3 ms·

Yes. Plain and simple. Go even further and legalize. Decriminalizing doesn't solve the many issues that trafficking brings. This is low hanging fruit. Harder dr

Yes. Plain and simple. Go even further and legalize. Decriminalizing doesn't solve the many issues that trafficking brings. This is low hanging fruit. Harder drugs would need to be tightly controlled but revenue could be spent on helping users... rehab facilities, safe use facilities, counseling, etc. Same thing with prostitution. Human trafficking could be significantly reduced by legalizing prostitution. Government should not be involved in policing morals.

gorgoiler 4y ago
Morally (as opposed to politically) the theory is as follows: society forbids people from selling their body — sex, organs, wombs — to nullify any marketplace where an evil person with money can exploit someone else who desperately needs money. This sucks for the people who aren’t in desperate need for the money and instead have made a lifestyle choice to sell their kidneys / intimacy / children but the state can’t reasonably decide who does and does not need protection from exploitation at the point of use, so they either over-protect everyone or under-protect no one. That’s the moral choice here — how much freedom are we willing to relinquish in order to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. It’s not about whether we consider the exploited act to be moral or not, at least from a rational point of view.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This argument was used against alcohol in the early 1900s, according to Smashing the Liquor Machine. According to them, US alcohol prohibition was lobbied for, in some part, by the left, because they saw it as exploitation. We saw how that turned out. The same thing happened in Russia, where the Bolsheviks banned alcohol for a period, under the same justification. If a policy is known to lead to bad outcomes, it is not a moral policy, no matter the theory behind it. The left has started to realize this. That's why they now advocate for decriminalization, public health campaigns, and mental health support.
  - gorgoiler 4y ago
    I agree with you, for what it’s worth, re: booze and drugs. Bartenders and dispensaries aren’t predators. Pimps and organ harvesters are.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Whether a person/group is defined with the label "predator" is uninteresting. Because that is about definitions of words and categories, which has no consequence on policy. The right question is what policies help people, and what policies hurt people. Morally charged judgements cloud our thinking. I can easily argue that alcohol sales are predatory. They are often selling to alcoholics who are damaging their bodies. They contribute to drunk driving deaths and domestic violence. But there is no policy corollary or implication to me doing that.
    - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
      There are only bartenders and dispensaries because it's legal. People made the same argument before for bootleggers and drug dealers.
- bergenty 4y ago
  The whole moral crap is bullshit. Lots of European countries have gotten around the issue of pimps by legally mandating that sex needs to be sold on a 1:1 basis. I’m willing to put up with fringe human trafficking to be able to go downtown and buy sex. You can’t ban the best things in life and expect people to be happy over the long term.
bergenty 4y ago
I agree with you on prostitution but when it comes to drugs I feel like your views are a little idealized. If you can buy cocaine at the store, a LOT of people are going to start doing it and then will get hooked. Cocaine is by no means safe, all it takes is a couple of extra lines and you’re dead.
- seandoe 4y ago
  "Idealized". I don't disagree with you. I have thought about this a lot. I'm not suggesting full, open, commercial legalization for hard drugs. I'm saying full decriminalization, with the government tightly controlling production and distribution. As long as the price and the availability (how easy is it to get?) outperform the black market then we'd be in a much better position than we are today. It wouldn't be as easy as grabbing it off the shelf in a c-store. Users would have to go to specific facilities, possibly see a social worker, receive information about the drug, how to use it safely and legally, as well as be informed of abuse treatment options. For most people this would be enough of a barrier. The illicit drug trade brings about violence, ancillary crime, poor/dangerous quality control (fentanyl!). We can do better. Legalization wouldn't be perfect but it would be so much better than the situation we have now. I can guarantee that.

gorgoiler 4y ago

Morally (as opposed to politically) the theory is as follows: society forbids people from selling their body — sex, organs, wombs — to nullify any marketplace where an evil person with money can exploit someone else who desperately needs money. This sucks for the people who aren’t in desperate need for the money and instead have made a lifestyle choice to sell their kidneys / intimacy / children but the state can’t reasonably decide who does and does not need protection from exploitation at the point of use, so they either over-protect everyone or under-protect no one. That’s the moral choice here — how much freedom are we willing to relinquish in order to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. It’s not about whether we consider the exploited act to be moral or not, at least from a rational point of view.

hackerlight 4y ago
This argument was used against alcohol in the early 1900s, according to Smashing the Liquor Machine. According to them, US alcohol prohibition was lobbied for, in some part, by the left, because they saw it as exploitation. We saw how that turned out. The same thing happened in Russia, where the Bolsheviks banned alcohol for a period, under the same justification. If a policy is known to lead to bad outcomes, it is not a moral policy, no matter the theory behind it. The left has started to realize this. That's why they now advocate for decriminalization, public health campaigns, and mental health support.
- gorgoiler 4y ago
  I agree with you, for what it’s worth, re: booze and drugs. Bartenders and dispensaries aren’t predators. Pimps and organ harvesters are.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Whether a person/group is defined with the label "predator" is uninteresting. Because that is about definitions of words and categories, which has no consequence on policy. The right question is what policies help people, and what policies hurt people. Morally charged judgements cloud our thinking. I can easily argue that alcohol sales are predatory. They are often selling to alcoholics who are damaging their bodies. They contribute to drunk driving deaths and domestic violence. But there is no policy corollary or implication to me doing that.
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    There are only bartenders and dispensaries because it's legal. People made the same argument before for bootleggers and drug dealers.
bergenty 4y ago
The whole moral crap is bullshit. Lots of European countries have gotten around the issue of pimps by legally mandating that sex needs to be sold on a 1:1 basis. I’m willing to put up with fringe human trafficking to be able to go downtown and buy sex. You can’t ban the best things in life and expect people to be happy over the long term.

bergenty 4y ago

I agree with you on prostitution but when it comes to drugs I feel like your views are a little idealized. If you can buy cocaine at the store, a LOT of people are going to start doing it and then will get hooked. Cocaine is by no means safe, all it takes is a couple of extra lines and you’re dead.

seandoe 4y ago
"Idealized". I don't disagree with you. I have thought about this a lot. I'm not suggesting full, open, commercial legalization for hard drugs. I'm saying full decriminalization, with the government tightly controlling production and distribution. As long as the price and the availability (how easy is it to get?) outperform the black market then we'd be in a much better position than we are today. It wouldn't be as easy as grabbing it off the shelf in a c-store. Users would have to go to specific facilities, possibly see a social worker, receive information about the drug, how to use it safely and legally, as well as be informed of abuse treatment options. For most people this would be enough of a barrier. The illicit drug trade brings about violence, ancillary crime, poor/dangerous quality control (fentanyl!). We can do better. Legalization wouldn't be perfect but it would be so much better than the situation we have now. I can guarantee that.