Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Addicts are given a choice: a roof and two free meals if you're sober for a night, or the gutter. And they choose the gutter, even though they could still get high during the day if desired.

Once you delve into the psychology of a meth user, you'll see there's very little choice at all. I don't know where you live now, but I could point you in the direction of a few Indiana towns that are just fucked beyond hope because of meth. I watched it happen; took less than 5 years.

I have two dead friends on my facebook, and one on the way out. I'm not trying to pull the "personal anecdote, therefore correct" card, but it's very hard for me to see a path that would have led them to not kill themselves, just from the very existence of the drug.

As much as I agree with government not dictating what I do to myself, heroin, meth, and to a lesser degree cocaine just can't be legal to distribute. Probably not to possess, either. We can go back and forth about which nordic country has success with other methodologies, but I think people often forget that the US is not a nordic country. The people aren't the same, the culture isn't the same, the system of government isn't the same.

Unless the entire population of the US wakes up one morning and decides that our entire justice system is completely fucking bonkers- and decides to change it- legalizing those three just isn't a good idea.

So what happened in Colorado? No primary, no caucus and Lyin' Ted got all the delegates. The oligarchy is strong in this one.

"

Xavderion wrote:

So what happened in Colorado? No primary, no caucus and Lyin' Ted got all the delegates. The oligarchy is strong in this one.

It was the Colorado GOPe. They Tweeted their victory like a buncha smug, little schoolgirls, before they guiltily deleted it.

Here's a thread detailing the actual skullduggery with the Caucus ballots:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/04/10/the-republican-party-of-colorado-sends-america-a-message/

It's amazing that these idiots don't seem to realize how much sympathy this will generate in the Senate for the reb- Err, how much outrage and enthusiasm this will generate for Trump. As it is, there're a LOTTA folks switching away from the GOP to Independent. =>[.]<=

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I don't think crack or meth should be any more difficult to buy or sell than alcohol.

Widespread societal usage of addictive and debilitating drugs will ruin a nation. This isn't conjecture, it is history. I don't know if you are familiar with the adage "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" but it refers to international trade wars, and one country intentionally destroying another through the use of a heavy supply of drugs (in this case opium). The evolution of the scenario from the growing demand for tea in England to its eventual conclusion where China was essentially divided up are a microcosm of how international relations can play out.

The comparison of hard drugs with the debilitating effects of alcohol is also futile for similar historical reasons, as anyone who learned about Prohibition should know. Contrary to hard drug users, Alcohol taxes alone at one time paid for the Federal US budget. Illicit drug users (even when legalized) tend to dodge drug taxes any time they think they can get away with it. The initial boom of tax revenue will die down as more states legalize it, and won't end up being the financial panacea that legislators might imagine it to be.

Don't get me wrong, it will still bring in a big chunk of the budget, and the competition will absolutely wreck the cartels' income and market. It might be possible to come up with a less addictive and debilitating drug that can be legalized to mimic the effects of some of the harder street drugs, and thus reduce the surrounding violent crime and societal harm.

I think it will be another generation, before we have a populace and elected leaders that are ready to test those waters. Crack and Meth are far more destructive than alcohol to individuals, society and economics.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Sorry, but I really don't give a shit if more or less people do heroin or cocaine or amphetamines. Anywhere. I'm not out to save people from themselves.

Here's what does interest me: the US has over 8 times the incarceration rate and 5 times the homicide rate of the Netherlands.

I thought you weren't here to save people from themselves? Is it worse if they end up in jail for doing drugs than dying of sepsis because their teeth are rotting out and they have open wounds that let bacteria into their blood system?

Did you find what percentage of that is related to drug crimes, vs domestic violence and non drug related crimes? You are also looking at two societies that differ in many other aspects.

More importantly you have a vast difference between large populations and small populations
Netherlands ~17 million doesn't even match the ~21 million of greater New York city.

With your previous statistical analysis posts, I would think you would recognize the statistical fallacy of blindly slapping on murder rate per capita comparison for vastly different areas and deriving a causation.

That would be like saying that Weldon, North Carolina has a much bigger cartel/drug violenc problem than Detroit, Michigan because Weldon has a 312 murder rate vs Detroits 44 murder rate (per 250K population). The fact that Weldon, NC only has a population of 1655 might be a factor, when you do the math and find out that is a whopping 2 murders total.

