|
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 18 2019 03:13 brian wrote: can you just not shit up the thread with your personal grievance against GH for the umpteenth time. if you could contain that to the feedback thread, i think that’s for the best. How about you don't add to it if you don't want to see it? (Yes I know this post makes me as guilty as you are.) Keep it to the feedback section if you don't like how others interact in the thread.
|
|
I wonder who wrote it. It definitely captures his spirit while clearly not being written by him
|
On December 18 2019 00:56 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2019 12:43 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 17 2019 11:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2019 11:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 16 2019 08:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 16 2019 08:08 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 16 2019 06:25 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2019 05:58 BerserkSword wrote:On December 16 2019 05:46 semantics wrote:On December 16 2019 05:06 BerserkSword wrote: [quote]
A wall prevents criminal elements from waltzing through.
I'd rather spend billions on a wall at the mexican border than giving israel billions per year so they can build a wall (which works btw) at their border Why stop at building a wall at the mexcio boarder, the Canadian boarder is larger and less manned. Also at least to our own national security concerns Canada has produced more terrorists crossing the boarder into the US than Mexico, especially when you're talking Islamic terrorists as mexcio isn't really filled with Muslims. The point is that the motivation of the wall is based on a false premise. It's not that there isn't dangers or what have you, it's the the claimed dangers dont match reality as they've been deeply exaggerated making the motivation for the wall questionable. Especially in context to Canada or our other ports of entry. Please tell me youre joking. Canada is not run by mafias that have access to massive amounts of drugs and that are armed to the teeth. America has a drug and gang violence problem. While obviously not all of it is because of the mexican border, a lot of it is. Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little. That's entirely unrealistic, though, and awful for a plethora of reasons. Reasons which are? Sorry for the extremely delayed response, but legalization of major drugs is unrealistic because there is no individual power that can say 'Heroin is legal now' without 50 footnotes on the conditions that apply to its legal use and the systems that would need to be put into place to make legal, safe use feasible. Nevermind the amount of comittee nd effort that would have to be put into deciding any of these things in the first place. People still turn their noses up at safe injection sites for 'serious drug' addicts. Legalizing those substances isn't even on the table, imo. And awful is because we have simpler, less destructive substances than heroin or cocaine that -are- legal and people are still dumb enough to abuse them to self-destruction. I don't think it is realistic to think it will happen soon, but I hope over time we will see that things like safe injection sites both admit we can't solve the problem through criminalizing and don't do enough because they keep all the money involved in drugs heading into the wrong way. Legalizing and highly regulating creates a situation where we are saying "we understand the problem around drug addiction is that drug addiction is the symptom and we are going to use the money generated to actually deal with the causes". Over time the hope is that no one wants to do heroine and those that do instead get the help they need, or always have it available to them. Am super curious about that last line. What do you see as things that make people want to do heroine? What do you see as them getting the help they need? In my experience, and as a well-documented part of the addiction cycle, substance abuse commonly starts as an act of escapism. Given that this escapism is driven by physical or emotional pain, hoping that over time no-one 'wants to do heroine' seems extremely fruitless, which is why I'm curious about your perspective on the subject. Getting help suffers the same issues, where "Getting help" would be everything from freeing the subject from a life of poverty to saving the subject from any level of abuse to preventing the subject from acting out or rebelling for 'less serious' reasons. Plus umpteen other sources of physical or emotional pain that may lead to escapism or a 'want to do heroine'. Again, I'm curious to hear your response because I see solving that problem as literally impossible short of cosmically forming a perfect utopia through sheer force of will. There’s a plethora of stuff you could do to mitigate some of these issues, both at the root cause level and in treating the symptoms when they do emerge in the form of addiction. Not just in terms of pumping money in, there’s all sorts of other factors one could effect without throwing money at it as well. You can mitigate the issue of those with mental health problems, diagnosed or otherwise self-medicating with drugs if you have sufficiently available mental health services. I knew a guy who was schizophrenic and had issues with drugs, who got thrown into a halfway house for drug addicts despite him protesting about it being a terrible environment for him. No other places available for him after he got discharged from hospital so it was there or the street, he ended up relapsing pretty horribly. Getting to a utopia where everyone is happy all the time, yeah it’s totally unrealistic but we can still do a lot better societally. The prevalence of unstable, often anti-social hours work contracts is a pretty underrated factor that drives drug use too. One ends up stressing on if they’ll get enough hours, has to take what is on offer and ends up socially isolated too as it’s difficult to schedule in healthy social activities.
