Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 693

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?

Of course it should.

Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?

Of course it should.

Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

Of course it does.

You know what else does? Alcoholism.

I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?

This strikes a nerve with me. You chose meth because it’s the obvious worst example, but the amount of children abused by drunken parents is staggering. All of the crap you listed is common in the homes of children living with parents that are severe alcoholics. For you to downplay it sickens me.

EDIT: Basically, I’m tired of this hypocrisy. Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do. If you or anyone else are going to pretend to care about drug-users and the children (somebody think of the children!) then you have to be in favor of criminalizing alcohol too. If you’re not, then you’re a hypocrite.

+1

-2

I don’t buy the argument that if alcohol is legal then meth should be too because both can hurt children. I’m certainly not the one downplaying harm, righteous mfm. There is no hypocrisy in seeing a difference between hard drugs and alcohol, I’m just not a crazed absolutist. It’s true that addictions of any kind can ruin families and hurt children. You want meth legal and that’s why I used it as an example. You don’t want to draw a line even at the worst drug one might think of. A drug that, unlike alcohol, is addicting to anyone who uses it. Making judgments about where to draw lines is not hypocrisy, it’s the application of sense.

Possessed said:

Plus i don’t see how children of drugs would be any different if legal than it already is.

The idea that everything stands still but drugs are legal isn’t how it works. Money is still to be made, customer base grown. If you’re somebody dealing in inherently addictive substances, you’re going to push your product. No possibility of jail is good for business.

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?

Of course it should.

Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?

Of course it should.

Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

Of course it does.

You know what else does? Alcoholism.

I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?

This strikes a nerve with me. You chose meth because it’s the obvious worst example, but the amount of children abused by drunken parents is staggering. All of the crap you listed is common in the homes of children living with parents that are severe alcoholics. For you to downplay it sickens me.

EDIT: Basically, I’m tired of this hypocrisy. Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do. If you or anyone else are going to pretend to care about drug-users and the children (somebody think of the children!) then you have to be in favor of criminalizing alcohol too. If you’re not, then you’re a hypocrite.

+1

-2

I don’t buy the argument that if alcohol is legal then meth should be too because both can hurt children. I’m certainly not the one downplaying harm, righteous mfm.

I’m not righteous. It just hits close to home for me because it was a family issue for me.

There is no hypocrisy in seeing a difference between hard drugs and alcohol, I’m just not a crazed absolutist. It’s true that addictions of any kind can ruin families and hurt children. You want meth legal and that’s why I used it as an example. You don’t want to draw a line even at the worst drug one might think of. A drug that, unlike alcohol, is addicting to anyone who uses it. Making judgments about where to draw lines is not hypocrisy, it’s the application of sense.

Well, obviously everything will be heavily regulated, much like cigarettes and alcohol are. That means sellers can’t advertise, or sell to anyone under 21 etc. etc.

moviefreakedmind said:

Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do.

Citation needed.

Per population, yes, but per user, most certainly not.

Drugs ruin lives. There is no amount of meth or heroine or cocaine or LSD (et al.) that does not ruin lives. Alcoholism ruins more families, yes, but because there are more alcoholics. Legalizing drugs would not make drugs ruin fewer lives.

Possessed said:

Everybody that wants to do it is going to do it anyway.

Which is also why guns laws are pointless?

I’m sorry but just because stupid people are intent on doing stupid things, that doesn’t mean making doing said stupid things legal is the correct action.

Possessed said:

Yeah right. There isn’t a soul alive that doesn’t already know the “benefits” of meth.

MykitchenissofuckingcleanrightnowbutI’mgonnascrubitalittlebitmorejusttomakesureohgodthisshitisgreat.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?

Of course it should.

Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?

Of course it should.

Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

Of course it does.

You know what else does? Alcoholism.

I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?

This strikes a nerve with me. You chose meth because it’s the obvious worst example, but the amount of children abused by drunken parents is staggering. All of the crap you listed is common in the homes of children living with parents that are severe alcoholics. For you to downplay it sickens me.

EDIT: Basically, I’m tired of this hypocrisy. Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do. If you or anyone else are going to pretend to care about drug-users and the children (somebody think of the children!) then you have to be in favor of criminalizing alcohol too. If you’re not, then you’re a hypocrite.

+1

-2

I don’t buy the argument that if alcohol is legal then meth should be too because both can hurt children. I’m certainly not the one downplaying harm, righteous mfm.

I’m not righteous. It just hits close to home for me because it was a family issue for me.

Then I won’t pick on you for being on a high horse.

