The Drug Wars and Gun Violence wars have been a thing for a long time...

Both are capable of being harmless and even beneficial but also potentially very dangerous.

Answer is to legalise both but keep them controlled and supervised. Allow the benigne and helpful effects to proliferate while cracking down on the harmful effects.

>That's like saying you would either allow or ban both wood working and recreational nuclear weapon use
Neither of those are grave societal problems people face in America.

The point is that those two problems are not interlinked. There is no reason to asume that the "right" way to approach drugs is also the "right" way to approach guns. That's what I tried to make clear by my over the top example.

Switzerland uses Heroine, not methadone. Basically they give free sugar to hardcore addicts because it is cheaper than to have them diseasing around.

Tell me more about your game/mod?

This, no idea why you would link both in the first place.

>Switzerland uses Heroine, not methadone
That doesn't sound very sensible to me. I mean, Methadone is used for a reason after all

Two similar ideology are pushed by both parties but with different problems. Both sides take the opposite opinion on both matters.

Problems of drug dealers and gun violence are linked. As the solution to both of the problems are, from each party, to ban one or to liberalize the other.

They use both, reason was they had this huge open drug scene and all that comes with it and needed to do something.
They ended up giving free heroin to the junkies to get them under control, kicked out all the foreigners, let the cops have a sledge ride with every dealer gang who wasn't smart enough to leave town and hired an army of social workers and medics to clean the junks up. Now a junky would suck cock for sugar and for clean medical heroin they even wash themselves, clean up their flat and work part time in a record shop or bicylce repair. sure there is methadone therapy for those that want to quit, and for the rest of the fuck ups it is $5 worth of legal heroine a day and everybody is happy, no more crime, no more aids, police has time for important thinks like parking tickets and playing loud music at night and lots of taxes was waved.

What ideology exactly?
The problems with drugs stem from their illegality. (Is that a word?) People are indirectly harmed because when selling drugs is illegal, people who do it do it illegaly, with no regards to laws, (Which they are breaking anyway) with no regards to standards (Who are you gonna complain to if your heroin is shit?) and no regards to bystanders. Same goes for the addicts themselves. They are harmed because they can't get help in any meaningful way, they commit crimes to fuel their addiction and they are themselves always on the verge of being busted for possesion.
Legalizing it would solve all the problems listed above. Of course, it doesn't stop the use, if you have health concerns for your people as a whole, there is no evidence that usage is going up by legalization (See for example Portugal) and every health risk by using drugs is decreased due to higher quality products, better methods of ingestion and helpful open discussion about it.

Why are guns different?
Guns are not harmful because of the way they are dealt, there is no crime commited because someone wanted a gun and couldn't afford it. Most people who sell guns are also not breaking any other laws doing it and I'd guess that the number of direct victims of legal gun deals are very low. Guns are a topic because of their use alone and because of the added tension and potential for escalation they add to anything that happens. Every act of violence is potentially escalated by having access to a very potent killing tool. So of course the drug situation is made worse because of guns, but that about it with the parallels.

>Problems of drug dealers and gun violence are linked. As the solution to both of the problems are, from each party, to ban one or to liberalize the other.
Sorry fatties, but the world doesn't work this way. All or nothing solutions are for brainlets, so is connecting two separate problems for no reasons at all.

City-state management text game focusing on slavery and developing the slave owning society.
There's a loli mod for it on allthefallen

Not history
Not humanities
Fuck off

>bumping a dead thread with a fuck off pic
O hai OP

>go to vegas
>get a hotel room overloking a concerts
>throw bags of weed by the window
>dozens killed
>implying

prohibition has no effect on consumption, it diverts massive money to criminal rings, building them in multinational empires
the parallel does not apply to arms, which are much less profitable to smuggle, there have been arms smugglers since humanity exists, they never achieved the level of wealth and power that only appeared in the 60's with drug smuggling

>its not the gun, it's the man who kills
bitch please, tell me how a man with a knife can kill dozens before being stopped

>only the bad guys will have guns
them and the law. easier to spot a single drop of water on a table than in a bottle full of water. Illegl guns are harder to obtain and more expensive when the black market isn't pumped full by liitteral factory plants churning guns out by hundreds

prohibition of weapons make it harder for criminals to source and easier for law enforcement to monitor criminal sourcing

prohibition of drugs creates the biggest income criminal organizations could ever dream off. We are incapable of physically even making a dent in the traffic, while having no effect on consumption levels. Look up countries who have taken a more liberal stance on drugs and criminalization. HIV infection and heavy use of hard drugs decline, systematically, never fails

of all countries, you would expect the US to know best about externalities from psychoactives prohibition.