I certainly don't disagree that there are better ways to do things and more we can do, I was just exploring JimmiC's idea to see if it went beyond "Legalize drugs because it has benefits" followed by "hope it works out and people don't want to do these now-legal drugs."
It didn't strike me as a well-defined position, and while I don't disagree that we can/should do more, I do disagree that legalizing heavy drugs is either feasible or good.
|
On December 18 2019 11:48 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 00:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 17 2019 12:43 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 17 2019 11:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2019 11:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 16 2019 08:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 16 2019 08:08 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 16 2019 06:25 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2019 05:58 BerserkSword wrote:On December 16 2019 05:46 semantics wrote: [quote] Why stop at building a wall at the mexcio boarder, the Canadian boarder is larger and less manned. Also at least to our own national security concerns Canada has produced more terrorists crossing the boarder into the US than Mexico, especially when you're talking Islamic terrorists as mexcio isn't really filled with Muslims.
The point is that the motivation of the wall is based on a false premise. It's not that there isn't dangers or what have you, it's the the claimed dangers dont match reality as they've been deeply exaggerated making the motivation for the wall questionable. Especially in context to Canada or our other ports of entry. Please tell me youre joking. Canada is not run by mafias that have access to massive amounts of drugs and that are armed to the teeth. America has a drug and gang violence problem. While obviously not all of it is because of the mexican border, a lot of it is. Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little. That's entirely unrealistic, though, and awful for a plethora of reasons. Reasons which are? Sorry for the extremely delayed response, but legalization of major drugs is unrealistic because there is no individual power that can say 'Heroin is legal now' without 50 footnotes on the conditions that apply to its legal use and the systems that would need to be put into place to make legal, safe use feasible. Nevermind the amount of comittee nd effort that would have to be put into deciding any of these things in the first place. People still turn their noses up at safe injection sites for 'serious drug' addicts. Legalizing those substances isn't even on the table, imo. And awful is because we have simpler, less destructive substances than heroin or cocaine that -are- legal and people are still dumb enough to abuse them to self-destruction. I don't think it is realistic to think it will happen soon, but I hope over time we will see that things like safe injection sites both admit we can't solve the problem through criminalizing and don't do enough because they keep all the money involved in drugs heading into the wrong way. Legalizing and highly regulating creates a situation where we are saying "we understand the problem around drug addiction is that drug addiction is the symptom and we are going to use the money generated to actually deal with the causes". Over time the hope is that no one wants to do heroine and those that do instead get the help they need, or always have it available to them. Am super curious about that last line. What do you see as things that make people want to do heroine? What do you see as them getting the help they need? In my experience, and as a well-documented part of the addiction cycle, substance abuse commonly starts as an act of escapism. Given that this escapism is driven by physical or emotional pain, hoping that over time no-one 'wants to do heroine' seems extremely fruitless, which is why I'm curious about your perspective on the subject. Getting help suffers the same issues, where "Getting help" would be everything from freeing the subject from a life of poverty to saving the subject from any level of abuse to preventing the subject from acting out or rebelling for 'less serious' reasons. Plus umpteen other sources of physical or emotional pain that may lead to escapism or a 'want to do heroine'. Again, I'm curious to hear your response because I see solving that problem as literally impossible short of cosmically forming a perfect utopia through sheer force of will. There’s a plethora of stuff you could do to mitigate some of these issues, both at the root cause level and in treating the symptoms when they do emerge in the form of addiction. Not just in terms of pumping money in, there’s all sorts of other factors one could effect without throwing money at it as well. You can mitigate the issue of those with mental