Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 18:15:28 GMT
While Kasich was a very popular governor, he subsequently went full NeverTrump to the point of campaigning for Biden, so he’s not winning a Republican primary anytime soon. He is also a regular on CNN. He could get away with voting for Biden, but ........ CNN .......
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jan 25, 2021 19:28:01 GMT
He is also a regular on CNN. He could get away with voting for Biden, but ........ CNN ....... He did have his own show “From The Heartland” on Fox News prior to going back to run for Governor, which he could use in mitigation.
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 25, 2021 20:57:27 GMT
Why do so many people want to legalise cannabis when it's been shown to cause mental health problems in many people? That's the only real worry I have about legalising cannabis, but arguably if you bring the production of cannabis out from the shadows, more of a premium will be placed on quality-control and research, with better-produced strains less likely to cause mental health problems. And of course more of an open conversation about starting slow with cannabis to see if you'll get side-effects. The only way to safety decrimminalise the sale of Cannabis is by making it only available via prescription (1) and by having it supplied via a State Monopoly (of both production & distribution). Otherwise you end up indirectly creating a "Big Weed" Industry that would have a vested interest in maximising the number of people buying it's product (and the amount they are consuming), something that rarely ends well as Big Tobacco has shown.
(1) Under highly restricted circumstances; thus meaning that anybody under the age of 25, anybody with existing mental health problems and anybody who is Pregnant would be unable to obtain it. With prescriptions only given to those (outside the excluded groups) who have exhausted all other options when it comes to pain relief.
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 25, 2021 21:00:47 GMT
He is also a regular on CNN. He could get away with voting for Biden, but ........ CNN ....... Rick Santorum is also on CNN to be fair. Which I actually find quite surprising...
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 25, 2021 21:06:26 GMT
Anyway, even within the constraints of US exceptionalism, the obvious answer to Democrats not wanting to lose majority-progressive districts in Minnesota would, naturally, be a preferential voting system. My personal preference would be the Two-Round Voting System as used by the French for their Parliamentary Elections.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,799
|
Post by iain on Jan 26, 2021 21:27:03 GMT
A list of how successful Senate candidates were in outrunning the top of the ticket. Louisiana and Georgia Special are ignored due to jungle primaries. Tom Cotton faced no Democrat in Arkansas, only a Libertarian, whilst the Democrat in Nebraska was disendorsed. Incumbents in bold. SENATOR | STATE | PERFORMANCE |
| SENATOR | STATE | PERFORMANCE | Jack Reed | Rhode Island | +7.1 |
| Ben Sasse | Nebraska | +9.2% | Steve Bullock
| Montana | +4.4% |
| Susan Collins | Maine | +7.0% | Jeanne Shaheen
| New Hampshire | +3.9% |
| Tom Cotton | Arkansas | +4.1% | Doug Jones
| Alabama | +3.1% |
| Mike Rounds | South Dakota | +3.9% | Mike Espy | Mississippi | +3.0% |
| Cory Gardner | Colorado | +2.3% | Amy McGrath
| Kentucky | +2.0% | | Cynthia Lummis | Wyoming | +2.2% | Mark Warner | Virginia | +1.9% | | Mark Ronchetti | New Mexico | +2.2% | Mark Kelly
| Arizona | +1.8% |
| Shelley Moore Capito | West Virginia | +1.7% | Jaime Harrison
| South Carolina | +0.8% |
| Bill Hagerty | Tennessee | +1.5% | Chris Coons
| Delaware | +0.7% |
| John Cornyn | Texas | +1.4% | Ed Markey
| Massachusetts | +0.6% |
| Dan Sullivan | Alaska | +1.1% | Abby Broyles
| Oklahoma | +0.5% |
| David Perdue | Georgia | +0.5% | Jeff Merkley
| Oregon | +0.4% |
| John James | Michigan | +0.4% | Theresa Greenfield
| Iowa | +0.3% |
| Daniel Gade | Virginia | -0.1% | Merav Ben-David | Wyoming | +0.2% |
