Another shooting in Murica

[scaramanga]

But if you are a minority group that feels disproportionately targeted in a country that is scared of big government you are going to stay armed, to protect yourself from the overreach of the Police....a body whom you already distrust and who are part of a bigger system you distrust.

The police need to change their image and be seen again as law enforcement rather than dangerous

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Just as in every other country, the police target the lower classes, as that is the source of the vast majority of crime - especially violent crime.

The targeting of lower classes and the over-representation of minorities in those classes are just correlation.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Well, there's not much that works in isolation for big societal issues.

In my opinion ending the war on drugs is close to a necessary step if one wants to drastically reduce gun deaths, violence and crime in the US.

You're probably right, but most parents would say they don't want their kids mixed up with drugs and put pressure on politicians and police to follow a hard line. Legalising drugs would appear a way to remove the criminal elements and connected violence.

 

[scaramanga]

You're probably right, but most parents would say they don't want their kids mixed up with drugs and put pressure on politicians and police to follow a hard line. Legalising drugs would appear a way to remove the criminal elements and connected violence.

Most parents know nothing about drugs or the consequences (or the lack thereof).

It would make far more sense to legalise drugs and double down on the crimes undertaken to pay for drugs.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Most parents know nothing about drugs or the consequences (or the lack thereof).

It would make far more sense to legalise drugs and double down on the crimes undertaken to pay for drugs.

I believe nobody knows the consequences of taking drugs as they can be different with each individual, you can generalise but that leave you in the dark.

 

[Baleforce]

It's a long way from that to "shot first, ask later"

i'm not sure it is in the moment, no matter how much training you give a person is always going to act in self interest first

 

[scaramanga]

I believe nobody knows the consequences of taking drugs as they can be different with each individual, you can generalise but that leave you in the dark.

If the underlying conditions for dependency and related problems are there, they will likely happen with alcohol, prescription medication or some other legally available method.

If you're concerned about the very rare cases of allergic reaction or non-dependant overdose, then I suspect legalisation will make them far easier to control.

 

[braineclipse]

Just as in every other country, the police target the lower classes, as that is the source of the vast majority of crime - especially violent crime.

The targeting of lower classes and the over-representation of minorities in those classes are just correlation.

You're saying there's no racism? I refuse to believe that...

I believe nobody knows the consequences of taking drugs as they can be different with each individual, you can generalise but that leave you in the dark.

What I do have a pretty good grasp of is the consequences of the current drug policy in the US and (some) other countries. And anyone arguing that the correct solution has been applied is in my opinion just flat out wrong.

I think there's a very good chance in the future people will look back at this age as just another prohibition. And will be as baffled about why we would have this prohibition as we are about the alcohol one.

You're probably right, but most parents would say they don't want their kids mixed up with drugs and put pressure on politicians and police to follow a hard line. Legalising drugs would appear a way to remove the criminal elements and connected violence.

Legalizing drugs is just one potential solution. De-criminalizing users is another, probably more realistic solution. Fairly fundamentalist idealistic groups won't even allow this conversation to be had in a serious manner in many countries. Though the tide seems to be turning somewhat, it's turning slowly and it might just be a matter of time before the tide turns the other way again.

 

[braineclipse]

If the underlying conditions for dependency and related problems are there, they will likely happen with alcohol, prescription medication or some other legally available method.

If you're concerned about the very rare cases of allergic reaction or non-dependant overdose, then I suspect legalisation will make them far easier to control.

I don't think there's evidence to support your first claim. It's certainly possible that it's the case, it's most certainly the case for some victims. But there hasn't been anywhere near enough research to state what you claim as a fact though, in part because of current criminal law making research on such issue a bit of a non-starter.

It might be that different groups of people will fall victim to different substances if more are legalized/decriminalized. Much like different people end up the victims of smoking and alcohol at the moment.

