9 ms·

Legalizing for protection of those involved is one thing, but it is completely orthogonal to 'reducing the stigma'. Frankly this is where these movements lose p

Legalizing for protection of those involved is one thing, but it is completely orthogonal to 'reducing the stigma'. Frankly this is where these movements lose people, including the abortion movement.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
It's much harder to fight the stigma around anything that's illegal because it instantly gets equated with crime. It's hard to talk about an experience that will get you branded a criminal... Decriminalization of marijuana in many places is getting people talking about it more openly, for example. It's not everything but it's a start.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > Decriminalization of marijuana in many places is getting people talking about it more openly, for example. It's not everything but it's a start. sure... and that's the best argument to recriminalize. Having yet more drugs that disrupt mental faculties is not a good thing
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    Drug gangs destroying South America, tens of thousands dying due to Fentanyl-laced pills, lost tax revenue, huge taxpayer expense, petty crime used to fund overpriced drugs, are all signficiantly worse things than what you are afraid of. It's a laugh to see all these right-leaning people who pretend to be libertarians (not sure if that's you, but in general) but are actually in favor of a large state and authoritarian government intervention on topics such as drugs.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      How is there any lost tax revenue if it's not taxed? Why should everything be taxed be default?
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        Opportunity cost of tax revenue. "Why should everything be taxed be default?" The opportunity cost point was the least important in that list. If you don't want to tax it, that's fine with me.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      I'm not a libertarian and I'm not a small government person. I believe inimited government, not small government. If you need a giant government to enforce law then you need a big government. For example, if you have a government of say 100 people, and they decided to hire 10 people and start a fast food restaurant I would be against this new government of 110 people. On the other hand, if the same government needed to hire 5000 people to combat drugs, I'd support that. Why? Because limited government means government should only do a limited number of things. Opening a fast food restaurant is not the proper place of a government. Enforcing drug law is. Government can be as large as necessary to accomplish that.
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        Ok, you are not a hypocrite, but I still think it's objectively bad policy from a cost-benefit standpoint, and it's bad from every political perspective. Four arguments that might move a right-leaning person: - The drug war is indirectly causing more illegal immigration into the US because it's destabilizing South America. - The drug war is shifting large profits away from US pharma and into foreign narco gangs, which is bad for GDP growth and therefore the strength of the nation. - The drug war means taxation needs to be higher because it's expensive. - The drug war creates more street crime, which ranks highly in what right-leaning people care about. So I just don't understand why right-leaning people (not just libertarians) are so actively voting against almost all of their stated interests. Add to this a number of other reasons (how bad it is for the black community, how poor whites are being literally killed by fentanyl, how it pushes people into more dangerous and cheaper drugs such as ice and crack, how hypocritical it is for alcohol and cigarettes to be legal, how morally questionable it is to punish a victimless crime), and the case is clear cut to me.
        iammisc 5y ago
        > Ok, you are not a hypocrite, but I still think it's objectively bad policy from a cost-benefit standpoint, and it's bad from every political perspective. Four arguments that might move a right-leaning person: I'm not a libertarian, but libertarians -- unless they're of the high school variety -- are not carte blanche small government. They are certainly limited government. Perhaps you should begin by not arguing against high-school-level strawmen. > The drug war is indirectly causing more illegal immigration into the US because it's destabilizing South America. Almost certainly, but what happens in South America is not america's problem. America can build a wall and deport the illegal aliens back, as any sovereign country would. > The drug war is shifting large profits away from US pharma and into foreign narco gangs, which is bad for GDP growth and therefore the strength of the nation. Yes, unfortunately, we do not imprison enough whites for their drug habits, and instead jail mostly non-whites. The solution is to put more white drug users in jail