Therein lies the problem. Republicans aren’t the problem, the republican politicians are. Most republican individuals I’ve spoken too are perfectly reasonable, very few people outright deny climate change, want the planet to burn or believe a child ought to be subjected to a strip search/arrested or locked up because he had one pill on him designated for personal use.
I’d also like to add, not all democrats are “woke”. A large portion of them are, but the more centrist/conservative leaning democrats tend to dismiss or reject the “far out there” ideologies.
I don’t like this either. The only time I’ve thought “this is okay” within regards to social media censorship was when twitter was putting FACT checks above Trump when he was tweeting conspiracy theories (like QANON). Other than that, I’m not for banning accounts or deleting posts because something an individual has said is offensive…
I’m going to be casting my primary votes for independent parties in the forthcoming federal election here. Probably liberal democrats (centre right libertarian party), HEMP party (protest vote/cannabis legalisation) or the reason party (arguably centre left libertarian party).
This is a byproduct of both sides, I’ll add more to this in my war on drugs thread and tag you.
I don’t mind the prospect of allowing more refugees in provided a vetting process is in place alongside some semblance of cultural integration as to make cultural acclimatisation easier for the refugee upon arrival.
I think even the rationale/narrative behind cannabis legalisation within the democratic party is misguided. They’re playing the race card, which was relevant back when the substance was criminalise to discriminate against Mexican’s and African American’s and perhaps current era disproportionate arrests for possession may have something to do with racial profiling… or it could be due to higher police presence in crime heavy neighbourhoods (where I’d argue the majority of arrests are occurring).
I’d rather see cannabis and arguably any substance less addictive/physically harmful than alcohol/tobacco legalised for a myriad of reasons, but race isn’t one of them. The hit/blow to cartels is my prime rationale, these guys are involved in some nefarious shit like human trafficking, assassinations, arms dealing etc. They’re responsible for so much death and destruction in South America, Mexico etc and this would be a fantastic way to reduce revenue within these syndicates thus reducing their power/grip on various locations, Some operate in countries wherein the penalty for use/manufacture or distribution is death. If that isn’t a deterrent, I don’t think anything is.
Police intercept a TINY fraction of product before it makes it to the streets (seriously, there are studies on this), and arresting our way out of the problem doesn’t seem to work. I’d rather a regulated market be apparent as opposed to the stories you hear of kids unknowingly handling fentanyl and dying, pure substance with exact dosage specifications = lower chance of overdose. The revenue incurred through sales (enormous) can be used to fund public education campaigns as to demonise say… cocaine like you would cigarettes as well as set up more proficient treatment facilities. I highly doubt many non users are going to start picking up hard drug use just because it’s legal, our cultural paradigm dictates such a hobby is unacceptable and people typically follow community guidelines.
Current data regarding drug law liberalisation worldwide backs the notion legalisation/decriminalisation equates to a slight downturn in youth consumption, slight uptick in older adult consumption. Youth consumption is the biggest concern associated with legalisation. Under any given framework, a substance should never be advertised and sold as a healthy pastime like booze is. Drinking culture, at least in Aus is abhorrent. Getting plastered 3-4x wk is genuinely considered acceptable by many, many aren’t aware consuming forty standard drinks per week is equitable to/more toxic that consuming a multitude of illicit substances. I have a coworker who drinks around 500-700ml of hard liquor every night (sometimes more) like clockwork but has never tried anything illicit. Under our societal constructs no one says a thing. The drinking affects his/her demeanour, this individual is unreasonably irritable and all he/she talks about is alcohol and getting drunk. He/She isn’t aware he/she has a problem, because alcoholism isn’t really talked about or acknowledged here.
Just because something is legal doesn’t equate to something being safe. Cigarettes and trans fats are illegal, though consumption of either should be and is discouraged. Making alcohol culturally engrained with just about every activity the way it is today IMO was a big mistake. Now we appear to be repeating this again with the framework by which America is legalising cannabis under, albeit I don’t believe the negative effects will be QUITE as extensive as the substance is considerably less destructive (even when abused) comparative to alcohol.
There is a good deal of public misconception and stigma surrounding drug use (good for the stigma, bad regarding ignorance/misconception), I don’t believe this will change simply due to legalisation.
Heroin maintenance therapy for lost causes/safe injection sites with routine screening works to reduce death rates/drug related crime. Crime can be mediated through an addict being unable to acquire enough product to maintain withdrawal, if someone SERIOUSLY can’t quit, methadone, buprenorphine or in the Netherlands (extreme cases) heroin maintenance eliminates withdrawal and a junkie can live a normal life. Routine screening ensures they aren’t “topping up” on the side.
The war on (many) substance deemed less harmful than alcohol or tobacco appears to be a war on perceived morality. “BuT lOoK aT tHoSe DeGeNeRaTeS!” “sips sixth beer of the night and takes a drag from cigarette”. My response is “but why? Why isn’t getting drunk three times per week considered degenerate behaviour? Taking a set dose of GHB or getting drunk is virtually interchangeable, albeit the one doesn’t last as long, doesn’t give the user a hangover the next day and only one has a sensationalised media narrative”. GHB is referred to as a date rape drug, but booze is used for this purpose far more often.
Legalisation may also pave the way for users/addicts to be more open and honest with their healthcare providers. Less worry about criminal prosecution may equate to more publicly seeking out treatment. I’m not pro use, though I don’t think it’d be a bad thing if the public were educated as to what various substances actually are and what they do. With the knowledge gained one now knows how to provide aid to an individual who is in a bad way as opposed to handling the situation badly resulting in someone getting hurt or needlessly dying. We have public education on alcohol poisoning/how to interact with a hostile drunk, yet very few know what to do when someone is having a bad trip. Having knowledge on how to react may very well save lives.
It should be noted, things would be better if people just didn’t take drugs. It’s really not that hard to just not take this shit (as @brickhead has stated earlier on here), but I suppose drug use is frequently a symptom of a larger underlying problem. People have their demons and some use drink or alternatives to try drown sorrows… but sorrows float…
Anyway, as per my rationale here, race doesn’t factor in. Using the race card as your only argument isn’t going to draw in conservatives. Imagine if I said “lets legalise heroin, brand it and sell it at supermarkets because arresting people for it is associated with racism”. WHAT? WHAAAT???
The reason these kind of laws irk me are due to the damage they ironically and unintentionally impose coupled with the sheer hypocrisy present with them. Reminds me of how Australia has criminalised vaping nicotine, yet cigarettes (the far more harmful alternative) are totally fine… It’s a BS double standard that for whatever reason criminalises the safer alternative. I frequently see the consequences associated with our toxic drinking culture coupled with our lack of insight/inadvertently harmful laws encompassing illicit substances because my particular demographic is the demographic where this crap is rifle.
Young adults shouldn’t behave this way… but they do… and our approach to this conundrum is leading to heightened rates of addiction, death with a very large portion of profits lining the pockets of terrible, terrible people.
Should note, my stance to many comes across as advocating for rampant drug use and the destruction of lives/our youth demographics future. I don’t see it this way, I see legalisation under my proposed framework as a means to reduce youth usage, cripple criminal syndicates whilst simultaneously providing a safe route for those who still wish to use. If along the way alcohol fell out of favour for something less toxic/destructive when abused (like it is… Rampantly by high schoolers and college students alike) then so be it.