3 ms·

>Decriminalise drugs and criminals will lose most of their revenue. They are already into ransomware anyway. And maybe decriminalize human trafficking too? A

by nix23 5y ago

>Decriminalise drugs and criminals will lose most of their revenue. They are already into ransomware anyway. And maybe decriminalize human trafficking too? All problems solved right?

brigandish 5y ago
> And maybe decriminalize human trafficking too? The difference between the drug trade and human trafficking is that it may be argued that the former does not involve harm of others. The latter could never support such an argument.
- nix23 5y ago
  >is that it may be argued that the former does not involve harm of others. You can ask afghan puppy farmers about that, and every single crack/heroin user if it's not harm-full, just decriminalize it, solves a really minor problem. You can see it with prostitution, it's legal in most of Europe, however it's still in the hand organized crime groups, nothing has changed.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    The point was the huge difference between what may be argued (successfully) about something and what could not be argued about something (because it's clearly impossible to be successfully argued). That the mays are contentious is implied by the may, but it is possible to put one's weight behind it. Proposing arguments against it won't change that.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > You can see it with prostitution, it's legal in most of Europe, however it's still in the hand organized crime groups, nothing has changed It's slightly less bad for sex workers, since their activity not being a crime means they can theoretically go to the police, which is better than nothing.
    - nix23 5y ago
      >It's slightly less bad for sex workers, True, at least sex workers can go to the police if something happens, but as i wrote in another comment, it solves a ~minor problem and is not the to-go-and-solve-everything-solution.
locallost 5y ago
That's a really poor analogy. Decriminalizing drugs will not mean that somebody will have a right to give you drugs. Human trafficking involves abusing other people. It will mean that an incredible amount of money spent on policing can be used on education of what drugs are and what they do to you. The people that have a job to police the lives of others are scared of this because they will be without a job. As their job is basically not needed they are scared of losing their welfare and privilege.
- nix23 5y ago
  >Decriminalizing drugs will not mean that somebody will have a right to give you drugs. Then nobody will loose any revenue right? Because that was the parent's argument. >It will mean that an incredible amount of money spent on policing can be used on education of what drugs are and what they do to you Ah yes the education argument...it never works, you cannot throw money at such a problem.
  - locallost 5y ago
    I don't understand the revenue argument and I've read all the comments. Sure it works. Look at Holland, does it have a substantially higher or even a higher incidence of drug use than e.g. neighboring countries? I don't think so. Look at Portugal, a country that reduced drug abuse through decriminalization. That's just a fact. It's a complex issue and there might be cases where it doesn't work, but to say it never works is clearly wrong. If we talk about a democratic society, then it can't rely on brute force for the people's own good, at least not for an extended period of time. A ban would be OK early on, but eventually people need to know themselves what's wrong and crucially why. This goes beyond drug use and is basically the only way to have a democratic society. As it is, the ban on drugs is mostly a tool of oppression. Especially in countries like the US, that is financing a predominantly white police force to, well, police and subject minorities to a different standard than the majority.
    - nix23 5y ago
      > I don't understand the revenue argument and I've read all the comments. Look at the top-comment, you have obviously NOT read all the comments: >>Decriminalise drugs and criminals will lose most of their revenue. >Sure it works. Look at Holland, does it have a substantially higher or even a higher incidence of drug use than e.g. neighboring countries? I don't think so. Yeah look how good it works: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBva8anWQBk1Ptr?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBva8anWQBk1Ptr?format=jpg&name=... >Cheese, Cocaine and Killers: how holland became a mafia paradise through lax drug policies. It's from this month. Another? https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2020/01/netherlands-narco-state/ https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2020/01/netherlands-nar... And here some taste of reality: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/netherlands-belgium-switzerland-tops-in-drug-use-in-europe/2285916 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/netherlands-belgium-switzerl... >Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland tops in drug use in Europe

by nix23 5y ago

>Decriminalise drugs and criminals will lose most of their revenue. They are already into ransomware anyway. And maybe decriminalize human trafficking too? All problems solved right?

brigandish 5y ago

> And maybe decriminalize human trafficking too? The difference between the drug trade and human trafficking is that it may be argued that the former does not involve harm of others. The latter could never support such an argument.

nix23 5y ago
>is that it may be argued that the former does not involve harm of others. You can ask afghan puppy farmers about that, and every single crack/heroin user if it's not harm-full, just decriminalize it, solves a really minor problem. You can see it with prostitution, it's legal in most of Europe, however it's still in the hand organized crime groups, nothing has changed.
- brigandish 5y ago
  The point was the huge difference between what may be argued (successfully) about something and what could not be argued about something (because it's clearly impossible to be successfully argued). That the mays are contentious is implied by the may, but it is possible to put one's weight behind it. Proposing arguments against it won't change that.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > You can see it with prostitution, it's legal in most of Europe, however it's still in the hand organized crime groups, nothing has changed It's slightly less bad for sex workers, since their activity not being a crime means they can theoretically go to the police, which is better than nothing.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >It's slightly less bad for sex workers, True, at least sex workers can go to the police if something happens, but as i wrote in another comment, it solves a ~minor problem and is not the to-go-and-solve-everything-solution.

locallost 5y ago

That's a really poor analogy. Decriminalizing drugs will not mean that somebody will have a right to give you drugs. Human trafficking involves abusing other people. It will mean that an incredible amount of money spent on policing can be used on education of what drugs are and what they do to you. The people that have a job to police the lives of others are scared of this because they will be without a job. As their job is basically not needed they are scared of losing their welfare and privilege.

nix23 5y ago
>Decriminalizing drugs will not mean that somebody will have a right to give you drugs. Then nobody will loose any revenue right? Because that was the parent's argument. >It will mean that an incredible amount of money spent on policing can be used on education of what drugs are and what they do to you Ah yes the education argument...it never works, you cannot throw money at such a problem.
- locallost 5y ago
  I don't understand the revenue argument and I've read all the comments. Sure it works. Look at Holland, does it have a substantially higher or even a higher incidence of drug use than e.g. neighboring countries? I don't think so. Look at Portugal, a country that reduced drug abuse through decriminalization. That's just a fact. It's a complex issue and there might be cases where it doesn't work, but to say it never works is clearly wrong. If we talk about a democratic society, then it can't rely on brute force for the people's own good, at least not for an extended period of time. A ban would be OK early on, but eventually people need to know themselves what's wrong and crucially why. This goes beyond drug use and is basically the only way to have a democratic society. As it is, the ban on drugs is mostly a tool of oppression. Especially in countries like the US, that is financing a predominantly white police force to, well, police and subject minorities to a different standard than the majority.
  - nix23 5y ago
    > I don't understand the revenue argument and I've read all the comments. Look at the top-comment, you have obviously NOT read all the comments: >>Decriminalise drugs and criminals will lose most of their revenue. >Sure it works. Look at Holland, does it have a substantially higher or even a higher incidence of drug use than e.g. neighboring countries? I don't think so. Yeah look how good it works: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBva8anWQBk1Ptr?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBva8anWQBk1Ptr?format=jpg&name=... >Cheese, Cocaine and Killers: how holland became a mafia paradise through lax drug policies. It's from this month. Another? https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2020/01/netherlands-narco-state/ https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2020/01/netherlands-nar... And here some taste of reality: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/netherlands-belgium-switzerland-tops-in-drug-use-in-europe/2285916 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/netherlands-belgium-switzerl... >Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland tops in drug use in Europe