/liberty/ - Liberty

Drugs are bad and should be illegal.

>>68054

>X is bad, therefore it should be illegal

That's a non sequitur plain and simple. One of the main reasons why I don't want drugs to be illegal is because I've seen how fucking bad cravings can be. Addicts have it hard enough just coping with this shit, they don't need Officer Buttertard breaking into their home, shooting their dog and putting them in a cell for a week before they even see a judge.

The brutality of the Drug War is not a glitch of the whole thing, it's a feature. So own up to it or you're a sissy. You had people almost die from thirst in DEA custody; the cops are blackmailing kids to snitch on homicidal drugdealers; here in Germany, we had a case where a man was tied up and then forced to drink a cocktail that made him shit and vomit uncontrollably for a whole day. How much of that is legal isn't the question and never was. The logic of the Drug War dictates that we smash every drug addict into bits, grind their bones, and salt the unmarked graves they're buried on. The question is how much our humanity still restrains us. When humanity fails, you will see the DEA set up torture chambers and use them, and then the only remaining question is not if, but when people will be so used to it that they stop protesting.

Sounds dramatic? Well, fuck you. I'm actually not that cynical, but I know the difference between criminal persecution and war. Like, you know, criminal persecution isn't usually called a fucking war. It's right there in the title of the anti-drug policy.

>B-but muh decriminalization…

Still too much of a concession to evil, but I can respect it if you take it serious enough.

>>68056

It seems that you would benefit from some statistics rather than anecdotes.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/top-10-marijuana-myths-and-facts-20120822/myth-prisons-are-full-of-people-in-for-marijuana-possession-19691231

There is no 'war' on drug users. At most there's a war on drug dealers, but it will never work because you're continually causing the price to rise, which makes the trade ever more lucrative.

And yes drug use is harmful. That's why there should be a serious deterrent.

>>68067

Now maybe heroin users are actually arrested and punished, but the rapid growth in use makes me think otherwise.

>>68067

>It seems that you would benefit from some statistics rather than anecdotes.

I prefer "proven incidents", and I could probably find you hundreds if I really went looking and used narrow criteria. Believe it or not, statistics aren't everything. There is such a thing like qualitative analysis, but it's not for brainlets that think crunching numbers is how you can grasp reality.

You could also say that every "anecdote" is one too much and that we must abandon a policy that leads to them if it has no proven benefits at all. But that would also require a heart, whch is something almost everyone is lacking when it comes to legislature.

>There is no 'war' on drug users. At most there's a war on drug dealers

Most drug dealers are consumers. And drug consumption, no matter what anyone else says, is illegal in many jurisdictions. In Germany, the only way for drug consumption not to be punishable is to either use low doses (not always possible) or to take the drug directly in your mouth, like exchanging it with a kiss. That's how serious "consumption isn't illegal" is taken here, and I bet it's the same in many American states.

And in any case, do you really think that just because the main targets aren't consumers, those aren't hurt? Hell, everyone's harmed by it. There is no confidence in cops anymore and that's partially because their methods have become more and more warlike with the War on Drugs. Many people refuse to go to detox or to talk with police at all because they're afraid of being humiliated and brought to trial even if their case is thrown out. That's another reason why these "anecdotes" are relevant, because even if it only happens every three years that some kid gets killed by the drug dealer that he was supposed to spy on, that still spreads terror.

>And yes drug use is harmful. That's why there should be a serious deterrent.

Yeah, splendid idea. And where do we draw the line? Do we lock fat people up? Break the teeth of rude people out? Maybe give alcohol prohibition another try? All terrible ideas, but what makes them fundamentally different from the War on Drugs?

Jesus Christ. If everyone who's a moralizing cunt when it comes to writing the law was just as moral in his deeds, we'd have eliminated poverty by now, taken the kids off the streets and given every sick puppy a loving home.

>>68069

Considered that there may be other variables at work, like an increase in time preference or a decreasing respect for the law?

>>68072

>>68073

>hurr have a heart

Are you a woman? Are you a politician? When you're dealing with an issue this big you definitely want to know about things that are widespread, and only then can you compare them. You think there weren't also thousands of people that died from heroin overdoses in the past ten years? Just fuck off.

>drug use is illegal

Yes I know but it means nothing if they don't enforce the law properly, which is exactly what I'm saying happens.

>it spreads terror because scary police

Which is completely irrelevant as to whether the laws actually are enforced and deter drug use.

>where do we stop

At the point where you start outlawing things that actually provide social utility enough to make up for all the harm they do. Alcohol is debatable, heroin isn't.

