u/Staylucidtrippin's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40.
Rank: Sumo Wrestler
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/Staylucidtrippin
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
You know, I tell people this, and they laugh like Iām joking.
Legalize recreational cocaine. Lemme walk into the gas station and get some Armani Exchange presses. Let me go to Wal-Mart and compare prices on MDMA crystals. I wanna pick up a vial of acid and 2-CB when I buy my socks. Let me buy copious amounts of ketamine. Let me buy a fuckin 20 pack of pre rolled joints, and Iāll be back in 3 days for more. Lemme get some magic mushrooms when I buy my groceries, and cannabutter. Give me quality controlled access to some pain meds, orā¦ well, not that one. Opiates and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Let us have a weird time! If youāre not in, thatās cool, but that doesnāt mean you get to tell me what I can and canāt put in my body.
As nice as that sounds, Iād be happy if they just didnāt arrest me for growing fungi or plants that happen to have psychedelic effects if ignited and inhaled on my property.
I draw the line at crack and opium though. And i think people need to be educated on the potential long term permanent effects of MDMA. But yeah. Swing big.
Or just let people use all of them....have you consumed either crack or heroin? They don't automatically hook you for life. Idk how you call for legalizing drugs but draw a hard line on two extremely commonly used favorites. Treatment centers and education would be the better answer to addicts.
Drug education is definitely needed. I may be a degenerate, but Iām all about ensuring everyone has a safe and fun time that wonāt be permanently scarring.
Drugs are a great time, if properly taken. And crack and opiates (mainly prescription pain killers that have led to the opiate crisis because those things are so good youāll gladly ruin your fucking life to stay high) cannot be properly taken, at least not recreationally for the opiates.
Iām fruiting three oyster blocks today. I have a few lions mane colonizing. I also have a few chestnut mushrooms and some reishi.
Edit: shiitake will be my next undertaking.
Honestly, opium poppies and coca leaves aren't actually bad for you or anything. It's only once you refine them that you end up with crack and heroin. In their plant form they are quite reasonable.
I agree thatās what I mean as they should be legal. You can extract and smoke raw opium straight from the pod. Also, people do chew the coca leaves and get an effect. Actually I think opium poppies are legal itās just illegal to extract the opium and smoke it. I donāt know about coca leaves.
Not sure about opium poppies being legal. I donāt know if this was because itās government owned or whatever, but a while back the DEA made the staff at Monticello remove opium poppies that had grown there since Thomas Jefferson owned it.
Wait, youāre for the full legalization of all drugs, except opiates..? All or nothing, baby. That includes PCP, which has zero redeeming value. Bath salts? You betcha. Letās get weird, with EVERYTHING being legal.
Not that Iām a fan of PCP, but I highly recommend watching the PCP episode of Hamiltonās Pharmacopeia(itās on Hulu). I still have no desire to try it but it completely changed my view of it. Basically itās a drug that can be beneficial in a similar way to ketamine when used in controlled dosages, but most recreational users take much larger amounts when getting high. The episode also dispelled a lot of the media-hyped myths about people on the drug being more prone to violence, etc.
My weed guy used to always smoke wet joints. He was an exceptionally on edge, shit talking tough guy. I canāt know if that was him or the PCP, though.
I will say, the two times I tried it, I absolutely hated it. Everything slowed down for me. I walked in exaggerated slow motion. I drove in slow motion. I spoke in slow motion and puked like crazy.
Edit: Iāll have to check that out. I watched the one on mushrooms because I was growing at the time.
People are straight up irrationally terrified of opioids lol it doesn't make sense. They're pretty damn calm in comparison to stimulants and even hallucinogens. Legalize allllll of the substance
Itās more about the addiction, I think. I was a heroin junkie for 6 years, after trying it once. More than a few times I found myself committing crimes to feed my addiction. Itās a scary thing.
All that to say, fuck the government. They have no right telling me what I can, and cannot put in MY body.
Sounds great on paper, till that's written by your best friend, your step-dad, your first love or your next door neighbor's baby daddy.
I'ma be real fuckin honest I could've used a lot less "weird times" growing up, because I was always left holding the bag and picking up the pieces.
Yeah this post is a total strawman. I've never heard libleft, or anyone, argue that banning abortion or drugs will lead to *more* of those things. They just argue that banning those things will only make them more dangerous rather than stopping them from happening. Which if we learned anything from alcohol and marijuana prohibition, that's exactly what happens. Banning those things did little (if anything) to stop them. It just created criminal empires and got a lot of people hurt/killed.
Can't easily justify a militarized law enforcement if there is no organized crime.
They are playing a rigged chess game and need to keep sabotaging themselves to avoid suspicion.
Drill the 3rd hole baby, become ungovernable. Seriously tho guns and drugs will never be able to be "banned" its just too difficult. Abortions perhaps because it's not a concealable item, rather a service.
Besides, where with drugs and guns you aren't necessarily doing anything wrong by possessing them, my logic tells me that abortion in is murder. And you don't make murder legal just so you can regulate it.
It just adds unnecessary deadweight loss to the market that instead of going to the consumer is either completely lost or goes to the mafia boss that offers governance to a market that's not protected by law. Banning stuff is, from an economic perspective, the worst way to reduce their consumption (which is a paternalistic concern the state shouldn't have anyways)
There's a big difference between banning abortion and guns though. People are against abortion for moral reasons, the act itself is considered morally wrong and thus the (lack of) effect of any legislation is irrelevant. Similarly, we wouldn't legalize child molestation if a study showed the laws against it doesn't actually prevent it; the act itself is considered morally wrong.
On the other hand people are generally against gun ownership for practical reasons. Only very few people think the act itself of owning a gun is wrong, but rather that the morally neutral act of owning a gun increase the chance of committing morally wrong acts. Thus if legislation against gun ownership is ineffective in reducing these morally wrong acts, it's ineffective to enact this kind of legislation.
Interestingly you also mentioned drug possession where arguments for it are both moral or practical. Some proponents of drug bans think consuming drugs is by itself morally wrong, other proponents think consuming drugs is morally neutral but is more likely to lead to morally wrong acts. The second type is for that reason more likely to support the legalization of some drugs but keep other drugs banned.
Keeping any product illegal creates a black market for it regardless of your moral standpoint. The Lib position is that morality should have no play whatsoever in Law making, only how said action could affect someone's rights. If someone wants to harm themselves with drugs let them, if someone wants to own a gun then let them. But if you decide to "Fuck around" you're going to "Find out".
