Crack use in the UK has increased 44% in the last two years

I don't know what to even say

it's like you want chaos

you're legalizing drugs to kids

Weaboo is a brainlet

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/directors/thomas-insel/blog/2014/are-children-overmedicated.shtml

If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, no one would do anything wrong

and I don't just mean children, I mean mental kids

Dr. Insel <:dab:395562678153904128>

@Banjod As if Americans don't legally drug up their kids?

```The latest estimate from the National Center for Health Statistics reports that 7.5 percent of U.S. children between ages 6 and 17 were taking medication for “emotional or behavioral difficulties” in 2011-2012.2 The CDC reports a five-fold increase in the number of children under 18 on psychostimulants from 1988-1994 to 2007–2010, with the most recent rate of 4.2 percent.3 The same report estimates that 1.3 percent of children are on antidepressants. The rate of antipsychotic prescriptions for children has increased six-fold over this same period, according to a study of office visits within the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.4 In children under age 5, psychotropic prescription rates peaked at 1.45 percent in 2002-2005 and declined to 1.00 percent from 2006-2009.5```

you're living in a delusion of equality and godlike free will

https://mises.org/library/economics-prohibition-0 This is a good book on the subject.

The mortality rate in dozens of European countries from substance abuse is higher than the murder rate in the worst African and Hispanic countries

@Banjod We don't beleive in equality

There's a substantial market of unprescribed pysch med use too

we?

dude

what you are doing is crazy talk

it's like giving monkeys drugs

It worked in Portugal.

people who are compeltely lost can't have this room of freedom

Lol fuck them.

"It worked in Portugal"

fk them

you're in it, you donkey

they vote

Cause reports of drug abuse crimes went down

@Banjod Abolish democracy too then

ok

so you admidt to being a loon

this i9sn't going to happen

It's not like legalising all drugs is a motion that would pass in democracy.

If they aren't crimes any longer of course they aren't reported as often

and it's a complete fairytale

Guys please understand that weaboo is mentally defective on the best of days and right now he is sleep deprived

it's not a solution

which is why you shouldn't be taken seriously

Drug prohibition is a fairy tale

and luckily, you arent

That's Portugal's only success, reducing the number of reported drug related offences

it's not a fairy tale becuase it's happening

No, they literally have no reason to happen. @Leaf

you don't seem to understand the difference between what is possible and what is not

It isn't, though.

you want some fantasy because it's "the right thing to do"

inj your mind

So do you

not caring aobut consequences

yes, if you legalize something, there aren't going to be as many offences related to it 😂

no

I am dealing with the world as it is

you're dealing with the world as you wish it were

Yes, because why kill eachover over a product that is now sold on the wider market? People don't buy drugs from armed thugs when given the choice.

no, because its not illegal to do or traffick in it anymore

I tell you, you can't do X, even if it was possible

then you tell me we need to do Y as well, which can't happen

No, because there are no crimes related to it, you don't need gangs or criminal orgs to traffic drugs. @Nerthulas

No armed cartels are necessary when you have no government to prohibit your product.

I dont think weaboo knows the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation and I think the chances are that what he actually stands for is decriminalisation

your solution to fantasy is literally just deeper fantasy

It's true though

Why am I wrong?

jf deleted stream );

not wrong

Better safe than sorry

the gang violence isn't what is really important, what is important is the effect on the society

legalize all drugs

These are dark times indeed

I have deleted tonight's video because although it was fair use, it has been targeted unfairly by a YouTube bot for copyright violation. I will reupload on bitchute later. This is to prevent a false strike.

Why would cartels exist if there wasn't prohibition? I mean violent cartels. Mexican cartels. Not your broad pedantic definition of a cartel.

I agree with Billy Ray but disagree with Weaboo Kempeitai

based

once again you don't know what a cartel is

@Nerthulas No effect on society when druggies are discriminated against.

I'll tell you why you're wrong, just as I did how, you have been listening to too many of these speakers, and now you're just saying back what they have said, without really thinking it through @Weaboo Kempeitai

No, I haven't.

@Weaboo Kempeitai reread your last satement

you clearly ahve

too much or too many

and or*

look at this statement

think about this for one second

think about how retarded this is

is there any where else that simon rouche interview would be? JFs last stream just got deleted on youtube

you just woke up one morning and thought of all this crazy rambling?

scroll up

Bring an addict isn't economically viable.

Hahahaha

You think that will stop them?

being a neet isn't economically viable

that means the economy is smaller

u dolt

No, but they'll die out quickly.

that's an effect on the society

look, even if we were in your fantasy, people aren't making rational choices

No they wont if you make the drug easier to obtain

There are private charities that pay them not to reproduce.

I have no idea why you think they do

You fucking muppet

Read The Economics of Prohibition.

having fewer economically viable people ***IS*** an effect on the society u dolt

It's so absurd

