Let them kill each other in their personal Wakanda. As long as we can wall off Wakandastan so they leave us the fuck alone. And EBT gets turned off, so they might want to get farming.
It is hard and I wouldn't expect an exact figured but there should be some rates to compare or to get at least some idea of how many deaths they prevent.
We would expect the deaths caused to be far smaller than deaths prevented enough that you could probably find some reliable indication somewhere from comparisons of the minimum which would probably be ten times higher easily.
I grew up around liberals so I have some insight. Some have been in the USA and raised or indoctrinated around elements of these black and liberal cultures.
If you ask do criminals exist because police exist or do police exist because criminals exist then liberals choose the former! They see the problem as being caused by police and that comes from a specific source.
The war on drugs. It's criminals and gangs driving much of this. When black people had freedom of opportunity but had to start at the bottom they were very much targeted by the import of drugs. External entities ship in drugs and then target the poor, most often black people, to distribute them on the front line as compare to other opportunities dealing drugs are an easy way up.
It's not however black people dealing to black people. They've been dealing to white people who happen to be, you guessed it, white liberals who tend to be middle class rather than working class and who tend to be very privileged to be able to afford things like even a hard drug habit. In this sense they already pay their reparations.
When the liberals see this policing they only see the war on drugs and they see the police as redundant. They don't have a problem with hard drugs. They're already funding the dealers and gangs the police are trying to take out.
While it's true that the supply line might be a key focus rather than the frontline and there could be some reform such as keeping weed illegal is not helping we don't want hard drugs in our society.
If you ever talked to a liberal hippy you might be surprised how obsessed with this perspective of policing they are, that it's peaceful traders and police are interfering with their trade causing all the problem. In their view drug dealers are otherwise peaceful traders defending themselves from the police.
It's a problem with weed because you can come to realise well why is this illegal, it's not really that bad and it make it hard to take the rest of drug law seriously. A lot of liberals take this route as a gateway and end up patrons of the cartels and their predominantly black street dealers.
The guy interviewed here repeats all the same things people I know that are liberal and spent a lot of time doing drugs say. It's drug culture. I stayed on the straight and narrow staying away from hard drugs but half the liberals I used to know ended up on hard drugs.
They would all says all drugs should be legal. They have some insight into social problems but all impose extreme solutions that take the side of criminals or black supremacy. They also miss the mark. For example, many black people aren't going into normal work not because it's not always available but because drug dealing is offered as a more lucrative option.
Some drugs are excessively regulated but other drugs really are bad and all drugs require responsibility whether they fall into the low or high risk category. I've heard and rejected that all drugs should be legal so many times from ultra liberal hippies, junkies and black supremacists.
We do have real problems in society but these people are not helping, they're making things much worse.
Generally cops aren't assisting the drug trade because of job security. That's a theory but it's not really based on anything other than that it isn't impossible.
The law is counter productive in some areas however...
Prohibition on weed which really isn't so different from alcohol in terms of impact. Bad laws like this also cause people to not trust the law at all and reject it when it's entirely accurate. I think weed should be legalised but it should still be discouraged and regulated so as to limit harm while maximising benefit.
Certain sentences and handling for certain situations can impose as much harm. You still want to deter people but some things want to be more thought out. If you can ruin someone's life and opportunities after they took drugs with what they had then that's a downward spiral.
Policing significantly inflates the price which is always a hard problem with contraband.
The reason drugs are so powerful is because people get hooked. Criminals get people hooked on purpose who then become regulars.
It's like the difference between a one time purchase and a subscription. Drug dealers make their money through addiction enforced subscription which is highly lucrative compared to one time purchases.
One option is if the state can take over as the supplier and provide treatment at the same time to get unhooked so at least people aren't robbing for a fix and it means that even if criminals get hooked the well dries up when someone who got hooked has a better option of going to the state instead of back to their dealer.
In this capacity all the dealers get at best are one time purchases but the state takes over the subscription. It's still controversial and problematic but it economically hits the drug dealers hard and dries up the well. What they do after that is anyone's guess.
The only people I've ever known that want all drugs to be legal, for recreational purposes I might add, are crazy liberals and people who support the criminals that are dealing in drugs.
Your example is for medical purposes. Doesn't cut it.
You're also making the same liberal utopia paradox. Assuming that if they didn't know about problems at a time in history then there were none.
It is however true that enforcement often well exceeds what's necessary to suppress the problem of drugs. You can suppress drugs or the problem of drugs. Sometimes those are the same thing more or less from a policy perspective but not always.
