5 ms·

The operators of Silk Road were mafioso's that ordered hits on competitors and people they didn't like. The whole, "we're just a bunch of gentle hippie liberta

The operators of Silk Road were mafioso's that ordered hits on competitors and people they didn't like. The whole, "we're just a bunch of gentle hippie libertarians and the evil police state can't handle how chill and peaceful we are" is both factually and morally false. Please stop repeating it. http://www.businessinsider.com/silk-road-boss-ordered-6-assassinations-and-owned-20-million-in-bitcoins-feds-claim-2013-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/silk-road-boss-ordered-6-assa... I also support 90% of the drug laws out there. The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine. I'm not the police state. I'm common sense. I don't care if the meth dealer is a hip and gentle guy. He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix. disagree downvotes dont change the truth: Ulbricht ordered kills casually. Physically addictive drugs cause social harm. All the libertarian claptrap in the world doesnt change reality, sorry Rand Paul supporters!

mycroft-holmes 12y ago
> I also support 90% of the drug laws out there. The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine. Why exactly? > often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix. You realize the drug laws you support create this behavior, right?
- dghughes 12y ago
  People steal alcohol bum and steal money to get it and it's legal.
AlisdairO 12y ago
> The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine. I don't think it's asinine. There's clearly reasonable arguments for it: mostly that the consequences to society of harsh crackdowns on drug abuse are worse than those of legalisation - in particular that addicts feel that they have no option but to kill or steal in order to obtain their next fix. Do I think people ought to do hard drugs? Absolutely not, it's clearly a terrible idea. I just think addiction should be treated as a medical condition, not some righteous moral crusade. Legalisation might be a step too far, but criminalisation isn't clearly a better option.
- jotux 12y ago
  I recently saw an episode of "Anthony Bourdain - Parts Unknown" where he visits Colombia. He talked to locals about the drug trade and one person he interviewed made a very good argument that stuck with me: Many people see drugs as a single problem with a single solution (eliminate all the drugs). But it's much more reasonable to see it as two problems: trafficking and use. Trafficking would be decimated with legalization and money fighting it could be spent on programs to help users.
  - josh2600 12y ago
    Minor point but one that I think is valuable. Decimating something is to reduce it by 1/10th. You are thinking of it as an analogy for destroy which it is not.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        Have you read that link? Do you know what is under discussion here? The actual misunderstanding is between reducing something by a tenth and reducing it by a great deal. In that context, "decimate" does indeed mean to reduce by a tenth. Even the most pessimistic legalization forecasts see greater changes in trafficking than a reduction of a tenth. Maybe you're not a churchgoer, but the additional meaning of "tithe" discussed in your link confirms even further that a tenth is what "decimate" is about, because those who tithe, typically tithe a tenth of their incomes. [EDIT:] Language changes, and attempts to avert such changes, are both part of what "language" means. Don't even get me started on "penultimate". b^) I wouldn't have commented, except that parent (since deleted) was a fairly aggressive, specific, and substantially incorrect ("nuh-uh! decimation can also refer to tithing!") criticism of josh2600's comment.
        jpindar 12y ago
        Language changes whether you like it or not. There are plenty of changes happening that I don't like, but I realize that in most cases it is a waste of time to fight them.
discardorama 12y ago
> I don't care if the meth dealer is a hip and gentle guy. He's empowering others to destroy their lives You do know that Paul Erdös, the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century (if not ever) was a meth addict, right? I'm not saying "meth is good"; but that blanket generalizations are bad.
- JumpCrisscross 12y ago
  > Paul Erdös [sic]...was a meth addict Do you have a reputable source for this? Wikipedia and a quick "Paul Erdos meth" Google were both fruitless for me.
  - penprog 12y ago
    He is probably referring to how he took amphetamines, which aren't meth.
  - nijo108 12y ago
    Paul erdos was an amphetamine user in his later life.
  - lsc 12y ago
    You will have a better luck with "Erdos amphetamines" or something like that. Still, uh, using amphetamines or amphetamine analogs in controlled dosages from pharmaceutical sources is a pretty normal thing to do, a pretty normal thing that doesn't seem to cause a whole lot of problems for most people. We give it to children to make them sit still, and many adults take it, too. There are some analogs, like Methylphenidate, which are said to be less addictive, but many people prefer, and use Adderall, which isn't, and both are deemed to be safe enough to give to children in small doses. We even give straight up Dextroamphetamine to some people (though it's rather less common) I mean, dosage is super important, of course, and so is purity, but yeah, lots of people take small amounts of amphetamines without problems. Edit: As someone else pointed out, methamphetamines are similar in effect to, but generally more dangerous than amphetamines, and the latter, I believe, is what Erdos, and most everyday users under medical supervision use.
- 12y ago
reverend_gonzo 12y ago
> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix. What about alcohol? Cigarettes? Poker? Penny stocks? All of these things have contributed to people blowing their savings, futures, and ruining their own lives and their families' lives. By criminalizing drugs, people who want to fix their behavior are unable to because they're afraid to go to jail. What we need is support centers, like we have for alcoholics, gambling addicts, sex addicts, internet addicts, and addicts of any other kind. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the 20s, and it hasn't worked for drugs.
- _broody 12y ago
  I agree. Social campaigning will be much more effective than prohibition, that's what we do for legal drugs which also are devastating for addicts. Prohibition does absolutely nothing to control drug demand. It makes the supply swell until it overruns law enforcement's efforts to stem it. It makes hard drugs with stronger effects for a small dose more profitable for smugglers, because they're easier to ship. And as American alcohol Prohibitionism showed in the 20s, it makes drugs more popular among the underaged.
- bjourne 12y ago
  What's this argument that if N vices are legal, then N+1 vices should be legal too? Yes, it's true that alcohol can ruin your life, but that fact is not a good argument for legalizing heroin.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    It depends how you read it. If proponents of banning a drug (say, marijuana) argue that it should be banned because it is harmful and will threaten the fabric of society (or something), while more dangerous drugs are legally and readily available, and have failed to destroy society, parent's argument is reasonable.
WhitneyLand 12y ago
Asinine? How many people do you think are dying from opiate use now, compared to when prescription painkillers were easier to get? Heroin use has actually had a massive increase due to the laws you support. Imagine if opiates were legal and well regulated. So many families might be dealing with substance abuse rather than death of a loved one due to guessing what's in an illegal plastic bag. Similar to moonshine which caused blindness and death during prohibition.
ceejayoz 12y ago
> He's empowering others to destroy their lives So does Farmville.
- frozenport 12y ago
  Opiates build dependency that takes weeks to recover from, and 90% of heroin addicts relapse. Lets not kid ourselves.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    You haven't met a Farmville addict, I take it?
scotty79 12y ago
> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix. What do you think about state organized lotteries then? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
JackC 12y ago
> I'm common sense. Common sense is a great place to start from! Then you do science. You predict what will happen under various policies; you try some options and observe what happens; you revise your understanding of the problem; and repeat. From the few places where people are thinking that way, it seems like the best approach is neither criminal law nor pure legalization, but regulation, treatment and harm reduction. There are some examples in this report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy: http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/Global_Commission_Report_FINAL.pdf http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/Globa... But we still have a huge amount to learn, because for the most part we're not even trying -- just sticking with the "common sense" approach of looking for a larger hammer, when hitting the problem with a smaller hammer failed to work.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

