SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
Goro said:
Did a search for him and found that he's gone. Not single post of his remains! If he were Banhammered, his previous posts would still be there.

The following members could not be found: sb247.
Click to expand...


Maybe he asked site admin to delete his posts.


There was a poster before who went by sector31 or something like that. He made all kinds of weird claims about living in NYC and being buddies with Liam Neeson while simultaneously owning a chik fil A. He was later banned and a lot of his posts were removed.
 
LimpSpatula said:
@vector2 I'd rather have that reaction than what I've experienced. I’m a Black doctor and I’d have to say I despise AA in medicine, and it’s done nothing but make my life difficult. See, I’m a BLACK doctor. That’s how people define me. I can’t just be a doctor. You think I may be exaggerating, but this is my experience. Medical schools and residencies liked me because I checked a box for them. They took no interest in me as a person. They took no interest in developing me outside of their specific academic diversity nitch. Instead I suffered from those who wanted to hold me up as a token, and from those who held resentment and bias towards me because they thought I did not have the merit to be there.

I've experienced a lot of racism in medicine since being in, and I know that a lot of it has been the direct result of AA policies. I've been above average in undergrad, medical school, and residency. I've rarely come across anyone who's had as much life experience or who is frankly as intelligent as I am. But I've had to prove myself above and beyond expectations of my peers to get any sort of recognition for it. This is what has caused the most resistance. I challenged their stereotypes and have pain the price. The thing is, I don't even want recognition. I just want to be treated like everyone else.

I do want more Black doctors, but I don't know if we're going about it the right way.
Click to expand...
I'm not here to argue with you, but are you possessed by Donald Trump right now?
 
Looks like it was a lovely afternoon.
1605392884835.png
1605392924609.png
1605393382959.png
1605393450552.png
 
Let's wait for Trump to pardon himself in 6 wks...


The excuse will be: Partisan democrats were gonna go after him. He had to pardon himself.
 
Last edited:
Mad Jack said:
The drug war and practices that discriminate against people based on prior nonviolent crimes with regard to employment and education opportunities are major issues. People committing victimless crimes shouldn't be going to prison, and prison should be focused on rehabilitation not punishment.
Click to expand...
I haven't read all of your posts (although there are several that mention these "victimless crimes"). Is selling rock cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine "victimless"? Because it's not. You have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to say that no one is harmed by drug dealers.

If you are not saying that, my apologies.
 
Splenda88 said:
Let's wait for Trump to pardon himself in 6 wks...


The excuse will be: Partisan democrats were gonna go after him. He had to pardon himself.
Click to expand...
The Justice Department opinion when it came to Nixon pardoning himself was found to be defective, in that "one cannot be a judge in their own case". I am not a legal scholar, but, I suspect that this will hold up for our age today.
 
Apollyon said:
I haven't read all of your posts (although there are several that mention these "victimless crimes"). Is selling rock cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine "victimless"? Because it's not. You have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to say that no one is harmed by drug dealers.

If you are not saying that, my apologies.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear from his post and his mention of rehab that he is referring to end users, not dealers. Although honestly I think there are better alternatives than draconian punishments for dealers, too.

If you disagree, consider for a moment that the legislator's stroke of a pen which arbitrarily "legalizes" alcohol and the ability of a store to have a liquor license has very little do with the ethical and moral questions pertaining to how many people in this country are debilitated or killed by alcohol.
 
Apollyon said:
I haven't read all of your posts (although there are several that mention these "victimless crimes"). Is selling rock cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine "victimless"? Because it's not. You have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to say that no one is harmed by drug dealers.

If you are not saying that, my apologies.
Click to expand...
Using drugs is victimless, selling them isn't. By far and away the majority of people comvicted for drug crimes have been convicted for possession or paraphernalia
 
vector2 said:
It seems pretty clear from his post and his mention of rehab that he is referring to end users, not dealers. Although honestly I think there are better alternatives than draconian punishments for dealers, too.

