Here in Canada the government has decided to decriminalize fentanyl and all other hard drugs. Up to 2.5 grams.
It's like saying McDonald's would sell more burgers if they were illegal. It doesn't make sense that a product would become less popular with legalization. If that were the case alcohol bootleggers wouldn't have aspired to make their products legal back during prohibition.
The only reason they say decriminalization leads to lower drug usage rates is because of portugal. The thing is, most of their statistics came from arrests, so naturally if you're no longer arresting drug users you're no longer compiling those statistics.
They just legalized 2.5 grams of fentanyl in British Columbia Canada. That's roughly 14,000 individual doses if the fentanyl is pure. That has nothing to do with protecting the end user. They are protecting the distributors with that kind of threshold.
The issue with fentanyl related death has nothing to do with safe access to the substance . The more pure it is the more dangerous it is. The risk is inherent to the substance itself. Proponents of decriminalization will often cite cocaine as an example of how decriminalization will increase its purity and thus render it safer by eliminating impurities, so how does that logic apply to fentanyl? More potent fentanyl? Therefore more dangerous fentanyl?
Doesn't anybody else find it strange that China is basically exporting this stuff as a biological weapon, and our own government is essentially offering protection to domestic distributors? At what point do these actions become a form of treachery? They're colluding directly with China to worsen things.
" Go ahead and ship this stuff to us China. We'll make it legal for dealers to carry it around with them on the streets and also provide legal areas where people can use the drugs in public".....
Of course it doesn't initially. But it is eugenic.
But longer term if there is no safety net of society people are more careful. Right now people live in a state of thinking it can't get that bad even if they intentionally make bad decision after decision. They think there is a floor because society has one. When there is no floor everyone realizes the only safety they have is to put their life's trajectory upward instead of downward.
[ - ] autotic 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:39:29 ago (+1/-0)
I believe in economics this is very nearly adjacent to the term "moral hazard". Actor increases risk because their exposure to downside has been reduced by shifting consquences to others.
No safety net requires a competent and educated population. It doesn't work when you have a weaponized culture (media) that intentionally tries to influence people into acting against their best interests. The sheep are easily brainwashed and are at peak levels of retardation right now and even though they're retarded sheep, they are still our sheep. You should consider the possibility that the qualities you're describing only exist as a small portion of the population. The vast majority of people are essentially sheep by defacto. It's genetically ingrained in them. Not everybody has the capacity to be smart and think for themselves. This is why we need safety nets. That doesn't mean we throw free money at people either. I'm just saying we need systems that protect the sheep. Historically speaking, the sheep were to be protected because they are a resource. They are human capitol. That's why we're supposed to protect the sheep as best as possible. They are a valuable resource.
if you're no longer arresting __________ you're no longer compiling those statistics
True for so many issues.
At this point, I feel as though any politician introducing a bill should be forced to personally undergo whatever it is they're pushing.
Want to decriminalize fentanyl? Fine. Here's 2.5 grams; have at it.
Prostitution? Meet Iceberg; he'll be your pimp for the next month.
Open borders? Say hello to the 20 Haitians who'll now be sharing your residence, personal belongings, and bank account (not to mention wife and daughters.)
Doesn't anybody else find it strange that China is basically exporting this stuff as a biological weapon, and our own government is essentially offering protection to domestic distributors?
No. This is your country on kikes. Politicians are getting paid off by druglords, chinese and otherwise.
The drug war could be solved TOMORROW. Start executing people or giving them life sentences for minor possession. Everybody but the most retarded psychos will stop using drugs. PDQ.
Execute drug importers and consider it an act of war ofn behalf of the source countries. Life in jail for individuals caught with more than 3 individual doses on them. That would probably be effective.
As long as you go easy on the users, drug use will continue. A few examples of naive kids getting 15 years for a joint will end 99% of drug use. Its a smal price to pay. The current price is much heftier. Draconian sentencing is the only solution.
We live with drug addiction — its everywhere. We all know someone. I sure as hell do. Imagine all those problems dissappearing. The government WANTS drug use. We can solve it in a day.
A few examples of naive kids getting 15 years for a joint will end 99% of drug use.
Best part is, you don't have to fuckup some kids lives, you can just pass the law and fake throwing some kids in jail for drug use. You give it enough media coverage, and make sure the story is air tight, and you get the same results as if you have actually thrown some kids in prison.
I believe it likely does for "softer" drugs and for drugs which are produced in small batches in a non-industrialized setting. For instace, small pot growers and low-volume natural psychedelics. As long as things are relatively boutique and non-industrialized you don't end up with the potential profits and volume to really cause problems and in some cases it might even be a bit beneficial to some individuals and thus to the community.
The problem with the legalization pushes is the above is not at all the context in which legalization is happening. Even in the case of pot it is now heavily industrialized, the potency has been cranked to the roof, and the profit margins are huge for mass-scale growers.
In many ways the current production of "soft" drugs is being funded directly or indirectly by the same psycopathic lizards who created the opiate epidemics, first with oxy and now with fentanyl, and for the same genocidal reasons.
As with many things, centralization, even if it started with good intentions, ends up attracting satanic actors which turn even a benign or beneficial org to their own evil desires.
In better times I would say let the low-volume soft drug peddlers do their thing. In these times, I'm ok with public hanging of drug dealers and beheading of pharma execs.
Even in the case of pot it is now heavily industrialized, the potency has been cranked to the roof, and the profit margins are huge for mass-scale growers.
Well in fact only mass growers and illegal growers can compete in the market. So you've got both, but a lot of people who thought they were going to run a boutique marijuana farm have been disappointed.
Do you actually believe that the government should be able to dictate what you may, or may not, do with your own body? Do you believe they should be able to lock you in a cage, for years or even decades, if you dare to do something with your body that displeases them? As well as those who enabled you to do something you wanted, but which was deemed forbidden?
Do you apply the same principle to vaccines, medications, procedures, food, drinks, entertainment, exercise, etc? All of these things, one could argue, can be "harmful to society" if not done correctly, at the right time, in the right order, and the right amounts. So shall we let "the experts" decide how they must be done, and monitor everyone to ensure they comply?
Would you enjoy living in a such society, where your every action is mandated, and every choice other than "the right choice" is prohibited "for the greater good"?
Drugs are a terrible thing and succumbing to them is stupid. But so is wanting the government to be in charge of deciding what is or isn't good for you, and punishing any deviation from that imagined ideal behavior.
Justice is punishing those who deliberately force harm onto others. There must be a victim, who was robbed of their agency or otherwise harmed against their will. Any laws that reach beyond this are not justice; they are tyranny.
There is nothing good or noble in forcing your own "smart" choices onto everyone else.