There are for example valid concerns about things like drug induced psychosis and similar issues, concerns that get blown way out of proportions by those dogmatically opposed to any decriminalization attempts. But concerns none the less. You don't really have anything similar with alcohol. Though again research might mean this will be a bit of a non-issue as standards are developed for purity, user dosages etc, but right now we don't really know enough imo.

 

[scaramanga]

You're saying there's no racism? I refuse to believe that...

Do you mean in the police force or the population in general?

Obviously there are racists in the police force, there would be in any group that size. I haven't seen anything to suggest that's why people are getting shot. Asians are shot less than whites, black police are more likely to shoot a black civilian than white police. I'm sure there's plenty of sexism and homophobia, but that doesn't manifest in shootings.

If you're asking about society as a whole, then again, there is obviously some racism. I don't believe that current racism has any significant basis in the correlation between class and race in the US - I think that's mostly historical in its making.

 

[braineclipse]

Do you mean in the police force or the population in general?

Obviously there are racists in the police force, there would be in any group that size. I haven't seen anything to suggest that's why people are getting shot. Asians are shot less than whites, black police are more likely to shoot a black civilian than white police. I'm sure there's plenty of sexism and homophobia, but that doesn't manifest in shootings.

If you're asking about society as a whole, then again, there is obviously some racism. I don't believe that current racism has any significant basis in the correlation between class and race in the US - I think that's mostly historical in its making.

I'm not sure what you're saying adds up to there not being racism involved in some police shootings. Not really interested in a long discussion on it. But with what we know about biased thinking, stereotypical thinking and prejudice it would be surprising if quick decisions like shootings weren't influenced by the racism we agree is there. Wouldn't it have to be one of the few areas of cognition not influenced by these factors for it not to influence what's going on?

 

[scaramanga]

I don't think there's evidence to support your first claim. It's certainly possible that it's the case, it's most certainly the case for some victims. But there hasn't been anywhere near enough research to state what you claim as a fact though, in part because of current criminal law making research on such issue a bit of a non-starter.

It might be that different groups of people will fall victim to different substances if more are legalized/decriminalized. Much like different people end up the victims of smoking and alcohol at the moment.

There are for example valid concerns about things like drug induced psychosis and similar issues, concerns that get blown way out of proportions by those dogmatically opposed to any decriminalization attempts. But concerns none the less. You don't really have anything similar with alcohol. Though again research might mean this will be a bit of a non-issue as standards are developed for purity, user dosages etc, but right now we don't really know enough imo.

I agree there isn't enough research.

Without being able to point to anything in particular, I do recall seeing some convincing research about how dependence is caused by underlying risk factors and that the substance is more a symptom than a cause.

I'd like to see it studied, but I think it's a fairly small leap to suggest that someone in need of that kind of a crutch would find one no matter what.

 

[scaramanga]

I'm not sure what you're saying adds up to there not being racism involved in some police shootings. Not really interested in a long discussion on it. But with what we know about biased thinking, stereotypical thinking and prejudice it would be surprising if quick decisions like shootings weren't influenced by the racism we agree is there. Wouldn't it have to be one of the few areas of cognition not influenced by these factors for it not to influence what's going on?

I just think it's rare enough that if a person presents me with a video of a policeman shooting a suspect, it's overwhelmingly unlikely to be caused by racism.

 

[braineclipse]

I agree there isn't enough research.

Without being able to point to anything in particular, I do recall seeing some convincing research about how dependence is caused by underlying risk factors and that the substance is more a symptom than a cause.

I'd like to see it studied, but I think it's a fairly small leap to suggest that someone in need of that kind of a crutch would find one no matter what.

Underlying risk factors are fairly well documented yes, and most of them are socio-economic I think. But the effect of various substances is different and as such I think it's quite likely that the different effect will hit different people with various risk factors.