Personal responsibility is important as well and there should be a certain amount of freedom but drugs do also have serious problems. A better argument you could make is you can go buy some cleaning fluid or something drink it and kill yourself. You can pick some flowers from a garden, eat them and die.
Arguments for personal responsibility, even if not perfect (the example I gave is not identical but still a useful a point of reference) are far more powerful because they're actually reasonable, meaningful and logical. A libertarian analysis serves far better than a liberal perspective.
Insisting that the cops are behind this as though they're a corporation is bordering conspiracy theory level and I'm seeing the the kind of rhetoric or angles you get from criminal filth, their supporters or their clients, junkies.
The war on drugs hasn't always been effective, has tactics that aren't working and in many places isn't well thought out and there are private entities with at least some stake in it but the principle driving force behind it is that a lot of drugs are actually particularly bad.
I've just given you an example of how you solve the cost problem without making it legal in totality but you seem to have copied and pasted liberal talking points on the subject.
None of these addicts HAVE to take cocaine or whatever. What if the opium plant never existed? What if the coco plant never existed?
The country is under attack by external nations importing that stuff, by criminals.
Regardless the law sometimes being harsh doesn't mean the response it to abolish it. That's the same bullshit as with this abolish the police nonsense.
There's generally a problem where you have these people who say all drugs are bad and then those who say they should all be legal and those are two extremes that don't work out.
Good drug policy is adjusted specifically in respect to the specifics of drugs case by case and generally doesn't make sweeping statements.
It's fairly universally recognised that cannabis isn't particularly bad but there's something going on as despite the obvious it's still being restricted.
When you stop criminalising drug use, possession or retail of drugs that are less problematic and harmful than alcohol as well as have either less principle driven drug policies or policies driven by a better spread of principles then that's most of the problem gone with the remaining criminalisation addressing the real problems.
Let them kill each other in their personal Wakanda. As long as we can wall off Wakandastan so they leave us the fuck alone. And EBT gets turned off, so they might want to get farming.
And, meanwhile, the DNC stronghold for support, Planned Parenthood has ended more black lives than any other organization in America.
ALLBlackLivesMatter
ALLLivesMatter
ABLM
Yep that's the one.
Black lives don't matter to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood uses aborted babies for spare parts to sell on the open market.
The only thing I find disappointing is no reasonable attempt to get at a rough figure of how many lives police save.
It is hard and I wouldn't expect an exact figured but there should be some rates to compare or to get at least some idea of how many deaths they prevent.
We would expect the deaths caused to be far smaller than deaths prevented enough that you could probably find some reliable indication somewhere from comparisons of the minimum which would probably be ten times higher easily.
I grew up around liberals so I have some insight. Some have been in the USA and raised or indoctrinated around elements of these black and liberal cultures.
If you ask do criminals exist because police exist or do police exist because criminals exist then liberals choose the former! They see the problem as being caused by police and that comes from a specific source.
The war on drugs. It's criminals and gangs driving much of this. When black people had freedom of opportunity but had to start at the bottom they were very much targeted by the import of drugs. External entities ship in drugs and then target the poor, most often black people, to distribute them on the front line as compare to other opportunities dealing drugs are an easy way up.
It's not however black people dealing to black people. They've been dealing to white people who happen to be, you guessed it, white liberals who tend to be middle class rather than working class and who tend to be very privileged to be able to afford things like even a hard drug habit. In this sense they already pay their reparations.
When the liberals see this policing they only see the war on drugs and they see the police as redundant. They don't have a problem with hard drugs. They're already funding the dealers and gangs the police are trying to take out.
While it's true that the supply line might be a key focus rather than the frontline and there could be some reform such as keeping weed illegal is not helping we don't want hard drugs in our society.
If you ever talked to a liberal hippy you might be surprised how obsessed with this perspective of policing they are, that it's peaceful traders and police are interfering with their trade causing all the problem. In their view drug dealers are otherwise peaceful traders defending themselves from the police.
It's a problem with weed because you can come to realise well why is this illegal, it's not really that bad and it make it hard to take the rest of drug law seriously. A lot of liberals take this route as a gateway and end up patrons of the cartels and their predominantly black street dealers.
Funny timing as I was going to add more...
Addition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UoA2RHLlww
The guy interviewed here repeats all the same things people I know that are liberal and spent a lot of time doing drugs say. It's drug culture. I stayed on the straight and narrow staying away from hard drugs but half the liberals I used to know ended up on hard drugs.
