Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Mardoc]

I was addressing your claim about how legalisation supposedly results in the reduction of government control.  There is 'less government control' on consumption, but then government control increases on the mandatory healthcare that results. On the 'reduce government control' count it looks like one step forward, two steps back, but libertarians focus on the one step forward, which I find puzzling.

Why do you think this is going to lead to a new program?  Why would that program be universal, covering more than just drug treatment?  Just because that's the way the Dutch did it?  It seems likely to me that it's going to be a minor increase in Medicaid - which already is paying for a lot of addiction treatment anyway. Private insurance...hard to say which direction it will go; on the one hand, more smokers, on the other hand, quality control may decrease other health effects. And on the third hand, they may be able to charge different people different amounts by actuarial calculations. Would have to be an actuary to estimate the net effect, I think.

How do you measure government intrusion?  I think of it as a combination of government budget and governmental rules.  It's definitely going to decrease the rules.  On budget, all I have to believe is that it's cheaper to run a clinic than to run a prison, per capita, by a factor larger than the increase in usage.  It wouldn't be cheaper if we went from 10% of the population to 100% smoking, but, well...I don't honestly think the current approach is reducing usage by much.

To a large extent the War is still quite necessary

This, I think, is the real empirical question.  It seems to me that the War isn't actually accomplishing anything.  It's probably as easy to get any random drug now as it's ever been, and on top those of us who don't partake have to pay for the War and lose rights to it.  I might feel differently if I thought the cops could affect usage significantly.  For that matter, if usage does actually spike after legalization, I might change my mind.

Whether legalisation is overall a good thing, that is a separate question. To address one point you brought up, I find rather dubious the notion that if some police are willing to plant weed, that if weed is legalised they're not going to change to planting something else.

Well, that's probably true for just weed.  If we were to continue the trend of legalization, so that we got rid of 'possession' crimes completely (or at least most of them), then they would run out of other things to plant.  Also - well, honestly, if we get rid of 'victimless' crimes, then I expect a culture shift toward people trusting the police more and the police trusting the citizenry more.  The more cases of 'but if I call in the police then I'm in trouble too' we can eliminate, the better I expect crime control to work for the remaining crimes.

But I admit this is handwaving, and even if it does happen, could be attributed to many other potential causes.

[Japper007]

For that matter, if usage does actually spike after legalization, I might change my mind

http://drugwarfacts.org/node/950

It doesn't, I claimed before that the US smokes more weed on average, and data backs this up. Also the Netherlands do not smoke more weed than some of the very strictest EU members w.r.t Cannabis use, for a more apt comparison (Americans always seem to think they are incomparable to other countries for some reason, see also: gun control, healthcare). 
Maybe it's because in the US there is this whole stoner counter-culture due to it's illegality? I mean, in the Netherlands, most people's response to someone saying they smoke weed is "whatever, loser " while in the US there is this entire subculture of stoners who build their entire identity around smoking, which you just don't see over here (well apart from the tourists who buy all those cannabis leaf t-shirts and stink up Amsterdam, but again they are outsiders). In fact weed usage is seen as a rather trashy/ lower class thing to do here.

[Mardoc]

It doesn't

It hasn't in the few selected places it's been tried.  That's an indicator of what's likely to happen elsewhere, but it's hardly a guarantee.

I claimed before that the US smokes more weed on average, and data backs this up. Also the Netherlands do not smoke more weed than some of the very strictest EU members w.r.t Cannabis use, for a more apt comparison

So that could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use', or that could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use among Dutch people', or it could be 'legalization doesn't immediately cause massively increased use', or it could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use when combined with all of the rest of Dutch law'. Or lots of other variations on the theme.

(Americans always seem to think they are incomparable to other countries for some reason, see also: gun control, healthcare). 

I think countries in general aren't very comparable.  They all have different people, different cultures, different histories and paths taken, different climate, rural/urban splits, on and on and on.  We're just the example of variation I care about most, since I live here.  I don't even believe that Colorado necessarily predicts the country as a whole, let alone that we'll be identical to the Netherlands....just that it's likely enough to be worth expanding the experiment.