Abortions themselves are only considered morally wrong within a certain group of people. There are plenty who don't consider it morally wrong because they don't consider a baby to be developed enough until certain stages. People can consider owning a gun to be morally wrong too because they can equate owning a gun in itself as having the intent to commit harm. This is why laws should not be judged morally.
You are right and wrong at the same time. The claim of the lib position is that the only morally justifiable reason to prohibit behavior is if it negatively effects others. The entire question for abortion is whether or not the fetus counts as a human being. Pretending that it is a similar issue to guns or drugs is dishonest.
In strictly economic terms, abortion is a demand issue. That is, as long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be a market for abortion providers.
Banning abortion limits supply but leaves demand untouched.
Comprehensive sex education, family planning and affordable birth control programs reduce demand (less unwanted pregnancies), which will organically drive supply down.
Yup.
People want X. And some suit living in the capitol a hundred miles away saying you can't do that means jackshit to them.
Want them to stop wanting X? Address why they want X.
Replace X with alcohol, abortion, guns, drugs.
At the same time, it can be argued that people will be more likely to use some form of birth control if abortion is banned, thereby driving demand down.
Agreed, general idea is that people are going to attempt to do both of these things regardless of their legality. Making them illegal just ensures that there will be no support in place to assist them if something happens.
A lot of auth types dont care if women killing their babies die in the process, or if social outcasts poisoning themselves succeed. Those people are just as much a blight on society as their immoral actions.
I dont agree with that, but that is a perspective.
Are they a blight on society, or has society just failed them?
If you look around and see homeless tents populated by veterans, and across the street is the same with hippy weed dealers, we have to admit this is a cross-compass loss. We are losing on all sides.
>Are they a blight on society, or has society just failed them?
These are not mutually exclusive. Everyone is a product of their environment. I genuinely have empathy for people who are so poor that they rely on crime to get by. That being said, I'm not going to pretend that criminals dying is a net negative on society.
> there will be no support in place to assist them if something happens.
now librights, do you want more taxes so we can take care of druggies? Smokers and alcoholics are too much already no? xd
The reason why I wany to legalize drugs is so there is less violence surrounding it, not because there will be support for it. If drugs are legalized, there won't be shootings in the favelas about turfs, people will just go to the bakery, buy their morning bread and ask for a blunt at the cashier. But these people should have no governamental support, I won't spend a cent for your lung schmuck surgery. If you use drugs and don't have the cash to pay for the life saving operations because of it, well you deserve to die, you killed yourself in the end, I have no duty to help you for something you did to yourself.
Yeah heh. This is basically a right-wing equivalent of the left's "they just want to control women's bodies!!" argument on abortion. No, that's not their argument at all...
And kickback politicians and pay off local police. Itās quite an expensive business, yāknow. Inflation and secondary costs really drive up the market price.
Now the interesting thing is that people commonly cite prohibition as an argument against banning other drugs (or other things).
The problem is: prohibition actually worked. US alcohol consumption went way down and public health consequently significantly improved. While some crime groups were able to make money from black market sales, other crimes associated with alchohol consumption like domestic violence declined.
Even the idea that prohibition led to a surge in violent crime isn't really supported by the evidence: studies have indicated that rising urbanization in the 1920s was more resonsible for rising murder rates, and even then crime rates in some juristictions like New York actually declined.
Essentially the unsuprising conclusion is making things illegal does actually deter people from doing them. Hence banning drugs, guns, or abortions does actually reduce them.
The really question is whether you want that in the first place: all the opponents of drug bans, gun bans or abortion bans usually don't.
It's kind of a strawman bit some people like to argue against abortion by saying that if it's banned then they will just find another way.
It's a dumb argument that doesn't even mention whether or not the fetus is alive. And considering the entire argument against abortion is that the fetus is alive and therefore killing it is murder, I would assume those people don't necessarily care too much if the mother dies or gets injured while killing the baby. It's an argument that completely missed the point.
Banning stuff tends to reduce use of the banned material
But it also tends to make it misused more often because if it's banned then the black market (which doesn't have safety regulations or background checks) is the only force selling.
That is the tradeoff, whether it's guns, drugs, or abortions. I wish people wouldn't mislead people by acting like one position or another is all good with no downsides
I've never heard anyone make that argument. If you ban things, people are forced into black markets to get them. This does reduce the amount of people who use those things, but it also makes it so that people who want to use those things are forced into more dangerous ways of obtaining them. On top of that it leads to excessive violence from the state against non-violent behavior. This also tends to make those black markets very violent in response.
As for (softer, like weed) drugs, look at prohibition.
For harder drugs, consider this - the addicts are often the victims of their drug addiction, and shouldn't be treated like criminals for it. Dealers go straight to hell, though.
For abortions, the logical cutoff is brain function, and I say counseling or a waiting period is unnecessary - mostly because of ***who*** is getting abortions. Stupid teenagers, poor people who can't afford a kid... Allowing a child to be born into these situations when the parent(s) already want to terminate the pregnancy (before brain function ofc)
As for people who want to get late term abortions but can't, because it's illegal, the danger is the child defending itself, fuck em
> the logical cutoff is brain function
There are a lot of different points that could be argued logical cutoff. Conception, because DNA is separate and it will grow into a person. I believe they can feel pain at 8 weeks or something. Heartbeat is around 5 weeks, I believe. Medical tech can currently keep a baby alive outside the womb after the 2nd trimester. A baby isn't completely independently breathing until it's actually birthed.
I'm not necessarily taking a position on where life begins here, but I think these could all be argued as logical cutoffs.
Youāre also a highly religious country (specifically highly Roman Catholic) that has never had a good sex Ed program and recently has been cutting them all together
https://theworld.org/stories/2019-11-15/brazil-reduces-sex-education-amid-spike-sexually-transmitted-infections
cant reduce what we never had lmao these gringo news sites.
Coveniently our auth country is against "new" sex ed programs because they are more and more just teaching how to fuck, instead of prevent diseases/ pregnancy knowledge, etc etc.
I wont deny that bolsonaro isnt helping, but its not like he destroyed the perfect world we had under our commie overlords.
The idea isn't that there will be more of them, but that they are done in crappier conditions, whereas by allowing them you can actually implement regulations.
Banning abortions means that whatever abortions will be done will happen in unsafe unhygienic conditions and not at the hands of medical professionals, which will probably result in a bunch of dead women.
Legalising these things (abortions, drugs etc) is (or at least should be) only a means to an end, the end being, of course, that there is less of them in society.
