Nazis aren't good with data types
-
@DrakeSmith said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
I'm not assuming it never harms others; I'm also not assuming it always harms others. I don't know and my assertion is that you don't either. That said, the parts I bolded above appear to contradict each other. Had you said the following instead, we could be arguing with the new troll that popped up instead of each other: @possible improvement said:@DrakeSmith said:
This point could use further explanation because it seems counter-intuitive at first glance. How exactly does decriminalizing something that doesn't harm others infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of others?
But if we just left it at a crime only if they affect someone else, that's severely going to infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of those others in large numbers.You're assuming it doesn't harm others; I'm saying it does. If you don't try to even consider my argument, of course any reasoning I make won't make sense.
Decriminalizing drugs that don't affect non-users would make sense. I would wager that it is hard to prove that pot, coke, hallucinogens, and probably ex/MDMA affect anybody but the user, and as such, probably don't need to be illegal. Coincidentally, nearly all of these were legal at some point in the last hundred years or so.
But since it always affects someone else, if we waited for the effect to be proven before locking up the offender*, that's severely going to infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of those others in large numbers.
*All the meth users you mention are locked up, right? Right?
-
@DrakeSmith said:
But if we just left it at a crime only if they affect someone else, that's severely going to infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of those others in large numbers.
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
But since it always affects someone else,
PedandticCurmudgeon has it here: every action taken (and even ideas discussed) by anyone always affects someone somewhere. There is no way to have no effect (unless the light cones don't intersect, which is unlikely given the context of this discussion). Some people attempt to get around this by saying "adversely affect someone" but there is no objective measurement for "adverse" so that is of little help.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
There is no way to have no effect (unless the light cones don't intersect, which is unlikely given the context of this discussion).
Since some the stupid about in this area is so profound, I'd hesitate to say “light cones”. Dumb cones?
-
@OldCrow said:
In the long term, no drug-user has ever been able to hold on to a job for long
@OldCrow said:
OK, now I'm sure.Based on statistical evidence, the most effective way to cut drug-use anywhere is to make it punishable by death.
-
@dkf said:
Since some the stupid about in this area is so profound
?Parse error
(Or is it some kind of meta-thing?)
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@possible improvement said:
But since it always affects someone else, if we waited for the effect to be proven before locking up the offender*, that's severely going to infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of those others in large numbers.
Yeah, that pretty much pinpoints it better
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:*All the meth users you mention are locked up, right? Right?
Maybe a a little in the past, but no, not a one at the moment. Some are still parents, still having children. Oddly enough, they all collect some form of government assistance as well (They all get food stamps - they look at me weird when they find out I don't. Most get welfare/disability/unemployment as well). Perhaps if we legalized the less harmful drugs, there would be more room/ability to keep these offenders longer. They always come back to it though.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
?Parse error
You need to learn the modern idiom.(Or is it some kind of meta-thing?)
-
@DrakeSmith said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@possible improvement said:
But since it always affects someone else, if we waited for the effect to be proven before locking up the offender*, that's severely going to infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of those others in large numbers.
Yeah, that pretty much pinpoints it better
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:*All the meth users you mention are locked up, right? Right?
Maybe a a little in the past, but no, not a one at the moment. Some are still parents, still having children. Oddly enough, they all collect some form of government assistance as well (They all get food stamps - they look at me weird when they find out I don't. Most get welfare/disability/unemployment as well). Perhaps if we legalized the less harmful drugs, there would be more room/ability to keep these offenders longer. They always come back to it though.
So it's unacceptable to have meth be legal and just lock up users who harm others because all of the users would harm others and there would be injustice and rights violation all around. This is obviously an intolerable situation. Except that we're not only tolerating it because that is the current situation, our government is supporting the users in their lifestyle.
-
