Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't think it will increase it substantially, it's not like it's hard to get drugs in the US these days and again, most people just don't get addicted to drugs (I don't know if it's genetics or just being smart enough, I think it's a combination of both).
But more importantly, I think we need to make policy based on facts, not hypothetical fears, and again, if new evidence emerges that suggest that prohibition actually benefits society, we should reconsider our approach.

I think facts are the best thing to judge policy on so its why I think things like letting states trying things out is often a good solution.

I don't think there will be a giant upturn in the relative levels of addiction (I would imagine the drug users addiction pattern would reflect the wider population's) but it might amount to a large actual number. I think drugs like heroin, pcp and meth are harder to find than weed or cocaine so I think its early to extrapolate the effects. And I still don't see anything but anything more than societal detriments with those drugs. I would disagree you have the right to take some pcp and go out in public.

We do need to re-look the whole drug war though, no matter the drug we shouldn't be looking at our own citizens as enemy combatants unless their armed and threatening

Edit: there needs to be a large scale research effort to understand these drugs. the biggest failure of the drug war has been the failure to understand the drugs themselves and resort to stereotypes.

 

[jamesinclair]

Ive been meaning to share this

 

[Oblivion]

If you continue to criminalize say, the harder drugs, you'll wind up spending money on law enforcement and imprisonment (as well as money wasted clogging up the court systems), so I would think that even if one is opposed to hard drugs, we could use that money instead and divert it to medical treatments and such.

 

[Chichikov]

I think facts are the best thing to judge policy on so its why I think things like letting states trying things out is often a good solution.

I don't think there will be a giant upturn in the relative levels of addiction (I would imagine the drug users addiction pattern would reflect the wider population's) but it might amount to a large actual number. I think drugs like heroin, pcp and meth are harder to find than weed or cocaine so I think its early to extrapolate the effects. And I still don't see anything but anything more than societal detriments (I would disagree you have the right to take some pcp and go out in public)

We do need to re-look the whole drug war though, no matter the drug we shouldn't be looking at our own citizens as enemy combatants.

Edit: there needs to be a large scale research effort to understand these drugs. the biggest failure of the drug war has been the failure to understand the drugs themselves and resort to stereotypes.

I don't think that number is going to be anywhere near the number of people who got their lives ruined because of the war on drugs.
But you know what?
I'm guessing meth and heroin is going to be a difficult thing to persuade you (and you can make the case that heroin, being a real physically addictive substance should probably be discussed separately from drugs that don't) but can we all agree that there is no good reason to criminalize things like acid and shrooms?

p.s.
What do you think happen to someone that takes pcp and goes out in public?
You know the whole "hulk up on pcp" thing is bullshit, right?
People sometime do stupid shit on drugs, but I think it's a much better way to treat like alcohol, if you do stupid shit while drunk you can't use the fact that you were drunk as a defense (quite the opposite actually) but we ban the stupid shit you do, not the substance itself.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't think that number is going to be anywhere near the number of people who got their lives ruined because of the war on drugs.
But you know what?
I'm guessing meth and heroin is going to be a difficult thing to persuade you (and you can make the case that heroin, being a real physically addictive substance should probably be discussed separately from drugs that don't) but can we all agree that there is no good reason to criminalize things like acid and shrooms?

First of all I'm calling for the end of the war on drugs. Even hard drugs (as a war against the consumers at least), we shouldn't treat these people like animals for ingesting a drug.
I think there needs to be a lot of work to find out the effects of those drugs before we make steps like you want: legalizing them

I see your points but I feel much of this is all on assumptions. Right now weed is the only drug I think has proven itself harmless in the sense the way its used recreationally by most people. I don't think others have or will ever do the same. I really struggle to see drugs like meth or heroin getting there. There is mostly down side IMO. Acid and Shrooms seem to me safe for the consumer but have such a large effect on perception that I don't think they should be legal I don't know how you can judge and I think the present such a threat to safety you side on that side of the argument rather than freedom™

And on pcp: I did read that which I think strengthens my call for studies. We are incredibly ignorant about these drugs.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

And of course I agree that we should consider how a policy affect the least of us, which is exactly why I think it's a terrible idea to lock them up and effectively kill their future employment opportunities.