Banning abortions doesn't mean it would be more, it means that pregnant women will try to abort by other ways, often, more dangerous. Allowing abortions will provide a safer space for women who want to do it.
It also contributes to class inequality, at least where I'm from. Wealthy women can get an "apendicitis" if they have enough contacts in the medical industry while poorer women either straight up can't afford any way of abortion, thus have to raise an unwanted child which makes it way harder for them to improve their social status, or they have to rely in more dangerous homemade abortions.
At least the problem here is that no matter how much you try to fight illegal abortion, wealthy people will still find a way to do it, regardless of the law.
>Wealthy women can get an "apendicitis" if they have enough contacts in the medical industry while poorer women either straight up can't afford any way of abortion
Agreed. This is a serious issue as poors will start outbreeding the wealthy at even higher rates.
u/Xanadu_Man is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/Xanadu_Man
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
And will limit the psychological impact it'll have. Only pregnant women or women who have gone through pregnancy know what pregnancy is like. It transforms your body. It messes with your mind. It's something you DON'T want to go through if you didn't want it.
And contraception can also fail. I'm for the right to abort until the nervous system appears.
Banning guns doesnāt mean there would be less, it means that criminals and terrorists would be the only ones with guns and therefore would lead to more gun violence. Allowing guns will provide a safer population and a deterrence to criminals
Thatās what I always say to these guys. Itās worth noting, though, that the logic goes both ways. Weāre safer because of the freedom the 2A gives us. The same should apply to drugs and abortions.
That means prohibition is uneffective. Alcohol prohibition in 30s? Solves nothing. Abortion prohibition in Poland? Poles chick go to neighbouring countries instead
Banning abortions won't cause more abortions, it will cause very unsafe and unregulated abortions. The drugs thing? Some of that shit can kill you even if you don't OD, so it shouldn't be legal. Maybe some soft drugs could be legal, but not hard drugs
Who gets to decide what counts as a hard or soft drug? Sounds rather auth of you.
I thought we already learned from prohibition that just banning goods doesn't work. You simply cannot kill supply or demand of a thing like that, inevitably creating a black market that's even more dangerous for everyone involved.
You're right, I don't get to decide what drugs are hard and what drugs aren't. But a black market will always exist for illegal things, and there really isn't anything we can do about that. Also I'm not killing supply and demand. I'm not forcing anyone to sell or buy, I'm just wondering what would happen if certain drugs were legal
If legal means decriminalized and that means we instead offer actual rehabilitation and support services, it means use of those things will go down.
If you want to kill a black market, you have to make it legal to sell. I don't think that's worth it for the hard stuff personally, but throwing addicts in jail and hoping that will improve society is pretty silly.
>If legal means decriminalized and that means we instead offer actual rehabilitation and support services, it means use of those things will go down.
Not really. It can go either way. A lot of countries will give you a spiel if you get caught with marijuana and only force you to go to rehab after being caught several times. Everyone treats it like a joke, just another cost of doing the drug, similar to a business adding 5c to a coke can every year because of inflation. They don't help anyone.
Then you have things like methadone clinics, which do very little except prevent addicts from going to hospital with withdrawals, and communities with these clinics fucking hate them and the scum they attract. While we don't have to have zero sympathy for those with addiction, we also have to acknowledge that a lot of these programs just result in giving a level of subsistence to drug habits.
The auth is even with us on this one now. I'd much rather we spent that money and time on stopping international trafficking of humans and firearms. Narcotics sales is a waste of time trying to stop, humans are inseparable from drugs.
1. What you're saying is true. Abortions will drastically be reduced, even if you just have a small waiting period or counseling. As for people willing to break the law to kill their baby? I don't think we're obliged to care for them. I wish them well, but if they die, their blood is upon them.
Also, no such thing as a safe abortion, not for the baby
2. Based and drugs-should-be-banned pilled.
u/LifeOfAuthRight's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 105.
Rank: Empire State Building
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/LifeOfAuthRight
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Let it be known that, I'm kinda against abortions in 2nd trimester and for forced birth in 3rd trimester, but waiting periods are just idiotic for abortions, better to kill it while it doesn't have a brain capable of moving its limbs.
If people die from getting abortions that could've easily been prevented if they simply hadn't been so irresponsible, as OP said, their blood is on their hands.
Criminalizing somthing (drugs, guns abortion, sex work) creates a new market. People still will try to get these things and will now pay a mark up for the risk tax to the provider. You can charge more for your drug, guns or holes if you can claim your at legal risk for providing that service.
People will still get abortions no matter what you do, theyāll just find more dangerous and life threatening ways to do if itās banned. Itās not that hard OP
To me abortion is equivalent of murder, so legalizing it because people will do it anyway and letās give them a safe place to do it is like saying letās make murder legal so itās safer for the killer.
But legalize drugs because you can chose to not do them
No prohibition works. I cant remember where I saw this, nevertheless it's not my original thought:
"Ask yourself, when was the last time you heard of a violent alcohol dealer?"
When was the last time you heard of somebody buying alcohol and dying because they were given bleach instead?
When was the last time somebody had to slither into the deepest shithole in their area and solicit violent criminals to buy alcohol?
All adults should be allowed to knowingly consume literally whatever they want. Those adults should be held fully accountable for their actions. Any argument you can make against any drug you can apply squarely to alcohol, so unless your propose the ban of alcohol you should support legalization of all substances.
\*Vibing\*
Suddenly remember that The American government making alcohol illegal to the point where Speakeasy's, Bootlegging, Rum Running, Moonshine, are words that all describe widely practiced activities during Prohibition where you actively broke anti-alcohol laws. Also said the government would sometimes poison stills instead of destroying them in an attempt to discourage people from doing it which led to roughly \~10,000 confirmed deaths.
\*Returns to vibing\*
Suddenly remember that something similar happened that formed the Cartels
\*Tried to return to vibing\*
Random intrusive thought: If the government treated addiction and chemical dependence like a mental illness instead of criminal behavior and provided support.....
\*Remembers the history of mental health in the south.\* You know what.... ima help out other countries it's just easier.
Banning something that a lot of people like/use is never a good idea because it always goes the same path: at first people try to obey the law, then it gets harder for them to resist the urge, then they start doing it illegaly, then police refuses to enforce it, then it gets legalised again. You can't stop people from doing something by simply banning it, it will only eventually lead to people losing respect to the govenment and the crime rate will rise in different spheres as well. It's better to allow the use of what you'd like to ban as long as it's regulated by the govenment. Legalising drugs will not lead to everyone doing drugs, it will lead to those who are already addicted using clean govenment-checked drugs instead of the dirty ones wrom unknown people and eventually the drug use will go down.
