[Synergy]

Comparing "sugar" or in your case refined table sugar to cocaine is ridiculous. Consuming small amounts of simple refined sugars is not unhealthy in the context of a healthy balanced diet and lifestyle. Over consumption is a different story. Sugar is not an evil poison some lead you to believe.

Labelling sugar as bad simply distracts one from the true problem.

Enough said, I'm not about to turn this into a biochemistry lesson.

Sorry if I was coming across rudely, it's just very frustrating to read.

 

[andrewf]

Clearly, they are both on the spectrum of 'controlled substances', with several jurisdictions imposing sin taxes on sugary beverages. However, you correctly note that the comparison was absurd, it was an attempt at the reductio ad absurdum logical argument against the original argument that (A) marijuana is at least somewhat 'bad' and (B) all bad things should be prohibited therefore (C) marijuana should be prohibited. You can slot many things in place of marijuana in proposition (A) that makes the conclusion absurd, therefore the argument is not sound.

 

[Synergy]

Ah, the dreaded fat tax. This is not just on sugary drinks. It's bad public policy that fails to address the real problem. A topic for another thread!

 

[james4beach]

Is it time for Canada to consider decriminalizing all drugs like Oregon just did? This would mean no jail time for small amounts of any drug (cocaine, meth, etc)

With this measure, the penalty for minor drug possession will be similar to a traffic ticket. $100 fine if you are caught with a small amount of cocaine, heroine, etc. and I believe it comes with mandatory referral to addiction counselling.

This is a good move to stop wasting everyone's time and money, including the courts, for small drug offences. The police can then focus their time & energy on more significant crimes... which is what most of us want.

Lots of money will be saved on not arresting, not prosecuting, and not jailing people for minor drug offences. We know that Conservatives love to save money, and want government to mostly stay out of people's business... so I expect this would be popular among Conservatives and Republicans.

 

[MrMatt]

Is it time for Canada to consider decriminalizing all drugs like Oregon just did? This would mean no jail time for small amounts of any drug (cocaine, meth, etc)

With this measure, the penalty for minor drug possession will be similar to a traffic ticket. $100 fine if you are caught with a small amount of cocaine, heroine, etc. and I believe it comes with mandatory referral to addiction counselling.

This is a good move to stop wasting everyone's time and money, including the courts, for small drug offences. The police can then focus their time & energy on more significant crimes... which is what most of us want.

Lots of money will be saved on not arresting, not prosecuting, and not jailing people for minor drug offences. We know that Conservatives love to save money, and want government to mostly stay out of people's business... so I expect this would be popular among Conservatives and Republicans.

Haha, mandatory addiction counselling? You try to implement that and the lefties will be all over you.
You're not the boss of me! Just give me my money.

Many people don't even think drug abuse is a problem

 

[andrewf]

Many people?

Conservatives tend to want to punish drug users for their moral failures. Prison and homelessness is what they deserve. Add a dash of racism and you get the war on drugs. Thankfully that is starting to end and we are beginning to treat it as the socialogical and public health problem it is, rather than a matter of ever harsher criminal penalties.

 

[MrMatt]

Many people?

Conservatives tend to want to punish drug users for their moral failures. Prison and homelessness is what they deserve. Add a dash of racism and you get the war on drugs. Thankfully that is starting to end and we are beginning to treat it as the socialogical and public health problem it is, rather than a matter of ever harsher criminal penalties.

I guess.

I'm not that type of Conservative though.

I agree it is a public health problem, and we need to develop more sophisticated methods to deal with it.

Drug addiction is most certainly NOT a "moral failing".
For sufficiently antisocial behaviour, I'm not opposed to criminal penalties, or aggressive attempts to address the problem.

Being an alcoholic is a public health problem, driving a car and putting people at risk is criminal.

Pretending that substance abuse impact doesn't exist on a spectrum from marginally bad, to absolutely abhorrent is ignorant.

That being said, I don't think encouraging recreational drug use is a good idea.
Legalizing pot, calling supervised injection sites "safe injection" sites is misleading.

I agree with the restrictions we have on tobacco and alcohol advertising. Perhaps we should do more here as well.

 

[andrewf]

Vice has been running a pretty interesting series on the War on Drugs. Just saw this and thought I would share. Essentially, there is a massive problem with cannabis adulterated with synthetic CBD compounds in Germany. Goes to answer the question of why we are legalizing marijuana (to provide a regulated supply). As the dealer in the video says, people think they are buying a shanty but are instead getting moonshine.

 

[MrMatt]

We're legalizing pot because it won Trudeau an election.

As a recreational product, it is unsafe.
Knowing what we know, legalizing pot makes less sense than legalizing tobacco.

This whole "a legal supply is safer" argument is BS, it's laziness and an unwillingness to do the right thing.

I shouldn't be forced to get my fentanyl from street vendors, they should have it at Walmart, maybe subsidize it with tax dollars.

 

[andrewf]

^ Strawman. And prohibition is a taxpayer subsidy (costs the treasury). Legalization generates revenue. Experience with jurisdictions that have legalized shows that the sky has not fallen. It is absolutely bizarre to see people who normally espouse libertarian views twist themselves into knots to justify prohibition.

 

[MrMatt]

^ Strawman. And prohibition is a taxpayer subsidy (costs the treasury). Legalization generates revenue. Experience with jurisdictions that have legalized shows that the sky has not fallen. It is absolutely bizarre to see people who normally espouse libertarian views twist themselves into knots to justify prohibition.

