3 ms·

I'm really not sure what your point it is. You seem to be saying 'don't say the drug war is discriminatory', even though it is. You then present logic that seem

I'm really not sure what your point it is. You seem to be saying 'don't say the drug war is discriminatory', even though it is. You then present logic that seems very unsound (as highlighted by the kippah example) But to answer you: > ordinary people are the voters who decide elections Which is why it is so important that the war on drugs is painted for what it is. Voters today might not grasp it. But those voters will die off. New generations will come in. > Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they are wrong Absolutely! That is why it's important to highlight it is wrong. Even if THEY don't see it. Their children likely will. Some of them will. The truth has strength. It's like flat earthers. You don't highlight their inconsistencies to teach them. You highlight it because it is the truth. And the truth shines. People pick up on it... eventually. Slowly. Gradually. It's been happening for thousands of years.

microcolonel 7y ago
I can't make you read what I had to say, but I think you are being very inflexible and I hope you'll go back and try. If one isn't willing to read any argument from start to finish before comparing people to "flat earthers" and thinking that only "old people who are about to die" disagree with him, one will fail to convince anyone, young or old. Many ordinary people are OK with the war on drugs because they believe that the enforcement is less dangerous than access to drugs. If you tell them it's racist or profit-driven, you get to be all smug to yourself; but they weren't in on it for racism or profit to begin with. To a new Chinese immigrant who's just used to narcotics being extremely forbidden, because they consider them extremely dangerous (for good historical reason); your "enforcement of drug laws is racist and profit-driven" argument is immaterial, because even if they aren't racist or profiting from private prisons, they still think that narcotics prohibition is reasonable.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  I'm happy you are arguing for drug law reform in the way you do. I was just explaining a different way of arguing in favor of it. My way and the way of many people. You do you. My post was very specific: 'some people see it this way' P.S. I never said 'old people who are about to die'. I said a generation will die off (it could be mine), and new ones will come in. I was implying a long term view of things (as in, look at the difference in attitudes over 50 or even 100 years) And I never compared you to a flat earth-er. I compared people who support the current drug legislation to flat earthers. Because both of them have mountains of evidence that point to the fact that they should change their perspective, yet don't do so in the face of such evidence. How you argue in favor of reform is on you. How we do reform is open to debate. That we need it is a fact like the world is round. That I don't agree with arguing in the way you do does not mean I don't understand your perspective (appealing to people's self interest vs sense of right) I respect it. My only intention was providing you with a different perspective.

microcolonel 7y ago

I can't make you read what I had to say, but I think you are being very inflexible and I hope you'll go back and try. If one isn't willing to read any argument from start to finish before comparing people to "flat earthers" and thinking that only "old people who are about to die" disagree with him, one will fail to convince anyone, young or old. Many ordinary people are OK with the war on drugs because they believe that the enforcement is less dangerous than access to drugs. If you tell them it's racist or profit-driven, you get to be all smug to yourself; but they weren't in on it for racism or profit to begin with. To a new Chinese immigrant who's just used to narcotics being extremely forbidden, because they consider them extremely dangerous (for good historical reason); your "enforcement of drug laws is racist and profit-driven" argument is immaterial, because even if they aren't racist or profiting from private prisons, they still think that narcotics prohibition is reasonable.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
I'm happy you are arguing for drug law reform in the way you do. I was just explaining a different way of arguing in favor of it. My way and the way of many people. You do you. My post was very specific: 'some people see it this way' P.S. I never said 'old people who are about to die'. I said a generation will die off (it could be mine), and new ones will come in. I was implying a long term view of things (as in, look at the difference in attitudes over 50 or even 100 years) And I never compared you to a flat earth-er. I compared people who support the current drug legislation to flat earthers. Because both of them have mountains of evidence that point to the fact that they should change their perspective, yet don't do so in the face of such evidence. How you argue in favor of reform is on you. How we do reform is open to debate. That we need it is a fact like the world is round. That I don't agree with arguing in the way you do does not mean I don't understand your perspective (appealing to people's self interest vs sense of right) I respect it. My only intention was providing you with a different perspective.