4 ms·

I don't think it's that simple. It's like the freedom to flaunt not wearing a face mask. Your freedom can actually hurt you and society in general. China for ex

I don't think it's that simple. It's like the freedom to flaunt not wearing a face mask. Your freedom can actually hurt you and society in general. China for example a country without as many freedoms has handled covid way better then the US do in no part to less freedoms. Additionally specifically for the drug thing we already draw lines in legality even for people like you who promote total freedom. Should a 5 year old be allowed to sniff coke and shoot up on heroin just for his freedom? Well he's a kid... and doesn't know any better so he needs to be controlled. Does that same logic apply to adults who don't know any better who walk around without masks? Where is the line drawn? Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults that don't know any better, what affords the child the "privilege" of more restriction? If you legalize heroin and coke you are definitely going to reduce drug related violence and the lacing drugs with impurities but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults " Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible. Up to the point, that they fully take responsibility over their body and life. I don't think that this automatically happens at 18 or 21. Some are ready at 14. Some never will. "but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood. " And this is not a fact and not covered by statistics of ares that did legalisation/decriminalisation. Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  >Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible. See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too. What is the logic that gives immature kids this "privilege" over an immature adult. >Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it. This is not a fact either. In fact it's very convoluted logic. Something that is illegal is used more over something that is legal because of rebellion? It's so against common sense. I decriminalize murder, murder goes down. I decriminalize theft, theft goes down. I decriminalize corruption, corruption goes down. None of those statements make sense. But suddenly this one does: I decriminalize drugs, drug use goes down. Seems not just illogical but delusional. A convenient excuse to promote a personal agenda.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too" It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue) "This is not a fact either. " It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. The other part was a explanation. You are free to disagree with that explanation and offer your own. And the other part: murder and theft is directly hurting others. Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself. But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else.
    - Geminidog 6y ago
      >It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. Saying something doesn't make it a fact. You need to cite a source. >It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue) Durr. No. It's not clear. Many countries have legal definitions of adult but many countries also have treatment and government rehabilitation plans in place for adults who act "immature" this includes crime and drug use. It is not clear at what age range does a human suddenly deserve zero treatment and enforcement. >But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else. Likely your personal clarity comes from the fact that you're a drug user yourself. You have a personal agenda. I have no agenda. If you want to shoot yourself with heroin and make it legal I honestly can care less. But what I came here to discuss is whether decriminalization is an effective deterrent or not. I may think it's right or wrong to implement something but I personally don't care whether it's implemented in actuality because it doesn't effect me personally at all. I am possibly the most unbiased person here because I have no foot in the game. If you don't have a personal agenda then I'm wrong. But tell me, do you use drugs yourself? Likely you do... >Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself. This is my entire argument. We protect kids from hurting themselves because they are immature. The question is why can't we protect adults from hurting themselves because they are immature. That is the controversy.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    You don't seem to want to have a real discussion, thats probably why your coment was voted to death. Anyway: the sources I thought to be common knowledge for anyone interested in the topic: Here a ressource from the german parliament (from their scientific service): https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/675688/4ba9aed6de8e9633685a1cdc2d823525/WD-9-072-19-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/675688/4ba9aed6de8e96... "DieDrogenpolitik der Niederlande führte zu einem Rückgangder Konsumenten harter Drogen auf ein Niveau, das unterhalb des Niveaus der meisten Länder Westeuropas und den USAlag. Zwischen 1979 und 1994 sank dieKonsumprävalenz in Bezug auf harte Drogen von 15 auf 2,5Prozent" roughly translated, Consumption prevalence of hard drugs in netherlands: 15 % down to 2.5 % after liberalisation. And to the other point, well, just because you cannot imagine other people wanting things not just for themself, but for other people, it still happens. Or if you want to wrap it around: sure, I want to have legalization for myself. Not because I want to shoot heroin (I could do that already today), but because I want a saver and healthier world to live in. War on drugs is a real war. Illegal market prices created narcos where only those prospered who were the most ruthless and strongly armed. With legalisation they suddenly would be out of income. Which surely does not suddenly mean peace, when the weapons and mentality is still there, but in the mid or long term they would vanish. And columbia and mexico could have peace. And all those poor junkie devils around the world could get real help (from the saved money of the war) and not prosecution.

hutzlibu 6y ago

"Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults " Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible. Up to the point, that they fully take responsibility over their body and life. I don't think that this automatically happens at 18 or 21. Some are ready at 14. Some never will. "but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood. " And this is not a fact and not covered by statistics of ares that did legalisation/decriminalisation. Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it.

Geminidog 6y ago
>Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible. See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too. What is the logic that gives immature kids this "privilege" over an immature adult. >Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it. This is not a fact either. In fact it's very convoluted logic. Something that is illegal is used more over something that is legal because of rebellion? It's so against common sense. I decriminalize murder, murder goes down. I decriminalize theft, theft goes down. I decriminalize corruption, corruption goes down. None of those statements make sense. But suddenly this one does: I decriminalize drugs, drug use goes down. Seems not just illogical but delusional. A convenient excuse to promote a personal agenda.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too" It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue) "This is not a fact either. " It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. The other part was a explanation. You are free to disagree with that explanation and offer your own. And the other part: murder and theft is directly hurting others. Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself. But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else.
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    >It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. Saying something doesn't make it a fact. You need to cite a source. >It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue) Durr. No. It's not clear. Many countries have legal definitions of adult but many countries also have treatment and government rehabilitation plans in place for adults who act "immature" this includes crime and drug use. It is not clear at what age range does a human suddenly deserve zero treatment and enforcement. >But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else. Likely your personal clarity comes from the fact that you're a drug user yourself. You have a personal agenda. I have no agenda. If you want to shoot yourself with heroin and make it legal I honestly can care less. But what I came here to discuss is whether decriminalization is an effective deterrent or not. I may think it's right or wrong to implement something but I personally don't care whether it's implemented in actuality because it doesn't effect me personally at all. I am possibly the most unbiased person here because I have no foot in the game. If you don't have a personal agenda then I'm wrong. But tell me, do you use drugs yourself? Likely you do... >Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself. This is my entire argument. We protect kids from hurting themselves because they are immature. The question is why can't we protect adults from hurting themselves because they are immature. That is the controversy.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  You don't seem to want to have a real discussion, thats probably why your coment was voted to death. Anyway: the sources I thought to be common knowledge for anyone interested in the topic: Here a ressource from the german parliament (from their scientific service): https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/675688/4ba9aed6de8e9633685a1cdc2d823525/WD-9-072-19-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/675688/4ba9aed6de8e96... "DieDrogenpolitik der Niederlande führte zu einem Rückgangder Konsumenten harter Drogen auf ein Niveau, das unterhalb des Niveaus der meisten Länder Westeuropas und den USAlag. Zwischen 1979 und 1994 sank dieKonsumprävalenz in Bezug auf harte Drogen von 15 auf 2,5Prozent" roughly translated, Consumption prevalence of hard drugs in netherlands: 15 % down to 2.5 % after liberalisation. And to the other point, well, just because you cannot imagine other people wanting things not just for themself, but for other people, it still happens. Or if you want to wrap it around: sure, I want to have legalization for myself. Not because I want to shoot heroin (I could do that already today), but because I want a saver and healthier world to live in. War on drugs is a real war. Illegal market prices created narcos where only those prospered who were the most ruthless and strongly armed. With legalisation they suddenly would be out of income. Which surely does not suddenly mean peace, when the weapons and mentality is still there, but in the mid or long term they would vanish. And columbia and mexico could have peace. And all those poor junkie devils around the world could get real help (from the saved money of the war) and not prosecution.