DM: Switzerland considers legalising COCAINE: Politicians declare 'the war on drugs has failed'

[LadySkinsFan]

5 minutes ago, Bang said:

I also think it's a bad idea.
Coke is highly addictive, and it's sole benefit is to make you think you are WAY more interesting than you are, and then of course, the instant jones.

Did my time with it. Laid awake in bed trying to sleep after a night of it feeling my heart racing a lot. Always wanting more, waking up thinking about where I'm getting some today and when.
The War on Drugs has failed, but legalizing dangerous hard drugs is total capitulation.

 

~Bang

 

It's great for making the drive from Coral Gables to Alexandria in one length trip. Gas stop, coke stop.

[Renegade7]

20 minutes ago, Bang said:

I also think it's a bad idea.
Coke is highly addictive, and it's sole benefit is to make you think you are WAY more interesting than you are, and then of course, the instant jones.

Did my time with it. Laid awake in bed trying to sleep after a night of it feeling my heart racing a lot. Always wanting more, waking up thinking about where I'm getting some today and when.
The War on Drugs has failed, but legalizing dangerous hard drugs is total capitulation.

 

~Bang

 

Some drugs are still worth fighting against...they walking right into pendulum swing and jus don't know it yet...

 

I recommend anyone that hasn't yet to look into how much of China was addicted during peak Opium Wars...there "never again" attitude is directly tied to that era of their history...

Edited December 21, 2023 by Renegade7

[Koolblue13]

It might as well be legal here and it's good and cheap.

[Destino]

4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Allowing the commercialization of something like cocaine would be a big mistake.  Decriminalization, especially for addicts, I completely support.  Now, legalization doesn't necessarily mean they are allowing commercialization, but in the US every move legalize things that were illegal/greatly restricted (gambling, mamajuana, etc.) has come with commercialization.

My only concern with decriminalization is that it will serve as a big boost to crime. Dealers have an easier time and cartels get richer. Leaders of wealthy states speak endlessly about addicts, and the injustice of putting them in jail. What about the nightmare their citizens buying these drugs unleash elsewhere? I’m unable and unwilling to divorce drug purchases, whether it be for a good time or to feed an addiction, from the havoc caused by the groups they fund. 
 

If rich nations want to ease their burdens when it comes to illegal drugs, they’re free to do so. But maybe they should take on the entire supply chain and all that comes with it. Not just make it easier for their people to fund destruction elsewhere. 

[tshile]

The drug war is a failure, in part but it’s a huge part, because it funnels money to cartels and gangs. 
 

Smuggling drugs was the research and development for smuggling people. You can directly tie human trafficking and its large growth to the drive to be really good at smuggling large amounts of drugs (and cash and guns in the other direction) constantly. 
 

Any idea that does not stop the flow of money to cartels and gangs is a bad idea. 
 

people will complain about corporations profiting from drugs, and sure that’s not ideal, and yes there needs to be a check on that system, but it will be better than sending money to gangs and cartels. 
 

the long reach the consequences of a failed drug war have is incredible. It drives our illegal immigration problem, for example. 
 

that’s why decriminalization is a bad idea. You need legalization. You need to legalize the manufacturing and sale of it. 
 

decriminalization as an immediate step to bridge the gap to legalization (which takes time once you agree to do it) makes sense. At least you stop putting people in jail. 
 

but any idea that doesn’t address the flow of money to criminal organizations is a bad idea. Maybe it’s not as bad as the drug war, but it’s still a bad idea. 
 

If you bring up sex education with reasonable, objective adults, there is no debate that abstinence and ideas that derive from it are ****ing stupid. Because they don’t work. Prohibition - everyone understands why that was a failure. 
 

yet for some reason with the drug war people don’t get it. 
 

as with basically everything - banning it and refusing to deal with it never ****ing works.  Hiding the truth doesn’t work. Pretending if we ignore it, it won’t t really matter, doesn’t work. Education and open, honest discussion works best. 

