The War on Drugs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

It’s the hypocritical double standards that irritate me the most

Government officials are ignoring (and admitting to it) advice given by the masses of medical professionals, coroners etc… sticking to “just say no… be tough on possession”

Despite this we have an incredibly high rate of drug use per capita… very high burden of disease induced by drugs, no semblance of harm minimisation tactics are being employed anymore… as a matter of fact we’ve backtracked considerably since 1999… and more kids are dying as a result

There was an ice enquiry submitted to the NSW govt recently. States our current aporoach is wrong (created via over 14 months of extensive research, statistical analysis and meetings)… it’s been submitted a month ago, yet the ultra conservative NSW government has yet to release it to the public as they were supposed to

I’ll put money down they’ll ignore all recommendations as happened prior when the generalised medical society within Aus all united to recommend pill testing… who knows better? A middle aged, incredibly conservative PM or a large group of MD’s + coroners? Also said to scrap sniffer dogs, strip searching etc

62

Actually I believe he stopped after this… scared the shit out of him… and he doesn’t want to have to pay such exorbitant fees again. That’s deterrent enough, 2-3 grand is a lot for us (19 y/o)

63

Who wants a military of addicted soldiers and people who can’t follow rules?

64

As I’ve specified… smoking cannabis thirty days ago doesn’t qualify you as a bad solider

Explain to me (as I’ve stated prior) why you can drink heavily within the military if you choose so to so on the weekends. But substances known to be less toxic will get you kicked out

If it were truly about addiction they’d be testing for some of the harder substances I’d specified prior

You fail to account that the majority of those who casually use something on occasion aren’t addicts. If it stems from a lack of personal experience… I’d say that’s a good thing, better off not messing with anything, including alcohol

If these rules are implemented, they should be sensible, not hypocritical

65

That’s a lot for anyone when it’s a completely and easily avoidable “mistake” :wink:

1 Like
66

You said this.

Yes there’s some hypocrisy you speak of regarding alcohol.

The basic concept still stands: follow rules and life can be relatively safe in some parts of the world.

You seem to argue on behalf of people who simply can’t or don’t like to follow rules and for them and their desires rules should be changed to suit them.

67

Following the rules does not make one good. Someone can follow all the rules and still be evil (see Mitch McConnell). I classify myself as chaotic good. Meaning I try to treat others how I would want to be treated, but I have no place for rules that do not make sense. I probably would not do well in the military.

2 Likes
68

No it doesn’t. And that’s not what I implied.

69

I agree. I was making my own point.

1 Like
70

Lol. This is my favorite alignment and also the one I fall into. #barbariandogooder

2 Likes
71

It’s not about liking to follow rules. It’s that drinking is induces an excessive amount of systematic toxicity

What if I prefer to use something that doesn’t fuck up my liver, kidneys, heart, esophagus, gastrointestinal lining, brain and more… the rules don’t make sense, they should be catered towards how dangerous something actually is

I don’t adhere to following rules when they’re inherently flawed. If rules are the be all end all, then those living within countries ruled by dictatorships should abide by the rules right? Because that’s the rules… nothing flawed about that, it’s not inherently unfair, not having freedom of speech is “part of the rules”

Because it’s part of the “rules” if I want to use something it needs to be one of the most harmful contenders possible. For those who say “just don’t”… that’s not how it works, we’ve demonstrated time and time again the “just say no” approach doesn’t work. Regulations that stigmatise certain demographics and/or induce more harm than they do good ought to be challenged. For those who say “but it’s drugs” yet like to relax with a nice cold one after work… that’s tremendously hypocritical

You’re failing to see that just because something is law, doesn’t mean that it’s just. You also need to differentiate between the fact that the vast majority of those who use substances aren’t addicts… You might consider a guy taking X,Y or Z every couple of months to be an addict, I’d say he isn’t harming anyone other than himself, especially if the substance isn’t correlated with significant health ailment.

You need to remember, the greatest demographic here are teenagers and men in their 20s to early 30s… they aren’t going to think like responsible adults

1 Like
72

I argue on behalf of those stigmatised unjustly, looked down upon unjustly and/or with hypocritical double standards. This is why I dislike Trump so much, he has taken a shit all over democracy. Its why I’m pro reproductive rights etc. Its not about rules being changed to suit them, it’s about how much harm is induced by keeping the way things are. If we consider how much of the populace here/teenage and young adult demographic in particular has used drugs, you’re looking at criminalising a good 40-50% of said demographic, that’s absurd. Rules should cater towards normality and sensibility.

