Non-IT News Thread
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
If you actually wanted to get people off of cigarettes, of course you would do things like that.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
I don't think you could get the tobacco growers to give away what they've produced for dozens of decades without a lot of upheaval.
Drugs like those being discussed have always been illegal in the states. There are no standing legal drug cartels in the eyes of the US or congress.
Well I'm not talking just the US (but you won't get the politicians who live on drug money to give up their money either), but more talking about in Europe - so you give the bad drugs away to reduce usage, so crank that idea up.. give away cigarettes and maybe alcohol too.
But the drug thing should be done in the USA. The whole war on drugs is just a facade.
If cigarettes were causing major health issues and crime, I'm sure that they would. But remember, the drug cartel in this case is the US gov't. So, just like the Mexican cartels are funding the US Gov't to keep the war on drugs going, the US Gov't puts a lot of pressure on other countries to allow tobacco to be sold there.
It's like the Poppy Wars in China.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why wouldn't you do this with cigarettes then?
I don't think you could get the tobacco growers to give away what they've produced for dozens of decades without a lot of upheaval.
Drugs like those being discussed have always been illegal in the states. There are no standing legal drug cartels in the eyes of the US or congress.
Well I'm not talking just the US (but you won't get the politicians who live on drug money to give up their money either), but more talking about in Europe - so you give the bad drugs away to reduce usage, so crank that idea up.. give away cigarettes and maybe alcohol too.
But the drug thing should be done in the USA. The whole war on drugs is just a facade.
The US is beyond the highest consumer of drugs, if you just gave them away, I can't imagine the amount of social damage it would do. What you need to do is avoid the problems which cause drug use in the first place. The USSR didn't have really a drug problem at all, after its dissolution, it did, and still does. Americans are overt consumers, following this logic free pizza would mean less pizza would be consumed. I don't think Americans could stop doing anything if it was free.
I am reminded of Jello Biafra's promotion of the idea that drugs should be paid for by the state, and so should drug recovery programs. Basically you'd be asking tax payers to pay for drug use and recovery, with a revolving door policy.
I think a lot of Americans confuse decriminalisation and treatment with simply giving drugs away for free and then wiping their hands of the problem. The often cited Portugal would be much different if instead of decriminalisation and treatment they simply didn't even address the problems at hand and gave addicts their drugs.
I'm not saying don't legalise them or anything else, but give away for free would make them go away? Come on.
You know what stops crack addicts? Free crack.
-
@tonyshowoff The mistake there is that the goal is not to stop being being addicts. Those people are already addicts. There is a goal of making sure that they can get help when they need it, in case they want it, but making them not addicts? Who really cares. Those people already chose a path of addiction. They are lost.
The goal is to protect everyone from them. The goal is to eliminate drug fueled crime and put an end to the crack pushers so that new people don't become addicted. Addiction and lack of access fuels massive crime, gangs, cartels and human trafficking - those are the things that we want to fight, along with the massive government corruption of the drug war system. The crack addicts aren't the concern. They just aren't important.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff The mistake there is that the goal is not to stop being being addicts. Those people are already addicts. There is a goal of making sure that they can get help when they need it, in case they want it, but making them not addicts? Who really cares. Those people already chose a path of addiction. They are lost.
The goal is to protect everyone from them. The goal is to eliminate drug fueled crime and put an end to the crack pushers so that new people don't become addicted. Addiction and lack of access fuels massive crime, gangs, cartels and human trafficking - those are the things that we want to fight, along with the massive government corruption of the drug war system. The crack addicts aren't the concern. They just aren't important.
I agree, but some people really are jumping the gun a lot when they essentially say "free drugs for everyone" without really even acknowledging we have to deal with the causes in the first place. It won't undo what's already done, but not dealing with the misery and the culture of failure created by pop culture, etc (and is why America is the #1 drug consumer in the world) is sort of like finding a good way to put out fires in your kitchen, without trying to at least avoid fires in the future.
As far as the war on drugs goes, it's just a term, it really doesn't mean anything, because any stated goals or purpose are so vague that they can just turn it into whatever they want. The only thing it's really done for certain is turned American police forces into small armies. Even 20 years ago it was rare for SWAT to kick your door in for anything, let alone drugs, now they do it for basically anything, meanwhile killing children with flash bangs and so forth.