What employment opportunities? Last I looked, employers still did cheek swabs for MJ and other substances. You could decriminalize it. Hell, even legalize it. But no one is going to hire a drug user, especially in an at will state. I don't think anyone would defend one in a state that had more worker protections. Drug users will still be ostracize one way or another.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What employment opportunities? Last I looked, employers still did cheek swabs for MJ and other substances. You could decriminalize it. Hell, even legalize it. But no one is going to hire a drug user, especially in an at will state. I don't think anyone would defend one in a state that had more worker protections. Drug users will still be ostracize one way or another.

I think he would argue in favor of banning invasive tests. No employee has checked me for alcohol use. They did cut a sizable portion of my hair to check if I used the evil cannabis for the past 3 months.

It really felt violating IMO. What right did they have to know what I did that far before employment? I passed and got the job but it still bothered me.

 

[Black Mamba]

What employment opportunities? Last I looked, employers still did cheek swabs for MJ and other substances. You could decriminalize it. Hell, even legalize it. But no one is going to hire a drug user, especially in an at will state. I don't think anyone would defend one in a state that had more worker protections. Drug users will still be ostracize one way or another.

you could make drug testing, or at least certain drug testing, illegal for job applicants.

At the very least, pot testing should be illegal.

 

[lednerg]

People need to start getting vocal against companies testing employees for pot. That shit needs to go.

 

[Chichikov]

I see your points but I feel much of this is all on assumptions. Right now weed is the only drug I think has proven itself harmless in the sense the way its used recreationally by most people. I don't think others have or will ever do the same. I really struggle to see drugs like meth or heroin getting there. There is mostly down side IMO. Acid and Shrooms seem to me safe for the consumer but have such a large effect on perception that I don't think they should be legal I don't know how you can judge and I think the present such a threat to safety you side on that side of the argument rather than freedom™

I think the burden of proof should be on the supporters of prohibition.
And I'm not sure I understand why something that have effect on perception should be illegal.

What employment opportunities? Last I looked, employers still did cheek swabs for MJ and other substances. You could decriminalize it. Hell, even legalize it. But no one is going to hire a drug user, especially in an at will state. I don't think anyone would defend one in a state that had more worker protections. Drug users will still be ostracize one way or another.

I was talking about how much a drug conviction limit your employment opportunities.
And people hire drug users all the fucking time, there's a whole lot of industries that would never dream to test for drugs (but in most of them you'd still find it very hard to get a job with a conviction on your record).

 

[B-Dubs]

you could make drug testing, or at least certain drug testing, illegal for job applicants.

At the very least, pot testing should be illegal.

Especially in places where pot is legal. So long as you go into work, do your job well, and don't get high while at work, no company should have any say in how you live your life outside work.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Speaking of Georgia, holy carp:

http://blog.norml.org/2014/01/22/62-of-georgia-voters-support-marijuana-decriminalization/

And this is in the state went for the Newtster in the primaries.

Now if only they'd go for Nunn and Carter.

 

[jamesinclair]

People need to start getting vocal against companies testing employees for pot. That shit needs to go.

Fuck your nanny state telling me how I run my company screening policy.

 

[empty vessel]

Fuck your nanny state telling me how I run my company screening policy.

Your company is your state's company. You just direct it.

 

[jamesinclair]

Your company is your state's company. You just direct it.

I'm sorry, where did I say I was a chartered corporation?

 

[lednerg]

Fuck your nanny state telling me how I run my company screening policy.

This isn't in my nanny state's jurisdiction. Nope, they're mostly concerned with what gay people and women are up to.

 

[zero shift]

And of course I agree that we should consider how a policy affect the least of us, which is exactly why I think it's a terrible idea to lock them up and effectively kill their future employment opportunities.

I thought drug use was declining (#4).

Ive been meaning to share this

The best part of this is that they always ignore that the countries that do best in the recession are still the nordic countries. This is something they always hilariously ignore. But when they do bring it up they spin the fuck out of it. Oh there government is left wing to all the other countries but not really.

