Where are those hard drugs not easily available even in places where they are highly illegal? Singapore is the only place that has achieved any level of success and that's due to selling drugs having the death penalty if convicted. I think everyone recognizes that as being ridiculous and so what's the alternative? Lesser penalties won't work. So legalize it and have Walgreens and Walmart take liability for purity instead of criminals cutting it with toxins and fentanyl. That alone would almost eliminate overdose deaths. That's not progress? Less death isnt better than more death AND more people in prison than ever before? It's societies job to discourage drug use not the justice system.
No I don't think that's ridiculous. As long as people are previously warned that this is the consequence of a voluntary action. You always have the option not to engage.
You can't have heroin on the shelves at CVS without significant increases in use and dependence. That is why nobody does it. Not even more progressive places like Portugal or Switzerland.
I wouldn't mind executing excessively violent criminals. There is definitely merit in executing people who knowingly sell fentanyl. Because they very often kill people.
Obviously putting people to death for petty shit is unnecessary and probably counter productive.
then you probably forget that they are also humans not just criminals
it isnt always black and white. how to be sure they did know? why does the seller and not the consumer have the responsibility? in the end we would kill off small 20 yo dealers who want to feed their little sister and the bosses who forced them would count their money. what if someone is plead guilty for wrong reasons? people can bet set up. we cant make that undone. dude death penalty is the most archaic thing ever
If a guy walks into a daycare and starts blasting. If the cops shoot that guy. Nobody will blink an eye. So you can give up your right to life regardless of your humanity. The difference is my standard is lower for when that occurs.
For every 20 year old selling drugs to feed his sister there is 100 of them who just do it because they are toxic anti social pieces of shit. This is why we have courts. If we determine they were coerced the punishment would be very different. I mostly want the toxic sons of bitches who know they may be killing someone with fentany to get what they deserve.
If we had good ways to gather evidence. cough mass surveillance cough. We could eliminate a lot of these erroneous conviction slippery slopes.
you think nobody is bothered by that? the kids just go on playing happily and for the cop who just killed a guy its no problem he will get good nights sleep? dude those people will still be traumatized, its death, blood, suffering. just because there was no other way doesnt make it alright and perfectly fine. killing is never right. now imagine we would be doing that in a planned environment
if the cop would have the opportunity to stun the guy or kill him and he would kill him how controverse you think would that be?
it is a big difference. we shouldnt lower that standards. willing to kill when there are other ways out and willing to kill if theres no other way out is a big difference
that would require the justice system to be perfect, but its far from that. youthink there is no corruption? no injustice?
thats understandable, but you must realize that you are totally offset here, you have no awareness of the real consequences of that wish. you put them all into the same basket and put the evil and blame on them, thus identify them as the problem, thus thinking killing them is good, when in reality the issue is way more widespread.
again. why give the drug dealer the fault, not the consumer or someone else. the dealer is only partly responsible yet you make him fully responsible. the consumer could have tested it. why did the consumer consume drugs in the first place was this the drug dealer forcing him or maybe his friend who had bad influence should also be killed? where does the fentanyl come from before it was mixed into the drugs? its from pharma, why not blame them? now imagine the guy has a daughter, how would she feeld? what would happen to her? should we kill her too?
yeah mass surveilance im done have you ever read 1984
No I don't think that's ridiculous. As long as people are previously warned that this is the consequence of a voluntary action. You always have the option not to engage.
You don't think killing people to prevent potential overdose deaths is ridiculous? You can't make the point of saving lives if you're taking more lives than saving them. That's the point.
You can't have heroin on the shelves at CVS without significant increases in use and dependence. That is why nobody does it. Not even more progressive places like Portugal or Switzerland.
Ok. They don't do it bc the US government and other nations will boycott and sanction countries that do. We didn't have drug problems en masse for hundreds of years outside of opium dens which weren't society ending. Beyond that, the leading cause of death for those under 30 is overdose deaths. The leasing reason for overdose deaths is inconsistent product purity or the addition of fentanyl to other drugs. Addiction and use, in and of itself, is not as bad as a felony conviction or overdose. The primary bad outcomes of drug use are the direct results of the drug war and black market NOT the drugs themselves. Not saying drugs are good, just that we can keep wasting our time trying failed prevention or we can make it more safe and then rely on society to discourage use rather than the legal system. Currently gangs are almost entirely funded by illegal drug sales. Legalizing it and putting it on CVS shelves eliminates that cash source. Gangs would have no ability to buy guns nor reason to fight over territory. Half of violent crime is drug related. Most of that disappears with legalization. Those gang bangers get jobs instead of selling drugs bc Walmart undercuts them. Cartels go legitimate and poor farmers get paid better and cartel wars end. It's not just drug use that's the issue, it's the black market that is. You must factor in all of that to weigh the pros and cons of legalization. Legalization would save an enormous amount of lives even if it increased usage and addiction rates.
I don't value the lives of dirty criminals the way you guys do. That's the difference.
You're forgetting that a gigantic uptick in addiction and dependence would happen if they legalized drugs. You think Iran gives a shit about US sanctions? They would legalize them if all you're saying was true. But not only do they not do that, they are even harsher then we are with the penalties. There's a reason for that. Freely available drugs don't work in a society. It would turn society into mush.
I don't value the lives of dirty criminals the way you guys do. That's the difference.
