Rules are often incorrect or have unintended consequences. That’s why they change over and over again.
You should follow the rules doesn’t mean we shouldn’t alter the rules to make more sense and have better outcomes. One could easily make the argument that many of our attempted fixes in regards to drugs haven’t been effective and we should look to change those rules. And you can actually point to places that have relaxed or altered their rules and have seen much better outcomes.
Women voting, interracial marriage, ending slavery, etc were all started by people who thought rules needed to be changed. Not that life would be best if no one questioned the status quo.
Portugal has had some pretty good successes treating addiction as a disease and not a crime. If the goal of our “rules” is to keep drug use from happening I’m not sure I could see anyone saying it’s a success.
I understand what you and others say Regarding rules in this context. For a long time I’ve understood this.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people inclined to constantly break rules, not does it make it so that I am not going to be suspicious of people who put a premium on getting high, as if it’s so important.
I don’t think someone’s life should be destroyed by long term prison sentencing because of drug use.
I also don’t consider suitable punishments for drug possession or distribution or having one’s fun at a concert halted to be forms of oppression, akin to slavery.
Well… that’s a step towards being fair I suppose (one can say the roadside tests aren’t targeting a certain demographic given this). I know VIC, QLD, NT and QLD don’t test for coke… Though the notion of the testing, how the tests are conducted (looking for the presence rather than legitimate impairment remains flawed
Well what is a suitable punishment here? Is decriminalisation (i.e… a fine and a referral to a detox centre dependant on the drug) adequate… or do we need users getting criminal records and stints in prison? Irreversibly altering any future chance for employment… perhaps predisposing said individual to turn to crime (dealing etc) to make ends meet.
Drug possession and distribution are two VERY different animals. The one has the potential to harm many (blood on hands), whereas minor possession, say half a gram of cocaine, 2 g shrooms… whatever… an amount clearly intended for personal use can’t be sold to 100’s of people… potentially killing a few. Minor possession without intent to distribute shouldn’t garner a prison sentence and/or permanent criminal record. If someone behaves erratically under the influence, commits a crime… then I’m all for sentencing… but the mere possession doesn’t feel to me as if it ought to be punished harshly… if at all (for softer substances)
Yes I’m aware. I have a close family member and two friends, one a very close friend, who did sentences for distribution, so I don’t think of this lightly. I’ll try to explain more thoroughly later.
Agreed, and with the ideology of food being sold for nutritional value… what about Twinkies, KFC, donuts etc… foods that have almost zero value… foods that cater towards the obese, those with food addictions etc
So why should one self destructive behavior that impacts others negatively be treated as a matter of freedom of choice and another as a crime? A food addict is somehow different from a drug addict?
IT HAPPENED AGAIN! the quote… wait… it just changed… strange. Initially it stated on my screen “a food addict is somehow different to a drug addict” was a quote made by brickhead
