-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I do find this a telling critique of a number of very vocal people.
Not sure I see that as a valid argument or critique.
Substitute "women" for "the unborn" and you can pretty much use it to "argue" Biden and the Democrats only really care about women's rights and things like Roe v Wade when it's easy - as evidenced by their abandoning of woman in Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and shrugging their shoulders.
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And calling them morally uncomplicated is a bit of a stretch too
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Crucial Great post and again highlights how we somehow value some lives more than others. I have always been sad at the number of people who die from overdose every year, but society seems to think they bought that on themselves.
As a society we should be doing everything we can do reduce the number of people who suffer from addiction and the related harms.
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
Switzerland has a similar model and saw deaths drop by 60%+ and theft dropped by an enormous amount.
Not to mention all those deaths by firearms
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And the unborn can't. Which kinda answer Barnhart's question as to why people give them more focus, does it not?
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Crucial Great post and again highlights how we somehow value some lives more than others. I have always been sad at the number of people who die from overdose every year, but society seems to think they bought that on themselves.
As a society we should be doing everything we can do reduce the number of people who suffer from addiction and the related harms.
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
Switzerland has a similar model and saw deaths drop by 60%+ and theft dropped by an enormous amount.
Decriminalising drugs is a complete no brainer.
Unfortunately far too many people are rusted on to the idea that tougher sentences => less crime for it to get off the ground in most places.
And of course in the US the corporations who rely on an increasing prison population to keep increasing profits might have something to say about it.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And the unborn can't. Which kinda answer Barnhart's question as to why people give them more focus, does it not?
It does, but it doesn't address the other component of his argument in that their concern doesn't extend to actually improving anything once they're born. You don't have to actually do anything that might be mistaken for a Christian act.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Decisions are made about lives all the time by governments and those that are directly affected usually have little to no say. The hypocrisy from politicians that claim a moral standing here to 'protect a life' would be funny if it wasn't so impacting.
Let's see some follow up that says life saving drugs have to be made available to those they will save. That median barriers must be funded on major roads (proven to reduce deaths by 60%). The obvious gun laws needed to stop access to military weapons etc etc
That seems like an argument that, because bad things happen and government does things all the time which impact people who have little say, those who campaign on, say, child sex abuse, are moral hypocrites as they don't campaign equally on other issues like drug access or gun laws.
And wouldn't child sex abuse be an equally " easy hat to hang your morality on."?
I get the legal arguments about the constitution etc but this decision was unlikely to have happened without the driver of desire from a belief system and the power to implement it.
Of course it didn't happen without being driven by a belief system and the power to implement it. That is exactly what happened with Roe v Wade in '73.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And the unborn can't. Which kinda answer Barnhart's question as to why people give them more focus, does it not?
It does, but it doesn't address the other component of his argument in that their concern doesn't extend to actually improving anything once they're born. You don't have to actually do anything that might be mistaken for a Christian act.
Which kinda goes back to my original point about the selective morality which Barnhart criticises, which is it is equally evident on both sides of the argument.
-
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
The "war on drugs" is/was daft, but are you talking about making all drugs legal or only legal for addicts?
Switzerland has a similar model and saw deaths drop by 60%+ and theft dropped by an enormous amount.
Think you'll find all drugs, even cannabis, are illegal in Switzerland. Was living in Switzerland then and Zurich's "Needle Park" was a national and international embarrassment for the country. They put in place a similar model to much of Europe where drugs are banned but a pragmatic approach from stopping supply thru clean needles to addiction treatment has been in place since the late '80's and has made a huge difference.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
The "war on drugs" is/was daft, but are you talking about making all drugs legal or only legal for addicts?
Decriminalised, rather than legalised. So they're still restricted / prohibited, you just don't end up with a criminal record for them.
Would have to be for everyone for it to work.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And the unborn can't. Which kinda answer Barnhart's question as to why people give them more focus, does it not?
It does, but it doesn't address the other component of his argument in that their concern doesn't extend to actually improving anything once they're born. You don't have to actually do anything that might be mistaken for a Christian act.
Which kinda goes back to my original point about the selective morality which Barnhart criticises, which is it is equally evident on both sides of the argument.
Nothing wrong with pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, but it's no mitigation for Republic hypocrisy
-
@Victor-Meldrew I believe Switzerland allows heroin addicts to get medical grade heroin at clinics and they inject it on site. If the US had a similar program their deaths would be far lower.
My personal opinion is certain drugs like cannabis should be legal and taxed just like alcohol. Other drugs should be decriminalised as the current model is just stupid and penalises those in need of help. It also fuels gang warfare and an entire illegal distribution network.
There should also of course be a well-funded treatment program. This program could easily be paid for with the tax from cannabis and the reduction of people in the criminal justice system.
No amount of Police enforcement will ever make any difference to the supply and use of illegal drugs. It should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one.
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew I believe Switzerland allows heroin addicts to get medical grade heroin at clinics and they inject it on site. If the US had a similar program their deaths would be far lower.
That's been pretty much the model in most of Europe since the '80's - though oral methadone is given out in many places along with needle exchange. The Swiss were behind the rest of Europe on this.
No amount of Police enforcement will ever make any difference to the supply and use of illegal drugs.
Evidence seems to be you need both enforcement and drug programs. Oregon scrapped enforcement of small amounts of drugs and saw addition soar as they didn't expect the number of addicts to increase and didn't have the programmes in place.
It should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one.
From an user's perspective, absolutely.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
No amount of Police enforcement will ever make any difference to the supply and use of illegal drugs.
Evidence seems to be you need both enforcement and drug programs. Oregon scrapped enforcement of small amounts of drugs and saw addition soar as they didn't expect the number of addicts to increase and didn't have the programmes in place.
Why would the number of addicts increase?
Sounds like an argument for more / better health care, not more law enforcement
-
@gibbon-rib said in US Politics:
Why would the number of addicts increase?
Probably for the same reason shoplifting exploded in California and businesses closed when stealing less than £1,000 of goods was made a misdemeanour rather than a felony - the police don't investigate.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@gibbon-rib said in US Politics:
Why would the number of addicts increase?
Probably for the same reason shoplifting exploded in California and businesses closed when stealing less than £1,000 of goods was made a misdemeanour rather than a felony - the police don't investigate.
Shoplifting I understand, that seems a very predictable result. But becoming addicted to drugs is a very different kind of crime. Would be surprising if addiction went up after decriminalisation, normally goes the other way
-
There's a difference between de-criminalising possession (sensible and shown to work as part of an anti-drugs policy) and making possession of drugs legal. If a substance is addictive and it becomes de facto legal, addiction will go up as usage increases.
Similar thing happened with Prohibition. Even though alcohol consumption only fell by 30%, there was a big drop in alcohol cirrhosis rates. That was reversed when prohibition ended.
-
Registered.
“[N]owhere is the shift more pronounced — and dangerous for Democrats — than in the suburbs, where well-educated swing voters who turned against Trump’s Republican Party in recent years appear to be swinging back. Over the last year, far more people are switching to the GOP across suburban counties from Denver to Atlanta and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Republicans also gained ground in counties around medium-size cities such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Augusta, Georgia; and Des Moines, Iowa.”
Last month:
-
Honeymoon is over?
.
The Savior.
-
Hilary Clinton v Trump in 2024? FFS.
US Politics