for a very long time or institute pretty harsh rehabilitation programs (i.e., not released until you're sober for X amount of time, and then close follow-up monitoring). > The drug war means taxation needs to be higher because it's expensive. That's fine. I'm not against taxation, as long as the taxes are being spent on worthwhile things that are the purview of government. For example, if you told me taxes had to be raised 1% for 'diversity training' I'd say no, because diversity training is not the purview of government. If you told me taxes had to be raised 20% due to an increase in crime and the need to imprison and incarcerate more criminals, that would be okay. WE all have to share society's burdens, I just don't want to share the burden of things I don't want. > The drug war creates more street crime, which ranks highly in what right-leaning people care about. Indeed. So we should institute harsher criminal sentencing. > So I just don't understand why right-leaning people (not just libertarians) are so actively voting against almost all of their stated interests. Dude... you live in a bubble. There is no group of 'right-leaning' people who 'state' their interests in some centralized publication. The only people who 'state' right-leaning people's interests are left-wing publications trying to create strawmen. Perhaps listen to others instead of imagining their interests? > how bad it is for the black community, The black community was the initial force behind the drug war > how poor whites are being literally killed by fentanyl More doctors and pharmacists should frankly be in jail. > how it pushes people into more dangerous and cheaper drugs such as ice and crack Great, those dealers should be imprisoned too. We have too few prisons in this country, given the level of crime and drugs. > how hypocritical it is for alcohol and cigarettes to be legal Alcohol and cigarettes have a long cultural history. They are luxuries tolerated for the culture. Not something innate. > how morally questionable it is to punish a victimless crime The victim is the person doing the drugs. It is well within the purview of government to punish people for victimizing themselves, to discourage the behavior. For example, many countries used to criminalize attempted suicide. I'm not going to turn this into an argument on that... but that is well within the government's purview.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    Is it safe to assume you also support the prohibition of alcohol?
    - iammisc 5y ago
      Do I believe the government has the authority to prohibit alcohol? Absolutely. Do I think it's wise.... No. Our culture is too dependent on it. If there was a country where alcohol wee not popular, I'd think it would be a good idea to keep it illegal. Look, drinking is fun, but it's a luxury and can be dangerous.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >It's much harder to fight the stigma around anything that's illegal because it instantly gets equated with crime. And because a large subset of the population (which tend to be over-represented on the white collar parts of the internet who generally have the luxury of always being able to afford cost of compliance in their day to day lives) happily lets the state dictate their morals by mentally bucketing illegal things as immoral by default.
collegeburner 5y ago
Youre downvoted but have a good point. I agree its a victimless crime and so the govt has no business regulating it, but pushing for destigmitization is a different kind of social change. Why is that important?
- tdeck 5y ago
  I'd say it's because your primary base of support is going to come from people who are tired of the thing being stigmatized. Of course they're going to want to fight against that - it's only natural.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Prostitution is not a victimless crime. This is just mental gymnastics that people do to make themselves feel better abotu themselves. No woman wakes up one day and says 'I want to sell my body for sex to the highest bidder' unless forced to by circumstance.
  - collegeburner 5y ago
    I know a lot of guys who dont wake up every day and say they want to sell their bodys for hard labor to the highest bidder, but it's decent work. Similar to how women can contract incurable, potentially-lethal venereal diseases as prostitutes, jobs like construction can really mess up a man's body. Doesn't mean we should ban them.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      Yet, many men wake up with the desire to build things. That is not an atypical desire. Many men wake up with a desire to build things for money. Many women do as well. Few people wake up wanting to sell their procreative parts to the highest bidder.
      - EllieEffingMae 5y ago
        If you're okay with one of these things but not the other, then you are applying a double standard based on a moralisation of sex. Sex as labour is no different than any labour, and there is no criticism of sex work that is whole an complete that does not also criticise the very system you're defending.

