7 ms·

Whether it's a victimless crime or not depends on where they source the drugs. You could argue that aggressive law-enforcement is what causes reprisal violence

Whether it's a victimless crime or not depends on where they source the drugs. You could argue that aggressive law-enforcement is what causes reprisal violence, but that still wouldn't justify supporting it in another way.

GuiA 13y ago
Well, producing child pornography is a crime that is inherently victim-ful. (I do not include cartoon CP here) Producing drugs today happens to have victims because of social policies etc, but those aren't inherent to the act of producing the drug. There are victims in the production of certain modern day goods (like electronics, clothes, etc.) but that doesn't mean that manufacturing iPhones necessarily leads to exploited Chinese workers. (although one could make the argument that selling iPhones at the price that they are sold for today cannot be realistically achieved without having Foxconn-style factories)
- arcadeparade 13y ago
  To quote Chomsky, 'ever product made in a capitalist society requires some level of coercion', from Chinese Iphones to Colombian cocaine.
  - dnskw 13y ago
    That is a lie though. If I pick up a rock and somebody else does as well and we both use our hands to break off pieces of the rock (private means of production) and trade parts of the broken rocks with each no coercion occurred. That is technically a capitalist society without coercion.
    - Zidewinder 13y ago
      That is not a capitalist society by any definition I know of. Capitalism involves things like land ownership and interest-bearing loans, things that eventually lead to significant inequality in the distribution of resources. In a capitalist society, the other guy owns all the rocks, and if you try breaking one without his permission he might call the cops and have you jailed. But he's a reasonable guy, and if you're willing to break rocks for 14 hours a day, he'll pay you ten cents per piece, and then you can buy one back from him for thirty!
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        Says the anarchist with his own 3 GHz computer.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    Why doesn't he go ahead and state the logical extension of that, which is that every product made in any organized society requires some level of coercion? Chomsky is long on criticisms of capitalism but short on suggestions for replacing it.
    - arcadeparade 13y ago
      Illumination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY
- chrischen 13y ago
  Like I said, regardless of whether it's inherently victim-ful, the sale and support still produces those victims in a consistent and predictable manner. Law enforcement knows drug consumers will continue to consume drugs and drug cartels will continue to be violent, so if they don't change their behavior, they are responsible for the violence they cause. From another perspective, drug consumers know drug cartels will continue to be violent, and that drug enforcement agencies will continue to enforce. From their perspective, if drug consumers don't change their consumption patterns, they are at fault for the violence. If none of the parties change their stance, everything stays the same. Consumers blame the government for drug crackdowns, the government blames consumers for consuming and supporting. Everyone is at fault. The practical way to look at this is how do you effect change with the least amount of effort? Is it easier to create legislation that change the government stance on drugs, or is it easier to do a public opinion campaign to change opinions on drug consumption? Seeing as how drug addicts are rational about their drug use (aside from dopamine=good), it's probably easier to pass legislation.
shubb 13y ago
So I smoke normal, legal cigarettes. About 10 a day, 20 when I'm stressed. I started about 20, borrowing them off friends, and it's been maybe 8 years now. The first 2 years, I didn't realize I was addicted to them. I just smoked when I wanted, which was between every lecture and with my friends in the evening. Then I tried to stop. Quitting smoking is weird because sometimes you can just stop, and don't feel the need to smoke (until a couple months later you get drunk and buy a pack). Other times, it's really hard. As in horrible. Your brain is trying to trick you into doing it. Telling you that your girlfriend (who asked you to stop) will leave you if you don't have one and calm down. Telling you that you haven't seen (smoking friend) in a long time. Just like you can't perceive your blindspot, you can't spot your own irrationality. This, I think, is the biggest reason smokers don't quit. It's relatively easy to fend off cravings, but recognizing irrational, addiction driven thought is hard. Anyway, so one day I'm in a medical stats class. The lecturer is making a joke about a graph. It seems to show smoking is protective against prostate cancer. Smokers are super unlikely to die of prostate cancer. It looks convincing. Smokers don't survive to die of prostate cancer. It convinces me not to smoke again. I make my way downstairs, and grab a bagel. I have an exam next period, and I'm behind in that class. I can't focus without a cigarette. I light up, and keep lighting up, and now it's 5 years later, and I'm not going to die of prostate cancer. There is this idea that humans are rational entities capable of making free choices, but we know they are really, really not. Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow, a great (nobel prize winning) economics book explains that there are situations where humans predictably make bad choices. Addictions are one of these. If I were not hooked on cigarettes, as a smart, otherwise disciplined person, I'd be more sympathetic with this libertarians on drugs.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  I really enjoyed this post until reading the most selfish sentence of the week: "If I were not hooked on cigarettes, as a smart, otherwise disciplined person, I'd be more sympathetic with this libertarians on drugs."
- dscrd 13y ago
  "If I were not hooked on cigarettes, as a smart, otherwise disciplined person, I'd be more sympathetic with this libertarians on drugs." Ok, then... if you could do any political change in the society without stripping essential freedoms, what change do you think would be most effective in stopping/alleviating the drug problem? It seems to me that the best way would be to legalize them all: it would make it possible to control the supply, detect problem cases, remove a lot of criminal markets and thus actual crimes with victims, and get more taxes. Even the "think of the children!" aspect seems to be better covered by this, since it's quite a lot easier to enforce ID checks in legal shops.