The total cost to our society, above and beyond actual $’s spent, caused by the drug war is out-****ing-rageous. Whether it’s families destroyed from jail sentences, or the violence black market trade (of anything, really) brings, or the real consequences of having these various addictions floating around in society but being ignored or otherwise swept under the rug… 

 

it always strikes me how few people understand this. 
 

and honestly, I think a huge part of it is, people who don’t do drugs, for the most part, have no idea how easy it is to get drugs even though the war on drugs rages on. 
 

a while back a republican gave a speech about how easy it is to buy drugs. Everything he said was more or less correct - maybe some minor corrections or changes to make but the overall point was correct. And it came from a report the committee he was on had just produced, which was on just how easy it is to buy drugs in this country. I read the report to - it tracks well with reality. 
 

and most of you laughed at him and called him an idiot. And all that tells me is you all are incredibly naive about this stuff and have no idea what you’re talking about. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by tshile

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Prohibition - everyone understands why that was a failure. 

 

Not everyone understand that prohibition was a failure.

 

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

 

And that was a complete illegalization with criminalization so comparing that to a case where things are legal but decriminalized for addicts seems to be flawed analogy.

Edited December 21, 2023 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

My only concern with decriminalization is that it will serve as a big boost to crime. Dealers have an easier time and cartels get richer. Leaders of wealthy states speak endlessly about addicts, and the injustice of putting them in jail. What about the nightmare their citizens buying these drugs unleash elsewhere? I’m unable and unwilling to divorce drug purchases, whether it be for a good time or to feed an addiction, from the havoc caused by the groups they fund. 
 

If rich nations want to ease their burdens when it comes to illegal drugs, they’re free to do so. But maybe they should take on the entire supply chain and all that comes with it. Not just make it easier for their people to fund destruction elsewhere. 

 

I agree generally.  I'm actually not for complete decimalization.  I think you have to have a system that differentiates between addicts and non-addicts.  Addicts need to be shunted into something to try to help get them clean.  People that are non-addict recreational drug users (people that I suspect are mostly fueling the illegal drug industry because most of the addicts I've known don't have much money) probably need to see increased criminal penalties.

 

And then you'll have addicts that can't stay clean, and you'd have to have something else for them with sort of increasing levels of loss of freedom (based on how many times and the frequency of relapses).

[China]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I agree generally.  I'm actually not for complete decimalization. 

 

This is why we don't have the metric system in this country.

[Jabbyrwock]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I'm actually not for complete decimalization.

 

8 minutes ago, China said:

This is why we don't have the metric system in this country.

 

You may have a point.

[Renegade7]

Addiction can be terrifying how impossible it is for some people to get out of it.

 

I do not agree with legalization of certain drugs because of ease of access to things that are pretty much destructive by design, like Heroin.

 

We should be thinking of this more like how we should be thinking on guns, the more dangerous it is, the harder it be should to get all the way to the point of yes, the general public cannot have one of certain type.

 

China is an example of out of control numbers of an entire country addicted to the same drug at the same time, estimates anywhere from 27% of the male population to one third of the country at one time was addicted to opium.

 

Legalizing some drugs should give us back resources to put towards the ones we should be putting resources too.  It's been a while since we tried legalization of the less dangerous one to help curb the usage of the harder ones to break addiction from.

 

It will be interesting seeing what happens if and when something like MDMA gets recommended in couples counseling like it did in the 70s and 80s.

 

https://time.com/6262291/psychedelics-mdma-couples-therapy/

[tshile]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Not everyone understand that prohibition was a failure.

 

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

 

And that was a complete illegalization with criminalization so comparing that to a case where things are legal but decriminalized for addicts seems to be flawed analogy.

lol at prohibition worked. I’m not even reading that nonsense. 
 

im not sure where I’m comparing it to a case where things are legal but decriminalized for addicts. 
 

the drug war is still going on and most things are still illegal. We still have states with ridiculously harsh penalties for possession of marijuana. 
 

but that aside - I’m aware the vast majority still kneejerk rejects legalizing drugs. 
 

they’re wrong. They’re harming people with their wrong and arrogant way of discussing the topic. 
 

I don’t ever expect them to recognize or admit that. 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I do not agree with legalization of certain drugs because of ease of access to things that are pretty much destructive by design, like Heroin.

what this means is you have no understanding of how easy it is to acquire these drugs. Which I think describes the vast majority of people. 
 

if you are interested in learning how easy it is, congress just did a whole report on it a few months back you can read. 
 

it was posted here already. If I recall correctly, everyone here made fun of the people talking about it. 
 

wonder how many of them are in here now talking about how legalizing drugs would make it way easier to access them. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by tshile

[Renegade7]

30 minutes ago, tshile said:

what this means is you have no understanding of how easy it is to acquire these drugs. Which I think describes the vast majority of people. 
 

if you are interested in learning how easy it is, congress just did a whole report on it a few months back you can read. 
 

it was posted here already. If I recall correctly, everyone here made fun of the people talking about it. 
 

wonder how many of them are in here now talking about how legalizing drugs would make it way easier to access them. 