I'm being pragmatic.
We have governments that have massive control over our lives and reallocated tremendous amounts of wealth, often to our detriment.
Given the incredible influence and control they've been granted over our lives, shouldn't at least some of that be directed to our benefit?


Personally I'm only libertarian leaning due to the lack of better options.
Look at the US President & Senate, or the Canadian PM, do you really want them deciding how things should be done?

Given the choice between them, and not them, I choose not them.

If governments were capable of making good decisions I'd be happier giving them more power, but since they are not, they shouldn't... hence my Liberal leanings.

Finally I'm okay with you smoking pot, just
1. Don't expose me or my family to any of your pollution
2. Don't expect me to pay for it.
3. Don't expect me to bail out any impacts it has upon your life. ie take responsibility for your decision.

Unless you take the libertarian position in regards to your actions, don't expect me to take it in regards to your actions either.

 

[MrMatt]

^ Strawman. And prohibition is a taxpayer subsidy (costs the treasury). Legalization generates revenue. Experience with jurisdictions that have legalized shows that the sky has not fallen. It is absolutely bizarre to see people who normally espouse libertarian views twist themselves into knots to justify prohibition.

Lets legalize prostitution then.

Oh wait, we can't take the libertarian position and allow people bodily autonomy. My body my choice.. unless, you know, we actually let people choose things for themselves.

Secondly spending tax dollars for the benefit of society is reasonable, and arguably the only reason for taxation.
The government should definitely not be putting profit before people.

 

[cainvest]

Lets legalize prostitution then.

It's legal in some countries ... just saying.

 

[MrMatt]

It's legal in some countries ... just saying.

But not here, so why the double standard?
It's really simple actually.

Pot was legalized for votes, there is no moral, philosophical or scientific reason, just votes.

Prostitution is banned because our political leaders are overwhelmingly sexist.
Heck here the laws are specifically designed based on being "victim centric", because people don't believe women should be permitted bodily autonomy.

 

[MrMatt]

That's actually not a bad thing to do. Just try doing some research for yourself. It would actually help with diminishing the rape rate, the girls working in the domain would have actual healthcare benefits and proper conditons. STDs would be so much more controlled, etc...

yes, part of me agrees with this.
However if you consider sex violence against women, then simply decrimalizing a bad thing doesn't suddenly make it good.

 

[cainvest]

But not here, so why the double standard?

Many different standards exist around the world, maybe the next PM will get elected by making prostitution legal!

 

[andrewf]

Lets legalize prostitution then.

Oh wait, we can't take the libertarian position and allow people bodily autonomy. My body my choice.. unless, you know, we actually let people choose things for themselves.

Secondly spending tax dollars for the benefit of society is reasonable, and arguably the only reason for taxation.
The government should definitely not be putting profit before people.

I think you believe I wouldn't agree with this. I think prostitution should be legalized and regulated to address issues of STI/public health, violence against women, and people trafficking/slavery. And if you think people shouldn't engage in sex work (I'm not a big fan of its existence), you should address it by providing the right supports for those who are drawn to it out of desperation, etc. to escape that lifestyle. There are some that claim to quite like it and I can't really second guess them.

 

[andrewf]

But not here, so why the double standard?
It's really simple actually.

Pot was legalized for votes, there is no moral, philosophical or scientific reason, just votes.

Prostitution is banned because our political leaders are overwhelmingly sexist.
Heck here the laws are specifically designed based on being "victim centric", because people don't believe women should be permitted bodily autonomy.

Prostitution has not been legalized.... yet. It is probably coming in Canada (there have been Supreme Court cases on the matter). It is definitely a bridge beyond legalizing pot. I also tend to think we should decriminalize harder drugs and treat addiction as a public health problem. A lot of petty property crime and theft is to fund drug addiction habits that are beyond the reach of public health outreach. I would not object to public health supplying safe supply of such drugs to bring addicts into contact with programs to get them help and break the cycle. It is very expensive to force them to the shadows and tie up emergency services, prisons, hospitals not to mention the property loss and damage. Also highly related to homelessness.

 

[andrewf]

yes, part of me agrees with this.
However if you consider sex violence against women, then simply decrimalizing a bad thing doesn't suddenly make it good.

Prohibiting sex work prevents sex workers from seeking legal recourse/protection from harm. Also it makes it harder to identify people are being trafficked for sex work. Wanting to ban all these things seems akin to wanting to stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't happen. I think it is better to let it all happen in the open and have the legal system handle any disputes rather than guys shooting each other outside nightclubs on Friday night.

 

[MrMatt]

I think you believe I wouldn't agree with this. I think prostitution should be legalized and regulated to address issues of STI/public health, violence against women, and people trafficking/slavery. And if you think people shouldn't engage in sex work (I'm not a big fan of its existence), you should address it by providing the right supports for those who are drawn to it out of desperation, etc. to escape that lifestyle. There are some that claim to quite like it and I can't really second guess them.

Well, you actually get to part of the problem. " providing the right supports for those who are drawn to it out of desperation"
This is the path to ..... massive welfare support and Universal basic income.

I don't think anyone should be forced into sex work.
But the same logic that nobody should be coerced through economic pressures to do work they find distasteful leads to a whole bunch of things.

I know people who find the following work "distasteful"
sex work
medical work
sanitation & garbage
law enforcement (prison guards more than police)
restaurant work/Food service

and on and on.
Some people walk out of call centers because it's a "horrible work environment". I know people who quit high paying design jobs because National Defense is "unethical".

To be fair I actually know people who do all those jobs, many enjoy them. I did know some sex workers who actually enjoyed their jobs.
So where is the dividing line of what we should as a society pay to avoid and not?