https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/71874426?searchTe...
…no, they didnt, in fact they urged him to do the opposite: to ramp it up as fast as possible, precisely to stop the damage the drugs were causing to black communities.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/16/212620886...
The linked material came out on NPR in 2013, before it was decided that the history needs to be revised. I recommend taking a look at it before it is also revised, to remove all references to what had actually happened, to how black leaders were main force behind the War on Drugs.
Makes sense to me
>Use of crystal meth in the United States exploded in the early 1990s. Between 1994 and 2004, methamphetamine use rose from just under two percent of the U.S. adult population to approximately five percent.
Like angry people, the vast majority of folks don't turn to violent crime, especially if other avenues exist. Society can provide this if necessary and we already have laws concerning violent crime that we can use.
I'll note that most of us pass addicted people every day when we leave the house. Most of them, you simply won't know they are addicted and if you are normal, you'll probably assume a person or two is addicted, yet they are not.
Yeah, people high on meth do crimes. But at least if the stuff is legal they won't do crimes to buy meth.
https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-cali...
Basically the whole legal drug movement is targeted at non-addicts to let them pay a premium for a sanitary, legal, controlled experience. The political justifications for the movement are all about harm reduction. But the reality is that if you are an apothecary in SF, you don't really want junkies hanging out in your lobby, for the same reason that communities don't want junkies in their streets. Mental problems, theft, possible violence, behavioral issues -- it would chase away paying customers, and impose security and liability costs on them.
Those unwilling to pay for that more civilized experience go to the street. One important thing to remember is that legalization did not destroy the illegal market. They are different markets, although there is certainly overlap.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-l...
> told The New York Times in September that the black market price for an eighth of an ounce is around $20.
Just to share some Canadian numbers, in Ontario, CAD$3.57/gram at the low end through the government store. Of course you could purchase $10/gram or $15/gram if you wanted.
On the black market (clearnet) side, you're looking at around CAD$250 for 2 ounces, or CAD$4.45/g for some mix and match specials. I suspect you can sometimes find $99 ounces which is still $3.53/gram.
Can't really speak to quality of course. Not sure why California black market is going for $5.71/gram
The biggest difference between the black market and regulated market in Canada is the potency of edibles, or so I hear. Government wants to make sure nobody can get high if they mistakenly eat a box thinking its candy, which is kinda a problem if you want to get high.
It's not clear to me how the black market should go for more if you can just go into a legal place and buy there. What am I missing? Perhaps you need a prescription or something, and people can't get that, so they pay a premium on the black market? Or maybe the legal market limits how much you can buy? Something has to support a higher black market price, since after all it is more legal risk for the participants, and possibly things like risk of buying something unknown.
Or maybe the black market operates in places where there is no legal vendor and so can just charge more? Or they offer home delivery?
Government website in Ontario does free delivery. Same day in bigger areas for $8. https://ocs.ca/blogs/article/ocs-same-day-and-express-delive...
Retail shops usually charge more than government website. We're flooded with those too.
Licensed Producers are literally sitting on tons of unsold inventory that will likely never sell and never export, and now racing to the bottom on price to get some revenue.
There will be a shakeout.
Because of the above inventory problems, it's possible what you're buying from the legal market has been sitting on a shelf for a while, but under controlled atmosphere, that's not the end of the world. Some places also gamma irradiate their product, which some people have an issue with, but it does keep down microbiological risk and extend shelf life.
Each province has different pricing, so its possible some are just charging a lot more and the black market websites sell for the same price everywhere.
Illegal CA cannabis production supplied a huge fraction of total US demand.
Legalization worked in that it is now harder to smuggle illegal cannabis to surrounding states legalizing (and there might be a stronger push to actually find and catch smugglers now).
Also in a high tax state such as CA a lot of 'black market' prices might be skewed by individual growers selling to their immediate friends, etc. This would not translate to other drugs because they don't grow on uh weeds.
You pay more in the black market if you buy smaller amounts too - if your dealer will sell smaller amounts, that is.
