Global War On Drugs 'Has Failed' Say Former Leaders

[Valmy]

The same argument could be used for decriminalization of everything.

I guess I view the drug laws as an attempt to reduce drug use the same way we try to reduce fat people or increase test scores or whatever.  Taking drugs is bad, they reduce productive people in society and we should try to reduce their use so we have really draconian drug laws.  Since they have not seen to be working I think we should try something different.

I do not see them as something that necessarily needs to be a crime.  Essential laws protect people and property from the aggression of others...because if you do not said people will do so themselves and anarchy or state of nature breaks out.  Heck the entire existance of society in the first place is to  protect people and their stuff from aggression.

So basically any criminal behavior that is designed to be so because it is a public good that they do less of it should indeed be considered to be decriminalized if the costs to society of enforcing them are worse than the disease or they are not effective for whatever reason.

In the USA we do have a few states who are decriminalizing certain sorts of illegal drugs (or regulating them in different ways) and we can see how that goes.  Maybe that is a good idea.

Anyway those are my thoughts on the matter.  Though I guess I should go ahead and say that I think our drug laws are empowering the drug gangs in Mexico and reforming them could also be of national security importance.  Not to mention economic importance, Mexico being one of our closest economic partners.

[Malthus]

Which is to say, the philosophical approach is just pointless.

"Drugabuse is a victimless crime, man". Fuck you. You don't get to decide that, The Law does.

"You can't regulate it anyway, so might as well just give in." Fuck you. By the same token we should decriminalize rape.

The only honest way to attack this is by asking "Is this productive?"

I gave a complete run-down of my position above.

My point is that the approach we are taking - criminalization - has failed each and every metric of "success".

Other approaches have done better in other places, therefore we ought to be trying them here.

My only point in bringing up the "philosophical" difference, was to point out that BB wasn't being deliberatly  dishonest, because he honestly believes that taking drugs ought to be inherently criminal. Has nothing to do really with the argument.

[Valmy]

He's being accosted as a "douchebag" for maintaining this position by the very same people who would laugh at one crime and frown at the other.

Same people?  Do I have accomplices?

And for fucksake we throw around douchebag all the time here.  I certainly would not have done such a horrible thing if I really thought we were not all friends here.

[Valmy]

"You can't regulate it anyway, so might as well just give in." Fuck you. By the same token we should decriminalize rape.

Except if we do that people will take vengeance into their own hands.  You know that whole anarchy thing.  That whole 'the reason the legal system was invented in the first place' thing.

[The Brain]

BB thinks looking at the Crown the wrong way should land you in gaol. I wouldn't worry about his opinion.

[Malthus]

Of course you don't.

Here you have two crimes whose adherents claim, with reasonable argument, are victimless.

Barrister, as an agent of Law (regardless of his personal beliefs) considers both from a legal standpoint as crimes. In degree they may differ from murder, rape, genocide or jaywalking, but they're still crimes.

He's being accosted as a "douchebag" for maintaining this position by the very same people who would laugh at one crime and frown at the other.

Now do you see?

Dude. Chill and re-read the thread. 

I'm the very person arguing BB is not a "douchebag" for maintaining his position.

So your ire is misdirected, to put it mildly. 

[Slargos]

The same argument could be used for decriminalization of everything.

I guess I view the drug laws as an attempt to reduce drug use the same way we try to reduce fat people or increase test scores or whatever.  Taking drugs is bad, they reduce productive people in society and we should try to reduce their use so we have really draconian drug laws.  Since they have not seen to be working I think we should try something different.

I do not see them as something that necessarily needs to be a crime.  Essential laws protect people and property from the aggression of others...because if you do not said people will do so themselves and anarchy or state of nature breaks out.  Heck the entire existance of society in the first place is to  protect people and their stuff from aggression.

So basically any criminal behavior that is designed to be so because it is a public good that they do less of it should indeed be considered to be decriminalized if the costs to society of enforcing them are worse than the disease or they are not effective for whatever reason.

In the USA we do have a few states who are decriminalizing certain sorts of illegal drugs (or regulating them in different ways) and we can see how that goes.  Maybe that is a good idea.

