Recent deaths of two black men by police

[blah the Prussian]

How did a simple drug destroy an economy?

Well, basically the extent of its infestation was absurd. It was extremely widespread, and more and more people were getting into the Opium trade To add to that, the British demanded a huge payment from the Chinese. This, added to the corruption of the Imperial Court, made modernization impossible, leading to China being kicked around by the West and Japan for close to a century before Mao came and then China kicked itself around. But this is way beyond the scope of the thread; suffice it to say that Opium is bad, kids.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

so long story short, winners don't do drugs.

you could also apply it to the subject this thread, one of those guys are definitely not a winner, the other was killed due to police incompetence, what we have here is an extreme example of two kinds of police shootings, the "this guy is reaching for his gun and is a repeat offender" shooting, and the "literally didn't do a thing, the police fucked up".

if these are the shootings i am thinking about of course, these days people killing each other are a dime a dozen in terms of news reports so it gets hard to remember every name and face.

Edited July 9, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[solrocknroll]

I don't see the problem with drugs. With the exception of meth, most drugs only do damage to the user. Funnily, alcohol is the main exception here.

Like, it's their life and you shouldn't feel the need to choose for them. If they want to spend their lives high, then who are you to stop them?

[blah the Prussian]

I don't see the problem with drugs. With the exception of meth, most drugs only do damage to the user. Funnily, alcohol is the main exception here.

Like, it's their life and you shouldn't feel the need to choose for them. If they want to spend their lives high, then who are you to stop them?

I literally just got through explaining how drugs wrecked all of China. Here, I'll even quote it for you:

Well, basically the extent of its infestation was absurd. It was extremely widespread, and more and more people were getting into the Opium trade To add to that, the British demanded a huge payment from the Chinese. This, added to the corruption of the Imperial Court, made modernization impossible, leading to China being kicked around by the West and Japan for close to a century before Mao came and then China kicked itself around. But this is way beyond the scope of the thread; suffice it to say that Opium is bad, kids.

Also, I'm no one to stop them, but the ruler of a country who cares about their citizens is one to stop them. Like, are you going to legalize suicide? Keep in mind also that generally speaking people are sentenced to rehab for possession; similar to people who attempt suicide being given psychological help. Finally, speaking as someone who lost a grandfather to lung cancer due to cigarettes (yes I know they're legal, but the principle applies to any drug that can kill, which is the vast majority) it NEVER just hurts you. Everyone has people they care about, and drugs ruin them, too.

[Phoenix Wright]

Its another name for Heroin, yes. It has special significance to China because the UK illegally sold Opium to Chinese in the 1800s, which devastated the Chinese economy.

opium is not another name for heroin, though they're similar (heroin is made from opium). heroin is much, much stronger.

it is clear that criminalizing drug use is ineffective, and therefore i suggest we follow portugal's methods in dealing with its use. perhaps then we could get into a discussion on changing distribution and production laws.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

opium is not another name for heroin, though they're similar (heroin is made from opium). heroin is much, much stronger.

it is clear that criminalizing drug use is ineffective, and therefore i suggest we follow portugal's methods in dealing with its use. perhaps we could get into a discussion on changing distribution and production laws.

I do agree that jail time shouldn't be the result of possession alone. I think forced rehab is the answer.

[Original Alear]

I do agree that jail time shouldn't be the result of possession alone. I think forced rehab is the answer.

We do have forced rehab in some situations already. I think it's currently far from perfect but it's probably better than sending people to jail for possession.

[Sweet_Basil]

My opinion.

Some drugs should be decriminalized -> cannabis

Some should be criminalized -> Tobacco (it's harmful not only to people that take it but also second hand smoke), Cancer inducing garbage like sugar and alcohol.

[dondon151]

I don't see the problem with drugs. With the exception of meth, most drugs only do damage to the user. Funnily, alcohol is the main exception here.

Like, it's their life and you shouldn't feel the need to choose for them. If they want to spend their lives high, then who are you to stop them?

because some people really don't want to spend their lives high but cannot stop craving a high due to physiological effects wrought on the body by drugs

drugs don't just damage the user. go to a rehab facility and talk to some of the people there.

[Rapier]

it is clear that criminalizing drug use is ineffective, and therefore i suggest we follow portugal's methods in dealing with its use. perhaps then we could get into a discussion on changing distribution and production laws.

And how is legalizing drugs a more effective method of lowering drug use and bad stuff related to it? Also, what should be done to the heavier drugs (is it really sensible to be lax with drugs like heroin and crack)? I understand that heavy restrictions/bans aren't very effective, and I think that drugs that don't harm third parties should be legalized since it's up to said person to be responsible for their own lives and we more often than not lack any sort of justification to forcefully intervene, but that doesn't mean being lax is the answer. Laws aren't perfect, but they help.

iirc Portugal didn't legalize drugs, it just "reformed" its criminal approach to drugs (being more lax but still limiting its use), but I could be wrong.

Back to the topic, I saw an interview about it some time ago. I hate to be the person asking the obvious, but on what part of the police killings is racism explicit, other than the "hey look, white guy killed black guy, therefore racism!" logic leap with no backing up evidence whatsoever? If there's anything racist about the words that the cops used or anything of the like, I've missed it, and I'd like to be clarified. For me, it's clear that the police is either unprepared or too abusive, though, and this is unacceptable. Shooting someone five times to "immobilize" them? That's bullshit.

because some people really don't want to spend their lives high but cannot stop craving a high due to physiological effects wrought on the body by drugs

drugs don't just damage the user. go to a rehab facility and talk to some of the people there.

