{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/16/2014 4:24:13 PM
21
Futility of Illegalizing Desired Products/Services.
[url=http://i.imgur.com/wYXyZKz.jpg]Oh wait, wrong image.[/url]
If I might construct a simple scenario/strawman.
Person A: I think that owning guns is wrong and causes too much evil in this world. Banning them will solve the problems we have.
Person B: No, banning them just means that criminals will be the only ones with guns.
Person C: I think abortions are wrong and that banning them will solve the problems we have.
Person D: No, banning them just means you force people to get them in back alleys using wire coat hangers again.
Person E: I think alcohol is wrong and that banning it will solve the problems we have.
Person F: No, banning it just means you create an underground liquor market.
Person G: I think drug use is wrong and that banning it will solve the problems we have.
Person H: No, banning it just means you create an underground drug market.
Can you spot the pattern?
The pattern being that banning something that people desire is ultimately futile since people can and will circumvent the law. "But Methew! You stupid Lib-tard!" I hear you scream "I think my cause is just because of X! And that by banning it, with stop most instances of it, which is better than just allowing it to continue!"
Yes, but at what cost?
Note that with all of these there are other, new problems introduced as well. A de-armed populace has much more trouble overthrowing a potentially tyrannical government. Even assuming best case scenario, which is improbable, where the child isn't aborted, that adult is almost guaranteed to be trapped in low class, consuming tax funded services. Attempting to ban illegal substances gives power and strength to the mobs/cartels/drug lords supplying it.
The War on Drugs has turned the United States into a prison state. We spend more on prisons than we do schools. We have the highest jailed population of any other nation. All to fight the War on Drugs. Which has objectively failed. Brazil (IIRC) decriminalized drug use and treated it like a health issue instead and reduced drug use drastically and quickly.
And I'm not even mentioning all potential problems either.
Want to fix the problem? Address the underlying causes driving people to such things.
-
[quote]A de-armed populace has much more trouble overthrowing a potentially tyrannical government.[/quote]hahahahaha
-
I agree
-
For once you and I can actually agree on something.
-
4 RepliesSo, it's banned for American citizens to have RPGs and I'm pretty sure almost none have them.
-
Edited by U124926: 5/16/2014 7:00:08 PMAgreed. We've banned murder and yet people still murder all the time, it's pointless. Legalize murder and it will go away, because we can try to address the underlying causes driving people to murder. Because as we've seen, with it banned rather than being provided as a service to the public, people will try to take it upon themselves or go through illegal business means for it.
-
What? You mean you want people to have freedoms? -blam!-ing A. I've been saying this for years and have only been called crazy by you (liberal) guys.
-
It's like how Actavis or whatever their name is stopped producing their promethazine and codeine cough syrup because people use it to make lean/purple drank. (2 to 8 ounces of the syrup mixed with Sprite and a Jolly Rancher thrown in.) Now people that need the cough syrup for medicinal use won't have access, and people using it to make lean will probably use the over the counter syrup with DXM which causes hallucinations and paranoia for up to 6 hours. People don't get it.
-
None of this will matter when the darkness comes. But please describe to me in detail the Kinder Surprise Cartel that has made millions from illegally distributing chocolate eggs with an easily swallow-able toy inside the US.
-
3 RepliesWouldn't legalising drugs stamp out any power Cartel's and general drug dealers have? That would save alot of lives, in theory.
-
7 RepliesI dont see the problem with C and D. Abortions are immoral unless the mother's life is endanger. I'd see the danger of back alley abortions to be a justified consequence of making that choice.
-
The US spends far more on education than prisons. It's not really even close. - Der
-
1 ReplyI totally agree, you Americans shouldn't have to live in a world where you can go to prison for wanting a Kinder Surprise.
-
8 RepliesExactly. This seemed more libertarian a statement than liberal. I also agree, now let's see how many others do.
-
9 RepliesThis thread has earned the [u]Sexy Seal of Approval[/u]™
-
Finally someone gets it right
-
6 RepliesSomething's not right in this thread. I feel sick, like I'm going to vomit. Why do I feel this way? What's wrong with me? Oh, it's because for some reason I'm agreeing with your thread....
-
Please stop shitposting.
-
4 RepliesEdited by Recon Number 54: 5/16/2014 4:40:20 PMBlaming the inanimate object or substance for the "evils it causes" is a very human, but not very logical (or effective) method of reducing "the problem". Attempting to write laws that curtail the availability, access or use of the inanimate object will only serve to "keep the honest people honest". It's like locking your front door. If someone is intent on getting into your house, no law and no lock is going to deter or stop them. The object/substance doesn't "by itself" cause the harm. It is the misuse, abuse, or criminal use of it that does. While some would say "we just need to make the consequences of misuse, abuse or criminal use more severe and that will solve the problem", I can see the point, but disagree that it is the "solution". People already know that in many locations, the penalty and potential outcome of the crime of murder could be the death penalty or life imprisonment. That may give SOME people pause and prevent them from acting on a murderous impulse, but we can see that the laws and the known consequences don't eliminate the crime, the loss, the harm that some people are willing to cause, even with those risks/consequences clearly known. The real issue and question is "How to we get more people to be "good people"?" And that is a question that has been asked for thousands of years. If anyone has a good a workable answer? I know an entire planet that would be eager to hear it. Late Edit: I have been on a Ken Burns kick lately on Netflix. His film on Prohibition was wonderful and I would wholeheartedly recommend that anyone who is interested in the subject of "legislating morality for the common good" watch it. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70281600?strkid=1587548258_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=70281600
-
I agree, to a degree, legalisation and regulation is generally preferable to illegalisation, whether that's substances, abortion, prostitution, so on, the issue that then comes in is logistical, who's then in charge of this? What tax is placed on it? How are substances distributed? How are standards upheld? Do we limit certain things? Should abortions be seen as "Emergency treatments"? What licenses need to be created? I mean, this could work out in the long term to create jobs and so on but it's such a nightmare in the short-term that no government would dare, that's without mentioning that there would be continued stigma against these industries, it'd be like PETA to the extreme. Put simply, there's not really an ethical consideration, just a short-term practical one.
-
Well, we agree on something.
-
Not to mention that we're only breeding hardened criminals by locking them up for trivial "crimes" such as possession and distribution of drugs.
