Maine's Governor Vetoes A Lifesaving Bill; tells heroin addicts to drop dead

[viper37]

Drug prohibition has been a massive failure.  It is expensive, ineffective, and there are very undesirable side effects like money flowing into the hands of criminal organisations around the world.  Drug prohibition has been given more than a fair chance to prove its worth.  It is time to try something new and take some risks.  Even if that something may not work.  Anything is better than sticking with prohibition which has proven not to work. 

the problem with legalization is that unless you legalize just about everything, there will always be some illegal product that has some pull over potential and actual drug users.

[viper37]

Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.

The dramatic decline
in syringe sharing among PWUD in
Vancouver can be largely attributed to
the expansion of harm reduction programs
in the city, with 39.6% of PWUD
reporting syringe borrowing in 1996 but
only 1.7% reporting syringe borrowing
in 2011.

If you are not concerned about bettering the health of the community then we don't really have much to talk about.

the health of drug users is of no concern to me.  We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers.  As long as there is demand, there will be offer.

[Berkut]

Drug prohibition has been a massive failure.  It is expensive, ineffective, and there are very undesirable side effects like money flowing into the hands of criminal organisations around the world.  Drug prohibition has been given more than a fair chance to prove its worth.  It is time to try something new and take some risks.  Even if that something may not work.  Anything is better than sticking with prohibition which has proven not to work. 

the problem with legalization is that unless you legalize just about everything, there will always be some illegal product that has some pull over potential and actual drug users.

That is a fake problem.

We do that already. To the extent the problem potentially exists, it already exists, and the current solution is clearly a failure.

So you are either claiming that

A) There is this problem that would exist if the proposed solution was put in place, but that is clearly not true since the nature of the problem you state already exists, or
B) The problem currently exists, and the current system is a good solution and the change would jeopardize that problem. But that is clearly not true, since the current implementation has been a spectacular failure.

[Fate]

Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.

The dramatic decline
in syringe sharing among PWUD in
Vancouver can be largely attributed to
the expansion of harm reduction programs
in the city, with 39.6% of PWUD
reporting syringe borrowing in 1996 but
only 1.7% reporting syringe borrowing
in 2011.

If you are not concerned about bettering the health of the community then we don't really have much to talk about.

the health of drug users is of no concern to me.  We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers.  As long as there is demand, there will be offer.

Your tax dollars are going to be what pays for the treatment of the increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis B/C.

[derspiess]

I think the right approach is to promote hugs, not drugs.

[grumbler]

But you are probably right.  We should cut funding to schools&universities and instead offer free heroin to drug addicts, free&safe place to use their drugs, treat them like victims and absolutely do not seek to rehabilitate them because it is a secondary and worthless objective.

Worst strawman ever. 

[grumbler]

the problem with legalization is that unless you legalize just about everything, there will always be some illegal product that has some pull over potential and actual drug users.

The problem with prohibition is that it benefits only two groups:
(1) the thugs who want to have an excuse to increase their profit margin, and
(2) the Puritans who are desperate for someone to feel superior to and feel moral outrage over.

There will always be crooks and Puritans, but society should not cater to their physical and intellectual laziness, respectively.

[grumbler]

the health of drug users is of no concern to me.  We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers.  As long as there is demand, there will be offer.

At least you are somewhat honest and don't pretend to be charitable.  Honest enough to answer my question about poisoning drugs, though?

[crazy canuck]

Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.

The dramatic decline
in syringe sharing among PWUD in
Vancouver can be largely attributed to
the expansion of harm reduction programs
in the city, with 39.6% of PWUD
reporting syringe borrowing in 1996 but
only 1.7% reporting syringe borrowing
in 2011.

If you are not concerned about bettering the health of the community then we don't really have much to talk about.

the health of drug users is of no concern to me.  We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers.  As long as there is demand, there will be offer.

Even if you were thinking only about yourself in a completely mercenary way your position makes no sense.  Unless you actually support the hypothetical Grumbler gave you, government expenditures would dramatically increase.  Reducing cost was the main reason governments were initially persuaded to try harm reduction strategies.  As those strategies began to work (and costs were reduced) governments allowed more harm reduction strategies.  It has been a virtuous cycle benefiting both addicts and, for people who care only about themselves, the tax payer.

