You're so cute when you can't do anything other than obvious trolling because you lost an argument :D
Comment has been collapsed.
You're so cute when you can't do anything other than obvious trolling because you lost an argument :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Looks like you hit a nerve with your "fake news" and Someone is little bit upset they couldn't scream their way out of it! :D
Comment has been collapsed.
They seem to be doing quite well screaming themselves in it without my help too. I'm sure to every Trump follower every other news media than Fox is Fake News.
Comment has been collapsed.
Having diffrent opinions and discussing them is the point. You dont win anything from calling someone a bigot or asking if they are trolling.
I even saw a few posts up that you called OP a white supremacist because of the nickname, and when it wasnt denied because how can anyone take a statement like that serious you claimed it was evidence of being true.
You have the right to utter whatever nonsense you want. But calling names in order to dismiss opinions is just ridiculous.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those countries also have much smaller populations than the USA, a more homogenous population, and don't have a military force worth mentioning. I'm up for discussing different ideas and solutions to complex problems, but I always resist this idea that there's a one size fits all approach that will always work.
One thing I think is completely backwards is rewarding undesirable behavior, and I don't mean this to apply to homelessness. However, if someone isn't willing to work to support themselves, resists any efforts to help them address their addiction problems, routinely puts their own interests above everyone else's, etc. than I don't see why we should give money and resources to them. In the USA, when people like that keep being bailed out by family and friends, they keep abusing drugs, and the only way they'll stop is if they lose that get out of jail free card and have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Why stop otherwise when you can keep using drugs, and get all the benefits of normal, everyday life by living off your loved ones' generosity and compassion?
To counter the example that giving drug addicts free supplies reduces their numbers, California has tried the same thing by giving away free needles and not arresting people for using. It's not been going incredibly well for California. By the way, that state alone has a population greater than Finland, Denmark, and Portugal combined.
Honestly, I believe we need significant changes in our criminal justice system and how we treat homelessness. Ex-cons should be able to find work after they're released, or else they have no alternative besides crime to meet their needs. Homeless people need pathways to meet their basic needs and get their lives back on track. However, I don't trust the government to tackle these issues, as they always do so incompetently. In the USA we have several government programs aimed at fighting poverty, but throwing billions of dollars at the problem hasn't fixed it. Ergo, I'm not inclined to think throwing a few billion more will somehow work out this time. I think the old adage applies quite well here. "GIVE a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his life." Giving people resources, instead of them working for and earning them, is a system set for failure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Military is the key issue there, if you spend all your money on guns and bombs it doesn't mean you couldn't afford schools and hospitals, it just means you wasted all the money needed for them on killing people who live in other countries. And soon in your own country as the army starts keeping peace against violent protestors.
Free needles isn't anywhere near what I'm talking about, that's something far more basic and common. I could go get free or replacement needles from a traveling van once a week from the parking lot of my nearby supermarket. That's just basic sanity so there are less dirty needles shared and laying around for kids to find.
The population argument is still just silly. If 1 million people can take care of 100 people with problems, then 100 million people can take care of 10k people with problems in the exact same ratio. The same works with any amount of people as long as your justice etc systems aren't designed to get as many people into trouble as possible for business.
I wouldn't trust your government programs either, they are probably just laundering money so it can be used to buy even more bombs for all we know. It's not about how many billions are thrown at a problem either, it's about how sanely you use the billions. Wasting 100 billion gives you less than spending 10 billion wisely in most cases. And like experience everywhere has proven, it pays off much more to spend the money on taking care of people rather than punishing them so they will start paying taxes much faster saving money in the long run.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't need to spend all your money on a military, and it's not what the USA does. However, the only reason many European nations have such a weak one is because they're allied with the USA and are relying on us to protect them. You don't have to be aggressive at all to justify having a military, unless you like the idea of being vulnerable to nations like China, Russia, Iraq, etc. Would having the means to defend yourself from hostile forces mean that you're killing innocent people in other countries? That's a pretty out-there position to take.
There are dirty needles in the street because of all the free needles given to drug addicts. How is that sanitary or keeping kids safe? Are you saying that giving them even more free stuff would suddenly make them model citizens? It doesn't work out that way when their family and friends do it for them, so why would it when a government program does it for them instead?
It's legitimately not as simplistic as that. For example, the issues one encounters in a small town are very different compared to a large city, for reasons more complicated than simply waving your hands and saying it's a 1000:1 ratio. A smaller nation with less people, who are less diverse ethnically and culturally, is easier to manage than a country like the USA.