Why is sugar considered a drug? Drug-like effects. The research scientists claim that sugar alters mood and can induce reward and pleasure, in the same way drugs such as cocaine affect the brain. They cite studies in rats where sugar was preferred to cocaine, and studies in mice where the mice experienced sugar withdrawal symptoms.
The 'sugar high' is a classic effect. It's true that government policy excludes sugar from classification as a 'drug', but it effectively is in its pure state.
Its a nutrient because without it we cannot live. There is no human life without sugar. If we outlawed it we are outlawing most of our food supply. Cocaine, opioids, weed, alcohol — all hijack our neurological systems that evolved to feel natural highs when we did something that was good for us. There is (almost ) no use for these drugs except to biologically hijack our fellow humans to do our bidding. The only purpose of these drugs is social parasitism. Social parasitism is real and it happens in many different species including humans. Im not being figurative or metaphorical. If you want a nice society you have to eliminate it.
Sugar can be used to addict people and hijack their neurology but in the correct quantities it is an essential nutrient. It cant be outlawed.
People do not choose to be addicted just like other animals do not choose to be parasitized.
Entire civilizations crumble because of silly notions like you ad absurdum definition of liberty. Liberty exists in the context of a set of rules that strengthen society. The amish are free within a set of strict rules. They are not enslaved to a tyranny.
Do you actually believe that the government should be able to dictate what you may, or may not, do with your own body? Do you believe they should be able to lock you in a cage, for years or even decades, if you dare to do something with your body that displeases them?
Yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
In a cooperative society everyone must contribute to the productivity of the group by producing wealth or rearing children or caring for other members of the group. Go smoke pot in zimbabwe. Drug addicts are a liability. Its pure inefficiency. This is why we cant have nice things. Drug addicts are selfish pleasure chasers, not workers. Drug dealers are parasites. Drug addiction zombifies individuals to serve drug dealers, not society. Its biological slavery. Drug use destroys productivity. Our “freedom” is built on productivity and that is built on conformity to rules. Only niggers do whatever they want. If theres no penalty for behavior that reduces a society’s prosperity that society is on borrowed time.
You think liberty is some inalienable right that can be practice ad infinitem without any trade offs or consequences. This is the major retardation of all lolberts. Your behavior disincentivizes cooperativity. It is not a victimless crime. We are all victims of its economic fallout.
If theres no penalty for behavior that reduces a society’s prosperity that society is on borrowed time.
No penalties beyond inherent penalties should ever be applied to victimless crimes (and actual victims, not over-reasoned arguments that I’m somehow an indirect victim of some junkie shooting up). If you take drugs you will be less productive, if you are less productive you will earn less money, if you earn less money you will have a lower standard of living. That is the only penalty that should exist for drug use. You seem to think that if big daddy government isn’t waiting in the background to cane anybody that steps out of line then everybody, or even significant numbers, will be “selfish pleasure chasers” but there is no evidence to support this. The 4th commandment of economic theory is that people respond to incentives. There are plenty of incentives not to become a junky whether drugs are legal or illegal, and the overwhelming majority will respond to those incentives. There are already more than enough carrots, there is no need for any sticks.
Drug dealers are parasites.
Does that apply to barmen too, or is it only parasitic to deal drugs that the government have said you shouldn’t deal?
No. Bartenders, pub owners, liquor store keeper are living parasitically. Dunkin donuts and Starbucks. Casinos. Pornographers. They use biologically addictive substances/ behaviors to live off of others while creating no wealth and contributung nothing to society. Is misallocated labor and addiction interferes with productive behavior. Addiction is a weakness of the human body that allows some to live off it parasitically. Maybe TV and videogames fall into this category as well. People are enslaved by pleasure as well as tyranny.
They’re providing products which the market demands, same as drug dealers. And I would far rather maintain the free choice to fall into enslavement to my own pleasure than to fall into the enslavement of someone who feels they can dictate to me what pleasure I may experience. And the market allocates labour, usually with pretty strong efficiency. And again, I would have more trust in the market’s ability to allocate labour resources efficiently than I would some centralist who feels they can best predict the correct allocation of labour to maximise productive capacity, particularly when that centralist seems also intent on centralising the productive choices of an economy. You know that centralisation stuff has been tried with some pretty notable consequences before I trust?
Lol. How are you lolberts still around making these retarded arguments? Jews don't respond to demand, they create it, dumbass. They create products and then use Bernaysian psychology to get you to think you want it and buy it. Libertarianism isn't true. It's just ideas people made up with no real world backing.
How do green faggots maintain this bullshit about reducing population and minimizing carbon footprints while they drink coffee and wine and smoke pot all day? All superfluous behaviors that are purely pleasure seeking with major environmental impacts. Why should we be cultivating land for addictive substance use if the environment is our #1 priority?
Fair enough argument, but I don’t really accept any of the environmentalists’ arguments so a straw man when used against what I’ve said. But for weed at least there actually are some decent environmentalist arguments to be made in favour of its cultivation. You can make paper from cannabis plants, and the stuff grows like, well a weed funny enough. That seems to make more sense than cutting down trees just so we have something to wipe our arses with. Coca leaves also grow like wild weed in large swathes of South America so arguably that is the most efficient thing to be grown in certain regions. Afghanistan isn’t exactly prime land but can produce poppies like nobody else - again this is perhaps the most efficient use of that land (and we need opiates for medicine anyway so it’s not like it’s a practice that could just die even if all the junkies did).
But still, most importantly, the market wants weed, coke and smack, so anyone who can meet that market demand is doing something right, and if they make a nice profit doing so then they’re doing plenty right.
Im a climate change skeptic, or rather, I think AGW is a scam. But Im moderately pro-environment. We should live efficiently with as low impact a lifestyle as is reasonably possible (reasonably being a subjective can Im kicking down the road today) But my point is that fanatic greeniacs are hypocrites if they uses any of those drugs and they usually use all off them.
Impugn them for drinking coffee and tea, when you corner one. Theyre destroying the rainforest for their selfish pleasure. Im going to lay down in front of theyre car at starbucks.
No penalties beyond inherent penalties should ever be applied to victimless crimes
Not a victimless crime. Its not over-reasoned to say that everyone in the country pays when someone becomes a useless junkie. Its not a victimless crime when the Sacklers or the US government become powerful from the cash they make off drug slaves. You cant just wave that away. Every single addict has a price tagand we all pay for every single one. Just because its big numbers and its difficult to calculate is precisely because of indirect consequences doesnt mean we arent getting fucked in real terms.
White live in cooperative societies in which negative consequences to individuals are absorbed largely by the society. This only works if we agree to strict codes of behavior that minimize harm to the community. More productive societies are more cooperative and have stricter morals. This is why northern europe is more morally uptight than southern europe, and also more productive.