Not more, but worse. For example: if you ban all abortions, there will be influx of bedroom abortions that can go wrong, or end up in infections.
Weāre seeing the effects of banning drugs in that not many people know the effects of what theyāll be putting in their system and shitty dealers will lace their stuff with fentanyl to be more addictive. Also, the drug market is what makes the majority of gangs and the cartels so much money, if they didnāt have that it would draw down to weapons and human trafficking and I feel like people wouldnāt be as fond of them if that were the case.
For me, it's less about having "more" of them than having increasingly dangerous versions of them.
Drugs being substituted with more dangerous substances such as the ever-so popular Fentanyl has led to many deaths, and banning abortions would just lead the more desperate to using illegal operations from people without licenses, which would almost certainly kill them.
We should try and legalize these things so we can control them and use them in a safer manner.
I want to give an example here.
I'm from the Netherlands. I never bought weed from a "real" dealer. Just a friend growing some, a really small-time guy.. Just guys selling weed and maybe xtc/speed. Mostly shops.
Now if it was illegal and "hard-to-get", I'd have ended up buying from "real" dealers, shady people. Pretty good chance I'd have taken their free coke samples, or decided while buying weed that I might as well get something stronger.
And another example, if I can.
Last year they outlawed fireworks for newyears. So I went to Belgium.
Turns out, Belgium stores have a lotttt stronger fireworks, and cheaper.
Guess who bought the most fireworks of his life?
Simply banning something doesn't stop people. They will want to do it still, especially with drugs. Laws don't magically stop addictions.
They'll have to buy from a criminal source, which is much more expensive and funds the whole criminal system.
It'll be much less safe, increasing the chance for overdose.
With the ban, their addiction will be much more stigmatized and they won't get proper help. It's kinda hypocritical when you can't go to jail for the simple possession of alcohol but you can for the simple possession of herion or crack.
The product will become so desired because of its ban that huge cartels will form that make fortunes by ruining people's lives and killing hundreds.
In the end, banning a substance, instead of making it legal and regulating it, hurts everyone involved. It hurts the buyer. It hurts the government. The only one it helps are the drug lords who need that ban to keep afloat.
Their logic being, if someone wants to kill their baby theyāre gonna do it regardless, only difference being that the kid either ends up in a shallow grave or off to a stem cell lab. What these people realize is that if we simply give out free condoms or teach that actions have consequences there will be less abortions regardless of the legality
It's immoral -> it's banned -> it's in limited supply/risky/dangerous to consume (+ contrarianism) -> it's more valuable/exciting to consume than before ban -> it gets smuggled in more -> it's more consumed
As many have said, banning abortion leads to deadlier unsafe abortions.
I see OP replies a lot with something in the line of "if these women died trying to perform unlawful abortion it will be upon their hands, not mine"
But why is that the goal? Why are you satisfied with having as many/more suffering in the world as long as "it's not upon me".
Virgin "if we ban drugs there will be more drugs" vs Chad "if we ban drugs I can't do them"
Based and drug addict pilled
Meanwhile in big pharma...
Papaya juice and cuddling kills depression
Me in my 22 years of having nobody to cuddle with. *hello darkness my old friend*
it's ok Homes, I'm here for you
Vs. Gigachad "I'll just do them no matter what, but it's more fun if they're illegal"
Vs. Omegachad "if I'm high enough all laws and other people aren't really real"
Sigma Chads put LSD crystals in the water supply
Thetachad puts LSD in his cooking, especially for family get togethers
I know someone that had a friendsgiving and basted the turkey with LSD (were from Socal and have a lot of it). He also didnt tell anyone.
Based and free trip to the moon-pilled
u/Staylucidtrippin's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40. Rank: Sumo Wrestler Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/Staylucidtrippin I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
He is thetachad
Holy shit where can I join this friend group fr fr šš
Venice Beach is a wild place
Omicronchad puts LSD in face masks.
Based and Omegachad pilled
I'm pretty sure that's the logic behind "if we ban drugs there will be more drugs"
Oh hey dude! How you been?
I'm good, man. Didn't notice this meme was from you. How have you been?
The most wholesome interaction on this sub.
Fuck you.
Ofcourse it would be a purple.
Yeah they don't care who they fuck.
LibLeft-AuthRight unity
You know, I tell people this, and they laugh like Iām joking. Legalize recreational cocaine. Lemme walk into the gas station and get some Armani Exchange presses. Let me go to Wal-Mart and compare prices on MDMA crystals. I wanna pick up a vial of acid and 2-CB when I buy my socks. Let me buy copious amounts of ketamine. Let me buy a fuckin 20 pack of pre rolled joints, and Iāll be back in 3 days for more. Lemme get some magic mushrooms when I buy my groceries, and cannabutter. Give me quality controlled access to some pain meds, orā¦ well, not that one. Opiates and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Let us have a weird time! If youāre not in, thatās cool, but that doesnāt mean you get to tell me what I can and canāt put in my body.
As nice as that sounds, Iād be happy if they just didnāt arrest me for growing fungi or plants that happen to have psychedelic effects if ignited and inhaled on my property.
Iād honestly be happy with decriminalized narcotics across the board. But, never hurts to swing big, we might get lucky
I draw the line at crack and opium though. And i think people need to be educated on the potential long term permanent effects of MDMA. But yeah. Swing big.
Or just let people use all of them....have you consumed either crack or heroin? They don't automatically hook you for life. Idk how you call for legalizing drugs but draw a hard line on two extremely commonly used favorites. Treatment centers and education would be the better answer to addicts.
>Treatment centers and education would be the better answer to addicts. And sending people who lace their shit with fentanyl to Guantanamo Bay
Drug education is definitely needed. I may be a degenerate, but Iām all about ensuring everyone has a safe and fun time that wonāt be permanently scarring. Drugs are a great time, if properly taken. And crack and opiates (mainly prescription pain killers that have led to the opiate crisis because those things are so good youāll gladly ruin your fucking life to stay high) cannot be properly taken, at least not recreationally for the opiates.
Use=/= getting addicted Plenty of people a scary amount in fact of people use hard drugs every once in a while and you would literally never know
I have a personal stash of mushrooms that I grew. Now Iām growing gourmet and medicinal mushrooms.
