Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

As a liberal/conservative if you had to give up one policy in exchange for support from the other group on another, what would that be?

I would support the banning of all guns if a strict prohibition on alcohol and drugs was also enacted (I mean Duterte level strict).

Not really a conservative/liberal per se.

But I believe solid gun control and solid regulation on abortion (banning of abortion for any reason other than rape/medical necessity) is win/win.

Can I give up the Republican party's antipathy towards weed? Even though I don't support their antipathy towards weed? In exchange for something else I want?

You can but that'd be a ***** answer because it's a Republican stance that's collapsing already. Within ten years weed will be legal in every state.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
You can but that'd be a ***** answer because it's a Republican stance that's collapsing already. Within ten years weed will be legal in every state.
Can I give up other republican stances I don't like, such as the private prison system? In exchange for making abortion illegal, cept for danger to mother's life?

Sure.

I'd give up waffles for pancakes

I don't have anything because the things I don't like are not necessarily specific to either party but problems with both.

I'd give up all of our foreign war-stuff if it meant we could decriminalize all drugs.


That's a win win for me but both parties lose as they both support those.

I already pick and choose to begin with. There isn't one party that I agree with on everything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't have anything because the things I don't like are not necessarily specific to either party but problems with both.

I'd give up all of our foreign war-stuff if it meant we could decriminalize all drugs.


That's a win win for me but both parties lose as they both support those.

Even cocaine and crack?

Weed I understand, even some pills to a certain point, but crack and cocaine, those are hardcore drugs.

Definitely psychedelics too. Want those legalized.

Originally posted by SquallX
Even cocaine and crack?

Weed I understand, even some pills to a certain point, but crack and cocaine, those are hardcore drugs.

Yes, all of them. Drug addiction is not a criminal problem: it's a medical problem.

Prohibitions of things that people WILL 100% use only create black markets and violence to protect those black markets. Decriminalizing all of it removes much of the purpose for those black markets.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, all of them. Drug addiction is not a criminal problem: it's a medical problem.

Prohibitions of things that people WILL 100% use only create black markets and violence to protect those black markets. Decriminalizing all of it removes much of the purpose for those black markets.

That's fair, but what do you replace it with? To me, it seems that while you have removed black market crime, there could be an uptick in violent crime because more people are on drugs (mainly Crack/cocaine, PCP, etc. ) Are we making these drugs more affordable and thus easier for the masses to obtain? Or are we keeping them at the current price and having addicts do crazy things to obtain them? I don't think all users will be criminals, but I do think you up the percentages by allowing more people the opportunity to obtain them (mainly the people who refrained because they were against the law).

Originally posted by socool8520
That's fair, but what do you replace it with?

Foreign military-war-stuff. We end those things.


Both topics are bipartisan that I mentioned. Both democrats nd republicans support, on average, criminalization of drugs. Both also support our foregin military-war-stuff.




Originally posted by socool8520
To me, it seems that while you have removed black market crime, there could be an uptick in violent crime because more people are on drugs (mainly Crack/cocaine, PCP, etc. )

That's not what happens, though. Drug use decreases when drug prohibitions end. And the young people use the drugs less, too.


Originally posted by socool8520
Are we making these drugs more affordable and thus easier for the masses to obtain?

Almost all people who use drugs cannot afford drug use.

https://willingway.com/income-drug-alcohol-abuse/



Originally posted by socool8520
Or are we keeping them at the current price and having addicts do crazy things to obtain them?

You're still thinking in prohibition terms, still. Those are prohibition measures that do not effectively reduce drug use so post-prohibition, your question doesn't matter. When you no longer have a drug prohibition, questions like the one you ask here are moot. Drug prices - for the purposes of making drugs harder to obtain - doesn't even matter.

But here's a breakdown of the costs of drugs over time during the Great Drug Prohibition in the US:

https://www.vox.com/cards/war-on-drugs-marijuana-cocaine-heroin-meth/war-on-drugs-success-failure-working

I think the above is a good read.

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't think all users will be criminals, but I do think you up the percentages by allowing more people the opportunity to obtain them (mainly the people who refrained because they were against the law).