Legalizing for protection of those involved is one thing, but it is completely orthogonal to 'reducing the stigma'. Frankly this is where these movements lose people, including the abortion movement.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

It's much harder to fight the stigma around anything that's illegal because it instantly gets equated with crime. It's hard to talk about an experience that will get you branded a criminal... Decriminalization of marijuana in many places is getting people talking about it more openly, for example. It's not everything but it's a start.

iammisc 5y ago
> Decriminalization of marijuana in many places is getting people talking about it more openly, for example. It's not everything but it's a start. sure... and that's the best argument to recriminalize. Having yet more drugs that disrupt mental faculties is not a good thing
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Drug gangs destroying South America, tens of thousands dying due to Fentanyl-laced pills, lost tax revenue, huge taxpayer expense, petty crime used to fund overpriced drugs, are all signficiantly worse things than what you are afraid of. It's a laugh to see all these right-leaning people who pretend to be libertarians (not sure if that's you, but in general) but are actually in favor of a large state and authoritarian government intervention on topics such as drugs.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    How is there any lost tax revenue if it's not taxed? Why should everything be taxed be default?
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Opportunity cost of tax revenue. "Why should everything be taxed be default?" The opportunity cost point was the least important in that list. If you don't want to tax it, that's fine with me.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    I'm not a libertarian and I'm not a small government person. I believe inimited government, not small government. If you need a giant government to enforce law then you need a big government. For example, if you have a government of say 100 people, and they decided to hire 10 people and start a fast food restaurant I would be against this new government of 110 people. On the other hand, if the same government needed to hire 5000 people to combat drugs, I'd support that. Why? Because limited government means government should only do a limited number of things. Opening a fast food restaurant is not the proper place of a government. Enforcing drug law is. Government can be as large as necessary to accomplish that.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Ok, you are not a hypocrite, but I still think it's objectively bad policy from a cost-benefit standpoint, and it's bad from every political perspective. Four arguments that might move a right-leaning person: - The drug war is indirectly causing more illegal immigration into the US because it's destabilizing South America. - The drug war is shifting large profits away from US pharma and into foreign narco gangs, which is bad for GDP growth and therefore the strength of the nation. - The drug war means taxation needs to be higher because it's expensive. - The drug war creates more street crime, which ranks highly in what right-leaning people care about. So I just don't understand why right-leaning people (not just libertarians) are so actively voting against almost all of their stated interests. Add to this a number of other reasons (how bad it is for the black community, how poor whites are being literally killed by fentanyl, how it pushes people into more dangerous and cheaper drugs such as ice and crack, how hypocritical it is for alcohol and cigarettes to be legal, how morally questionable it is to punish a victimless crime), and the case is clear cut to me.
      - iammisc 5y ago
        > Ok, you are not a hypocrite, but I still think it's objectively bad policy from a cost-benefit standpoint, and it's bad from every political perspective. Four arguments that might move a right-leaning person: I'm not a libertarian, but libertarians -- unless they're of the high school variety -- are not carte blanche small government. They are certainly limited government. Perhaps you should begin by not arguing against high-school-level strawmen. > The drug war is indirectly causing more illegal immigration into the US because it's destabilizing South America. Almost certainly, but what happens in South America is not america's problem. America can build a wall and deport the illegal aliens back, as any sovereign country would. > The drug war is shifting large profits away from US pharma and into foreign narco gangs, which is bad for GDP growth and therefore the strength of the nation. Yes, unfortunately, we do not imprison enough whites for their drug habits, and instead jail mostly non-whites. The solution is to put more white drug users in jail for a very long time or institute pretty harsh rehabilitation programs (i.e., not released until you're sober for X amount of time, and then close follow-up monitoring). > The drug war means taxation needs to be higher because it's expensive. That's fine. I'm not against taxation, as long as the taxes are being spent on worthwhile things that are the purview of government. For example, if you told me taxes had to be raised 1% for 'diversity training' I'd say no, because diversity training is not the purview of government. If you told me taxes had to be raised 20% due to an increase in crime and the need to imprison and incarcerate more criminals, that would be okay. WE all have to share society's burdens, I just don't want to share the burden of things I don't want. > The drug war creates more street crime, which ranks highly in what right-leaning people care about. Indeed. So we should institute harsher criminal sentencing. > So I just don't understand why right-leaning people (not just libertarians) are so actively voting against almost all of their stated interests. Dude... you live in a bubble. There is no group of 'right-leaning' people who 'state' their interests in some centralized publication. The only people who 'state' right-leaning people's interests are left-wing publications trying to create strawmen. Perhaps listen to others instead of imagining their interests? > how bad it is for the black community, The black community was the initial force behind the drug war > how poor whites are being literally killed by fentanyl More doctors and pharmacists should frankly be in jail. > how it pushes people into more dangerous and cheaper drugs such as ice and crack Great, those dealers should be imprisoned too. We have too few prisons in this country, given the level of crime and drugs. > how hypocritical it is for alcohol and cigarettes to be legal Alcohol and cigarettes have a long cultural history. They are luxuries tolerated for the culture. Not something innate. > how morally questionable it is to punish a victimless crime The victim is the person doing the drugs. It is well within the purview of government to punish people for victimizing themselves, to discourage the behavior. For example, many countries used to criminalize attempted suicide. I'm not going to turn this into an argument on that... but that is well within the government's purview.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  Is it safe to assume you also support the prohibition of alcohol?
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Do I believe the government has the authority to prohibit alcohol? Absolutely. Do I think it's wise.... No. Our culture is too dependent on it. If there was a country where alcohol wee not popular, I'd think it would be a good idea to keep it illegal. Look, drinking is fun, but it's a luxury and can be dangerous.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>It's much harder to fight the stigma around anything that's illegal because it instantly gets equated with crime. And because a large subset of the population (which tend to be over-represented on the white collar parts of the internet who generally have the luxury of always being able to afford cost of compliance in their day to day lives) happily lets the state dictate their morals by mentally bucketing illegal things as immoral by default.

collegeburner 5y ago

Youre downvoted but have a good point. I agree its a victimless crime and so the govt has no business regulating it, but pushing for destigmitization is a different kind of social change. Why is that important?

tdeck 5y ago
I'd say it's because your primary base of support is going to come from people who are tired of the thing being stigmatized. Of course they're going to want to fight against that - it's only natural.
iammisc 5y ago
Prostitution is not a victimless crime. This is just mental gymnastics that people do to make themselves feel better abotu themselves. No woman wakes up one day and says 'I want to sell my body for sex to the highest bidder' unless forced to by circumstance.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  I know a lot of guys who dont wake up every day and say they want to sell their bodys for hard labor to the highest bidder, but it's decent work. Similar to how women can contract incurable, potentially-lethal venereal diseases as prostitutes, jobs like construction can really mess up a man's body. Doesn't mean we should ban them.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Yet, many men wake up with the desire to build things. That is not an atypical desire. Many men wake up with a desire to build things for money. Many women do as well. Few people wake up wanting to sell their procreative parts to the highest bidder.
    - EllieEffingMae 5y ago
      If you're okay with one of these things but not the other, then you are applying a double standard based on a moralisation of sex. Sex as labour is no different than any labour, and there is no criticism of sex work that is whole an complete that does not also criticise the very system you're defending.