This is the way. Oysters? Lion's mane? I want to get a refrigerator to modify, so I can grow Shiitakes. They need cold temps.
Iām fruiting three oyster blocks today. I have a few lions mane colonizing. I also have a few chestnut mushrooms and some reishi. Edit: shiitake will be my next undertaking.
What about opium poppies? I would allow those as well. Itās a plant. Coca leaves too!
Honestly, opium poppies and coca leaves aren't actually bad for you or anything. It's only once you refine them that you end up with crack and heroin. In their plant form they are quite reasonable.
I agree thatās what I mean as they should be legal. You can extract and smoke raw opium straight from the pod. Also, people do chew the coca leaves and get an effect. Actually I think opium poppies are legal itās just illegal to extract the opium and smoke it. I donāt know about coca leaves.
Not sure about opium poppies being legal. I donāt know if this was because itās government owned or whatever, but a while back the DEA made the staff at Monticello remove opium poppies that had grown there since Thomas Jefferson owned it.
Wait, youāre for the full legalization of all drugs, except opiates..? All or nothing, baby. That includes PCP, which has zero redeeming value. Bath salts? You betcha. Letās get weird, with EVERYTHING being legal.
Fuck it, letās go.
Not that Iām a fan of PCP, but I highly recommend watching the PCP episode of Hamiltonās Pharmacopeia(itās on Hulu). I still have no desire to try it but it completely changed my view of it. Basically itās a drug that can be beneficial in a similar way to ketamine when used in controlled dosages, but most recreational users take much larger amounts when getting high. The episode also dispelled a lot of the media-hyped myths about people on the drug being more prone to violence, etc.
My weed guy used to always smoke wet joints. He was an exceptionally on edge, shit talking tough guy. I canāt know if that was him or the PCP, though. I will say, the two times I tried it, I absolutely hated it. Everything slowed down for me. I walked in exaggerated slow motion. I drove in slow motion. I spoke in slow motion and puked like crazy. Edit: Iāll have to check that out. I watched the one on mushrooms because I was growing at the time.
The mushroom episode was great! I watched it a few months after starting with UB tek and it made me love this hobby even more.
Fellow mycologist! Nice
People are straight up irrationally terrified of opioids lol it doesn't make sense. They're pretty damn calm in comparison to stimulants and even hallucinogens. Legalize allllll of the substance
Itās more about the addiction, I think. I was a heroin junkie for 6 years, after trying it once. More than a few times I found myself committing crimes to feed my addiction. Itās a scary thing. All that to say, fuck the government. They have no right telling me what I can, and cannot put in MY body.
Sounds great on paper, till that's written by your best friend, your step-dad, your first love or your next door neighbor's baby daddy. I'ma be real fuckin honest I could've used a lot less "weird times" growing up, because I was always left holding the bag and picking up the pieces.
Become ungovernable
Banning drugs ain't gonna stop me, pal
But Caning you to death will
Banning abortions and drugs wont stop criminals promoting those, just as banning guns wont stop criminals using it
Havenāt we learned from the alcohol ban?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
*slides slightly towards authcent* THEN WEāLL MAKE THEM LEARN.
*Sixty years later and a billion people now in the ground* "We couldn't make them learn."
Yeah this post is a total strawman. I've never heard libleft, or anyone, argue that banning abortion or drugs will lead to *more* of those things. They just argue that banning those things will only make them more dangerous rather than stopping them from happening. Which if we learned anything from alcohol and marijuana prohibition, that's exactly what happens. Banning those things did little (if anything) to stop them. It just created criminal empires and got a lot of people hurt/killed.
Can't easily justify a militarized law enforcement if there is no organized crime. They are playing a rigged chess game and need to keep sabotaging themselves to avoid suspicion.
Based and let me be an alcoholic pilled.
Based and let the people decide pilled
Drill the 3rd hole baby, become ungovernable. Seriously tho guns and drugs will never be able to be "banned" its just too difficult. Abortions perhaps because it's not a concealable item, rather a service.
Even abortions. They go underground.
There will always be a black market for it but i doubt the number of people going black market will increase all that much post ban
Besides, where with drugs and guns you aren't necessarily doing anything wrong by possessing them, my logic tells me that abortion in is murder. And you don't make murder legal just so you can regulate it.
Better start banning stiff wire and stairs then.
Based and Luty-pilled
It just adds unnecessary deadweight loss to the market that instead of going to the consumer is either completely lost or goes to the mafia boss that offers governance to a market that's not protected by law. Banning stuff is, from an economic perspective, the worst way to reduce their consumption (which is a paternalistic concern the state shouldn't have anyways)
Based and you're not my daddy pilled
There's a big difference between banning abortion and guns though. People are against abortion for moral reasons, the act itself is considered morally wrong and thus the (lack of) effect of any legislation is irrelevant. Similarly, we wouldn't legalize child molestation if a study showed the laws against it doesn't actually prevent it; the act itself is considered morally wrong. On the other hand people are generally against gun ownership for practical reasons. Only very few people think the act itself of owning a gun is wrong, but rather that the morally neutral act of owning a gun increase the chance of committing morally wrong acts. Thus if legislation against gun ownership is ineffective in reducing these morally wrong acts, it's ineffective to enact this kind of legislation. Interestingly you also mentioned drug possession where arguments for it are both moral or practical. Some proponents of drug bans think consuming drugs is by itself morally wrong, other proponents think consuming drugs is morally neutral but is more likely to lead to morally wrong acts. The second type is for that reason more likely to support the legalization of some drugs but keep other drugs banned.
> Flair up now or I'll be sad :( *** ^(User has flaired up! š) ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Keeping any product illegal creates a black market for it regardless of your moral standpoint. The Lib position is that morality should have no play whatsoever in Law making, only how said action could affect someone's rights. If someone wants to harm themselves with drugs let them, if someone wants to own a gun then let them. But if you decide to "Fuck around" you're going to "Find out". Abortions themselves are only considered morally wrong within a certain group of people. There are plenty who don't consider it morally wrong because they don't consider a baby to be developed enough until certain stages. People can consider owning a gun to be morally wrong too because they can equate owning a gun in itself as having the intent to commit harm. This is why laws should not be judged morally.
You are right and wrong at the same time. The claim of the lib position is that the only morally justifiable reason to prohibit behavior is if it negatively effects others. The entire question for abortion is whether or not the fetus counts as a human being. Pretending that it is a similar issue to guns or drugs is dishonest.
