7 ms·

While I'm glad to see growing support for rolling back some of the most obviously horrific excesses of the War on Drugs, we still have a generation or two of Am

While I'm glad to see growing support for rolling back some of the most obviously horrific excesses of the War on Drugs, we still have a generation or two of Americans who eagerly support simply destroying the lives of people involved with drugs they've been trained to be afraid of. I mean, it's great so many people are finally willing to stop obliterating the lives of strangers who like to smoke weed instead of get drunk, but why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends?

option 6y ago
because some of his friends will have their lives ruined with pretty high probability because of this.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  That is likely true although "Drugs will ruin your life, so here's a 40 year prison sentence" isn't great either. Viewing addicts as human beings is a step too far for many, unfortunately.
- iaHN 6y ago
  Is the act of doing some drugs enough to ruin your life? The wealthy do drugs all the time. I'm willing to bet the majority of our politicians have done "illegal drugs" during their adult lives. Why the double standard?
boogies 6y ago
> why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him. But I think the view that there’s no limit to how badly his life can justifiably be ruined (or ended) is receding, there was multi-partisan (& independent) support for the First Step Act. And I think many reasonable people across spectrums could agree on more steps like the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, but some politicians love to laser focus on racial tensions and divide them. (Edit: expanded second sentence)
- standardUser 6y ago
  "I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him." Yeah, that's the War on Drugs in a nutshell. People imposing life-ruining penalties on strangers because they are afraid "something bad" might happen. But as decades of embarrassing failure have taught us, the "something bad" is far more likely to be a consequence of the laws than the drugs.
  - boogies 6y ago
    Politics in a nutshell. Rights, checks, and balances can go out the window because something bad might happen. Eurasia or Eastasia will end the world. Five times as many civilians as died on 9/11 must be secretly killed because something bad has happened. The messenger who told of those 15,000 hidden deaths must be killed because he shone the best disinfectant on our allies Eastasia as brightly as he did on our eternal enemies from Eurasia before, and caused the world to end for four years.
tobylane 6y ago
Hold on, that ending was a surprise. Rolling back most of the war on drugs and focusing it just on the sellers of class a drugs (once classification is corrected) is a fair summary of what most of the rest of the first world is heading towards. It’s the balanced option.
- standardUser 6y ago
  The balanced option is ruining the lives of some people involved in recreational drug use, but not others, based on who is the point of distribution for a group of friends on a given weekend? People don't buy drugs from kingpins and importers. They buy drugs from a friend who has a hook up who has a hook up and that is the only way drugs can be distributed if we insist on maintaining laws that ensure a black market.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dkersten 6y ago
  15 years ago, when I was in Uni, I smoked a bunch of weed and because I was smoking it and had contacts, friends who wanted some would ask me. I only ever charged them the cost price, I did not make any money from drugs, ever, but, technically, that would count as dealing at least by the laws in my country. I'd typically only have a small amount on me, but on occasion I did pick up enough for ~5 people. In aggregate, definitely enough that the police would have claimed it was far too much for personal use (nevermind that their "personal use" amount is always super low compared to what a moderate to heavy smoker would go through). Every single one of my friends that I did this for is now an upstanding member of society, in well paying jobs paying over the average amount of taxes, some with children now. Point is, that I provided them with weed every so often had no negative effect on their lives or on society. Yet the law says it was a crime and if I had been caught it would have fucked up my life. I don't think that's particularly fair. I know that's weed and the commenter mentioned cocaine, I've got friends who were in similar situation as me but with cocaine and would provide -- at no extra cost -- to friends who wanted it for parties and such. I don't think these people were any worse than I was. Distributing to friends really shouldn't be a big deal in my opinion.
wcarron 6y ago
I was with you until the end. You lost me at 'selling cocaine to his friends' I personally support legalizing and/or decriminalizing a significant array of drugs; but I do not think we should ever accept the distribution of drugs by non-regulated entities. Possession/consumption, fine. Distribution: Not fine. Drugs sold on the street are not tested for purity or manufacturing standards. There is no accountability, no regulated employee rights, no taxes levied, etc. Selling drugs should remain a felony. Personally, I think the gov't should grant licenses for the manufacture and distribution of these substances with rigorous controls, and adult citizens should be legally allowed to purchase an amount that is fit for personal consumption, on a schedule that would make it exceedingly difficult to resell/stash (e.g. You may purchase 1-2gs of cocaine or 2 tabs of acid every 6 months) Obviously, we have seen problems with this, as this scheme is essentially just prescription drugs combined with Canada's 'beer stores'.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  The problem with this is that the opioid crisis has shown a large majority of people simply can't handle "hard" drugs. They either get physiologically addicted or psychologically dependent and rapidly enter downward spirals as a result. So even if you legalized and regulated the distribution of cocaine, for example, many people would still turn into addicts and pursue the black market to get their fix after their monthly allowed amount runs out. I don't think there really is a good answer in the near-term, honestly. You either go the Portugal route and trade massive spending on anti-drug policing for massive spending on rehab and mental healthcare or you get one opioid crisis after another. Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    > Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana. I totally agree. In fact our ridiculous anti-drug stance has no doubt delayed or prevented the development of these things. I would imagine we would have some pretty good options if a legitimate pharmaceutical company could do this. Recreational, non addictive (or minimally addictive) options would be available. Instead our harsh prohibition and penalties means the R&D are from drug cartels who want the most addictive/powerful product possible. I read a book called "Narconomics" which discusses how bad the Heroin has gotten because of this.
galkk 6y ago
I highly doubt that there's a "friendship" in relationship with a drug dealer
- standardUser 6y ago
  As a former drug dealer, I emphatically disagree. How exactly do you think people get drugs? In dark alleys?
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    From people who pretend to be their friends, but mostly care about the money, I guess.
SubiculumCode 6y ago
I can think of no better way to get more people selling drugs that taking all their property on the mere suspicion that it aided the selling of drugs.