| Martha McSally | Arizona | -0.2% | Barbara Bollier | Kansas | +0.2% |
| Rik Mehta | New Jersey | -0.5% | Paulette Jordan | Idaho | +0.2% |
| Lindsay Graham | South Carolina | -0.7% | Cory Booker | New Jersey | -0.1% |
| Kevin O'Connor | Massachusetts | -0.9% | Gary Peters | Michigan | -0.7% |
| Jo Rae Perkins | Oregon | -1.1% | Dan Ahlers | South Dakota | -1.3% |
| Jim Risch | Idaho | -1.2% | Al Gross | Alaska | -1.6% |
| Thom Tillis | North Carolina | -1.2% | Jon Ossoff | Georgia | -1.6% |
| Joni Ernst | Iowa | -1.4% | Cal Cunningham | North Carolina | -1.7% |
| Mark Curran | Illinois | -1.6% | John Hickenlooper | Colorado | -1.9% |
| Jason Lewis | Minnesota | -1.8% | Marquita Bradshaw | Tennessee | -2.3% |
| Steve Daines | Montana | -1.9% | Dick Durbin | Illinois | -2.6% |
| Tommy Tuberville | Alabama | -1.9% | MJ Hegar | Texas | -2.6% |
| Lauren Witzke | Delaware | -1.9% | Ben Ray Luján | New Mexico | -2.6% |
| Jim Inhofe | Oklahoma | -2.4% | Paula Jean Swearengin | West Virginia | -2.7% |
| Roger Marshall | Kansas | -3.0% | Tina Smith | Minnesota | -3.7% |
| Cindy Hyde-Smith | Mississippi | -3.5% | Sara Gideon | Maine | -10.7% |
| Mitch McConnell | Kentucky | -4.3% | Chris Janicek | Nebraska | -13.0% |
| Corky Messner | New Hampshire | -4.4% |
|
|
|
| Allen Waters | Rhode Island | -5.3% |
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,531
|
Post by johng on Jan 28, 2021 0:34:31 GMT
Dave Wasserman has had a few interesting posts on how house seats may be redistricted for the next election.
E.g. New York. I know there's supposed to be a commission, but no idea how independent it is. Someone in the comments has an interesting 28-0 map from the 2000 census redistrict.
Here's the map on how they are redistricted, but the article is paywalled.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,073
|
Post by maxque on Jan 28, 2021 17:35:04 GMT
Dave Wasserman has had a few interesting posts on how house seats may be redistricted for the next election. E.g. New York. I know there's supposed to be a commission, but no idea how independent it is. Someone in the comments has an interesting 28-0 map from the 2000 census redistrict. Here's the map on how they are redistricted, but the article is paywalled. There is a commission, but it can be overuled by a 2/3 vote by the Assembly and state Senate and Democrats have a 2/3 majority in both. Last time , the deal between Democratic Assembly and Republican Senate led to an incumbent protection congress map, a D gerrymanderer in the Assembly and a Republican gerrymanderer in Senate (who collasped since then due to shifting coalitions, increased partisanship and seats that only held due to popular incumbents).
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jan 28, 2021 23:02:10 GMT
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,307
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 28, 2021 23:07:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 29, 2021 14:39:59 GMT
Criminal law is meant to limit behaviours felt to be damaging not just to individuals (which is civil law's job) but society as a whole. The first step is to get society as a whole to recognise the behaviour as damaging so that the majority voluntarily reject it. When Michael Gove has to admit to regular cocaine* use that battle is definitively lost. I'd be surprised if a majority of British people under 50 have not taken recreational drugs. * Libel lawyers please note: In the past. To be fair; we live in an era where many people deliberately ignore evidence & facts on the basis that it goes against their personal interests, an legacy of having Governments in power (in Britain & America) that have no problem in encouraging people to be Selfish, Greedy and Individualistic over the last 40 years (i.e. since the Reagan/Thatcher era). Hence why so many people (on this forum and beyond) have gone insane over the subject of Lockdowns and Restrictions, mainly because for many people it represented the first time in their lives that they where forced to do something that went against ones Selfishness & Greed.
