-->
@oromagi
but I don't think history lets us pretend that which drugs get criminalized and which don't never had a distinctly racial bias.
Well stated.
The many debates on systemic racism in America are flawed
Posts
Total:
238
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not asking about how government officials may or may not have abused their power. You said that criminalizing drug use is racist in and of itself. Why is criminalizing the use of heroin racist in and of itself? Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?
-->
@oromagi
I'm not saying that laws regarding drug use haven't been politically motivated in the past. But it was stated that criminalizing drug use is racist in and of itself. I'll ask the same questions then. Why is criminalizing the use of heroin racist in and of itself? Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?
HOW AN ISLAND IN THE ANTIPODES BECAME THE WORLD'S LEADING SUPPLIER OF LICIT OPIOIDS
Pharmaceutical companies exploited a regulatory loophole that allowed for a decades-long boom in licit opioid production fueled by Tasmanian-grown poppies. Here's what the island can tell us—and why supply matters for solving the third wave of the overdose crisis. [**]
Fentanyl was first made by Paul Janssen in 1960 and approved for medical use in the United States in 1968. In 2015, 1,600 kilograms (3,500 lb) were used in healthcare globally. As of 2017, fentanyl was the most widely used synthetic opioid in medicine. [**]
(IFF) fentanyl is legal (THEN) all substances that are less dangerous than fentanyl should also be legal
(IFF) alcohol is legal (THEN) all substances that are less dangerous than alcohol should also be legal
it’s hard to imagine that not long ago one could purchase the drug from a Sears catalogue.
Heroin was the first to fall from pharmaceutical darling to a demonized, black-market street drug. Long used as a cure for aches and pains, it wasn’t until Chinese immigrants came to the United States to work on the railroads and mines that opium-based products such as heroin were perceived as dangerous. American settlers were not happy with the Chinese arrivals, who brought with them a cultural tradition of smoking opium for relaxation in the evenings. The settlers accused the Chinese of “taking our jobs,” and economic resentment morphed into rumors of Chinese men luring white women into opium dens and getting them addicted. Rumors turned to fear, which turned to hysteria, [**]
-->
@3RU7AL
But you were talking about recreational drug use, not medicinal use. And besides that, you failed to answer the question. Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin *recreationally*?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
->@oromagiI'm not saying that laws regarding drug use haven't been politically motivated in the past.
I see
But it was stated that criminalizing drug use is racist in and of itself. I'll ask the same questions then. Why is criminalizing the use of heroin racist in and of itself?
Is somebody making that argument?
Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?
I guess not. The relapse rate for heroin is about 90% so its clear the rehabilitative effect is weak and the punitive effective is negligible. I suppose most heroin addicts end up commiting non-drug-related offenses sooner or later but fine, let them go down that way. Criminalizing drugs generally does not seem to have had the suppressive effect intended and the unintended consequences like making drug lords into powerful and well-armed organizations clearly outweighs any benefits we've seen.
-->
@oromagi
Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?I guess not. The relapse rate for heroin is about 90% so its clear the rehabilitative effect is weak and the punitive effective is negligible. I suppose most heroin addicts end up commiting non-drug-related offenses sooner or later but fine, let them go down that way. Criminalizing drugs generally does not seem to have had the suppressive effect intended and the unintended consequences like making drug lords into powerful and well-armed organizations clearly outweighs any benefits we've seen.
Well stated.
-->
@oromagi
Is somebody making that argument?
Yes, the question was specifically asked in response to 3RU7AL who said in post #24:
"PERHAPS WE CAN AGREE THAT THERE IS NOT EXPLICIT "RACISM" IN THE LETTER OF THE LAW (although the criminalization of recreational drug use is "racist" in and of itself)"
Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?I guess not.
Well that certainly adds another layer of complexity to the issue. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?I guess not.Well that certainly adds another layer of complexity to the issue. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.
DO YOU HAVE ANY REASONS TO BELIEVE "DRUGS" SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ?
-->
@3RU7AL
YES I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE RECREATIONAL USE OF "DRUGS" LIKE HEROIN SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. BUT I REALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE GOING DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO COME TO ANY MEANINGFUL RESOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
YES I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE RECREATIONAL USE OF "DRUGS" LIKE HEROIN SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. BUT I REALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE GOING DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO COME TO ANY MEANINGFUL RESOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE.
Why not simply state your REASONS ?
Claiming you have REASONS and refusing to reveal those REASONS is functionally indistinguishable from having NO REASONS.
-->
@3RU7AL
I just don't feel like taking the time to debate why we shouldn't let people shoot heroin. That also heavily distracts from the topic of systemic racism, which is why I engaged in the first place.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I just don't feel like taking the time to debate why we shouldn't let people shoot heroin. That also heavily distracts from the topic of systemic racism, which is why I engaged in the first place.
Nobody is asking you to "debate".
Just state your reasons.
If you already have reasons, this should be easy.
If you have to think of some reasons, you should keep stalling.
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody is asking you to "debate".Just state your reasons.
So if I were to just state my reasons plainly, how are you going to respond? Are you going to just say, "Oh, those are interesting reasons. Have a great day," and be done?
Or are you going to try to rebut those reasons with your own arguments?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So if I were to just state my reasons plainly, how are you going to respond? Are you going to just say, "Oh, those are interesting reasons. Have a great day," and be done?Or are you going to try to rebut those reasons with your own arguments?