You speak as if any government is somehow immune from corruption, incompetence, graft, etc. Power corrupts, and that's not unique to the USA. I really am not concerned about politicians in my country wasting money to buy up all these bombs you seem so fixated on. They seem much happier to spend that money on fancy houses. I agree that it's how you spend the money that's important, which is why I don't want to have it filtered through the government. As you just said, that money would be laundered, so why take billions of dollars from citizens and put it into the hands of government?
I'd like to reference Benjamin Franklin and his perspective on dealing with poverty. In essence, from what he observed, poverty was best countered not with welfare, but by giving people the means to provide for themselves. When you give people rewards for the behavior they're currently engaging in, they'll likely continue with it. Citation: https://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/management-of-poor.html
I don't think this conversation is being productive, so I shan't continue on. I'm more than willing to admit there are flaws in the USA, we need reform, and we should take better care of people in need. However, you seem to want to attack the USA, and assume the issues I'm raising wouldn't apply in any other situations. Oversimplifying matters also doesn't help address the complex problems we're talking about. Plus, you're trusting that all these problems really did disappear. Just because something got swept under the rug and isn't reported on doesn't mean it's all sunshine and rainbows.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure you don't spend all the money, just most. You're both vastly overspending at the expense of your own people and using them aggressively everywhere else where there is oil. I'm not talking about "would", I'm talking about actual things happening every time your president has a domestic crisis and has to start a war on oil to find a new enemy.
There were much more needles around when they had to buy them in bulk. Now they get replacements for the dirty ones so they have motivation to not leave them around. You're completely missing all the points of giving free drugs.
1) addicts don't have to steal to afford their daily fix, so less things get stolen from you and property crime goes down xy %
2) addicts don't have to push drugs to new kids for profit to afford their daily fix, so there are almost no new addicts
3) addicts don't have to waste all day doing these so they have time to fix their lives, meet family that they don't have to steal from
4) addicts don't have to share needles so there are less diseases carried through them even into the rest of population
5) addicts don't have to avoid healthcare in fear of prosecution and get health checkups regularly
All these lead them to a place where doing drugs doesn't ruin their life in any way making it much easier for most to eventually just quit since ruined life isn't one of the major reasons to do drugs any more
6) dealers stop having customers since governments buy fair trade organic drugs straight from farmers. This also skips all the ISIS/mafia/cartel people trafficking them around the world from earning a living.
7) cops have far more time and resources to solve actual crimes rather than medical problems
Now which of these benefits do you think is a bad way to save money and make the society a better place to live in? All of them have been proven to work in action and I've probably forgotten few.
So what you're saying is that USA is too big for anything to work and it's destined to die just like all empires have in history? Those sound like reasons to only quit the Union and become countries to me.
You really need to get into this new fad called democracy. It's where you give the people the right to decide who rules them. Renew the 2 party system that's only twice as good as 1 party communism and where both parties aren't really that different.
We're exactly on the road to Franklin's providing. After we first take care of the medical problems these addicts have many go back to work or school to get a job. Then they start providing for themselves and the society. With the war on people who use some drugs model they will ever only cost more.
No I want to attack the people who think that USA is so great and powerful that it can handle all problems for other countries by dropping bombs on them while also thinking it's so weak and pitiful it can't handle any of their own problems. Which country has violent protestors rampaging on the streets again because it has taken so good care of their citizens again? Sometimes simple things just work better and it's not oversimplification to use the best ways, it's purely logical.
Comment has been collapsed.
Feed the drug addicts and homeless to the hungry.
;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I have my burger made from a vegan hippie instead? They sound more healthier being all organic and hempy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, might need some Tabasco to give them some flavor. And remember you are doing this to to solve some societies most pressing problems, so don't stuff yourself save some for the less fortunate.
;)
Comment has been collapsed.
How to solve homelessness and drug addiction problems? GULAG!
Comment has been collapsed.
That's almost identical to the US prison system except it's run as a pure business. Judges get paid to put more people in jail and jail owners get paid from all the free slave labor. So it's a win-win and as a bonus the homeless addicts don't have to go to Siberia for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
"That's almost identical to the US prison system" ROFL. You are soooooooo naive.
"Judges get paid to..." Wait, what? There are no judges in GULAG.
Siberia? Only if you are lucky one. Be prepared for Magadan.
Comment has been collapsed.