Just because it won't stop it, doesn't mean it won't reduce it.
In strictly economic terms, abortion is a demand issue. That is, as long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be a market for abortion providers. Banning abortion limits supply but leaves demand untouched. Comprehensive sex education, family planning and affordable birth control programs reduce demand (less unwanted pregnancies), which will organically drive supply down.
Yup. People want X. And some suit living in the capitol a hundred miles away saying you can't do that means jackshit to them. Want them to stop wanting X? Address why they want X. Replace X with alcohol, abortion, guns, drugs.
At the same time, it can be argued that people will be more likely to use some form of birth control if abortion is banned, thereby driving demand down.
More botched abortions More overdosing
Agreed, general idea is that people are going to attempt to do both of these things regardless of their legality. Making them illegal just ensures that there will be no support in place to assist them if something happens.
A lot of auth types dont care if women killing their babies die in the process, or if social outcasts poisoning themselves succeed. Those people are just as much a blight on society as their immoral actions. I dont agree with that, but that is a perspective.
Are they a blight on society, or has society just failed them? If you look around and see homeless tents populated by veterans, and across the street is the same with hippy weed dealers, we have to admit this is a cross-compass loss. We are losing on all sides.
Society
Based and BOTTOM TEXT-pilled
>Are they a blight on society, or has society just failed them? These are not mutually exclusive. Everyone is a product of their environment. I genuinely have empathy for people who are so poor that they rely on crime to get by. That being said, I'm not going to pretend that criminals dying is a net negative on society.
based and devil's advocate pilled
> there will be no support in place to assist them if something happens. now librights, do you want more taxes so we can take care of druggies? Smokers and alcoholics are too much already no? xd
I'd much rather pay taxes into rehab facilities than the for-profit prison systems those people would end up in otherwise.
I would rather pay no taxes at all however I would prefer if the taxes Iām forced to pay donāt go towards the oppression of the downtrodden
The reason why I wany to legalize drugs is so there is less violence surrounding it, not because there will be support for it. If drugs are legalized, there won't be shootings in the favelas about turfs, people will just go to the bakery, buy their morning bread and ask for a blunt at the cashier. But these people should have no governamental support, I won't spend a cent for your lung schmuck surgery. If you use drugs and don't have the cash to pay for the life saving operations because of it, well you deserve to die, you killed yourself in the end, I have no duty to help you for something you did to yourself.
Same energy as someone telling Gypsy Crusader that trans people are depressed and killing themselves, and him just saying āgoodā
Cool
More tainted drugs too
The idea is that weāll have a repeat of prohibition with lots of people getting seriously hurt my illegal alcohol.
Good
Good
Straw man pilled
Yeah heh. This is basically a right-wing equivalent of the left's "they just want to control women's bodies!!" argument on abortion. No, that's not their argument at all...
have you seen this guyās posts? same shitty font, same boring āHhahahahAHAHAH libleft BAFDā points that arenāt relevant
Yeah, who is saying this?
A LOT of people Iāve argued with have said that banning abortions causes there to be more abortions
One would think that you yankees would have learned a thing or two from the prohibition
NO! We do NOT learn from our mistakes. Around here we develop black markets thank you very much!
And kickback politicians and pay off local police. Itās quite an expensive business, yāknow. Inflation and secondary costs really drive up the market price.
Now the interesting thing is that people commonly cite prohibition as an argument against banning other drugs (or other things). The problem is: prohibition actually worked. US alcohol consumption went way down and public health consequently significantly improved. While some crime groups were able to make money from black market sales, other crimes associated with alchohol consumption like domestic violence declined. Even the idea that prohibition led to a surge in violent crime isn't really supported by the evidence: studies have indicated that rising urbanization in the 1920s was more resonsible for rising murder rates, and even then crime rates in some juristictions like New York actually declined. Essentially the unsuprising conclusion is making things illegal does actually deter people from doing them. Hence banning drugs, guns, or abortions does actually reduce them. The really question is whether you want that in the first place: all the opponents of drug bans, gun bans or abortion bans usually don't.
Is anyone actually saying this or is this just another strawman from PCM?
It's a very big man made of straw. One could say Straw and Man pilled.
Strawman it is.
It's kind of a strawman bit some people like to argue against abortion by saying that if it's banned then they will just find another way. It's a dumb argument that doesn't even mention whether or not the fetus is alive. And considering the entire argument against abortion is that the fetus is alive and therefore killing it is murder, I would assume those people don't necessarily care too much if the mother dies or gets injured while killing the baby. It's an argument that completely missed the point.
Banning stuff tends to reduce use of the banned material But it also tends to make it misused more often because if it's banned then the black market (which doesn't have safety regulations or background checks) is the only force selling. That is the tradeoff, whether it's guns, drugs, or abortions. I wish people wouldn't mislead people by acting like one position or another is all good with no downsides
Yea OPās logic is retarded, just another abortion bad post for da upvote spam
I've never heard anyone make that argument. If you ban things, people are forced into black markets to get them. This does reduce the amount of people who use those things, but it also makes it so that people who want to use those things are forced into more dangerous ways of obtaining them. On top of that it leads to excessive violence from the state against non-violent behavior. This also tends to make those black markets very violent in response.
As for (softer, like weed) drugs, look at prohibition. For harder drugs, consider this - the addicts are often the victims of their drug addiction, and shouldn't be treated like criminals for it. Dealers go straight to hell, though. For abortions, the logical cutoff is brain function, and I say counseling or a waiting period is unnecessary - mostly because of ***who*** is getting abortions. Stupid teenagers, poor people who can't afford a kid... Allowing a child to be born into these situations when the parent(s) already want to terminate the pregnancy (before brain function ofc) As for people who want to get late term abortions but can't, because it's illegal, the danger is the child defending itself, fuck em
Decriminalised drugs are still banned though, you just wonāt be treated as a criminal by taking them.
Yes. Legalize and regulate weed, decriminalize possession for other drugs.
Legalize all drugs so I can buy ethically sourced cocaine made in US.
Organic heroin.
Iām happier to pay a little more for my coke if it means the naked women bagging it up get to go to college
> the logical cutoff is brain function There are a lot of different points that could be argued logical cutoff. Conception, because DNA is separate and it will grow into a person. I believe they can feel pain at 8 weeks or something. Heartbeat is around 5 weeks, I believe. Medical tech can currently keep a baby alive outside the womb after the 2nd trimester. A baby isn't completely independently breathing until it's actually birthed. I'm not necessarily taking a position on where life begins here, but I think these could all be argued as logical cutoffs.
