Random Politics Thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Do you know a lot about Epigenetics and the consequence across historical time of trends in mind or physiology altering substances?

Could you point me to some studies done on one that's legally available in most countries? Like alcohol, for instance?

Life is tough and it's not my place to judge the things people do to try and make it tolerable. Certainly, drugs can cause health problems, but the way to deal with that is through harm reduction rather than the draconian laws. Joe Biden's anti-ecstasy crusade involved penalizing those who attempted harm reduction problems.

Drug abuse should be treated as a medical issue rather than a criminal issue. I suspect the reason it came to be treated as such is a combination of the role of racism as well as the inescapable "culture war" residue left over from the 1960s.

I was subject to a great deal of anti-drug propaganda in elementary school in the 1990s and it was completely ineffectual, by the way. I'm someone who has never tried anything harder than marijuana (which was also extremely demonized), but I know lots of people who haven't who are around the same age and were undoubtedly subject to the same propaganda. I should note that many of those people seem to be doing very well in life considering the present moment, although that's due in part to the fact that they are not of a race that would have been targeted as a result of the draconian drug laws in place.

 

[Jaguar]

Chis Krebs is suing those filthy pricks. Good for him.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I am aware that capitalism can accommodate the legalization of drugs, but that does not make the legalization of drugs bad. If it puts a dent in the prison-industrial complex, I'm for it, and not prepared to condemn it just because people make money off of it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Moreover, people still make money off of mind-altering things when they are illegal. Ever hear of a chap called Al Capone?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I’m sorry, the right sucks at satire. Show me one good, clever piece of right wing satire

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Illegalization of drugs helps to feed the private prison industry, the ultimate example of capitalist abuse, with a steady supply of convicts, usually disproportionately coming from marginalized communities. That’s about all I have to say to anyone concerned about legalization paving the way for capitalist abuses. Also, there is zero regulation to protect either consumers or business persons in the black market—the ultimate example of how a free market fails. I’ll take a regulated legal drug industry over what is currently available any day of the week

 

[Jonny]

Switching to a proportional system while keeping the electoral college... what a brilliant idea.

So, assuming that each state can award electors to more than 2 candidates, for the 2016 election I get the following (Case 1):

• Clinton - 264
• Trump - 262
• Johnson - 10
• Stein - 1
• McMullin - 1

If each state can only award to the top 2, then I get (Case 2):

• Clinton - 269
• Trump - 269

In the first case, there could be an additional rule allowing electors for the various other candidates to vote for one of the top 2. In the event they reach a 269-269 tie (whether after reallocating 3rd parties in the first case, or in the second case) it would be treated as it is currently (i.e. in Congress).


Looking at the 2000 election:

Case 1:

• Bush - 262
• Gore - 269
• Nader - 7

Case 2:

• Bush - 269
• Gore - 269

So, interestingly, in both recent cases a proportional system indeed would have increased the likelihood of the popular vote winner winning the electoral college, but it isn't certain.

Edit:

I'd like to add, with any such system, there could still be state-by-state litigation since recounts could technically shift 1 EV in either direction. In both the 2000 and 2016 elections, under Case 2, both candidates would be hellbent on recounting various states to see if they could squeak out an additional EV. I can only imagine the shitshow.

 

[Lark]

Could you point me to some studies done on one that's legally available in most countries? Like alcohol, for instance?

Life is tough and it's not my place to judge the things people do to try and make it tolerable. Certainly, drugs can cause health problems, but the way to deal with that is through harm reduction rather than the draconian laws. Joe Biden's anti-ecstasy crusade involved penalizing those who attempted harm reduction problems.

Drug abuse should be treated as a medical issue rather than a criminal issue. I suspect the reason it came to be treated as such is a combination of the role of racism as well as the inescapable "culture war" residue left over from the 1960s.

I was subject to a great deal of anti-drug propaganda in elementary school in the 1990s and it was completely ineffectual, by the way. I'm someone who has never tried anything harder than marijuana (which was also extremely demonized), but I know lots of people who haven't who are around the same age and were undoubtedly subject to the same propaganda. I should note that many of those people seem to be doing very well in life considering the present moment, although that's due in part to the fact that they are not of a race that would have been targeted as a result of the draconian drug laws in place.

Its curious to me that its still considered racism and right wing culture kampf that drives the war on drugs, some of the best left wing criticism of "drug culture" has been able to perceive just why groups like the CIA chose to flood "suspect communities" with drugs (and simultaneously "anti-drugs propaganda" which could be calculated to ramp up demand). I'm sure a lot of it was perhaps opportunistic but seriously, these are the people responsible for Cointelpro and MKUltra.