If countries were comparable and people were all the same, then US foreign policy would work more often!

[scooter]

For that matter, if usage does actually spike after legalization, I might change my mind

It doesn't, I claimed before that the US smokes more weed on average, and data backs this up. Also the Netherlands do not smoke more weed than some of the very strictest EU members w.r.t Cannabis use, for a more apt comparison (Americans always seem to think they are incomparable to other countries for some reason, see also: gun control, healthcare). 
Maybe it's because in the US there is this whole stoner counter-culture due to it's illegality? I mean, in the Netherlands, most people's response to someone saying they smoke weed is "whatever, loser " while in the US there is this entire subculture of stoners who build their entire identity around smoking, which you just don't see over here (well apart from the tourists who buy all those cannabis leaf t-shirts and stink up Amsterdam, but again they are outsiders). In fact weed usage is seen as a rather trashy/ lower class thing to do here.

Interestingly, one thing the US has done well is stamp down on cigarette smoking, especially in comparison to Europe. I really don't understand why so many are unwilling to consider the lessons learned. Due largely to treating smoking as a public health issue rather than a legal one, the "coolness" of smoking cigarettes is virtually gone now here. (There are of course other factors.) Smoking has that same "trashy" image in most of the US now that weed apparently has in Europe. Take away the coolness/edginess of drugs in the US, and I imagine a similar effect would gradually play out.

Also - well, honestly, if we get rid of 'victimless' crimes, then I expect a culture shift toward people trusting the police more and the police trusting the citizenry more.  The more cases of 'but if I call in the police then I'm in trouble too' we can eliminate, the better I expect crime control to work for the remaining crimes.

I think this is a really underrated possible perk of legalization. A lot of problems we have in policing right now are direct side effects of the current drug laws/enforcement.

[ipecac]

How is (the demand to pay for a form of socialised) healthcare greater governmental control (than the threat to remove you from society, remove your total liberty and control your every action).

It's not about the threat but the amount of restraint by government that libertarians are talking about. Replace prison time with fines and the amount of control is still the same.

[ipecac]

Why do you think this is going to lead to a new program?  Why would that program be universal, covering more than just drug treatment?  Just because that's the way the Dutch did it?  It seems likely to me that it's going to be a minor increase in Medicaid - which already is paying for a lot of addiction treatment anyway.

Could be a new program, could just be another increase in costs.

How do you measure government intrusion?  I think of it as a combination of government budget and governmental rules.  It's definitely going to decrease the rules.  

Why definitely? There may well be rules needed about legal distribution.

On budget, all I have to believe is that it's cheaper to run a clinic than to run a prison, per capita, by a factor larger than the increase in usage.

The number of people actually imprisoned for consumption is very small.

This, I think, is the real empirical question.  It seems to me that the War isn't actually accomplishing anything.  It's probably as easy to get any random drug now as it's ever been, and on top those of us who don't partake have to pay for the War and lose rights to it.  I might feel differently if I thought the cops could affect usage significantly.  For that matter, if usage does actually spike after legalization, I might change my mind.

I would say it depends. On hard drugs the war is definitely useful to socialise people against wanting to consume it.

 If we were to continue the trend of legalization, so that we got rid of 'possession' crimes completely (or at least most of them), then they would run out of other things to plant.  Also - well, honestly, if we get rid of 'victimless' crimes, then I expect a culture shift toward people trusting the police more and the police trusting the citizenry more.  The more cases of 'but if I call in the police then I'm in trouble too' we can eliminate, the better I expect crime control to work for the remaining crimes.

But I admit this is handwaving, and even if it does happen, could be attributed to many other potential causes.

I think the best long-term solution is to socialise people against taking the drugs, as scooter described, which would get the advantages you want without the disadvantages of legalisation.

[ipecac]

It hasn't in the few selected places it's been tried.  That's an indicator of what's likely to happen elsewhere, but it's hardly a guarantee.

