Prohibition creates a market where courts and the legal system cannot be used to settle disputes. Hence, drive-by shootings, money laundering, and a host of other ills. And the more you crack down, the more valuable this market becomes. Market forces don't care that something is illegal. Supply and demand. So here's the question for you... even accepting your premise that some portion of the population is kept from using drugs simply because they are illegal, does that justify the social cost incurred by the creation of the black market?
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    I understand the broader argument. Mine truly is as narrow in scope as my text: I do not think it reasonable to say the illegality of some addictive drugs has not prevented addiction for some people.
    - beat 7y ago
      But that's just being narrowly pedantic. You're asking if we can; I'm asking if we should. To be really ugly about it, suicide is a 100% effective way to prevent cancer. Doesn't mean it's a solution, because cancer isn't the real problem - early death is the problem. Likewise, the problem of opioids isn't addiction... it's harm to society. And it's completely obvious that the very existence of prohibition causes harm - a black market that handles business by violence and corruption, a police state that keeps further encroaching our rights in the name of "war on drugs", and innocent victims caught in the crossfire. Worse, user-level prohibition keeps otherwise peaceable citizens from seeking treatment for addiction, pinning them in the arms of both the addiction and the criminal enterprise that provides their fix. Being "narrow in scope" is not only ignoring the external costs, it's ignoring the actual problem at hand.
      - Misdicorl 7y ago
        No, its not pedantic. There are real people who will have real and negative health outcomes if drugs are legalized. Ignoring this in the conversation about legalization is to our (society's) detriment. The post which began this chain wasn't only ignoring this outcome, it was asserting that it is not a possibility. Yes, there are more people who are more negatively affected by the current state of affairs. The law should change. But we should also be cognizant of the consequences of that change.

I don't think it's "incredibly clear" at all.

by beat 7y ago

I don't think it's "incredibly clear" at all.

You've never met anyone who won't do something because its illegal? I suppose thats reasonable. In any event, I can assure you they exist.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Your arguments are stupidly repetitive and anecdotal. I can also assure you that people exist who make a lot of money pushing drugs because it's illegal and they're good at breaking the law. You've posted far less data and just complained about semantics of my first sentence being different from the data I've posted.
beat 7y ago
Ok, let's put this a more complex way. There are problems caused by drug prohibition that have nothing to do with addiction - namely, the black market. Prohibition creates a market where courts and the legal system cannot be used to settle disputes. Hence, drive-by shootings, money laundering, and a host of other ills. And the more you crack down, the more valuable this market becomes. Market forces don't care that something is illegal. Supply and demand. So here's the question for you... even accepting your premise that some portion of the population is kept from using drugs simply because they are illegal, does that justify the social cost incurred by the creation of the black market?
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  I understand the broader argument. Mine truly is as narrow in scope as my text: I do not think it reasonable to say the illegality of some addictive drugs has not prevented addiction for some people.
  - beat 7y ago
    But that's just being narrowly pedantic. You're asking if we can; I'm asking if we should. To be really ugly about it, suicide is a 100% effective way to prevent cancer. Doesn't mean it's a solution, because cancer isn't the real problem - early death is the problem. Likewise, the problem of opioids isn't addiction... it's harm to society. And it's completely obvious that the very existence of prohibition causes harm - a black market that handles business by violence and corruption, a police state that keeps further encroaching our rights in the name of "war on drugs", and innocent victims caught in the crossfire. Worse, user-level prohibition keeps otherwise peaceable citizens from seeking treatment for addiction, pinning them in the arms of both the addiction and the criminal enterprise that provides their fix. Being "narrow in scope" is not only ignoring the external costs, it's ignoring the actual problem at hand.
    - Misdicorl 7y ago
      No, its not pedantic. There are real people who will have real and negative health outcomes if drugs are legalized. Ignoring this in the conversation about legalization is to our (society's) detriment. The post which began this chain wasn't only ignoring this outcome, it was asserting that it is not a possibility. Yes, there are more people who are more negatively affected by the current state of affairs. The law should change. But we should also be cognizant of the consequences of that change.