4 ms·

> Drug war continues to be an enormous amount of waste and human suffering for no clear public benefit I know this has been the line for years, but now that we

• indigo0086 2y ago
  Most drugs affected by fentanyl are illegal drugs, the government overprescribing has been around before the "legalize it". I believe its up to the consumer to discern whether a drug is for them. A drug user that's not desperate to get it by any means necessary will be less likely to encounter poor illegal drug production quality assurance. I don't believe legalizing it will reduce drug use, but it will mostly enable a Marley of safer drug production as far as immediate harmful effects. I'm not convinced legalizing drugs is long term beneficial to human mental health, but it would have the coeffect of people thinking Kore purely about what it is to be free and responsible
  • bitlax 2y ago
    This is difficult to read.
• tapoxi 2y ago
  Grocery stores that smell like pot?!?! Good heavens, these people should be in prison!
  • datavirtue 2y ago
    The parking lot of every Walmart smells like a long beach swap meet.
  • bitlax 2y ago
    Wow you'd throw them in prison? Seems a bit much. I'd probably recommend one of a thousand other mechanisms of enforcement. At any rate, glad you conceded the other points. We found common ground and agree that the drug war was doing some good. I don't think I'll be eating any food that you've cooked though. I can't imagine what would happen if I sent you to the store for a ripe pineapple.
• advael 2y ago
  So your line is "Marijuana aesthetically displeases me and we're no longer jailing people for it, therefore drug war is good"? Or is it "Fentanyl deaths exploding has happened despite it still not being legal to purchase, therefore somehow we need more drug war despite it having not prevented this outcome in any way"? Somehow no matter what actually happens, it supports doing drug war harder. This doesn't sound like a very principled argument to me Some drugs are probably not a great idea for most people. No drug is for everyone. Also, the state arresting people for what drugs they take adds a ton of problems without solving any, not the least of which being a fairly draconian police state that harms people who aren't even doing drugs, and we have decades of evidence that this is the case
  • bitlax 2y ago
    > So your line is "Marijuana aesthetically displeases me and we're no longer jailing people for it, therefore drug war is good"? Nowhere did I mention aesthetics. > Or is it "Fentanyl deaths exploding has happened despite it still not being legal to purchase, therefore somehow we need more drug war despite it having not prevented this outcome in any way"? Enforcement procedures have changed at all levels, regardless of classification. > Somehow no matter what actually happens, it supports doing drug war harder. This doesn't sound like a very principled argument to me Yes, I'm positing that drug enforcement has benefits and my statements are consistent. > Some drugs are probably not a great idea for most people. No drug is for everyone. Agreed. > Also, the state arresting people for what drugs they take adds a ton of problems without solving any, not the least of which being a fairly draconian police state that harms people who aren't even doing drugs, and we have decades of evidence that this is the case This is a false choice, filled with cliches.
    • advael 2y ago
      > Nowhere did I mention aesthetics. You mentioned, without further commentary, that you could smell marijuana various places, in the context of harms of the very limited relaxations in drug enforcement that have happened in some states in the US. Not only is it unclear to me that this is a direct consequence of that (Where I live, you could smell weed a lot of these places well before the state legalized recreational use), but the harm this causes is left unstated, which is why I call it an aesthetic objection > Enforcement procedures have changed at all levels, regardless of classification. Vague and also nonsense. Throughout the era of drug prohibition we've had a constant stream of these "crises" where a drug becomes popular for some reason, people die because they're using it unsafely, and the news squawks about it for months. Every version of drug policy has failed to prevent this problem, and yet people keep trying to pretend if we just throw more cops at the problem it will magically start working. It won't > Yes, I'm positing that drug enforcement has benefits and my statements are consistent. They're not. In one case, you name the fact that you notice a drug that's increasingly being legalized in various places as evidence that relaxing enforcement is a problem. In the other, you name a drug that's still actively quite illegal, that the DEA busts labs for making, doctors for overprescribing, and individuals for possessing, and say that the fact that it's the subject of the current well-known drug crisis is evidence that enforcement is too lax. What level of enforcement do you think will solve the problem? It really seems like whatever outcome we see from what policies, as long as someone, somewhere still uses a drug you think they shouldn't, your conclusion will be that this is evidence of inadequate cop involvement > This is a false choice, filled with cliches. This is the reality we currently occupy. Police stop and search people, break into their homes, confiscate their belongings, on the assumption that they might have drugs, or have made money selling drugs. They shoot people on the assumption that they can't be reasoned with because they might be on drugs. We ruin millions of people's lives by throwing them in jail for merely posessing drugs, which if anything exacerbates those individuals' propensity to buy black market drugs. This is all a direct downstream consequence of drug policy