mycroft-holmes 12y ago

> I also support 90% of the drug laws out there. The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine. Why exactly? > often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix. You realize the drug laws you support create this behavior, right?

dghughes 12y ago
People steal alcohol bum and steal money to get it and it's legal.

AlisdairO 12y ago

> The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine. I don't think it's asinine. There's clearly reasonable arguments for it: mostly that the consequences to society of harsh crackdowns on drug abuse are worse than those of legalisation - in particular that addicts feel that they have no option but to kill or steal in order to obtain their next fix. Do I think people ought to do hard drugs? Absolutely not, it's clearly a terrible idea. I just think addiction should be treated as a medical condition, not some righteous moral crusade. Legalisation might be a step too far, but criminalisation isn't clearly a better option.

jotux 12y ago
I recently saw an episode of "Anthony Bourdain - Parts Unknown" where he visits Colombia. He talked to locals about the drug trade and one person he interviewed made a very good argument that stuck with me: Many people see drugs as a single problem with a single solution (eliminate all the drugs). But it's much more reasonable to see it as two problems: trafficking and use. Trafficking would be decimated with legalization and money fighting it could be spent on programs to help users.
- josh2600 12y ago
  Minor point but one that I think is valuable. Decimating something is to reduce it by 1/10th. You are thinking of it as an analogy for destroy which it is not.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Have you read that link? Do you know what is under discussion here? The actual misunderstanding is between reducing something by a tenth and reducing it by a great deal. In that context, "decimate" does indeed mean to reduce by a tenth. Even the most pessimistic legalization forecasts see greater changes in trafficking than a reduction of a tenth. Maybe you're not a churchgoer, but the additional meaning of "tithe" discussed in your link confirms even further that a tenth is what "decimate" is about, because those who tithe, typically tithe a tenth of their incomes. [EDIT:] Language changes, and attempts to avert such changes, are both part of what "language" means. Don't even get me started on "penultimate". b^) I wouldn't have commented, except that parent (since deleted) was a fairly aggressive, specific, and substantially incorrect ("nuh-uh! decimation can also refer to tithing!") criticism of josh2600's comment.
      - jpindar 12y ago
        Language changes whether you like it or not. There are plenty of changes happening that I don't like, but I realize that in most cases it is a waste of time to fight them.

