4 ms·

> By the same logic, attempts to use policing to ensure lawfulness are a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail. That's basically how drugs won the war on drugs

> By the same logic, attempts to use policing to ensure lawfulness are a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail. That's basically how drugs won the war on drugs, yes.

ahartmetz 4mo ago
But you can't legalize all crime. Drugs are special because they are (sort of) victimless.
- cubefox 4mo ago
  Drugs are absolutely not victimless, except perhaps for caffeine.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
    But they are.
    - cubefox 4mo ago
      False. There is plenty of empirical data on the destructive effects of many drugs.
      - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        That's still not proof of victimhood. Only that's imprudent to consume drugs. Also, due to politization of the topic, part of the data is distorted to help sell the war on drugs, which had a much more destructive effect overall, aside from failing in its main goal.
        cubefox 4mo ago
        The ""war"" on drugs seems to be pretty successful in some countries where illegal drug usage is quite low compared to others.
        bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        Certainly not on the US, or any country where the criminalization is in full force.
        cubefox 4mo ago
        > Certainly not on the US We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. > or any country where the criminalization is in full force. That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong.
        bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        > We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. Given what we know about the prohibition era and insights about the success in the fight against drug abuse, it's a pretty safe bet. > That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong. Is it? Even the most successful countries, like Japan and Singapore, seem to have low drug usage despite of criminalization, not because of. Even then, the data is murky, because criminalization of usage incentivizes low self-reporting.
  - dgellow 4mo ago
    The only victim to weed are people getting jailed for it. Same for shrooms
    - cubefox 4mo ago
      Weed isn't harmless. For example, it can probably lead to long-term brain damage. It is also toxic for the lungs, although less so than tobacco, which is usually consumed in greater quantities.
      - dgellow 4mo ago
        Sure, but that’s not different from other things reserved to adults in life. And we don’t label those consumers as victims… it’s stretching the definition of victim to a point where it loses its value
        cubefox 4mo ago
        Considering that there are a) many drugs that are substantially more dangerous than marijuana and that b) addiction does create users which are not in full control of their actions anymore, the term "drug victim" does make sense.

> By the same logic, attempts to use policing to ensure lawfulness are a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail. That's basically how drugs won the war on drugs, yes.

ahartmetz 4mo ago

But you can't legalize all crime. Drugs are special because they are (sort of) victimless.

cubefox 4mo ago
Drugs are absolutely not victimless, except perhaps for caffeine.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- bit-anarchist 4mo ago
  But they are.
  - cubefox 4mo ago
    False. There is plenty of empirical data on the destructive effects of many drugs.
    - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
      That's still not proof of victimhood. Only that's imprudent to consume drugs. Also, due to politization of the topic, part of the data is distorted to help sell the war on drugs, which had a much more destructive effect overall, aside from failing in its main goal.
      - cubefox 4mo ago
        The ""war"" on drugs seems to be pretty successful in some countries where illegal drug usage is quite low compared to others.
        bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        Certainly not on the US, or any country where the criminalization is in full force.
        cubefox 4mo ago
        > Certainly not on the US We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. > or any country where the criminalization is in full force. That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong.
        bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        > We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. Given what we know about the prohibition era and insights about the success in the fight against drug abuse, it's a pretty safe bet. > That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong. Is it? Even the most successful countries, like Japan and Singapore, seem to have low drug usage despite of criminalization, not because of. Even then, the data is murky, because criminalization of usage incentivizes low self-reporting.
- dgellow 4mo ago
  The only victim to weed are people getting jailed for it. Same for shrooms
  - cubefox 4mo ago
    Weed isn't harmless. For example, it can probably lead to long-term brain damage. It is also toxic for the lungs, although less so than tobacco, which is usually consumed in greater quantities.
    - dgellow 4mo ago
      Sure, but that’s not different from other things reserved to adults in life. And we don’t label those consumers as victims… it’s stretching the definition of victim to a point where it loses its value
      - cubefox 4mo ago
        Considering that there are a) many drugs that are substantially more dangerous than marijuana and that b) addiction does create users which are not in full control of their actions anymore, the term "drug victim" does make sense.