 

It doesn't take a an expert to know if someone wants something they can find it in this country.

 

That's different then putting it in walmart and seeing what happens.  We gonna legalize Crack Rock commercials or advertising? 

 

Where are we going with this and what should we expect with full legalization of something that frankly has no business on the streets for the average consumer to jus try and see if they like it or not?

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Renegade7

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It doesn't take a an expert to know if someone wants something they can find it in this country.

 

That's different then putting it in walmart and seeing what happens.  We gonna legalize Crack Rock commercials or advertising? 

 

Where are we going with this and what should we expect with full legalization of something that frankly has no business on the streets for the average consumer to jus try and see if they like it or not?

 

 

This is what led to the drug war. 
 

so I’ll respond with the last 60 years showing it doesn’t work. 
 

what fuels my opinion is the obvious damage the drug war has done, while not producing any results. Last I checked, the DEA’s stance is that things have and continue to get worse. 
 

it’s also, as far as I know, rather well accepted that the drug war (that this way of thinking created and continues) is what paved the way for human trafficking to become what it’s become. So it’s not just that people get swept up and addiction or jail time, but it’s lead to a crazy surge in kidnapping young women and making them sex slaves. You can add the bloodshed and instability of central and South America, and our illegal immigration situation to the list. 
 

if you want to use the same logic that created the drug war, to continue the drug war, then we’re so far apart on this there’s nothing to do but argue till we get tired of arguing. 
 

I understand that it’s hard to accept drastically different approaches if you haven’t yet accepted that your logic and the logic that created and fuels the drug war is so obviously bogus and awful. 
 

what I can’t figure out is how so many people still haven’t figured out how big of a failure the drug war is. And just how absurd the damage it’s caused is. 

Oh and I would add that the “it doesn’t take an expert … “, indicates just how little you understand about how easy it is to get drugs. 
 

you should know better on that one. You work in security. You must have a better working understanding of the dark web than the average person. It’s inexcusable for you to not understand how easy this is. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by tshile

[Renegade7]

@tshile

 

This isnt about whether the Drug War worked, it didnt, but learning nothing from it was their mistake of treating all drugs the same because they aren't...that's making the same mistake twice.

 

This is simpler then your making it.

[tshile]

It sounds to me like you haven’t learned anything from it either

 

Abstinence doesn’t work either. In cults where they outlaw sexual expression towards others, people start ****ing farm animals. 
 

making condoms and birth control accessible does. Sex education works. Morning after pill works. Lots of things to work when it comes to cutting down on STDs and unwanted pregnancies. 
 

yet a lot of people who understand why those fundamentally different viewpoints create crazy different outcomes, look at this problem and go “but if you can just buy it in a store then hell everyone’s gonna be an addict”

 

This is kind of like the argument we had the other day about masks and how something may work individually (if done correctly) but it turns out that across a population it doesn’t work, and that may mean it’s bad policy even if the underlining idea is a good one. 
 

Not doing drugs js better for a person than doing drugs. Same for society. (Although there’s actually quite an argument to make here, drugs have influenced things like art and other things that are good and it’s interesting to ponder what might not exist if no one ever did drugs, but way in the weeds and don’t have time for that)

 

that doesn’t mean outlawing drugs and going the route of our drug war is good public policy. 
 

abortions are bad too. But it’s better for our society if we allow them to take place. 
 

in fact, your “on the shelves in Walmart” comment (to me) falls right in line with the “if abortions are legal than people will be like **** it I’ll just get an abortion and not care about anything”

 

I find the notion that if you could buy heroin the next time you’re at the store, you might decide to pick some up and try it, jokingly silly. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by tshile

[PeterMP]

44 minutes ago, tshile said:

lol at prohibition worked. I’m not even reading that nonsense. 
 

im not sure where I’m comparing it to a case where things are legal but decriminalized for addicts. 
 

the drug war is still going on and most things are still illegal. We still have states with ridiculously harsh penalties for possession of marijuana. 
 

but that aside - I’m aware the vast majority still kneejerk rejects legalizing drugs. 

