3 ms·
I think this is a great jab at my argument and its main weakness. But I stand by it, because even in your example we have seen that countries that go for decrim
by krastanov 5y ago
I think this is a great jab at my argument and its main weakness. But I stand by it, because even in your example we have seen that countries that go for decriminalization and offer elective treatment do better. Compare Portugal's successes with decreasing hard drug use with US's failed war on drugs.
Do not criminalize the things that make your society worse at scale, rather ensure the positive incentives draw your population in a better direction. I.e. carrot, not stick.
- h0l0cube 5y agoWhat you've missed with this analogy is that the supply side is always worth criminalising, or at least regulating Edit: I'll walk this back to 'is always worth regulating'
- rileymat2 5y agoThis seems like a recipe for an even bigger black market, and various other issues that will come when an organization is running illegally, because of unblocked demand. Obviously, even in cases where it is illegal to both buy and sell we still have black markets, but making it ok to buy but not sell seems like a recipe for a giant black market.
- h0l0cube 5y agoTrue, but that's an argument for regulation
- krastanov 5y agoNo, that is the exact opposite of what I said. Instead of wasting resource on criminalizing the supply size, make the demand plummet by providing more enticing options. If there is demand for the drugs, you have already failed and criminalizing the supply is a non-functional bandaid. On the other hand, sure, regulating and ensuring tax revenue comes from the vice is not a bad idea (and it works ok for gambling, alcohol, and now pot too).