I believe that, clean food, and clean water, and shelter, should be offered to everyone around the World. However, I don't believe, that trying to solve the homeless problem in Liberal Democrat ran states around America, are going to be solved by give out drug kits, or giving junkies, clean places to simply shoot up drugs in.
There shouldn't be any illegal drugs. Not without a constitutional amendment, anyway. If 3/4 of the nation wants to ban a drug, I won't argue ...much. Hopefully they'll recall how 'successful' prohibition of alcohol was. Though I'd prefer it if all products and (consentual between adults) services were legal, with the harmful ones being taxed to fund educational programs about how harmful they are.
I wish that alcohol was illegal, as well as pot, and ALL other illegal drugs out there. don't worry, Democrat Politicians are trying to make other sick illegal drugs, legal. They've tried in Western states before. They've tried making mushrooms legal. The Halloscagenic kind. not what rednecks search for.
There should not exist a victimless crime. It’s a fake way to get humans in prison for having self determination.
Are people going to stop dying from drugs, if they make them legal? \ there will be more deaths if it becomes legal, there by, destroying more victoms.
Ok. I express my displeasure for this at the ballot box. How is it related to drugs, exactly? Please be specific.
You are confusing two very different questions. Nobody believes that drugs are a basic human right. That does not say anything about what is or is not good public policy. It was never a basic human right to have electricity, but it was good public policy to extend electrification to rural parts of America, so we did,
My opinion is that there should be a special area designated so people can do what they want, but far away from the rest of society. Drug use causes too many problems for the rest of society. But I do not believe in possession laws. I think there is also a distinction that needs to be recognized between making the sale of something illegal, versus making the possession of something illegal. Saying that a physical thing "should be illegal" brushes over that.
But Food isn't a basic human right, though right? Cause I think that it should be. I just wish that Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat Politicians thought so as well. That way, instead of shoot up centers, and drug kits in California, they'd give out non perishable foods to the poor that live on streets, or build way more homeless shelters. That's what I'd do, if the state I were a politician in, was overflowing with crime, and poverty, and people were junkies every where I looked, and they were defecating in the streets.
I am not sure if you are trying to say that drugs ought to be seen as a basic human right because food should be or not, but its the very definition of false equilivancy to compare the two. I do agree that food is a 'basic human right' but pot, or opiods, or shrooks are not nessisary for human existance.
Nope, the war on drugs has never been successful. What you are arguing is what people have argued since the 1950s, and it has never worked. In fact the war on drugs turned the cities into war zones and killed far more people than the drugs alone would have killed. When you make something illegal, it becomes about the money. Illegal stuff is very valuable. So all you do by banning substances is make criminals rich and take control away from the State. You are just funding the drug cartels, the gangs, and the drug dealers. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
What kinds of things, do you think that there should be a "designated" area, for people to do anything immoral that they want? Underage raping of girls(aka human sex trafficking)? murder? crack cocaine, heroine? what is ok to do, and where are your limits with what other people do, even if it is done far away from others? So, since you don't believe in "possession laws", you'd be fine with Drug Lords and Illegals getting caught with thousands of lbs worth of cocaine, or meth, or heroin, and they shouldn't get punished to you? or what?
Democrats seem to think that that they can only harm others, if it directly effects someone. lmao!!! yeah, that's not common sense though. nor is it real life.
It's ok though, because what I'm saying, is that Democrats in California, would rather give homeless people drugs, and places to do them, instead of helping them with what they need even more, which are homeless shelters, and food. People like Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Watters, and Kamala Harris. Devin Nunes. who preach about the 1 percenters, and big corporations, and then control the corporations, and tell them what to do. and live in million dollar houses with all the food they want, and private security, that have plenty of weapons they want.
All policy should be judged by its effect. It is too simple to say, "Drugs are bad so they should be illegal." We need to study and anticipate the effects of policies. Broadly speaking, having drugs illegal has not helped with drug problems, and we should have known this based upon our experiences with alcohol prohibition. Rather, attacking drug use in this was introduces more problems such as organized crime and more career criminals. If you put somebody in prison for mere drug use, you limit their legit opportunities and push them towards a criminal lifestyle. If you criminalize a product with an absolute demand, you create lucrative business for gangs. Whenever nobody is harmed against their consent, drug use should be seen as a medical issue. If they do harm other people and out of control drug use is the cause, then drug treatment should be considered as part of their rehabilitation. But just putting people in jail for having drugs? Does more harm than good. As for drug kits, the idea is to reduce the harm associated with drug use. It doesn't cause drug use. Drug use occurs either way. But if you can reduce the transmission of hepatitis, you can do some good. What does help with drug use is demand-side strategies. Educating the public and trying to shift the culture away from drug use are the only measures that can truly help, and also don't harm people like putting a casual user in jail.
I'M PRETTY SURE THAT HUNTER BIDEN THINKS THAT DRUGS SHOULD BE A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. HE NEEDS MORE CRACK, AND PROSTITUTES.
I think it is complicated, both yes and no. I think arguments could be put up for both. Maybe we need to get creative and think up ways to help recognize this right, while still addressing the arguments from the other side. One example might be a designated place where all the drug users can go to live, away from the rest of society.
or we could just do want the Socialist California does? provide more places for junkies to shoot up illegal drugs. So children can watch them and see the good example, democrat politicians want to be set for children. Look ma! I could be like that heroin addict! Thank you dem dem politicians!
You give me an hour to respond to a three month old thread? If you kill someone while driving drunk, the book should be thrown at you. It’s intentional homicide if you ask me. If you only harm them, it’s attempted homicide.
That's obviously not what I was talking about. Think about it. You said drug users should not be punished when their actions do not harm another. So then, should intoxicated drivers also not be punished so long as their actions do not harm another?