health problems, diagnosed or otherwise self-medicating with drugs if you have sufficiently available mental health services. I knew a guy who was schizophrenic and had issues with drugs, who got thrown into a halfway house for drug addicts despite him protesting about it being a terrible environment for him. No other places available for him after he got discharged from hospital so it was there or the street, he ended up relapsing pretty horribly. Getting to a utopia where everyone is happy all the time, yeah it’s totally unrealistic but we can still do a lot better societally. The prevalence of unstable, often anti-social hours work contracts is a pretty underrated factor that drives drug use too. One ends up stressing on if they’ll get enough hours, has to take what is on offer and ends up socially isolated too as it’s difficult to schedule in healthy social activities. I certainly don't disagree that there are better ways to do things and more we can do, I was just exploring JimmiC's idea to see if it went beyond "Legalize drugs because it has benefits" followed by "hope it works out and people don't want to do these now-legal drugs." It didn't strike me as a well-defined position, and while I don't disagree that we can/should do more, I do disagree that legalizing heavy drugs is either feasible or good.
For about the last decade just prescription pain killers have been killing more people than heroin and cocaine combined in the US.
In 2010, prescription painkillers killed more than 16,500 people in the U.S., more than twice as many as cocaine and heroin combined.
www.ncsl.org
|
On December 18 2019 11:26 Mohdoo wrote:I wonder who wrote it. It definitely captures his spirit while clearly not being written by him Somebody probably started from a transcription of Trump raging on Pelosi, that's why half the letter is ' No it was you, not me' and the Space Force is mentioned for no reason.
But yeah stuff like ' Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade, - you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person' ' Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity' was never written or said by Trump
edit: twitter says it was Stephen Miller, Director of legislative affairs Eric Ueland, and Mulvaney aide Michael Williams who drafted the letter
+ Show Spoiler +
|
In primary news, Biden's support among 'nonwhite' voters continues to slip.
Increasingly looking like a two person race to me.
|
I also think that's how this will go down.
Mayor Pete I feel like that's just not going to happen because he won't get support from younger folks. And then between Warren and Sanders, you'll eventually have the progressive wing rally around one of them, and I'm betting Bernie does way better in the early voting states like Iowa. Then we're left with the Establishment v Sanders rematch.
|
In case there was anyone out there who was still buying the spin on the FISA report, the court itself is kinda pissed.
As boring as I suppose the Carter Page FISA story is, the fact that it was so central to the last three years, sucked up so much oxygen, and caused so much pearl-clutching (as a part of the entire Trump-Russia saga) means it should be at least posted for the record.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued a rare order Tuesday to the FBI and Department of Justice, demanding they spell out a series of planned reforms following a damning report from the DOJ's inspector general that scrutinized surveillance of a former aide to President Donald Trump's campaign.
The order cites allegations of wrongdoing in a report released last week by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and argues the FBI's handling of the surveillance was done in a way that is "antithetical to the heightened duty of candor" expected by the court.
While Horowitz determined that the opening of the Russia investigation was not improper, he also documented a series of "significant errors or omissions” made by FBI agents seeking surveillance warrants for Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser who had lived and worked in Russia.
Horowitz specifically found instances where potentially exculpatory evidence was not passed on from the FBI to DOJ lawyers, who in turn did not inform the court as it repeatedly re-authorized surveillance warrants targeting Page.
"When FBI personnel mislead [DOJ] in the ways described above, they equally mislead the FISC," the court's presiding judge, Rosemary Collyer, wrote in the order. "The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."
Collyer's order demands the FBI and DOJ spell out its plans for reforms to the FISA process by no later than Jan. 10.
In a statement reacting to the FISA court's order, the FBI said Director Chris Wray has "ordered more than 40 corrective steps to address the Report’s recommendations, including some improvements beyond those recommended by the IG."
