when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved

the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion

we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. you understand there are side effects to addiction like destroyed lives. you do understand that right?

it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture. how do you eat? where do you sleep? how can you get a job or have a relationship when feeding an artificial need is more important to you than everything?

so you're angry, you want to fight because you don't see the problem. and you're stupid, because you don't understand it's not just about personal freedom. you're a complete loser

the tragedy of drugs is it can start in teenage years when:

1. people are in the most pain psychologically. friends, romance, etc.: it hurts in unique ways when you are young. turning to drugs is appealing to deal with this pain that would otherwise normally subside with age
2. people think they are immortal and invincible and their willpower is stronger than addiction. it never is
3. people are dumb. they can have a lot of book smarts but they don't have enough social awareness to understand where this all leads

so you wind up with ruined lives

addicts should always be treated the portuguese way" healthcare, not jail. it's just cheaper and a lot more humane

however the portuguese still go after dealers and the drug trade is still illegal. no country in the world is "all drug trade should be legal." no one thinks that works. because it proliferates more addicts

so it's a cost/benefit analysis: i am spending my money feeding and treating and housing addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first, to minimize costs and prevent the proliferation of more addicts

but of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. yet don't forget: if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house

so it is a very tricky balance. a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction

and every drug is different. every drug needs their own policy. there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers

something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society

but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively

something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive

when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved

the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion. the simple truth is, we're not cruel, we don't just let addicts turn to crime and starve and die and ignore them. and we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture and see how the problem festers and grows

i am spending my money feeding and housing useless addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first

of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. but if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house

so it's a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction. and the truth is every drug is different

something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society. but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively

something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive

there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers

the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth, cocaine, or especially heroin

physical bars can be transcended via the mind. but bars in the mind?

i never understood people who, in the name of freedom, support the use of the most freedom destroying methods known to man. anything that causes easy addiction is freedom destroying. a chemical interrupt switch in the mind that must be fed is not freedom and prioritizes over all other pursuits: work, food, sex. that's existential slavery and destruction of the self

i know some people have painful lives. and we all feel temporary pain or tedium that is relieved with substances with much power addictive potentials, that's ok. so let's call hard highly addictive drug use what it is: slow motion suicide by people with serious psychological problems. and after enough addiction, it's hard to tell how much of the original pain is still the causative agent. which is the problem: a perhaps temporary problem is now a permanent life hobbling addiction. let's stop lying by saying hard highly addictive drug use is some great exercise in freedom. it's exactly the opposite

you are not in any masters program in any college or university. you're a bad liar as well as a moron

no one as stupid as you can get that far and still believe what you have written about a democracy and a republic

you really need to learn to stop talking about topics you obviously do not understand. unless you like people hating you and laughing at you

well said with an even temper

i don't have a position. i am educating you on actual history and economic fact

meanwhile, the idea that markets self-regulate is not an extreme position. it is a moronic position. to believe markets achieve fairness on their own requires one to deny well-established facts and to believe in low iq fantasies. you are on the same order as an antivaxxer or a creationist. really

the physical cost is the fusing of atomic nuclei in a ball of gas we did not invest anything in and will burn for another few billion years with no effort on our part

the financial cost of the energy source is actually zero

solar energy is not a perpetual motion machine

railroads were left to rot, because there was no more money in them, even though they were essential

as we automate more and more, more parts of the economy will enter this twilight zone of "absolutely necessary, not worth any capitalist's effort"

so like railroads those sectors will become wards of the state. not because "evil communists destroying economy" but "financially mediocre economic sector needs to be on life support"

there are no checks and balances

all markets will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally

this quasireligious notion that markets will remain balanced and fair and virtuous by magic free market fairy is an insane belief on the order of antivaxxers and creationists, directly contrary to economic facts and economic history

he's a genuinely low iq loser

he's exactly the sort of low brain wattage propaganda victim that helps keep the corrupt in power. the "useful fools"

easily manipulated, fucking stupid

exactly

it's rather incredible how stupid and propagandized people can be that those who are abusing them are seen as another victim

and the only tool they have against plutocrat abuse, the government, is somehow the ultimate, cartoon villain cause of their victimhood

the plutocrats corrupted your government you morons!

insanity

Only if those who benefit most from that switch are the ones in control of the state

we are in control of the state. the people. at least we should be, we're not to the extent to which the plutocrats corrupted it

so i don't understand this treatment of government as "evil bad guys want to steal your freedom for shits and giggles like a bad cartoon villain" and plutocrats as "innocent capitalists driving the economy" (as they rent seek and block economic progress with monopolies/ oligopolies). what is the only tool you have against plutocrat abuse? the government. but the propaganda has so many morons backwards on that

the railroad became a ward of the state not because "evil communists stealing" but "capitalists treat it likes its radioactive"

but its vital to the economy. the state won't take it over to hurt people because they are a james bond villain in some demented fantasy life. but to prevent people from being hurt by lack of vital infrastructure

obama is perhaps our most cerebral president ever, or the second most, after wilson

but then again, what do we expect from a communist muslim atheist born in kenya. right?