Lol, my biggest gripe about nearly all the “woke” states is they’re too crowded. Keep spreading the word that they suck and people should move out, and stay away. I’m jealous my parents were able to experience CA in the 60s and 70s with half the people.
I don’t understand how a nation is supposed to last with that mindset.
Californiagrown?
If they decided to build a methadone clinic next to your home, you might disagree. You have the it’s not in my backyard so it’s not my problem mentality but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem. And given the collective nature of a society, you still pay.
How would this nation ever have come into existence with that mindset? I don’t drink tea! The tax isn’t my problem.
1 Like
Do you mean by allowing the weak to weed to themselves out?
You said it’s not your problem to worry about “another.” That sounds like anyone, but are you just referring to drug addicts?
I guess that’s one side of the coin. Interestingly, the forefathers were fighting against taxation without representation. And I believe they were up in arms, literally started a war, over something like 3%.
I read the study’s abstract. Of course a decrease in arrests follows legalization because the behaviors we used to arrest people for are now tolerated. I don’t buy their assertion that violent crime remains unchanged with legalization. It is laughable on its face whether you’re talking about Lewiston, Maine or Eugene, Oregon. I don’t particularly care how the local authorities manipulate their crime stats, anyone who has lived here for more than a few years is well-aware of the sharp, dramatic decline in the safety and quality-of-life in the city.
We’re not talking about smoking a joint on your porch with a Heineken here.
All other arguments aside, a society that legalizes destructive behavior in public comes for your pockets in very significant ways. These policies don’t spring up in a vacuum, but with other destructive policies that pro legalization people are inclined towards.
Do you like paying more taxes to pay people to get high? Do you like your stuff disappearing during a series of events that will never result in anyone being arrested? Do you like being involved in pedestrian collisions when addicts dart into the road? Does your insurance cover the bloodborne illness treatment needed when you get stuck by a used needle? Do you like worsened business conditions and legally-deposited excrement in your public spaces?
Maybe that all sounds good. I can see why it might to someone who doesn’t live here, if you believe arresting fewer people is the most important thing to judge about whether or not a policy is a success.
Some Colonies did have the “tax isn’t my problem” mindset, and decided to join the Revolution for other reasons. Like desire to spread west, or to continue the practice of slavery.
When Britain became a problem for enough people, the Colonists unified and took action.
That’s how our nation stays together. After awhile problems get big enough to force the country to unify and take care of business.
I am generally referencing your earlier comment about your religion not allowing you to let people fuck themselves up, in reply to my broad comment.
We never did really set any baselines.
Generally speaking, I am happy to draw lines around and cut entitlement programs.
A nation would prosper by untethering weak links. And I’m unburdened by seeing them as the same Indian as me, or through sensational virtue myths also stemming from a tribal society.
But they weren’t against taxation.
The reason I called out the decrease in drug arrests is to acknowledge that I also see the paradox. The most important part is that other crimes remained unchanged. You can deny this if you want, and I think you have to if we really drill your argument down, but they combed recorded, objective data. I usually rely on that before conjecture myself.
If we allow it, like we currently do by packaging up in to two political parties on a see-saw of sorts.
I’m not going to address each example individually for times sake, but a few to communicate general gist:
-
I would not like paying taxes to pay people to get high. Sounds like entitlement to me. Why does this have to be mutually exclusive?
-
Do I appreciate being stolen from? Of course not. Maybe this increases. The assessment of empirical data says otherwise but I can buy in. Is preventing petty theft worth sacrificing personal choice? Not to me.
-
Collisions, illness et cetera…. same criteria for me as number two, but I think you’re exaggerating a tad. Our outlooks are probably different here, though. You’re from a small town that enacted policy changes which have seemingly introduced large city problems. I’m from and spent most of my life in Houston. A gigantic city, and if you include the burbs would surpass Chicago. And it has all the big city trappings. Bums and poop and everything that go with it are to part and parcel to life. They love sleeping on Shell One Plazas covered porches. Like the oil giant Shell. Guess what happens? People walk past them and go to their $500k energy trading jobs on a daily basis. And there are poop and needles around sometimes. Always have been, even during the DARE era.
It really never did affect lives, and definitely not the the extent of “eat the rich” fiscal policies occasionally levied.
I’m not exaggerating. These are all things I’ve experienced or someone very close to me has. It’s also no coincidence that the same type of people who advocate for hard drug legalization are also ready to manipulate crime statistics by changing what is counted and how.
I don’t particularly care what the studies say, I think it was better when the public library was a quiet place of learning, not a flophouse for junkies to hang out at while they’re high.
Where drugs have been decriminalized, addiction has gone up. Addicts, whether or not they commit crimes, are a drain on society. Just think of health care costs. And I guarantee that the mindset of do what you want on your property will not pass the what happens if your neighbor does something to bring down property values test. My town will come out and cut your grass if you let it grow over a certain height and then bill you. They will remove garbage from your yard and bill you.
They didn’t. They objectively stated historical data showing unchanged crime separate from the obvious reduction in drug crimes.
Sounds like your towns librarians need to grow some balls and kick them out.
This isn’t a problem common to other cities with historically high drug addicted homeless populations. They usually take over shitty rundown parks and out of sight greenbelts under overpasses or something because they get run-off. Even the Shell One bums move along as the downtown buzz picks up. To the block corner, where they admittedly annoyingly hustle for donations.
Call me skeptical on that one, based off of my interactions with local government. The same crowd likes other studies that conclude it is harmful to deny cross-sex hormones to children who want to hide this from their parents.
In fact, it seems as though my state has followed the “studies say” and “experts say” line of thought into a whole array of terrible public policies.
Add the word reported in there. In San Francisco, merchants don’t bother reporting shoplifting because nothing gets done about it. And getting away with stealing several hundred dollars worth of merchandise isn’t exactly petty.
The difference here is objective data from record logs vs. selling conjecture around loosely interpreted input.
The problem your state has is that it marries individual liberty with woke, “be very careful not to offend anyone” bullshit. Individual liberty isn’t the problem. And the two can be separated.
Yeah, that’s all they do. Among other things, they still procreate. Guess who pays for that?