Glad you said so, you can disagree with policies or suggestions and not resort to mud slinging. Calling someone idiotic isn't usually a way to convince them of anything

Excellent point. I thought the same thing. Somebody who starts their argument with an ad hominem attack usually loses me there.

Respond to the content of the message instead of tone policing. If you’re so sensitive that a rude tone makes you incapable of listening then I suggest therapy. The drug war causes all the horrid violence in Mexico. The cartels do ISIS level shit every day and thats just one country. Yet you sit here whining because the guy arguing for 30 years that we need to value human beings and stop unnecessary deaths caused by idiotic policy passed for reasons of race baiting and race control? How ignorant.

Guest is what he accuses others of being

Completely agree. It's what I thought.

But it works, why does it work? Ethan is completely full sh't. But he talks in a way that convinces idiots. I wish we had lie detector tests, not because I want to know when people are lying but whether or not people actually believe what they say.

"Breed's approach was IDIOTIC!" "It's IDIOTIC!" "Schellenberger is IDIOTIC!" Yeeeah... Thank you for gracing us with your Brilliant Appraisal there, Genius.🥴👍

I'm sorry, is there a scientific or medical justification for your abstinence only viewpoint? Why is it your concern if I use drugs indefinitely? Sounds to me like you're just a moral Authoritarian

@@post-leftluddite you are making too many assumptions my friend. My comment is directed at people advocating for safe consumption sites, not about the morality of drug use in general. What you do on your own is your personal business but when there are public services and institutions involved, it is now the business of the public. I work hard and it irritates me that my tax dollars are being used to fund peoples habits. If it is their personal choice to use, it should be their own personal responsibility to find clean needles.

It's a huge grift. The "harm reduction" people get millions in taxpayer money and the addicts just keep getting worse.

@@post-leftluddite and it sounds to me like you're a pseudo-intellectual dreg that will neither amount to anything nor move out of your parents house.

​​@@soulfuzz368 it has always been the business of the public. Addicts die on the streets, public service needs to deal with that. Hospitals need to deal with that. There is a hidden public cost to that too. This solution has drastically lowered overdose deaths, and that makes room for addicts to rehab and become functional members of society. Look at it this way: it's much cheaper for the public health service to prevent people from overdosing in a controlled space than it is to deal with them once they've been taken to the ER of some hospital. In my opinion, you're viewing it from a very narrow POV. This isn't about you. Society isn't about you. Our income tax goes to support us as a nation, as a collective. I don't have kids and I likely will never have kids, but should I feel irritated that a part of my income goes to public schools? No. Furthermore, this is an issue the government created in the first place by criminalising drug use. People have supported this stance because they don't know any better either, so these issues that have arisen are our own making, and it's our responsibility, or obligation even, to fix it.

Yeah I think that was his complaint.

Makes sense. Why the heck would taxpayers be paying for dangerous drug litter?

In Seattle, one could turn in 1 needle and receive 10. Consequently, children are stepping on needles in parks and beaches. Our children are more important than homeless people that refuse help for their mental/drug issues.

I think I've heard him say that too.

Yes, that's his issue, and it's specifically in reference to San Francisco's program. I don't follow him closely, so I could be wrong, but I don't think he generalized that critique and came out against all safe injection sites.

these sites are addressing the most urgent and important issue related to hard drug use that's preventing the users from dying from an overdose

@@Dora-hi2nw It would cost too much to the agencies and their subcontractors to actually fix the issues they were set up to address. Once fixed, Just like how curing cancer would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the industry set up to cure cancer.

@@Dora-hi2nw There is money in "trying to fix" problems. That money goes away once the problem is actually fixed. Hence, agencies create industries and subcontractors who earn their money by "trying to fix" not "fixing".

Yes...and the US is not Portugal. Two different social mentalities. And family issues...

So you'd rather pay for the much greater cost of disease transmission? And apparently you have no problem with paying for the over $60 billion in federal and state funds wasted every year on prohibition

​@@post-leftludditeprohibition still exists even in the Portugal model, dealing and trafficking is still a crime, use was decriminalized

how about voluntary funding

Well, then I don't have children so my tax dollars better not go to a school....and I'm not obese so my tax dollars better not go to Healthcare for someone with heart disease...or a person that gets in a car accident....or...or...or

Putting addicts in jail to go cold turkey is more effective than 28 days in rehab.

Ok you overdose and go to the hospital, who pays? You get necrosis from poor injection technique, who pays for that? You get endocarditis from injecting dirty shots, who pays for your treatment? These things don't happen in a vacuum

Yeah, "flacountryboy79", like the "Post-Left Luddite" just said, why are you so SELFISH and don't want your money that you worked for so hard to go to people like these that are clearly in need ? WTF ? Why cant you be more like "Post-Left Luddite", take him as an example he is clearly more empathic and feels for these people, and much more generous than you, clearly, he wants to help people in need not only with his money but also yours and mine and everybody else, now that is definitely not being selfish. You could learn a thing or two.