If you disagree, consider for a moment that the legislator's stroke of a pen which arbitrarily "legalizes" alcohol and the ability of a store to have a liquor license has very little do with the ethical and moral questions pertaining to how many people in this country are debilitated or killed by alcohol.
Click to expand...
I don't know how many alcohol abusers resort to petty theft (or grand theft) of strangers or family members.

I mean, it was known even before the "War on Drugs" - from 1983, Melle Mel, "White Lines":

A street kid gets arrested, gonna do some time
He got out three years from now just to commit more crime
A businessman is caught with 24 kilos
He’s out on bail and out of jail
And that’s the way it goes, raah!

I doubt there are any drug dealers that don't know they're committing a crime. About 90% of felonies (including drug offenses) are plead out. And, in every case, people are told that they will lose their voting rights. So, "restoration of voting rights"? Along with paying prisoners, where is the punishment? When there's no skin in the game, there's no motivation to not do it again.

And, the end user buying the rock or ice or junk IS the victim. If I recall, the Oregon drug law that went to ballot doesn't make all the drugs legal, but, decriminalizes them - provided they get treatment. It's not a gold card pass to just shoot or smoke to your heart's content.

So, how DO you fight it, especially if there is no punishment?
 
Apollyon said:
I don't know how many alcohol abusers resort to petty theft (or grand theft) of strangers or family members.

I mean, it was known even before the "War on Drugs" - from 1983, Melle Mel, "White Lines":

A street kid gets arrested, gonna do some time
He got out three years from now just to commit more crime
A businessman is caught with 24 kilos
He’s out on bail and out of jail
And that’s the way it goes, raah!

I doubt there are any drug dealers that don't know they're committing a crime. About 90% of felonies (including drug offenses) are plead out. And, in every case, people are told that they will lose their voting rights. So, "restoration of voting rights"? Along with paying prisoners, where is the punishment? When there's no skin in the game, there's no motivation to not do it again.

And, the end user buying the rock or ice or junk IS the victim. If I recall, the Oregon drug law that went to ballot doesn't make all the drugs legal, but, decriminalizes them - provided they get treatment. It's not a gold card pass to just shoot or smoke to your heart's content.

So, how DO you fight it, especially if there is no punishment?
Click to expand...
Alcohol is more common than any other substance in cases of murdee by a good margin. It's also the most common substance present during assaulta and other violent crimes.

Addiction is a disease and should be treated as such. Other crimes committed under the influence should be treated as crimes, but addiction itself should be decriminalized. Selling is a bit more complicated- I'm of the death sentence for dostrubutors and light treatment on street level dealers unless they knowingly sold deadly product mentality. Most street dealers are people that lack opportunity because of prior convictions, poverty, or any number of other issues that are trying to make a life for themselves in the only way they can sort out given their limited experience. Distributors, however, are damn well aware of the economics and what they're doing.

If you give most street dealers viable alternatives to dealing by which to make a living, they'd probably do so. Most distributors, however, are in it for the big money and are evil to the core. They're the real problem.
 
Apollyon said:
I don't know how many alcohol abusers resort to petty theft (or grand theft) of strangers or family members.
Click to expand...

You’re proving my point right here. It’s why I put “legalizes” in quotes in my previous post. The legal status of alcohol (or tobacco for that matter) are totally arbitrary. Their legality or illegality is entirely unrelated to their addictiveness or the level of personal destruction they cause. And that’s before we even get to the fact that users of alcohol and tobacco affect others at very substantial rates vis a vis drunk driving and second-hand smoke.

“Hard” drugs are no more immoral than alcohol, but their criminalization is what drives the secondary crime like the petty theft you mention. Just take a look at the violence and crime that surrounded the manufacturing, importation, and transportation of alcohol during Prohibition. At the end of the day, drug associated crime plummets when the heroin user can get his heroin at the state regulated heroin store just like the drunk gets his liquor at the state regulated liquor store.