Cops like it because it's fun, cities like it because it gets them federal money, and the federal government is a mismanaged monster... it just says a lot that most Americans gauge success of congress based on how many laws they pass. Passing laws and management are two different things, you can make all the rules you want, but if they're not followed, improperly followed, too vague to follow, or there's no money to follow them, then they're useless.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
The crack addicts aren't the concern. They just aren't important.
Which is kind of amazing - but I tend to agree with this, it sucks that people get caught in the middle, but the end user/addict is kinda the least concerning part, other than their own participation in gangs/theft, etc.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
it just says a lot that most Americans gauge success of congress based on how many laws they pass.
They do? Where is that they you are talking about? Most people I've talked to agree that more laws, other than an ultimate law (such as the outright outlawing of guns) rarely seem to do anything about the problems we have today. Anything short of that (and even that) when we don't enforce the laws that already exist is just mindless dribble, more often dribble that just empowers someone else to stick their hand in pockets even more - Obama care (now the uninsured get to pay the government a fee because they are uninsured.. yeah that makes sense!)
Passing laws and management are two different things, you can make all the rules you want, but if they're not followed, improperly followed, too vague to follow, or there's no money to follow them, then they're useless.
Agreed.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
They do? Where is that they you are talking about? Most people I've talked to agree that more laws, other than an ultimate law (such as the outright outlawing of guns) rarely seem to do anything about the problems we have today. Anything short of that (and even that) when we don't enforce the laws that already exist is just mindless dribble
I'd actually say that it's much worse when you really think about how things are done today. "The rule of law" has no meaning anymore. According to the laws every single person in any US jurisdiction are all felons. So, what do you get when the law is literally not able to be enforced? Us (pun intended.)
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
They do? Where is that they you are talking about?
It's something I've seen a lot of. Just because you don't talk to enough of the right people or read it, does not mean it doesn't happen. It is something people on the right tend to notice, however:
"Voters tend to believe a lot of myths about how American government works: things like the majority should always have its way, that popular ideas automatically deserve “up or down” votes and that Congress is more “productive” when it passes lots of laws. " Source
And that's just one example, and that was by googling: "success of congress based on laws passed", there are many other people who mention this, and as I said, mostly on the right to far right. I have, however, actually seen hyper liberals say this stuff on Facebook, typically doing something such as comparing number of laws passed by a Democratic Congress vs Republican one, and suggesting that more laws means something is getting done.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
They do? Where is that they you are talking about?
It's something I've seen a lot of. Just because you don't talk to enough of the right people or read it, does not mean it doesn't happen. It is something people on the right tend to notice, however:
"Voters tend to believe a lot of myths about how American government works: things like the majority should always have its way, that popular ideas automatically deserve “up or down” votes and that Congress is more “productive” when it passes lots of laws. " Source
And that's just one example, and that was by googling: "success of congress based on laws passed", there are many other people who mention this, and as I said, mostly on the right to far right. I have, however, actually seen hyper liberals say this stuff on Facebook, typically doing something such as comparing number of laws passed by a Democratic Congress vs Republican one, and suggesting that more laws means something is getting done.
I have always equated more laws with less freedom... I have enough common sense to believe there are some laws that are worth having. But why should it be illegal to carry ice cream cones in my back pocket on Sunday?
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
They do? Where is that they you are talking about?
It's something I've seen a lot of. Just because you don't talk to enough of the right people or read it, does not mean it doesn't happen. It is something people on the right tend to notice, however:
"Voters tend to believe a lot of myths about how American government works: things like the majority should always have its way, that popular ideas automatically deserve “up or down” votes and that Congress is more “productive” when it passes lots of laws. " Source
And that's just one example, and that was by googling: "success of congress based on laws passed", there are many other people who mention this, and as I said, mostly on the right to far right. I have, however, actually seen hyper liberals say this stuff on Facebook, typically doing something such as comparing number of laws passed by a Democratic Congress vs Republican one, and suggesting that more laws means something is getting done.
I suppose those same people believe that we're in greater danger today because we haven't passed Patriot Act II or made all guns illegal, etc.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
They do? Where is that they you are talking about?
