re: Oregon just re-criminalized drug possession and use

quote:

---

Which city can i visit to see the devastating affect of alcohol abuse? Where alcoholics have taken over downtown and have turned the city into a dangerous cess pool of crime and shite/piss? Im not saying alcohol isnt bad either.

---

I know that many people struggle with correlation and causation, but this is kind of impressive. Here, I’ll help:

New Orleans is a cess pool of crime and piss but hasn’t decriminalized hard drugs.

Portugal has decriminalized hard drugs yet hasn’t had its cities turned into cess pools of crime and piss.

It’s almost like the two aren’t actually causally related…

quote:

---

Which city can i visit to see the devastating affect of alcohol abuse? Where alcoholics have taken over downtown and have turned the city into a dangerous cess pool of crime and shite/piss?

---

None. That’s the point.

When alcohol was illegal, during prohibition, there was a massive uptick in violence and crime. People still drank, but the black market enriched organized crime.

Now it’s legal, cheap and regulated.

quote:

---

None. That’s the point. When alcohol was illegal, during prohibition, there was a massive uptick in violence and crime. People still drank, but the black market enriched organized crime. Now it’s legal, cheap and regulated.

---

It blows my mind that people can’t wrap their heads around this. I’ve had conversations with people in which they admit that there was little to no violent crime involving the making and distribution of alcohol before prohibition, there was a massive increase in violent crime involving the making and distribution of alcohol during prohibition, and then once prohibition ended and up to the present day, there is little to no violent crime involving the making and distribution of alcohol.

And then as soon as I say ok, so there’s currently tons of violent crime involving the making and distribution of illegal narcotics, and if we ended narcotics prohibition, that violent crime would evaporate just like when we ended alcohol prohibition, it’s like their brains snap shut and refuse to entertain any thought outside of “narcotics = violent crime”. I’ll never understand it.

Agree entirely. I’ve argued that our present “war on drugs” is literally the worst of all worlds regarding narcotics policy.

quote:

---

We actually do a decent job with it. And I can’t speak for the northern part of the start, but south Louisiana has quite a few very good drug court programs for people who find themselves involved in the criminal legal system.

---

NELA is rehab central, probably 10 facilities around here at least. And Monroe has a very thriving recovery community

I was thinking make it a pay per view thing. Let them fight, frick, binge, whatever… could be like a poorly produced Truman Show

quote:

---

the fact that hardcore libertarians/"legalize everything" types still exist after the past 5 or so years is hilarious

---

The fact that people with no interest in illicit drugs can't take the principle of freedom and apply it to other things is more hilarious IMO.

For example, the poster above points out that the freedom to eat whatever you want contributes to a lot more societal problems—and costs a lot more money...look it up—than the freedom to do illicit drugs. He's right, of course.

But does that really mean we want government regulations on food?

If so, I have some bad news for the regular denizens of this board.

Whether you believe it or not, the vast majority of the legitimate science (and the science that would win out if the government did regulate food), says that the fewer animal products you eat, the healthier you will be all other things being equal.

Who wants a once-a-week government imposed meat ration, raise your hand?

And I'm not going to argue about whether you personally think that science is valid vs the (mostly Bro Science) studies that say that meat is great for you...the mostly vegetarian diet would win in that scenario.

But that does bring up another valid point in this discussion. When you give the government the power to limit behavior "because it's not good for society," you give the government the power to decide what behavior is not good for society.

Imagine Biden deciding whether going to a church that teaches Biblical principles is good for society or not.

quote:

---

Worth it so that my children and I don’t have to inhale the smoke of a marijuana cigarette walking down the street or dodge weed head drivers under the influence when they get out from their parents basement with the munchies.


Decriminalizing marijuana is the singular worst decision of the past decade and correlates directly with our country’s downward turn.

---

'
scorching hot take

Nobody is talking about weed, brother.

quote:

---

I mean 1, you're absolutely wrong people can and do argue all of those things.

---

I'm sure they do, but not what I was when being replied to and I've yet to see it in this thread. Hell the pro legalization side are arguing the opposite, that the law needs to be enforced if someone commits a crime (other than drug use, ie against oneself).

quote:

---

3 as someone who had a disease and almost died, sorry frick right off with that "it's a disease" bullshite. I'll give you mental disorder, but there is a difference between someone dying of cancer and someone dying because they cannot stop taking drugs or alcohol.

---

How does this not fit


Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

dis·ease
/d?'zez/

noun
a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that has a known cause and a distinctive group of symptoms, signs, or anatomical changes.