"As Director Wray has stated, the Inspector General’s report describes conduct by certain FBI employees that is unacceptable and unrepresentative of the FBI as an institution," the statement said. "FISA is an indispensable tool in national security investigations, and in recognition of our duty of candor to the Court and our responsibilities to the American people, the FBI is committed to working with the FISA Court and DOJ to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the FISA process.”
In an exclusive interview with ABC News last week, Wray noted that "every error and omission is significant and it's something we need to take seriously." But Wray also sought to highlight Horowitz's finding that the investigation was opened with proper cause.
Attorney General Bill Barr has taken his criticism a step further, though, saying he disagrees with Horowitz's assessment that the investigation was properly predicated, and suggesting some FBI agents in the FISA process may have purposely acted in "bad faith" in order to hurt President Trump.
"The core statement in my opinion by the I.G. is that these irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions were not satisfactory explained and I think that leaves open the possibility for bad faith," Barr said. "I think it's premature now to reach a judgment on that, but I think further work has to be done."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested in a hearing with Horowitz last week that the alleged abuses uncovered in the FISA process might warrant shuttering the court entirely.
"I would hate to lose the ability of the FISA court to operate at a time probably when we need it the most," Graham, R-S.C., said. "But after your report, I have serious concerns about whether the FISA court can continue unless there is fundamental reform."
Graham pressed Horowitz in the hearing as to whether he believed the Page FISA process ever became "unlawful."
"I will let the court decide that. The court has this report and will make that decision," Horowitz answered.
The letter issued by the court Tuesday, however, makes no statement about the lawfulness of the warrants, though it was not immediately clear whether the court might issue a separate determination after it receives its response from DOJ and FBI.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fisa-court-issues-rare-order-doj-fbi-scathing/story?id=67785661
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6582028/FISC-Order-12-17.pdf
Edit:
And in other news while impeachment theater is going on (more like crashing around the Democrats), it is heartwarming to see that everyone in Washington can still get together and spend eleventy-bajillion dollars without even trying to pay for it or even letting it sit long enough to be meaningfully read and discussed. Even the reporter throws some subtle shade in there. I do like how they "compromise" by just spending more on everything, while repealing taxes they don't like (some of which never went into effect) + Show Spoiler +what Republicans said about those unpopular ACA taxes turned out to be exactly true and making no attempt to pay for it. What serious, sober statesmen they are.
+ Show Spoiler +The House on Tuesday approved a $1.4 trillion spending package that would stave off a looming shutdown and fund the federal government through September, acting in a burst of bipartisanship just a day before Democrats plan to impeach President Trump.
The legislation would also remove three controversial taxes from the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 law that was a top legislative achievement of President Barack Obama.
The package passed in two pieces, one focused on GOP national security priorities including the Pentagon, the other on domestic agencies dear to Democrats such as the Department of Health and Human Services. The vote on the national security package was 280 to 138. The vote on the domestic agencies was 297 to 120.
The year-end legislative frenzy, which came ahead of the divisive impeachment vote in the House, showed how far both parties have moved since last year, when a spending fight led to a 35-day government shutdown. This time, both parties reverted to a hallowed congressional tradition of embracing an enormous year-end spending bill. Each side made concessions to secure long-sought funding.
The legislation would add almost $50 billion in new spending, even though the White House and Republicans called for major budget reductions earlier in the year. The package would also strip back parts of the ACA, legislation that many Democrats say serves as a defining moment of the Obama administration. The ACA taxes that were cut, however, were controversial, and even many Democrats opposed them.
All told, the legislation could add more than $500 billion to deficits over the next decade. The deficit — or annual gap between government spending and tax revenue — is expected to eclipse $1 trillion this year and grow in subsequent years unless changes are made.
