Global War On Drugs 'Has Failed' Say Former Leaders

[Malthus]

I think some of your critics in this thread think that this point is so obvious, that failing to believe it is a sign of deliberate dishonesty. I don't.

Ok maybe I was wrong.  It sure looked like he was trying to spin it that way.

That's the thing: you have to understand that, for some folks, taking a toke off a joint is actually morally bad in the same way that (say) stealing or raping is (albeit, not necessarily as serious a matter). It is deliberately causing, in some sense, harm to happen. In a way it can be even more blameworthy than stealing, because it is done just for entertainment: stealing can in some cases be justified by dire necessity.

I know it seems on its face absurd, but they honestly believe that.

[Slargos]

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

[HVC]

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Jacob proably

[Malthus]

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Sure - theft of intellectual property. 

[Slargos]

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Sure - theft of intellectual property. 

Concur. Trillions of dollars worth of IP is lost every year to piracy. It's pretty big.

My point is that if you're going to lambast Beeb for his position, take at least a quick look at your own first.

[Berkut]

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Yeah, I don't really see how that is obviously a inconsistent position. Software piracy is theft, in the eyes of those who think it is a crime, or ought to be.

[Slargos]

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Yeah, I don't really see how that is obviously a inconsistent position. Software piracy is theft, in the eyes of those who think it is a crime, or ought to be.

And to those who think substance abuse is a crime, or ought to be one, the difference is in degree only.

[Iormlund]

I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

As with pretty much any crime, it will always exist.  Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Some people will always demand intoxicants which are harmful to themselves and others.  The question is how best to manage that fact.  Is the best approach to let people have whatever intoxicants they want, and just try to minimize the harm?  I tend to disagree.

The first thing you need to understand is you are not in a position to "let people have whatever intoxicants they want". They are already able to without your permission.

Now, all the evidence I could offer you is purely anecdotal: Pretty much everyone around me, mostly middle class college graduates, has done illegal drugs one time or another.
Some have only tried a couple times. A few became addicts.
Most have smoked. Many have taken pills, amphetamines or cocaine. I only knew one heroin addict (ODed a long time ago).

None ever faced any significant obstacle locating or securing their supply. Those that found themselves wanting more than they could pay for simply became part time pushers.

[Slargos]

I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

As with pretty much any crime, it will always exist.  Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Some people will always demand intoxicants which are harmful to themselves and others.  The question is how best to manage that fact.  Is the best approach to let people have whatever intoxicants they want, and just try to minimize the harm?  I tend to disagree.

The first thing you need to understand is you are not in a position to "let people have whatever intoxicants they want". They are already able to without your permission.

Now, all the evidence I could offer you is purely anecdotal: Pretty much everyone around me, mostly middle class college graduates, has done illegal drugs one time or another.
Some have only tried a couple times. A few became addicts.
Most have smoked. Many have taken pills, amphetamines or cocaine. I only knew one heroin addict (ODed a long time ago).

None ever faced any significant obstacle locating or securing their supply. Those that found themselves wanting more than they could pay for simply became part time pushers.

The same argument could be used for decriminalization of everything.

[Berkut]

So Slargos, if in fact the current approach was a failure, how would you know?

You reject that it is a self-evident failure - so what additional evidence would you need to say "Yeah, this approach is not working..."?

[Slargos]

So Slargos, if in fact the current approach was a failure, how would you know?

You reject that it is a self-evident failure - so what additional evidence would you need to say "Yeah, this approach is not working..."?

Whoa, whoa.

The American approach is quite evidently a failure. I think decriminalization would be worth looking into.

The arguments used by Iorm, and the shitkicking Beeb has to take however, is just retarded.

[Malthus]

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Sure - theft of intellectual property. 

Concur. Trillions of dollars worth of IP is lost every year to piracy. It's pretty big.

My point is that if you're going to lambast Beeb for his position, take at least a quick look at your own first.

I don't get the parallel.

How does thinking that theft of intellectual property is in the same category as theft generally relate to thinking that doing drugs isn't? 

[Slargos]

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?"

[Iormlund]

The same argument could be used for decriminalization of everything.

Except the only argument for criminalizing drugs is precisely helping addicts control their problem. Not so with murder or theft.

[Slargos]

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Sure - theft of intellectual property. 

Concur. Trillions of dollars worth of IP is lost every year to piracy. It's pretty big.

My point is that if you're going to lambast Beeb for his position, take at least a quick look at your own first.

I don't get the parallel.

How does thinking that theft of intellectual property is in the same category as theft generally relate to thinking that doing drugs isn't?

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?