discardorama 12y ago

> I don't care if the meth dealer is a hip and gentle guy. He's empowering others to destroy their lives You do know that Paul Erdös, the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century (if not ever) was a meth addict, right? I'm not saying "meth is good"; but that blanket generalizations are bad.

JumpCrisscross 12y ago
> Paul Erdös [sic]...was a meth addict Do you have a reputable source for this? Wikipedia and a quick "Paul Erdos meth" Google were both fruitless for me.
- penprog 12y ago
  He is probably referring to how he took amphetamines, which aren't meth.
- nijo108 12y ago
  Paul erdos was an amphetamine user in his later life.
- lsc 12y ago
  You will have a better luck with "Erdos amphetamines" or something like that. Still, uh, using amphetamines or amphetamine analogs in controlled dosages from pharmaceutical sources is a pretty normal thing to do, a pretty normal thing that doesn't seem to cause a whole lot of problems for most people. We give it to children to make them sit still, and many adults take it, too. There are some analogs, like Methylphenidate, which are said to be less addictive, but many people prefer, and use Adderall, which isn't, and both are deemed to be safe enough to give to children in small doses. We even give straight up Dextroamphetamine to some people (though it's rather less common) I mean, dosage is super important, of course, and so is purity, but yeah, lots of people take small amounts of amphetamines without problems. Edit: As someone else pointed out, methamphetamines are similar in effect to, but generally more dangerous than amphetamines, and the latter, I believe, is what Erdos, and most everyday users under medical supervision use.
12y ago

reverend_gonzo 12y ago

> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix. What about alcohol? Cigarettes? Poker? Penny stocks? All of these things have contributed to people blowing their savings, futures, and ruining their own lives and their families' lives. By criminalizing drugs, people who want to fix their behavior are unable to because they're afraid to go to jail. What we need is support centers, like we have for alcoholics, gambling addicts, sex addicts, internet addicts, and addicts of any other kind. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the 20s, and it hasn't worked for drugs.

_broody 12y ago
I agree. Social campaigning will be much more effective than prohibition, that's what we do for legal drugs which also are devastating for addicts. Prohibition does absolutely nothing to control drug demand. It makes the supply swell until it overruns law enforcement's efforts to stem it. It makes hard drugs with stronger effects for a small dose more profitable for smugglers, because they're easier to ship. And as American alcohol Prohibitionism showed in the 20s, it makes drugs more popular among the underaged.
bjourne 12y ago
What's this argument that if N vices are legal, then N+1 vices should be legal too? Yes, it's true that alcohol can ruin your life, but that fact is not a good argument for legalizing heroin.
- mercurial 12y ago
  It depends how you read it. If proponents of banning a drug (say, marijuana) argue that it should be banned because it is harmful and will threaten the fabric of society (or something), while more dangerous drugs are legally and readily available, and have failed to destroy society, parent's argument is reasonable.

WhitneyLand 12y ago

Asinine? How many people do you think are dying from opiate use now, compared to when prescription painkillers were easier to get? Heroin use has actually had a massive increase due to the laws you support. Imagine if opiates were legal and well regulated. So many families might be dealing with substance abuse rather than death of a loved one due to guessing what's in an illegal plastic bag. Similar to moonshine which caused blindness and death during prohibition.

ceejayoz 12y ago

> He's empowering others to destroy their lives So does Farmville.

frozenport 12y ago
Opiates build dependency that takes weeks to recover from, and 90% of heroin addicts relapse. Lets not kid ourselves.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  You haven't met a Farmville addict, I take it?

scotty79 12y ago

> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix. What do you think about state organized lotteries then? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

JackC 12y ago

> I'm common sense. Common sense is a great place to start from! Then you do science. You predict what will happen under various policies; you try some options and observe what happens; you revise your understanding of the problem; and repeat. From the few places where people are thinking that way, it seems like the best approach is neither criminal law nor pure legalization, but regulation, treatment and harm reduction. There are some examples in this report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy: http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/Global_Commission_Report_FINAL.pdf http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/Globa... But we still have a huge amount to learn, because for the most part we're not even trying -- just sticking with the "common sense" approach of looking for a larger hammer, when hitting the problem with a smaller hammer failed to work.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]