Still sounds about as healthy and working a system as any developing country has. It's rather amusing that both USA and the Soviet Union are considered 3rd world countries these days, gone are the days of imaginary superiority.
Comment has been collapsed.
Goverments have a lot of money, they can do everything. But the real question is why they should do it?
Why is the government job to babysit people? Where is the personal accountability?
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you think governments are separate entities from the people and not just a representative of them? That people should serve the government to benefit very few and not the other way around?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the government is there to organize and manage massive tasks for the benefit of society that individuals cannot do.by themselves.
I do think that the individuals are free, but should be accountable for their actions.
So, if a hurricane destroyed a lot of houses, or some random nature disaster, sure, government can help. But if i, by my own free will decide to not to work, nor study, drink, or do something that it is widely known that will have bad consequences for myself, i really dont think the government should step in. Its just rewarding bad behavior and victimhood. 0 tolerance.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah since it's all as simple as that. What if the people drink or do drugs because they were abused as children? Then your model rewards the abusive parents for doing such a good job of ruining the child's life. What if people become sick? Should we reward such bad behavior with healthcare? What if someone thinks your attitude sucks and robs your place? Should we then reward a bad attitude with help from authorities?
In a healthy working society the government is there to help people in need. In a dystopian unhealthy society the people are slaves to the government and are rewarded with human rights and such trivial nonsense if they serve well.
Comment has been collapsed.
"What if the people drink or do drugs because they were abused as children? Then your model rewards the abusive parents for doing such a good job of ruining the child's life."
I dont see how rewards abusive parents. And if its documented, parents can actually lose custody of their kids. And there is already a lot of help for victims of abuse. Cant say there are enough, but there are.
But dont come with absolutes, there are always exceptions to rule, and you know im not talking about victims. Most of the people on that situation ended up like that for bad decision making on their part. If anyone need incentive its the opposite end. The productives, they are the ones moving societies forward. The other ones are just dragging,
Comment has been collapsed.
Why make exceptions for this and that and draw lines here and there who gets human rights and dignity? Are you really sure you want to pay for them to stay dragging society down instead of them paying after their problems have been fixed? Is their suffering worth that much so society?
Comment has been collapsed.
More often than not, homeless, specially drug addicts had families that did tried to help them, yet did not responded positively, in fact, they most likely stole something to get a fix, and then eventually gave up on them.
Governments across the globe spend millions or billions in both propaganda to inform about the problems of drug addiction and funding all kind of government dependencies, such as police, military, customs, etc to fight drugs.and drug trafficking and you want the government to give them drugs?
If anything works is d-tox.
Im not entirely sure about your nationality, but we all see the drug issue according to our own context and environment. The issue is that the US is about the biggest consumer of drugs, but the impact is mostly on health and homeless, not so much in crime.
But if you check the route the drugs take to reach US, you will see another kind of impact. Terrorism, mass murder, corruption, extortion, kidnap, death in nearly 7 digits a year.
And you want to give them drugs?. It is a very narrow viewpoint that for starters, i highly doubt it is an efficient way to combat the addiction, and most definitely wont stop new addicts, which is the real problem. 0 tolerance is the way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, those families just lack the resources that governments have for it. If the addicts didn't have to steal or deal at all to get their fix, why would they have any problems with their family?
How is the current model working? It's not at all, drug use is growing if anything. So why do you want all those resources wasted on the drug war even when that model has been shown to produce worst results? Most money for least, doesn't make sense to me at all.
You're working under the assumption that drugs are bad, mmkay? Let me copy a list of points from above:
1) addicts don't have to steal to afford their daily fix, so less things get stolen from you and property crime goes down xy %
2) addicts don't have to push drugs to new kids for profit to afford their daily fix, so there are almost no new addicts
3) addicts don't have to waste all day doing these so they have time to fix their lives, meet family that they don't have to steal from
4) addicts don't have to share needles so there are less diseases carried through them even into the rest of population
5) addicts don't have to avoid healthcare in fear of prosecution and get health checkups regularly
All these lead them to a place where doing drugs doesn't ruin their life in any way making it much easier for most to eventually just quit since ruined life isn't one of the major reasons to do drugs any more
6) dealers stop having customers since governments buy fair trade organic drugs straight from farmers. This also skips all the ISIS/mafia/cartel people trafficking them around the world from earning a living.
7) cops have far more time and resources to solve actual crimes rather than medical problems
Now which of these benefits do you think is a bad way to save money and make the society a better place to live in? All of them have been proven to work in action and I've probably forgotten few.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for the delay, i hadnt logged on.