you're crossing way too many bridges

We have too many drug addicts so we ought to make the substances they abuse more easily accessible and this will resolve the issue

>he wants to live in a society

lol!

Nothing worked in Portugal, nor Canada, where these kinds of policies have been implemented

Prohibition makes drugs more potent. It actively creates more addicts, who will go onto to commit property crimes to feed their addictions. This is also the main incentive for private actors to exclude addicts.

the thing you don't understand is

even if tyou started with a perfect population

you need extreme laws to not degenerate

there is less drug use under prohibition than without it

every time

humans will be humans.

>nothing worked

also, not all prohibitions are similar cases

>didn't try abolishing welfare

ok

let's "try it"

oh, we can't?

@Banjod How are property rights not enough? It's literally a net loss to keep addicts around.

no we can't

too many parasites

so it' not a solution

you desperately want it to work out that prohibition does EVERYTHING worse, that there will be MORE people on drugs under prohibition

its clownish

stop paying taxes

it's your duty

Again, read The Economics of Prohibition.

it' not enough because things are not static

have you read locke?

no, I don't think I will

have yo?

its nonsensical, and has never been the case in any prohibition that I know of

Why not? It's probably better researched than any argument I'll ever make. And discord isn't the place for debates, anyway.

I have no need to

@Nerthulas You've never read it, how can you say it's nonsensical?

I know alcohol use was reduced under prohibition

I'm not saying it is

I'm saying you are

Read the book.

if the claim that you're making is actually one of the theses of the book, then the book is nonsensical and not empirically based as well

In my country, there are what we call 'safe injection sites' being opened in many metropolitan zones, which are effectively government funded opium dens

but I doubt that is one of their claims

have you read the book?

me rn

we already tried not having a welfare system

you know what happened?

No

we got a welfare system

In the cities where these policies have been implemented most actively, the annual rate of overdose deaths has increased, not declined

Use has also increased

We can both read the book, and discuss the merits of its arguments.

okay, so you want me to read a book that you haven't read, which you claim says something that I now is empirically not true

Almost doubling, in both cases

no, I don't need to

I literally don't need to

its an empirical fact that under prohibition, alcohol use was reduced

not only that, but its repeatable

it literally doesn't matter to this guy whats what

what matters is his feelings

I never said he claimed drugs didn't reduce consumption, though I'm pretty sure such statistics are completely unreliable anyway.

about what is right

a repeatable phenomenon under many scenarios

yes, you're right its pure feeling

Next prohibition will be on non-reproductive sex acts

he wants so badly for prohibition of something to INCREASE its usage

<:AIDS:397209911567581185>

By 2024

just because of ideology

PURE

ideology

schniff

@Nerthulas you literally don't know if he makes that argument.

neither do you

Now you're just strawmanning.

but I know you made it

But such stats are unreliable

Muh empiricism

😂

"muh evidence"

How can the government measure the black market? A market they have zero control over. Why would a citizen openly admit to consuming alcohol at a time where it was a crime? I can't trust the studies methodology.

I've made this argument before and you've completely failed to address it.

"you think that EVIDENCE can cause me to disbelieve in my ideology?!?"

*scoffs*

Yes

I have no reason to trust the evidence.

It's flawed.

its the best measures that we have

You can't measure the consumption of an item on the black market, not effectively. It's the black market.

the measures were consistent

They're unreliable measures.

you want to get rid of the black market?

not really, no

start killing them

death penalty

👏🏿 👏🏿

Not worth considering.

do drugs?

die

there

fixed the whole thing

ideology folks

not even once

this is your brain on it

Poo poo

see, weaboo

i fixed it

you can measure everything

i didn't go to the root cause; I just nuked the whole thing

As punitive measures against drug use in my country have liberalised and accommodation for drug users has increased, in a period of four years, drug related hospitalisations increased by 30%, in 2018 nearly 5,000 people died, equal to about one every two hours

The drugs they are overdosing on are procured ***legally*** from pharmacies

"buuut muh studies! muh numbers!"

Why is empiricism reliable? Why should I trust stats?

"but they're the best we have"

Dosen't change anything. It's not good enough.

"let's just have people do x"

how

how do you just get there

ou can't force them

you just open the gates to chaos and hope for the best

No

if its not good enough

then your ideology is not even worth considering

if the stats aren't good enough

Lmao

no?

then whatever you think is just straight trash

you just said let them die

Yes, fuck your stats. Prove they're reliable.

lower than not good enough

13,000 people died in a period of two years in my country from overdose on addictive prescription medication

Now you're just seething with rage but can't even substantiate your claims.

Putin decreased alcohol use in his country 42% by policy

lol

Who is seething

who is seething

me

Putin is doing a good job

I'm the seether

I think we all know who is

rn

<:CHAD:396569198404435969>

<:impotentrage:552803856535257090>

It's just absurd

your ridiculous claims have been thoroughly debunked

Alcoholism is one of Russia's biggest problems