Progressives, part 3...

posted by Spock

You dont care now but i am sure you will when it moves in next door to you

Living in Cincinnati, it is next door to me. 

posted by Spock

You dont care now but i am sure you will when it moves in next door to you

Yes, the war on drugs has been keeping me safe all this time. That's why my neighbors aren't junkies.

Just going to nonchalantly say that I'm glad I don't live in any town. Living in rural areas has its advantages! I can't see what my neighbors are doing and they can't see me unless they ride or drive to my house. No traffic is also a plus!

posted by Spock

You dont care now but i am sure you will when it moves in next door to you

Right. Because the drug war has been a great success. Criminalizing drug use has had an unbelievably positive impact on our society. 

posted by justincredible

Pretty sure this isn't true. From the amendment:

(G) Provisions Do Not Apply to Convictions for the Sale, Distribution, or Trafficking of Drugs. Divisions (D) and (F) of this Section do not apply to convictions for the sale, distribution, or trafficking of drugs or to convictions for any drug offense that, based on volume or weight, and as of January 1, 2018, was classified as a first, second, or third-degree felony offense.

I was given bad information. Thank you.

posted by Spock

Cool meme bro.  You have a counter argument on basically decriminilizing heroin use?  Public drug use will become common in Ohio with issue 1.

A counter-argument?  Sure.

1. Do you honestly think this mass of potential heroin users who are currently avoiding it just because it's against the law, as if they just really want to do heroin, even though it's public knowledge that it can kill you, but that pesky law is just getting in the way?  If so, I'd love to hear what makes you think there's a mass of people just waiting with baited breath for heroin to become legal, so they can use.

2. Do you actually think people in prison can't get heroin, such that the punitive measures for getting hooked on something (which is a stupid principle already) somehow stops anyone from using?

3. I was under the impression that you were opposed to a nanny state, because you know what's better for you than big gubmint.  Was I mistaken?  Are you secretly a big government guy who believes we need government to tell us what's best for us to keep us from utterly destroying ourselves?

4. If drugs are made legal, guess what happens to the contents of what people are buying.  It gets examined, studied, monitored, etc.  No more basement mixes with miscellaneous (and potentially dangerous) other ingredients.

5. It'd be good for increasing competition, which might further the desire to study ways to give the high while minimizing or eliminating the risk and making it cheaper.  Do you know who likes it remaining illegal?  The guys who own drug empires.  It keeps the competition down, and it keeps their product out of the realm of FDA regulation or monitoring.  Keeping drugs illegal is exactly what the drug pushers want.  They don't want the competition or oversight.  They want the only people in their world to be other people willing to break the law and live as criminals.

Do you have one shred of reasoning for why putting users in prison with other users, where they can still find product occasionally, benefits anyone?

posted by Spock

You dont care now but i am sure you will when it moves in next door to you

It has been next door to me.  Literally.  Squatters lived next door and used in the house with friends and randos.  I know this will probably blow your mind, but it didn't really affect my household at all.

This study says that a significant amount of millenials suffer from PTSD because of the 2016 election:

https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07448481.2018.1515763?journalCode=vach20&

I'm seeing this all over Twitter, so who knows how subjective it is.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Right. Because the drug war has been a great success. Criminalizing drug use has had an unbelievably positive impact on our society. 

Ergo, drug use has had an unbelievably positive impact on our society.

Christ Almighty.

posted by superman

I was given bad information. Thank you.

You will be able to possess enough fentanyl to kill 10,000 people, but families are not to care; all is well, slap on the wrist.  The same lunatic left goes crazy if you possess a firearm that could kill 10 people. 

The insanity is immeasurable.

posted by QuakerOats

 

You will be able to possess enough fentanyl to kill 10,000 people, but families are not to care; all is well, slap on the wrist.  The same lunatic left goes crazy if you possess a firearm that could kill 10 people. 

No, you won't.

