5 ms·

The article talks about decriminalization, not legalization. Decriminalization means that you are still not allowed to sell the product in a legitimate busines

by IMTDb 7y ago

The article talks about decriminalization, not legalization. Decriminalization means that you are still not allowed to sell the product in a legitimate business. If you get caught with it, instead of going in front of a judge - possibly getting a criminal record and jail time - you will get a fine and no record. This lowers the priority for the police and prosecutor to track you down. I think the US should really start thinking about decriminalizing the use of all drugs. It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances. But legalization is a whole other story, the opioid crisis would look pale in comparison to the aftermath of selling high quality MDMA/Cocaine/Heroin with a doctors note.

jmalkin 7y ago
I believe it's Portugal that has very successfully triaged decriminalisation of many or all drugs
tathougies 7y ago
> It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances No, it's not. Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels, who kill, maim, and torture people. Over the course of years of drug use, drug users have likely funded dozens of murders, mutilations, wars, etc, for nothing other than personal pleasure. It's fine to think drugs should be decriminalized, but to claim it's a victimless crime or isn't destructive, is simply ignoring reality.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  >> It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances >No, it's not. So it's acceptable to destroy lives for use of psychoactive substances? I don't think you meant that exactly, I guess. > Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them. Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa. If it is then legalise. If there's more that's causing the problem then we need to pin that down, but 'illegal' alone is not - IMO - enough.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    If by 'destroy lives' you mean duly punish those who willingly and materially support murder, torture, and lawlessness for the sake of their addiction, yes. > If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them. I used to believe this, but California's experience in Marijuana legalization and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county indicate that gangs are not interested in becoming legitimate businesses. Two things happen: real businesses set up and are threatened by gang violence and gangs set up seemingly legitimate fronts that continue to funnel money. > Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa. But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances, especially drugs. There are many drugs you cannot receive without a prescription and most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary. Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong, independent of the state of the law. If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > If by 'destroy lives' you mean duly punish those who willingly and materially support murder, torture, and lawlessness for the sake of their addiction, yes. To your eyes it's one thing. To mine it might be another. I have a strong feeling the government is to blame for creating this. > and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county If you wish to say this at least post some links. The ones I've found do support what you say up to a point eg <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/california-marijuana-crime/576391/> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor.... But it is an unstable situation at the moment as the story indicates, and it also says "found that after medical marijuana was legalized in California, violent crime fell 15 percent." (but temporarily it seems) > But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances There we disagree utterly. Please see an earlier post of mine <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20165080> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20165080>. And 'well accepted' isn't justified here. And 'have a right' I don't automatically accept. > most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary Sigh. Justify 'most' > Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree. > If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing. Yep. Difference is, I have a choice not to. I think we're so far apart we can't possibly agree here.
- machiaweliczny 7y ago
  So why not selling drugs in pharmacy, so cartels go extinct? I think that simply selling it always slightly cheaper below black market rate for addicts on prescription is possibility to reduce issue.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    I used to be okay with legalization because i thought this was true, but experience does not show that. Gangs will want to have their money no matter what. California legalized marijuana (which I think is fine), but we should be realistic about what happens when you do that. Gangs do not go away. They continue to fight for their market share and 'right' to siphon money away to their wars: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/california-marijuana-crime/576391/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor... Moreover, fundamentally, these gangs want to engage in criminal business. If you legalize drugs, it's not like there's no more business sectors gangs could engage in. They will continue to exist because there will always be people who do not want to follow the law. Drug legalization may help (although we don't know that), but that doesn't obviate the need for enforcement. More importantly, it does not exculpate those who fund drug wars as some kind of political statement or because it makes them feel better. That is still morally indefensible.
    - htmk 7y ago
      You'd still be removing a source of income from gangs, and a large one.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        Great, then they'll just extort more store owners?

by IMTDb 7y ago

jmalkin 7y ago

I believe it's Portugal that has very successfully triaged decriminalisation of many or all drugs

tathougies 7y ago

> It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances No, it's not. Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels, who kill, maim, and torture people. Over the course of years of drug use, drug users have likely funded dozens of murders, mutilations, wars, etc, for nothing other than personal pleasure. It's fine to think drugs should be decriminalized, but to claim it's a victimless crime or isn't destructive, is simply ignoring reality.

tempguy9999 7y ago
>> It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances >No, it's not. So it's acceptable to destroy lives for use of psychoactive substances? I don't think you meant that exactly, I guess. > Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them. Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa. If it is then legalise. If there's more that's causing the problem then we need to pin that down, but 'illegal' alone is not - IMO - enough.
- tathougies 7y ago
  If by 'destroy lives' you mean duly punish those who willingly and materially support murder, torture, and lawlessness for the sake of their addiction, yes. > If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them. I used to believe this, but California's experience in Marijuana legalization and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county indicate that gangs are not interested in becoming legitimate businesses. Two things happen: real businesses set up and are threatened by gang violence and gangs set up seemingly legitimate fronts that continue to funnel money. > Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa. But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances, especially drugs. There are many drugs you cannot receive without a prescription and most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary. Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong, independent of the state of the law. If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > If by 'destroy lives' you mean duly punish those who willingly and materially support murder, torture, and lawlessness for the sake of their addiction, yes. To your eyes it's one thing. To mine it might be another. I have a strong feeling the government is to blame for creating this. > and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county If you wish to say this at least post some links. The ones I've found do support what you say up to a point eg <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/california-marijuana-crime/576391/> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor.... But it is an unstable situation at the moment as the story indicates, and it also says "found that after medical marijuana was legalized in California, violent crime fell 15 percent." (but temporarily it seems) > But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances There we disagree utterly. Please see an earlier post of mine <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20165080> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20165080>. And 'well accepted' isn't justified here. And 'have a right' I don't automatically accept. > most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary Sigh. Justify 'most' > Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree. > If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing. Yep. Difference is, I have a choice not to. I think we're so far apart we can't possibly agree here.
machiaweliczny 7y ago
So why not selling drugs in pharmacy, so cartels go extinct? I think that simply selling it always slightly cheaper below black market rate for addicts on prescription is possibility to reduce issue.
- tathougies 7y ago
  I used to be okay with legalization because i thought this was true, but experience does not show that. Gangs will want to have their money no matter what. California legalized marijuana (which I think is fine), but we should be realistic about what happens when you do that. Gangs do not go away. They continue to fight for their market share and 'right' to siphon money away to their wars: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/california-marijuana-crime/576391/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor... Moreover, fundamentally, these gangs want to engage in criminal business. If you legalize drugs, it's not like there's no more business sectors gangs could engage in. They will continue to exist because there will always be people who do not want to follow the law. Drug legalization may help (although we don't know that), but that doesn't obviate the need for enforcement. More importantly, it does not exculpate those who fund drug wars as some kind of political statement or because it makes them feel better. That is still morally indefensible.
  - htmk 7y ago
    You'd still be removing a source of income from gangs, and a large one.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Great, then they'll just extort more store owners?