4 ms·

>> 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

>> 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.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > 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. I actually agree the government is to blame for the ability of gangs to control the drug market, by making them illegal. However, I choose to pursue policy decisions based on the situation right now, not the situation that could have been. Decriminalization will not magically make this issue go away, anymore than withdrawing from the Middle East will mean America never has to deal with that part of the world again. > Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree. Certainly, and in the absence of a legal, moral way to acquire them, you should probably abstain, independent of what you think the government ought to do. Because the alternative is heinous.
    - ramblerman 7y ago
      > Decriminalization will not magically make this issue go away Perhaps not. It’s complicated either way. But legalizing alcohol did remove the bootlegging gangs
      - tathougies 7y ago
        Indeed, it's complicated. One thing that is interesting to note though is that, while Prohibition is frequently cast historically as a failure, it did lead to a significant reduction in alcohol consumption, as seen in the drop in cirrhosis cases. Thus, legalization also needs to be ready to handle the inevitably greater public health risks.
    - htmk 7y ago
      The alternative is buying straight from the source on dark net markets, so you're sure you're not financing crime.

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.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > 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. I actually agree the government is to blame for the ability of gangs to control the drug market, by making them illegal. However, I choose to pursue policy decisions based on the situation right now, not the situation that could have been. Decriminalization will not magically make this issue go away, anymore than withdrawing from the Middle East will mean America never has to deal with that part of the world again. > Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree. Certainly, and in the absence of a legal, moral way to acquire them, you should probably abstain, independent of what you think the government ought to do. Because the alternative is heinous.
  - ramblerman 7y ago
    > Decriminalization will not magically make this issue go away Perhaps not. It’s complicated either way. But legalizing alcohol did remove the bootlegging gangs
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Indeed, it's complicated. One thing that is interesting to note though is that, while Prohibition is frequently cast historically as a failure, it did lead to a significant reduction in alcohol consumption, as seen in the drop in cirrhosis cases. Thus, legalization also needs to be ready to handle the inevitably greater public health risks.
  - htmk 7y ago
    The alternative is buying straight from the source on dark net markets, so you're sure you're not financing crime.