All you gotta do is mention drugs and watch the hilarity of the "big gubment is bad!!!!" people jump all over themselves to profess how we need big gubment in full force to protect them from drugs.

posted by Heretic

All you gotta do is mention drugs and watch the hilarity of the "big gubment is bad!!!!" people jump all over themselves to profess how we need big gubment in full force to protect them from drugs.

You are an idiot

posted by Spock

You are an idiot

Says the guy who's incapable of formulating a remotely logical argument.

The war on drugs is amazingly expensive and really doesn't work, but BY GOD WE GOTTA KEEP THROWING MONEY AT IT!!!!!!

posted by CenterBHSFan

This study says that a significant amount of millenials suffer from PTSD because of the 2016 election:

https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07448481.2018.1515763?journalCode=vach20&

I'm seeing this all over Twitter, so who knows how subjective it is.

I've never been one to dismiss people's emotions out-of-hand, but how fragile do you have to be for an election ... prior to any result of that election ... to drive you to PTSD?  Fucking hell.
 

posted by QuakerOats

Ergo, drug use has had an unbelievably positive impact on our society.

So, because drugs are bad, we've waged an unsuccessful, tax-dollar-sucking war against them that has, to this point, been an utter failure, and your defense of keeping it in place is that drugs are still bad?

Drug use has had a negative effect, yes?  So, just to be clear, is your reaction to have big daddy Government tell us what to do, since they are apparently the ones who know what's best, and we can't be trusted to make that decision for ourselves?

Homelessness and poverty have had a bad impact on our society, as well.  Would you argue that Big Daddy Guv get involved there, too?
 

posted by Heretic

All you gotta do is mention drugs and watch the hilarity of the "big gubment is bad!!!!" people jump all over themselves to profess how we need big gubment in full force to protect them from drugs.

It's essentially how you know the fake "small government" people from the real ones.  The real ones want personal liberty, even if it means that a person is allowed to utterly destroy their own lives or do things that the majority of people find distasteful.
 

posted by Spock

You are an idiot

Seriously?  How's that glass house suiting you?  Comfy?  You sure seem to spend a lot of time in it.

posted by Heretic

Says the guy who's incapable of formulating a remotely logical argument.

The war on drugs is amazingly expensive and really doesn't work, but BY GOD WE GOTTA KEEP THROWING MONEY AT IT!!!!!!

Doesn't work with education, healthcare, subsidized housing, or basic nutritional needs (all of which I agree with), but fucking aye, we gotta keep that barely-functioning alcoholic from snorting coke on the weekend, because THAT's what's going to ruin his life.

I've yet to see a single defense for keeping the laws in place as they are that couldn't be applied to tobacco and/or alcohol.

posted by Heretic

All you gotta do is mention drugs and watch the hilarity of the "big gubment is bad!!!!" people jump all over themselves to

profess how we need big gubment in full force to protect them from drugs

You don’t need BIG government; simple laws are good enough.  This is not brain surgery.

posted by Heretic

Says the guy who's incapable of formulating a remotely logical argument.

The war on drugs is amazingly expensive and really doesn't work, but BY GOD WE GOTTA KEEP THROWING MONEY AT IT!!!!!!

The costs to society will dramatically increase once leverage is taken from the enforcement/judicial system.  It is no secret why left-wing radicals will never reveal the true cost of what they propose.

Lastly, our constitution should never be tinkered with by outsiders, especially for an appropriation measure, which should only be handled by the legislature.

posted by justincredible

No, you won't.

 

“Issue 1 would mandate that the possession of powdered fentanyl in amounts less than 20 grams as a misdemeanor, and it would forbid judges from imposing jail time. Since the lethal dose of fentanyl is just 2 milligrams (one-thousandth of a gram), 19 grams of fentanyl could kill approximately 10,000 people. This offender, charged with possession of 19 grams of fentanyl, would automatically only get probation. It would be constitutionally dictated that any drug possession conviction that is now a Felony 4 or Felony 5 must be reduced to a misdemeanor. And, the judge MUST then sentence the offender to probation for these offenses under Issue 1.

This is unconscionable.”

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2018/09/06/ohio-issue-1-lives-lost-if-proposal-passes/1158238002/