3 ms·

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 m

by 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
    > I never claimed that the current war on drugs is effective, only that meth should be illegal. Why should meth be illegal if making it illegal isn't effective. We're spending a lot of resources on the war on drugs. If the benefit that we're getting isn'g greater than the costs that we're incurring, why are we spending those costs? > A more effective methodology for shutting down meth production is fine by me. That's nice, but what do we do until then? I'm all for trying experiments, but when something fails, it's important to take it down, if for no other reason than its continued existence/drain/waste demonstrates that the "we'll try this and if it doesn't work" argument is a lie.

by tsally 17y ago

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
  > I never claimed that the current war on drugs is effective, only that meth should be illegal. Why should meth be illegal if making it illegal isn't effective. We're spending a lot of resources on the war on drugs. If the benefit that we're getting isn'g greater than the costs that we're incurring, why are we spending those costs? > A more effective methodology for shutting down meth production is fine by me. That's nice, but what do we do until then? I'm all for trying experiments, but when something fails, it's important to take it down, if for no other reason than its continued existence/drain/waste demonstrates that the "we'll try this and if it doesn't work" argument is a lie.