 

[Sibylus]

Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End (Charlie Savage, WashPo)

The findings are laid out in a 238-page report, scheduled for release by Thursday and obtained by The New York Times, that represent the first major public statement by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress made an independent agency in 2007 and only recently became fully operational.

The Obama administration has portrayed the bulk collection program as useful and lawful while at the same time acknowledging concerns about privacy and potential abuse. But in its report, the board lays out what may be the most detailed critique of the government’s once-secret legal theory behind the program: that a law known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation, can be legitimately interpreted as authorizing the N.S.A. to collect all calling records in the country.

The program “lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,” the report said. “As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.”

While a majority of the five-member board embraced that conclusion, two members dissented from the view that the program was illegal. But the panel was united in 10 other recommendations, including deleting raw phone records after three years instead of five and tightening access to search results.

The report also sheds light on the history of the once-secret bulk collection program. It contains the first official acknowledgment that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court produced no judicial opinion detailing its legal rationale for the program until last August, even though it had been issuing orders to phone companies for the records and to the N.S.A. for how it could handle them since May 2006.

In 2006, the Bush administration persuaded the surveillance court to begin authorizing the program based on the Patriot Act under a theory the Obama administration would later embrace.

But the privacy board’s report criticized that, saying that the legal theory was a “subversion” of the law’s intent, and that the program also violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

“It may have been a laudable goal for the executive branch to bring this program under the supervision” of the court, the report says. “Ultimately, however, that effort represents an unsustainable attempt to shoehorn a pre-existing surveillance program into the text of a statute with which it is not compatible.”

 

[fallagin]

Ive been meaning to share this

Wow, this makes me particularly angry.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I'm sorry, where did I say I was a chartered corporation?

Considering every corporation/business exists only with the government's consent, yeah.

 

[Coriolanus]

On drug decriminalization, we've tried that in my third world country, and the results are kind of.... depressing.

No spikes in drug usage, aside from a report that about 1,2% of the population has tried or still uses crack. Looking that the graph recently posted, nothing particularly abnormal there.

Thing is, the way it was done here, it's up to the judge to determine, based on evidence, if you intended to sell (or help sell, and so many other verbs) drugs.

What this means, in practice, is that if your skin is brown or darker, odds are you're gonna get prosecuted for trafficking. Yes, even for a single cigarette. That means being locked up for up to 180+ days (up from the legal maximum of 81) while awaiting a sentence, and a whole set of different, harsher laws being applied to you

So there's the conumdrum. If you set hard limits on which quantities are allowed, drug dealers only have to adapt, like the weed king in the Netherlands did. If you let it be subjective, i do hope your country doesn't suffer from institutionalized racism.

 

[Chichikov]

On drug decriminalization, we've tried that in my third world country, and the results are kind of.... depressing.

No spikes in drug usage, aside from a report that about 1,2% of the population has tried or still uses crack. Looking that the graph recently posted, nothing particularly abnormal there.

Thing is, the way it was done here, it's up to the judge to determine, based on evidence, if you intended to sell (or help sell, and so many other verbs) drugs.

What this means, in practice, is that if your skin is brown or darker, odds are you're gonna get prosecuted for trafficking. Yes, even for a single cigarette. That means being locked up for up to 180+ days (up from the legal maximum of 81) while awaiting a sentence, and a whole set of different, harsher laws being applied to you

So there's the conumdrum. If you set hard limits on which quantities are allowed, drug dealers only have to adapt, like the weed king in the Netherlands did. If you let it be subjective, i do hope your country doesn't suffer from institutionalized racism.

In the US there is already institutionalized racism when it come to drugs, both in terms of the laws (the infamous discrepancy between cocaine's and crack's minimum sentencing which has been reduced, but not eliminated) and in term of enforcement.
Also, the punishment for possession with intent to sell is much harsher than just possessions, and yeah, it can be applied pretty randomly.

 

[Coriolanus]

I'm aware of that. My point is that decriminalization is not enough. It must be legalized. You cannot trust the human element to be fair in this matter.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Wow, this makes me particularly angry.

I also like the 'Who is a Jew?' Line. Please tell me economist!