Most shithole societies are laid back about drugs and other vices because they are less cooperative and more dog-eat-dog
If you take drugs you will be less productive, if you are less productive you will earn less money,
If you sell drugs you will be rich. South americans are always trying to do this. So are Afghans and Cambodians etc. Its a great get rich quick scheme that kills countries. But who cares if youre a drug lord.
Personally I think the US government invaded Afghanistan to sell dope.
The same arguments you’re making about junkies can be made against fat fucks or even just lazy people who could potentially work harder or exercise more. Fat people and lazy people are less productive than their slender and active counterparts, so why shouldn’t the state (who you seem to trust to a pretty unrealistic level incidentally) not be throwing those kinds of people into cages too in an effort to achieve your golden goal of maximised productivity? And look at what’s happened productivity over the past century - has that grown exponentially due to people working harder and being more productive? Of course not, productivity has reached levels where we can easily produce multiples of what every person on earth needs and most of what they want through innovation, not through increased productivity of individuals. And who has been responsible for those innovations? People who responded to the generous incentives the market offered to those who could innovate - no stick needed to keep them off the junk, no big daddy government keeping on eye on them to make sure they didn’t slack, just people responding to incentives.
Where did you get the idea that Northern Europe is more morally uptight than Southern Europe? You never been to the Netherlands? And you compare them to the devoutly Catholic Spaniards and Italians and decided the whoring and drugging of the low lands, and the slightly noticeable penchant for getting as drunk as a newt of the British, Irish and Nordics and decided the southerns are the degenerate ones?
If you sell anything which the market demands you will be rich. People want drugs, maybe they shouldn’t but they do. People want cars too, and nice food, and fashionable clothes. And the people who successfully and efficiently meet those demands become rich. And those below the capital who specialise in trades to produce the products to meet those demands also become rich. Embracing that fact is what makes countries rich and successful, some Scottish bloke wrote a couple of books about it 250 years ago and he hasn’t been proven wrong yet.
so why shouldn’t the state (who you seem to trust to a pretty unrealistic level incidentally
NOt this state. Not anything but a white run state, and then, only a state with very limited powers.
not be throwing those kinds of people into cages too in an effort to achieve your golden goal of maximised productivity?
Not cages. But I think we should pobably send the real fatties to a fat colony for rehab. Maybe we could create concentration camps for fags and fatties and drug users.
And maybe we should prevent them from reproducing.
Most americans have zero productivity including alot of the ones with jobs. Most jobs are fake and create no wealth. The typical amish man is more productive than the typical normie. As productivity has increased, so has vice and exploitation. Useless eaters and exploiters have outpaced productive people.
You never been to the Netherlands? And you compare them to the devoutly Catholic Spaniards and Italians
I do. Religiosity is not the same as economically conservative morals. Northern europeans are less libidinous and less corrupt. They are less violent, less partying, less thieving. They are more monogamous and more productive. This has led to paradoxically lax vice laws, because the average dutchman exerts more self control than the average italian. But historically this has not been the case. All the strictest moral regimes such as the puritans and the anabaptist movement come from northen europe.
Really its more the germanic countries but Poland and Ireland and France are not as bad as portugal and albania, cmon. All the swarthies love to party and fuck and dance and eat. Tons of italians around here. Theyre aggressive. They caused a major crime wave before the niggers and spics showed up. Theyre always hitting on you. They have nice yards tho. If you like fountains.
Lots of people want that kind of liberty. Why should the “experts” decide whats right for them? The greeks fucked kids. Muslims fuck kids. The Thais fuck kids.
endowed by my Creator are Life,
But you werent. Thats a made up story. We are animals. This is evolution. Everything has trade offs.
Allowing drug dealers to sell as much addicting drugs as possible will destroy any country. It will destroy every country. High principles only exist in the context of economic prosperity and stability. Those principles mena nothing in africa where everyon is killing each other just to stay alive.
Thomas Jefferson lived off slavery. Is there any truth that is self evident about that? So what did he actually care for liberty and the pursuit of happiness? He meant liberty of a wealthy american elite not to pay taxes to the crown.
(For humans, but most people today are a vast herd of cattle who blindly accept their servitude and societal construct. They and it need to be wiped from the face of the earth.)
No, because that creates a victim. Victimless crimes can never be reasonably compared to crimes that create victims. You should have the liberty to do whatsoever you choose until you use your liberty to impact the liberty of someone else, that’s the point at which the societal collective needs to intervene, but never before.
Who says it creates a victim? Its just job training for when they grow up and become gay prostitutes. The market wants gay prostitutes. Why prevent children from working at all? What a silly notion. Prolly from “centralization”. If kids want to work in a factory instead if go to school let them. Dont try to allocate the labour of kids, man!
Children don’t have agency in the same way adults do. This should be obvious. And I am not arguing that children should be treated as though they have the same agency as adults. But surely you realise most of what you propose here is to treat adults as though they have as little agency as children? If you want to be infantilised and mothered by the state I’m sure there’s some statutory body or another that could oblige, maybe you could apply to become a ward of the court. But your desire to be mothered should not extend to restricting the liberty of those who desire only to be left alone by the state.
Blumen4alles and @Joe_mcCarthy want the right to fuck 13 year olds. Greeks would fuck them younger. Romans could fuck anyone who was their slave. These were white people. They thought they had reason enough to make it a liberty. Ask an ancient Roman why it should be legal to fuck a kid. They will give me an answer like yours. Dont impose your restrictions on me! Liberty. My rights as a citizen.
If necessity is your rubric for what should and shouldnt be allowed then say bye-by to drugs and alcohol. You dont need them, you are better without them.
Restricting kiddie fucking, gay sex, drug use, gambling, prostitution, usury, welfare— all comes from the same place. They all harm the prosperity of the entire society. You cannot prove that molesting kids harms them — you just theorize that it will impact their ability to be a future productive member of society. Same with drugs.
Some retard here will try to accuse me of being pro-pedo here so I have to say the obligatory “I dont support pedo”. Im trying to make a point. The morals that make pedophilia taboo come from the same place as the morals that make drug use taboo.
The problem is not moral restrictions. The problem is corrupt tyrants using law to benefit themselves. We all need laws and those laws come from morals. All laws must be based on morals and they should prevent one group from exploiting another to gain power. Thats what happens with drugs, and socialist governments and prostitution and usury.
A bunch of old fuddy-duddies used to say usury and market speculation was evil, and everybody laughed and lauhed and said “victimless crime” .
Free people would have no restrictions on their 'interactions' with pedophiles. 13 isn't pedo territory, but it's still too young by years.
My rights as a citizen.
My belief in countries and 'societies' is at its lowest point ever. At least with the current kind of humans who exist, countries are little more than human ranches, operated for profit by their owners.
The problem is corrupt tyrants using law to benefit themselves.
The problem is the reason they're able to do that in the first place.
