America - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

@Groundfish

Do you support criminalisation of alcohol?

Why?

 

[UKMikey]

The drug tzar there said “If you decriminalize, things get worse”. (That’s my point also btw-Seattle is my example of another failed leftist policy)

I can see a difference between saying "if you decriminalise and do nothing else ie rehabilitation, then it's bad" and "decriminalisation is bad". It seems to me the drug tzar was saying the former.

“Decriminalization is not a silver bullet,” he said. “If you decriminalize and do nothing else, things will get worse.

“The most important part was making treatment available to everybody who needed it for free. This was our first goal.”

Seems to me you need to read your own article again. There's no reason a similar approach to this wouldn't work in Seattle as far as I can see.

 

[ryzno]

I'm assuming a drug lord is a drug tzar?
The definition I got was an emperor of Russia before 1917. Can I get some help here?

Edit: seems to be a difference in spelling...

 

[UKMikey]

I'm assuming a drug lord is a drug tzar?
The definition I got was an emperor of Russia before 1917. Can I get some help here?

They're not the same. A drug lord is someone who gets rich from selling drugs. A drug tzar or czar is someone tasked by the government to run their drug control policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_czar

Drug czar is an informal name for the person who directs drug-control policies in various areas. The term follows the informal use of the term czar in U.S. politics. The 'drug czar' title first appeared in a 1982 news story by United Press International that reported that, "[United States] Senators ... voted 62–34 to establish a 'drug czar' who would have overall responsibility for U.S. drug policy."[1] Since then, several ad hoc executive positions established in both the United States and United Kingdom have subsequently been referred to in this manner.

 

[Groundfish]

Re alcohol, yes, I support it being criminalized to the extent it now is here. I’d like to see drinking age lowered to 18 tho. If you are old enough to go to war you are old enough to have a pint, imo.

 

[ryzno]

If you are old enough to go to war you are old enough to have a pint, imo.

I 1000% agree with this!

 

[Liquid]

Re alcohol, yes, I support it being criminalized to the extent it now is here.

Why not criminalised in the same manner or to the same prejudice as cocaine is or marijuana is in some places?

 

[UKMikey]

Why not criminalised in the same manner or to the same prejudice as cocaine is or marijuana is in some places?

 

[Groundfish]

Why not criminalised in the same manner or to the same prejudice as cocaine is or marijuana is in some places?

What places? What extent?
I’ve rolled many an orange zig zag up with a mix of tobacco and weed in my day.
I think I get your point tho. For me it depends on each individual substance and it’s effects.
There’s a lot of buzz surrounding hallucinogens around here lately, shrooms have been shown to have positive effects on people suffering from persistent depression for example.
Coke meth heroin pcp fentanyl etc, you could prolly guess where I stand on those.

 

[Danoff]

Just wanted to say, I love the fact that the legalization of marijuana (and some other recreational drugs) has become mainstream. This used to be a fringe libertarian thing that nobody agreed with (at least, that's how it seemed to me so many years ago). Now it's almost hard to find people in favor of locking up pot smokers... except maybe in politics.

 

[Famine]

Why not criminalised in the same manner or to the same prejudice as cocaine is or marijuana is in some places?

For that matter, why not tobacco which is a major cause of illness and a significant driver in a number of the leading causes of premature death.

And then there's caffeine, which is an absolute ****prince.

 

[Groundfish]

 

[Scaff]

What places? What extent?
There’s a lot of buzz surrounding hallucinogens around here lately, shrooms have been shown to have positive effects on people suffering from persistent depression for example.

So you support those that have medical applications...

Coke meth heroin pcp fentanyl etc, you could prolly guess where I stand on those.

...provides a list of things that have medical applications (apart from PCP, but that started as a medical application).

 

[Biggles]

How ironic, we had the same problem. Let me guess? It's Trumps fault...
I'm not saying it was Trumps order but I do recall hearing stories of smaller businesses having their supplies of masks and gloves siezed for the medical industry.
Please don't ask for a link, I'll say again, I heard...

Yes, the US had the same problem. Not Trump's fault. Nor was the initial arrival of Covid in the US, nor was the early spread. What is his fault is consistently underplaying the threat of the virus - "it will disappear" - calling it a "Democratic hoax", agitating against the need to social distance & close parts of the economy, dismissing for months the idea of wearing masts, advocating unproven treatments, & undermining his own health officials. That's what's Trumps fault. And it's part of what's responsible for the US having one of the highest infection/death rates in the world ... surpassed among large countries only by Brazil, where - guess what - the president took pretty much the same approach as Trump.

 

[Groundfish]

So you support those that have medical applications..

Nice you removed the key part of my quote when I said it depends on each “drug” and it’s effects.
You destroyed the strawman you built!
Gold star for you!
Jkin

 

[huskeR32]

You hear Trump’s unsophisticated words, I hear Trump’s honesty.

This is where your post (and similar sentiments I've seen before) lose me. Even in his "unsophisticated words," what Trump says is often an easily demonstrated lie. It's not that his words are being twisted, it's not that the media is reporting unfairly. He lies. All the time. Blatantly.

