Is anybody here actually arguing that the War on Drugs is not extraordinarily problematic? As far as I can tell nobody is.
anigbrowl is being pedantic about the term "obvious" but does not seem to actually disagree (The thread you are responding to is about effective communication, on which anigbrowl and I disagree, but I do not think that he is an idiot for disagreeing with me on this point.)
mpyne doesn't seem to disagree that it is problematic (he brought up David Simon after all... in fact his response to me makes me think that we both agree that both situations are problematic), but thinks it is not practical to change the state of affairs. I, again, disagree with that, but I certainly do not think that he is an idiot for thinking that the realities of the situation preclude meaningful change.
mindsling takes exception to my caricature of privacy advocates who are frustrated with recent media attention to their cause, but I think I have explained myself there well enough. I do not think that mindsling is an idiot.
(If I've mischaracterized anybodies position here, please correct me, but as I have interpreted everyones' comments currently I don't think that anybody here is an idiot.)
I don't like the "War on Drugs", no. I'm the kind of person who would remove 80% of the safety labels out there if I had my way, so someone choosing to do something stupid with drugs is on them as far as I'm concerned, up and until it starts affecting other people.
And even where it does start affecting other people, there are probably much better ways to regulate that effect than prison, and we should be using those ways instead. And we should switchover yesterday.
It's probably not yet practical politically to fix that (especially as its so tied toward racist tendencies dog-whistle style), but that would not be a reason for me to argue in support of it.
However I also don't presume that shedding the War on Drugs would eliminate crime, or the need to investigate and prosecute such. So we'll still have government enforcing law, protecting public security, and the like. And so I get very, very tired of the argument that government trying to get power $FOO to do such things is necessarily a dystopian power grab.
Don't get me wrong, it may actually be a bad idea for government to do $FOO, but no one is generally going to convince me of that by hyperbole or invoking the Sheeple Mantra (not saying you're doing that here, btw, just remarking on some HN threads I remember in general).
anigbrowl is being pedantic about the term "obvious" but does not seem to actually disagree (The thread you are responding to is about effective communication, on which anigbrowl and I disagree, but I do not think that he is an idiot for disagreeing with me on this point.)
mpyne doesn't seem to disagree that it is problematic (he brought up David Simon after all... in fact his response to me makes me think that we both agree that both situations are problematic), but thinks it is not practical to change the state of affairs. I, again, disagree with that, but I certainly do not think that he is an idiot for thinking that the realities of the situation preclude meaningful change.
mindsling takes exception to my caricature of privacy advocates who are frustrated with recent media attention to their cause, but I think I have explained myself there well enough. I do not think that mindsling is an idiot.
(If I've mischaracterized anybodies position here, please correct me, but as I have interpreted everyones' comments currently I don't think that anybody here is an idiot.)