There is no hypocrisy in seeing a difference between hard drugs and alcohol, I’m just not a crazed absolutist. It’s true that addictions of any kind can ruin families and hurt children. You want meth legal and that’s why I used it as an example. You don’t want to draw a line even at the worst drug one might think of. A drug that, unlike alcohol, is addicting to anyone who uses it. Making judgments about where to draw lines is not hypocrisy, it’s the application of sense.

Well, obviously everything will be heavily regulated, much like cigarettes and alcohol are. That means sellers can’t advertise, or sell to anyone under 21 etc. etc.

I don’t see value in legalizing such harmful substances. Even when people only hurt themselves there is a social cost.

Even for pot there are social and personal costs. But I think you agree its effects and harms are much lower than other drugs. I don’t see the sense in jailing someone for mere use of it. Again, this is a value judgment and in no way hypocritical.

Mrebo said:

I don’t see value in legalizing such harmful substances.

The argument is basically that legalizing the drug:

1. Wouldn’t really increase usage (due to illegality not being a disincentive)
2. Would decrease secondary illegal activity (due to decreased costs, increased visibility, and regulation)
3. Would improve safety of the substance* (due to increased visibility and regulation)
4. Would improve the ability to treat the issue as a public health concern (due to increased visibility)

Of these, I think #2, #3, and #4 are pretty self-evident. #1 would require some data to support it, I’d think, and maybe it’s already there. Surely there’s some Portuguese drug study people could point to.

* Assuming the substance is in fact what people would choose in a legalized environment. There’s an economic concept called “substitution of inferior goods”. When what people really want (cocaine) becomes too expensive to reasonably obtain, and living without it is not a feasible option (addiction), they start using crap (meth). Presumably, in a legalized environment, many or most meth users would become coke users, once both are more-or-less equally cheap. Not that this is a great improvement, but it’s something to consider.

CatBus said:

#1 would require some data to support it, I’d think, and maybe it’s already there. Surely there’s some Portuguese drug study people could point to.

People in the United States are not going to rely on data taken from Portugal when making decisions. Especially when the argument is constantly made that “the United States is not [insert country here].” For one thing, Portugal only has the population of the state of Georgia.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

#1 would require some data to support it, I’d think, and maybe it’s already there. Surely there’s some Portuguese drug study people could point to.

People in the United States are not going to rely on data

T,FTFY

I honestly don’t know if there’s data supporting this part or not. But I do know that if there is, we’ll invent a reason to ignore it and pretend that means there’s data supporting continued prohibition.

#1 is huge and compounded with the caveat in your asterisk could be even bigger. We can’t predict how behaviors and supplies would adapt. There would still be an illegal drug trade across the border. Untaxed and unregulated is cheaper. That some problems may be lessened isn’t terribly compelling.

I would challenge #4. I see no reason not to treat it like a public health concern now, when mere use could be used to compel rehab. That would be much smarter than sending someone to prison in many cases. Treating something as a public health concern doesn’t mean there is a great rate of voluntary treatment.

I like that 75,000 people just up and decided that heroin didn’t taste as good once it was legal 😉

Mrebo said:

#1 is huge and compounded with the caveat in your asterisk could be even bigger. We can’t predict how behaviors and supplies would adapt. There would still be an illegal drug trade across the border. Untaxed and unregulated is cheaper. That some problems may be lessened isn’t terribly compelling.

Agreed on all counts, except it’s hard to say about the illegal border trade. Certainly there’s an illegal trade in untaxed/unregulated alcohol across the border right now, and if the cross border drug trade reaches those same levels, I’m not sure that’s very relevant.

I would challenge #4. I see no reason not to treat it like a public health concern now, when mere use could be used to compel rehab. That would be much smarter than sending someone to prison in many cases. Treating something as a public health concern doesn’t mean there is a great rate of voluntary treatment.

There are tons of drug users who never even get a side-eye from the police, let alone jail time. Since alcohol prohibition ended, we have lots of recovery programs for alcoholics that appeal to your boardroom executive and soccer mom. During Prohibition, people would stay away for fear of admitting being involved in something illegal. That said, I agree there’s no reason not to treat it like a public health concern now. It’s just that your boardroom executive and soccer mom will very likely opt out of anything that may compromise their standing.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mrebo said:

I like that 75,000 people just up and decided that heroin didn’t taste as good once it was legal 😉

Those are hipsters for you.

Although I like your answer better, Portugal’s laws didn’t just decriminalize and walk away. They decriminalized and were very aggressive with making treatment options available.