>>68126

>Alright, so your policies haven't stopped a drug epidemic with thousands of deaths, and you still believe in its efficacy? Why? You just admitted this shit doesn't work.

How are they 'my policies'? I thought I made it clear that they aren't enforcing the laws properly. That would be my policy.

>>68146

Then explain to me what you would do differently. Sounds like your proposed policy is "the same, except it works". That's like having "make a profit" as your business plan.

>>68157

I don't know where you get the idea that I want them to continue to do the same thing. I have made it clear that I don't think they're actually enforcing the laws.

>>68159

>I don't know where you get the idea that I want them to continue to do the same thing.

Where I got the idea from? Well, maybe because your only criticism of the current drug policy is that it's not enforced strictly enough? You haven't said a single word on civil rights and you actually made fun of all the abuses I told you about. When I mentioned the example of kids that were blackmailed into snitching on dangerous crime bosses, you summed my comment up thus:

>it spreads terror because scary police

To me, that's a clear signal that you positively don't give a fuck about these kinds of abuses.

>I have made it clear that I don't think they're actually enforcing the laws.

You made it clear that you think that, but you haven't made it clear at all why. About 300000 adults were arrested for drug trafficking in 2004, 80000 of those were sentenced to imprisonment. Add to that another 28000 convictions by federal courts in 2006. That's a tenth of a million that are sentenced to imprisonment each year, and the estimated time to be served is over two years. What's not being enforced here?

Source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/ptrpa.cfm

>>68160

>To me, that's a clear signal that you positively don't give a fuck about these kinds of abuses.

No, it was just an attempt to summarise. My main point is that scary police aren't the point.

>What's not being enforced here?

The laws against possession. As I said in >>68067 (which also indicates why I think that)

>>68175

Awesome. You're an even bigger asshole than I thought. And irrational too, like most assholes. You simultaneously believe that it's okay for a random junkie to be locked up as an exemple, and that it isn't okay for him to die from an overdose. Collecticism and "social utility" are your only way out but they're a cure that's worse than the disease.

>>68181

So what, you would rather have people dying form overdoses? And yes, people who break the law and selfishly fill their bodies with poison will be punished

>>68186

>selfishly fill their bodies with poison

THEIR bodies. You said it, but you clearly don't understand it. THEIR bodies. Not yours. Not anyone else's. That right there, that is why you're a gigantic asshole. No tyrant worse than the one who says he's oppressing you for your own good.

>>68186

What is selfish about dying to a poison overdose?

Dumb, stupid, something you shouldn't do, sure. Selfish?

>>68186

>So what, you would rather have people dying form overdoses?

Compared to your alternative of letting them die from overdoses and locking them up? Fucking yes.

>And yes, people who break the law and selfishly fill their bodies with poison will be punished

Well, if overdoses are that common, then I don't see why you have to additionally punish them for their crimes. And if taking drugs is so immoral that it warrants a prison sentence, then why do you care so much for these people? See, your morality is all over the place.

>>68188

Also, this.

>>68188

>not acknowledging that some people value some things more than their life

>>68237

Apologies, I don't follow the logic here.

>>68187

There's nothing 'tyrannical' about restraining people who want to poison themselves with heroin. It's just common sense. Most people support it.

>>68188

>>68212

But my point is the threat of a prison sentence would significantly deter use.

Also, a proper prison system would deny them access to drugs, making an overdose impossible.

>>68258

As far as the selfishness goes, the fact is that a number of people, not just you, have a stake in you not destroying your mind / body with drugs. None of my family members use drugs, but if they did, and they became mentally ill, I would be extremely unhappy about it, and so would everyone else.

You might defend people's 'right' to be selfish, but I have no interest in that.

>>68258

>There's nothing 'tyrannical' about restraining people who want to poison themselves with heroin. It's just common sense. Most people support it.

"Common sense" is the new way to say "I can't actually justify this so I'm just going to pretend it justifies itself.

>But my point is the threat of a prison sentence would significantly deter use.

YEAH HOW HAS THAT WORKED SO FAR?

>>68261

>YEAH HOW HAS THAT WORKED SO FAR?

You are clearly incapable of following the discussion. Bye now.

>>68259

>the fact is that a number of people, not just you, have a stake in you not destroying your mind / body with drugs

I am so sorry I hurt their feelie feelierinos.

Anyways I have this feeling that this is going to dissolve into "bad things are bad, stop" discussion so I'll quit while I'm ahead.

>>68263

>I am so sorry I hurt their feelie feelierinos.

Your not caring about the effects of your actions doesn't make them not selfish.