Jesus Christ

MODS MODS MODS

>Personally I'm for banning both
super retard

What's troubling you?

This line of thinking completely leaves out the reasoning behind both of those ideas:

>Drugs
Left: Legalize less dangerous drugs and regulate them
>People keep getting drugs anyway, it simply winds up becoming more dangerous to do so. Legalizing it allows us to track/tax the drug market and make it safer for users.

Right: Drugs remain illegal.
>Drugs are a detriment to humans and preventing people from getting them prevents people from suffering their debilitating effects. By making it illegal, we're reducing the number of people who will abuse them and thus reducing strain on medical care and improving the overall health of the population.

The end goal is similar, but the methods are different. Both attempt to reduce the dangerous effects of drugs, one side through providing better support for safe use, the other through removing use as much as possible. Both have issues when implemented (More prolific use through legalizing means more of the population is feeling their effects, bans lead to crime as people attempt to use drugs anyway.).

>Guns
Left: Ban civilian ownership of some or all guns.
>Removing the tools to commit large scale violence will make it more difficult for individuals to cause widespread harm, increasing safety of the population.

Right: Allow civilian ownership of firearms for the majority of the population.
>Allowing civilians to own their own weapons will increase their safety by improving their ability to defend themselves.

Same thing as above, two answers to the same problem.

You can go into even further comparisons with the death penalty and abortion, two things which are the same in essence (Taking of a human life), but have entirely different reasonings as to why they're valid.

I know one user made a good argument here as to America's anti-smoking campaign and how it could be applied to hard drugs to greatly reduce use if they were legalized. The idea was that adopting strenuous regulations and ramping up a media campaign to dissuade potential users would reduce the amount of the population who would use them.

Personally, I think you'd have more users in that situation than outright bans of course, but considering how expensive the war on drugs is, unless it's something like double or triple the amount of people taking up regularly using, I can't see it being a bad deal since it's likely to cost less than additional law enforcement, incarcerations, and the uptick in crime constitute.

I would say the issue with banning guns to increase the safety of the population only has an effect when the gun is used in a crime of opportunity, passion, or similar sporadic occurrence. For example, two guys get into a fight and one shoot the other dead, that's enabled because both could be legally carrying firearms and decide to settle their differences right then and there.

However, making firearms illegal, just by looking at various occurrences of mass violence across the world, wouldn't have much of an effect in those instances due to the prevalence of other methods used to commit those crimes. The recent example of a man using a truck to murder a number of people both in the US and in France certainly points to other methods employed by attackers to rack up a body count and the use of a homemade propane bomb on a London subway shows another. For sure these attacks can be slightly reduced by implementing laws on the removal of all potential articles that could be a danger to humans as well as increasing a security presence as a whole, but I think the most effective solution is to instead look at why these crimes are happening in the first place and reduce or remove the circumstances that lead them to fomenting at all. Doing so would be very likely to be more effective at combating the danger to people at large while still preserving as many rights as possible as well.

>prohibition has no effect on consumption
Factually wrong. In fact during the prohibition period, Americans saw a huge decline in alcohol consumption.

Drugs: require the victim's consent to hurt him
Guns: do not require the victim's consent to hurt him
Hmm... bit of a difference there.
My own take is that the US should legalize all drugs for adults, while maintaining roughly the current level of gun control.

Crack babies

True. That's a special and relatively rare case, though, and if Wikipedia is to be believed, the effects are not as bad as people feared in the 80s. In any case, I think this can be handled as a separate matter from the legality of drugs in general.

bump