 

Well, essentially arguing for legalization is an argument against decriminalization.  And you've argued for legalization.

 

So then in making your argument for legalization you base things on prohibition which was the other extreme.  You can do things in between.

 

Fundamentally, your argument is flawed because there will always be some illegal market in theory.  You for legalizing drugs for minors?  No problem with a 14 year old buying cocaine?  Child pornography?  Etc.  Legalization isn't going to end criminal networks.  It will change what those criminal networks are involved in.

 

We need to decrease the amount of funds going to cartels.  We can do that by identifying addicts and getting them help.  That'll reduce their client base.  Making some less addictive drugs legal but without commercialization (which so far we've failed to do with other things).  And doing more on the education and enforcement front to minimize recreational use of all drugs but especially ones that remain illegal.

 

I'm also some what doubtful of what is essentially your claim that the drug market has caused human trafficking.  As if human trafficking hasn't happened forever.  The drug cartels have gotten more involved, but I think that can be tied to better enforcement at the border leading to making harder to get it across making it more lucrative to being involved in it and needing a larger organization and more money for it to happen.

 

https://leitf.org/2023/06/cartels-human-smuggling-and-unlawful-immigration/

 

Your logic sort of suggest before the drug war there was no human trafficking which I don't think is true, especially in terms of sex.  I'll go further, and it seems legal drugs might make more addicts where addiction is often used to control people that are trafficked and could actually create more people that can be manipulated and trafficked.

 

[PeterMP]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

in fact, your “on the shelves in Walmart” comment (to me) falls right in line with the “if abortions are legal than people will be like **** it I’ll just get an abortion and not care about anything”

 

I find the notion that if you could buy heroin the next time you’re at the store, you might decide to pick some up and try it, jokingly silly. 

 

This logic could be used to describe heroin and any drug in any case.  Yet somehow people still end up using heroin.

 

Are you claiming that marijuana use isn't up where it is legal?  That if its use is up that addiction to marijuana is somehow addiction to it isn't. That gambling isn't up?  And gambling addiction isn't up?

 

https://money.com/gambling-addiction-all-time-high/

 

Companies advertise because it works.  If you allow advertising (which with the internet is actually very hard to control), if it is legal, I'll pretty guarantee you you will see an increase use of heroin and a corresponding increase in heroin addicts.

Edited December 21, 2023 by PeterMP

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Well, essentially arguing for legalization is an argument against decriminalization.  And you've argued for legalization.

 

So then in making your argument for legalization you base things on prohibition which was the other extreme.  You can do things in between.

 

ok. I see what you’re saying. I’m against decriminalization as an answer, but I’m for it as a stepping stone, which I think I said at some point. 

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Fundamentally, your argument is flawed because there will always be some illegal market in theory.  You for legalizing drugs for minors?  No problem with a 14 year old buying cocaine?  Child pornography?  Etc.  Legalization isn't going to end criminal networks.  It will change what those criminal networks are involved in.

 

Um. I think it’s generally accepted that no matter what government action we’re discussing, there will always be some % of people that slip through the cracks, or cheat the system. I think we got a long ways to go before we set our sights on 0% problem or anything close. 
 

the government regulates tons of things by age. Let’s not pretend this is some insurmountable problem or something we haven’t seen before. 
 

 

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

We need to decrease the amount of funds going to cartels.  We can do that by identifying addicts and getting them help.  That'll reduce their client base.  Making some less addictive drugs legal but without commercialization (which so far we've failed to do with other things).  And doing more on the education and enforcement front to minimize recreational use of all drugs but especially ones that remain illegal.

 

yeah man people been saying this for 60 years. Let me know when it starts working. 

 

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I'm also some what doubtful of what is essentially your claim that the drug market has caused human trafficking.  As if human trafficking hasn't happened forever.  The drug cartels have gotten more involved,

I didn’t say it caused it. I said it caused the uptick in it. It’s grown crazy over the last 2-3 decades. The understanding is all the effort into importing drugs and exporting guns and cash, gave them a network to ship people around for sex slave trade that the trade would have never produced on its own. It wasn’t going to build that network.  It it would (and did and does) use that network and that use has caused it to explode. 
 

the drug war paid for all the R&D to make human trafficking what it is today. 