There are a lot of other factors behind the crime rate disparities as well. That isn't to say that Netherlands doesn't have a much better rate of drug violence than the US, but statistics without underlying rationale and analysis don't prove anything.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I don't give a flying fuck if someone is living in addiction. I don't give a fuck if they OD. I start caring when an addict steals to pay for their addiction,

When a drug is so debilitating that they can't maintain a job, they won't suddenly stop needing the drug because they no longer have the money to buy it, or it is legal. They will still steal from it, and furthermore, it will end up costing everyone else far more money to deal with the medical treatment and other financial fall out. The amount stolen now will seem petty compared to what it will cost the nation later on.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

when a turf war between dealers leads to a gunfight, or when a massive black market industry all but seizes control of a national government.

You mentioned the incarceration numbers above. How many offenses can a criminal (dealer, not user) currently get away with and how quickly can they get back out on the street to deal again? We have a revolving door system. We might need bigger prisons (2-5X current capacity), but if we rounded up the dealers and kept them in prison, the incentive to deal would nearly vanish. The police really don't have any difficulty identifying dealers, it's the spineless judiciary and penal system that is the weak point.

Yes, it would be ruthless to deal with dealers this way, but under your stated "I don't care what people do to themselves philosophy" drug dealers have chosen to risk their freedom to deal drugs in order to reap the big money benefits.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You want people not to do drugs. I want people not to keep their rightful belongings, stay alive, avoid torture, and remain out of jail until they do something which interferes with the rights of others.

When people are addicted to hard drugs, they affect a lot more than just themselves. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking and does not show any pragmatism whatsoever.

Personally, I don't want to tell anyone what they can and can't use. However - I wouldn't advocate for legalizing all drugs anymore than I would advocate for getting rid of the FDA and letting anyone and everyone make and sell pharmaceuticals for the same reasons.

*If* someone thinks that should be OK too (I'm not suggesting you do - and not creating a straw man argument - this is just for the sake of the inevitable poster that will do so later in the thread)

That a person should be allowed to make/grow/distribute/sell a drug that can cause extreme harm including death for recreational purposes, but not allowed to sell it for medicinal purposes makes no sense at all. It is like saying murder for fun is ok, but killing someone to defend yourself is not ok.

Chemical/Organic drugs will be passé in 30 years anyways, with some neural implants that can be stimulated by the Oculus Reef, or whatever other mental effects you want to experience at the touch of a button.

Candy Crush Crystals will reward players with designer virtual stimulant experiences for the player's successes.

Technology will obliterate the world of recreational drugs.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

statistics without underlying rationale and analysis don't prove anything.

Yeah, but I was mostly responding to Wretch there, who was attempting to do that.

Regarding drug abusers committing crimes like theft... well, if they do, they're committing crimes. That's already illegal. There are people out there - not many, but some - with alcohol or tobacco addictions who do the same kinds of things, and we have legal recourse for them.

The main reason I don't have a problem legalizing all drugs is, unless a user (or distributor) is engaged in misbehavior which is covered by other laws, there's nothing to be bothered over. A person who can handle their high, at least as far as impact on others is concerned, isn't a social problem in need of fixing, because he doesn't impact us.

Now, the moment a situation starts to impact people other than the user, that's when those others start to consider solutions in the spirit of rational self-interest, to include "saving" the user. I hope that explains how I'm not really or to save people, and when I would start to be.

It's also a big myth to act as if more than a small minority or drug users are, in fact, abusers and addicts. That's American anti-drug propaganda for you. I've done pretty much everything at least once, some more. Only addictions: tobacco, PoE forums.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

statistics without underlying rationale and analysis don't prove anything.

Yeah, but I was mostly responding to Wretch there, who was attempting to do that.

Not really though? I was pointing out how your statement of legalizing everything was bad, you accused us of not having reasons, I gave you one.

Not a Trump fan by any stretch but that CO thing. Just wrong.

"

Xavderion wrote:

So what happened in Colorado? No primary, no caucus and Lyin' Ted got all the delegates. The oligarchy is strong in this one.

He can always go third party. If the Republican Party is so shit that everyone is jumping ship (it doesn't surprise me at all), he should be able to get the support of enough people (or not).

Read the rules of the Convention in Colorado before spouting off allegations of cheating or stealing. The rules for Colorado have been in place for a while. Trump and his campaign had an opportunity for a LONG time to understand the rules. His incompetence cost him delegates.

Does that mean their process is great? No, I think it's dumb. But it's built specifically to get politically engaged people to take part. People DID vote, not directly, but for representatives. It's part of Colorado's process. Nothing was stolen. Learn the rules.

Simply put, Trump got clowned by Cruz's campaign organization, as has been proven time and time again.

Getting tired of Trump crying "FRAUD! LIAR! CHEATER! THIEF!" every time he loses a state.