3 ms·

Not directly, but they are absolutely causing the situation, just as they were at fault for the rise of the American mob during prohibition. Using violence agai

by voisine 17y ago

Not directly, but they are absolutely causing the situation, just as they were at fault for the rise of the American mob during prohibition. Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences.

tsally 17y ago
The government isn't causing the situation, the dumbasses who choose to take a chemically addictive substance are causing the problem. You don't have the right to do whatever you want in this country if it's going to fuck up everything around you. Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences. Not really. There are certain thing that should be allowed in society and certain things that shouldn't. I personally believe that alcohol and non addictive substances should be. Meth and other chemically addictive substances, plastic explosives, and automatic weapons shouldn't be. The key here is impact on others. If whatever you want to exchange is going to have a significant negative impact on those around you, it shouldn't be allowed. Smoking is public places? Nope. Can you smoke in your car by yourself? Sure. Same concept applies to everything we do. It's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. If you want to do meth and hunt deer with a 50 cal, you can always move to an empty island or a large desert. I personally think the benefits of staying a part of a society outweigh the costs, and that's why I'm still here.
- voisine 17y ago
  You can disallow all you like. Prohibition didn't work then and won't work now. You're just going to ruin more people's lives, and in this case, make the life of nearly every person in the country a little more miserable when they get sick. Using violence for any reason other than defense against violence is wrong. I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble with such a simple concept.
  - tsally 17y ago
    You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? The data we have say differently. I suggest you read more on meth and its effects and stop using the prohibition of booze as your only data point. You're essentially just ranting about prohibition and violence with no concrete point in mind. There's no significant movement to legalize meth and there never will be. Any violence employed counteracting meth operations is certainly justified given the tactics used by organizations that deal with meth. This whole freedom to the people, freedom from oppression, start a revolution mentality is bullshit in this case. You can still be a free man without having the right to run a meth lab in your basement. If you're going to pick a battle about freedom, meth isn't it my friend. And if it's not about freedom, well then it's about the high.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? Actually, I'm claiming that the laws against meth do not reduce any of the problems with meth addiction. In short, they provide no benefits. However, they do have costs. The value of a program is the difference between the realized benefits and the incurred costs. The war on drugs doesn't have significant realized benefits. (I don't place much value on the "we're saying that drugs are wrong" benefit.) > The data we have say differently. Oh really? What data shows that the laws against meth reduce the costs of meth use? How about the amount of meth use? How about the availability of meth? (Seizures don't necessarily cause scarcity. Jailing 100k meth suppliers doesn't matter if we still have "enough" meth suppliers to satisfy demand.) If something isn't doing anything about the problem, it isn't a solution, it's merely another problem.
      - tsally 17y ago
        I never claimed that the current war on drugs is effective, only that meth should be illegal. A more effective methodology for shutting down meth production is fine by me.
        anamax 17y ago
- steiger 17y ago
  > The government isn't causing the situation As said previously, the government at BEST is not causing the problem, but certainly it isn`t helping and most certainly it is making it worse. By prohibiting something that creates income, the formation of a black market (in this case mostly violent) is almost inevitable. Also, needless to say, drug prohibition has been largely ineffective as a mean to reduce drug use. Other negative aspect is the superpopulation in prisons. Most people, acording to research, are imprisioned for drug-related crimes. So, if something that costs absurd amounts of money is ineffective and has disastrous social consequences, why keep it? Well, this could be probably for a number of practical reasons: 1. Society doesn't care, at large. 2. Society has the illusion of a safer environment because of drug prohibition, when what happens in fact is the opposite 3. Illegal drug market is responsible for a lot of money flow, and i SUSPECT people in charge of drug enforcement make money from it. 4. It's a good excuse to raise taxes 5. It's a good excuse to control the population, saying it is for their own good. 6. Marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the world, and it is a plant, meaning that it cannot be patented and controlled, and a lot of people can grow it easily. Marijuana being illegal would make a lot more of money to politicians and criminals than it would make if it were legal On philosophical grounds, I still believe that if you want to fuck up yourself in meth, it is YOUR problem (after all, it's YOUR body.) You (we) have to understand that almost every single society that grew on this planet used drugs somehow -- The prohibitionist approach to stop (some) drug use would look childish and hilarious - if it were not disastrous.
  - tsally 17y ago
    Meth has nothing to do with most of your points. It's not the same as Marijuana. Meth related arrests are not causing overcrowding in jails. On philosophical grounds, I still believe that if you want to fuck up yourself in meth, it is YOUR problem (after all, it's YOUR body.) As I've said before, if you can point to me a person that wont affect anyone else through meth use, I'd be ok with them doing meth. This however, it not possible because of the potency and addictive properties of the drug. There are very few (if any) jobs that a true meth addict can do competently. They suffer from paranoia, blurred vision, insomnia, etc. It's not just your problem, it's the problem of everyone that depends on you. You (we) have to understand that almost every single society that grew on this planet used drugs somehow -- The prohibitionist approach to stop (some) drug use would look childish and hilarious - if it were not disastrous. As I said before, I never claimed that current methods were effective. All I have claimed is that meth should be illegal. And of course, we should always be researching new ways in which we can enforce our laws more effectively.