 

[Incognito]

Ive been meaning to share this

The Soviet model! Who knew the Economist was staffed by commies?

 

[empty vessel]

I'm sorry, where did I say I was a chartered corporation?

You haven't said the company is not incorporated.

 

[Chichikov]

I also like the 'Who is a Jew?' Line. Please tell me economist!

Who is a Jew is like a thing.
Even though Judaism is a religion, the state of Israel treat like it's a race (they call it nationality, it took me 30 years to realize it doesn't really make sense), even though you can covert into it.
It's a complicated and messed up question that the state of Israel has been avoiding since before its conception, and if you ask me, it's the real original sin of that country.
I'm a bit too drunk to write about it at length right now, but if the discussion has not drifted too far away by tomorrow, I can probably form a bit more coherent post on the issue.

Edit: Wikipedia for the rescue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?
I have not read that page so I can't comment about my level of agreement with it, but judging by length it should at least keep you busy for a while...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So David Weigel has got an article about how the 'Pro-Life' movement is trying to be nicer and friendlier by re framing their message. It ends with this kicker though:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._life_movement_has_learned_from_facebook.html

What hasn’t been effective? Braendel thinks about it. Republican-run Pennsylvania has actually passed two new anti-abortion laws, one that raises standards for clinics (thereby, hopefully, shuttering them) and one that bars health care plans in the exchanges from paying for abortions. But a bill to require ultrasounds for women who showed up at clinics sputtered, after “Planned Parenthood and the rest” made hay of Virginia’s transvaginal ultrasound bill. The lesson, according to Braendel, was that there was ever more reframing to do.


“Abortion is much more tantamount to rape than a vaginal ultrasound,” he says.

That'll do it!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Who is a Jew is like a thing.
Even though Judaism is a religion, the state of Israel treat like it's a race (they call it nationality, it took me 30 years to realize it doesn't really make sense), even though you can covert into it.
It's a complicated and messed up question that the state of Israel has been avoiding since before its conception, and if you ask me, it's the real original sin of that country.
I'm a bit too drunk to write about it at length right now, but if the discussion has not drifted too far away by tomorrow, I can probably form a bit more coherent post on the issue.

I imagine it has to do with the law of return and the disagreement with the rabbis in Israel if foreign conversions count? I know there was a big fuss over that with the more religiously orthodox freaking out that some Russian immigrants weren't jewish enough.

I don't think its that weird. I know you disagree but I find it vital that the Jewish people have a home and a place they can always be welcomed to, its really really naive to say it isn't needed IMO. I don't think its any different than other diaspora laws though it obviously stretches back much further.

 

[Chichikov]

I imagine it has to do with the law of return and the disagreement with the rabbis in Israel if foreign conversions count? I know there was a big fuss over that with the more religiously orthodox freaking out that some Russian immigrants weren't jewish enough.

I don't think its that weird. I know you disagree but I find it vital that the Jewish people have a home and a place they can always be welcomed to, its really really naive to say it isn't needed IMO. I don't think its any different than other diaspora laws though it obviously stretches back much further.

I come from a family of Trotskyist atheists, if would pass on a pork dish my grandmother would say "you're not turning religious on me, are you?"
By what definition but the Nazis' is my family Jewish?
And understand, this is not some academic wankery, it was written on my national id card, it allowed me to join the army, it granted a whole lot of special rights that were not extended for the Muslim citizens of Israel.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

By what definition but the Nazis is my family Jewish?

People have assigned Jewishness as an ethnicity beyond the Nazis (and that's exactly why the law of return is based on the Nuremberg Laws). I never had a Bat Mitzvah, gone to a JCC, gone to Synagogue, but I'm still labeled as Jewish by certain people and would have been persecuted by the Nazis (I'm also not Jewish to most religious figures because of these things). So I don't think its just a religion.

And understand, this is not some academic wankery, it was written on my national id card, it allowed me to join the army, it granted a whole lot of special rights that were not extended for the Muslim citizens of Israel.

This is a different question. And one that's much more fraught with difficulties.