Personally, I have nothing against accommodating that by rounding up everyone who thinks like you and having you slave away in work colonies. Producing goods and services, day in and day out, for as long as you last. For the betterment of society, of course. You can even be made to build the colonies yourselves. And then dig your own graves.
That way everyone wins: You'll get your dream of being told what to, every second of every day, in an environment where everyone always meets maximum efficiency, and is severely punished when they don't. And the rest of us can live free from you and the effects of your madness.
Their intention is to make this epidemic worse by “legalizing” highly addictive drugs. Anyone arguing otherwise, have never dealt with opioids first hand.
Imagine you have a rose garden, and this rose garden you had some parasitic ugly rotten plants.
Imagine....having to care for the garden...and choosing to give all the sunlight, all the efforts, all the water, all the nutrients...to the rotten plants!
I understand the underlying reasoning, but I don't agree with it. I don't think it effectively destigmatizes anything. Opiate addiction has been at endemic levels for decades now. It's a common thing. People have been exposed to it for long enough. Addiction will always be perceived as a form of weakness no matter what, and so you can only destigmatize it to a certain extent.
If anything decriminalization will result in ease of access to the general public. You'll simply have more fentanyl in circulation with basically no risk premium attached to procuring it. It will be cheaper and more potent and more abundant. More people will use it because more people will have easier access to it. It'll also be cheaper due to the reduced risk premium so drug users will be able to consume more of the substance due to the lower cost barrier. More people will use fentanyl and therefore more people will die from fentanyl. There's a direct correlation between the amount of people using fentanyl and the amount of people dying from fentanyl.
Even if decriminalization did benefit existing fentanyl users, that benefit would be drastically outweighed by the harm caused to non pre-existing fentanyl users.
53% of Americans get up and take drugs every morning. Another 25% take that same drug on an occasional basis. Caffeine is just one of the heavily used drugs that many think is 'okay'. Only a very tiny percent of Americans aren't using some drug.
I've heard it before. It's not the main argument for decriminalization but it's common enough. I've heard portugal and I've also heard that in Amsterdam when they decriminalized weed a long time ago it changed the culture around it and after a while it became less prevelant for teenagers because it went from being an edgy taboo thing to more of a lame touristy thing.
Not vouching for the truth in either of those just saying I've heard the arguments.
I'm not saying people aren't claiming it happened. I am saying I have never heard anyone make the argument that it would lead to a reduction or that it was the point of decriminalization or legalization.
Huh? Claiming it happened and will happen in other places is the argument we're taking about and is a common enough point people bring up. Is your point that this is new information for you? I'm just confused because the way you said it sounds like you are disagreeing. I was just letting you know that I have heard that argument made plenty of times, that it's not just OPs idea.
Look how ridiculous their obviously flawed logic is.
" We can make drug use a social or health issue, not a criminal one. We can also limit the harmful effects of drug use by increasing access to a regulated supply of currently illegal drugs, which would help limit the toxic drugs in circulation and prevent overdoses."
The vast majority of overdoses are resulting from fentanyl use. How would a "regulated" supply of cleaner, more pure and more potent fentanyl reduce overdoses? It will have the adverse effect. More people will die, not less.
I don't understand how they can claim that access to cleaner and more potent drugs is "safer" though. How will access to more potent forms of fentanyl reduce the amount of people overdosing from fentanyl? Keeping in mind that the entire motivation behind decriminalization was the vast surge in fentanyl related deaths. Basically their solution to people dying from fentanyl is to give them access to more potent forms of it.
Not to mention how the cost of fentanyl will decrease along with the risk premium associated with transporting and selling it. All they've done is create the conditions to give users access to cheaper and more potent fentanyl.
Their solution to people dying from fentanyl is to give them more fentanyl that is more powerful lol.
That's a pretty effective solution. Only the marginal ingest toxic drugs that fuck you up, or kill you. The faster they die, the less collateral damage they do to the rest of us.
They're colluding directly with China to worsen things.
Seems more like a plan to let the lower tiers eliminate themselves, for a potential net increase in our overall quality level. Or rather, a slight decrease in our rate of fall. As a population reduction method, it's too slight to have much effect at all.
What decriminalization actually does is massively reduce the profitability of illegal drugs. An example is marijuana in California. Illegal marijuana averaged $4800 - $6000 per pound, wholesale. After legalization, you can get pounds of marijuana for as low as $750 - $1200. Reports are saying most big growers are having to sell on the black market (no tax) just to break even.
[ - ] Immovable [op] 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:05:42 ago (+1/-0)
In Canada the black market for pot is still thriving. Literally 1/3 the price and double or triple the quality. They'll also deliver and front you some if you're broke unlike the dispensary. You can also see what you're getting before you buy and return it if you're unhappy. The legal market can't compete.
It's no different than black market cigarettes that are produced on the native reserves here. Legal tobacco has not had a negative effect on the black market tobacco trade. People will always seek the cheapest of any product, and due the taxes and regulations people will always find these products cheapest on the black market.
The only thing legalizing pot has accomplished here in Canada is a reduction in price. Black market pot is a lot cheaper now. It simply made pot cheaper and more accessible to everybody. It didn't eliminate the black market at all. It just made the illegal producers have to cut their prices. There's still massive profits to be had though. If the government makes it too cheap then there won't be a legal market for it because it won't be profitable. If the government drives the price down too much it will collapse their own business model. The only thing the black market producers have to do is undercut legal prices by a small margin. Basically what I'm saying is that if it's profitable for the government to grow and sell than it will also be profitable for black market producers to grow it too.
It doesn't. What decriminalization is supposed to do is stop the jails from filling up with casual users so the cops can arrest people who are dealing drugs but it never works that way. What fucks this idea up is police departments have to generate revenue and they get money from the Federal government from drug arrests, asset-forfeiture-seizure (police departments can keep 80% of the shit they steal from people), putting people in private prisons, etc. The city and police departments claim they have implemented decriminalization policies but it is filled with so many loopholes they can take people to jail anyway.
Machine guns. (((International media))) always paints leaders like him as evil fascists because they truly care about the helath of their nations and wont sell out their own people to foreign degenerate elites. Its a sure fire way to know whether a foreign leader is a good guy or a bad guy. Any politician that incurrs their wrath like that guy did has got to be doing something right. These kikes are never happier than when the streets are filled with 13 yr old urchins trading ass sex for their next fix.
Aside from public use, legalizing all of it gives the degenerates an express lane to destroying their lives. Let the fools destroy themselves so they make an example for those whom out live them is much more impactful than government says it's Illegal.
I went to Breckenridge Colorado a few years after they legalized weed. There were dispensary’s all in a long row as you entered town. Pot heads staggering around all over the place. Disheveled white men wandering public area that looked like ‘the dude’, in their pj’s and robe. Obviously professional level weed smokers that had smoked themselves into the realm of the unemployable.