Furthermore, we already have empiric data that decriminalization is beneficial
time.com

Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer

In 2001, Portugal became the first country in the world to decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.
time.com time.com
 
Mad Jack said:
If you give most street dealers viable alternatives to dealing by which to make a living, they'd probably do so. Most distributors, however, are in it for the big money and are evil to the core. They're the real problem.
Click to expand...
Having peripherally known a few, I would posit "sociopath" in place of "evil". It's like that scene in the first season of "Elementary": Sherlock is in a board room, and he says to the one guy, "You, sir, are a sociopath." And the guy says, "Look around you - here, we're ALL sociopaths."

You know a movie that has aged VERY well? "New Jack City". True story. You gotta watch it (or again), and you might be amazed.

Also, did you read the chapter in "Freakanomics" about why street level dealers live with their mothers? Most drugs are sold on consignment. They don't make much money, because most people aren't good business people, and, if you ARE that good, you get off the streets. The illicit drug trade parallels legitimate business rather closely and directly. Demand is inelastic, and, with that, the price can be exaggerated.
 
vector2 said:
You’re proving my point right here. It’s why I put “legalizes” in quotes in my previous post. The legal status of alcohol (or tobacco for that matter) are totally arbitrary. Their legality or illegality is entirely unrelated to their addictiveness or the level of personal destruction they cause. And that’s before we even get to the fact that users of alcohol and tobacco affect others at very substantial rates vis a vis drunk driving and second-hand smoke.

“Hard” drugs are no more immoral than alcohol, but their criminalization is what drives the secondary crime like the petty theft you mention. Just take a look at the violence and crime that surrounded the manufacturing, importation, and transportation of alcohol during Prohibition. At the end of the day, drug associated crime plummets when the heroin user can get his heroin at the state regulated heroin store just like the drunk gets his liquor at the state regulated liquor store.


Furthermore, we already have empiric data that decriminalization is beneficial
time.com

Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer

In 2001, Portugal became the first country in the world to decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.
time.com time.com
Click to expand...
The only thing I would say is there is a much longer history with alcohol (it was beer on the Mayflower, and, again, if I recall, they stopped in Massachusetts because they were running low), due to that being what you could drink and not get sick; even if you had no idea about bacteria or parasites, knowing you didn't get "the diarrhea" when drinking the beer or hard cider was all you needed. And, as such, it is, after a sort, "grandfathered in".

As for Portugal, it is smaller than Indiana. We'll see how it goes in Oregon.

Edit: Also, alcohol we can digitally measure. Right now, it's analog to determine how intoxicated one is on drugs.
 
Last edited:
LimpSpatula said:
@vector2 I'd rather have that reaction than what I've experienced. I’m a Black doctor and I’d have to say I despise AA in medicine, and it’s done nothing but make my life difficult. See, I’m a BLACK doctor. That’s how people define me. I can’t just be a doctor. You think I may be exaggerating, but this is my experience. Medical schools and residencies liked me because I checked a box for them. They took no interest in me as a person. They took no interest in developing me outside of their specific academic diversity nitch. Instead I suffered from those who wanted to hold me up as a token, and from those who held resentment and bias towards me because they thought I did not have the merit to be there.

I've experienced a lot of racism in medicine since being in, and I know that a lot of it has been the direct result of AA policies. I've been above average in undergrad, medical school, and residency. I've rarely come across anyone who's had as much life experience or who is frankly as intelligent as I am. But I've had to prove myself above and beyond expectations of my peers to get any sort of recognition for it. This is what has caused the most resistance. I challenged their stereotypes and have pain the price. The thing is, I don't even want recognition. I just want to be treated like everyone else.

I do want more Black doctors, but I don't know if we're going about it the right way.
Click to expand...
So you don't think any of that happens if there wasn't Affirmative Action? It really reminds me of Clarence Thomas's disdain for affirmative action because he blamed affirmative action for his troubles in getting a job after graduating from Yale Law in the 70s despite doing very well. Of course it was because of affirmative action at those law firms in THE 70S rejected the high achieving BLACK GUY.


