American Politics

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Deo, it's okay to support a guy who has policies that are unsound or even stupid.

Please don't try to bait me. How many times have we done this song and dance already?

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by deoxys

So the DEA decided to keep marijuana illegal...

I'd like to know... why the DEA is the one who gets to decide that, given how the war on drugs basically determines their budget and livelihoods... seems like a conflict of interest to me.

It sure is a conflict of interest. After-all, marijuana is totally safe and side effect free.

[Snorby]

Yes, because issues comparable to or worse than those of Alcohol and Tobacco DEFINITELY make a substance more dangerous than Cocaine.

[Doppleganger]

Alcohol and tobacco being legal have no bearing on marijuana.

[Snorby]

They do, however, put into perspective how hypocritical and irrational the EDA's position on marijuana is.

[Rangeet]

Ah, America. Where any actual liberal running for President is considered a demagogue.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Alcohol and tobacco being legal have no bearing on marijuana.

They actually do. Do you know anything about the history of the Reefer Madness-era?

[Doppleganger]

They really don't.

Marijuana shouldn't be legal. Neither should tobacco or alcohol, or any other potential "drugs of abuse". Tobacco and alcohol are legal for a number of grandfathered reasons that aren't really in the people's best interest...but that doesn't mean that marijuana should be legal just because they already are.

[SoS]

Yeah, criminalising marijuana has had absolute NO adverse effects. Not a one.

[Heather]

Alcohol is legal because we tried prohibition and it failed so miserably.

[Snorby]

Don't forget the key part where the people illegal consuming it were white so they couldn't just thrown in jail en masse.

[deoxys]

Did you really just say alcohol and tobacco shouldn't be legal?

There's no reason to even have this discussion then if you're just going to stonewall me right there.

[Rangeet]

Clearly posting on Pokemon forums shouldn't be legal, that's valuable time that you could spend doing good for the society.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

Ah, America. Where any actual liberal running for President is considered a demagogue.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...124329563.html

Rangeet I'm going to have to politely ask you to stop, as your cognitive dissonance is giving me a headache.

[Mercutio]

Weed is really not side effect free. At all. But it should be legal.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Weed is really not side effect free. At all. But it should be legal.

Yes, this is true. However it can be argued the side-effects of weed are far less terrible for the body and mind than alcohol is. Listing it as a class-a substance on par with heroin is simply overkill.

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

Ah, America. Where any actual liberal running for President is considered a demagogue.

Hi. British liberal here. Big fan of (for example) Justin Trudeau. Agree with Sanders being a demagogue.

[Princess Ana]

>people acting like its ridiculous to think of banning alcohol



There are many reasons to make alcohol (and tobacco) illegal. Many more than, say, marijuana.

Not sure if you're just being hugely sarcastic by acting uninformed but you do realize alcohol is very damaging to a pregnancy right? Easily the worst example you could have shown.

[Mozz]

Yes, if we were starting a new society from scratch, the order of "what should be banned" would be alcohol, tobacco, pot, so yeah

[deh74]

Make everything illegal. All of it. Then nothing bad will ever happen again.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Mozz

Yes, if we were starting a new society from scratch, the order of "what should be banned" would be alcohol, tobacco, pot, so yeah

Rodrigo Duterte is proof positive that a drug-free environment is wonder.

20 years ago, my sister could not visit Davao City because Americans were routinely kidnapped there by jihadis, NPA or drug addicts to force a ransom. Today, it's the cleanest and safest city in Southeast Asia. And soon the rest of the Philippines will be the same.

There's way more cost to allowing legal drugs than banning them. Especially on healthcare.

Narcan ain't cheap.

[Talon87]

I don't think you can ban alcohol in any developed country until such a cultural shift takes place, as would require centuries to do, that alcohol is seen as abhorrent by 95%+ of people in the community.

1. Alcohol is too culturally entrenched in much of the world.
2. The world is more interconnected than ever thanks to the telecommunication revolution.

These are major factors for why a second prohibition movement will likely not take place in this country for quite some time. People are so enamored with their alcohol that they would sooner find ways to treat all the ails that alcohol causes than admit that it's a poison and maybe, just maybe, you're not supposed to ingest poisons.

[Mercutio]

Also Scotch is damn tasty.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

And soon the rest of the Philippines will be the same.

Because they turned law enforcement loose to MURDER citizens accused of drug dealing and abuse? Because that's what's happening. I'm going to assume you didn't know this, because I refuse to believe you'd think that is a-ok.

There's way more cost to allowing legal drugs than banning them. Especially on healthcare.

Narcan ain't cheap.

What. Am I reading.

Fighting the war on drugs ain't cheap, especially when you consider how many lives it costs, and we should know by now that people are going to get their drugs one way or the other. If people want something, they're going to get it. That fuels the drug war and drug trade/cartels, who could instead be massively, massively hurt by outright legalizing pot in the US = decreased sales = decreased trade = decreased amount of dealers and cartels = decreased danger when purchasing drugs = decreased amount of deaths = increased tax money for the US.