I do not believe decriminalizing drugs decreases usage rates. I also believe criminalizing them does not DECREASE usage rates. The choice is not between “higher or lower usage”, but between “more or less police and government power”
[ - ] Immovable [op] 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:43:25 ago (+1/-0)
That's why we have lawyers and due process. The reason why they're decriminalizing it is because they say they want to save lives. They claim that regulated access to illicit substances will make them safer. They claim cocaine will become more pure as it'll contain no impurities or unsafe additives, etc... What happens when we apply this logic to the fentanyl though? Increased potency? So more deaths?
It's not about reducing consumption, it's about not sending harmless drug users to prison for life for committing victimless crimes. Why should a weed user spend any time in prison alongside remorseless murderers and child rapists?
It's not usage rates that I care about. It's about making everyone a criminal for owning a plant or drug which creates a blackmarket for those drugs which creates gangs which creates more violent crime.
The issue with fentanyl related death has nothing to do with safe access to the substance . The more pure it is the more dangerous it is. The risk is inherent to the substance itself. Proponents of decriminalization will often cite cocaine as an example of how decriminalization will increase its purity and thus render it safer by eliminating impurities, so how does that logic apply to fentanyl? More potent fentanyl? Therefore more dangerous fentanyl?
With your coke/fentanyl comparison you're convoluting/manipulating the info to get the result you want. Obviously if coke is safer when more pure then the issue is not about it's purity it's about it being safer. If fentanyl is safer when not so pure then they would make it not so pure to keep it safer and not the way you describe it as making it more pure therefore making it not safer... Like I said you're twisting the logic by saying it's about being 100% pure... but you also cite alchohol... do they make alcohol 100% pure also which is NOT safer or do they make it less pure and dilute it so it's like 5% alcohol or 40%... etc???
Alcohol is legal and is way more dangerous the more pure it is. This alone defeats your argument. I'd try to find something else to argue if you're against this because your argument does not hold up to scrutiny.
It's about making everyone a criminal for owning a plant or drug which creates a blackmarket for those drugs which creates gangs which creates more violent crime.
Bullshit. Its caused by NOT making everyone a criminal for owning a plant. If everyone with a fucking joint went to jail for 10 years no one would want that plant anywhere near them. The penalties are too light. If you make it clear that no one with a drug will ever see the light of day again there will be no market for it.
All this coping, pot vs coke, pure , not pure, muh black markets.
All these drugs harm society. We are all worse off because of them. It is biological slavery that allows drug dealers to parasitize others instead of working at jobs that contribute. The economics is crytal fucking clear— drug use makes societies poor and violent and corrupt.
It is social parasitism. Its a disease on the human race. Why dick around with it? If you have the choice to eliminate cancer from a patient or maybe leave a little bit of it behind because you dont want to be too draconian, what would you do? Your comment is a cope and it is irrational.
75% of Americans are caffeine users. If we eliminated all American drug users, the population level would be sustainable again, with lightly scattered settlements across the land.
Bullshit. Its caused by NOT making everyone a criminal for owning a plant. If everyone with a fucking joint went to jail for 10 years no one would want that plant anywhere near them.
That is retarded. Making a plant illegal IS RETARDED. YOU ARE RETARDED.
All this coping, pot vs coke, pure , not pure, muh black markets.
You're not even reading what OP posted which was about the purity of the drugs which made no logical sense but you're a retard so of course you couldn't understand that.
All these drugs harm society.
I don't care about your faggot society.
We are all worse off because of them.
NO. We are worse off because of jews, women, niggers, indians and mexicans in that order.
It is biological slavery that allows drug dealers to parasitize others instead of working at jobs that contribute.
If plants were not illegal there wouldn't be drug dealers you fucking moron. Why would someone deal drugs if it's legal. You ever hear of anyone buying legal drugs from a drug dealer? Yo MAN you gots that sugar? My sweettooth be itchin nugga! And we all know when we say 'drug dealer' we are talking about someone who sells illegal drugs. Not a doctor who sell illegal drugs. And the pharmaceutical companies who sell illegal drugs.
If you have the choice to eliminate cancer from a patient or maybe leave a little bit of it behind because you dont want to be too draconian, what would you do?
Cancer is fake and gay and I would fucking eliminate the patient for believing in a fake and gay never ending bullshit lie.
My comment makes perfect sense you are just a retard woman and can't understand due to your low IQ. Go back and read OP's orignal post about coke vs fentanyl. i responded to that and it got you all hot and bothered. Low IQ witch.
Original post which I responded to which is retarded and illogical like you.
The issue with fentanyl related death has nothing to do with safe access to the substance . The more pure it is the more dangerous it is. The risk is inherent to the substance itself. Proponents of decriminalization will often cite cocaine as an example of how decriminalization will increase its purity and thus render it safer by eliminating impurities, so how does that logic apply to fentanyl? More potent fentanyl? Therefore more dangerous fentanyl?
Please explain how this makes sense. Then read my post and see why it doesn't make sense. You are allowed to ask a man to help you with this.
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 11 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 10:18:05 ago (+11/-0)*
But longer term if there is no safety net of society people are more careful. Right now people live in a state of thinking it can't get that bad even if they intentionally make bad decision after decision. They think there is a floor because society has one. When there is no floor everyone realizes the only safety they have is to put their life's trajectory upward instead of downward.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:06:37 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:56:49 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] lastlist
[ - ] lastlist 5 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 12:10:34 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 23, 2023 00:28:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] autotic
[ - ] autotic 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:39:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:22:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] La_Chalupacabra
[ - ] La_Chalupacabra 7 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 08:44:59 ago (+7/-0)
True for so many issues.
At this point, I feel as though any politician introducing a bill should be forced to personally undergo whatever it is they're pushing.
Want to decriminalize fentanyl?
Fine. Here's 2.5 grams; have at it.
Prostitution?
Meet Iceberg; he'll be your pimp for the next month.
Open borders?
Say hello to the 20 Haitians who'll now be sharing your residence, personal belongings, and bank account (not to mention wife and daughters.)
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 6 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 08:54:00 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:50:22 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 4 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:49:29 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] La_Chalupacabra
[ - ] La_Chalupacabra 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:40:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Panic
[ - ] Panic 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 21:40:02 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:45:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 3 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:32:08 ago (+4/-1)
No. This is your country on kikes. Politicians are getting paid off by druglords, chinese and otherwise.
The drug war could be solved TOMORROW. Start executing people or giving them life sentences for minor possession. Everybody but the most retarded psychos will stop using drugs. PDQ.
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:27:03 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:44:20 ago (+1/-1)
We live with drug addiction — its everywhere. We all know someone. I sure as hell do. Imagine all those problems dissappearing. The government WANTS drug use. We can solve it in a day.
