Drugs, should we be decriminalizing them?

[@Truthseeker-wq1bw]

Laws against murder, rape, and assault only serve to protect citizens. A rapist or murderer on the loose is obviously a problem, because these traits cause them to be a danger to others. A non-jailed drug user, on the other hand, costs tax payers and society as a whole nothing. Meanwhile every arrested drug user has their food, showers, and an entire guard and medical staff paid for by taxpayer money. All of these people could have gotten jobs and contributed to the economy in order to help fund their addiction, but instead we put them in a concrete box and the workers pay for them.

[@sempersuffragium9951]

Most murderers never reoffend. Mostly they are crimes of passion, that would never happen again. Should we release all of them?

[@TheDiscourseCollective]

I'd agree that jailing someone solely for chemicals that they choose to put into their body is not the correct way to govern a society. However once someone robs or hurts another person, regardless of their addiction status, then that needs to be rethought. Thanks for taking the time to comment 👍

[@TheDiscourseCollective]

If we can find a way of, with 100% accuracy, telling the difference between those that will or won't reoffend then yes they should be released. The French did have, until about 30 years ago, a "Crime Passionnel" for these types of Crime. Does a fair society jail someone for 30 years for a momentary lack of judgement, if they still pose no threat? Why should that then cost the tax payer millions? That's a lose/lose situation right?

[@sempersuffragium9951]

I do think every drug should be aproached in a way most apropriate for the particular drug, but I must say the claim (asserted without a backing statistic, mind you) at the end of the video, that decriminilising drugs does not lead to more consumption is rather unfounded. The use of cannabis has doubled since the times of the war on drugs, and I do feel it might have at least something to do with the growing acceptance, legality and popularity of it. I think, that in some 50 years we might see cannabis going the way of tobacco, once humanity realises its mistake in legalising it.

[@TheDiscourseCollective]

Some drugs, such as cannabis, may increase; see www.cato.org/policy-analysis/effect-state-marijuana-legalizations-2021-update#marijuana-other-substance-use and transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight. However, as noted in the reports, this may be partly due to a reporting bias. Other drugs, such as cocaine and Heroin, do actually fall. Overall Portugal remains a beacon of light over other EU countries in regards to best outcome of drug use. People will use drugs, please let's focus on minimising harm.

[@sempersuffragium9951]

Also I might add that in the past religious law was very much law. Islam prohibiting drugs was every bit as severe as an islamic ruler prohibiting drugs. And to use the example of the american government in this case is hardly representative. Nearly every country on earth has had prohibitions on drugs and you can't seriously say that all of them just followed american examples. You could claim that each individual country abused this trick to oppress its citizens, but you haven't demonstrated that. I'd say it takes at least three to prove a trend. At least.

[@TheDiscourseCollective]

Do you mean my use of America in the recent 'war on drugs'? I agree, it not representative, but I think I've presented reasonable historical fact? The west, and parts of South America, followed the US lead on drugs from the 1960s onwards. America 'set the path' so to speak. I would say that the US, the UK and much of the middle east (in Asia places like Thailand) have utterly ignored data and allowed their drug policy to cause widespread harm. You don't think that's a trend? To avoid misunderstanding on tone (as often happens with the internet) I'm hugely grateful that you're taking the time to help me clarify my thinking and improve the presentation of my arguments :-)

[@sempersuffragium9951]

@@TheDiscourseCollective Firstly, I cencerely appretiate the good faith in which you conduct these discussions - both in videos and in the comments. So in regards to the tone, I hope that, whenever I make an ambiguous comment, you will also read it as an honest attempt at bettering my own possition. That being said, I did sense a kind of cynicism in your voice - to the effect of: "any government that ever regulated the use of drugs with a heavy hand was doing it to oppress people." That's how it sounded to me, anyway, but feel free to clarify. I, for one, do believe that, initially all such governments believed they were lowering the use of drugs, even if some had other motives as well. And as for now - I'm not sure it is safe to say that the heavy-handed approach has failed, but rather that it needs be modified. I believe, that drug addicts should be treated as criminals, given short (but longer each time) prison sentences and then properly rehabilitated. You might say, that drug addiction is less a crime, and more a health problem, but so are many crimes - there are no healthy school-shooters, many violent crimes, like the knife crimes in the UK, are motivated by some forms of mental problems. And yet we treat them as crimes - as well we should. I think in general our justice system should do more to try to rehabilitate, but that doesn't mean abandoning the punishment side of things, and it certainly doesn't mean canceling the stigma associated. Take for example kiddophiles (I know that's not the word, but the bots don't like the proper word). What, save for punishment and shame is to stop one from acting on his inherent desires. Now, you could say, that that's different, because drug use is a victimless crime. But I'd argue, that there is nothing more dangerous to a community than a drug addict. And unlike the kiddophiles, who cannot help their desires, every single addict (nearly every single one) has brought this onto himself, and chose, for his own perverted pleasure, to put in danger all those people, whom he would later come to rob or kill or rap€ or turn them to drugs. Woah, ok, bit of a digression, but my point is: I) No, the governments did not declare war on drugs primarily to oppress it's people (again USA excluded, and the other countries probably didn't just blindly copy US policy - it seems to me to widespread a phenomenon to all be just a copy-paste of the US) II)Yes, the evidence should have been taken into consideration sooner III)I do not think, that following the evidence necessarily leads to where you indicate it does