 

At this point it seems like you’ve put quite a bit of effort into twisting what I said. I don’t appreciate it. I’m not trying to be a dick in this conversation. 
 

and furthermore - I’m not sure the point. You, and you’ve said this before, seem pretty firm on the idea recreational users are the problem and that while you support decriminalization you draw a stark line between addicts and recreational users and actually suggest going after recreational users more and in a harsher way. 
 

this isn’t about numbers or hard facts and data. No ones really done this in our modern age. Portugal is the closest and they only did heroin. And I encourage everyone to read about their results. Lots of interesting things - not all of them are awesome. But there’s a lot to learn/consider there. 
 

this is a mindset. It’s about philosophy, morals, and what’s right for society as a whole based on what actually happens - not what theory you can right down that sounds good, but can never come to fruition. And what I see are people who have a consistent stance on this mindset across so many topics - suddenly do an about face when the topic is drugs. 
 

and I honestly think you all are making things worse. I wish i knew how to get you to see it. 
 

the only thing that always sticks out is this ignorance of how easy it is to acquire drugs these days. Mailed to your house via USPS. Don’t even need to go to the atm. Stores with rating systems that assure people on quality and purity. People who voice a concern about what it means to be able to walk into a store and buy drugs, have no idea just how easy it all is. 
 

i do get a kick out of notion that if heroin were legal tomorrow, we’d have an issue with people who have never done heroin going and giving it a try. 
 

I’ve asked a lot of people. Yet to meet the person that’s like “yeah I mean I kinda hope they legalize it, I’ve always wanted to try it”

@PeterMPsorry I got lost in my thought there. My point of bringing up your stance is and the idea of mindset was to say we’re basically on opposite ends of this one and I don’t see a way forward.

 

im happy to hypothetically discuss ideas on it, but I’m not really interested in going round and round on the concept in general. You’re not going to budge. Neither am I. 

[Renegade7]

@tshile

 

I think you better understanding my standpoint versus making assumptions.

 

Having said that, no, not everyone will try drugs because they are legal, i never said that...but you are underestimating how many people underestimate how powerful addiction can become.

 

We should not make that easier to get access to jus to avoid money going to illegal entities like they won't find a way to get some anyway even when it's legal. The real problem here is how many people are in nail when they should be getting healthcare...that's the approach Portugal took through decriminalization of so many drugs.

 

They were trying to help as many addicts as they could, legalization takes a risk that should be subject of debate of potentially creating more trouble then its worth.  Ending the War on Drugs is being pushed more from helping the actual victims in the war.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@tshile

 

I think you better understanding my standpoint versus making assumptions.

 

Having said that, no, not everyone will try drugs because they are legal, i never said that...but you are underestimating how many people underestimate how powerful addiction can become.

 

We should not make that easier to get access to jus to avoid money going to illegal entities like they won't find a way to get some anyway even when it's legal. The real problem here is how many people are in nail when they should be getting healthcare...that's the approach Portugal took through decriminalization of so many drugs.

 

They were trying to help as many addicts as they could, legalization takes a risk that should be subject of debate of potentially creating more trouble then its worth.  Ending the War on Drugs is being pushed more from helping the actual victims in the war.

you seem to think access to drugs is the issue. 
 

I don’t know what to say to that other than I don’t know how anyone could know anything about access to drugs, and think it’s anything other than easy. 
 

if you’re worried that it being in a store is what’s going to make this worse, I don’t really know what to tell you. 
 

there’s plenty to read about it. 
 

the wire did almost an entire season just on this concept. And that was like 15 years ago. It’s only gotten worse with the dark web. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

tushie, mc ren and Peter military police convo

 

Oh wait, a Wire reference!

 

 

[tshile]

In addition to never meeting that person that wants to legalize heroin so they could try it, I’ve never met a person that was like “I always wanted to try <whatever> but never knew how to get it” unless they were in the early 20’s. 

if people want to try drugs - they can and do. 
 

if they didn’t, it more than likely wasn’t because there was no way to get drugs (unless they’re in the military or something other than a more normal way of growing up) ((I’m pretty sure people in the military don’t have trouble getting drugs, their issue is making sure they don’t fail a test I believe))

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Portugal is the closest and they only did heroin. And I encourage everyone to read about their results. Lots of interesting things - not all of them are awesome. But there’s a lot to learn/consider there. 