The spending binge generated predictable finger-pointing, with Republicans defending their demands for increased Pentagon budgets while accusing Democrats of profligacy in funding domestic agencies. Democrats argued the reverse, contending that more money for health and education programs was justified and blaming Republicans for making defense spending the price to pay. Few if any voices could be heard defending Congress’ overall addiction to growing the federal budget, and with it the nation’s debt, which now exceeds $23 trillion.
“I joined the Appropriations Committee because it is the best place to give more people a better chance at a better life,” Appropriations Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.) said as she celebrated bigger budgets for Head Start, the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and more. “With this bill, we have lived up to that promise by making historic investments for the people.”
The legislation includes some grab-bag provisions. It would raise the age of tobacco purchases to 21, provide funding for gun research, boost funding for the census, and stabilize pensions for tens of thousands of miners who were on the verge of losing their benefits.
The legislation also extends dozens of tax credits and incentives for biodiesel producers, brewers, distillers and others.
“The list goes on and on,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as he urged support for the legislation when it comes to the Senate floor later this week. He also praised the process of both sides accepting concessions to secure a spending deal.
The nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget chided Congress for embracing what it termed “zombie tax extenders,” which it said would add more than $400 billion to the debt over the next decade. This is a reference to tax cuts that are designed to be short term but end up being extended repeatedly. When the House passed the legislation Tuesday, committee President Maya MacGuineas wrote on Twitter, “What a bucket of garbage this bill is.”
The legislation will fund the government through Sept. 30, shortly before the presidential election.
Last year, a similar effort to pass a December spending bill fell apart when Trump demanded money for a border wall. There was little appetite to repeat that impasse, though the White House did request $8.6 billion in new spending for the barrier.
Democrats refused and kept border barrier funding levels at $1.375 billion. White House officials did not signal that Trump planned to object, noting that the administration retained flexibility to move money from other accounts if necessary, as it attempted to do earlier this year. The extent of those powers is unclear, though. Last week, a federal judge said the White House did not have the authority to redirect military construction money and use it for the border wall. The case could remain in court for some time.
The tax and spending package now moves to the Senate, which must act before midnight on Friday. That’s when existing funding for government agencies is set to expire.
In a further burst of bipartisanship, the House Ways and Means Committee voted overwhelmingly to approve the North American trade deal that was finalized between House Democrats and the Trump administration last week. The full House is expected to approve it Thursday.
**MORE AT THE LINK** https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/12/17/house-passes-sprawling-trillion-spending-deal-sends-senate-ahead-friday-shutdown-deadline/
|
On December 18 2019 15:32 TheFish7 wrote: I also think that's how this will go down.
Mayor Pete I feel like that's just not going to happen because he won't get support from younger folks. And then between Warren and Sanders, you'll eventually have the progressive wing rally around one of them, and I'm betting Bernie does way better in the early voting states like Iowa. Then we're left with the Establishment v Sanders rematch.
Need people to make the right choice on that this time.
|
On December 18 2019 11:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 11:48 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 18 2019 00:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 17 2019 12:43 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 17 2019 11:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2019 11:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 16 2019 08:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 16 2019 08:08 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 16 2019 06:25 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2019 05:58 BerserkSword wrote: [quote]
Please tell me youre joking.
Canada is not run by mafias that have access to massive amounts of drugs and that are armed to the teeth.
America has a drug and gang violence problem. While obviously not all of it is because of the mexican border, a lot of it is.
Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little. That's entirely unrealistic, though, and awful for a plethora of reasons. Reasons which are? Sorry for the extremely delayed response, but legalization of major drugs is unrealistic because there is no individual power that can say 'Heroin is legal now' without 50 footnotes on the conditions that apply to its legal use and the systems that would need to be put into place to make legal, safe use feasible. Nevermind the amount of comittee nd effort that would have to be put into deciding any of these things in the first place. People still turn their noses up at safe injection sites for 'serious drug' addicts. Legalizing those substances isn't even on the table, imo. And awful is because we have simpler, less destructive substances than heroin or cocaine that -are- legal and people are still dumb enough to abuse them to self-destruction. I don't think it is realistic to think it will happen soon, but I hope over time we will see that things like safe injection sites both admit we can't solve the problem through criminalizing and don't do enough because they keep all the money involved in drugs heading into the wrong way. Legalizing and highly regulating creates a situation where we are saying "we understand the problem around drug addiction is that drug addiction is the symptom and we are going to use the money generated to actually deal with the causes". Over time the hope is that no one wants to do heroine and those that do instead get the help they need, or always have it available to them. Am super curious about that last line. What do you see as things that make people want to do heroine? What do you see as them getting the help they need? In my experience, and as a well-documented part of the addiction cycle, substance abuse commonly starts as an act of escapism. Given that this escapism is driven by physical or emotional pain, hoping that over time no-one 'wants to do heroine' seems extremely fruitless, which is why I'm curious about your perspective on the subject. Getting help suffers the same issues, where "Getting help" would be everything from freeing the subject from a life of poverty to saving the subject from any level of abuse to preventing the subject from acting out or rebelling for 'less serious' reasons. Plus umpteen other sources of physical or emotional pain that may lead to escapism or a 'want to do heroine'. Again, I'm curious to hear your response because I see solving that problem as literally impossible short of cosmically forming a perfect utopia through sheer force of will. There’s a plethora of stuff you could do to mitigate some of these issues, both at the root cause level and in treating the symptoms when they do emerge in the form of addiction. Not just in terms of pumping money in, there’s all sorts of other factors one could effect without throwing money at it as well. You can mitigate the issue of those with mental health problems, diagnosed or otherwise self-medicating with drugs if you have sufficiently available mental health services. I knew a guy who was schizophrenic and had issues with drugs, who got thrown into a halfway house for drug addicts despite him protesting about it being a terrible environment for him. No other places available for him after he got discharged from hospital so it was there or the street, he ended up relapsing pretty horribly. Getting to a utopia where everyone is happy all the time, yeah it’s totally unrealistic but we can still do a lot better societally. The prevalence of unstable, often anti-social hours work contracts is a pretty underrated factor that drives drug use too. One ends up stressing on if they’ll get enough hours, has to take what is on offer and ends up socially isolated too as it’s difficult to schedule in healthy social activities. I certainly don't disagree that there are better ways to do things and more we can do, I was just exploring JimmiC's idea to see if it went beyond "Legalize drugs because it has benefits" followed by "hope it works out and people don't want to do these now-legal drugs." It didn't strike me as a well-defined position, and while I don't disagree that we can/should do more, I do disagree that legalizing heavy drugs is either feasible or good. For about the last decade just prescription pain killers have been killing more people than heroin and cocaine combined in the US. Show nested quote +In 2010, prescription painkillers killed more than 16,500 people in the U.S., more than twice as many as cocaine and heroin combined. www.ncsl.org And thats entirely a reason why we shouldn't legalize heroin or cocain considering most of those perscription pain killers are heroin and cocaine.
The only difference is that there wouldn't even be a doctor between you and the pills. You'd just be able to buy them at the dollar general.