That being said, the way things are at the moment a large amount of those at risk will get their hands on the illegal drugs anyway and in the process making themselves a criminal (another risk factor). The prohibition as it is isn't keeping the drugs away from the people it's dangerous for, and it quite possibly making it more dangerous for a lot of (already at risk) people. Meanwhile massive resources are being wasted in policing, punishment and other enforcement and the economic consequences in terms of crime, unemployment etc are huge as well. Societal costs in terms of quality of life, violence, gun crime etc also follows.

On balance, for me at least, the current approach seems clearly inferior overall to a more liberal approach of at least decriminalizing. And from what I know most or all attempts to do so have seen results that can only really be interpreted as positive. I just think it's prudent to also be aware of the potential downsides to a more liberal approach (what separates me from the hippies, I'm sure you'll appreciate that).

 

[scaramanga]

I just think it's prudent to also be aware of the potential downsides to a more liberal approach (what separates me from the hippies, I'm sure you'll appreciate that).

Due to being a liberal (in the traditional, small government sense), I'm probably closer to the hippies than most.

I don't think it's the place of government to say what one can do with one's own body, and anti-drug laws are little different from suicide laws in that sense for me.

I would rather ensure that the crimes of dependence (especially as they tend to have such direct victims) should be the focus.

 

[the dza]

Due to being a liberal (in the traditional, small government sense), I'm probably closer to the hippies than most.

I don't think it's the place of government to say what one can do with one's own body, and anti-drug laws are little different from suicide laws in that sense for me.

I would rather ensure that the crimes of dependence (especially as they tend to have such direct victims) should be the focus.

I think all drugs should be legal. I also think that heroin addicts should be given (for free) all the heroin they want, and that all the help in the world should be available to them if they want to stop. IMO, it'd be less of a societal and economic cost if we just gave them the drugs. No robberies needed to fund it, no victims, no policework, court cases, prison etc. etc. Some people might still do crazy sh1t on drugs, but the big mass of addicts who are just crippled by the need to get high would not, at least, be hurting so many other people to feed their habit.

 

[monkeybarry]

I think all drugs should be legal. I also think that heroin addicts should be given (for free) all the heroin they want, and that all the help in the world should be available to them if they want to stop. IMO, it'd be less of a societal and economic cost if we just gave them the drugs. No robberies needed to fund it, no victims, no policework, court cases, prison etc. etc. Some people might still do crazy sh1t on drugs, but the big mass of addicts who are just crippled by the need to get high would not, at least, be hurting so many other people to feed their habit.

Give or make available for purchase?

 

[the dza]

Give or make available for purchase?

For heroin addicts, give. Selling it wouldn't solve the problem of them committing crime to get the money to buy drugs. Always make available help if they wish to quit, but if they are gonna be heroin addicts regardless of legality, giving it away would seem the least destructive way to go about it.

 

[monkeybarry]

For heroin addicts, give. Selling it wouldn't solve the problem of them committing crime to get the money to buy drugs. Always make available help if they wish to quit, but if they are gonna be heroin addicts regardless of legality, giving it away would seem the least destructive way to go about it.

So a tiered system where the hard drugs (heroin, meth etc) are supplied and "less destructive" (ie recreational) drugs like Cannabis, Cocaine, Nicotine, Alcohol, Speed(?), Ecstasy are saleable?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[the dza]

So a tiered system where the hard drugs (heroin, meth etc) are supplied and "less destructive" (ie recreational) drugs like Cannabis, Cocaine, Nicotine, Alcohol, Speed(?), Ecstasy are saleable?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Yeah, something like that. Obviously someone much smarter and well informed than me would work out the details haha. It just seems logical to me. Life is hard, don't punish people for wanting to escape that, one way or another.

 

[glasgowspur]

For heroin addicts, give. Selling it wouldn't solve the problem of them committing crime to get the money to buy drugs. Always make available help if they wish to quit, but if they are gonna be heroin addicts regardless of legality, giving it away would seem the least destructive way to go about it.

Wow that must be one of the most amazing things I've ever read.
Sell one of the most addictive substances known to man, then when do become addicted give it to you for free!
Wtf