They would all says all drugs should be legal. They have some insight into social problems but all impose extreme solutions that take the side of criminals or black supremacy. They also miss the mark. For example, many black people aren't going into normal work not because it's not always available but because drug dealing is offered as a more lucrative option.
Some drugs are excessively regulated but other drugs really are bad and all drugs require responsibility whether they fall into the low or high risk category. I've heard and rejected that all drugs should be legal so many times from ultra liberal hippies, junkies and black supremacists.
We do have real problems in society but these people are not helping, they're making things much worse.
Generally cops aren't assisting the drug trade because of job security. That's a theory but it's not really based on anything other than that it isn't impossible.
The law is counter productive in some areas however...
Prohibition on weed which really isn't so different from alcohol in terms of impact. Bad laws like this also cause people to not trust the law at all and reject it when it's entirely accurate. I think weed should be legalised but it should still be discouraged and regulated so as to limit harm while maximising benefit.
Certain sentences and handling for certain situations can impose as much harm. You still want to deter people but some things want to be more thought out. If you can ruin someone's life and opportunities after they took drugs with what they had then that's a downward spiral.
Policing significantly inflates the price which is always a hard problem with contraband.
The reason drugs are so powerful is because people get hooked. Criminals get people hooked on purpose who then become regulars.
It's like the difference between a one time purchase and a subscription. Drug dealers make their money through addiction enforced subscription which is highly lucrative compared to one time purchases.
One option is if the state can take over as the supplier and provide treatment at the same time to get unhooked so at least people aren't robbing for a fix and it means that even if criminals get hooked the well dries up when someone who got hooked has a better option of going to the state instead of back to their dealer.
In this capacity all the dealers get at best are one time purchases but the state takes over the subscription. It's still controversial and problematic but it economically hits the drug dealers hard and dries up the well. What they do after that is anyone's guess.
The only people I've ever known that want all drugs to be legal, for recreational purposes I might add, are crazy liberals and people who support the criminals that are dealing in drugs.
Your example is for medical purposes. Doesn't cut it.
You're also making the same liberal utopia paradox. Assuming that if they didn't know about problems at a time in history then there were none.
It is however true that enforcement often well exceeds what's necessary to suppress the problem of drugs. You can suppress drugs or the problem of drugs. Sometimes those are the same thing more or less from a policy perspective but not always.
Personal responsibility is important as well and there should be a certain amount of freedom but drugs do also have serious problems. A better argument you could make is you can go buy some cleaning fluid or something drink it and kill yourself. You can pick some flowers from a garden, eat them and die.
Arguments for personal responsibility, even if not perfect (the example I gave is not identical but still a useful a point of reference) are far more powerful because they're actually reasonable, meaningful and logical. A libertarian analysis serves far better than a liberal perspective.
Insisting that the cops are behind this as though they're a corporation is bordering conspiracy theory level and I'm seeing the the kind of rhetoric or angles you get from criminal filth, their supporters or their clients, junkies.
The war on drugs hasn't always been effective, has tactics that aren't working and in many places isn't well thought out and there are private entities with at least some stake in it but the principle driving force behind it is that a lot of drugs are actually particularly bad.
I've just given you an example of how you solve the cost problem without making it legal in totality but you seem to have copied and pasted liberal talking points on the subject.
None of these addicts HAVE to take cocaine or whatever. What if the opium plant never existed? What if the coco plant never existed?
The country is under attack by external nations importing that stuff, by criminals.
Regardless the law sometimes being harsh doesn't mean the response it to abolish it. That's the same bullshit as with this abolish the police nonsense.
There's generally a problem where you have these people who say all drugs are bad and then those who say they should all be legal and those are two extremes that don't work out.
Good drug policy is adjusted specifically in respect to the specifics of drugs case by case and generally doesn't make sweeping statements.
It's fairly universally recognised that cannabis isn't particularly bad but there's something going on as despite the obvious it's still being restricted.
When you stop criminalising drug use, possession or retail of drugs that are less problematic and harmful than alcohol as well as have either less principle driven drug policies or policies driven by a better spread of principles then that's most of the problem gone with the remaining criminalisation addressing the real problems.
All the rest?
Same problem with lives saved by personal firearms use.
One thing I would love for media to show in general is receipts. I can believe this, but I'd like to see the actual study, you know?
Man, taking it on directly. Actually was nice to see.