Thus; the only thing that should matter in a debate about decrimminaling Narcotics is if said action is right or wrong. The evidence & facts clearly shows that such an acton is very much wrong.
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 29, 2021 15:24:49 GMT
All the evidence shows that if the severity of the punishment for a crime has and deterrent effect then it is statistically insignificant. If the severity of the punishment had no effect in preventing somebody from commiting a certain action; then how do you explain why the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, the Soviet Union, Mobutu, Saddam Hussein and the East German Regime where all able to not only rule for decades, but where only removed by either a foreign invasion (or at least a foreign backed rebellion) or thanks to Economic Collapse? Because the Law Enforcement Infrastructure and the Punishments offered (for anyone within their country that would dare try and oppose them) by said regimes was enough to prevent Domestic Opposition from sucesfully overthrowing them.
Now you might be asking why I have brought up this example; well I brought it up because it shows that the severity of the punishment does influence the likelihood of one commting a certain action. It's that just some actions require a greater severity of punishment compared to others (if one wants to said actions from taking place). After all while a Life Prision Sentence is enough to stop anyone from trying to forcibility overthrow Boris Johnson (despite most of the country hating him), it takes a higher severity of punishment to stop anyone in North Korea from trying to forcibility overthrow Kim Jong-un.
Since we're on a US thread, it's pretty obvious that incarcerating very large numbers of drug users and dealers in the Stats isn't anywhere near enough of a deterrence to slow down the growth of the drugs industry. If the United States was doing everything humanly possible to try and kill off the Pan-American Narcotics Industry, then your arguement would have some weight. However the fact of the matter is that the Americans are not actually doing everything humanly possible to stop said trade, otherwise they would be doing the following:
- Establishing a National Police Department (with at least 3.5 Million Police Officers and enough resources to properly enforce the Law) to replace the existing National, State and Local Police Forces in the United States. Which would allow for more Law Enforcement Resources to be devoted towards killing off the Pan-American Narcotics Industry.
- Legalising the use of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" in relation to Drug-Related Investigations.
- Mandatory Life Sentences (without Parole) for everyone found guilty of possessing, selling, transporting and/or producing Narcotics.
- Abolishing all restrictions in relation to the surveillance of the United States Population. Thus allowing for a comprehensive surveillance network to be established, one that shall aim to record the Internet History, Voice Calls, Emails, Social Media Posts, Text Messages, DNA, Fingerprints, Faces and Goverment Records (alongside any CCTV Footage featuring said person) of everyone within the United States, all the while introducing a more extensive CCTV Network in the United States and maybe even establishing an informant network in said country (1).
- Enabling Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, Columbia and Venezuela to achieve First World/Developed Nation Status; a status I believe to be only possible via said nations becoming part of the United States (2).
Now I get that many on this forum (across the political divide) are going to object to these solutions and do so for partisan reasons. However I would like to point out that when I approach a problem or issue (in any aspect of my life); I come up with solutions to said problems & issues on the basis of what evidence, facts and history has to offer on that front rather than what a particular ideology or religion has to offer on that front (3). Hence why I came up with those 5 solutions, why I oppose the complete decriminalisation of Cannabis, why I oppose any decriminalisation of all other Narcotics and why I support a complete ban of Tobacco products.
(1) However I would point out that I also hold the view that said surveillance network should only be used to enforce the law, hence why any other use of this network needs to be completely prohibited.
(2) Simply because only the United States can provide the investment needed to bring said nations to such a status. That and alongside the fact that the United States would never allow said nations to be in a position to challenge their Geopolitical Dominance (after all if Mexico had the same GDP per Capita as the United States, it would be the 4th biggest economy in the world and thus be in a position to stand up to the United States); hence why such investment would only occur if the Americans directly benefit from said investment, which it would if said nations joined the Union.