|
On December 18 2019 16:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 11:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2019 11:48 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 18 2019 00:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 17 2019 12:43 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 17 2019 11:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2019 11:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 16 2019 08:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 16 2019 08:08 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 16 2019 06:25 JimmiC wrote: [quote] Legalization of those drugs would hurt the criminals a lot more than a wall. It would also generate a shit ton of money, by moving it from the black market economy to the above board economy creating many jobs and billions in tax dollars,(not to mention billions in savings from law enforcement, legal system and imprisonment) instead of costing billions and likely doing very little. That's entirely unrealistic, though, and awful for a plethora of reasons. Reasons which are? Sorry for the extremely delayed response, but legalization of major drugs is unrealistic because there is no individual power that can say 'Heroin is legal now' without 50 footnotes on the conditions that apply to its legal use and the systems that would need to be put into place to make legal, safe use feasible. Nevermind the amount of comittee nd effort that would have to be put into deciding any of these things in the first place. People still turn their noses up at safe injection sites for 'serious drug' addicts. Legalizing those substances isn't even on the table, imo. And awful is because we have simpler, less destructive substances than heroin or cocaine that -are- legal and people are still dumb enough to abuse them to self-destruction. I don't think it is realistic to think it will happen soon, but I hope over time we will see that things like safe injection sites both admit we can't solve the problem through criminalizing and don't do enough because they keep all the money involved in drugs heading into the wrong way. Legalizing and highly regulating creates a situation where we are saying "we understand the problem around drug addiction is that drug addiction is the symptom and we are going to use the money generated to actually deal with the causes". Over time the hope is that no one wants to do heroine and those that do instead get the help they need, or always have it available to them. Am super curious about that last line. What do you see as things that make people want to do heroine? What do you see as them getting the help they need? In my experience, and as a well-documented part of the addiction cycle, substance abuse commonly starts as an act of escapism. Given that this escapism is driven by physical or emotional pain, hoping that over time no-one 'wants to do heroine' seems extremely fruitless, which is why I'm curious about your perspective on the subject. Getting help suffers the same issues, where "Getting help" would be everything from freeing the subject from a life of poverty to saving the subject from any level of abuse to preventing the subject from acting out or rebelling for 'less serious' reasons. Plus umpteen other sources of physical or emotional pain that may lead to escapism or a 'want to do heroine'. Again, I'm curious to hear your response because I see solving that problem as literally impossible short of cosmically forming a perfect utopia through sheer force of will. There’s a plethora of stuff you could do to mitigate some of these issues, both at the root cause level and in treating the symptoms when they do emerge in the form of addiction. Not just in terms of pumping money in, there’s all sorts of other factors one could effect without throwing money at it as well. You can mitigate the issue of those with mental health problems, diagnosed or otherwise self-medicating with drugs if you have sufficiently available mental health services. I knew a guy who was schizophrenic and had issues with drugs, who got thrown into a halfway house for drug addicts despite him protesting about it being a terrible environment for him. No other places available for him after he got discharged from hospital so it was there or the street, he ended up relapsing pretty horribly. Getting to a utopia where everyone is happy all the time, yeah it’s totally unrealistic but we can still do a lot better societally. The prevalence of unstable, often anti-social hours work contracts is a pretty underrated factor that drives drug use too. One ends up stressing on if they’ll get enough hours, has to take what is on offer and ends up socially isolated too as it’s difficult to schedule in healthy social activities. I certainly don't disagree that there are better ways to do things and more we can do, I was just exploring JimmiC's idea to see if it went beyond "Legalize drugs because it has benefits" followed by "hope it works out and people don't want to do these now-legal drugs." It didn't strike me as a well-defined position, and while I don't disagree that we can/should do more, I do disagree that legalizing heavy drugs is either feasible or good. For about the last decade just prescription pain killers have been killing more people than heroin and cocaine combined in the US. In 2010, prescription painkillers killed more than 16,500 people in the U.S., more than twice as many as cocaine and heroin combined. www.ncsl.org And thats entirely a reason why we shouldn't legalize heroin or cocain considering most of those perscription pain killers are heroin and cocaine. The only difference is that there wouldn't even be a doctor between you and the pills. You'd just be able to buy them at the dollar general.
I'm not a fan of legalization, like I said, that gives you the Sacklers. I'm for decriminalization and removing any potential for profit.
The issue wasn't/isn't legal or not-legal imo, the issue is it was incredibly profitable to get a bunch of people addicted to prescription pills and pawn the consequences off on the local municipalities. The legal system, doctors, pharmacies, etc... all spurred on by profit motive helped people like the Sacklers become one of the biggest drug dealing families of the 21st century.
Whether it's legalized or not (they all broke a lot of laws along the way) is less important than if it's profitable.
|
Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity.
|
On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote: Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore?
