Yes and no, he swallowed a lethal dose fentanyl to avoid drug charges. Laws against what one may put in ones own body (no matter how dangerous/ridiculous) are fundamentally immoral. The State did have a role in his death as a result.
Counterfeiting is not something I can support, but Walter Williams would say he was just "conducting monetary policy"
Well, yeah, war on drugs is ridiculous and immoral, not only because of what you said, but also because it really just benefits the criminals it supposedly fights.
Making something illegal makes a criminal a sole supplier of the good, which leads to monopoly held by the criminal world, which in turn leads to ridiculous prices, shady quality of the goods so on and so forth.
Decriminalizing/legalizing drug use/manufacture/distribution would kill gangs/mafias overnight. Those entities most likely fight tooth and nail across the world to keep things the way they are.
"War on drugs" can't be won globally. It's up to the individual. If people want to do drugs - they will. It's your duty to keep yourself/your family away from drugs and maintain a reasonable approach to the issue.
But, Floyd had a chance to save his life. Maybe not save himself from going to prison, but he could still be alive. No one forced him to swallow it/not to admit he did it and then proceed with medical procedure to save him.
OK I understand your argument. But I think there's more to the movie than that.
If I make highly addictive drugs readily available and those same drugs alter people's brains over time (stimulants like cocaine do this, it's why Alex Baldwin increasingly can't control himself and probably why Robin Williams died of Lewy Body Dementia) and cause people to act in violent and paranoid ways, I feel like we have to include in the cost of drug legalization the ongoing wreckage such behavior causes.
As far as the individual goes, esp. Alex Baldwin, I actually feel little concern for their personal destruction although that's not my best self saying that. But what about the familes and co-workers or just anyone who has to deal with them?
My working assumption is, as the Opium Wars showed, as very significant proportion of the population absolutely will try them and become addicted.
At that point, a largish number of those people will be unemployable. That means drugs have to be cheap and plentiful to forestall drug-fueled-crime specifically people stealing and robbing to get money for drugs. If drugs are that cheap and plentiful however, it's going to mean they're like candy- everywhere for the taking for small cost. We will essentially be doing an experiment to find out if there's an upper limit on the percent of the population which will become addicted to addicting drugs.
The thing with these drugs is, they mimic brain chemicals. They replace endogenous, benign frequencies, quantities and potencies of those chemicals with crazy town frequencies, quantities and potencies. Brett Favre recently revelead that quitting pain-killers made him want to kill himself- it was that bad.
So these are going to be available to everyone and really, yes of all ages. Developing brains will be exposed to them.
This is not just people having some personal feel-good that stops when the ride is over. This movie goes deep into human brain physiology and neuropathy and delicate biochemical processes which make our lives, and civilizaiton, possible .
I labeled the actual arguments to facilitate discussion.
Well as someone who knows quite a number of people with such problems I'm quite aware of point you're trying to make
"Drugs would make society collapse". Really though? Netherlands (leftist cesspool, but that's beside the point), Czech Republic and Portugal would like to argue.
Lenient laws actually saved Portugal from societal collapse. Instead of criminalizing drug users they started to invest in rehab centers and similar projects. Number of addicts, homeless etc went significantly down over time.
Czech Republic has lenient drug laws AND gun laws and they don't have big issues with any of those things.
There are many high-functioning addicts, also. People that use drugs but still go on with their lives. Just look at all the prescription drugs people. Eating all the benzodiazepines and opioids, but still living their lives, although twisted. What's really the difference between the prescription and illegal drugs?
You think that young kids don't do illegal drugs around the world? Lmao. Boy, they do. Many approach drugs for the first time around the age of 15.
Making drugs legal would allow taxation to properly fund rehab centers and preventative education. Fund many, many things which could actually prevent drug use.
Current laws clearly don't work, and in my opinion make things worse
OK well I have to look at those nations and see what the tale of the tape there is. Existence proofs are the strongest kind. I have a work item to follow through with now.
Yes and no, he swallowed a lethal dose fentanyl to avoid drug charges. Laws against what one may put in ones own body (no matter how dangerous/ridiculous) are fundamentally immoral. The State did have a role in his death as a result.
Counterfeiting is not something I can support, but Walter Williams would say he was just "conducting monetary policy"
None of this changes the fact that he killed himself
That would be China.