 

Just to be clear, Portugal hasn't legalized.  They have decriminalized.  In theory, things like distribution are still illegal in Portugal.  And while the immediate results were positive.  More recently things have not gone as well and there is a push to reverse the policy.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/

 

In addition, Portugal has much tighter controls on advertising in general, like much of Europe, that don't necessarily or normally exist in the US.

 

https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/monitors/health-systems-monitor/analyses/hspm/portugal-2017/portugal-limits-advertising-of-unhealthy-food-products-for-children#:~:text=The new Law establishes restrictions,of the places mentioned before.

 

What the Portugal experience shows is that just pure decriminalization doesn't work.  You have to have a plan for people that are addicts that can't stay clean or for people that use that aren't addicts.  And IMO that may then include stiffer penalties for those people.  I'm not sure of the exact numbers of different people in different categories and how many people if caught won't use again if they are given support the first time and now a 2nd violation will be more significant.

 

I'm sorry if I've misrepresented your position.  When you say that drug use paid the R&D for human trafficking the implication to me is that human trafficking wasn't happening before or at least no much.  You pay R&D cost to make or do something new.  Human trafficking was happening.  It changed because of changes we made at the border.   It was already clear there was money in human trafficking without the cartels putting money in from drugs.  Human trafficking paid the R&D cost for human trafficking.  I think the idea that it changed because of money from drugs is not well supported.

 

Your point how easy it is undermines your claim about being able to deal with minors and drugs.  If we make drugs legal for people over 21, people that are under 21 and getting their drugs illegally from online stores and having them delivered to their house are going to continue to.  And that money is going to go to cartels.  And if people that over 21 start getting drugs from legal places in the US, the cartels are just going to change their behavior but continue to do illegal things, including selling drugs to minors.

 

In terms of legalization of drugs, we should be able to reasonably look at cases where things have been made legal here before (alcohol, marijuana, and gambling).  In those cases, we've seen increased commercialization, increased use, and at least an apparent and corresponding increase in the number of addicts.

 

To claim somehow magically that the same thing won't happen with other drugs just isn't very credible unless you are going to suggest some things to prevent what we've seen in the past with legalization.

Edited December 22, 2023 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It doesn't take a an expert to know if someone wants something they can find it in this country.

 

That's different then putting it in walmart and seeing what happens.  We gonna legalize Crack Rock commercials or advertising? 

 

Where are we going with this and what should we expect with full legalization of something that frankly has no business on the streets for the average consumer to jus try and see if they like it or not?

 

 

I will say once it is in a store I think it legitimizes it. Like, when you walk in to get your thc edible you walk past the coke isle and you say to yourself “hmm.. coke, I’ll think I’ll try a line”…

Edited December 22, 2023 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

39 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

When you say that drug use paid the R&D for human trafficking the implication to me is that human trafficking wasn't happening before or at least no much.  You pay R&D cost to make or do something new

It paid for the significant uptick/surge

 

Human trafficking and sex slavery is a centuries old problem. I think that’s common knowledge 

 

“Smuggling drugs was the research and development for smuggling people. You can directly tie human trafficking and its large growth to the drive to be really good at smuggling large amounts of drugs (and cash and guns in the other direction) constantly. “

that’s what I said. I’ll grant you that “you can directly tie human trafficking and it’s large growth” technically is poor wording and you could go the route of being overly pedantic and jumping to claiming I didn’t know sex slavery and human trafficking was a thing before the 1960’s, but it seems like a claim that isn’t intended to be taken seriously and is more about taking a silly shot. 

 

and you just continue to harp on this idea that I must have thought sex slavery was invented by drug trafficking (which is also a problem that existed before our war on drugs.) idk seems odd. 
 

39 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Your point how easy it is undermines your claim about being able to deal with minors and drugs.  If we make drugs legal for people over 21, people that are under 21 and getting their drugs illegally from online stores and having them delivered to their house are going to continue to.  And that money is going to go to cartels.  And if people that over 21 start getting drugs from legal places in the US, the cartels are just going to change their behavior but continue to do illegal things, including selling drugs to minors.

yes, you are correct, simply saying legalize drugs doesn’t solve every single problem related to it. 
 

i wouldn’t and haven’t argued otherwise. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by tshile