Alcohol has existed for tens of thousands of years, trying to outlaw it is stupid, especially given that we've seen what happened during prohibition. Yes, the things that are caused by alcohol (drunk driving, drinking pregnant, etc), yes, these are all terrible side-effects of legal alcohol, but outlawing it will literally change nothing. Fuck, outlawing weed hasn't changed millions of people smoking weed consistently, and when they get caught they get sent to prison for non-violent crimes and have their lives ruined. Some pothead sitting in their house's basement and getting high and not hurting anyone shouldn't be grounds for such stupid consequences.

Banning things people are going to do/get either way is stupid. The safer and saner option is to allow them with strict restrictions and punishment for abuse, as opposed to letting people get mixed up in bad back alley deals getting a product that might cause them harm, and letting these people continue to purchase drugs like this will just keep cartels and dealers business' booming.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by deoxys

Because they turned law enforcement loose to MURDER citizens accused of drug dealing and abuse? Because that's what's happening. I'm going to assume you didn't know this, because I refuse to believe you'd think that is a-ok.

Of course I'm aware. My entire extended family lives there, and they voted for Duterte!

And as to how I feel, I'm indifferent. It's not my country and it's not really my problem, so I'm interested only as an observer. But I can tell you my family is thrilled by it, so take that as you will.

Originally Posted by deoxys

Fighting the war on drugs ain't cheap, especially when you consider how many lives it costs, and we should know by now that people are going to get their drugs one way or the other. If people want something, they're going to get it. That fuels the drug war and drug trade/cartels, who could instead be massively, massively hurt by outright legalizing pot in the US = decreased sales = decreased trade = decreased amount of dealers and cartels = decreased danger when purchasing drugs = decreased amount of deaths = increased tax money for the US.

I can assure you that with the high number of ODs that go into an ER, it's shocking how quickly the cost exceeds the economic value of a human life. In other words, from the economy's POV, the person is better off dead than being treated over and over for ODs, because the can't make enough in their lifetime to cover the true cost of healthcare to themselves.

And strictly speaking, drugs aren't exactly a huge problem to the US economy. The war on drugs is effectively a cost-sink, meant to satisfy a value of the American people. Economically, the US is better off not spending a dime on fighting drugs, and incurs a smaller cost than fighting it. Legalizing everything could also be a better outcome than fighting it, but you create a class of people who exist only to pay money for drugs. Basically you turn them into cows/pigs, with no value except to be exploited by their owners.

Originally Posted by deoxys

Alcohol has existed for tens of thousands of years, trying to outlaw it is stupid, especially given that we've seen what happened during prohibition.

I like to compare Prohibition to Brexit. Leave barely won over Remain. It's not like Britain was united in its desire to leave the EU. Similarly, it's not like the country was overwhelmingly in favour of Prohibition when it passed. So there was going to be problems.

IF the US was like, 95% against alcohol and 5% in favour, and that ratio survived immigration, prohibition might still be around.

Originally Posted by deoxys

Fuck, outlawing weed hasn't changed millions of people smoking weed consistently, and when they get caught they get sent to prison for non-violent crimes and have their lives ruined.

Do you think prison is only for violent crimes? What about Bernie Madoff or all the fraudsters who triggered subprime and ruined the economy for everyone in 2008? A line exists, and whether or not you agree with the crime, it's still a crime and people go to prison for breaking it.

Originally Posted by deoxys

Some pothead sitting in their house's basement and getting high and not hurting anyone shouldn't be grounds for such stupid consequences.

Plenty still go outside, get into cars or show up to work high. THC impairs mental judgment, it's naiive to expect that people would show the restraint to confine themselves to their basement when smoking it up.

Originally Posted by deoxys

Banning things people are going to do/get either way is stupid. The safer and saner option is to allow them with strict restrictions and punishment for abuse, as opposed to letting people get mixed up in bad back alley deals getting a product that might cause them harm, and letting these people continue to purchase drugs like this will just keep cartels and dealers business' booming.

Actually, the more effective option than stricter punishment (which, in general, disproportionally harms the poor) is more detox/rehab/counseling options. But pushers still exist, and they are still going to pressure their former clients to get back on the drugs. So there needs to be an option to get rid of the root problem, the drug distributors.

That's one of the most interesting take aways from what's going on the Philippines. Duterte offers 10,000 pesos for turning in a drug user/drug pusher alive. He offers 60,000 pesos for turning in the user/pusher dead. If you are a user, and you turn yourself in, you are enrolled in a free detox/rehab program.

Pushers suddenly have a need to immediately surrender to police, because all of their clients now have an incentive to not just to rat them out, but to kill them! There are bounties on the users themselves, so it's an immediate threat to clean up, or else you'll likely be murdered. Users and pushers turn on each other, which sabotages the root problem. There are drug facilitators higher in the government, and that's where Duterte's lists come into play, where he names the high-ranking pushers so the police or vigilantes can target them.

For reference, you can throw a lavish wedding for 60,000 pesos. It's brutal, and a massive human rights violation...but it's effective.