By “Asian Countries”, I’m specifically referring to East Asia and Southeast Asia… you know, the countries affected by british imperialism and the drug problem the brits caused in the past.
Edit: This question should not be misconstrued as me promoting such policies, I’m just curious about different perspectives.
I know that my parents would probably support such policies, so I’m wondering what westerners think…
I’d rather the approach of Portugal and the Netherlands: treat drug addiction as a medical matter.
I’m Romanian and my country already has harsh drug laws. The result is that people who want to do drugs still do drugs (duh), but the stuff is obtained from sketchy sources and if something happens people would rather die than seek help because they’re scared of getting in trouble with the law. Drugs are also demonized which in turn makes raising awareness difficult. All these things help absolutely no one, very much the opposite actually. So no, I don’t think that kind of attitude and policies are good. I believe in widespread awareness, regulation and compassion (and obviously legalization). Keep an open mind.
No. I have the opposite perspective: all drugs should be legal and moderately regulated with regard to purity, packaging, and labeling. Advertising of drugs should be mostly banned. I have both moral and practical reasons.
The moral reason is pretty simple: nobody has the right to tell any other adult what to do with their body. I believe this even when someone wants to do something very dangerous or harmful as long as there’s no direct harm to others.
The practical reason is that prohibition creates black markets, and black markets produce a litany of harms. Here are a few:
- There’s no legal incentive for sellers of an illegal product to ensure it is pure. There’s a financial incentive to sell dangerously adulterated drugs in many cases.
- Black market actors lack access to the legal system, and therefore tend to resolve disputes with violence.
- Law enforcement pressures politicians for increased authority in order to try to stamp out black markets, often with harmful impacts on the rights of all citizens.
- Legal and reputational risks prevent drug users from seeking help to break their addictions.
Why ban advertisements for drugs?
How would, say, a Superbowl ad for cocaine be any worse than one for alcohol,.mcDonald’s, or voting Republican? (All of which are at least as strongly correlated with bad life outcomes as speed.)
I would not treat alcohol differently from cocaine.
It would take some effort to come up with a comprehensive and fair framework for how I think advertising should be limited. In principle, I think it’s harmless to try to persuade someone who is shopping for whiskey that they’ll like brand X whiskey better than the competition. It’s harmful to try to persuade someone who doesn’t drink to start drinking.
We have tried to dial up the harsher penalties on drugs since the 1970s and I’m not convinced it has been effective in reducing the harm.
Legalise and tax it like with tobacco and alcohol.
No, im of the opinion that the Amsterdam model is the most ethical response (so far) to drug abuse and mental health assistance. If addiction is a factor, punishment is not a deterant (and atleast in The US, an excuse for authorities to abuse the carve-out in the 13th ammendment). Treating people as patients instead of criminals provides the most good to society.
All research in successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.
It’s been 24 years and we still haven’t learned.
the death penalty for anything approach? yeah nah that would be war on drugs dialed to 11 and it sucked
deleted by creator
Go down “Use by Country”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_drug_trafficking
No. Because the rules are there and the problem still exists. The harshness of a policy does not determine its effectiveness.
lol how do you think America locked up more prisoners than the entire world?
The war on drugs
No…
I don’t the answer to the drug problem, but it is so fucking obvious that law enforcement sure isn’t.
I suspect the answer to the drug problem is to stop thinking of it as a problem.
I agree but I’d say “to stop thinking of it as a legal problem.”
I think it would be more effective to treat it as a health / mental health problem.
I think those work because of social and societal differences. Rejecting drugs is a sign of rejecting colonial oppression in Asian, using drugs is a rebellious act against oppressors in the US.
Plus, the US already does have draconian drug policy. It uses drug use and distribution as a justification for long term prison sentences and even extra judicial killings, you just gotta have dark skin or be politically inconvenient. Heck, it just declared a drug is a weapon of mass destruction, but it’s doing nothing to go after the massive companies that manufacture that drug, it’s just using it as an excuse to bring military level force to civilians.
deleted by creator
No, primarily because of human rights, but also because they don’t really work as marketed. As seen from this map, plenty of places with much less draconian laws are doing comparably or straight up better to the Asian countries you’re talking about. The lowest drug use rates in the world are in fact in Sub Saharan Africa, followed by the Indian Peninsula and the Middle East and the rest of the Global South. East Asia isn’t high by any means, but it’s not low either.
Too many get destroyed by drugs. To many lives ruined, to many young kids live through hell because their parent(s) are addicted. Too many people, leaders, rich and others loose their empathy as a result of drug use.
Why use drugs? escape from life that sucks, feed the ever need for a dopamine fix (should social media be considered a gateway drug?), boredom…
Nope. That would cause half the billionaires, MBA’s, and c-suite execs to be killed a d we can’t have that. 🙃