by voisine 17y ago

tsally 17y ago

The government isn't causing the situation, the dumbasses who choose to take a chemically addictive substance are causing the problem. You don't have the right to do whatever you want in this country if it's going to fuck up everything around you. Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences. Not really. There are certain thing that should be allowed in society and certain things that shouldn't. I personally believe that alcohol and non addictive substances should be. Meth and other chemically addictive substances, plastic explosives, and automatic weapons shouldn't be. The key here is impact on others. If whatever you want to exchange is going to have a significant negative impact on those around you, it shouldn't be allowed. Smoking is public places? Nope. Can you smoke in your car by yourself? Sure. Same concept applies to everything we do. It's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. If you want to do meth and hunt deer with a 50 cal, you can always move to an empty island or a large desert. I personally think the benefits of staying a part of a society outweigh the costs, and that's why I'm still here.

voisine 17y ago
You can disallow all you like. Prohibition didn't work then and won't work now. You're just going to ruin more people's lives, and in this case, make the life of nearly every person in the country a little more miserable when they get sick. Using violence for any reason other than defense against violence is wrong. I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble with such a simple concept.
- tsally 17y ago
  You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? The data we have say differently. I suggest you read more on meth and its effects and stop using the prohibition of booze as your only data point. You're essentially just ranting about prohibition and violence with no concrete point in mind. There's no significant movement to legalize meth and there never will be. Any violence employed counteracting meth operations is certainly justified given the tactics used by organizations that deal with meth. This whole freedom to the people, freedom from oppression, start a revolution mentality is bullshit in this case. You can still be a free man without having the right to run a meth lab in your basement. If you're going to pick a battle about freedom, meth isn't it my friend. And if it's not about freedom, well then it's about the high.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? Actually, I'm claiming that the laws against meth do not reduce any of the problems with meth addiction. In short, they provide no benefits. However, they do have costs. The value of a program is the difference between the realized benefits and the incurred costs. The war on drugs doesn't have significant realized benefits. (I don't place much value on the "we're saying that drugs are wrong" benefit.) > The data we have say differently. Oh really? What data shows that the laws against meth reduce the costs of meth use? How about the amount of meth use? How about the availability of meth? (Seizures don't necessarily cause scarcity. Jailing 100k meth suppliers doesn't matter if we still have "enough" meth suppliers to satisfy demand.) If something isn't doing anything about the problem, it isn't a solution, it's merely another problem.
    - tsally 17y ago
      I never claimed that the current war on drugs is effective, only that meth should be illegal. A more effective methodology for shutting down meth production is fine by me.
      - anamax 17y ago
steiger 17y ago
> The government isn't causing the situation As said previously, the government at BEST is not causing the problem, but certainly it isn`t helping and most certainly it is making it worse. By prohibiting something that creates income, the formation of a black market (in this case mostly violent) is almost inevitable. Also, needless to say, drug prohibition has been largely ineffective as a mean to reduce drug use. Other negative aspect is the superpopulation in prisons. Most people, acording to research, are imprisioned for drug-related crimes. So, if something that costs absurd amounts of money is ineffective and has disastrous social consequences, why keep it? Well, this could be probably for a number of practical reasons: 1. Society doesn't care, at large. 2. Society has the illusion of a safer environment because of drug prohibition, when what happens in fact is the opposite 3. Illegal drug market is responsible for a lot of money flow, and i SUSPECT people in charge of drug enforcement make money from it. 4. It's a good excuse to raise taxes 5. It's a good excuse to control the population, saying it is for their own good. 6. Marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the world, and it is a plant, meaning that it cannot be patented and controlled, and a lot of people can grow it easily. Marijuana being illegal would make a lot more of money to politicians and criminals than it would make if it were legal On philosophical grounds, I still believe that if you want to fuck up yourself in meth, it is YOUR problem (after all, it's YOUR body.) You (we) have to understand that almost every single society that grew on this planet used drugs somehow -- The prohibitionist approach to stop (some) drug use would look childish and hilarious - if it were not disastrous.
- tsally 17y ago
  Meth has nothing to do with most of your points. It's not the same as Marijuana. Meth related arrests are not causing overcrowding in jails. On philosophical grounds, I still believe that if you want to fuck up yourself in meth, it is YOUR problem (after all, it's YOUR body.) As I've said before, if you can point to me a person that wont affect anyone else through meth use, I'd be ok with them doing meth. This however, it not possible because of the potency and addictive properties of the drug. There are very few (if any) jobs that a true meth addict can do competently. They suffer from paranoia, blurred vision, insomnia, etc. It's not just your problem, it's the problem of everyone that depends on you. You (we) have to understand that almost every single society that grew on this planet used drugs somehow -- The prohibitionist approach to stop (some) drug use would look childish and hilarious - if it were not disastrous. As I said before, I never claimed that current methods were effective. All I have claimed is that meth should be illegal. And of course, we should always be researching new ways in which we can enforce our laws more effectively.