Non-IT News Thread
-
the government trying ot get rich off of drugs will just make them another cartel. You have to remove the money from it, not just shift it around.
-
Otherwise the government has a huge interest in making the public addicted. Whcih they do anyway because it makes for a complacent populace.
-
Right - but don't you have to no allow the commercial sale of it as well. or does that part not really matter?
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Right - but don't you have to no allow the commercial sale of it as well. or does that part not really matter?
Why would someone buy commercially when there is a ready supply available for free?
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Right - but don't you have to no allow the commercial sale of it as well. or does that part not really matter?
Why would someone buy commercially when there is a ready supply available for free?
Are you meaning to say that the government would be in the giving drugs away for free business? You can't seriously be telling that European governments are just giving free drugs away to anyone who wants them? that seems like a health hazard.
-
News Sites Start Charging Readers to Comment on Articles
Not sure what to think about that... I don't think I would ever pay to comment on a news site.
-
@brianlittlejohn said in Non-IT News Thread:
News Sites Start Charging Readers to Comment on Articles
Not sure what to think about that... I don't think I would ever pay to comment on a news site.
I would never comment on a news site. So....
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@brianlittlejohn said in Non-IT News Thread:
News Sites Start Charging Readers to Comment on Articles
Not sure what to think about that... I don't think I would ever pay to comment on a news site.
I would never comment on a news site. So....
I would, but only anonymously, and I'd never pay to do so.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Right - but don't you have to no allow the commercial sale of it as well. or does that part not really matter?
Why would someone buy commercially when there is a ready supply available for free?
Are you meaning to say that the government would be in the giving drugs away for free business? You can't seriously be telling that European governments are just giving free drugs away to anyone who wants them? that seems like a health hazard.
that's exactly what they do. They give away heroine. Like I said, they started it as a test because the theory said that it should reduce usage. And in practice... it does. By a lot. Because there is zero value to pushing it and people don't choose to use this stuff because it is fun. It allows them to make selling it illegal while possessing it is totally legal. It's always free so there is no reason to ever sell it. It's always given away with free, clean needles (this alone has totally changed the face of their healthcare as it basically eliminated all drug related health issues) and you can never get heroine at a time when you don't have access to care and counselling.
They've reduced the number of users and massively increased the quality of life and health of the remaining uses while eliminating the deals and crime associated and dramatically lowered the cost of healthcare.
Win, win, win, win and slam dunk. Everyone wins, no health risk.
-
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
I don't think you could get the tobacco growers to give away what they've produced for dozens of decades without a lot of upheaval.
Drugs like those being discussed have always been illegal in the states. There are no standing legal drug cartels in the eyes of the US or congress.
-
To boot so many cigarette companies are paying congressmen that trying to give them away would require almost all if not all of Congress being fired at once.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
I don't think you could get the tobacco growers to give away what they've produced for dozens of decades without a lot of upheaval.
Drugs like those being discussed have always been illegal in the states. There are no standing legal drug cartels in the eyes of the US or congress.
Well I'm not talking just the US (but you won't get the politicians who live on drug money to give up their money either), but more talking about in Europe - so you give the bad drugs away to reduce usage, so crank that idea up.. give away cigarettes and maybe alcohol too.
But the drug thing should be done in the USA. The whole war on drugs is just a facade.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
If you actually wanted to get people off of cigarettes, of course you would do things like that.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
I don't think you could get the tobacco growers to give away what they've produced for dozens of decades without a lot of upheaval.
Drugs like those being discussed have always been illegal in the states. There are no standing legal drug cartels in the eyes of the US or congress.
Well I'm not talking just the US (but you won't get the politicians who live on drug money to give up their money either), but more talking about in Europe - so you give the bad drugs away to reduce usage, so crank that idea up.. give away cigarettes and maybe alcohol too.
But the drug thing should be done in the USA. The whole war on drugs is just a facade.
If cigarettes were causing major health issues and crime, I'm sure that they would. But remember, the drug cartel in this case is the US gov't. So, just like the Mexican cartels are funding the US Gov't to keep the war on drugs going, the US Gov't puts a lot of pressure on other countries to allow tobacco to be sold there.
It's like the Poppy Wars in China.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
I don't think you could get the tobacco growers to give away what they've produced for dozens of decades without a lot of upheaval.
Drugs like those being discussed have always been illegal in the states. There are no standing legal drug cartels in the eyes of the US or congress.