China sent the drugs.
So what, dude voluntarily bought them, the state has no right to interfere with his stupidity.
He didin't manage to kill himself with it until he was trying to hide it from people who would imprison him for it.
Well, yeah, war on drugs is ridiculous and immoral, not only because of what you said, but also because it really just benefits the criminals it supposedly fights.
Making something illegal makes a criminal a sole supplier of the good, which leads to monopoly held by the criminal world, which in turn leads to ridiculous prices, shady quality of the goods so on and so forth.
Decriminalizing/legalizing drug use/manufacture/distribution would kill gangs/mafias overnight. Those entities most likely fight tooth and nail across the world to keep things the way they are.
"War on drugs" can't be won globally. It's up to the individual. If people want to do drugs - they will. It's your duty to keep yourself/your family away from drugs and maintain a reasonable approach to the issue.
But, Floyd had a chance to save his life. Maybe not save himself from going to prison, but he could still be alive. No one forced him to swallow it/not to admit he did it and then proceed with medical procedure to save him.
In short forcefully reducing the supply of drugs increases the prices traffickers can charge for them.
The threat of imprisonment for his choices is clearly a form of duress here though.
OK I understand your argument. But I think there's more to the movie than that.
If I make highly addictive drugs readily available and those same drugs alter people's brains over time (stimulants like cocaine do this, it's why Alex Baldwin increasingly can't control himself and probably why Robin Williams died of Lewy Body Dementia) and cause people to act in violent and paranoid ways, I feel like we have to include in the cost of drug legalization the ongoing wreckage such behavior causes.
As far as the individual goes, esp. Alex Baldwin, I actually feel little concern for their personal destruction although that's not my best self saying that. But what about the familes and co-workers or just anyone who has to deal with them?
My working assumption is, as the Opium Wars showed, as very significant proportion of the population absolutely will try them and become addicted.
At that point, a largish number of those people will be unemployable. That means drugs have to be cheap and plentiful to forestall drug-fueled-crime specifically people stealing and robbing to get money for drugs. If drugs are that cheap and plentiful however, it's going to mean they're like candy- everywhere for the taking for small cost. We will essentially be doing an experiment to find out if there's an upper limit on the percent of the population which will become addicted to addicting drugs.
The thing with these drugs is, they mimic brain chemicals. They replace endogenous, benign frequencies, quantities and potencies of those chemicals with crazy town frequencies, quantities and potencies. Brett Favre recently revelead that quitting pain-killers made him want to kill himself- it was that bad.
So these are going to be available to everyone and really, yes of all ages. Developing brains will be exposed to them.
This is not just people having some personal feel-good that stops when the ride is over. This movie goes deep into human brain physiology and neuropathy and delicate biochemical processes which make our lives, and civilizaiton, possible .
I labeled the actual arguments to facilitate discussion.
Well as someone who knows quite a number of people with such problems I'm quite aware of point you're trying to make
"Drugs would make society collapse". Really though? Netherlands (leftist cesspool, but that's beside the point), Czech Republic and Portugal would like to argue.
Lenient laws actually saved Portugal from societal collapse. Instead of criminalizing drug users they started to invest in rehab centers and similar projects. Number of addicts, homeless etc went significantly down over time.
Czech Republic has lenient drug laws AND gun laws and they don't have big issues with any of those things.
There are many high-functioning addicts, also. People that use drugs but still go on with their lives. Just look at all the prescription drugs people. Eating all the benzodiazepines and opioids, but still living their lives, although twisted. What's really the difference between the prescription and illegal drugs?
You think that young kids don't do illegal drugs around the world? Lmao. Boy, they do. Many approach drugs for the first time around the age of 15.
Making drugs legal would allow taxation to properly fund rehab centers and preventative education. Fund many, many things which could actually prevent drug use.
Current laws clearly don't work, and in my opinion make things worse
OK well I have to look at those nations and see what the tale of the tape there is. Existence proofs are the strongest kind. I have a work item to follow through with now.
Thanks !
He was setup to kill himself.
China sold the drugs.
The U.S. prohibiited the drug usage and hunted down users.
Get locked up with prohibited drugs on you, or eat them, at a chance at dying and freedom?
1 + 1 + 1 = a dead George.
Cope
Back to reddit, druggie