4 ms·

>In summary, "we will hang you" isn't "harm" but justice Most of the harm coming from drug use is coming from prohibition. Hanging drug users or drug dealers

>In summary, "we will hang you" isn't "harm" but justice Most of the harm coming from drug use is coming from prohibition. Hanging drug users or drug dealers is not justice, it's a bigger crime than any type of drug deal. >Additionally, there is a hierarchy of drugs, and in US the biggest problem is hard drugs / opiates. We should focus enforcement and punishment efforts at those, while also not enabling the addiction of users. And this have absolutely nothing to do with drugs dealers. This problem was created by the likes of Purdue Pharma. Jailing drug dealers does absolutely nothing to stop Americans from getting hooked on opiates

PKop 5y ago
Hanging drug dealers isn't worse than the harm they cause to the community, and many individual lives. >Purdue Pharma Regulation against them and restrictions on opiates has helped to decrease that form of opiate use. Obviously, Purdue Pharma executives should be harshly punished, much more than they have been. Why shouldn't they? They perpetrated a great crime and suffering, willingly lying and causing addiction, to so many people. That they should suffer for it and that there is a great need to deter other drug companies / doctors from doing the same is abundantly clear. It is not mutually exclusive from also targeting street drug dealers of fentanyl and other synthetic opiates which is the problem now though.
- kbenson 5y ago
  So, what, that guy that sold weed before legalization caused more harm from his actions than hanging him would cause, and yet we've legalized it and everyone is fine with it now? Or perhaps It's all arbitrary and decided by laws and the actual harm doesn't necessarily map directly onto illegal activity. If that's the case, maybe we should be careful about statements that hanging a drug.dealer causes less harm than they cause to communities. Direct sale of water could be regulated, making people that sell it without license criminals. You'll have a hard time convincing me that selling water provides harm, but there would be just as much reasoning behind a statement saying as much.
  - PKop 5y ago
    Let's deal with the immediate problem of opiates, meth and other hard drugs, the addiction of which is ravaging cities where drug users are a blight on society with their tent cities, needles, feces, crime, vandalism, assaults, robberies, etc. You don't want to focus on that you want to misdirect to weed and.... water? What the hell does this dumb analogy have to do with anything in reality?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kbenson 5y ago
      I point is that you say "drug dealer", when that's an arbitrary label that's dictated be laws and societal norms and acceptance, and then talk about it like there's well known harm from "drug dealers". The fact of the matter was that until a few years ago people selling weed were treated like those selling much harder drugs, and Federally they're still not in the clear. The fact that the label you're using is so loosely defined and applies to such a disparate set of people, and the crime they are saddled with is often so arbitrarily decided should give you pause when using it in a general statement about reducing harms. Saying "drug dealers" and "drug users" without quantifying which drugs and how harmful they are is just an easy way to ignore real aspects of the problem so it can be reduced to a simplistic model that is easy to make statements about, even though we all know that to actually follow through on the suggestions is folly, because the real people and real specifics of their problems make that untenable. So why bother with the simplistic arguments that we all, even you, know are bullshit and can't be followed through on?

PKop 5y ago

Hanging drug dealers isn't worse than the harm they cause to the community, and many individual lives. >Purdue Pharma Regulation against them and restrictions on opiates has helped to decrease that form of opiate use. Obviously, Purdue Pharma executives should be harshly punished, much more than they have been. Why shouldn't they? They perpetrated a great crime and suffering, willingly lying and causing addiction, to so many people. That they should suffer for it and that there is a great need to deter other drug companies / doctors from doing the same is abundantly clear. It is not mutually exclusive from also targeting street drug dealers of fentanyl and other synthetic opiates which is the problem now though.

kbenson 5y ago
So, what, that guy that sold weed before legalization caused more harm from his actions than hanging him would cause, and yet we've legalized it and everyone is fine with it now? Or perhaps It's all arbitrary and decided by laws and the actual harm doesn't necessarily map directly onto illegal activity. If that's the case, maybe we should be careful about statements that hanging a drug.dealer causes less harm than they cause to communities. Direct sale of water could be regulated, making people that sell it without license criminals. You'll have a hard time convincing me that selling water provides harm, but there would be just as much reasoning behind a statement saying as much.
- PKop 5y ago
  Let's deal with the immediate problem of opiates, meth and other hard drugs, the addiction of which is ravaging cities where drug users are a blight on society with their tent cities, needles, feces, crime, vandalism, assaults, robberies, etc. You don't want to focus on that you want to misdirect to weed and.... water? What the hell does this dumb analogy have to do with anything in reality?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kbenson 5y ago
    I point is that you say "drug dealer", when that's an arbitrary label that's dictated be laws and societal norms and acceptance, and then talk about it like there's well known harm from "drug dealers". The fact of the matter was that until a few years ago people selling weed were treated like those selling much harder drugs, and Federally they're still not in the clear. The fact that the label you're using is so loosely defined and applies to such a disparate set of people, and the crime they are saddled with is often so arbitrarily decided should give you pause when using it in a general statement about reducing harms. Saying "drug dealers" and "drug users" without quantifying which drugs and how harmful they are is just an easy way to ignore real aspects of the problem so it can be reduced to a simplistic model that is easy to make statements about, even though we all know that to actually follow through on the suggestions is folly, because the real people and real specifics of their problems make that untenable. So why bother with the simplistic arguments that we all, even you, know are bullshit and can't be followed through on?