4 ms·

That’s because everybody here already knows that keeping drugs illegal is what is actually funding criminal organizations.

BTCOG 6y ago
Bingo. Plus, as it pertains to LSD itself, what he said was patently false. LSD has always been largely distributed among intellectual circles for decent low prices and among hippie circles. Real LSD is not meth, and it's not heroin. It wasn't and isn't trafficked by cartels. Maybe fake synthetic chemicals being sold as "acid," but not pure LSD-25. It was a perpetuated government War on Drugs (tm) myth.
grayhatter 6y ago
https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
melq 6y ago
No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. The law may be responsible for creating an environment that allows such groups to prosper, no argument there. But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  > No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. No, that's a nonsensical sentence. Profits are funding. What I said is correct: The law is what is actualizing the profits (or the funding). Without the law there would be no profits, no funding. Ergo, the law is causing the funds to happen. Profits are not self-caused. They don't just happen by themselves. > But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. Yes it does. Morals are subjective. I'm absolutely fine with it. These criminal organizations are far less violent and less criminal than my own government which I fund by paying taxes. Furthermore, the vast majority of people buying illicit drugs are not buying directly from violent criminal organizations or even non-violent criminal organizations. They're buying from a friend who buys from a friend who buys from a friend who might buy from a criminal organization (who might be violent). > In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise. You (and them) made poor arguments based on your ill-formed opinions and presented no evidence. You both deserve the downvotes.

BTCOG 6y ago

Bingo. Plus, as it pertains to LSD itself, what he said was patently false. LSD has always been largely distributed among intellectual circles for decent low prices and among hippie circles. Real LSD is not meth, and it's not heroin. It wasn't and isn't trafficked by cartels. Maybe fake synthetic chemicals being sold as "acid," but not pure LSD-25. It was a perpetuated government War on Drugs (tm) myth.

grayhatter 6y ago

https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/

melq 6y ago

No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. The law may be responsible for creating an environment that allows such groups to prosper, no argument there. But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise.

wayneftw 6y ago
> No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. No, that's a nonsensical sentence. Profits are funding. What I said is correct: The law is what is actualizing the profits (or the funding). Without the law there would be no profits, no funding. Ergo, the law is causing the funds to happen. Profits are not self-caused. They don't just happen by themselves. > But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. Yes it does. Morals are subjective. I'm absolutely fine with it. These criminal organizations are far less violent and less criminal than my own government which I fund by paying taxes. Furthermore, the vast majority of people buying illicit drugs are not buying directly from violent criminal organizations or even non-violent criminal organizations. They're buying from a friend who buys from a friend who buys from a friend who might buy from a criminal organization (who might be violent). > In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise. You (and them) made poor arguments based on your ill-formed opinions and presented no evidence. You both deserve the downvotes.