Likewise said incorporation would also make it eaiser for the United States to cripple the Cartels efforts to produce, transport, distribute and market narcotics thoughout the Americas; simply because it would mean that they would be forced to deal with both United States Law Enforcement and the United States Armed Forces at every stage of the process (and thoughout every aspect of their lives).
Finally; said incorporation of these nations into the United States would allow said nations farmers to benefit from Agricultural Subsidies, Subsidies that provide an incentive to not produce narcotics like Cocaine.
(3) I don't deny that I am Left-Wing (admittingly someone that diverges from orthodox Socialism & Marxism in various areas) however; although I would point out that the reason why I identify myself as Left-Wing is because both Classical Liberalism (aka Centrism) and Right-Wing Politics (i.e. the Conservative Right, Far-Right and Religious Extremism of various kinds) offer little to no solutions to the problems of today, even if I have no problems with stealing the better policies of said Right-Wing.
To stamp out the recreational drug industry by force of law would require a totalitarian state. What it requires is Law Enforcement getting more powers and resources to deal with the problem that is Narcotics, alongside more freedom to be able to enforce the laws of the country they are meant to serve. What it doesn't requite however is the establishment of a totalitarian state; especially when there are no good grounds to deny all Over-16s the right to elect their Government, nor to end all debate in relation to which laws needs to be in place and nor any need to prohibit any criticism of those in power. My view, as one of the small minority of my age group who hasn't even tried illegal drugs, is that the best way to deal with the issue of drug usage is to legalise them, thus reducing the damage done by drugs that aren't what they're supposed to be, the damage done by the illegality of the trade (and subsequent funding for other organised crime and terrorism), and making it easier to help addicts get treatment. It seems to be the approach that has the biggest chance of reducing the harm done by drugs, rather than intensifying it. We have had to witness the damaging impact of Big Tobacco in places such as Britain & America, despite the fact it involved a less harmful Narcotic (compared to other substances) and the fact said industries prime took place in an era when more restraints on Capitalism where in place (while Disinformation was less commonplace). Thus; it's easy to assume that the negative impact of legalising even more harmful substances (in an enviroment where there are very little restraints on Capitalism) (1) would produce an more damaging legacy on the general population compared to anything Big Tobacco has managed to achieve.
Thus; any collateral damage caused by the current measures against the Narcotics Trade (or the greater collateral damage caused by the impact of my Five Proposals) is a price worth paying to prevent the negative impact that the unrestricted production, distribution and marketing of all Narcotics would bring to places such as the United States.
However there is one thing I do agree with what you are saying in that piece; which is that we need to make it eaiser for addicts to get treatment. Because after all; the real villians are not addicts themselves (who are merely fools who took the wrong path in life and allowed themselves to be conned by shysters), but rather the Drug Cartels and Dealers who make money out the misery & suffering of hundreds of millions that are the real problem and thus it's those types who need to pay the price for the endless crimes they have commited (2).
(1) With virtually the entire Conservative Right and Far-Right looking to kill off any remaining restraints on Capitalism.
(2) It's also why I consider Big Tobacco to be the lowest of the low when it comes to the Corporate World.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 29, 2021 16:21:49 GMT
All the evidence shows that if the severity of the punishment for a crime has and deterrent effect then it is statistically insignificant. If the severity of the punishment had no effect in preventing somebody from commiting a certain action; then how do you explain why the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, the Soviet Union, Mobutu, Saddam Hussein and the East German Regime where all able to not only rule for decades, but where only removed by either a foreign invasion (or at least a foreign backed rebellion) or thanks to Economic Collapse? Because the Law Enforcement Infrastructure and the Punishments offered (for anyone within their country that would dare try and oppose them) by said regimes was enough to prevent Domestic Opposition from sucesfully overthrowing them. Where's your empirical evidence that these regimes survived on the basis of threatening severe punishment for dissenters, rather than on a combination of most of the population accepting them as the legitimate government and the fear of getting caught for actively opposing them? So your solution to the drug problem is to establish a police state, torture people who are merely suspects, enforce life imprisonment for the minor crime of possession, establish an extreme police state, and have the US take over numerous other countries? And you think that peoples' objections to those policies are likely to be primarily partisan?! No wonder you're citing Hitler as an example of things you propose being effective.