[ + ] s23erdctfvyg
[ - ] s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 22:52:20 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] autotic
[ - ] autotic 2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:37:04 ago (+2/-0)*
The problem with the legalization pushes is the above is not at all the context in which legalization is happening. Even in the case of pot it is now heavily industrialized, the potency has been cranked to the roof, and the profit margins are huge for mass-scale growers.
In many ways the current production of "soft" drugs is being funded directly or indirectly by the same psycopathic lizards who created the opiate epidemics, first with oxy and now with fentanyl, and for the same genocidal reasons.
As with many things, centralization, even if it started with good intentions, ends up attracting satanic actors which turn even a benign or beneficial org to their own evil desires.
In better times I would say let the low-volume soft drug peddlers do their thing. In these times, I'm ok with public hanging of drug dealers and beheading of pharma execs.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 21:59:33 ago (+0/-0)
Well in fact only mass growers and illegal growers can compete in the market. So you've got both, but a lot of people who thought they were going to run a boutique marijuana farm have been disappointed.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:22:38 ago (+2/-0)
Do you apply the same principle to vaccines, medications, procedures, food, drinks, entertainment, exercise, etc? All of these things, one could argue, can be "harmful to society" if not done correctly, at the right time, in the right order, and the right amounts. So shall we let "the experts" decide how they must be done, and monitor everyone to ensure they comply?
Would you enjoy living in a such society, where your every action is mandated, and every choice other than "the right choice" is prohibited "for the greater good"?
Drugs are a terrible thing and succumbing to them is stupid. But so is wanting the government to be in charge of deciding what is or isn't good for you, and punishing any deviation from that imagined ideal behavior.
Justice is punishing those who deliberately force harm onto others. There must be a victim, who was robbed of their agency or otherwise harmed against their will. Any laws that reach beyond this are not justice; they are tyranny.
There is nothing good or noble in forcing your own "smart" choices onto everyone else.
[ + ] Sleazy
[ - ] Sleazy 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 13:20:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:36:01 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:30:15 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:04:34 ago (+0/-0)
The 'sugar high' is a classic effect. It's true that government policy excludes sugar from classification as a 'drug', but it effectively is in its pure state.
https://www.nextlevelurgentcare.com/blog/is-sugar-as-addictive-as-this-common-illegal-drug/
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:37:58 ago (+0/-2)
Sugar can be used to addict people and hijack their neurology but in the correct quantities it is an essential nutrient. It cant be outlawed.
People do not choose to be addicted just like other animals do not choose to be parasitized.
Entire civilizations crumble because of silly notions like you ad absurdum definition of liberty. Liberty exists in the context of a set of rules that strengthen society. The amish are free within a set of strict rules. They are not enslaved to a tyranny.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:28:45 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:45:04 ago (+1/-1)
Yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
In a cooperative society everyone must contribute to the productivity of the group by producing wealth or rearing children or caring for other members of the group. Go smoke pot in zimbabwe. Drug addicts are a liability. Its pure inefficiency. This is why we cant have nice things. Drug addicts are selfish pleasure chasers, not workers. Drug dealers are parasites. Drug addiction zombifies individuals to serve drug dealers, not society. Its biological slavery. Drug use destroys productivity. Our “freedom” is built on productivity and that is built on conformity to rules. Only niggers do whatever they want. If theres no penalty for behavior that reduces a society’s prosperity that society is on borrowed time.
You think liberty is some inalienable right that can be practice ad infinitem without any trade offs or consequences. This is the major retardation of all lolberts. Your behavior disincentivizes cooperativity. It is not a victimless crime. We are all victims of its economic fallout.
[ + ] Irelandlost
[ - ] Irelandlost 2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 13:01:59 ago (+2/-0)
No penalties beyond inherent penalties should ever be applied to victimless crimes (and actual victims, not over-reasoned arguments that I’m somehow an indirect victim of some junkie shooting up). If you take drugs you will be less productive, if you are less productive you will earn less money, if you earn less money you will have a lower standard of living. That is the only penalty that should exist for drug use. You seem to think that if big daddy government isn’t waiting in the background to cane anybody that steps out of line then everybody, or even significant numbers, will be “selfish pleasure chasers” but there is no evidence to support this. The 4th commandment of economic theory is that people respond to incentives. There are plenty of incentives not to become a junky whether drugs are legal or illegal, and the overwhelming majority will respond to those incentives. There are already more than enough carrots, there is no need for any sticks.
Does that apply to barmen too, or is it only parasitic to deal drugs that the government have said you shouldn’t deal?
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:19:36 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Irelandlost
[ - ] Irelandlost 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:39:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Europeanawakening
[ - ] Europeanawakening 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 19:30:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:24:47 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Irelandlost
[ - ] Irelandlost 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:46:57 ago (+0/-0)
But still, most importantly, the market wants weed, coke and smack, so anyone who can meet that market demand is doing something right, and if they make a nice profit doing so then they’re doing plenty right.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:54:15 ago (+0/-0)
Im a climate change skeptic, or rather, I think AGW is a scam. But Im moderately pro-environment. We should live efficiently with as low impact a lifestyle as is reasonably possible (reasonably being a subjective can Im kicking down the road today) But my point is that fanatic greeniacs are hypocrites if they uses any of those drugs and they usually use all off them.
Impugn them for drinking coffee and tea, when you corner one. Theyre destroying the rainforest for their selfish pleasure. Im going to lay down in front of theyre car at starbucks.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:47:13 ago (+0/-1)
Not a victimless crime. Its not over-reasoned to say that everyone in the country pays when someone becomes a useless junkie. Its not a victimless crime when the Sacklers or the US government become powerful from the cash they make off drug slaves. You cant just wave that away. Every single addict has a price tagand we all pay for every single one. Just because its big numbers and its difficult to calculate is precisely because of indirect consequences doesnt mean we arent getting fucked in real terms.
White live in cooperative societies in which negative consequences to individuals are absorbed largely by the society. This only works if we agree to strict codes of behavior that minimize harm to the community. More productive societies are more cooperative and have stricter morals. This is why northern europe is more morally uptight than southern europe, and also more productive.
Most shithole societies are laid back about drugs and other vices because they are less cooperative and more dog-eat-dog
If you sell drugs you will be rich. South americans are always trying to do this. So are Afghans and Cambodians etc. Its a great get rich quick scheme that kills countries. But who cares if youre a drug lord.
Personally I think the US government invaded Afghanistan to sell dope.
[ + ] Irelandlost
[ - ] Irelandlost 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:14:17 ago (+0/-0)
Where did you get the idea that Northern Europe is more morally uptight than Southern Europe? You never been to the Netherlands? And you compare them to the devoutly Catholic Spaniards and Italians and decided the whoring and drugging of the low lands, and the slightly noticeable penchant for getting as drunk as a newt of the British, Irish and Nordics and decided the southerns are the degenerate ones?
