Saturday, June 11, 2016

An Eye Brow Raised

Interesting, first time I can remember a government doing something sensible. 

7 comments:

Bob Wallace said...

I'd steal to get my dog surgery. It's not like I'm using it to buy Gucci handbags as most of these people do!

Thane Eichenauer said...

Decriminalization just might help reduce the number of arrests and imprisonment but it is far from a solution. If beer, wine and rum production was subject to decriminalization there would still be black markets causing crime and little reduction of the prohibition prison police industrial complex.

The article ends by saying "While Uruguay aims to set an example, its drug policies still remain a tangled mess.". Decriminalization is at best an small improvement and in most cases just a mess.

98abaile said...

How is this sensible? Did everyone in the last 10 years just suddenly forget why drugs legislation exists? It's to stop drugs abuse. Where did this ridiculous idea come from that it's to stop the drugs trade or to reduce crime? Removing the law doesn't morally redeem the previously illegal action nor mitigate its consequences. A paper reduction in the crime does not equate to an actual reduction in actions.

Here's a radical idea. What if we decided that drugs abuse, no matter how minor, resulted in a public flogging or capital punishment for prolific offenders? How soon would drugs abuse plummet? How long after that would the local drug trade and associated crime shrivel up and disappear? How soon after that would cartels and the world drugs trade see a massive retraction in their market?

Where did this stupid idea come from that we should focus on tackling the supply side of the problem when the demand side is stronger than ever? Where did this stupid idea come from that the best way to deal with the drugs problem was to give up entirely? Decriminalising something does not solve the issue, it simply turns a blind eye to it.

liberranter said...

But of course it's a foreign government that's doing something sensible. Not only that, but a foreign government located in a part of the world that wrote the book on corruption, ineptitude, and insanity when it comes to government. And yet, with all of that said, I knew even before clicking on the link that the government in question would NOT be the U.S. government. No way in hell, EVER, that Rome-on-the-Potomac would do anything sensible, especially where drugs are concerned.

Anonymous said...

"I see Social Justice Worriors" You will get my joke after reading this article:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/health/gang-stalking-targeted-individuals.html?referer=

Anonymous said...

This is the case in some European countries. The problem is the inherent contradiction in the system: you can have it, but you cannot legally get to have it. I don´t know for this measure but otherwise Uruguay (spent some time there) is a textbook example of how a socialist government can quickly and efficiently ruin a country. You might want to make a case study on it.

sth_txs said...

"Where did this stupid idea come from that we should focus on tackling the supply side of the problem when the demand side is stronger than ever? Where did this stupid idea come from that the best way to deal with the drugs problem was to give up entirely? Decriminalising something does not solve the issue, it simply turns a blind eye to it."

Show me how 40 plus years of the 'drug war' has done anything than give the government more power over our property and destruction of civil liberties. The drug war in the US originally stared with Nixon wanting revenge on those sorry hippies who could see the Vietnam war for the fraud it was from the beginning.

Lots of people abuse alcohol, but we know how that worked out. Drug abuse is terrible, and I think those using the harder drugs should be left to die. However, we need to be asking ourselves why is society producing so much of this?