What about segregation, this is an extreme example but… it was the rule that African American and Caucasians were to be segregated “separate but equal”… clearly we should not have argued in favour of abolishing segregation despite the fact that inherent unfair ideology/inconsistencies existed within said rule… changing this rule suited a certain demographic by making things more in line/fair… we can’t have that now can we.

You need to stop looking at this with such a vehement stigmatisation/ he’s an evil, no good pot smoker/drug taker (in any amount) in order to understand my ideology. I’m not trying to condone such behaviours, I’m merely thinking “how much harm will criminalising this populace induce. What are the potential ramifications of mass incarceration, how much taxpayer money/resource expenditure does it waste. What happens to these people when they get out?” etc

1 Like
73

Well, looking at the current laws, the first and third are already on the books. In other words, you don’t need new regulations because they already exist (which was my point from the other thread). The second is also enacted in various states. The problem is that there are significant holes in how they are enforced.

Assuming by “violent crime” you mean a felony… permanently removing a person’s constitutional right to own a firearm over a drunken bar brawl flies near the same territory that you are arguing about kids having their lives ruined for a joint.

And there are records. Again there are holes, but unless I’m mistaken, the Vegas shooter had records on all of those guns at time of purchase. Licensed gun dealers are already required to keep records for 20 years.

The point is that there are ways to make these regulations better enforced, but that these particular points don’t require NEW laws. How about instead of adding to the mess of regulations we streamline the ones we already have and THEN see what additional things need to be done. It’s the equivalent to opening up a new credit card when you max one out instead of just taking care of the first damn card.

Would you happen to have the source of that article? Because there’s not legal definition of the term “mass shooting” there is a wide variation in how it’s used. That’s part of the problem IMO.

74

Nope, I specified prior violent misdemeanours do exist. Simple assault, assault with a deadly weapon in NC can be considered a class A1 misdemeanour, simple affray (situation had serious potential to turn deadly), sexual battery etc are considered misdemeanours in many states… These should bar one from acquiring a firearm

Does it though, alcohol tends to be disinhibitive… I’ve never gotten violent under the influence, if you’re fighting when you’re drunk it says something about you’re character… grown men shouldn’t be fighting. Furthermore, by constitutional right… I think this should be within reason. Why does a civilian need to collect assault rifles without an adequate reason?

Perhaps, but what about the results Aus has had. I’ve heard to “mental illness” argument, but US has roughly a 2.5x higher rate of mental illness with a roughly 20x + higher gun homicide rate when adjusted for population…

As to the Vegas shooter, he purchased 55 firearms over the timeframe of 11 months… this slipped through the system entirely, no one batted an eye…

Current regulations (license requirements, background checks etc) aren’t present within all states… consequently the states with stricter controls tend to have lower homicide rates induced by guns. As I’ve specified prior, drugs harm the user barring meth/coke etc, guns when used irresponsibly can mow down an entire room of people within quick succession.

In NZ after the Christchurch shooting action was immediately taken, license requirements were instated for all firearms if I recall correctly, assault rifles were banned etc… In America in 2019 alone 400+ mass shootings (excluding gang activity, drug/organised crime related shootings) wasn’t enough to enact any significant policy change.

Def of mass shooting via Stanford uni

“three or more persons shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time. Excluded are shootings associated with organized crime, gangs or drug wars”

Congressional research service definition of mass shootings

“four or more shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrators, at a public place, excluding gang-related killings and those done with a profit-motive”

I respect you’re conveyed opinion regarding this particular subject, but I don’t agree with it. Just as you don’t agree with mine.

Not really, smoking a joint is benign, punching someone in the face isn’t. Restrictive measurements on firearms based on a prior history of violence seems reasonable. I don’t believe it’ll be as black and white as this either, I think they’ll cater it to the individual, enact a risk/benefit assessment.

Bernie isn’t open to significantly altering gun regulation federally… so if he’s the democratic candidate you’ve got nothing to worry about. I do believe though that as the years go on, the NRA will be phased out, regulations will be put in place… slowly, but surely it’s inevitable, just as I believe the assault on drug use will be put to an end eventually.

75

The point wasn’t that it was benign, the point is that I don’t favor prohibiting one’s constitutional rights based on a mistake. I’m well aware of the existence of violent misdemeanors.

In case you missed it the first time, I’d like to see the link to the article on the 2019 mass shootings with the number you specified (435 I think).