[Berkut]

Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.

The dramatic decline
in syringe sharing among PWUD in
Vancouver can be largely attributed to
the expansion of harm reduction programs
in the city, with 39.6% of PWUD
reporting syringe borrowing in 1996 but
only 1.7% reporting syringe borrowing
in 2011.

If you are not concerned about bettering the health of the community then we don't really have much to talk about.

the health of drug users is of no concern to me.  We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers.  As long as there is demand, there will be offer.

Even if you were thinking only about yourself in a completely mercenary way your position makes no sense.  Unless you actually support the hypothetical Grumbler gave you, government expenditures would dramatically increase.  Reducing cost was the main reason governments were initially persuaded to try harm reduction strategies.  As those strategies began to work (and costs were reduced) governments allowed more harm reduction strategies.  It has been a virtuous cycle benefiting both addicts and, for people who care only about themselves, the tax payer.

But it doesn't punish the people who need punishing.

It is the same argument you see when nominally pro-life people oppose birth control. The point is not to decrease the problem, the point is to make sure the sluts/druggies are properly punished for their actions.

[viper37]

Drug prohibition has been a massive failure.  It is expensive, ineffective, and there are very undesirable side effects like money flowing into the hands of criminal organisations around the world.  Drug prohibition has been given more than a fair chance to prove its worth.  It is time to try something new and take some risks.  Even if that something may not work.  Anything is better than sticking with prohibition which has proven not to work. 

the problem with legalization is that unless you legalize just about everything, there will always be some illegal product that has some pull over potential and actual drug users.

That is a fake problem.

We do that already. To the extent the problem potentially exists, it already exists, and the current solution is clearly a failure.

So you are either claiming that

A) There is this problem that would exist if the proposed solution was put in place, but that is clearly not true since the nature of the problem you state already exists, or
B) The problem currently exists, and the current system is a good solution and the change would jeopardize that problem. But that is clearly not true, since the current implementation has been a spectacular failure.

What I'm saying is drug legalization in the optics of reducing the money flowing into organize crime coffers is not a valid solution.

You had prohibitions on alcohol at some point in your history.  Yes, organized crime made a fuckton of money on it.  But they also made money on heroin at the same time, gambling and prostitution.
When prohibition was lifted, organized crime did no go bankrupt. 

Currently, some states have legalized marijuana.  Organized crime is not going bankrupt.

There is no prohibition in Canada, yet organize crime makes a fuckton of money from tobacoo and illegal alcohol sales.  There's always a need for cheaper or stronger product.

When marijuana will be legalized in Canada, there will still be illegitimate sellers of the products.  And drug users will still use other illegal products.

Now, let's say that at some point we also legalize cocaine, because it's just strong, white coffee and there's nothing harmful in it, unlike marijuana and alcohol those really dangerous products that we legalized at some point (that will be the argument we will hear then, as we hear now about alcohol vs marijuana).  And we might even include heroin/other opioids because it's just a medicinal product after all.

I don't think organized crime will go bankrupt then.  There will always be some product that we do not legalize that will attract users.  Something that gives them a bigger thrill, or something that will sells for cheaper (stolen or detaxed products).

So really, the whole "war on drugs is not working" is true, but I don't see how we can escape it in any way.  As such, it should not be a valid argument for legalization, one way or another.

[Berkut]

So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.

Got it.

[viper37]

So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.

We should not enact any changes that wee know will not decrease their power, wealth and influence while having detrimental effect to public finances and/or health.

[Berkut]

So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.

We should not enact any changes that wee know will not decrease their power, wealth and influence while having detrimental effect to public finances and/or health.

That is not what your claim was, and is, on the face of it, clearly false.

Taking away sources of income will decrease their power, wealth and influence by definition. There is zero debate about that.

This is basic math. If they have a certain amount of wealth, and you take some of that away, they will have less. It isn't complicated.

[grumbler]

So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.

Got it.

In that world, if it is not pure white, it is pitch black by definition.  There actually are people that think this way, as we can see right here.