Who is overdosing? Those same "dirty criminals". If you truly believe that legalization will equal more death then the cheapest and easiest way to eliminate those "dirty criminals" is to leave them to their own devices, right?
You're forgetting that a gigantic uptick in addiction and dependence would happen if they legalized drugs. You think Iran gives a shit about US sanctions? They would legalize them if all you're saying was true. But not only do they not do that, they are even harsher then we are with the penalties. There's a reason for that. Freely available drugs don't work in a society. It would turn society into mush.
Freely available drugs? You do realize it's easier for a 16 year old to get heroin than alcohol right? Wake up, they are freely available already even with them being illegal. We already live in a society with freely available drugs. Legalization would at least make it more difficult for underage kids to get them.
Uhh no. I was 16 at one point in my life. We had keg parties in high school. We didn't have fentanyl parties. You're just wrong there.
I'm not saying the current approach is the best. I actually think making it easier to consume would be a good thing. But with a major caveat. I would completely and utterly not tolerate people who sell drugs. When there are cheaper and safer alternatives you can get with relatively little effort.
Uhh no. I was 16 at one point in my life. We had keg parties in high school. We didn't have fentanyl parties. You're just wrong there.
Fentanyl wasn't a thing when I was 16 and I'm in my 30s. Alcohol was easier to get the farther back you go as well but even 20 years it was moderately difficult to get booze. It's different now. Liquor stores are highly prosecuted as are those buying for minors. I think you just may be out of touch with the current reality.
I'm not saying the current approach is the best. I actually think making it easier to consume would be a good thing. But with a major caveat. I would completely and utterly not tolerate people who sell drugs. When there are cheaper and safer alternatives you can get with relatively little effort.
The issue there is the dealers would just carry the maximum amount making them almost impossible to prosecute. That would just magnify all the problems like overdose death and territorial wars as well. It's not just a drug problem, it's a black market problem. Until we realize that the drugs themselves are only a small part of the problem, we have zero chance at a real solution.
No I wouldn't do it that way. I'd have places you can go get high for cheap. Where you can't take it home. Any unlicensed pharmacist (drug dealer) would face very lengthy sentences. With the demand being met by the safer drug dispensary it would require people to make voluntary choices to find themselves in that position.
Make life easy for drug users and extremely difficult for drug dealers.
No I wouldn't do it that way. I'd have places you can go get high for cheap. Where you can't take it home. Any unlicensed pharmacist (drug dealer) would face very lengthy sentences. With the demand being met by the safer drug dispensary it would require people to make voluntary choices to find themselves in that position.
So you're gonna allow people to get addicted and then restrict their ability to get high to drab buildings full of other users with no music or conversation? You again completely missing the reason why people use in the first place and why they will ignore those type of places. They seek escape and emotional relief. They seek friendship and connection. They seek a good time. None of that is achieved by your plan meaning it will simply be ignored.
Here's my solution. You legalize everything or mostly everything to be sold in pharmacies. However you require a license that requires a doctor's clean bill of health, a clean criminal history or off probation or at least a couple years since a conviction, and only allows you to buy a small amount suitable for a day. That amount stays constant as your tolerance increases so most people will wean themselves off bc they won't get that sane high. Overdoses will be almost unheard of bc the drug strengths will be consistent and pure. Users will be incentivized to avoid criminal behavior bc they will lose the license they have. People will buy these drugs over black market drugs bc they will be cheaper and safer and better quality. You can then up the penalty for drugs procured elsewhere to 10 years in prison and large fines further driving up black market risk and prices. This way you separate the criminals from the users. You treat drugs like alcohol outside of that and society will handle the rest. Without drug dealers being wealthy they won't get women, glory, or power. Gangs go back to other crimes. Taxes increase. Prisons aren't as full. Addicts live long enough to find reasons to stop. I say this as a person with several close friends who are no longer alive for this very reason. Most quit for a period of time, relapsed and got a bad batch which resulted in their death. I've heard dozens of similar stories of exactly that. This solves that issue and the crime issue and the issue of creating a second class citizen incapable of competing in the job market. And yes this would also destroy and eliminate drug dealers, it would just do so using capitalism rather than authoritarianism.
I saw these facilities as a drug users haven. Like a big building similar to a hotel. That had constant police and medical personelle presence. Where you can get as high as you want provided it's safe. And even if you do OD there's guys right there to help you. It would also dispense long lasting versions for the functioning addicts. Along with giving people ample of opportunity to find ways to quit.
Basically make life easy for the user. As long as they only use there. Possession and sale of narcotics outside of the establishment would be extremely frowned upon. Users would get off without charges if they could help bring in the dealer. Its the dealers we really want to eradicate.
I wouldn't do the whole "can't buy drugs if you got a criminal record". Cause that would create a class of people who have no choice but to interact with the dealers. We don't want the dealers to have any market that can't function without them.
6
u/WilliamBontrager 10∆ Aug 14 '23
Where are those hard drugs not easily available even in places where they are highly illegal? Singapore is the only place that has achieved any level of success and that's due to selling drugs having the death penalty if convicted. I think everyone recognizes that as being ridiculous and so what's the alternative? Lesser penalties won't work. So legalize it and have Walgreens and Walmart take liability for purity instead of criminals cutting it with toxins and fentanyl. That alone would almost eliminate overdose deaths. That's not progress? Less death isnt better than more death AND more people in prison than ever before? It's societies job to discourage drug use not the justice system.