The thing is, every who thinks the affirmative action does a disservice to minorities because the way they'll be perceived are only explaining how they perceive their minority classmates/workmates. Unless people are breaking into registrar's offices it's not like anyone has access to transcripts.

The racism you experience is NOT because of affirmative action, it's because of racist people.
 
Apollyon said:
The only thing I would say is there is a much longer history with alcohol (it was beer on the Mayflower, and, again, if I recall, they stopped in Massachusetts because they were running low), due to that being what you could drink and not get sick; even if you had no idea about bacteria or parasites, knowing you didn't get "the diarrhea" when drinking the beer or hard cider was all you needed. And, as such, it is, after a sort, "grandfathered in".

As for Portugal, it is smaller than Indiana. We'll see how it goes in Oregon.

Edit: Also, alcohol we can digitally measure. Right now, it's analog to determine how intoxicated one is on drus.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that alcohol has a much longer history in humans, but being the only potable source of hydration 300 years ago isn't exactly a compelling argument against its societal effects in 2020. For that matter, it wasnt even a compelling argument in 1920 which I guess is why we gave Prohibition a go. Not to mention humans have been eating psychedelic plants for millenia but we still ban those.

Most of the laws concerning drugs in this country are ill-conceived, misguided, very expensive, usually racist, and poorly executed, and ultimately the War on Drugs has caused a galaxy's worth of suffering compared to what could have been by just decriminalizing and regulating drugs like we did (again) with alcohol in 1933.


Also, Portugal's relative size is irrelevant to the question of whether decriminalization works. They have a population similar to IL, OH, or PA plus the challenges of having the easy to commute borders of the EU and a robust tourism industry. The salient point is that all the things we want to see improve actually did improve after their experiment with decriminalization.
 
vector2 said:
There is no doubt that alcohol has a much longer history in humans, but being the only potable source of hydration 300 years ago isn't exactly a compelling argument against its societal effects in 2020. For that matter, it wasnt even a compelling argument in 1920 which I guess is why we gave Prohibition a go. Not to mention humans have been eating psychedelic plants for millenia but we still ban those.

Most of the laws concerning drugs in this country are ill-conceived, misguided, very expensive, usually racist, and poorly executed, and ultimately the War on Drugs has caused a galaxy's worth of suffering compared to what could have been by just decriminalizing and regulating drugs like we did (again) with alcohol in 1933.


Also, Portugal's relative size is irrelevant to the question of whether decriminalization works. They have a population similar to IL, OH, or PA plus the challenges of having the easy to commute borders of the EU and a robust tourism industry. The salient point is that all the things we want to see improve actually did improve after their experiment with decriminalization.
Click to expand...
drugs-have-won-the-war-on-drugs.jpg


I think we'll all be watching Oregon very closely to see how this plays out. I know for me in principle I agree with decriminalizing but its the details of doing that in a responsible way that I have concerns about. What do we do to protect kids? Does committing a crime under the influence of drugs mitigate the sentence? Do we have rapid testing for DUIs that don't involve alcohol to try and catch people doing that? Can employers still drug test and punish people who test positive? You get the idea.
 
vector2 said:
There is no doubt that alcohol has a much longer history in humans, but being the only potable source of hydration 300 years ago isn't exactly a compelling argument against its societal effects in 2020. For that matter, it wasnt even a compelling argument in 1920 which I guess is why we gave Prohibition a go. Not to mention humans have been eating psychedelic plants for millenia but we still ban those.

Most of the laws concerning drugs in this country are ill-conceived, misguided, very expensive, usually racist, and poorly executed, and ultimately the War on Drugs has caused a galaxy's worth of suffering compared to what could have been by just decriminalizing and regulating drugs like we did (again) with alcohol in 1933.