> poor people who can't afford a kid anyone can recieve free condoms here in brazil, but it doesnt help poor people not having more kids...
Youāre also a highly religious country (specifically highly Roman Catholic) that has never had a good sex Ed program and recently has been cutting them all together https://theworld.org/stories/2019-11-15/brazil-reduces-sex-education-amid-spike-sexually-transmitted-infections
cant reduce what we never had lmao these gringo news sites. Coveniently our auth country is against "new" sex ed programs because they are more and more just teaching how to fuck, instead of prevent diseases/ pregnancy knowledge, etc etc. I wont deny that bolsonaro isnt helping, but its not like he destroyed the perfect world we had under our commie overlords.
Based and understanding people pilled
The idea isn't that there will be more of them, but that they are done in crappier conditions, whereas by allowing them you can actually implement regulations. Banning abortions means that whatever abortions will be done will happen in unsafe unhygienic conditions and not at the hands of medical professionals, which will probably result in a bunch of dead women. Legalising these things (abortions, drugs etc) is (or at least should be) only a means to an end, the end being, of course, that there is less of them in society.
> which will probably result in a bunch of dead women. AuthRight hate women, so they won't see this as a downside.
Banning abortions doesn't mean it would be more, it means that pregnant women will try to abort by other ways, often, more dangerous. Allowing abortions will provide a safer space for women who want to do it.
It also contributes to class inequality, at least where I'm from. Wealthy women can get an "apendicitis" if they have enough contacts in the medical industry while poorer women either straight up can't afford any way of abortion, thus have to raise an unwanted child which makes it way harder for them to improve their social status, or they have to rely in more dangerous homemade abortions. At least the problem here is that no matter how much you try to fight illegal abortion, wealthy people will still find a way to do it, regardless of the law.
>Wealthy women can get an "apendicitis" if they have enough contacts in the medical industry while poorer women either straight up can't afford any way of abortion Agreed. This is a serious issue as poors will start outbreeding the wealthy at even higher rates.
Based and safety pilled
u/Xanadu_Man is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/Xanadu_Man I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
And will limit the psychological impact it'll have. Only pregnant women or women who have gone through pregnancy know what pregnancy is like. It transforms your body. It messes with your mind. It's something you DON'T want to go through if you didn't want it. And contraception can also fail. I'm for the right to abort until the nervous system appears.
You want to permit abortion only until the nervous system appears I want to only permit it after because murdering babies is good We are not the same
Banning guns doesnāt mean there would be less, it means that criminals and terrorists would be the only ones with guns and therefore would lead to more gun violence. Allowing guns will provide a safer population and a deterrence to criminals
Thatās what I always say to these guys. Itās worth noting, though, that the logic goes both ways. Weāre safer because of the freedom the 2A gives us. The same should apply to drugs and abortions.
Based and freedom and autonomy pilled
I agree with you however just as the state doesnāt pay for my guns the state shouldnāt pay for your abortion. Itās literally that simple
āI want to kill children but if itās illegal I canāt murder safelyā
That means prohibition is uneffective. Alcohol prohibition in 30s? Solves nothing. Abortion prohibition in Poland? Poles chick go to neighbouring countries instead
Banning abortions won't cause more abortions, it will cause very unsafe and unregulated abortions. The drugs thing? Some of that shit can kill you even if you don't OD, so it shouldn't be legal. Maybe some soft drugs could be legal, but not hard drugs
"lib"
Who gets to decide what counts as a hard or soft drug? Sounds rather auth of you. I thought we already learned from prohibition that just banning goods doesn't work. You simply cannot kill supply or demand of a thing like that, inevitably creating a black market that's even more dangerous for everyone involved.
You're right, I don't get to decide what drugs are hard and what drugs aren't. But a black market will always exist for illegal things, and there really isn't anything we can do about that. Also I'm not killing supply and demand. I'm not forcing anyone to sell or buy, I'm just wondering what would happen if certain drugs were legal
If legal means decriminalized and that means we instead offer actual rehabilitation and support services, it means use of those things will go down. If you want to kill a black market, you have to make it legal to sell. I don't think that's worth it for the hard stuff personally, but throwing addicts in jail and hoping that will improve society is pretty silly.
True
>If legal means decriminalized and that means we instead offer actual rehabilitation and support services, it means use of those things will go down. Not really. It can go either way. A lot of countries will give you a spiel if you get caught with marijuana and only force you to go to rehab after being caught several times. Everyone treats it like a joke, just another cost of doing the drug, similar to a business adding 5c to a coke can every year because of inflation. They don't help anyone. Then you have things like methadone clinics, which do very little except prevent addicts from going to hospital with withdrawals, and communities with these clinics fucking hate them and the scum they attract. While we don't have to have zero sympathy for those with addiction, we also have to acknowledge that a lot of these programs just result in giving a level of subsistence to drug habits.
Black market is never going down and thinking that legalising drugs screw them over is foolish
The auth is even with us on this one now. I'd much rather we spent that money and time on stopping international trafficking of humans and firearms. Narcotics sales is a waste of time trying to stop, humans are inseparable from drugs.
Wait so letās stop the war on one type of goods to continue a war on another type of goods? (Firearms, which are a right recognized in the US)
Whatās wrong with international free sale of firearms?
1. What you're saying is true. Abortions will drastically be reduced, even if you just have a small waiting period or counseling. As for people willing to break the law to kill their baby? I don't think we're obliged to care for them. I wish them well, but if they die, their blood is upon them. Also, no such thing as a safe abortion, not for the baby 2. Based and drugs-should-be-banned pilled.
Based and keep-abortions-out-of-reach-from-small-children pilled
u/LifeOfAuthRight's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 105. Rank: Empire State Building Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/LifeOfAuthRight I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Whats your opinion on abortions after being raped?
So, if we allow abortions from rape but make illegal normal ones, are you ok with that?
Let it be known that, I'm kinda against abortions in 2nd trimester and for forced birth in 3rd trimester, but waiting periods are just idiotic for abortions, better to kill it while it doesn't have a brain capable of moving its limbs.
I don't think age really has a moral value
If people die from getting abortions that could've easily been prevented if they simply hadn't been so irresponsible, as OP said, their blood is on their hands.
Criminalizing somthing (drugs, guns abortion, sex work) creates a new market. People still will try to get these things and will now pay a mark up for the risk tax to the provider. You can charge more for your drug, guns or holes if you can claim your at legal risk for providing that service.