It depends on how "reasonable" they truly are.
Hell, I might even agree with you.
The problem here is that there is no way to know unless you present them.
Also, even if someone replies to one of your comments, you are never under any OBLIGATION to respond.
This is a PURELY VOLUNTARY exchange.
-->
@3RU7AL
It depends on how "reasonable" they truly are.
And there it is. You will reject my reasoning because I have a completely different worldview than you. I have a particular view of man, morality, and probably truth itself. That means that to even discuss the question of whether recreational drug use should be illegal will require us to overcome a great number of barriers that I just don't feel like taking the time to do right now. Maybe we can do that another day.
Put more simply, I don't feel like trying to convince you that shooting heroin is bad.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Put more simply, I don't feel like trying to convince you that shooting heroin is bad.
That's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about whether or not you have REASONS to believe "that shooting heroin is bad".
I have no doubt you have an OPINION "that shooting heroin is bad".
And there's absolutely nothing "wrong" with holding an OPINION.
hOWEvER, it seems a little strange to pretend your OPINION is based on REASONS.
-->
@3RU7AL
I get that this is a debate site, but that doesn't mean we have to turn everything into debate.
And you're next response will be, "I'm not trying to debate it! I just want to know your reasons, that's all!" And then we'll have to debate the meaning of the word "debate" to see if what you're doing should be considered debating or not.
It's getting comical at this point.
We're talking about whether or not you have REASONS to believe "that shooting heroin is bad".You see? Now you're trying to debate whether my statement about heroin use is a reason-based opinion or a baseless opinion so we can debate whether or not heroin use is bad so we can debate whether it should be illegal so we can debate whether that is racist so we can debate whether systemic racism exists.
And you're next response will be, "I'm not trying to debate it! I just want to know your reasons, that's all!" And then we'll have to debate the meaning of the word "debate" to see if what you're doing should be considered debating or not.
It's getting comical at this point.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Now you're trying to debate whether my statement about heroin use is a reason-based opinion or a baseless opinion
There is no such thing as a "baseless opinion".
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Also, as I pointed out earlier, NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO RESPOND.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you saying that every opinion is based on at least one reason?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are you saying that every opinion is based on at least one reason?
Or an E-MOTION.
-->
@fauxlaw
Cite a law. Cite a policy. That's all. The caveat is that they must be current.
Imagine I hold a 400 meter race and award the victor $10k. All White people get a 100 meter head start.
Question: Once the gun goes off, aren’t the rules for everyone at that point, equal?
-->
@Double_R
Cite a law. Cite a policy. That's all. The caveat is that they must be current.Imagine I hold a 400 meter race and award the victor $10k. All White people get a 100 meter head start.Question: Once that gun goes off, aren’t the rules for everyone at that point, equal?
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
You're right. I was responding to see how far you'd take the point down the rabbit hole. It looks like we reached that point. You're free to believe that I am holding an emotion-based opinion that has no reason to support it. So I will just state again, I don't feel like trying to convince you that shooting heroin is bad. That is the reason (not an emotion) behind why I hold the opinion that it is not worth debating the morality of heroin use.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You're right. I was responding to see how far you'd take the point down the rabbit hole. It looks like we reached that point. You're free to believe that I am holding an emotion-based opinion that has no reason to support it. So I will just state again, I don't feel like trying to convince you that shooting heroin is bad. That is the reason (not an emotion) behind why I hold the opinion that it is not worth debating the morality of heroin use.
(IFF) heroin is no more "morally" and or physically destructive than alcohol, gambling, or refined sugar (THEN) they should all (EITHER) be made legal (OR) they should all be made illegal (and or similarly restricted)
And to bring this back to the subject of "racism",
The ENFORCEMENT of drug laws is now, and has always been, disproportionate.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Wait, why is criminalization of drug use racist?
The question of whether any given law or action is racist is entirely a question about motivation, so pointing to a law and asking how the law itself could possibly be racist will always get the same answer.
Regarding drug use, I would point to the sentencing of crack vs cocaine. They’re literally the same substance, yet one might get you a few months, while the other will damn near lock you up for life. So why the disparity? Well, I’m sure the fact that cocaine was widely found in white neighborhoods while crack was mostly found in black neighborhoods had nothing to do with it.
-->
@3RU7AL
Just so I'm clear, are you trying to assert that heroin is no more morally or physically destructive than refined sugar?
-->
@Double_R
The question of whether any given law or action is racist is entirely a question about motivation
Should laws that are intended to benefit one racial group over others also be considered racist then?
So why the disparity? Well, I’m sure the fact that cocaine was widely found in white neighborhoods while crack was mostly found in black neighborhoods had nothing to do with it.
My problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires one to create racial identities that apply to everyone in the group. Crack becomes associated with blackness, and cocaine with whiteness. To make a special effort to criminalize crack is equivalent to attacking blackness.
The problem I see is that you are associating crack with the black identity - with blackness. This ideology then perpetuates racial stereotypes that black people are crack addicts, even if unintentionally.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Just so I'm clear, are you trying to assert that heroin is no more morally or physically destructive than refined sugar?
REFINED SUGAR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE DEATHS THAN HEROIN.