Not sure about this since it leads to a slippery slope. If we follow this reasoning, we'll end up prohibiting tobacco and alcohol since it is also the reason why people break up with their families and the sort, and that would only be the beginning.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

And how is legalizing drugs a more effective method of lowering drug use and bad stuff related to it? Also, what should be done to the heavier drugs (is it really sensible to be lax with drugs like heroin and crack)? I understand that heavy restrictions/bans aren't very effective, and I think that drugs that don't harm third parties should be legalized since it's up to said person to be responsible for their own lives and we more often than not lack any sort of justification to forcefully intervene, but that doesn't mean being lax is the answer. Laws aren't perfect, but they help.

iirc Portugal didn't legalize drugs, it just "reformed" its criminal approach to drugs (being more lax but still limiting its use), but I could be wrong.

Back to the topic, I saw an interview about it some time ago. I hate to be the person asking the obvious, but on what part of the police killings is racism explicit, other than the "hey look, white guy killed black guy, therefore racism!" logic leap with no backing up evidence whatsoever? If there's anything racist about the words that the cops used or anything of the like, I've missed it, and I'd like to be clarified. For me, it's clear that the police is either unprepared or too abusive, though, and this is unacceptable. Shooting someone five times to "immobilize" them? That's bullshit.

Not sure about this since it leads to a slippery slope. If we follow this reasoning, we'll end up prohibiting tobacco and alcohol since it is also the reason why people break up with their families and the sort, and that would only be the beginning.

i think a more careful reading of my post will clear up your confusions. to be brief,

1. i'm no lawyer, so in my head "decriminalization" is different from legalization. and so given that, i didn't mean to say drugs should be legalized. i don't think possession (for personal use) should ever be met with jail time. so in summary, as i said, i would like to see something similar to portugal--if "decriminalization" is a poor word, then a "reformation" of the criminal process is necessary.

2. i don't think narcotics merit jail time for possession. people addicted to drugs need help, but aren't always in the place to take it or even want it to begin with. our prison system doesn't work.

use of narcotics is actually not very high, marijuana far, far outnumbers any of them. we should strive to keep usage low, but i'm personally more focused on getting those who use the help they need rather than trying to prevent further use. excluding marijuana, narcotics use is on the decline, as with violent crime in general (at least in the united states). perhaps we could be doing a better job? i dunno.

[Rapier]

True, decriminalization is not always the same as legalization (decriminalization = basically taking it off from the criminal code, if I did pay attention to class), but if you are taking the law away, the practice becomes legal (anything that is not forbidden is allowed on most western law codes). It could be regulated by another code or law (like civil/private law) I guess, although this isn't what you meant.

From what I understand now, you want it to stay on the criminal code, but change the penalty to something lighter/more sensible (rehabilitation is still a penalty). Ok, I agree. I thought you wanted to give drug users a "legal leeway", as in, allow free drug use, which is what I spoke against in the first place.

But what should be done about drug prohibition? Ok, I agree that arresting people that are already screwed by their drug usage only makes their lives worse, but drug distribution is also an issue. Any ideas on how to cut the problem's roots? This is a topic that gets me confused because it's so controvertial. By legalizing or making drug distribution/usage laws more lax, I can see how the carcerary population is going to become lower, but if drug dependency (and thus expenses on rehabilitation programs) also increases, I don't see how it is so beneficial.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

i used to think i know the answer to this problem, but i don't. i'm really not informed enough in psychology, criminal law (wrt drugs), the history of drug use in the us, etc etc etc to tackle the complex issues from production and distribution.

my gut is to make it real hard for producers to make money. if you make it too hard/impossible for the production of drugs to be lucrative, you kinda stop drug trafficking in its tracks. but how the fuck do you do that? i gots no idea

[Original Alear]

This is the first time in about 2 months that I remembered that Dondon existed.

My opinion.

Some drugs should be decriminalized -> cannabis

Some should be criminalized -> Tobacco (it's harmful not only to people that take it but also second hand smoke), Cancer inducing garbage like sugar and alcohol.

It's not that hard to get a contact high from pot. There are also concerns that it can have an affect on dopamine release over the long term (seems like the scientific community is undecided/divided on this).

Also, it's possible to use both tobacco and pot without risking secondhand smoke, though chewing tobacco seems particularly disgusting.

If there's anything racist about the words that the cops used or anything of the like, I've missed it, and I'd like to be clarified. For me, it's clear that the police is either unprepared or too abusive, though, and this is unacceptable. Shooting someone five times to "immobilize" them? That's bullshit.

It's partially a statistical thing. There seems to be pretty strong evidence that police come down harder on blacks in america than whites, even if you've never seen it yourself. There was a recent study done by a harvard professor (a black one) that suggested that while police were in general more likely to use violence against a black suspect than a white one, they were not more likely to actually fire at black suspects than whites. There are other studies that suggest this is incorrect, and I have to admit that when I was looking at some of the details of the study's methodology, some of the details seemed a bit questionable (I can go into detail if you want). Baton Rouge apparently had a history of police brutality against blacks. Of course, defenders of the police might argue that there was more force used against blacks because the black citizens commit more crimes, etc.

White nationalism in law enforcement is not a new thing either. Not just in the regions of the US you'd typically expect it, either. Around the 90s to the 2000s there was a group of white nationalists in LA who worked in the Sheriff's office (the lynwood vikings). The first lawsuit involving one of them concluded with the sheriff's offices paying almost $1 million in damages for a wrongful death lawsuit. It's worth saying it looks like there might have been at least one instance of a black power gang infiltrating a police force as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynwood_Vikings

There are other examples, but the above seems like one of the most sustained cases.

There are even some rumors that one of the Dallas police (Lohrne) killed was a white nationalist, based on some tattoos he had which are sometimes associated with neo nazis etc. Wouldn't say that justifies shooting him, but racism in the police force isn't exactly news.

It's also worth saying that not all abusive officers are white.