[@TheDiscourseCollective]

"Perhaps we can find a shortcut here. Would you agree on the following? Major Premise: People will take drugs regardless of if they are illegal or not. Minor Premise: When people take drugs the best outcomes are reached by supporting them, not criminalising them. Conclusion: Supporting drug users offers the best outcomes. However, I'd also like to pursue the following questions, if you've got time. "that there is nothing more dangerous to a community than a drug addict" - Why is that? What if their drug use was destigmatised? If they could get their drug of choice for free while also receiving support for trauma or issues they have. Do you think that would help? "for his own perverted pleasure, to put in danger all those people, whom he would later come to rob or kill or rap€ or turn them to drugs." I'm not sure all drug users rob or kill or rape. Additionally, it's a little unfair to say that kiddychasers bear no responsibilities (cannot help it) while drug users are making a choice. Nobody grows up thinking "Yay, I'm going to be a homeless drug addict when I'm older". I'd argue that both are victims of broken psychology and both need help.

[@sempersuffragium9951]

@@TheDiscourseCollective Well I'm sorry, but I do take issue with both premises; Terminus Maior: 1. Data on weed clearly shows, that when legalised it's consumption increases. Maybe that's not so much the case for the other drugs, but I think the greater contributing factor is destigmatisation, which is more pronounced with weed than other drugs. So it could well be, that Portugal and such places are going to start showing more users in the coming decades. I'd also point out tobacco. As the law has clearly set itself in opposition to tobacco in various ways, it's consumption has halved. If the law takes a more favorable approach to drugs, the reverse might happen. Terminus Minor: Most crimes committed, are not a product of some deeply embedded evil, but rather of a psychological problem. The whole justice system ought to be reformed to take that into account, but that doesn't mean, that punishments are not a pertinent tool for dealing with crimes of all sorts. Could we agree on this, simpler, syllogism: Terminus Maior: Taking drugs is bad Terminus Minor: Having less negative incentives for not doing something bad, usually results in more people doing that, than if there were more negative incentives. Conclusio: Removing negative incentives (i.e. criminal prosecution (but also stigma)) for drug related offenses will likely lead to higher number of users. 2. I cannot conceive of any category of person more likely to bring harm to a community, than a drug addict. Because they are often in a state of poor or no control of their actions, they have very good incentives to steel and they tend to be quite unhealthy. Would destigmatising help? It would alleviate the immediate problem - the poor hygiene, the overdoses, the crime... (although I would mention, that this sound very expensive). But I do not think it would solve the long term problem. What would stop such a person from getting back into drugs? Hell, what would make him want to quit in the first place? You'd be providing the person with free drugs - he wouldn't quit when he was out on the street risking death if he didn't pay his dealer. Why would he want to quit. The problem with many progressive policies like this, is that they seek to alleviate the bad conditions, rather than help people escape them. Because most drug addicts don't have very bright futures in front of them anyway. They'll likely be stuck in some min. wage job, no family, no friends (at least for a while - which is the most dangerous time to relapse). There needs to be a very good reason to prefer such a life over one of drugs. 3. When a drug addict is put in a situation of choice between no drugs and theft, he will steel. The only drug addicts who do not steel are the one's who do not have to. And if a robbery goes wrong they kill to. As for the third thing... it's important to realise, that rap€ing is natural to animals, humans included. (I know this is not a popular point to express, but it is an accurate observation of reality. This does not make it any more right or excusable. In fact all morality exists in opposition to our natural urges). And what keeps us from doing that is a societally imposed moral compass, which works by the means of incentives - the main one being shame. And when you have lived on the street for a long time, seeking nothing but instant pleasure, you become pretty immune to shame and the chances of such incidents increase. I'm not saying that all drug users do that, just that the incentives shift radically. If you live in normal society you have everything to lose from ever rap€ing anyone, so we socialise ourselves not to do that. As a drug addict you have nothing to loose. 4.I never meant to say, that kiddychasers don't bear responsibilities. They are just as accountable as someone who is doing something under the influence (I know the law treats being under the influence as a mitigating circumstance, but I find that ridiculous). But the addict is not born with the urge. He takes an additional step and tries the drug for the first time. And believe me I have had my share of peer pressure, I know what that's like, but it is possible to stay strong despite it and failing to do so is a moral failure. Let me be very clear: kiddychasers are NOT just victims of their desires - they excercise moral judgment under difficult circumstances, and when tey judge wrong it is deserving of our strictest condemnation. All I'm saying is that if we are to hold them to such a standard (which we absolutely should), then we should be even more certain to hold drug addicts to the same standard. 5. ''Nobody grows up thinking "Yay, I'm going to be a homeless drug addict when I'm older" '' - indeed, but they should. Too many people think, that using drugs won't have any lasting effects on them; ''its just a bit of craic'' they say unironically. 6. I cannot imagine a kiddychaser without a broken psychology. And there definitely are drug users, who also suffer from it (e.g. Stephen Fry for a long time). But there also are many of them, who just try it for fun, and do it ''recreationally'', as if that's a thing, and end up getting addicted. And in my generation at least, such people are everywhere.