|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 16 2019 10:27 OmniEulogy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2019 10:21 Rebs wrote:
Obligatory reminder that most smuggling and 'dangerous' element crossing in from Mexico comes from valid ports of entry.
This assumption that criminal elements running multi billion dollar underground industries will all of a sudden piss themselves because of an unmanned janky ass wall is so laughable and yet people manage to expel bogus word salads to defend it. Its just... wow... You're getting things a bit mixed up here. Nearly all suspected terrorists / asylum seekers / immigrants go through valid ports of entry. Drug runners and human traffickers do not go through valid points of entry at nearly the same rate.
2 years ago when I last looked at it the cbp claimed still 60% of drugs come though legal ports of entry.
Turns out drug runners want volume which is easier to sneak in a place that can fit a truck.
I'm on a phone right now which isn't great for looking up large PDFs but the cbp should still print an annual report on it
|
|
|
On December 16 2019 23:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2019 19:22 PoulsenB wrote:
Legalisation would not end the black market, e.g. alcohol and tobacco are legal but you still have organised crime groups smuggling and producing illegal vodka and cigarettes because people like buying them cheaper. In ultra tiny amount compared to whats made legally. There is a reason Capone was the most powerful man in the US during prohibition. People act like legalizing something means more would use. Didn't happen with booze, won't happen with others. Much of the reason is because we have been fed a bunch of misinformation about drugs our whole life. A lot of it was with good intention because the goal was to scare people from doing it. It didn't work nor has harsher and harsher punishments. Here is a short video explaining some of the misinformation. + Show Spoiler +The money could be used to actually combat addiction, instead of furthering the problem like we do now. Now you would want it heavily regulated, even more than cigarettes, I'm not talking free market.
A healthy society should strive to move away from drug dependencies, not towards it.
We don’t want to create a society of lazy, unproductive people.
That being said a wall is definitely needed to be put in a place against a nation ran by cartels.
|
On December 17 2019 05:49 zenist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2019 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2019 19:22 PoulsenB wrote:
Legalisation would not end the black market, e.g. alcohol and tobacco are legal but you still have organised crime groups smuggling and producing illegal vodka and cigarettes because people like buying them cheaper. In ultra tiny amount compared to whats made legally. There is a reason Capone was the most powerful man in the US during prohibition. People act like legalizing something means more would use. Didn't happen with booze, won't happen with others. Much of the reason is because we have been fed a bunch of misinformation about drugs our whole life. A lot of it was with good intention because the goal was to scare people from doing it. It didn't work nor has harsher and harsher punishments. Here is a short video explaining some of the misinformation. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8AHODc6phg The money could be used to actually combat addiction, instead of furthering the problem like we do now. Now you would want it heavily regulated, even more than cigarettes, I'm not talking free market. A healthy society should strive to move away from drug dependencies, not towards it. We don’t want to create a society of lazy, unproductive people. That being said a wall is definitely needed to be put in a place against a nation ran by cartels.
You are right that we should move away from dependency, but you have failed to show why that also means we should move away from legalization. Countries/states that have legalized marijuana have seen a drop in drug dependency. You'll need to back up the connection between dependency and legalization before anything else.
|
On December 17 2019 05:49 zenist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2019 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2019 19:22 PoulsenB wrote:
Legalisation would not end the black market, e.g. alcohol and tobacco are legal but you still have organised crime groups smuggling and producing illegal vodka and cigarettes because people like buying them cheaper. In ultra tiny amount compared to whats made legally. There is a reason Capone was the most powerful man in the US during prohibition. People act like legalizing something means more would use. Didn't happen with booze, won't happen with others. Much of the reason is because we have been fed a bunch of misinformation about drugs our whole life. A lot of it was with good intention because the goal was to scare people from doing it. It didn't work nor has harsher and harsher punishments. Here is a short video explaining some of the misinformation. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8AHODc6phg The money could be used to actually combat addiction, instead of furthering the problem like we do now. Now you would want it heavily regulated, even more than cigarettes, I'm not talking free market. A healthy society should strive to move away from drug dependencies, not towards it. We don’t want to create a society of lazy, unproductive people. That being said a wall is definitely needed to be put in a place against a nation ran by cartels.
If that wall isn't at a minimum of 45ft below the surface with sensitive earthquake detection systems, then it is for nothing. If that wall isn't manned by 24/7 staff, then it is a waste. The physical semblance of the wall isn't china vs the mongols. Technology makes most physical barriers obsolete.
And by technology, I meant the continued advance of machines, methods, and material understanding. A wall is a sight to make racists feel better about themselves and those who don't understand the situation at the borders nor the politics involved with the various agencies, both personal and government.
|
|
|
On December 17 2019 05:49 zenist wrote:
A healthy society should strive to move away from drug dependencies, not towards it.
We don’t want to create a society of lazy, unproductive people.
That being said a wall is definitely needed to be put in a place against a nation ran by cartels.
You mean a society that doesn't drink caffeinated beverages? Or alcoholic beverages? Or smokes? Or vapes? Or mass-consumes? Or FOMO's? Or social media?
There's so much wrong with the way our society currently works, depency is a necessity.
|
Norway28817 Posts
I mean weed consumption has risen a bit in states where it has been legalized no?
(to my knowledge alcohol consumption has seen a drop, and a country like the netherlands has had much less problems with heroin addiction than many european countries that are comparable aside from drug policy). So I'm definitely a fan, but I do think we are likely to see a slight increase in people that try cannabis (not necessarily in 'amount of stoners' though) through legalizing.
|
On December 17 2019 06:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean weed consumption has risen a bit in states where it has been legalized no?