If you sell anything which the market demands you will be rich. People want drugs, maybe they shouldn’t but they do. People want cars too, and nice food, and fashionable clothes. And the people who successfully and efficiently meet those demands become rich. And those below the capital who specialise in trades to produce the products to meet those demands also become rich. Embracing that fact is what makes countries rich and successful, some Scottish bloke wrote a couple of books about it 250 years ago and he hasn’t been proven wrong yet.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 17:17:25 ago (+0/-0)
NOt this state. Not anything but a white run state, and then, only a state with very limited powers.
Not cages. But I think we should pobably send the real fatties to a fat colony for rehab. Maybe we could create concentration camps for fags and fatties and drug users.
And maybe we should prevent them from reproducing.
Most americans have zero productivity including alot of the ones with jobs. Most jobs are fake and create no wealth. The typical amish man is more productive than the typical normie. As productivity has increased, so has vice and exploitation. Useless eaters and exploiters have outpaced productive people.
I do. Religiosity is not the same as economically conservative morals. Northern europeans are less libidinous and less corrupt. They are less violent, less partying, less thieving. They are more monogamous and more productive. This has led to paradoxically lax vice laws, because the average dutchman exerts more self control than the average italian. But historically this has not been the case. All the strictest moral regimes such as the puritans and the anabaptist movement come from northen europe.
Really its more the germanic countries but Poland and Ireland and France are not as bad as portugal and albania, cmon. All the swarthies love to party and fuck and dance and eat. Tons of italians around here. Theyre aggressive. They caused a major crime wave before the niggers and spics showed up. Theyre always hitting on you. They have nice yards tho. If you like fountains.
[ + ] Grymes22
[ - ] Grymes22 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 12:13:36 ago (+0/-0)
I believe that it is a Truth self evident that among those inalienable rights endowed by my Creator are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 12:50:56 ago (+0/-1)
Lots of people want that kind of liberty. Why should the “experts” decide whats right for them? The greeks fucked kids. Muslims fuck kids. The Thais fuck kids.
But you werent. Thats a made up story. We are animals. This is evolution. Everything has trade offs.
Allowing drug dealers to sell as much addicting drugs as possible will destroy any country. It will destroy every country. High principles only exist in the context of economic prosperity and stability. Those principles mena nothing in africa where everyon is killing each other just to stay alive.
Thomas Jefferson lived off slavery. Is there any truth that is self evident about that? So what did he actually care for liberty and the pursuit of happiness? He meant liberty of a wealthy american elite not to pay taxes to the crown.
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:31:29 ago (+0/-0)
Yes.
Yes, yes yes.
(For humans, but most people today are a vast herd of cattle who blindly accept their servitude and societal construct. They and it need to be wiped from the face of the earth.)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:26:59 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Irelandlost
[ - ] Irelandlost 2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:33:59 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:00:56 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Irelandlost
[ - ] Irelandlost 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:26:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:58:52 ago (+0/-0)
the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
the power or scope to act as one pleases.
Take your pick, but I'm not seeing anything about a necessity of fucking kids.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:22:40 ago (+1/-1)
If necessity is your rubric for what should and shouldnt be allowed then say bye-by to drugs and alcohol. You dont need them, you are better without them.
Restricting kiddie fucking, gay sex, drug use, gambling, prostitution, usury, welfare— all comes from the same place. They all harm the prosperity of the entire society. You cannot prove that molesting kids harms them — you just theorize that it will impact their ability to be a future productive member of society. Same with drugs.
Some retard here will try to accuse me of being pro-pedo here so I have to say the obligatory “I dont support pedo”. Im trying to make a point. The morals that make pedophilia taboo come from the same place as the morals that make drug use taboo.
The problem is not moral restrictions. The problem is corrupt tyrants using law to benefit themselves. We all need laws and those laws come from morals. All laws must be based on morals and they should prevent one group from exploiting another to gain power. Thats what happens with drugs, and socialist governments and prostitution and usury.
A bunch of old fuddy-duddies used to say usury and market speculation was evil, and everybody laughed and lauhed and said “victimless crime” .
...AND NOW WE’RE ALL SLAVES OF JEWS.
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:53:21 ago (+0/-0)
My belief in countries and 'societies' is at its lowest point ever. At least with the current kind of humans who exist, countries are little more than human ranches, operated for profit by their owners.
The problem is the reason they're able to do that in the first place.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 24, 2023 15:07:06 ago (+0/-0)
Personally, I have nothing against accommodating that by rounding up everyone who thinks like you and having you slave away in work colonies. Producing goods and services, day in and day out, for as long as you last. For the betterment of society, of course. You can even be made to build the colonies yourselves. And then dig your own graves.
That way everyone wins: You'll get your dream of being told what to, every second of every day, in an environment where everyone always meets maximum efficiency, and is severely punished when they don't. And the rest of us can live free from you and the effects of your madness.
[ + ] NationalSocialism
[ - ] NationalSocialism 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:43:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] LalixPrincex
[ - ] LalixPrincex 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:03:20 ago (+1/-0)
Imagine you have a rose garden, and this rose garden you had some parasitic ugly rotten plants.
Imagine....having to care for the garden...and choosing to give all the sunlight, all the efforts, all the water, all the nutrients...to the rotten plants!
What do you end up with?
A garden full of shitty, rotten, ugly plants.
[ + ] MicahReno
[ - ] MicahReno 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 13:22:13 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:46:22 ago (+0/-0)
If anything decriminalization will result in ease of access to the general public. You'll simply have more fentanyl in circulation with basically no risk premium attached to procuring it. It will be cheaper and more potent and more abundant. More people will use it because more people will have easier access to it. It'll also be cheaper due to the reduced risk premium so drug users will be able to consume more of the substance due to the lower cost barrier. More people will use fentanyl and therefore more people will die from fentanyl. There's a direct correlation between the amount of people using fentanyl and the amount of people dying from fentanyl.
Even if decriminalization did benefit existing fentanyl users, that benefit would be drastically outweighed by the harm caused to non pre-existing fentanyl users.
[ + ] Bonlio99
[ - ] Bonlio99 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 12:30:46 ago (+1/-0)
The problem will take care of itself
[ + ] RobertJHarsh
[ - ] RobertJHarsh 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 13:16:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:48:10 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:39:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Europeanawakening
[ - ] Europeanawakening 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 19:32:45 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 08:09:50 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:05:17 ago (+1/-0)
Not vouching for the truth in either of those just saying I've heard the arguments.
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:27:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 2 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:56:42 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 12:22:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 08:35:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:02:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 3 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:28:20 ago (+3/-0)
" We can make drug use a social or health issue, not a criminal one. We can also limit the harmful effects of drug use by increasing access to a regulated supply of currently illegal drugs, which would help limit the toxic drugs in circulation and prevent overdoses."
