3 ms·

Yes, I sincerely agree. But the person that sells them the poison has to make sure they are of sound mind and fully understand the consequences. So long as a pe

Yes, I sincerely agree. But the person that sells them the poison has to make sure they are of sound mind and fully understand the consequences. So long as a person is well informed and of sound mind, I don't see the problem. I'm even for putting their names in a registry so that they won't receive any social welfare benefits in the future if they go down that route. But outright jailing people, that's insane. Imagine eating something unhealthy and suddenly you're serving 25 years in prison for it. What is happening is only mildly less absurd.

thrance 1y ago
Oppression is not the only alternative to legalization. Just because your country's policy on drug addiction is very misguided and does more harm than good doesn't mean the solution is to legalize everything. Anyway, my point, that you seem to have completely missed, is that some rules that Americans would reflexively dismiss with a thought-terminating cliche like "nanny state" are in fact necessary. You wouldn't want the road to be a free for all, would you? Well, I don't want psychological warfare to be legal and used to trick my neighbor into losing vast sums of money to online platforms. Poor, addicted citizens make the country worse for everyone. Also, "But the person that sells them the poison has to make sure they are of sound mind" made me laugh. When has it ever been in the business owner's interest to vet his clients? Legalize fent and in a year, half the superbowl ads will be selling you drugs in rainbowy attention-grabbing displays of decadence.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  False equivalencies. Roads are shared, gambling is not. psychological warfare is against the masses and is being done under deception against targets, gambling is not, and despite that, it is your neighbors problem,not yours in that example. The bit about poor addicted citizens (if it actually is the cause,instead of welfare and similar things), it sounds like your priority is improving the economy despite its effects on people's rights? > When has it ever been in the business owner's interest to vet his clients? When not doing so could mean serious consequences, like capital punishment or life in prison.
rufus_foreman 1y ago
>> So long as a person is well informed and of sound mind, I don't see the problem Someone high on heroin or going through withdrawal from heroin is not of sound mind.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  But they were of sound mind before their first hit of heroin, were they well informed then? if not, punish the seller not the user.

thrance 1y ago

Oppression is not the only alternative to legalization. Just because your country's policy on drug addiction is very misguided and does more harm than good doesn't mean the solution is to legalize everything. Anyway, my point, that you seem to have completely missed, is that some rules that Americans would reflexively dismiss with a thought-terminating cliche like "nanny state" are in fact necessary. You wouldn't want the road to be a free for all, would you? Well, I don't want psychological warfare to be legal and used to trick my neighbor into losing vast sums of money to online platforms. Poor, addicted citizens make the country worse for everyone. Also, "But the person that sells them the poison has to make sure they are of sound mind" made me laugh. When has it ever been in the business owner's interest to vet his clients? Legalize fent and in a year, half the superbowl ads will be selling you drugs in rainbowy attention-grabbing displays of decadence.

notepad0x90 1y ago
False equivalencies. Roads are shared, gambling is not. psychological warfare is against the masses and is being done under deception against targets, gambling is not, and despite that, it is your neighbors problem,not yours in that example. The bit about poor addicted citizens (if it actually is the cause,instead of welfare and similar things), it sounds like your priority is improving the economy despite its effects on people's rights? > When has it ever been in the business owner's interest to vet his clients? When not doing so could mean serious consequences, like capital punishment or life in prison.

rufus_foreman 1y ago

>> So long as a person is well informed and of sound mind, I don't see the problem Someone high on heroin or going through withdrawal from heroin is not of sound mind.

notepad0x90 1y ago
But they were of sound mind before their first hit of heroin, were they well informed then? if not, punish the seller not the user.