Well I'm not talking just the US (but you won't get the politicians who live on drug money to give up their money either), but more talking about in Europe - so you give the bad drugs away to reduce usage, so crank that idea up.. give away cigarettes and maybe alcohol too.
But the drug thing should be done in the USA. The whole war on drugs is just a facade.
The US is beyond the highest consumer of drugs, if you just gave them away, I can't imagine the amount of social damage it would do. What you need to do is avoid the problems which cause drug use in the first place. The USSR didn't have really a drug problem at all, after its dissolution, it did, and still does. Americans are overt consumers, following this logic free pizza would mean less pizza would be consumed. I don't think Americans could stop doing anything if it was free.
I am reminded of Jello Biafra's promotion of the idea that drugs should be paid for by the state, and so should drug recovery programs. Basically you'd be asking tax payers to pay for drug use and recovery, with a revolving door policy.
I think a lot of Americans confuse decriminalisation and treatment with simply giving drugs away for free and then wiping their hands of the problem. The often cited Portugal would be much different if instead of decriminalisation and treatment they simply didn't even address the problems at hand and gave addicts their drugs.
I'm not saying don't legalise them or anything else, but give away for free would make them go away? Come on.
You know what stops crack addicts? Free crack.
-
@tonyshowoff The mistake there is that the goal is not to stop being being addicts. Those people are already addicts. There is a goal of making sure that they can get help when they need it, in case they want it, but making them not addicts? Who really cares. Those people already chose a path of addiction. They are lost.
The goal is to protect everyone from them. The goal is to eliminate drug fueled crime and put an end to the crack pushers so that new people don't become addicted. Addiction and lack of access fuels massive crime, gangs, cartels and human trafficking - those are the things that we want to fight, along with the massive government corruption of the drug war system. The crack addicts aren't the concern. They just aren't important.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff The mistake there is that the goal is not to stop being being addicts. Those people are already addicts. There is a goal of making sure that they can get help when they need it, in case they want it, but making them not addicts? Who really cares. Those people already chose a path of addiction. They are lost.
The goal is to protect everyone from them. The goal is to eliminate drug fueled crime and put an end to the crack pushers so that new people don't become addicted. Addiction and lack of access fuels massive crime, gangs, cartels and human trafficking - those are the things that we want to fight, along with the massive government corruption of the drug war system. The crack addicts aren't the concern. They just aren't important.
I agree, but some people really are jumping the gun a lot when they essentially say "free drugs for everyone" without really even acknowledging we have to deal with the causes in the first place. It won't undo what's already done, but not dealing with the misery and the culture of failure created by pop culture, etc (and is why America is the #1 drug consumer in the world) is sort of like finding a good way to put out fires in your kitchen, without trying to at least avoid fires in the future.
As far as the war on drugs goes, it's just a term, it really doesn't mean anything, because any stated goals or purpose are so vague that they can just turn it into whatever they want. The only thing it's really done for certain is turned American police forces into small armies. Even 20 years ago it was rare for SWAT to kick your door in for anything, let alone drugs, now they do it for basically anything, meanwhile killing children with flash bangs and so forth.
Cops like it because it's fun, cities like it because it gets them federal money, and the federal government is a mismanaged monster... it just says a lot that most Americans gauge success of congress based on how many laws they pass. Passing laws and management are two different things, you can make all the rules you want, but if they're not followed, improperly followed, too vague to follow, or there's no money to follow them, then they're useless.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
The crack addicts aren't the concern. They just aren't important.
Which is kind of amazing - but I tend to agree with this, it sucks that people get caught in the middle, but the end user/addict is kinda the least concerning part, other than their own participation in gangs/theft, etc.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
it just says a lot that most Americans gauge success of congress based on how many laws they pass.
They do? Where is that they you are talking about? Most people I've talked to agree that more laws, other than an ultimate law (such as the outright outlawing of guns) rarely seem to do anything about the problems we have today. Anything short of that (and even that) when we don't enforce the laws that already exist is just mindless dribble, more often dribble that just empowers someone else to stick their hand in pockets even more - Obama care (now the uninsured get to pay the government a fee because they are uninsured.. yeah that makes sense!)
Passing laws and management are two different things, you can make all the rules you want, but if they're not followed, improperly followed, too vague to follow, or there's no money to follow them, then they're useless.
Agreed.