 

[KingK]

My position continues to be that while usage of all drugs should be decriminalized the distribution of certain drugs like meth, crack, heroin, etc can still be a criminal offense.

This has long been my position but,

That sounds reasonable to me, but I'm just not entirely convinced that making distribution of these drugs illegal actually helps keep them out of the hands of potential addicts. I mean, sure, maybe that actually is the case, but I feel like it's just as likely that not legalizing it simply means the government can't control the supply and it gets pushed into the hands of criminals instead.

It's a tough call, and I don't find myself qualified or informed enough about this particular subject to make it.

I do still worry about this.

I think, ideally, at least marijuana should be outright legalized right away and all other drugs decriminalized, and then the government should fund actual research into "harder drugs." Then we can have a more informed scientific basis for deciding what's the most dangerous and what should maybe be legalized.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Funny how Fox News has started running with the "buying weed with food stamps" myth after Obama made somewhat supportive comments on legalization/discussed the drug war's impact on young black and Hispanic men.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-news-perpetuates-urban-myth-that-food-stamps-can-buy-pot

 

[Chichikov]

People have assigned Jewishness as an ethnicity beyond the Nazis (and that's exactly why the law of return is based on the Nuremberg Laws). I never had a Bat Mitzvah, gone to a JCC, gone to Synagogue, but I'm still labeled as Jewish by certain people and would have been persecuted by the Nazis (I'm also not Jewish to most religious figures because of these things). So I don't think its just a religion.

What other ethnicity you can convert into by a religious ceremony?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What other ethnicity you can convert into by a religious ceremony?

What does that change?

And an answer: Sikhism though there are more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group

 

[PhoenixDark]

Next time someone tells you that their vote doesn't matter, or that both sides are the same so why bother:

Virginia's New Attorney General Will Not Defend Gay-Marriage Ban

Virginia's new attorney general has decided to switch sides in an important case that is challenging the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

In an interview with Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep, Democrat Mark Herring said his office will no longer defend the state's ban on same-sex marriages.

"As attorney general, I cannot and will not defend laws that violate Virginians' rights," Herring said. "The commonwealth will be siding with the plaintiffs in this case and with every other Virginia couple whose right to marry is being denied."

Herring was sworn in just days ago after , an election that marked big political change in the state and also ushered in Democrat Terry McAuliffe to the governor's mansion. Herring is taking over for Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican who ran and lost a bid for governor on a Tea Party platform and was a staunch defender of the gay-marriage ban.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...rney-general-will-not-defend-gay-marriage-ban

Less than a 1000 vote difference between an AG defending a gay marriage ban, and an AG refusing to defend a gay marriage ban.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think the burden of proof should be on the supporters of prohibition.
And I'm not sure I understand why something that have effect on perception should be illegal.

I'm gonna have to disagree completely, I think this gets it backwards. Any new drug needs to be proven safe before its allowed to be sold. You don't get that presumption.

You don't understand why something that has an effect on perception should be illegal? Do these people never go out in public? Do they never interact with others? They fact that they are 'fun' or people will do them anyways isn't an excuse for their legalization if they're not safe.

Prove to me they're safe and they have an upside, that again, is more than 'they are fun', then we can talk. Weed and Alcohol have both done that. Harder drugs I don't will ever do the same.

That being said the drugs should be well researched as I think many of them hold medical and psychiatric uses in controlled settings. And while I think the trafficking on many drugs (the same of the illegal manufacturing of legal prescription drugs) should always be illegal and cracked down upon, users should never be treated as criminals for the mere crime on consumption without intent to distribute. I have no problem with fines and sanctions though.

 

[Fenderputty]

This is the dilemma. Decriminalization makes the person not a criminal but does nothing to address the problem of societal and personal harm but legalization I think makes the problem worse by expanding the potential pool of people damaged by it being larger (as I think their relative inaccessibility has prevented many from trying). I think economic security and and promoting alternatives are the best solution to keeping the use of more dangerous drugs down (it will never be eliminated because its human nature for a certain number of people to want to try something new.)

Edit: as you said I don't feel fully qualified to judge.