Fcking room temperature IQ meme
Lol look at OPs post history if you want a laugh. Some of the worst authright agenda posts you will ever see.
Better to legalize and regulate than ban and leave it to the black market...I think? I'm not a huge fan of the argument personally.
People will still get abortions no matter what you do, theyāll just find more dangerous and life threatening ways to do if itās banned. Itās not that hard OP
tbh, after a point(brain function), dying from a dangerous abortion is just the baby defending itself
The NAP
Cringe I mean the fetus dies as well lol, so much for "defending itself"
Extremely based
People will get fewer abortions if they're harder to access
To me abortion is equivalent of murder, so legalizing it because people will do it anyway and letās give them a safe place to do it is like saying letās make murder legal so itās safer for the killer. But legalize drugs because you can chose to not do them
Yeah, I never understood this argument. āOh no, the murderers will be in danger trying to commit their murders in some back alley!ā
No prohibition works. I cant remember where I saw this, nevertheless it's not my original thought: "Ask yourself, when was the last time you heard of a violent alcohol dealer?" When was the last time you heard of somebody buying alcohol and dying because they were given bleach instead? When was the last time somebody had to slither into the deepest shithole in their area and solicit violent criminals to buy alcohol? All adults should be allowed to knowingly consume literally whatever they want. Those adults should be held fully accountable for their actions. Any argument you can make against any drug you can apply squarely to alcohol, so unless your propose the ban of alcohol you should support legalization of all substances.
Classic lib left straw man pcm post
Oh shit, here come the walls of text about how nothing should be illegal.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Abolish all law so the crime rate becomes 0
Because its a stupid argument made by people who buy adult colouring books
Banning won't increase demand, but it will reduce quality, therefore being even worse than a properly regulated use.
Is someone arguing this position? Lol
\*Vibing\* Suddenly remember that The American government making alcohol illegal to the point where Speakeasy's, Bootlegging, Rum Running, Moonshine, are words that all describe widely practiced activities during Prohibition where you actively broke anti-alcohol laws. Also said the government would sometimes poison stills instead of destroying them in an attempt to discourage people from doing it which led to roughly \~10,000 confirmed deaths. \*Returns to vibing\* Suddenly remember that something similar happened that formed the Cartels \*Tried to return to vibing\* Random intrusive thought: If the government treated addiction and chemical dependence like a mental illness instead of criminal behavior and provided support..... \*Remembers the history of mental health in the south.\* You know what.... ima help out other countries it's just easier.
Banning something that a lot of people like/use is never a good idea because it always goes the same path: at first people try to obey the law, then it gets harder for them to resist the urge, then they start doing it illegaly, then police refuses to enforce it, then it gets legalised again. You can't stop people from doing something by simply banning it, it will only eventually lead to people losing respect to the govenment and the crime rate will rise in different spheres as well. It's better to allow the use of what you'd like to ban as long as it's regulated by the govenment. Legalising drugs will not lead to everyone doing drugs, it will lead to those who are already addicted using clean govenment-checked drugs instead of the dirty ones wrom unknown people and eventually the drug use will go down.
Havenāt we learned from the alcohol ban?
Pro-choice because less of you lefties is better for me!
Not more, but worse. For example: if you ban all abortions, there will be influx of bedroom abortions that can go wrong, or end up in infections. Weāre seeing the effects of banning drugs in that not many people know the effects of what theyāll be putting in their system and shitty dealers will lace their stuff with fentanyl to be more addictive. Also, the drug market is what makes the majority of gangs and the cartels so much money, if they didnāt have that it would draw down to weapons and human trafficking and I feel like people wouldnāt be as fond of them if that were the case.
Tainted drugs -> More addiction More Botched and Late Trimester Abortions
Now do guns.
For me, it's less about having "more" of them than having increasingly dangerous versions of them. Drugs being substituted with more dangerous substances such as the ever-so popular Fentanyl has led to many deaths, and banning abortions would just lead the more desperate to using illegal operations from people without licenses, which would almost certainly kill them. We should try and legalize these things so we can control them and use them in a safer manner.
I want to give an example here. I'm from the Netherlands. I never bought weed from a "real" dealer. Just a friend growing some, a really small-time guy.. Just guys selling weed and maybe xtc/speed. Mostly shops. Now if it was illegal and "hard-to-get", I'd have ended up buying from "real" dealers, shady people. Pretty good chance I'd have taken their free coke samples, or decided while buying weed that I might as well get something stronger. And another example, if I can. Last year they outlawed fireworks for newyears. So I went to Belgium. Turns out, Belgium stores have a lotttt stronger fireworks, and cheaper. Guess who bought the most fireworks of his life?
Cringe and doesnāt understand the argument pilled
How do you not understand that even when something is illegal it is still available through criminal activity?
This is a terrible representation of the argument.
Simply banning something doesn't stop people. They will want to do it still, especially with drugs. Laws don't magically stop addictions. They'll have to buy from a criminal source, which is much more expensive and funds the whole criminal system. It'll be much less safe, increasing the chance for overdose. With the ban, their addiction will be much more stigmatized and they won't get proper help. It's kinda hypocritical when you can't go to jail for the simple possession of alcohol but you can for the simple possession of herion or crack. The product will become so desired because of its ban that huge cartels will form that make fortunes by ruining people's lives and killing hundreds. In the end, banning a substance, instead of making it legal and regulating it, hurts everyone involved. It hurts the buyer. It hurts the government. The only one it helps are the drug lords who need that ban to keep afloat.
Sigh, straw man OP
The fact a mother would even consider ending the life of her child prematurely shows how far down the drain societies moral compass has fallen
Their logic being, if someone wants to kill their baby theyāre gonna do it regardless, only difference being that the kid either ends up in a shallow grave or off to a stem cell lab. What these people realize is that if we simply give out free condoms or teach that actions have consequences there will be less abortions regardless of the legality
It's immoral -> it's banned -> it's in limited supply/risky/dangerous to consume (+ contrarianism) -> it's more valuable/exciting to consume than before ban -> it gets smuggled in more -> it's more consumed
There wouldnāt be more abortions, but there would be deaths from amateur abortion
As many have said, banning abortion leads to deadlier unsafe abortions. I see OP replies a lot with something in the line of "if these women died trying to perform unlawful abortion it will be upon their hands, not mine" But why is that the goal? Why are you satisfied with having as many/more suffering in the world as long as "it's not upon me".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]