I’m aware of those definitions you posted, but again they are not the same, nor are they a legal definition (which is my point). The point isn’t that either of them are “bad” definitions but that they aren’t the same, and that currently there is no agreement on the specific definition to be used in studies or stats.

76

This thread doesn’t exclude gang related violence… but nonetheless

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org

Then there’s the wikipedia article

Unfortunately it does appear within these cases some are drug related, one was gang related… still doesn’t excuse the fact that the rate is still a good 60-80x higher than Aus when adjusted for populace

Lets compare this to Australian gun violence statistics

77

Upon a cursory read I can tell you that many more than one are gang related, for starters. This is why it is important to have common definitions and criteria for inclusion into statistics, both for studies and for the media.

The article you linked does not provide gun violence statistics and methodology. That was why I was asking. In fact, this is a direct quote from your link:

"Supporters point to the sharp declines in firearm homicide and suicide rates in Australia since 1996, whereas opponents argue that the laws had little or no effect.

Given these conflicting positions, the rigorous evaluation of the impact of the Australian NFA by Gilmour et al. (p. 1511) is an important addition to the literature. Their analysis confirmed that there were significant declines in firearm homicides and suicides following the passage of the NFA; however, it also showed that after preexisting declines in firearm death rates and the changes in nonfirearm mortality rates that occurred subsequent to the passage of the agreement were taken into account, there was no statistically observable additional impact of the NFA. The data show a clear pattern of declining firearm homicide and suicide rates, but those declines started in the late 1980s"

Emphasis mine.

Remember that I’m not arguing against gun laws, nor am I strictly opposed to them. I am arguing FOR a thorough understanding of how you are comparing countries, the ins and outs of the statistics used, where they come from, how they break down, and understanding the cultural and legal differences as well. There are significant differences between Australia and the US which go beyond population. That’s not good or bad and it’s not anti-gun law: it’s something that needs to be understood when looking at statistics and crime rates.

78

Australia already had harsher gun regulations in 1974 than the majority of US states do now… as to the second link I’ve posted, it gives a statistic regarding gun violence… 206 gun deaths vs what… over 15,000 in the US, adjust that for population and the increment is still disproportionately higher… though not as much as I’d initially thought… (about 6x higher)

79

Yes they did, which was one of the cultural and legal differences I was referring to.

Look, I know this is something of a strong opinion for you. But I’m not necessarily trying to change your opinion but to understand that there are many ways to analyze the numbers and they yield different outcomes. You have to look at the methods and you have to understand where they come from.

For instance, why not analyze the numbers based on percentage of gun owning population? Population only tells part of the story, especially when guns are much more widely spread in one country than the other.

I’m not going to go full in depth because I frankly don’t have the time or care that much, but here’s some back of the napkin math:

1991 was, % speaking, a higher time for gun violence in the USA than now. Also it was prior to the NFA. Let’s look at this:

Australia had an estimated gun ownership rate of 17.5% in 1996, the year the NFA passed. It had been declining for years, so 1991 was probably higher % wise but let’s use it as a conservative estimate. The population in 1991 was about 17.3 million. This leaves an estimate of ~4,200,000 guns (not counting illicitly owned). They had 618 deaths, or about 1 in 6,800 firearms owned.

USA had an estimated gun ownership rate of 91%, many of them owning multiple guns, and a population of 253 million in 1991. That’s 230,000,000+ guns. There were 38,371 gun deaths of all kinds reported that year, which breaks down to about 1 in 6,000 firearms owned.

Hardly a night and day difference when broken down this way (FYI numbers run for last year are closer to 1 in 22,000 guns for the US, or roughly 1.7x less incidents per gun owned than Australia that year). Is it an appropriate breakdown? Maybe, maybe not. But you see that a simple population adjustment is not the only thing to be taken into account when numbers are concerned.

There are lots of other questions I’d ask about stats in both countries were I committed to an in-depth investigation on the topic.

1 Like
80

Hi Unreal,

Sorry, first post on the forums, after reading them almost daily for the last 3 years… I really enjoy reading your comments, you’re obviously pretty switched on in your knowledge of compounds and hormones. Anyway, I’m just a dumb f#@k builder, so everyone probably knows more than me lol
But, I think you may find that in NSW, they are now testing for coke on the roadside tests after lobbyists demanded it last year… I know it was originally pot and meth, but I’m 99.9% that’s changed… have a quick look at the arrests that occurred in the eastern suburbs at the end of last year… mainly around Bondi…
Anyway, sorry, didn’t mean to detract from your post… just wanted to clarify it for the people playing along at home.
Cheers,
Tim