You honestly feel like inaccessibility has caused less people to do heroin? At least in any meaningful numbers? People don't do heroin because it legit ruins lives. Most people pinking up illicit substances can find ways to get what they want. I should now. I've been doing it since I was 18.

Instead of spending money on fighting this war, we can use the tax money to have honest education courses (unlike DARE) and rehab facilities. Use the money to fight the root cause of people addiction and stop creating criminals and a black market. Regulated needles. Cleaner drugs. Controlled dosages. Less kids having access.

This doesn't even touch upon the cyclical nature of drug crime. Get caught selling a now decriminalized substance and lose all federal aid. Can't go to college, can't get housing and in some states can't get food. The drug war disproportionately affects poverty and always will.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Next time someone tells you that their vote doesn't matter, or that both sides are the same so why bother:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...rney-general-will-not-defend-gay-marriage-ban

Less than a 1000 vote difference between an AG defending a gay marriage ban, and an AG refusing to defend a gay marriage ban.

Consider that Mark Herring voted to ban gay marriage 8 years ago while he was in the State Senate. The times they are a-changing.

Obama's approval is near split-even in a new CBS poll, 46 approve, 47 disapprove. That's up from 37 approve in November and 42 approve in December.

AP/GfK also has him at 45 approve/53 disapprove, which is still an improvement from December where the split was 42/58.

If his approval manages to crawl back up to 50% I think Democrats will do fine in the midterm elections, but probably not enough to win the House majority. That'll take some serious Republican shittery above all else.

Rasmussen (lol) has Sen Mark Warner up 14 on beloved partisan hack Ed Gillespie

 

[Fenderputty]

Perhaps, but why should the rest of the rest of the population suffer on their behalf?

...

I think a just society is one that considers how a policy will affect the least of us--the weakest, poorest, most forgotten members of our society--not just those are already well-off and can cope with whatever happens.

Who's suffering? Seriously.

See me above post. If you think the poor are benefitted by prohibition you're kidding yourself.

I personally love this documentary on the subject.
http://www.breakingthetaboo.info

I have a hard time arguing for legalization of drugs that are really addictive. (Addicting? I know some people make a big deal about the supposed difference between those two words, but I could never tell what it was supposed to be .)

I don't think we can say "it's your decision" about whether to use hard drugs. They take away your freedom and your ability to make a decision. People become physically dependent on them; you CAN'T choose freely whether to use them or not once you've gotten hooked.

How is this different when the substance is illegal? In order for your assumption to be accurate, you would have to prove that legalization would increase usage rates in meaningful numbers. In the meantime, we have plenty of evidence that prohibition does nothing to curb usage rates. At all.

We would control the laws being put in place too. Use Portugal as a starting point. Want to buy heroin? Make it a requirement that one follows up with an addiction counselor. Make not showing up illegal. I'm sure there's plenty if creative ways to approach this.

 

[jamesinclair]

You haven't said the company is not incorporated.

Silly assumption, only a minority of businesses are

 

[empty vessel]

Silly assumption, only a minority of businesses are

I would think the opposite if one includes LLCs. And you still haven't said which yours is.

It's also more than a little ironic to complain about a nanny state when essentially you just want to run your own nanny state within the realm of your own little fiefdom.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You honestly feel like inaccessibility has caused less people to do heroin? At least in any meaningful numbers? People don't do heroin because it legit ruins lives. Most people pinking up illicit substances can find ways to get what they want. I should now. I've been doing it since I was 18.

Instead of spending money on fighting this war, we can use the tax money to have honest education courses (unlike DARE) and rehab facilities. Use the money to fight the root cause of people addiction and stop creating criminals and a black market. Regulated needles. Cleaner drugs. Controlled dosages. Less kids having access.

This doesn't even touch upon the cyclical nature of drug crime. Get caught selling a now decriminalized substance and lose all federal aid. Can't go to college, can't get housing and in some states can't get food. The drug war disproportionately affects poverty and always will.