Also, Portugal's relative size is irrelevant to the question of whether decriminalization works. They have a population similar to IL, OH, or PA plus the challenges of having the easy to commute borders of the EU and a robust tourism industry. The salient point is that all the things we want to see improve actually did improve after their experiment with decriminalization.
Click to expand...
The sample size far exceeds that needed for statistical significance. If we just diverted the funds currently used for enforcement and incarceration to treatment things will probably more than balance out
 
Apollyon said:
I haven't read all of your posts (although there are several that mention these "victimless crimes"). Is selling rock cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine "victimless"? Because it's not. You have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to say that no one is harmed by drug dealers.

If you are not saying that, my apologies.
Click to expand...

I'm personally harmed by anti-drug laws and I don't use drugs. I'm harmed by the crime that prohibition has generated, and I'm harmed by a police force that sometimes acts like an occupying army, and I'm harmed by the cost of it all.

I'm not real concerned that there are people out there whose behavior harms them. I mean, I wish them the best and I support education and treatment programs to help them make better choices, but I don't feel any more sadness or pity for them than I do for smokers or alcoholics or mountain climbers who die on Everest.

If some obnoxious moral busybody decided that obesity was so unhealthy that fried chicken should be banned for the Good Of The People (who naturally are too stupid to make their own decisions as free people), I'd be right there joining Cartman's cartel.



All prohibition is contrary to individual liberty and morally wrong.
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
View attachment 323192

I think we'll all be watching Oregon very closely to see how this plays out. I know for me in principle I agree with decriminalizing but its the details of doing that in a responsible way that I have concerns about. What do we do to protect kids? Does committing a crime under the influence of drugs mitigate the sentence? Do we have rapid testing for DUIs that don't involve alcohol to try and catch people doing that? Can employers still drug test and punish people who test positive? You get the idea.
Click to expand...
I think exactly none of these questions are significant.

We protect kids the same way as always. Families and education. Prohibit purchase same way we do cigarettes and alcohol. Of course it's not perfect, nothing is.

Of course intoxication doesn't mitigate or excuse criminal acts.

Dont need rapid DUI testing. Field sobriety tests are fine. Arrests and blood tests are fine.

Of course employers can prohibit intoxication while working as a condition of employment.
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
View attachment 323192

I think we'll all be watching Oregon very closely to see how this plays out. I know for me in principle I agree with decriminalizing but its the details of doing that in a responsible way that I have concerns about. What do we do to protect kids? Does committing a crime under the influence of drugs mitigate the sentence? Do we have rapid testing for DUIs that don't involve alcohol to try and catch people doing that? Can employers still drug test and punish people who test positive? You get the idea.
Click to expand...
Employers are free to fire anyone for anything. Many workplaces in states where marijuana is legal still bar its use, as it is a decision to use it and it is impossible to determine acute intoxication versus lingering metabolites so employers don't want to deal with the potential liability
 
pgg said:
I think exactly none of these questions are significant.

We protect kids the same way as always. Families and education. Prohibit purchase same way we do cigarettes and alcohol. Of course it's not perfect, nothing is.

Of course intoxication doesn't mitigate or excuse criminal acts.

Dont need rapid DUI testing. Field sobriety tests are fine. Arrests and blood tests are fine.

Of course employers can prohibit intoxication while working as a condition of employment.
Click to expand...
So are those the way Oregon is doing it?

Edit: I should clarify: I know how I think they should handle this, but I have limited faith in any government to not screw things up.
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
So are those the way Oregon is doing it?

Edit: I should clarify: I know how I think they should handle this, but I have limited faith in any government to not screw things up.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I'll prefer the ways Oregon screws up legalization over the ways they've screwed up prohibition. 🙂
 
Mad Jack said:
Using drugs is victimless, selling them isn't. By far and away the majority of people comvicted for drug crimes have been convicted for possession or paraphernalia
Click to expand...

while I agree with the overall sentiment. The use of drugs has been an aggravating factor in many crimes and other harm that has come to non-users.

drug fueled killing sprees, drug induced psychosis leading to criminal behaviour. Hell, even Hitler’s decision to attack the allies in the Ardennes Forrest (the battle of the bulge) was thought to be largely a drug addled decision.
 