option 6y ago

because some of his friends will have their lives ruined with pretty high probability because of this.

mhh__ 6y ago
That is likely true although "Drugs will ruin your life, so here's a 40 year prison sentence" isn't great either. Viewing addicts as human beings is a step too far for many, unfortunately.
iaHN 6y ago
Is the act of doing some drugs enough to ruin your life? The wealthy do drugs all the time. I'm willing to bet the majority of our politicians have done "illegal drugs" during their adult lives. Why the double standard?

boogies 6y ago

> why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him. But I think the view that there’s no limit to how badly his life can justifiably be ruined (or ended) is receding, there was multi-partisan (& independent) support for the First Step Act. And I think many reasonable people across spectrums could agree on more steps like the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, but some politicians love to laser focus on racial tensions and divide them. (Edit: expanded second sentence)

standardUser 6y ago
"I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him." Yeah, that's the War on Drugs in a nutshell. People imposing life-ruining penalties on strangers because they are afraid "something bad" might happen. But as decades of embarrassing failure have taught us, the "something bad" is far more likely to be a consequence of the laws than the drugs.
- boogies 6y ago
  Politics in a nutshell. Rights, checks, and balances can go out the window because something bad might happen. Eurasia or Eastasia will end the world. Five times as many civilians as died on 9/11 must be secretly killed because something bad has happened. The messenger who told of those 15,000 hidden deaths must be killed because he shone the best disinfectant on our allies Eastasia as brightly as he did on our eternal enemies from Eurasia before, and caused the world to end for four years.

tobylane 6y ago

Hold on, that ending was a surprise. Rolling back most of the war on drugs and focusing it just on the sellers of class a drugs (once classification is corrected) is a fair summary of what most of the rest of the first world is heading towards. It’s the balanced option.

standardUser 6y ago
The balanced option is ruining the lives of some people involved in recreational drug use, but not others, based on who is the point of distribution for a group of friends on a given weekend? People don't buy drugs from kingpins and importers. They buy drugs from a friend who has a hook up who has a hook up and that is the only way drugs can be distributed if we insist on maintaining laws that ensure a black market.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dkersten 6y ago
15 years ago, when I was in Uni, I smoked a bunch of weed and because I was smoking it and had contacts, friends who wanted some would ask me. I only ever charged them the cost price, I did not make any money from drugs, ever, but, technically, that would count as dealing at least by the laws in my country. I'd typically only have a small amount on me, but on occasion I did pick up enough for ~5 people. In aggregate, definitely enough that the police would have claimed it was far too much for personal use (nevermind that their "personal use" amount is always super low compared to what a moderate to heavy smoker would go through). Every single one of my friends that I did this for is now an upstanding member of society, in well paying jobs paying over the average amount of taxes, some with children now. Point is, that I provided them with weed every so often had no negative effect on their lives or on society. Yet the law says it was a crime and if I had been caught it would have fucked up my life. I don't think that's particularly fair. I know that's weed and the commenter mentioned cocaine, I've got friends who were in similar situation as me but with cocaine and would provide -- at no extra cost -- to friends who wanted it for parties and such. I don't think these people were any worse than I was. Distributing to friends really shouldn't be a big deal in my opinion.

wcarron 6y ago

I was with you until the end. You lost me at 'selling cocaine to his friends' I personally support legalizing and/or decriminalizing a significant array of drugs; but I do not think we should ever accept the distribution of drugs by non-regulated entities. Possession/consumption, fine. Distribution: Not fine. Drugs sold on the street are not tested for purity or manufacturing standards. There is no accountability, no regulated employee rights, no taxes levied, etc. Selling drugs should remain a felony. Personally, I think the gov't should grant licenses for the manufacture and distribution of these substances with rigorous controls, and adult citizens should be legally allowed to purchase an amount that is fit for personal consumption, on a schedule that would make it exceedingly difficult to resell/stash (e.g. You may purchase 1-2gs of cocaine or 2 tabs of acid every 6 months) Obviously, we have seen problems with this, as this scheme is essentially just prescription drugs combined with Canada's 'beer stores'.

mdorazio 6y ago
The problem with this is that the opioid crisis has shown a large majority of people simply can't handle "hard" drugs. They either get physiologically addicted or psychologically dependent and rapidly enter downward spirals as a result. So even if you legalized and regulated the distribution of cocaine, for example, many people would still turn into addicts and pursue the black market to get their fix after their monthly allowed amount runs out. I don't think there really is a good answer in the near-term, honestly. You either go the Portugal route and trade massive spending on anti-drug policing for massive spending on rehab and mental healthcare or you get one opioid crisis after another. Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana.
- freedomben 6y ago
  > Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana. I totally agree. In fact our ridiculous anti-drug stance has no doubt delayed or prevented the development of these things. I would imagine we would have some pretty good options if a legitimate pharmaceutical company could do this. Recreational, non addictive (or minimally addictive) options would be available. Instead our harsh prohibition and penalties means the R&D are from drug cartels who want the most addictive/powerful product possible. I read a book called "Narconomics" which discusses how bad the Heroin has gotten because of this.

galkk 6y ago

I highly doubt that there's a "friendship" in relationship with a drug dealer

standardUser 6y ago
As a former drug dealer, I emphatically disagree. How exactly do you think people get drugs? In dark alleys?
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  From people who pretend to be their friends, but mostly care about the money, I guess.

SubiculumCode 6y ago

I can think of no better way to get more people selling drugs that taking all their property on the mere suspicion that it aided the selling of drugs.