(to my knowledge alcohol consumption has seen a drop, and a country like the netherlands has had much less problems with heroin addiction than many european countries that are comparable aside from drug policy). So I'm definitely a fan, but I do think we are likely to see a slight increase in people that try cannabis (not necessarily in 'amount of stoners' though) through legalizing.
Another way to look at it is by comparing it to something like bungee-jumping. If it was illegal and the only places it was set up were hidden away fewer would try it and more would likely die than currently does. If you then moved it to legal chances increases people try it out.
A very faulty way to look at it of course but taking something that is legal as a starting point helps me in these topics at least.
|
|
|
Norway28817 Posts
I mean I don't have data on this but I'm thinking that a significant amount of people might at some point find themselves in a point of desperation that could make them go for heroin or something as an escape or source of personal numbing, if they were easily able to acquire it at that point. not as a 'this sounds fun', but as a 'my situation is hopeless', which might not have actually been the case. And then it follows that a not insignificant amount of people would, after realizing that the first time was the best thing they ever felt, run the risk of doing it enough times for them to develop an addiction.
I mean, people already do this with alcohol, and it's plenty destructive in that case. Easily available harder drugs, from my perspective, can be predicted to have negative effects on the population, that I am not sure are actually alleviated by the positive effects legalizing and regulating would bring.
But for drugs that are significantly less dangerous than alcohol, like weed, I don't really see the argument.
|
|
|
The horrible unethical thing is that alcohol is a major depressant, addictive and there's enough money behind it making it look sexy as fuck to drink it.
|
On December 17 2019 07:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2019 07:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean I don't have data on this but I'm thinking that a significant amount of people might at some point find themselves in a point of desperation that could make them go for heroin or something as an escape or source of personal numbing, if they were easily able to acquire it at that point. not as a 'this sounds fun', but as a 'my situation is hopeless', which might not have actually been the case. And then it follows that a not insignificant amount of people would, after realizing that the first time was the best thing they ever felt, run the risk of doing it enough times for them to develop an addiction.
I mean, people already do this with alcohol, and it's plenty destructive in that case. Easily available harder drugs, from my perspective, can be predicted to have negative effects on the population, that I am not sure are actually alleviated by the positive effects legalizing and regulating would bring.
But for drugs that are significantly less dangerous than alcohol, like weed, I don't really see the argument. I think the only flaw is thinking that is not easy to get now and that legalizing and regulating would make it easier, it would likely make it harder you could even enforce things like a councilor at each place it is sold explaining the danger and helping with the helplessness. If you watch that video it talks about how the opposite of addiction is connection and how the famous rat trial where they do heroine till they die is flawed because once they give the rats companionship and things to do they no longer are very interested. You would be able to have massive savings from legalization along with massive revenues. And yes you could also do this horribly wrong by doing it free market style where companies are trying to get people hooked to up their profits. But with enough rules and responsible government making them and spending that money (which is no given) I think it would be a huge boon to society. and at worst, significantly better.
Responsible government? You do know we elected Trump, right? Lower seats are even easier to get a corrupt person in office. Pharmaceutical companies already own Congress. Legalization equals profit for someone at the cost of the citizens. Expecting the government to do it well is foolish.
The debate should be between poorly run criminalization, poorly run decriminalization, and poorly run legalization.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On December 17 2019 07:40 Uldridge wrote:
The horrible unethical thing is that alcohol is a major depressant, addictive and there's enough money behind it making it look sexy as fuck to drink it.
Yeah I mean, alcohol advertising has been slightly regulated but not nearly enough in my opinion.
The argument from some quarters is that ‘well alcohol and cigarettes are legal so why aren’t other things?’, when really I think we should be looking at the bad things and reducing their use rather than adding more bad things to the mix.
As was said earlier in the thread, if people require whatever drug to cope with everyday life then maybe the particular substance really isn’t the root problem.
|
On December 17 2019 07:40 Uldridge wrote:
The horrible unethical thing is that alcohol is a major depressant, addictive and there's enough money behind it making it look sexy as fuck to drink it.
Slow down there. Have you seen me drink a pour of whisky? I make it look really sexy.
Really though, where do you see the most alcohol ads? Who is drinking it? What is the demographic targeted to?
Edit: For those wanting to regulate or ban substances, do you partake in any of them? Honest question. I want to get a sense of the demographic before responding further. I don't need to know specifics per se but it would help. You can message me to keep it more confidential.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On December 17 2019 07:40 Uldridge wrote:
The horrible unethical thing is that alcohol is a major depressant, addictive and there's enough money behind it making it look sexy as fuck to drink it.
Yeah I mean, alcohol advertising has been slightly regulated but not nearly enough in my opinion.
The argument from some quarters is that ‘well alcohol and cigarettes are legal so why aren’t other things?’, when really I think we should be looking at the bad things and reducing their use rather than adding more bad things to the mix.
As was said earlier in the thread, if people require whatever drug to cope with everyday life then maybe the particular substance really isn’t the root problem.
|
|
|
Capitalism can't be trusted to handle the production and distribution of substances used to escape it's soul crushing monotony and alienation, that much seems obvious.
Public ownership, operation, and accountability are necessary to arrive at a viable implementation of modernizing drug policy from my perspective.
|
I am sorry but, you are going to have to flesh that out GH, as it is not clear what it is you are trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
