TLS c/o 2020 - In #Squad We Trust Forum

[RParadela]

I think the question comes down to whether or not the government should protect people from theirselves. Even though I believe this is a generally unpopular opinion, I think government can smartly influence behavior as to decentivize certain negative behaviors in order to benefit the populace. I do think all drugs should be decriminalized, but I don't see how legalizing something like heroin is a good idea.

[govlife]

But actually I would argue that Drug use is a victimless crime, for the same reason that alcohol and tobacco are victimless. Sure they're dangerous and addictive, but we treat adults as being mentally capable of taking on certain risks in their life, and should they fall to those risks so be it. Also, in the events when a crime with victims is tangentially associated with drug use, the crime is not in the use itself, but in the related act. Whether that be intoxicated driving, theft to pay for the habit, murder over drug sales, or what have you. Killing someone, stealing, or injuring another person with your motor vehicle is a crime regardless, and I don't agree that we should act like because drugs are involved then drugs deserve the blame any more than any other factors that my "drive" someone to commit a crime.

My thoughts pretty much exactly. I would just add that the only "victim" would be the drug-user him/herself, which has already been addressed in DrDegree's comment.

Was just about to post about the difference between user as perpetrator vs. victim. Agree with a lot of this.

[tncats]

Okay, since we are going after post counts, I'll get the nonsense debate going: Drug use as a victimless crime ("drug use" is offered by the 8-values politics quiz as an example of a "victimless crime"). Discuss.

I had to answer "Unsure" on that one because I would not define drug use as a victimless crime. By tomorrow, I'd like gunnerish essays on causality and on degrees of causation and applicable blame/responsibility based on degree, please and thank you. Make sure to use credible sources that avoid sensationalist reporting on drug cartels and their victims. Yes, this is a leading question prompt.

I think that almost all drug use is a victimless crime, but there are some exceptions for me. Meth causes a huge environmental and public health concern. I cannot be okay with that being legal.

Additionally, drug use around children should be considered abuse or neglect, and I'm not sure if it would be as easy to do that if all drugs were decriminalized. Lawyers can pipe in and tell me if I'm wrong about that though.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

But actually I would argue that Drug use is a victimless crime, for the same reason that alcohol and tobacco are victimless. Sure they're dangerous and addictive, but we treat adults as being mentally capable of taking on certain risks in their life, and should they fall to those risks so be it. Also, in the events when a crime with victims is tangentially associated with drug use, the crime is not in the use itself, but in the related act. Whether that be intoxicated driving, theft to pay for the habit, murder over drug sales, or what have you. Killing someone, stealing, or injuring another person with your motor vehicle is a crime regardless, and I don't agree that we should act like because drugs are involved then drugs deserve the blame any more than any other factors that my "drive" someone to commit a crime.

My thoughts pretty much exactly. I would just add that the only "victim" would be the drug-user him/herself, which has already been addressed in DrDegree's comment.

I think I editted post your quote. Yeah I think they are a "victim" of addiction from a health and safety front and I think we should try to help them. But problems to themselves don't make it a victimed crime.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I would call suicide a victimless crime, so maybe I shouldn't call something like an accidental overdose victimless? IDK, hard drugs are definitely a more difficult conversation, let's start with MJ legalization and then move forward

[thatblondegirl]

Okay, since we are going after post counts, I'll get the nonsense debate going: Drug use as a victimless crime ("drug use" is offered by the 8-values politics quiz as an example of a "victimless crime"). Discuss.

I had to answer "Unsure" on that one because I would not define drug use as a victimless crime. By tomorrow, I'd like gunnerish essays on causality and on degrees of causation and applicable blame/responsibility based on degree, please and thank you. Make sure to use credible sources that avoid sensationalist reporting on drug cartels and their victims. Yes, this is a leading question prompt.

nutshell opinion: the war on drugs poor people has created far more victims than legalized drug use would

FIFY

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Libertarian capitalist.

https://8values.github.io/results.html? ... 6.4&s=42.6

Strong traditionalist numbers, as a member of the leftist echo-chamber, it's good to have your perspective here

[Leliana]

Regardless of whether you think currently illegal drugs should be legalized or not, IMO, allocating more resources to substance abuse treatment is a vastly better way to address drug issues than punishing people with addictions by putting them in jail.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

I think the question comes down to whether or not the government should protect people from theirselves. Even though I believe this is a generally unpopular opinion, I think government can smartly influence behavior as to decentivize certain negative behaviors in order to benefit the populace. I do think all drugs should be decriminalized, but I don't see how legalizing something like heroin is a good idea.

I definitely think the state has a solid interest in influencing the behavior of its citizenry, but I stop short of supporting laws that do it. Though the idea of the state using any of it's arms to try and coax out activity is probably one with fierce debate around it

[Monday]

.

[meeseeks]

Regardless of whether you think currently illegal drugs should be legalized or not, IMO, allocating more resources to substance abuse treatment is a vastly better way to address drug issues than punishing people with addictions by putting them in jail.