@Post-Left Luddite Your absolutely right! I dont have kids and don't want my tax dollars going to barely functioning public schools that teach common core. I'm also not fat. I exercises and eat a healthy diet. I don't want my tax dollars paying for someone who sits on thier ass all day eating McDonald's and watching Tiktok.

Agreed, reducing consequences for drug use will only increase the number of people who will try drugs and potentially get hooked and become strungout degenerate homeless people.

​​​@@deshaunjackson8188 Maybe that's what these leftist elitist pseudo-intellectuals WANT... Stupid and strung out people are easy to exploit, control, step over, or just eliminate. ...It's A Brave New World out here Kids.

@@deshaunjackson8188 I don't know about the US, but virtually every other country for which I read about safe injection rooms, have shown nothing but positive results. Not just lowering health care costs on a national level, but also reducing deaths, and increasing the amount of addicts seeking rehab. Canada, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands are just some examples.

@@littlekettle5759 Are those independent studies, or government backed statistics conveniently showing their government taking a risk paid off instead of making them look bad?

@@littlekettle5759 Canada, Denmark, and the Netherlands are pretty infamous for keeping the streets clean by driving homeless people and severe addicts out of the cities to freeze do death in the winter. Not really a tactic that can be replicated in the western United States. Anyway, Portugal hasn't effectively reduced drug use. The number of drug users there has increased it by 40-50% over the last decade and drug experimentation is up across the board. The only thing they have successfully improved is prison population, drug confiscation, HIV, and OD stats, which isn't a measure of success that makes any sense to me personally. The tradeoff doesn't seem worth it now, and we are yet to see the really long term effects.

You know why.

@@soulfuzz368 because they do not want a drug problem

Bingo, no drugs issues whatever, they don't tolerate the behavior.

@@johnl5316 exactly

Show me any proof that people don't use drugs there

Profitting from other people's misery is stock in trade to progressives. Never let a crisis go to waste is their motto and if they can't find one they create it.

no i think the Vancouver safe injection site only opened recently and if they have more than that one they don't have many more they need a large number of them to reduce OD deaths throughout the province

@@robinsss the first one opened in 2003. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942917/

@@hollyhawked they only have 5 across a large land area they need a lot more to reduce OD deaths

You aren't allowed to question his baseless claims!!!

yes it is enabling but it's worth it because it prevents people from over dosing

forcing an addict into treatment violates their rights the use and possession really doesn't harm anyone

@@robinsss Except when they can't take care of themselves and they're on the street. At that point they become a liability to society.

@@deanjohnson6074 that isn't causing harm in the legal sense

I agree with most of that... But nobody is kicking in the doors of private recreational drug users and dragging them out of their homes for nothing more than that. ...That's a myth perpetuated by the 'Criminal Justice rEfOrM' Hustlers.

the purpose for safe injection sites is to prevent ODs not prevent use harm reduction means reduce the harm created by the use not reduce the use

He didn’t say anything like that whatsoever.

if it is dangerous to other people no it's not compassion but drug use is not dangerous to other people only to the user so allowing it is compassion

Who do they benefit then?

Your abstinence only viewpoint has no basis in science.....you're a moral Authoritarian, nothing more

@soulfuzz368 People contributing to a functional society. Business owners and bus drivers and dog walkers and school children who don't have to step over them strewn about the sidewalk.

@post-leftluddite475 I love drugs. I just acknowledge that helping people addicted to narcotics is enabling them. Schellenburger's thesis is correct: allowing people to openly consume narcotics whilst camped in the public right of way without the threat of jail to divert them into substance abuse programs has caused a crisis of epic proportions. But I suppose we could just provide them the drugs. Maybe that would deliver us your Utopia.

@@tcorourke2007 basing peoples inherent value on their ability to be exploited by the system is grody, my dude.

This dude never saw New York in the 70-2000's

Bro thinks it's the weather 😂

That's a myth that drinking warms you up. You actually die faster.

​@@miketerran4140 Not a bro. It's both drugs and weather and progressive policy. As drugs legalized and decriminalized on the west coast and more people realized the weather was more livable. At the same time, there was a crackdown in NY. I hitchhiked and traveled from coast to coast for 20 years.

@@Gwenhwyfar7 ok bro, tell that to the crack heads in Winnipeg

Cite one study then.

Have you been to the Tenderloin? Or downtown Portland? Or skid row Los Angeles, or downtown Atlanta? Those are all your studies right there. Open your eyes

​@@visitante-pc5zc please leave your house and have a look around outside please, just please

​​​​​@@visitante-pc5zc *"SOURCE?!?🧐 ...CiTaTiOn pLeAsE!!"* ...That's what you sound like.😂 People like you and this Ethan Clown give off intense *"...bUt tHaT wAsN't REAL SoCiaLiSm!🥴"* vibes. ...Do you possess the capability to make observations and draw conclusions for yourself? ...Or do you have to sit around and wait for questionably motivated 'eXpErTs' to tell you how to think?...