Ugh I had a post but it deleted and I don't feel like typing it all up but I'll respond briefly

-Yes I think more people will try heroin if its available in stores, pure curiosity.
- I'm in favor of ending the 'war' on drugs (except on things like cartel and violent organizations profiting) and promoting it as the health issue it always has been. What I'm arguing against is making things like meth, heroin, lsd available for purchase at you local corner store.
- Economic growth and opportunity (Not the republican 'less taxes' version) and investment along with sentencing reform will do a lot to reduce its disproportionate effect on poor folk. People go to drugs I would argue because of their life's station so changing that helps a lot.

 

[pigeon]

-Yes I think more people will try heroin if its available in stores, pure curiosity.
- I'm in favor of ending the 'war' on drugs (except on things like cartel and violent organizations profiting) and promoting it as the health issue it always has been. What I'm arguing against is making things like meth, heroin, lsd available for purchase at you local corner store.
- Economic growth and opportunity (Not the republican 'less taxes' version) and investment along with sentencing reform will do a lot to reduce its disproportionate effect on poor folk. People go to drugs I would argue because of their life's station so changing that helps a lot.

I agree that drug use will only become more common (but safer) if available for commercial sale, and so I mostly think that we should still keep dangerous drugs off the shelves, though decriminalize their use. Mostly I just wanted to post, though, to point out that putting LSD in a list with methamphetamines and heroin as though it shared any characteristics or anywhere near the same level of risk is actually a demonstration of exactly how the drug war damages our ability to effectively protect people from harmful and addictive substances by making it hard to identify and distinguish them.

 

[Fenderputty]

Ugh I had a post but it deleted and I don't feel like typing it all up but I'll respond briefly

-Yes I think more people will try heroin if its available in stores, pure curiosity.
- I'm in favor of ending the 'war' on drugs (except on things like cartel and violent organizations profiting) and promoting it as the health issue it always has been. What I'm arguing against is making things like meth, heroin, lsd available for purchase at you local corner store.
- Economic growth and opportunity (Not the republican 'less taxes' version) and investment along with sentencing reform will do a lot to reduce its disproportionate effect on poor folk. People go to drugs I would argue because of their life's station so changing that helps a lot.

I think your first point is a funny position. You feel that a legal barrier causes enough concern for people to not seek out the drug, but you feel these same cautious people will try heroin once that barrier is gone. Like the drug itself isn't a reason for concern. Just it's legality.

I never said sell heroin at your local CVS. I'm assuming distribution of such substances would come from federally regulated, state ran entities. This way we can track who's buying, how much and if they're showing up to any education / rehab programs we would require to before purchase. We can set where drugs could be sold based off of classifications.

Right, poor people are attracted to drugs because it's lucrative and " a way out". I think ending the war on drugs is more likely than liberal utopia personally.

Mostly I just wanted to post, though, to point out that putting LSD in a list with methamphetamines and heroin as though it shared any characteristics or anywhere near the same level of risk is actually a demonstration of exactly how the drug war damages our ability to effectively protect people from harmful and addictive substances by making it hard to identify and distinguish them.

Exactly. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw LSD lumped on with heroine.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

This is really great to hear.

Another Blow To the Iran Sanctions Bill

Those who favored a vote were far more vocal at first — as of now, 16 Dem Senators have signed on. But the continued silence of many Dem Senators signaled a broad unwillingness to join the bill, even as many were unwilling to publicly declare this to be the case, since Dems apparently see allowing negotiations to proceed, without getting a chance to vote in favor of getting tougher on Iran, as a politically difficult position to take.
If current conditions remain, a vote is starting to look less and less likely. Right now, the bill has 58 co-sponsors. On the other side, 10 Dem Senate committee chairs have signed a letter opposing a vote. Around half a dozen Dem Senators subsequently came out against it. With Murray and Warren, the number of Dems against a vote has comfortably surpassed the number who want one.

and

It's Getting Easier to Vote Against Iran Sanctions

By decoupling support for Israel with support for new sanctions against Iran, the group is making it easier for lawmakers inclined to support the White House. “We’ve been working diligently on Capitol Hill and in the Jewish-American community to raise support for the president’s diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Iran, and oppose any legislation which would threaten it,” said Dylan Williams, director of government affairs at J Street. “We feel very strongly that the current bill in the Senate would threaten diplomacy.”

