> Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack
This seems like you’re implying that stricter enforcement and tougher punishments are useless?
I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew.
Im certainly no expert though, and what often seems to be missing from these conversations is actual experts who research and actively work amongst these addicted and homeless people.
It’s wild how often we have conversations about incredibly complicated and wildly nuanced subjects with very little back and forth from those with far more expertise than ourselves. Then we scratch our heads and tilt our heads in confusion.
>I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew.
Drug use has grown much faster under the current regime of tolerance of drug use. There were lots of problems with the war on drugs, but the idea that it didn't reduce drug use isn't based on evidence.
As an analogy, skin cancer had been rising despite sunscreen.
Do you have any actual evidence of this? I would love to see it. I wouldn't be particularly shocked either way to find that drug use has increased faster in places that decriminalized or not, but it's an important starting point for discussions. Assuming everyone is being honest in their data-gathering as well as consistent in methods.
Sure. For one, prohibition keeps the equilibrium price higher, which reduces equilibrium consumption. This RAND report from 2000 estimated a free market cocaine price would be 3% of the price under prohibition.
2nd, if you prefer a more direct account, this doctor describes the effects of BC's safe supply program. Basically they bought opiods and gave them out for free to addicts. These were often resold, crashing the market price, increasing consumption of these as a gateway drug. This is to illustate the expected effects of a lower price: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-we-must-end-...
Overall legal production is generally cheaper, and a cheaper price produces higher equilibrium use. You could of course tax legal drugs, but you'd need a war on illegal supply to enforce that.
Addiction may have been the root cause of GP's assault, but there are any number of reasons you may be attacked in broad daylight. Despite the risk of prosecution to the perpetrator, many thousands are assaulted every year. Not even the threat of the noose kept the Old West safe.
In the face of imminent threat, only personal preparedness is of value.
This seems like you’re implying that stricter enforcement and tougher punishments are useless?
I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew.
Im certainly no expert though, and what often seems to be missing from these conversations is actual experts who research and actively work amongst these addicted and homeless people.
It’s wild how often we have conversations about incredibly complicated and wildly nuanced subjects with very little back and forth from those with far more expertise than ourselves. Then we scratch our heads and tilt our heads in confusion.