This is not correct. All illegal drug users are criminals because that's how it works. So many are "uncaught and un-prosecuted." That's under the current system.



Just simply decriminalizing is not enough. As The Netherlands discovered, you must provide programs that help people "clean up" AND get mental and medical help.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X10700018



It costs far less to provide those programs than it does to maintain our Drug Prohibitions.


What if we spent the $7.6 billion that we did in Afghanistan to stop poppy production (which was to stop the opiate empire) on schools or drug-addiction programs? What would have happened with drug use?

Personally, I think the US has a very serious problem with tackling symptoms but not solving the underlying problems. It's sexier to see photos of massive drug busts. And they all throw bust parties, pat each other on the back, and the people in congress jerk each other off to these photos while saying, "See, our policies resulted in this major drug cartel being taken out. We're such good law makers." But, in reality, one falls, 3 spring up. Because the prohibition is still in place. And there's still an incentive for criminals to do criminally crimey crimes. The problem is the prohibition, but they keep tackling people who are taking advantage of the system prohibition creates.

They want to stop drug use? Why don't they stop drug use? Seems simple, right? You don't stop drug use by breaking up drug makers. That's not how it works and that's not how it will ever work.


My position comes from two places:


Libertarianism AND conservatism. Libertarian, obviously, because you shouldn't be able to tell an adult what they can or cannot put into their body. Conservatism because it's simply a fiscal problem to keep Drug Prohibitions in place. Spend a tenth of the amount of money on drug addiction treatment or even better, provide universal healthcare that includes mental healthcare (this is still a conservative position but US conservatives are too dumb, obstinate, and ignorant to realize that UHC is actually a conservative position).

Oh, and SquallX, you're right about evil people, too. It's not that we disagree on the underlying things. We don't. We just disagree on what might be the best path to solve those underlying things.


I personally think that better access to free healthcare and mental healthcare will help with our violence problems. It won't solve it. But it will help with it. The UHC solution MUST include mental health. And America needs to mature on their perspective of mental healthcare. We need to view it as "getting my annual checkup." Instead of, "Well..only crazy people need to see a shrink."

Perhaps you are correct DDM. Honestly, I couldn't care less what people do to themselves. My worry is that just because it goes right in some countries, we assume it will go right here. To be fair, I am assuming it will go wrong. My hope is that you are correct.

Originally posted by socool8520
Perhaps you are correct DDM. Honestly, I couldn't care less what people do to themselves.

Excellent, we are on the same page, I believe. I care more about personal freedom than I do the ability to impose my beliefs on others.

Originally posted by socool8520
My worry is that just because it goes right in some countries, we assume it will go right here. To be fair, I am assuming it will go wrong. My hope is that you are correct.

And this is fair. I cannot argue with this. In the US, at least...I think you're right. We'd probably **** it up because of the partisan quackery. You know one of the sides will just HAVE to inject their bullshit into it just for the purposes of messing it up. We saw that with Obamacare. It was originally supposed to be a UHC solution. It was almost mutilated to the point of failing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Excellent, we are on the same page, I believe. I care more about personal freedom than I do the ability to impose my beliefs on others.



And this is fair. I cannot argue with this. In the US, at least...I think you're right. We'd probably **** it up because of the partisan quackery. You know one of the sides will just HAVE to inject their bullshit into it just for the purposes of messing it up. We saw that with Obamacare. It was originally supposed to be a UHC solution. It was almost mutilated to the point of failing.

We do agree on personal freedoms over my personal beliefs. It's why I am pro abortion. I wouldn't do it personally, but I can't tell someone else what to do with their body.

Originally posted by socool8520
We do agree on personal freedoms over my personal beliefs. It's why I am pro abortion. I wouldn't do it personally, but I can't tell someone else what to do with their body.

Yup, I am the same on abortion.

I would prefer no abortions after first trimester, however, as I think it crosses my threshold of dealing with just the mother's rights vs. the unborn child's right to life.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup, I am the same on abortion.

I would prefer no abortions after first trimester, however, as I think it crosses my threshold of dealing with just the mother's rights vs. the unborn child's right to life.

We should open a thread about abortions actually. I have certain views on it, especially the consent of both parents being involve.