genwin

30 ms·

271.
by genwin 13y ago
Yes, that's consistent with my top-most comment in this thread, where I describe a different, gentler and constitutional war on drugs. I wouldn't stop at using the taxes from the sale of hard drugs to reduce their usage. If spendi
272.
by genwin 13y ago
> GCracks'a horrible drug, crack addicts are tedious & depressing to be around, but they're not all as dysfunctional as you suggest. Have you researched this, as you suggested I do, or is it just what you believe?
273.
by genwin 13y ago
No, things that benefit society at large should be funded by society at large. I support a war on drugs only when it's constitutional and benefits society, doing more good than harm including its cost.
274.
by genwin 13y ago
> You seem to be assuming that we can somehow overcome all of the imperfections of past policies but do not offer a clear, strong novel mechanism by which that can happen. Actually I think what I propose has nil chance of becoming realit
275.
by genwin 13y ago
Yours is a rude form of disagreement, is all. Your comments elsewhere: > This isn't going to happen because a bunch of people in line at an airport isn't a high-value target. Can you point to research? > I mean it would suck
276.
by genwin 13y ago
> At least in the case of marijuana, the cure seems to be significantly worse than the disease. Agreed, I'm talking about justifying criminalization in an ideal way, not the current way. > The idea that you can squash a market wi
277.
by genwin 13y ago
You seem to be assuming that a war on drugs must make them illegal. It needn't. Instead the war could do whatever is most effective (per dollar spent) at reducing usage. I support rehab for alcoholics, and measures to reduce drunk driv
278.
by genwin 13y ago
There should be evidence heavily involved in a war on drugs, on a drug by drug basis, for sure. I'd estimate the totality of the drag on society, even parenting, in determining the resources to apply to reduce the usage of that drug.
279.
by genwin 13y ago
Well I don't the percentage for a lot of things I bet I'm right about the minimum percentage for!
280.
by genwin 13y ago
Is that crack cocaine, or regular cocaine? I think the former is much more addictive.
281.
by genwin 13y ago
There's a big difference between addiction rates of regular cocaine vs. crack cocaine, right?
282.
by genwin 13y ago
Sure, but maybe it wouldn't lead to that when addicts are given rehab and no prosecution. Maybe then usage could be reduced.
283.
by genwin 13y ago
That's interesting, I'll definitely research further. It's possible these improvements were because they criminalized it in a sub-optimal way, as the US does. That is, it's possible that an optimal war on hard drugs coul
284.
by genwin 13y ago
> Perhaps they would if they were criminalized. But why would it be criminalized? For that to be justified it needs to be a drain on society in some significant way. I don't support the current flawed war on drugs, especially forfei
285.
by genwin 13y ago
> You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? No, rehab for them and all other people addicted to hard drugs. I'd seek criminal prosecution against the
286.
by genwin 13y ago
Thanks, I'll research that further later.
287.
by genwin 13y ago
> Surely the price of the drug, all else being equal, would strongly correlate to the number of crimes committed to obtain the drug. You have a good point there. If I was wrong and crack and meth became dirt cheap and there was no long a
288.
by genwin 13y ago
Is crack or meth legal in any modern country, after being illegal?
289.
by genwin 13y ago
I'd include a lot of legal drugs in my war on drugs!
290.
by genwin 13y ago
If the percentage of crack users who could both hold a steady job to pay for their addiction and also not significantly drag down those around them was > 90% (e.g. workplace accidents, parenting), then I could support ending the war on c
291.
by genwin 13y ago
> Of course there were. Safe to assume a very small percentage of alcohol users, which makes the difference here. Safe to assume that during Prohibition the vast majority of alcohol users could have been sober during working hours to pay
292.
by genwin 13y ago
I don't think it would matter how cheap it is. Even at a dollar a hit a jobless person tends to need to steal to get that dollar, in addition to money for food. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that legal things become
293.
by genwin 13y ago
I do make the assumption that a war on drugs can lower the number of people addicted to hard drugs, and from there the amount of violence related to it. But that assumption includes the way I would handle it, like forcing users to be in reh
294.
by genwin 13y ago
It's a matter of percentages. Perhaps 5% of alcohol users have a significant problem with it, that drags down those around them. I don't know what the percentage is for crack but I bet it's over 90%, high enough that we shoul
295.
by genwin 13y ago
I can imagine that, because a crack or meth user can't hold down a decent job. Whether legal or not they'd tend to have to rob to get the money to stay high. And when legal it's likely more people would get addicted.
296.
by genwin 13y ago
Apples to oranges, since unlike meth and crack users, the vast majority of those who drink alcohol can hold down a job to pay for it, instead of resort to theft or worse.
297.
by genwin 13y ago
It's a question of what does more harm than good. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol can still be sober at work. Whereas a crack addict will tend to be high all day, unable to work, thus needing to rob to feed their addictio
298.
by genwin 13y ago
If crack was dirt cheap, people would still rob to get the money for it, because they couldn't hold down a decent job while using it.
299.
by genwin 13y ago
Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. Does making meth and crack legal make less crime (violent or robbery) than if their usage was nil? I highly doubt it.
300.
by genwin 13y ago
I have a problem with a war on marijuana, or violating the Constitution during the war on drugs. But otherwise I don't have a problem with a war on meth or crack or other drugs that increase the odds that I'll be a victim of viole

More ›