+10000

I couldn't agree more with this. Our prison situation is a nightmare and this would be a big step in helping to fix that

[waldorf]

Libertarian capitalist.

https://8values.github.io/results.html? ... 6.4&s=42.6

Strong traditionalist numbers, as a member of the leftist echo-chamber, it's good to have your perspective here

I'm a very average fiscally very conservative/socially very liberal (except on guns) libertarian. I don't know how I got such a high number on tradition vs. progress - that surprised me. Some of the questions that I think pertained to that were pretty vague and I wasn't sure how to answer them. Cool quiz, though.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

But actually I would argue that Drug use is a victimless crime, for the same reason that alcohol and tobacco are victimless. Sure they're dangerous and addictive, but we treat adults as being mentally capable of taking on certain risks in their life, and should they fall to those risks so be it. Also, in the events when a crime with victims is tangentially associated with drug use, the crime is not in the use itself, but in the related act. Whether that be intoxicated driving, theft to pay for the habit, murder over drug sales, or what have you. Killing someone, stealing, or injuring another person with your motor vehicle is a crime regardless, and I don't agree that we should act like because drugs are involved then drugs deserve the blame any more than any other factors that my "drive" someone to commit a crime.

My thoughts pretty much exactly. I would just add that the only "victim" would be the drug-user him/herself, which has already been addressed in DrDegree's comment.

I guess my leading prompt wasn't as clear as I intended. Narrowing this to the heavier stuff, I was not at all considering the user as the potential candidate for the victim consideration when claiming that drug use is not a victimless crime. The reason why I brought up the concept of degrees of causality was to point out that victims (often not even closely related to the user) exist outside of, but certainly as a component result of, purchase of drugs.

Purchase of blood diamonds would be a more close parallel than alcohol and tobacco use.

Only in the drug trade environment that currently exists do we see blood diamond level externalities. If drug sales were moved away from black markets we would see a steep drop off in the over lap between drugs and criminal enterprises, and by extension the over lap between drug purchases and current victims of the drug trade and of the activities related to the drug trade.

I do think you bring a good point re: externalities of the drug trade. If we assume nothing would change in the event of decriminalization I don't know if call them victims of the purchaser. Many fast fashion companies have lesser but similar effects on nations around the world, but I don't know that I would place all of that on the person wearing the shirt.

[Monday]

.

[Gitaroo_Dude]

Regardless of whether you think currently illegal drugs should be legalized or not, IMO, allocating more resources to substance abuse treatment is a vastly better way to address drug issues than punishing people with addictions by putting them in jail.

Just follow the Hamsterdam model and we're set.

[Rigo]

Regardless of whether you think currently illegal drugs should be legalized or not, IMO, allocating more resources to substance abuse treatment is a vastly better way to address drug issues than punishing people with addictions by putting them in jail.

Just follow the Hamsterdam model and we're set.

Such a brilliant setup honestly.

[Monday]

.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

But actually I would argue that Drug use is a victimless crime, for the same reason that alcohol and tobacco are victimless. Sure they're dangerous and addictive, but we treat adults as being mentally capable of taking on certain risks in their life, and should they fall to those risks so be it. Also, in the events when a crime with victims is tangentially associated with drug use, the crime is not in the use itself, but in the related act. Whether that be intoxicated driving, theft to pay for the habit, murder over drug sales, or what have you. Killing someone, stealing, or injuring another person with your motor vehicle is a crime regardless, and I don't agree that we should act like because drugs are involved then drugs deserve the blame any more than any other factors that my "drive" someone to commit a crime.

My thoughts pretty much exactly. I would just add that the only "victim" would be the drug-user him/herself, which has already been addressed in DrDegree's comment.

I guess my leading prompt wasn't as clear as I intended. Narrowing this to the heavier stuff, I was not at all considering the user as the potential candidate for the victim consideration when claiming that drug use is not a victimless crime. The reason why I brought up the concept of degrees of causality was to point out that victims (often not even closely related to the user) exist outside of, but certainly as a component result of, purchase of drugs.

Purchase of blood diamonds would be a more close parallel than alcohol and tobacco use.

Only in the drug trade environment that currently exists do we see blood diamond level externalities. If drug sales were moved away from black markets we would see a steep drop off in the over lap between drugs and criminal enterprises, and by extension the over lap between drug purchases and current victims of the drug trade and of the activities related to the drug trade.

I agree, but that would end the post count whoring. So:

You're wrong and you're stupid for thinking that way!

Fuck you.

For sake of continuing the post count and to extend the convo because it's interesting, see my edit to my post:

I do think you bring a good point re: externalities of the drug trade. If we assume nothing would change in the event of decriminalization I don't know if call them victims of the purchaser. Many fast fashion companies have lesser but similar effects on nations around the world, but I don't know that I would place all of that on the person wearing the shirt. There definitely are victims to the drug trade, but I don't know if they are close enough to constitute applying them to the crime of "drug use"

[Rigo]

We should aggressively pursue crack absusers but not coke because coke is for rich white people.

The war on drugs is dumb, and I don't even smoke pot so no skin in the game.

[shotgunheist]

I believe that all this stuff will be legalized by the time we are old and then we will deal with young shenanigans like robot marriage rights and etc

[Rigo]

I believe that all this stuff will be legalized by the time we are old and then we will deal with young shenanigans like robot marriage rights and etc

The robots will take over and we'll have to fight for human marriage rights.

[ashrice13]

i did the thing

[+] Spoiler

[Monday]

.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

I believe that all this stuff will be legalized by the time we are old and then we will deal with young shenanigans like robot marriage rights and etc

I do sometimes wonder what it is that will be a bridge too far for me.

I hope there isn't but I think I will reach an age and an inability to accept new ideas where something will be too progressive, and I'm increasingly curious what that is.

On the other hand I think I'm getting more socially liberal every day/year so who knows.

[Gitaroo_Dude]

I believe that all this stuff will be legalized by the time we are old and then we will deal with young shenanigans like robot marriage rights and etc

Every human achievement was accomplished just to impress the opposite sex. We cannot allow humans to date robots.

[Smc1994]

Well...https://8values.github.io/results.html? ... 6.3&s=59.6