Perhaps this cavalier attitude would be changed if it was one of your family members who was destroying their own sanity with drugs.

>>68264

Well first fucking thing is that I wouldn't get on this shit in first place. Prevention is better than remediation, and you've failed that in first place.

Actually thinking about it, I've in fact had my family do things I disagreed with but I never called the cops. Does that "not count"?

By the way if you get stuck on the drug trade you should be removed form the gene pool instead of having the government bail you out.

>>68265

>Actually thinking about it, I've in fact had my family do things I disagreed with but I never called the cops. Does that "not count"?

If they didn't destroy their own sanity with drugs, then no, it doesn't count. Why would it?

Even if you were the one in a thousand person that actually didn't care, that would say more about you than anything else.

>>68267

Strawman.

>>68259

Fuck off, you moralizing cunt. Like you would be happier with a mom that was addicted and locked up. I have friends with cravings, I know what I mean. If it wasn't for the fact that this shit is criminalized she could've already outed her drug dealer and taken therapy. As it stands, she is his accomplice and he can blackmail her just as well as she can blackmail him, and she didn't want to go to hospital after I told her that she had symptoms of a heart infact because she was afraid the results would leak to the police.

This is the world you want, and don't tell me that in your world, there wouldn't be addicts. Sure there would, and even if it were fewer, I wouldn't give much of a shit. Sacrificing a hundred people to the Greater Good is still barbarism, you godless fuck.

>>68277

>Like you would be happier with a mom that was addicted and locked up.

If it got her off drugs I might. Anyway I don't think I even claimed that. The point is to deter.

>If it wasn't for the fact that this shit is criminalized she could've already outed her drug dealer and taken therapy.

Drugs would be even more ubiquitous- and even legally advertised. And why would she out her drug dealer when he didn't break the law?

>Sacrificing a hundred people to the Greater Good is still barbarism, you godless fuck.

Sacrificing people's mental well being because of your obsession with 'freedom' hardly seems better.

>>68301

>Great, so you'd lock someone else's dad up to show your mom what can happen if she doesn't follow the law? Try not to choke on all that virtue, Gandhi!

If he had actually broken the law I would. A credible deterrent depends on punishment.

>Judging by the fact that the US and the Phillippines seem no more sober than Portugal, probably not.

Portugal didn't legalise drugs. At most they decriminalised possession- which is little different from the West, except that it's official. And they have mixed results.

>truly equivalent with deliberately causing the typical effects of said stupid decisions on them

I'm not saying you're deliberately causing the effects. But I don't see why that would be relevant. I'm saying that would be the effect of the change in policy you're advocating for.

>>68302

Also, it wouldn't just be my mother, but everyone in the society with the law in question. If it was only to deter one person then it may be different.

>>68054

It is not about whether or not drugs are "bad," but the economic consequences that come about from attempting to stifle a market.

>>68305

I agree that you shouldn't try to fight drugs by just restricting supply. You need to attack the demand side as well

>>68307

The United States has been attacking the "Demand side" by dehumanizing them and arresting them. Look at how good that has been going on.

>>68308

See >>68067

>>68054

is saving life bad?

>>68067

There IS a serious deterrent. Drug users suffer and die. If that deterrent isn't sufficient, then maybe that's their actual objective and we should just get out of the way. Let the suicidals filter themselves out.

>>68810

Becoming mentally ill and dying would be enough to deter a rational person. Not all people are equally rational.

>>68819

Is this supposed to be some sort of argument?

Yes, I am willing to put criminals who fund the drug trade in jail.

No, I'm not willing to let people poison themselves to death on the streets.

In case you were wondering, I'm saying drug users only care about the short term and aren't sufficiently deterred by risk. So we should increase the risk even further and make the risk closer to the present.

>>68839

If it is their will to do so, maybe that's their actual objective and we should just get out of the way. People act for reasons. Believe in their autonomy. It is only by believing in their own autonomy that they can rise out of patterns they don't want to be in, anyways.

Let people poison themselves on the streets. In fact, sell them more potent and varied poisons, products that clarify the transactions and separate them into constellations of specific function. Trust in man the problem-solver. We have not yet invented another way to solve problems anyways.

>>68848

>maybe that's their actual objective and we should just get out of the way.

Or maybe that's a stupid objective and it would be in everybody's best interest to deter them from it until they sort themselves out and clean their room.

>>68839

>No, I'm not willing to let people poison themselves to death on the streets.

WE GOTTA DO SMETHING GODDAMIT

THINK OF THE CHILDREN

>>68840

why?