J Street’s influence is also clear in the money it spends. Among pro-Israel groups, JStreetPAC was the largest single political donor during the 2008 and 2012 cycles, contributing nearly $2.7 million to federal candidates, parties, and outside groups. And some lawmakers supported by J Street have been vocal in support of the group’s position. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, for instance, has spoken out strongly against the new Iran sanctions. As one congressional aide put it, “Those are the political calculations that are made easier when a group like J Street gives you cover.”

I pretty much pulled this verbatim from this Andrew Sullivan post just now, but really great news. Seems sanity might win out.

 

[WayneMorse]

Interesting.

But what depressed me about Hillary was someone on Something Awful saying that her victory will lead to a revival in anti-feminism and Men's Rights BS like how Obama's victory lead to a revival in racism.

 

[Tamanon]

J Street always was the better lobby.

 

[empty vessel]

-Yes I think more people will try heroin if its available in stores, pure curiosity.

This is probably true in absolute terms, but the rise would be extremely marginal, in my opinion, and essentially negligible for purposes of identifying good policy. But see below about selling heroin "in stores."

- I'm in favor of ending the 'war' on drugs (except on things like cartel and violent organizations profiting) and promoting it as the health issue it always has been. What I'm arguing against is making things like meth, heroin, lsd available for purchase at you local corner store.

I don't disagree with this at all. I think to the extent things like meth and heroin, at least, become available, it should be supplied by and administered at public facilities for that purpose. Ideally those facilities would have treatment programs for those who abuse it and want help stopping.

- Economic growth and opportunity (Not the republican 'less taxes' version) and investment along with sentencing reform will do a lot to reduce its disproportionate effect on poor folk. People go to drugs I would argue because of their life's station so changing that helps a lot.

Yes, economic problems and inequality will create more substance abuse and addiction, so fixing that will help tremendously. Many people use (and eventually abuse) these substances to self-treat mental illness because they are deprived of access to real treatment for those conditions.

However, it is important to keep in mind during these discussions that even the most addictive drugs (e.g., heroin) do not cause the majority of people who try or use them to become addicted. Addiction and abuse are very much a minority phenomenon with all drugs.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I agree that drug use will only become more common (but safer) if available for commercial sale, and so I mostly think that we should still keep dangerous drugs off the shelves, though decriminalize their use. Mostly I just wanted to post, though, to point out that putting LSD in a list with methamphetamines and heroin as though it shared any characteristics or anywhere near the same level of risk is actually a demonstration of exactly how the drug war damages our ability to effectively protect people from harmful and addictive substances by making it hard to identify and distinguish them.

I do know that the LSD is 'safer' at least in its toxicity than the other two but I don't think it should be sold as its affects are subjective and harder to predict. I also think there is a problem with how we regulate the consumption. Alcohol and weed have a history of being consumed relatively safely and in socially acceptable settings which make their legalization relatively easy and understandable. I don't know how we begin to deal with others. Which is why I think we should do a lot of research on them before statements about 'legalizing them.' My personal opinion is most will never get there.

This is probably true in absolute terms, but the rise would be extremely marginal, in my opinion, and essentially negligible for purposes of identifying good policy. But see below about selling heroin "in stores."

I guess I just see harder drugs as harder to obtain. I've never sought them out so I'm judging this of personal experience and assuming others have never had the opportunity but might try if able. I don't think this applies to weed because everybody can easily find access to it.

I don't disagree with this at all. I think to the extent things like meth and heroin, at least, become available, it should be supplied by and administered at public facilities for that purpose. Ideally those facilities would have treatment programs for those who abuse it and want help stopping.

I have no problem with them being used to treat addicts and as medicine. I just think its fair as we do with many prescription drugs to limit or forbid their recreational use.

I think your first point is a funny position. You feel that a legal barrier causes enough concern for people to not seek out the drug, but you feel these same cautious people will try heroin once that barrier is gone. Like the drug itself isn't a reason for concern. Just it's legality.

I think the legality prevents people from trying. I think most would never try but I think there are is a large absolute number of people who have never had the opportunity. Because the restrictions limit supply in a way I don't think can be said of weed.