I am all for harm reduction but I live and work in a country which has, in contrast to the US, progressed fairly far down the road of medicalizing social problems and a lot of the medics, nursing and professions allied to medicine are wishing that some criminal justice re-balancing could take place (in the ROI there has been where they are finally engaging in an all fronts struggle against drugs traffick and organised crime).

In terms of the evidence from epigenetics, well, the examples I know of generally relate to the results of starvation and shortages showing up in later generations, effecting predispositions to mental illness, obesity etc. There is a school of thought that the irish famine still features in the irish psyche, at least of those who never moved far from the communities who experienced it first hand.

I know enough nurses who've witnessed fetal alcohol syndrome or the "cocaine babies" whose withdrawal states are like pigs squealing to know there's an impact at one remove in terms of generations, the conclusions about starvation and other sorts of deprivation would lead me to make some inferences that I think are logical at least, ie not simply prejudice.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

So, assuming that each state can award electors to more than 2 candidates, for the 2016 election I get the following (Case 1):

• Clinton - 264
• Trump - 262
• Johnson - 10
• Stein - 1
• McMullin - 1

If each state can only award to the top 2, then I get (Case 2):

• Clinton - 269
• Trump - 269

In the first case, there could be an additional rule allowing electors for the various other candidates to vote for one of the top 2. In the event they reach a 269-269 tie (whether after reallocating 3rd parties in the first case, or in the second case) it would be treated as it is currently (i.e. in Congress).


Looking at the 2000 election:

Case 1:

• Bush - 262
• Gore - 269
• Nader - 7

Case 2:

• Bush - 269
• Gore - 269

So, interestingly, in both recent cases a proportional system indeed would have increased the likelihood of the popular vote winner winning the electoral college, but it isn't certain.

Edit:

I'd like to add, with any such system, there could still be state-by-state litigation since recounts could technically shift 1 EV in either direction. In both the 2000 and 2016 elections, under Case 2, both candidates would be hellbent on recounting various states to see if they could squeak out an additional EV. I can only imagine the shitshow.

It seems superfluous and I think it should just be abolished altogether, and replaced with ranked ballot voting so that ties or wins by plurality become nearly impossible

 

[Lark]

I am aware that capitalism can accommodate the legalization of drugs, but that does not make the legalization of drugs bad. If it puts a dent in the prison-industrial complex, I'm for it, and not prepared to condemn it just because people make money off of it.

Its not the profit factor that's an issue, its the harm factor, drug pushing is not a victimless and harm free activity.

If profit was neutral or good per se then general motors would deal crack.

I just see the on going global relaxation of drug trafficking as a sign most people dont care about the harm factor anymore, either to themselves or others, its the same reason that people dont care about the food and drink which is the cheapest and most readily available being full of things that act like slow poisons and kill the unwary.

 

[Lark]

Moreover, people still make money off of mind-altering things when they are illegal. Ever hear of a chap called Al Capone?

Well the US probably owes more to Al Capone than Adam Smith in its version of capitalism, I know its not the point you're making, anyway, its not that there's ready money to made that's the issue.

The difficulties in enforcing a law do not make the law a bad law per se, otherwise we'd just relax the laws prohibiting murder.

Also, I dont think its simply a matter of prohibition, let alone simple legal prohibition, but doing something about the popularity and demand in the first place, which I dont think are just matters of desperate circumstances or whatever, its about what people think is a good time or a good scene to be part of etc. and all that is a culture struggle of sorts.

 

[Virtual ghost]

So, assuming that each state can award electors to more than 2 candidates, for the 2016 election I get the following (Case 1):

• Clinton - 264
• Trump - 262
• Johnson - 10
• Stein - 1
• McMullin - 1

If each state can only award to the top 2, then I get (Case 2):

• Clinton - 269
• Trump - 269

In the first case, there could be an additional rule allowing electors for the various other candidates to vote for one of the top 2. In the event they reach a 269-269 tie (whether after reallocating 3rd parties in the first case, or in the second case) it would be treated as it is currently (i.e. in Congress).


Looking at the 2000 election:

Case 1:

• Bush - 262
• Gore - 269
• Nader - 7

Case 2:

• Bush - 269
• Gore - 269

So, interestingly, in both recent cases a proportional system indeed would have increased the likelihood of the popular vote winner winning the electoral college, but it isn't certain.

Edit:

I'd like to add, with any such system, there could still be state-by-state litigation since recounts could technically shift 1 EV in either direction. In both the 2000 and 2016 elections, under Case 2, both candidates would be hellbent on recounting various states to see if they could squeak out an additional EV. I can only imagine the shitshow.