Unlike so many other forum regulars, I'm not that irritated by your posting style (I simply ignore your footnotes, since the fact you're putting them as a footnote means they aren't important to your point), though I do skip over most of your posts at the moment. But you don't seem to have even the faintest grasp on what kind of policies could be implemented in the real world. And assuming you aren't simply trolling you seem very strongly enamoured of totalitarian approaches. My point in the post you were replying to was that the only way to effectively deal with the drug problem by tough enforcement is by adopting totalitarian approaches. Which is why I think that decriminalisation, legalisation, and a focus on providing treatment, rehab, and the like for users is the most effective way of minimising the harm drugs do. Your response was to propose a set of policy proposals that are blatantly totalitarian. If that's really your level of argumentation, I'm tempted to join the large number of forum regulars who have put you on ignore. And the only people I've ever put on ignore - even temporarily - in the past are extreme trolls (and even that is the exception, rather than the rule).
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jan 29, 2021 16:35:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 29, 2021 16:39:23 GMT
I think the Dems would snatch your hand off right now if you offered them that!
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Jan 29, 2021 19:31:19 GMT
Where's your empirical evidence that these regimes survived on the basis of threatening severe punishment for dissenters, rather than on a combination of most of the population accepting them as the legitimate government and the fear of getting caught for actively opposing them?And why did people fear getting caught? Because they feared the consequences of opposing said regime, hence why virtually none of those regimes got overthrown via a mere domestic uprising or even an internal coup. Likewise if a Regime (intentionally or otherwise) is ending up destroying the country (as all those regimes ended up doing to the nations they ruled) you live in & love, going to jail for a few years (in humane conditions) is not exactly a great incentive to stop oneself from opposing said regime. In contrast, its a much more diffcult choice if your life (and your loved ones lives) is at risk by oppposing said regime.
So your solution to the drug problem is to establish a police state While I propose that Law Enforcement obtain both the powers & resources that their counterparts in Police States enjoy; I am opposed to the establishment of a full-blown Police State; especially when I am opposed to such surveillance & torture powers being used for anything other than enforcing the law, thus Law Enforcement would not be allowed to use said powers in activities such as supressing all political opposition and blackmailing law abiding individuals.
Likewise I would support greater accountablity of Law Enforcement by Elected Representatives and I even support the right of Citizens to sue Law Enforcement (1) for any abuses of their powers & privileges.
(1) With Full Legal Aid being granted to such cases (and to any lawyer of their choice).
torture people who are merely suspects, enforce life imprisonment for the minor crime of possession The aim of such measures is not to treat drug users with cruelty; but rather increase the risks & consequences of possessing such narcotics and thus provide additional incentives to try and end ones addiction. Likewise the threat of torture & life sentences is also designed to encouage drug users to cut deals with the authorities (i.e. you can avoid spending the rest of your life in prision if you agree to go on a treatment programme and rat out those who sold you those drugs) for the benefit of both parties.
Because remember; while I don't consider drug users to be the main villians of the Narcotics Industry, I still want to see them be pushed into both ending their addiction and getting them to co-operate against both Drug Dealers and the Cartels. In other words, I am proposing these 2 measures to both remove the Drug Cartels customer base and to cripple their distribution networks.
and have the US take over numerous other countries? I was actually trying to state that enabling Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, Columbia and Venezuela to achieve First World/Developed Nation Status would go a long way to killing off the Pan-American Narcotics Industry. Partly because it would mean that their farmers would have less reason to produce Narcotics, partly because it would allow those nations to more easily defeat paramilitary organisations (such as Drug Cartels) and partly because it would make the Narcotics Industry less attractive to those looking to make a career for themselves.