 

[Scaff]

Nice you removed the key part of my quote when I said it depends on each “drug” and it’s effects.
You destroyed the strawman you built!
Gold star for you!
Jkin

Very true, now try and draw the line between legal and legal and justify why it's at that point.

 

[UKMikey]

For that matter, why not tobacco which is a major cause of illness and a significant driver in a number of the leading causes of premature death.

And then there's caffeine, which is an absolute ****prince.

Sugar.

 

[Famine]

Sugar.

Sugar isn't really a drug*, in the sense of a narcotic. It has no known psychoactive effects, unlike the others mentioned thus far - though overconsumption of it is definitely linked to illness.


*Unless you're a homeopath.

 

[Groundfish]

Very true, now try and draw the line between legal and legal and justify why it's at that point.

That’s why in America we vote and have the freedom to decide what is illegal and what’s legal.
Anyhow I personally don’t go for the medical use only bit myself.
Shoot what about religious uses of certain hallucinogens?
I’m for that. It’s not always about any more than looking at things logically on a case by case basis and criminalizing or regulating in an agreed upon fashion.
I’m against, personally this poor idea to let people decide for themselves and do what they want...
A lot of folks could end up like this beloved American comedy icon RIP
https://allthatsinteresting.com/john-belushi-death

 

[Danoff]

That’s why in America we vote and have the freedom to decide what is illegal and what’s legal.

When was the last time you voted on whether something is legal or illegal for "America"? This was a key point made in the Electoral College thread.

Furthermore, in America, we have something known as the Bill of Rights, so no you don't (twice over). It's like you think democracy is American (not particularly) and the Bill of Rights isn't (though it is very American).

 

[TexRex]

I usually just hang out in the daily race thread. I only came here to defend a friend, who had a disagreement with you.

I'm not sure what Hillary's career as a defence lawyer has to do with this, nor am I sure calling a girl fat is the worst thing Donald Trump has said about women.

The meme also conveniently disregards Trump having chosen Alex Acosta over countless others, as Labor Secretary. The same Alex Acosta who, as US Attorney, secretly (though not secretly enough, thankfully) approved an illegal non-prosecution deal for Jeffrey Epstein over sexual conduct with underaged girls. Of course Trump also previously lightheartedly remarked on Epstein's proclivities.

This is the problem with relying on memes for information. You get only what the creator wants you to get and relevant information is left out when it doesn't support the narrative.

It appears that this is liberal controlled territory.

It's peculiar that you'd say this to @Joey D, who the guy with the Ayn Rand quote regarding individual rights in his signature conceded may actually be the more Libertarian of the two.

Though...he is liberal in the classical sense, as it pertains to liberty, just not in the pejorative sense as it's employed by the right.

Revisionist nonsense.

"STOP ERASING OUR HISTORY!"

Why don't you clean up your own backyard? Australia is no Utopia.

This would be an appeal to hypocrisy, an informal logical fallacy.

There is also no guideline for discussion on this forum that states one can't express views regarding matters that don't immediately affect them.

People use this sort of tactic when they lack the capacity or desire to engage others civilly and meaningfully. It's used as a justification for disregarding another's positions and to attempt to sway others to do the same.

Expect people to get defensive, when other people are constantly talking about how terrible their home team is.

That you're so easily triggered would suggest that you don't actually have the capacity to defend anyone. I'm not in a position to tell you what to do, but perhaps you ought to consider sticking to daily race discussions if you're so easily triggered.

Amazing how the world can look to someone who can deflect every criticism and place it on someone else.

It's likely the result of Trumpism and the associated cognitive impairment.

I'd punch him in the face.

Violent response to non-violent action. Nice.

Sounds like a cult's prayer.

"You call it suicide to drink the punch, I call it the path to enlightenment".

Re alcohol, yes, I support it being criminalized to the extent it now is here. I’d like to see drinking age lowered to 18 tho. If you are old enough to go to war you are old enough to have a pint, imo.

If you support any minimum drinking age, you don't support criminalization.

 

[Scaff]

That’s why in America we vote and have the freedom to decide what is illegal and what’s legal.
Anyhow I personally don’t go for the medical use only bit myself.
Shoot what about religious uses of certain hallucinogens?
I’m for that. It’s not always about any more than looking at things logically on a case by case basis and criminalizing or regulating in an agreed upon fashion.
I’m against, personally this poor idea to let people decide for themselves and do what they want...
A lot of folks could end up like this beloved American comedy icon RIP
https://allthatsinteresting.com/john-belushi-death

That argument makes no sense, since Belushi died when the drugs in question were illegal.

Legalising drugs makes them subject to quality control, known purity and strength, all of which reduce the chance of death not increase it.

They also remove stigma around seeking medical treatment and in those countries that have done it, actually reduce drug use. As well as reducing the need for policing and allowing more resources for treatment.

How effective has the prohibition of drugs been in doing any of these things?

