🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@freemo @JoeStewart I read Junky and Pimp. People were worried about getting their cars seized in the 1930s for having dope on them. And there was a very lively drug trade back then, if the books can be believed. The WOD was well under way in the 50s when Junky was written, complete with undercover cops, buy-busts, the whole works. The only major difference was the Feds rather than state and local were leading it.

@JoeStewart

> Thank you. I’m continually surprised by my ignorance and the ease with which I accept as fact things I read and watch….

For what its worth before seeing this post I beleive the typical narrative of Nixon being the bad guy who started the war on drugs too.

What got me was when i was reading this i went "wait a second, they made it sound like he made heroin illegal, coulda swore it was already illegal"... I looked it up and sure enough it was made illegal 44 years earlier.

So then, beleiving my original assumptions must be true I went "Well surely he at least made it more illegal".. so i looked up his exactly policy and read it and read his quotes. To my shock he actually passed laws that specifically reduced criminality, making pocession a misdemeanor for all drugs which used to be a felony.

After that I went and researched the quote and found it to be utterly fake. and well... we arrived at my post :)

> The outcomes I was referring to relate to those delivered by decades of the “war on drugs.” In particular, the narco traffickers and the induced migration of those fleeing the resulting violence not to mention the focus on enforcement and incarceration rather than treatment and prevention.

The war on drugs certainly started with Nixon **indirectly** with the formation of the DEA. Nixon wanted less criminality, but actual enforcement. He thought drug abuse was a true ill to society as far as I could tell, so he did want to eliminate it, but he didnt want everyone to just wind up in jail. He largely wanted to target,it seems, the dealers and producers and leave the users out of it as far as severe punishments go. This was absolutely an improvement from the felony charges people used to get.

The problem is the DEA took on a life of its own, after Nixon it grew, became more pervasive, and the penalties started to increase again.

So one can argue that Nixon started a chain of events that ultimately led to the drug war and its abuse on the people. But when Nixon started it it wasnt like that, and as I said it actually was a lessening of charges.

@freemo @JoeStewart Former President Nixon was just too ahead of his time. Compared to the recent presidents, he did nothing wrong. There was the relationship with China that he improved and the EPA being started.

Nixon's presidency was one of the most important and misunderstood.

when you're not in the mood for small talk with the chatty neighbor

#Caturday #dogs

@freemo

All three are authoritarian as fuck, so no.

> Yes, eliminate all people I think are evil.

It's straightforward authoritarianism, i don't hold the objective truth about who is evil.

> Yes, eliminate people the majority think are evil

Majority also do not possess objective truth, and it is unethical to impose their will on everyone, especially when it comes to mass murder.

> Yes, eliminate people who objectively cause harm

This is essentially the same as #1. Most of the time people don't separate "i subjectively believe this person is evil" and "i believe this person is objectively causing harm". Many people believe that gay people "objectively cause harm", these people aren't lying or trying to manipulate, they just genuinely think it's true.

...
If instead of just thanos' superpower, you gave me a magic oracle box that would predict with 100% accuracy who would do more damage, i might consider listening to its suggestions.

@FeralRobots

Thats not what happened.

How is me agreeing with you about people getting hurt in large numbers, while stating the specific number is wildly off a "libertarian sounding argument"?

Us agreeing that the actual numbers are still large and unacceptable is **not** at odds with pointing out a fictional and largely inflated number is fictional and largely inflated.

Science means telling the truth and being accurate is your first priority, and you can do so while still admitting the underlying point. This is not at odds, and certainly not a "libertarian thing"

@cturnbow @lizstl13