Its always like this when arguing against the prohibition of drugs, because people intuitively take the position that "drugs are bad = prohibition good".
It might be super hard for you to question your own mind, but imagine that the prohibition actually INCREASES the problems caused by prohibition, so "drug abuse = bad, prohibition = WAY WORSE"

>That ego stroking

@Deleted User sure, sure, but you still keep switching to this one, in which you keep replying with absolutely empty replies, because you're an intellectually pretentious asshole who's ego is too large to admit defeat in an honest debate on an anonymous server?

Did you end the other debate like this?

"like this"? Like what? Like me trying to present simple arguments for two hours in a row to a person who literally admits to not reading my messages yet maintains to "debate" me ?

1) Prohibition hasn't achieved its goal after a century
2) To achieve it you'd need 24/7 surveillance

What's the argument here

I think you should be able to discern it by glancing at log. I've stated it several times.

@Deleted User Literally nothing.

Something about prohibition

Wouldn't be an issue if people enforcing a restriction put maximum efforts into it.

@Dasus argues prohibition hasn't worked and is impossible to work

@Deleted User has absolutely nothing

Like if say you ban a Mexican product and you jail people for using

What does that do about the dealers

Or the growers

The mules?

@Deleted User It was supposed tk be for him, but I really did not care enough to debate about it.

You have to whack the entire supply chain

No exceptions

Hire criminals in Mexico to kill the drug lords and burn their fields

Well, I would maintain that I have tried, for two hours straight, to present formal, simple arguments and literally all of the peer reviewed published papers on the subject of drug policy reform, but @Deleted User keeps maintaing that his conversation has never had a start and just suddenly burst into existence and has no mentions of any arguments about anything.

In truth here in the U.S. politicians make money from illegal drug trade so those kikes want to jail people for abusing but keep the dealers and growers intact

@Deleted User Sorry, doesn't work, new ones will take their place, because of basic economic principles.
Literally the most basic form is here

1) Prohibition hasn't achieved its goal after a century
2) To achieve it you'd need 24/7 surveillance

@Dasus >peer reviewed published papers

From 420blazeit.com I bet

Okay new ones take their place and you continue hacking the head of the hydra off

Make a damn machine to trim it

So it's only ever a minor issue

And is thus manageable

they also make money from pharmacies and people using their pills instead of marijuana

Illicit growing syndicates always blow up when you leave them untrimmed, and become major issues

You can lurk up to about 1:30 or something when this started when I first presented @Deleted User with these arguments, then provided him a peer reviewed decade long study on the matter, which he didn't read, then presented him with a 10 minute video from an ex US police captain explaining why the prohibition is harmful to society and when he ignored that I presented a 2 minute video, which he also ignored.
Then he keeps repeating the position that there is no arguments anywhere and none of this conversation ever happened.

@wizzy#5578 This x1000

So your solution to the drug problem is to let it go?

And allow capitalist pharma companies to grow (make) and distribute drugs?

Do you know that after the US invaded Afghanistan their opium production increased 40x?
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Afghan-Opium-Production-40-Times-Higher-Since-US-NATO-Invasion-20160831-0003.html

What no?

Indeed it did. (((International Capitalists))) make a lot of money off of opium products

Pried it from local farmers by force and gave it to our companies