The vast majority of overdoses are resulting from fentanyl use. How would a "regulated" supply of cleaner, more pure and more potent fentanyl reduce overdoses? It will have the adverse effect. More people will die, not less.
https://www.med.ubc.ca/news/how-drug-decriminalization-in-b-c-could-help-save-lives/
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:22:29 ago (+0/-0)
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/decriminalizing-pot-doesnt-lead-to-increased-use-by-young-people/
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:26:42 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:31:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:35:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:36:19 ago (+0/-0)
Not to mention how the cost of fentanyl will decrease along with the risk premium associated with transporting and selling it. All they've done is create the conditions to give users access to cheaper and more potent fentanyl.
Their solution to people dying from fentanyl is to give them more fentanyl that is more powerful lol.
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:40:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 21:57:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 18:01:46 ago (+0/-0)
Certain people are going to use drugs and there is no stopping it so let them, the problem will eventually sort itself out.
[ + ] NeonGreen
[ - ] NeonGreen 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:59:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:11:48 ago (+0/-0)
Seems more like a plan to let the lower tiers eliminate themselves, for a potential net increase in our overall quality level. Or rather, a slight decrease in our rate of fall. As a population reduction method, it's too slight to have much effect at all.
What decriminalization actually does is massively reduce the profitability of illegal drugs. An example is marijuana in California. Illegal marijuana averaged $4800 - $6000 per pound, wholesale. After legalization, you can get pounds of marijuana for as low as $750 - $1200. Reports are saying most big growers are having to sell on the black market (no tax) just to break even.
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 16:05:42 ago (+1/-0)
It's no different than black market cigarettes that are produced on the native reserves here. Legal tobacco has not had a negative effect on the black market tobacco trade. People will always seek the cheapest of any product, and due the taxes and regulations people will always find these products cheapest on the black market.
The only thing legalizing pot has accomplished here in Canada is a reduction in price. Black market pot is a lot cheaper now. It simply made pot cheaper and more accessible to everybody. It didn't eliminate the black market at all. It just made the illegal producers have to cut their prices. There's still massive profits to be had though. If the government makes it too cheap then there won't be a legal market for it because it won't be profitable. If the government drives the price down too much it will collapse their own business model. The only thing the black market producers have to do is undercut legal prices by a small margin. Basically what I'm saying is that if it's profitable for the government to grow and sell than it will also be profitable for black market producers to grow it too.
[ + ] Leveraction
[ - ] Leveraction 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 13:18:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] RobertJHarsh
[ - ] RobertJHarsh 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 13:10:59 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] fnbs
[ - ] fnbs 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 13:03:47 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 14:45:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Razzoriel
[ - ] Razzoriel 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 13:02:24 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Special_Prosecutor
[ - ] Special_Prosecutor 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 12:39:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 12:57:04 ago (+1/-1)
(((International media))) always paints leaders like him as evil fascists because they truly care about the helath of their nations and wont sell out their own people to foreign degenerate elites. Its a sure fire way to know whether a foreign leader is a good guy or a bad guy. Any politician that incurrs their wrath like that guy did has got to be doing something right. These kikes are never happier than when the streets are filled with 13 yr old urchins trading ass sex for their next fix.
[ + ] texasblood
[ - ] texasblood 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 12:33:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] lolxd
[ - ] lolxd 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:21:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] TheNoticing
[ - ] TheNoticing 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:16:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Stonkmar
[ - ] Stonkmar 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:06:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PearofAnguishJuniorManager
[ - ] PearofAnguishJuniorManager 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 10:26:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Hoaxcroaker
[ - ] Hoaxcroaker 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 10:23:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Barfcock19
[ - ] Barfcock19 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 10:16:59 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Version6
[ - ] Version6 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:53:54 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:34:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Immovable
[ - ] Immovable [op] 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 09:43:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 10:36:57 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Sunman_Omega
[ - ] Sunman_Omega -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:38:14 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Monica
[ - ] Monica -1 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 10:55:51 ago (+0/-1)*
With your coke/fentanyl comparison you're convoluting/manipulating the info to get the result you want. Obviously if coke is safer when more pure then the issue is not about it's purity it's about it being safer. If fentanyl is safer when not so pure then they would make it not so pure to keep it safer and not the way you describe it as making it more pure therefore making it not safer... Like I said you're twisting the logic by saying it's about being 100% pure... but you also cite alchohol... do they make alcohol 100% pure also which is NOT safer or do they make it less pure and dilute it so it's like 5% alcohol or 40%... etc???
Alcohol is legal and is way more dangerous the more pure it is. This alone defeats your argument. I'd try to find something else to argue if you're against this because your argument does not hold up to scrutiny.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 11:55:09 ago (+1/-1)
Bullshit. Its caused by NOT making everyone a criminal for owning a plant. If everyone with a fucking joint went to jail for 10 years no one would want that plant anywhere near them. The penalties are too light. If you make it clear that no one with a drug will ever see the light of day again there will be no market for it.
All this coping, pot vs coke, pure , not pure, muh black markets.
All these drugs harm society. We are all worse off because of them. It is biological slavery that allows drug dealers to parasitize others instead of working at jobs that contribute. The economics is crytal fucking clear— drug use makes societies poor and violent and corrupt.
It is social parasitism. Its a disease on the human race. Why dick around with it? If you have the choice to eliminate cancer from a patient or maybe leave a little bit of it behind because you dont want to be too draconian, what would you do? Your comment is a cope and it is irrational.
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 15:44:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Monica
[ - ] Monica 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 17:08:07 ago (+0/-0)*
That is retarded. Making a plant illegal IS RETARDED. YOU ARE RETARDED.
You're not even reading what OP posted which was about the purity of the drugs which made no logical sense but you're a retard so of course you couldn't understand that.
I don't care about your faggot society.
NO. We are worse off because of jews, women, niggers, indians and mexicans in that order.
If plants were not illegal there wouldn't be drug dealers you fucking moron. Why would someone deal drugs if it's legal. You ever hear of anyone buying legal drugs from a drug dealer? Yo MAN you gots that sugar? My sweettooth be itchin nugga! And we all know when we say 'drug dealer' we are talking about someone who sells illegal drugs. Not a doctor who sell illegal drugs. And the pharmaceutical companies who sell illegal drugs.
Cancer is fake and gay and I would fucking eliminate the patient for believing in a fake and gay never ending bullshit lie.
My comment makes perfect sense you are just a retard woman and can't understand due to your low IQ. Go back and read OP's orignal post about coke vs fentanyl. i responded to that and it got you all hot and bothered. Low IQ witch.
[ + ] Monica
[ - ] Monica 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 22, 2023 17:16:35 ago (+0/-0)
Original post which I responded to which is retarded and illogical like you.
Please explain how this makes sense. Then read my post and see why it doesn't make sense. You are allowed to ask a man to help you with this.