3 ms·

That is not why we have those social norms and laws. The War On Drugs was a political move by the Nixon administration that got doubled down on by the Reagan ad

That is not why we have those social norms and laws. The War On Drugs was a political move by the Nixon administration that got doubled down on by the Reagan administration and has simply lasted long enough to become baseline cultural context. The costs associated with American drug policy far outweigh the costs of treatment, and our cultural attitude of abstinence only has been demonstrated to increase drug abuse, not curtail it. As for the taxpayers of massachusetts, why not ask them how it feels to get prison expenses _down_ to $1.4 B with a 33% nonviolent prison population? That's mostly black? Also take note, Jacob got his start on oxycontin, which is legal, and currently the focus of a series of state-led lawsuits against Purdue pharma and the sackler family, major campaign donors to conservative drug policy causes. I don't mean to come at you, but that argument of yours is one that I've heard and it's dangerous. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/quick-statistics https://www.mass.gov/service-details/quick-statistics

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Hnrobert42 6y ago
> Adults' choices affect more than just their own lives. That's why we have social norms, and laws. I take this to mean A. GP supports laws that limit am individual’s actions if they benefit the individual at the (non-consensual) expense of others. And B. GP implies drug use is one of those activities. With which part do you disagree? A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail? B. Do you believe drug use is not one of those activities? Sub-question, do you believe this depends on the drug?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Edit: are you replying to the right post, because if not that would explain me getting in a tizz. I'm afraid I'm tired and having trouble understanding your post but am curious. Please correct me where I go wrong as I try to make sense of it. > A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail? Doesn't it depend on the law? Bad laws will probably fail and certainly should fail. Bad laws do exist, as @pksebben was illustrating. Should this law was revoked recently https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revokes-400-year-old-legal-right-westfjords-district-kill-basques-sight-10278592.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revo... but should it not have been? I suspect I'm getting you wrong, so please put me right.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Hnrobert42 6y ago

> Adults' choices affect more than just their own lives. That's why we have social norms, and laws. I take this to mean A. GP supports laws that limit am individual’s actions if they benefit the individual at the (non-consensual) expense of others. And B. GP implies drug use is one of those activities. With which part do you disagree? A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail? B. Do you believe drug use is not one of those activities? Sub-question, do you believe this depends on the drug?

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Edit: are you replying to the right post, because if not that would explain me getting in a tizz. I'm afraid I'm tired and having trouble understanding your post but am curious. Please correct me where I go wrong as I try to make sense of it. > A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail? Doesn't it depend on the law? Bad laws will probably fail and certainly should fail. Bad laws do exist, as @pksebben was illustrating. Should this law was revoked recently https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revokes-400-year-old-legal-right-westfjords-district-kill-basques-sight-10278592.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revo... but should it not have been? I suspect I'm getting you wrong, so please put me right.