I agree there shouldn't be a blanket decriminalization of drug use because it does alter judgement/motivation and make a theft or even violent crime more likely.
This reeks or propaganda based on a little bit of truth. Sure, being addicted to something warps your brain. It doesn't have to be drugs to do this, though. Gambling addiction is a menace for a subset of population too.
Sure, actually being on drugs will affect the way you think for a short time until it wears off. Some drugs might change your perspective on life (LSD and MDMA are common here).
But seriously: It also isn't as bad as you say.
Caffeine and nicotine aren't going to destroy your ability to make good decisions. Drinking moderately won't do that. You probably have worked with folks that were daily pot smokers your whole life without knowing. Some of them were alcoholics (admittedly, it'll warp some things, but a functional alcoholic tends to make good decisions to a point). A smaller number did heavier drugs occasionally: LSD a few times a year, cocaine 2-4 times a year.
And they've pretty much all retained the ability to make good decisions, even if they've made some you don't agree with.
Is wanting to do math a not good decision? Potentially, I guess.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you—addiction is a disease of forces and circumstances, for sure—but the level of “free will” present in any choice (or sequence of choices) is a certainly not amenable to a binary classification.
I've personally had 3 full doses, and I can't be sure of my own protection. I'm on medicine that moderately suppresses my immune system, and it is likely that I am not protected.
And I'm one of the lucky ones: Some folks simply can't be vaccinated or simply won't get any protection.
And this isn't even getting into the fact that the folks not getting vaccinated means there are more chances for the virus to change in ways that make the vaccine worthless.
Me - and others - depend on everyone that can get vaccinated to, well, get the freaking vaccine. Not getting the vaccine is putting others at risk. And this is with vaccines working as designed.
Since around early Summer Delta has been the dominant variant, which is extremely more transmissible.
Even if vaccinated, Delta still retains effective transmutability, though (maybe?) to a reduced degree even for fully vaccinated individuals.
Since we still don't have sufficient tests to do blanket systematic tests of the entire population on a regular basis, it's extremely difficult to find asymptomatic cases. I've never been notified of an exposure, and have not had symptoms that I could attribute to COVID, thus haven't ever been tested during the entire pandemic.
For all I know, the vaccines could be effective and I might have had an asymptomatic case from someone who's not using WA notify (Washington state's notification app system) and would never know it.
I worry about the risk of spreading the disease to those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, which will soon thankfully include ages 5+ in the US; but that still doesn't allow for providing strong resistance and immune system training to the youngest children.
If vaccine works to protect people who are vaccinated, but does not significantly reduce transmissibility, why force it on people who don't care about being protected? Do they not have a right to make their own choices when it comes to their own bodies? If not, why do we want to give people right to choose taking drugs, given their highly detrimental effects on their bodies and on their lives, in addition to high risk of overdose and death? This all seems completely incoherent to me.
The vaccines still do seem to reduce infection among those who are exposed, and contribute to reducing (even if no longer eliminating) how contagious someone is when they are infected.
Combined with mask use while in public situations...
* Strangle out and eradicate the disease, or at least make very rare.
* Vastly decrease the load on our EMS and hospitals, which they could DIRELY use after almost 2 years of this BS and several waves of "beyond really bad" a year.
* Protect those who are not YET eligible for a vaccination, and who's parents hold views that prevent these innocents for receiving the most protection for disease possible.
* Reduction of spread, even if it doesn't eliminate the disease, will deprive it of chances to mutate which is better for everyone overall. Successful mutations will be like Delta vs Alpha, anything that we consider worse, relative to existing strains.
I would like the pandemic to END sometime, and we aren't getting there until as many as possible GET the vaccine and we finish the job of arming everyone to win the war.
mutations could bring about a spanish-flu style pandemic in the young so i agree it's not a good time to get comfortable yet.. but i'm not sure i agree with mRNA vaccines being forced on all (especially kids) without long term study data. especially when subunit and inactivated vaccines for the S1 protein now exist
Take this to its logical conclusion, please. It's the big bang's fault!
Return to gravitational singularity, and all that.