We also have LOADS of actual real-world examples of cities where drugs are illegal. These are also total disasters. Drug dealers murder each other. Users are discouraged from seeking help. Drug quality and purity are random. Overdoses are daily. When will conservatives learn the lesson of alcohol prohibition from the '20's?

Yes. The alphabet agencies will provide the greatest resistance to legalization because they stand to gain so much power from controlling the black market.

''''''''''I still don’t understand how “Backroom” injection sites will actually slow the spread of drugs themselves?''''' they won't they will reduce over dose deaths in the area they may not get all of the addicts to visit the sites but the ones that do visit will be saved from over dose deaths in a few years that will add up to thousands of lives saved

did you vote for Trump ?

if we legalize drug use the issue of Where these drug users will get the money to buy the drugs remains because the drugs have not been legalized we could use taxes from alcohol and cigarettes to buy them we could give each homeless person a large room that would homelessness

Well, it seems to me it'd be a lot better to try something new than continue on the failure of prohibition

@Post-Left Luddite did you miss where I said I'm sympathetic? Just want people to be honest. Maybe advocates actually believe it, idk. Most just don't seem to even discuss that it might actually make things worse or at least drug use. Alot of people seem to argue it will make people more likely to seek treatment because it will destigmatize it. I could see some of that, but I doubt it changing much.

are you Mother Teresa ?

I'm glad you seem to understand, Reason is chock full of some really, really stupid people

Agreed

ok we can use sales taxes

the Netherlands

why do you say that?

Clubs (which are basically bars), but nobody cares if relatively productive members of society do drugs recreationally. It's when they stink, sleep outside, sh't outside and do crime is when people have a problem.

why is that a bigger problem ?

Legalization would make the world look a lot worse than san fransisco. Can you imagine a world. Where companies can mass-produce drugs that actively harm people, such as crack, meth, or some insane combination of new drugs we haven't even seen yet.

That's caused by prohibition, not the substances themselves...look up the research on Heroin Assisted Treatment in Europe and it'll refute all your assumptions

​@@post-leftludditehow about this, decrimanized use, but 20 year minimum for selling in a public space, and life if you sell to someone who later ODs and dies

Theft is not a benign crime

"What are you talking about, most homeless have just fallen on hard times, they aren't addicts" -my ex

What mental illness? These people are druggies, their brains are affected by drugs they dont have a mental illnes because they are drug addicts.

Well we can agree that most of Ethan's ideas are ass. And that's good enough for me😂

@@deshaunjackson8188 I am fully in favor of the Rippetoe Solution.😁

Singapore is a city state on an island, they can realistically have almost complete control over imports. Even if the US wanted to have the control Singapore does it would be impossible.

@@Vaelosh466 singapore, from the 70s, has been strictly and considtently drug averse. Theyve towed that line very nicely. Meanwhile, the US has complacently given in to its own drug companies addicting its citizens ie purdue pharma. Its also had pathetic drug laws with poor legislaation for its black market scene. And its ideals of individualism, although in moderation, is an excellent idea, has instead gone the other way, to the point of supporting individual drug use/abuse despite the obvious sequelae of social rot. And so it now comes down to legalizing drugs, so tat least the government can make a buck of this. Please consider that Portugals drug decriminalisation is quite different to the Us. There are immense governmental and societal pressures to keep people from abusing. And, even before decriminalisation, the trend was that portugal was already reducing its rate of abuse. In fact, after decriminalising, rates of abuse and drug deaths went up considerably in the 2007s and 2008s. At the end of the day, a successful outcome for any country is not only that people have not died from overdose., but is the prevention of social rot, allowing a healthy, productive population that can contribute to the country.

A war on drugs is way better than what we got right now.

@@CoryPchajek most of the time. People like being intoxicated.

@@CoryPchajek and being pain free more than anything.

Doesn't mean it's a good reason. Personally I can't think of a single good reason. How can you address or let alone solve a problem when you are high on drugs?

​@@peacepoet1947 .

@@deshaunjackson8188 you don’t get to decide for other adults unless they are violating one of our other increasingly numerous laws e.g. theft, assault, the like.

Canada has legalized cannabis and the black market is thriving. Try again

I also thought decriminalization was a good idea....for like two seconds, until I realized the millions of even worse outcomes that would unfold.

He’s been talking about the idiotic drug war policy which kills millions a year and leads to ISIS level violence in Mexico for 30 years. I’m sure he’s a little frustrated with peoples willful ignorance. Toughen up, buttercup.