Anyway those are my thoughts on the matter.  Though I guess I should go ahead and say that I think our drug laws are empowering the drug gangs in Mexico and reforming them could also be of national security importance.  Not to mention economic importance, Mexico being one of our closest economic partners.

I don't disagree with this, really. What I disagree with is the view that Barrister's position is unreasonable, when it very clearly isn't.

It may FEEL unreasonable that he compares a crime you feel is trivial to crimes you feel are non-trivial, but your feelings are irrelevant.

[Eddie Teach]

BB thinks looking at the Crown the wrong way should land you in gaol. I wouldn't worry about his opinion.

He has some input into whether you go on trial for looking at the Crown the wrong way, so his opinion bears watching.

[Slargos]

Of course you don't.

Here you have two crimes whose adherents claim, with reasonable argument, are victimless.

Barrister, as an agent of Law (regardless of his personal beliefs) considers both from a legal standpoint as crimes. In degree they may differ from murder, rape, genocide or jaywalking, but they're still crimes.

He's being accosted as a "douchebag" for maintaining this position by the very same people who would laugh at one crime and frown at the other.

Now do you see?

Dude. Chill and re-read the thread. 

I'm the very person arguing BB is not a "douchebag" for maintaining his position.

So your ire is misdirected, to put it mildly. 

Objection, relevance. 

I just think it's fucked up that a bunch of hypocritical potheads can flail their hippie hair around like they just don't care.

[Valmy]

I don't disagree with this, really. What I disagree with is the view that Barrister's position is unreasonable, when it very clearly isn't.

It may FEEL unreasonable that he compares a crime you feel is trivial to crimes you feel are non-trivial, but your feelings are irrelevant.

I thought he was trying to spin it to where drug use was somehow on the same level as those sorts of crimes.  Malthus has showed me I was wrong on that I guess.

Still I would not have called him out in quite the same way had this not been languish and I did not like the guy.

[Malthus]

Objection, relevance. 

I just think it's fucked up that a bunch of hypocritical potheads can flail their hippie hair around like they just don't care.

Oh, how I wish I had a full head of hippie hair to flail around in a carefree manner! 

[The Brain]

BB thinks looking at the Crown the wrong way should land you in gaol. I wouldn't worry about his opinion.

He has some input into whether you go on trial for looking at the Crown the wrong way, so his opinion bears watching.

Only if you live under the Canadian yoke.

[Valmy]

I just think it's fucked up that a bunch of hypocritical potheads can flail their hippie hair around like they just don't care.

[HVC]

Ahem. Hypocritical former pothead thank you very much :p

[Berkut]

While I don't think it is far to call Beebs a "douchebag" for his position (it is after all pretty common and not at all motivated by malice), I can certainly understand the frustration his position creates.

Beebs position is motivated by his basic philosophy that the role of the State is to make sure people do whatever the majority thinks is best for them, and there is very little room for personal liberty in that viewpoint, at least in any practical sense.

Drugs are bad, therefore they should be illegal.
Divorce is bad, therefore the state should be allowed to force you to remain married.


There isn't any room in this philosophy for

X is bad, but people should be allowed to deal with it themselves - or not, because the necessary infringement on liberty or cost to society needed to force compliance is worse than the problem to begin with.

So they don't look at the war on drugs, see that it is a failed "solution" that is likely much worse than the problem, and think "Hey, lets try something else". They look at it from the other end.

Drugs are bad. Therefore, anything the state does to stop people from taking them is justifiable. End of story. Putting 3% of the population in jail? No problem. Spending trillions of dollars to fight the "war"? Not an issue. No knock warrants? Phone taps? Random stops of civilians on made up "reasonable suspicion"? Perhaps regrettable, but hardly anything that really matter compared the need to control all those pesky humans. The means are *always* justified by the ends.

Like I said, this doesn't make him a douchebag - just pretty typical, unfortunately. I wish this attitude towards liberty and the role of the state WAS unusual enough to consider those who hold it to be especially objectionable.