SLC said:
while I agree with the overall sentiment. The use of drugs has been an aggravating factor in many crimes and other harm that has come to non-users.

drug fueled killing sprees, drug induced psychosis leading to criminal behaviour. Hell, even Hitler’s decision to attack the allies in the Ardennes Forrest (the battle of the bulge) was thought to be largely a drug addled decision.
Click to expand...
Drug use is victimless. Once you commit a crime, well, you have committed a crime and drug use doesn't make that excusable, similar to alcohol. I'm all for mandatory treatment outside of the criminal justice system, and for those that commit crimes aside from substance use to be treated as criminals
 
The maga March had a stellar cast of characters and violence!

"Speakers who addressed the aggrieved legions included Alex Jones, a discredited conspiracy theorist most famous for tormenting the families of school shooting victims, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, a recently elected congresswoman from Georgia who has promoted QAnon, which falsely alleges that famous Democrats belong to a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles."

"Among the rallygoers were members of the Proud Boys, an extremist group known for their black-and-yellow garb and endorsements of violence. Some wore flak jackets and helmets. “Stand Back, Stand By,” read several of their shirts, referencing the president’s directive to them during a September debate."

"A succession of Trump supporters approached the curb, unmasked, to offer their opinions of his solitary demonstration.
“Why didn’t your mother abort you?” one screamed. “You’re mentally disturbed, and you’re a coward, and you’re a f-----. I hope you get AIDS."

 
AMEHigh said:
The maga March had a stellar cast of characters and violence!

"Speakers who addressed the aggrieved legions included Alex Jones, a discredited conspiracy theorist most famous for tormenting the families of school shooting victims, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, a recently elected congresswoman from Georgia who has promoted QAnon, which falsely alleges that famous Democrats belong to a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles."

"Among the rallygoers were members of the Proud Boys, an extremist group known for their black-and-yellow garb and endorsements of violence. Some wore flak jackets and helmets. “Stand Back, Stand By,” read several of their shirts, referencing the president’s directive to them during a September debate."

"A succession of Trump supporters approached the curb, unmasked, to offer their opinions of his solitary demonstration.
“Why didn’t your mother abort you?” one screamed. “You’re mentally disturbed, and you’re a coward, and you’re a f-----. I hope you get AIDS."

Click to expand...
When darkness fell, the counterprotesters triggered more mayhem as they harassed Trump’s advocates, stealing red hats and flags and lighting them on fire. Scuffles continued into the night as the provocateurs overturned the tables of vendors who had been selling pro-Trump gear and set off dozens of fireworks, prompting police to pepper-spray them.
 
SLC said:
while I agree with the overall sentiment. The use of drugs has been an aggravating factor in many crimes and other harm that has come to non-users.
Click to expand...

And 98% of the roots of that crime can be traced directly to drug trafficking or the acquisition of funds to buy drugs on the black market. None of which would exist if the junk was legal in the first place.

SLC said:
drug fueled killing sprees, drug induced psychosis leading to criminal behaviour. Hell, even Hitler’s decision to attack the allies in the Ardennes Forrest (the battle of the bulge) was thought to be largely a drug addled decision.
Click to expand...
C'mon, "drug fueled killing sprees" and psychotic crimes are an absolutely microscopic fraction of crimes. Drugs generally make people useless and passive and sleepy.

Unless by "drug fueled" you mean "wanted a fix but couldn't buy it at Walgreens so beat up and robbed a guy who had some" or "cartel #1 shot up cartel #2 in a turf war" ...