It's something I've seen a lot of. Just because you don't talk to enough of the right people or read it, does not mean it doesn't happen. It is something people on the right tend to notice, however:
"Voters tend to believe a lot of myths about how American government works: things like the majority should always have its way, that popular ideas automatically deserve “up or down” votes and that Congress is more “productive” when it passes lots of laws. " Source
And that's just one example, and that was by googling: "success of congress based on laws passed", there are many other people who mention this, and as I said, mostly on the right to far right. I have, however, actually seen hyper liberals say this stuff on Facebook, typically doing something such as comparing number of laws passed by a Democratic Congress vs Republican one, and suggesting that more laws means something is getting done.
I suppose those same people believe that we're in greater danger today because we haven't passed Patriot Act II or made all guns illegal, etc.
If you're talking about people who consider it bad not enough laws passed, they tend to be against the Patriot Act and for stricter gun control.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
They do? Where is that they you are talking about?
It's something I've seen a lot of. Just because you don't talk to enough of the right people or read it, does not mean it doesn't happen. It is something people on the right tend to notice, however:
"Voters tend to believe a lot of myths about how American government works: things like the majority should always have its way, that popular ideas automatically deserve “up or down” votes and that Congress is more “productive” when it passes lots of laws. " Source
And that's just one example, and that was by googling: "success of congress based on laws passed", there are many other people who mention this, and as I said, mostly on the right to far right. I have, however, actually seen hyper liberals say this stuff on Facebook, typically doing something such as comparing number of laws passed by a Democratic Congress vs Republican one, and suggesting that more laws means something is getting done.
I suppose those same people believe that we're in greater danger today because we haven't passed Patriot Act II or made all guns illegal, etc.
If you're talking about people who consider it bad not enough laws passed, they tend to be against the Patriot Act and for stricter gun control.
eh? so you're saying these people are
more laws = good
Patriot Act = bad
fewer guns = good?Huh - I would have gone for the trifecta of good for those people = more laws = less freedom, which is what the Patriot Act is, and few guns also = less freedom.
But I guess that's really a different discussion.
-
I've never equated guns to freedom. I understand how it could be "stand in my way and I'll shoot you" or "I've got a gun to protect myself" but none of these laws are going to stop people from doing something illegally if it's what they want to do.
Does the Mafia just give up selling drugs because it's illegal? Of course not. So what is to stop someone from murdering someone else. Some words on paper?
Of course not.
Laws are just a way to punish people who are doing things that are "illegal" adding new laws are often added because people are getting away with something in a way that couldn't be prosecuted before.
-
What?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I've never equated guns to freedom.
I was with you until here and didn't get the rest.
-
Sorry I must be tired.
Laws only stop people who are law abiding. Anyone who wants to do something badly enough will do it no matter what (the law says).
For example the law says I can't murder a person, but could easily commit murder. Adding new laws are just creating new avenues for lawyers to prosecute people who are breaking the existing laws. (more often than not).
-
The whole reason that the second amendment is there is to protect your freedom. Granted today the populous having weapons really doesn't protect it much from the tyranny of an oppressive government, because the government has so many more resources to buy bigger and better guns/weapons/tactical gear, etc - but back in the 1700's that was the point of it. It's purely about freedom.
Now, does it mean that you can do bad things with it - oh hell yeah it does - but is that a good enough reason to remove your freedom stick?
Laws are a way to punish people for doing something illegal? I thought laws are what dictated that something was illegal - it might go so far as to say, when you break the law, then here is the punishment - but not always.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
The whole reason that the second amendment is there is to protect your freedom. Granted today the populous having weapons really doesn't protect it much from the tyranny of an oppressive government, because the government has so many more resources to buy bigger and better guns/weapons/tactical gear, etc - but back in the 1700's that was the point of it. It's purely about freedom.
You may want to look into the historical relevance of the 2nd amendment. It wasn't about freedom, per-say, it was a means of ensuring a militia was armed and had the ability to be called on a moments notice. Just after the Revolutionary war we had a money problem and had issues finding funds to deploy and support a national army.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Laws are a way to punish people for doing something illegal?
<snip>Only if the person doing them gets caught.