The "US Annexation" point comes from the fact that such First World/Developed Nation Status is only possible via US Investment (& Support for Political Reform); which is only going to happen if the United States themselves benefit from such investment, hence why such status is not possible unless said nations join the Union. Simply because it's unrealisic to expect the United States to develop potential challengers to their Geopolitical Dominance in the Americas (and make no mistake, a Mexican State with the GDP per Capita similar to the United States would definately be such a challenger).
And you think that peoples' objections to those policies are likely to be primarily partisan?! I made the point about how many of the objections to the 5 proposals are likely to be partisan since the proposals go against the Conservative Right's opposition towards any Expansion of Government and the Left's support of Civil Liberties. However I would like to point out that your objections to my proposals are ones that are both reasonable and understandable. No wonder you're citing Hitler as an example of things you propose being effective. Bear in mind that Hiter would object to these 5 proposals, mainly because he would likely end up facing jail time (or mandatory treatment) due to his addiction to meth. Unlike so many other forum regulars, I'm not that irritated by your posting style (I simply ignore your footnotes, since the fact you're putting them as a footnote means they aren't important to your point), though I do skip over most of your posts at the moment. The Footnotes do contain information that is directly relevant to the points I am making, the reason why I put said information in said footnotes is to preserve the narrative flow of the post. But you don't seem to have even the faintest grasp on what kind of policies could be implemented in the real world. I am aware of the collateral damage (in fact I have admitted that the collateral damage of my 5 proposals would be worse compared to the current collateral damage of the "War on Drugs"), its just that I would rather deal with the collateral damage of those 5 proposals rather than the collateral damage of Decrimminalising all Narcotics in an environment where there are very few constraints against both Capitalism and the "Right to make Profits", constraints which certain political types want to kill off altogether.
Because after all; the last thing any country needs is a bigger and more dangerous clone of Big Tobacco coming about.
And assuming you aren't simply trolling you seem very strongly enamoured of totalitarian approaches. I am not trolling (especially when I joined this forum to take part in political debates such as this one) and I am not supportive of establishing totalitarian regimes. Simply because I am unapologetically in favour of Democratic Elections (under Universal Suffrage) to elect Governments, free debates about which Laws should be in place and the right to criticise those in power.
However I would admit that I do have some authoritarian tendencies with myself; not because I am opposed to the idea of Democracy, but rather because I am fully aware of how willing certain groups are (i.e. increasing numbers of the Conservative Right, the Far-Right, Religious Extremists, Organised Crime etc.) to resort to violence to oppose the politics and ideas I support. So while I reject the ideas of both dictatorship & political violence while strongly supporting the rule of law, I am not afraid to support using law enforcement in a way that prevents types who violently oppose the rule of law from being able to completely destroy it.
My point in the post you were replying to was that the only way to effectively deal with the drug problem by tough enforcement is by adopting totalitarian approaches. And the point I was making was that one does not need to establish a Totalitarian State to deal with the problems of the Narcotics Industry, even if difficult decisions and tough choices have to be made in relation to dealing with such an industry.
Because when you are dealing with an "Industry" that is both highly lucrative and selling a highly addictive product that one cannot simply stop consuming, one has to increase the risks to an unacceptable level to discourage and disincentivise people from taking part (or collaborating with) in the Narcotics Industry while increasing the incentive for drug users to seek treatment for their addictions.
Finally I would point out that in a ideal world; the 5 proposals I am proposing would not be needed whatsoever. Sadly however we do not live in such a world and thus one has to be a realist when it comes to problems such as these and the ability of Humans to shoot themselves in the foot.
