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