You can't really know that and that is for the reasons why this should perhaps be implemented. By doing this you would make sure that every state matters since you can get EVs in them. What means that you would get a large boost in the turnouts and with that you would get totally different dynamic than what happened in those years. However you would get a much better representation and probably less nagging. Plus if the whole country is totally in play it is actually much much less likely that you would have a few key states that determine the result. What reduces the odds of "it is close". There are always recounts exactly because a few places decide a election and idea of this is to remove yourself from that mindset and practice. Since the politics as you know would actually end if everything is in play.


Yes, just general popular vote would be better solution but some people will really oppose that. Therefore that perhaps isn't viable at all, while this perhaps is.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Its not the profit factor that's an issue, its the harm factor, drug pushing is not a victimless and harm free activity.

If profit was neutral or good per se then general motors would deal crack.

I just see the on going global relaxation of drug trafficking as a sign most people dont care about the harm factor anymore, either to themselves or others, its the same reason that people dont care about the food and drink which is the cheapest and most readily available being full of things that act like slow poisons and kill the unwary.

Are you aware that in the U.S., the War on Drugs was the fuel for mass incarceration? Currently we have the highest incarceration rate per capita, surpassing countries like China.

This is why left-leaning Americans are often in favor of drug decriminalization. Perhaps the context is different where you are; I wouldn't know.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

Trump's team is now, what, 1-51 in election court cases? That's worse than the Rockets' 2nd-half 3-point percentage in Game 7 of the 2018 Western Conference Finals (and believe me, it was baaaaaaaaaaad).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Are you aware that in the U.S., the War on Drugs was the fuel for mass incarceration? Currently we have the highest incarceration rate per capita, surpassing countries like China.

This is why left-leaning Americans are often in favor of drug decriminalization. Perhaps the context is different where you are; I wouldn't know.

Just before I loose a thought and go to bed.



I mean this returns us to the question of strategy and round up talking point. I am not a fan that people should become too comfortable with drugs around, especially since that is evident threat to universal medicine. Which doesn't make too much sense if junkies all over the place is ok-ish outcome. What means that effort should be focused on the big fish, since without them the small fish will just run out of "goods", or it will become large fish and end in the same way. Therefore you can do this without mass incarceration. Especially since most people in the mix just need a rehab and stable job. Plus this is a good place to explain to the people how universal healthcare helps in keeping drugs at bay. Through openly educating about their dangers, cleaning people up if needed and making sure that people don't sell it to pay their large medical bills. Especially since death related anxiety will drop with such a system and therefore the need for "easy fix". What are goals with which an average right winger should be more than ok with, but no one really explained them in detail how this can work. Especially since cleaning up this mess would lower the drama about banning guns. Since the crime in general would visibly tank due to social stability.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What are goals with which an average right winger should be more than ok with, but no one really explained them in detail how this can work.

Your points sound reasonable, but the average right winger in the U.S. is basically in a cult. How do you deprogram people from cults? I don't know, but that's the approach that's needed for them. They're not really receptive to rational arguments and operate entirely off of their id.

 

[Jaguar]

On his way out of office, Trump appoints Conway, Chao to government positions - POLITICO

Notice how many board of trustees positions are being given. How much money will you crazy fuckers be misappropriating?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

On his way out of office, Trump appoints Conway, Chao to government positions - POLITICO

Notice how many board of trustees positions are being given. How much money will you crazy fuckers be misappropriating?

why didn't the norms save us?

 

[Lateralus]

Its not the profit factor that's an issue, its the harm factor, drug pushing is not a victimless and harm free activity.

If profit was neutral or good per se then general motors would deal crack.

I just see the on going global relaxation of drug trafficking as a sign most people dont care about the harm factor anymore, either to themselves or others, its the same reason that people dont care about the food and drink which is the cheapest and most readily available being full of things that act like slow poisons and kill the unwary.

Your post is assumes facts not in evidence, that government prohibitions actually reduce harm. What about the harm caused by drug cartels, which exist only because we have drug prohibition? Entire nations have been destabilized by powerful drug cartels, leading to unimaginable suffering, all so we make it slightly more difficult for people in the US or UK to get their hands on recreational drugs. It's mindboggling to me that anyone can look at the full effect of drug prohibition and think it's actually reducing harm. It's arguably the most destructive social policy since slavery.

 

[Jaguar]

why didn't the norms save us?

Why didn't J.R. Ewing get punched instead of shot?