 

[ryzno]

Violent response to non-violent action. Nice.

While non violent there is so much wrong with ****ing on ones table. Deserves a punch in the face to me.

 

[TexRex]

While non violent there is so much wrong with ****ing on ones table.

Agreed. Fortunately there exists legal recourse when another perpetrates such a violation. For example, I'd likely go for a gun to add teeth to the insistence that the individual vacate the premises as I instruct another to call the police in case the situation escalates. I'd then seek to press criminal charges, assuming it's appropriate to do so (I honestly don't know, as it's never occurred to me to find out what applies in such a situation, but I suspect such a violation is actually illegal), or, at bare minimum, file a civil suit against the perpetrator.

 

[Groundfish]

That argument makes no sense, since Belushi died when the drugs in question were illegal.

Legalising drugs makes them subject to quality control, known purity and strength, all of which reduce the chance of death not increase it.

They also remove stigma around seeking medical treatment and in those countries that have done it, actually reduce drug use. As well as reducing the need for policing and allowing more resources for treatment.

How effective has the prohibition of drugs been in doing any of these things?

Look at Seattle. Drug offenses not being prosecuted, homelessness and crime rates going up.
I linked Belushi to point out that people under the influence often make poor decisions like he did and die from it. Maybe with more purity he would have died faster who knows?
A few folks here pointed to Portugal as a shining star example but that examples been blown out of the water...
You have to look at it on case by case substance by substance get a prop on the ballot and vote it in.
I chose not to dignify a few posts by direct response (prop 64 Ca anyone?)
Those were absurd assertions made that laws cannot be formed or repealed by voters. It was prolly 8-9 million people in Ca that made weed legal.
Also last time I checked if I drive with BAC of higher than a certain amount, or have an open bottle of whiskey in the cup holder and a policeman catches me I’m goin to jail.
It’s not as legal as wearing a MAGA hat now is it?
Smh

 

[Scaff]

Look at Seattle. Drug offenses not being prosecuted, homelessness and crime rates going up.
I linked Belushi to point out that people under the influence often make poor decisions like he did and die from it. Maybe with more purity he would have died faster who knows?
A few folks here pointed to Portugal as a shining star example but that examples been blown out of the water...
You have to look at it on case by case substance by substance get a prop on the ballot and vote it in.
I chose not to dignify a few posts by direct response (prop 64 Ca anyone?)
Those were absurd assertions made that laws cannot be formed or repealed by voters. It was prolly 8-9 million people in Ca that made weed legal.
Also last time I checked if I drive with BAC of higher than a certain amount, or have an open bottle of whiskey in the cup holder and a policeman catches me I’m goin to jail.
It’s not as legal as wearing a MAGA hat now is it?
Smh

No the example of Portugal has not been blown out of the water at all, you’ve chosen to pretend it not valid.

Nor have you actually bothered to address any of the points I’ve made, as such your rebuttal isn’t actually anything of the sort.

In addition no one has suggested that DUI would suddenly become invalid, so not quite sure what that’s about at all.

 

[Joey D]

Those were absurd assertions made that laws cannot be formed or repealed by voters. It was prolly 8-9 million people in Ca that made weed legal.

While voters can certainly "pass" a proposition, it still needs to be signed into law. Here in Utah, we voted in favour of medical marijuana, but not even a month after the election it was drastically changed since the LDS Church got its magically underpants in a twist. So what we voted for and passed was not what ultimately became law.

I mean it's not like Nevada isn't 2 hours away though so really all Utah did was shoot itself in the foot regarding taxes.

 

[UKMikey]

Nor have you actually bothered to address any of the points I’ve made, as such your rebuttal isn’t actually anything of the sort.

It's not much of a blowing out of the water when you have to quote mine the link you provide to support your point. I suspect I'm not the only one who's still waiting to hear why Portugal's solution of providing rehab for drugs users wouldn't work in Seattle.

 

[Groundfish]

No the example of Portugal has not been blown out of the water at all, you’ve chosen to pretend it not valid.

Nor have you actually bothered to address any of the points I’ve made, as such your rebuttal isn’t actually anything of the sort.

In addition no one has suggested that DUI would suddenly become invalid, so not quite sure what that’s about at all

Heroin is illegal in Portugal, as per my article previously linked.
It’s not legal hence has not been decriminalized.
FWIW Portugal’s practice is almost the same as that of the American city st the end of the Seattle is dying video I previously linked that so many here haven’t bothered to look at.
I previously said that was my favorite part of the video. But a bunch of posters responded with gotchas that contradicted actual fact.
It’s illegal to drink and drive, so that is what it is.
A lot of times people are conflating the meaning of terms with “how they think about it in their heads”. I haven’t seen that from you, but many here do that with almost every posting, just trying to help them think a bit more clearly.
For the record I support what the city at the end of the Seattle is dying video does and I support Portugal’s actions. In both instances the drugs in question like heroin are illegal.

While voters can certainly "pass" a proposition, it still needs to be signed into law

Yes.