What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing?
|
Is pot sold in supermarkets? I thought they were some kind of specialized shops, no?
Also, I see the following benefits: You're now able to provide pure product. You're now available to remove stigmas step by step. You're now able to give education on responsible use and prevention strategies. You can now give out appropriate dosages with recommended usage, further cementing correct usage.
You're now able to openly research these now illegal substances without having to go through 20000 hoops, and potentially find a new avenue. For instance, MDMA, LSD and psilocybin all have potentially antidepressant properties and can help people with PTSD, while being generally orders of magnitude safer than the current anti depressants.
For me the correct/pure product and education/sensibilization are far more important than anything else.
Also: do you know how people treat heroine addiction? They give methadone, something that is actually a contraindication.
|
On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote: Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing?
In Switzerland (and every other country that seriously tried) Heroin assited Treatments have shown great results. Your probably better off reading about it yourself:
https://transformdrugs.org/heroin-assisted-treatment-in-switzerland-successfully-regulating-the-supply-and-use-of-a-high-risk-injectable-drug/
Some key points: Mortality rate and hiv-infections among addicts went way down. Criminality rate went way down. The frontload cost is high but it's estimated that it actually saves money if you take externalities into account (crime, homelessness, drug-prostitiution, medical issues and so on). It even seems to shrink illegal international drug trade. The public, in conservative switzerland no less, voted overwhelmingly to make the program permanent because its a plain resounding success.
I remember the time during the height of the drug epidemic, despite being just 7-9 years old. It was SOOO bad in Zürich. It's hard to believe that it ever existed when you look at these places nowadays. Short article with some Pictures: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/the-needle-park-_25-years-on-the-end-of-zurich-s-open-drugs-scene/42934308
|
On December 18 2019 18:55 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote: Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing? In Switzerland (and every other country that seriously tried) Heroin assited Treatments have shown great results. Your probably better up reading about it yourself: https://transformdrugs.org/heroin-assisted-treatment-in-switzerland-successfully-regulating-the-supply-and-use-of-a-high-risk-injectable-drug/Some key points: Mortality rate among addicts went WAY down. Criminality rate went WAY down. The frontload cost is high but it's estimated that it actually saves money if you take externalities into account (crime, homelessness, medical issues and so on). It even seems to shrink illegal international drug trade. The public, in conservative switzerland no less, voted overwhelmingly to make the program permanent because its a plain resounding success. I remember the time during the hight of the drug epidemic, despite being just 7-9 years old. It was SOOO bad in Zürich.
Who profits from the sale of the heroin at those facilities?
|
They are run by the state, so i guess the state/commune. I highly doubt they are profitable.
|
On December 18 2019 19:59 Velr wrote: They are run by the state, so i guess the state/commune. I highly doubt they are profitable.
Which is at the core of why it works imo. When people talk about legalization in the US they are imagining privately owned heroin bars and needles at the dollar store, not state sponsored treatment facilities.
Basically legalization and commercialization are synonymous in people's minds over here.
This is why I tried to point out with my initial comment that capitalism can't be trusted and it has to be a public project without a profit motive, otherwise the incentive is to make more addicts rather than treat the addiction.
|
On December 18 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 19:59 Velr wrote: They are run by the state, so i guess the state/commune. I highly doubt they are profitable. Which is at the core of why it works imo. When people talk about legalization in the US they are imagining privately owned heroin bars and needles at the dollar store, not state sponsored treatment facilities. Basically legalization and commercialization are synonymous in people's minds over here. This is why I tried to point out with my initial comment that capitalism can't be trusted and it has to be a public project without a profit motive, otherwise the incentive is to make more addicts rather than treat the addiction. Problem was that initial comment lacked the explanation of this comment and the point was missed. And when asked for some context you didn't provide it.
Yes private owned drug dispensaries are more interested in keeping you coming back for more. Same way that for profit prisons don't care about rehabilitation because that would mean working to remove your own income supply.
|
|
|
|