So that could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use', or that could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use among Dutch people', or it could be 'legalization doesn't immediately cause massively increased use', or it could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use when combined with all of the rest of Dutch law'. Or lots of other variations on the theme.

(Americans always seem to think they are incomparable to other countries for some reason, see also: gun control, healthcare). 

I think countries in general aren't very comparable.  They all have different people, different cultures, different histories and paths taken, different climate, rural/urban splits, on and on and on.  We're just the example of variation I care about most, since I live here.  I don't even believe that Colorado necessarily predicts the country as a whole, let alone that we'll be identical to the Netherlands....just that it's likely enough to be worth expanding the experiment.

If countries were comparable and people were all the same, then US foreign policy would work more often!

I agree with everything here. The very simplistic idea that 'laws are laws' and 'people are just the same, right' just doesn't work in real life. Important factors include existing social mores and how the laws are socialised.

So legalisation in a society which looks on the consumers as losers, with the rationale of legalisation being to help the mentally ill, will most likely differ from legalisation in a society where consumption is 'cool and edgy' and the rationale being 'why should anyone stand in the way of your hedonism?'

To digress somewhat, leftists need to stop assuming that people are fungible, with the worst consequence the crazy mass migration they support.

[Japper007]

It hasn't in the few selected places it's been tried.  That's an indicator of what's likely to happen elsewhere, but it's hardly a guarantee.

So that could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use', or that could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use among Dutch people', or it could be 'legalization doesn't immediately cause massively increased use', or it could be 'legalization doesn't cause massively increased use when combined with all of the rest of Dutch law'.  Or lots of other variations on the theme.

(Americans always seem to think they are incomparable to other countries for some reason, see also: gun control, healthcare). 

I think countries in general aren't very comparable.  They all have different people, different cultures, different histories and paths taken, different climate, rural/urban splits, on and on and on.  We're just the example of variation I care about most, since I live here.  I don't even believe that Colorado necessarily predicts the country as a whole, let alone that we'll be identical to the Netherlands....just that it's likely enough to be worth expanding the experiment.

If countries were comparable and people were all the same, then US foreign policy would work more often!

I agree with everything here. The very simplistic idea that 'laws are laws' and 'people are just the same, right' just doesn't work in real life. Important factors include existing social mores and how the laws are socialised.

So legalisation in a society which looks on the consumers as losers, with the rationale of legalisation being to help the mentally ill, will most likely differ from legalisation in a society where consumption is 'cool and edgy' and the rationale being 'why should anyone stand in the way of your hedonism?'

To digress somewhat, leftists need to stop assuming that people are fungible, with the worst consequence the crazy mass migration they support.

And Conservatives need to stop pretending that culture is some immutable, insurmountable difference between people. I mean, I know your entire "ideology" is based on this being the case, but it is... you know... not reality  

Also "leftists" support mass immigration apparently    someone has never been to Europe... I mean we oppose Trumps immigration policy, of cource, as we are human beings, but open borders are not some broadly supported leftist policy.

[ipecac]

And Conservatives need to stop pretending that culture is some immutable, insurmountable difference between people. I mean, I know your entire "ideology" is based on this being the case, but it is... you know... not reality  

Try not to project your own simplistic approach, because it just creates strawmen.

Also "leftists" support mass immigration apparently    someone has never been to Europe... I mean we oppose Trumps immigration policy, of cource, as we are human beings, but open borders are not some broadly supported leftist policy.

Which is why millions of 'refugees' flooded into Europe since 2015, and many more would if the globalists had their way.

[Japper007]

"Millions" of refugees flooded Europe. Huh weird, didn't notice this, and I live here. Maybe it's because that is Fox News level bologna? It's a few million at most, well within the Eu's carrying capacity.

You did shift from using leftist to globalist though, which are not the same thing, but I do have to give you credit for at least coming up with a slightly more apt term. To bad you chose to use a one you don't find outside of conspiratorial webnews though.