"You're working under the assumption that drugs are bad,"
They detach yourself from reality. You wouldnt really want some one high driving next to you on the freeway when you are with your family. Or a doctor operating you, or giving you a diagnosis while high.
Some drugs lead to hallucinations, so, sometimes they can be violent. And they are addictive, and have no improvement to your health, they are only needed in special cases, though those special cases are just a minority. There is justification for that, but not for the rest.
"1) addicts don't have to steal to afford their daily fix, so less things get stolen from you and property crime goes down xy %"
The money has to come from somewhere. Can you guess? Yes. From taxpayers. No one has to pay to maintain the mistakes of others.
There are some social funding that does this kind of thing, but IMO those should be removed or cut spending there.
"2) addicts don't have to push drugs to new kids for profit to afford their daily fix, so there are almost no new addicts"
They do drugs because they like the high, and they will like to share, just like any religious group does. And they are getting free drugs. Not that they have to worry. I could predict new addicts. Could be wrong. But either opinion is a speculation. If you plan ahead, you should always take into account the worst case scenario.
"3) addicts don't have to waste all day doing these so they have time to fix their lives, meet family that they don't have to steal from"
But how? There is no such thing as a functional addict. They can only maintain it for a short period of time before they relapse. The only way to fix their lives is via D-tox.
"4) addicts don't have to share needles so there are less diseases carried through them even into the rest of population" Acquiring diseases from addicts to non-addicts accounts for a minimal percentage, while should be prevented and avoided, the % is so small that it could be almost dismissed.
"5) addicts don't have to avoid healthcare in fear of prosecution and get health checkups regularly"
D-tox will improve their health.
"6) dealers stop having customers since governments buy fair trade organic drugs straight from farmers."
Guess who is next on the hit list of the highly profitable drug market? Yes, the farmers.
"7) cops have far more time and resources to solve actual crimes rather than medical problems"
Most crimes are drug related. Doing what you propose will probably shift the cops attention to babysit addicts.
"Now which of these benefits do you think is a bad way to save money and make the society a better place to live in?"
I dont see savings, i just see more spending.
" All of them have been proven to work in action" Implementing policies that work in one place does not make them work in another.
Societies are different. Where they "worked" there was barely any culture disparity. But on the US there is a wide variety of cultural diversity. And racial diversity. While i dont have issue with that, statistics have proven that there is a wide disparity of the type of drugs each race consumes. Whites tend to do more coke. latinos weed, blacks hard drugs, such crack/heroine.
While i acknowledge that weed is the mildest of all, why would you want to give crack/heroine to a group that badly need to stop doing hard drugs? It is exactly what is setting them behind.
Comment has been collapsed.
You haven't seen South Park it seems.
1) The money comes from taxpayers in all cases, you just don't get why it makes less sense to pay more for making the problem worse
2) That's just nonsense which applies to weed only. Lack of new addicts is a proven fact when talking about hard drugs like opiates
3) That's total BS, there are many doctors who function just fine because they get free access to medical grade opiates.
4) Have you ever seen any studies about this or how are you so sure? You imagine they aren't having casual sex with alcohol consuming people etc?
5) No it won't unless you believe every ad. They will be better for a short moment and then go back to the old ways because nothing in their life really improved
6) How is it highly profitable if you can get best quality for free? And the farmers in poor countries don't have to deal with the local mafias either making their life much better
7) Yes and you want to keep them drug related while this model would stop most of crime from happening
That's still just weak BS excuses. "Oh no this can't for for us no matter how it works everywhere else" and why is that? Because you live in a 3rd world country where nothing can work. Russia is the same way, do you really want to be on their level or at least try to be a civilized country? Or just accept your fate that nothing can solve and crash and burn like every empire that gets too big?
No the current model is what is keeping them behind and you want to continue that so you can feel superior yourself instead of even thinking what will actually help them and solve the problems you just blame on drugs. You just want to support ISIS and cartels getting rich without even knowing it. But let's ask it the other way: where has the war on drugs ever worked at all? Where has it made less people use less drugs and not always more? Protip: there is no such place anywhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why does everyone stop talking about it when I ask which of the actual proven benefits they are against? Did they really imagine the current model is working just by hating people and wasting money to punish them?
Do they really want more and more violence when cops fight drug gangs or could we just get rid of the problem once and for all? Is hating people really worth so much?
Comment has been collapsed.
All there is to it
Comment has been collapsed.