GuiA 13y ago

Well, producing child pornography is a crime that is inherently victim-ful. (I do not include cartoon CP here) Producing drugs today happens to have victims because of social policies etc, but those aren't inherent to the act of producing the drug. There are victims in the production of certain modern day goods (like electronics, clothes, etc.) but that doesn't mean that manufacturing iPhones necessarily leads to exploited Chinese workers. (although one could make the argument that selling iPhones at the price that they are sold for today cannot be realistically achieved without having Foxconn-style factories)

arcadeparade 13y ago
To quote Chomsky, 'ever product made in a capitalist society requires some level of coercion', from Chinese Iphones to Colombian cocaine.
- dnskw 13y ago
  That is a lie though. If I pick up a rock and somebody else does as well and we both use our hands to break off pieces of the rock (private means of production) and trade parts of the broken rocks with each no coercion occurred. That is technically a capitalist society without coercion.
  - Zidewinder 13y ago
    That is not a capitalist society by any definition I know of. Capitalism involves things like land ownership and interest-bearing loans, things that eventually lead to significant inequality in the distribution of resources. In a capitalist society, the other guy owns all the rocks, and if you try breaking one without his permission he might call the cops and have you jailed. But he's a reasonable guy, and if you're willing to break rocks for 14 hours a day, he'll pay you ten cents per piece, and then you can buy one back from him for thirty!
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      Says the anarchist with his own 3 GHz computer.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Why doesn't he go ahead and state the logical extension of that, which is that every product made in any organized society requires some level of coercion? Chomsky is long on criticisms of capitalism but short on suggestions for replacing it.
  - arcadeparade 13y ago
    Illumination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY
chrischen 13y ago
Like I said, regardless of whether it's inherently victim-ful, the sale and support still produces those victims in a consistent and predictable manner. Law enforcement knows drug consumers will continue to consume drugs and drug cartels will continue to be violent, so if they don't change their behavior, they are responsible for the violence they cause. From another perspective, drug consumers know drug cartels will continue to be violent, and that drug enforcement agencies will continue to enforce. From their perspective, if drug consumers don't change their consumption patterns, they are at fault for the violence. If none of the parties change their stance, everything stays the same. Consumers blame the government for drug crackdowns, the government blames consumers for consuming and supporting. Everyone is at fault. The practical way to look at this is how do you effect change with the least amount of effort? Is it easier to create legislation that change the government stance on drugs, or is it easier to do a public opinion campaign to change opinions on drug consumption? Seeing as how drug addicts are rational about their drug use (aside from dopamine=good), it's probably easier to pass legislation.

shubb 13y ago

So I smoke normal, legal cigarettes. About 10 a day, 20 when I'm stressed. I started about 20, borrowing them off friends, and it's been maybe 8 years now. The first 2 years, I didn't realize I was addicted to them. I just smoked when I wanted, which was between every lecture and with my friends in the evening. Then I tried to stop. Quitting smoking is weird because sometimes you can just stop, and don't feel the need to smoke (until a couple months later you get drunk and buy a pack). Other times, it's really hard. As in horrible. Your brain is trying to trick you into doing it. Telling you that your girlfriend (who asked you to stop) will leave you if you don't have one and calm down. Telling you that you haven't seen (smoking friend) in a long time. Just like you can't perceive your blindspot, you can't spot your own irrationality. This, I think, is the biggest reason smokers don't quit. It's relatively easy to fend off cravings, but recognizing irrational, addiction driven thought is hard. Anyway, so one day I'm in a medical stats class. The lecturer is making a joke about a graph. It seems to show smoking is protective against prostate cancer. Smokers are super unlikely to die of prostate cancer. It looks convincing. Smokers don't survive to die of prostate cancer. It convinces me not to smoke again. I make my way downstairs, and grab a bagel. I have an exam next period, and I'm behind in that class. I can't focus without a cigarette. I light up, and keep lighting up, and now it's 5 years later, and I'm not going to die of prostate cancer. There is this idea that humans are rational entities capable of making free choices, but we know they are really, really not. Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow, a great (nobel prize winning) economics book explains that there are situations where humans predictably make bad choices. Addictions are one of these. If I were not hooked on cigarettes, as a smart, otherwise disciplined person, I'd be more sympathetic with this libertarians on drugs.

drivebyacct2 13y ago
I really enjoyed this post until reading the most selfish sentence of the week: "If I were not hooked on cigarettes, as a smart, otherwise disciplined person, I'd be more sympathetic with this libertarians on drugs."
dscrd 13y ago
"If I were not hooked on cigarettes, as a smart, otherwise disciplined person, I'd be more sympathetic with this libertarians on drugs." Ok, then... if you could do any political change in the society without stripping essential freedoms, what change do you think would be most effective in stopping/alleviating the drug problem? It seems to me that the best way would be to legalize them all: it would make it possible to control the supply, detect problem cases, remove a lot of criminal markets and thus actual crimes with victims, and get more taxes. Even the "think of the children!" aspect seems to be better covered by this, since it's quite a lot easier to enforce ID checks in legal shops.