Hitler? Really? I wonder how many bad/evil choices the Soviets made could be attributed to vodka-addled decisions. Or maybe, y'know, they were just evil people and the mind-altering drugs they took weren't what made them evil. Or maybe we should be glad the drugs made those evil masterminds a little less competent.
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
When darkness fell, the counterprotesters triggered more mayhem as they harassed Trump’s advocates, stealing red hats and flags and lighting them on fire. Scuffles continued into the night as the provocateurs overturned the tables of vendors who had been selling pro-Trump gear and set off dozens of fireworks, prompting police to pepper-spray them.
Click to expand...

Yep a hot mess, ugh. It seems like things are getting worse and worse. Antifa is horrible as well.
 
A lot of people in my program think he is going to be dragged kicking and screaming from the white house. I think he is just putting on a show to save face and be able to say "I didn't lose, they cheated" and that he will vacate the WH relatively willingly. What's more disturbing to me are the people who STILL buy the con hook, line, and sinker.
 
Twiggidy said:
So you don't think any of that happens if there wasn't Affirmative Action? It really reminds me of Clarence Thomas's disdain for affirmative action because he blamed affirmative action for his troubles in getting a job after graduating from Yale Law in the 70s despite doing very well. Of course it was because of affirmative action at those law firms in THE 70S rejected the high achieving BLACK GUY.


The thing is, every who thinks the affirmative action does a disservice to minorities because the way they'll be perceived are only explaining how they perceive their minority classmates/workmates. Unless people are breaking into registrar's offices it's not like anyone has access to transcripts.

The racism you experience is NOT because of affirmative action, it's because of racist people.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I feel like AA gives people who have racist attitudes something to justify their behavior. And before you say that they’ll find another way, I think that something like AA hits to the core of medicines principles, which is elitism. When you think you’re special, already have discriminatory tendencies, it’s a real check to the ego.

There is a possibility that those admission stat numbers might be flipped if AA weren’t a thing, with minorities needing extraordinary stats to get in, if we are assuming bias.
 
pgg said:
I'm personally harmed by anti-drug laws and I don't use drugs. I'm harmed by the crime that prohibition has generated, and I'm harmed by a police force that sometimes acts like an occupying army, and I'm harmed by the cost of it all.

I'm not real concerned that there are people out there whose behavior harms them. I mean, I wish them the best and I support education and treatment programs to help them make better choices, but I don't feel any more sadness or pity for them than I do for smokers or alcoholics or mountain climbers who die on Everest.

If some obnoxious moral busybody decided that obesity was so unhealthy that fried chicken should be banned for the Good Of The People (who naturally are too stupid to make their own decisions as free people), I'd be right there joining Cartman's cartel.



All prohibition is contrary to individual liberty and morally wrong.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you didn't mention firearms, which are hard- coded into the Constitution, but suicides account for 60% of gun deaths, while only 37% of them are homicides (the other 3% are law enforcement or undermined). With the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th, that, in a way, somewhat more softly codes alcohol into the Constitution.

Keith Whitley and Hank Williams, Sr drank themselves to death. Mindy McCready shot herself to death.

But, I don't have confidence that a heroin addict will make good choices. I mean, you get drunk and drive, there's a chance you'll get arrested. But, if I get drunk at home, I live. I overdose on heroin, I die.

I'm EM, not psych or CC. I don't see the mental effects of substance abuse apart from the most superficial, and I don't see the downstream effects of hypoxic or anoxic brain injury. But, if it's legalized, the cost will dwarf what it is now, because of, not just using, but what people do when using.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

neuroride
Trying to reason increase in stipend to hospital...
2
Replies
68
Views
8K
ucladoc2b
U
BLADEMDA
Scotus 2023
2 3 4 5
Replies
244
Views
12K
pgg
pgg
C
POETIC JUSTICE
2
Replies
71
Views
3K
GravelRider
GravelRider
abolt18
Where Will Craig Kent Go Next?
Replies
6
Views
1K
abolt18
abolt18
nimbus
Other SCOTUS news
Replies
1
Views
706
deleted875186
D
Top