Which is why I think that decriminalisation, legalisation, and a focus on providing treatment, rehab, and the like for users is the most effective way of minimising the harm drugs do. Again I would support the need to focus more on providing treatment & rehab to drug users. However all that good work would be undermined if the destructive (yet lucrative) Narcotics Industry was not only legalised, but also allowed to thrive in an enviroment where there are very little restrictions on ones "right" to make profits.
I mean take Big Tobacco for example; an industry that still makes $28 Billion in Annual Profits (1) despite being heavily demonised and restricted in the developed world (less so in the developing world unfortunately). Now if they can make that much money from a relatively less addictive substance (and under heavily restricted circumstances); imagine how much money a fully legalised and less restricted Narcotics Industry (selling more addictive substances let not forget) would be making and more worryingly how able said Narcotics Industry would be able to bribe politicians & the media into opposing laws that would restrict their ability to both expand their customer base and promote disinformation (to encourage people to consider information about the harmful effects of drug use to be "fake news").
Thus; rather than help drug users kick the habit altogether (which is something we both want); decriminalisation (and the resulting emergence of a fully legalised and less restricted Narcotics Industry) might actually make the problem even worse on this front.
(1) Thats the combined annual profits of Philip Morris International, Altria, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco by the way. A combined figure thats nearly double the annual profits of Royal Dutch Shell.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 29, 2021 20:26:58 GMT
Where's your empirical evidence that these regimes survived on the basis of threatening severe punishment for dissenters, rather than on a combination of most of the population accepting them as the legitimate government and the fear of getting caught for actively opposing them? And why did people fear getting caught? Because they feared the consequences of opposing said regime, hence why virtually none of those regimes got overthrown via a mere domestic uprising or even an internal coup. That's supposition on your part. If the severity of punishment had a statistically significant deterrent impact then US states with the death penalty for murder would have lower homicide rates than similar US states which don't. The evidence seems to show that the main thing that has a deterrent effect is the likelihood of getting caught, rather than the severity of the legal consequences. That's just naive. Give an institution authoritarian powers and they will inevitably be abused. The power to torture suspects is pretty much an invitation to abusers, given that you don't need any clear evidence to categorise someone as a suspect. And even if you could prevent abuse, saying that these powers will only be used to enforce the law only works as a defence as long as the laws stay reasonable. If those powers are already in place when a semi-competent authoritarian comes into power it makes it really easy to pass laws that turn those powers against their political opponents.
Torture of suspects is to treat anyone who is even accused of using a drug with extreme cruelty. Torturing people who haven't even committed the crime cannot possibly deter people from committing it. If anything, it's going to make the crime more attractive (if you're going to be tortured anyway, you might as well do something to deserve it). It also makes it infinitely more difficult for users to end an addiction, since by admitting their addiction to anyone in authority they risk being subjected to torture and life imprisonment. So the only drug rehab that users would risk using would be those who are operating under the radar of the government.
And my point is that your proposals are both impossible to implement in the real world and inherently totalitarian. And yet the Western country which has seen the most success in dealing with the drug problem is Portugal (the only country in recent years to see a massive drop in hard drug use, alongside significantly slower rise in soft drug use). And they are also the only country which has taken the approach of decriminalising drugs. Their approach clearly works better than the British or American one, is far more practical than yours (in that it's actually possible), and seems to have far fewer negative side effects. A narcotics industry that lobbies governments rather than funding terrorism is far less damaging to society than the police torturing people on the basis of mere suspicion.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,257
|
Post by peterl on Jan 29, 2021 22:33:56 GMT
Personally I'm kind of in the middle of this debate on drugs, I do not support decriminalisation, rather I support using the criminal justice system to identify drug users who would then, instead of imprisonment, be required to undergo rehabilitation programs. I do however support tough sentences for dealers.
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by ColinJ on Jan 30, 2021 8:06:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by froome on Jan 30, 2021 9:24:32 GMT
But will they finish the count before the next election takes place...
|
|