THE PERFECT DRUG POLICY

You are now the leader of your own ideal society. Your next task is deciding your countries drug policy. You can be as lax as Portugal or as extreme as the Philippians, or even more so. How do you proceed? Assume no diplomatic pressure from other contries after your decision.

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/indonesia-plans-to-use-crocodiles-to-guard-death-row-drug-convicts
archive.is/7FE9f
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I outlaw all drugs but people can smoke sage.

All drugs are legal and can be sold with regulations and taxes on par with alcohol.

Advantages:
>defund all gangs
>bankrupt drug cartels
>eliminate all the violence associated with the drug trade
>prison costs plummet
>LE costs plummet
>degenerates kill themselves by overdosing

Disadvantages:

legalize all drugs but people who do "hard drugs" are not entitled to any kind of medical care for any illness.

If you have socialized medicine like some faggot country maybe. If an insurer wants to pay for a druggies bills, and the druggie is willing to pay for it, they can.

Decriminalize drug use and trade as much as I can without getting embargoed. Enjoy hard currency earnings from countries that kept the drug prohibition, while freeing the cops and penal system to fight actual degeneracy, like pornography and human trafficking. As a bonus point, I get unconditional support from "dude weed" crowd that would normally be inclined to oppose my other policies.

of course I'm talking about public hospitals, clinics, and other health services funded by the government.

millionaire junkies who can afford private care is as rare as precious stones.

Put all the drugs in prison.

Basically this, realistically I would go full Duterte on opioid sellers and users.

Let the fucking shits that want to do molly, weed, LSD. I have no want for it, but tax these motherfuckers like I am being taxed for buying a fucking drink. I'd probably put some pretty fucking severe fines and jailtime on faggots driving while under the influence. I've seen fags on weed going for a drive and heard about LSD dosed assholes doing the same.

/thread

driving on acid is great fuck off nigger

Kill all drug users or imprison them, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. It's like committing suicide you are not in a right mindset.

The amount of people shlliling for drugs is further proof there retards here, have no idea on how drugs can ruin communities and have no sense of nationalism or morality to their fellow man. Gas yourself degenerates

this, except for
>degenerates kill themselves by overdosing
instead, use some of the tax generated to help those who can't help themselves

You don't need to be a millionaire to afford health insurance; you just need a job. Of course this is a bonus because then no niggers will get any medical treatment. (I agree with you 100% if the health treatment is state funded).

Make EVERYTHING legal. Even prescription drugs.

That incentivizes a new poor druggie class which gets gibs for being shitty people. If you're going to do anything, make it unpleasant and a net detraction to their lives while they're going through it, or it will be heavily abused.

Perfect drug policy:
>first go Philippines style by clearing up the crime and misery it has caused
>then go Portugal by decriminalizing softter drugs like pot and heroine that don't make the user go nuts
>keep hard stance against dangerous drugs like meth, crystal meth, bath salts, things that can get you on an uncontrollable psychosis

the junkies I know can't even hold a job as a street sweeper.

minimum wage won't even get you past a quack doctor.

>As a bonus point, I get unconditional support from "dude weed" crowd that would normally be inclined to oppose my other policies.
You mean until they find out you'll send them to jail for their fap material.

All drugs are fully legalised, marijuana edibles are available in vending machines across the country. All alcohol age laws lifted, zero restrictions. Ribbed condoms and lube handed out to toddlers. Pedophilia legalised.

Philippians. If that, or speaking to liberals about, has taught me anything, it's that druggies will tolerate any level of corruption, so long as they get their fix. They will actively defend the corruption, if they are also responsible for the drug supply.

No methadone for the junkie's cold sweats and diarrhea

I think something like resources to help people with addiction that is funded by the drug generated taxes is a good idea, and that wouldn't be gibs that niggers could live off of. I think that's what Ausbro was talking about. Also, it helps people who want to help themselves, like people who hit a rough patch or whatever, while letting the dregs of society who want to kill themselves and are beyond help actually kill themselves (which is what I meant by "degenerates" in my first post).

yep, they won't get even a simple paracetamol.

Psychadelics, Weed, Tobacco, and Alcohol are legal. MDMA can be purchased but is limited to twice a year purchases. Opiates and Amphetemines are decriminalized, but you're going to rehab if caught. If caught twice it's off to the Alaskan wilderness with you. Dealers go straight to the wilderness.

Isn't PhilHealth going 100% soon?

It's called, Filipinos ya bitch, not "Philippians"

All chemicals are legal.
Consumption is not regulated.
Chemical production is regulated for purposes of verifying quality, and non-verified chemicals must be distinctly labeled.

Actively being a danger to others is illegal, with various regulations on what qualifies. Eg. heavy equipment operation under X list of common chemicals. It is punished similarly to a DUI in the US.

What would they do? Give out pamphlets? If you start offering free healthcare for symptoms then you'd see people chugging mouthwash just to get their liver checked out, etc. Not everyone would, but it would be a significant tax burden.

>not the Indonesian crocodile island

This.

All drugs legal. Boom drug cartels and crime eliminted almost completely overnight.

Would require parents to actually give a fuck about raising their children properly with "do not take any medicines or drugs you are unsure about".

Sadly there's always those dumbfuck kids out there that will just take anything without thinking like a guy I know who did junk MDMA for a week straight with his friends and landed up in a psych ward with temporary psychosis.

>the junkies I know can't even hold a job as a street sweeper
And I agree with you entirely that they don't get health benefits.
>minimum wage won't even get you past a quack doctor.
certainly, no government health gibs if you are a druggie, but if you can afford health insurance, there's no reason you shouldn't get it. If you're a loser making minimum wage, don't do drugs, but my point was that you don't have to be a millionaire to afford health insurance (here in the states), although the ACA is doing a good job of changing that...

But is still shit, like any government service

theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/indonesia-plans-to-use-crocodiles-to-guard-death-row-drug-convicts

Archive it for me nordarchiver

Here's the archive
archive.is/7FE9f

No limits, but if you consume or have consumed within the last 2 years;

- nicotine
- alcohol
- marijuana
- any drug "above" this
- certain amounts of sugar per week

you completely lose any and all universal health coverage and must pay either out of pocket or with insurance.

No degenerates fucking up my healthcare system.

I didn't say free healthcare, I'm talking about things like addiction therapy. Even if you want to add some medical costs to that, it's pretty easy to filter out the repeat offenders. What exactly did you think I meant? Free healthcare for life if someone has symptoms of abuse?

well yeah, I mean, we can't impose this on private care providers. at the same time, nothing's stopping them to use their own initiative and turn away druggies.

All drugs legal.

>Drug cartels operations to corporations
>Increased revenue from increased use, propeled by advertising
>Criminals too stoned to steal or kill
>Police not needed anymore
>Billions saved
>Population transcends consciousness
>Golden Age of Philosophy
>Alcohol and Tobacco consumption crashes due to legal highs
>Health and Well-being increases 300%
>Many cancers no longer a thing
>GDP increased massively
>Government budget bloats from tax revenue

Why haven't we legalized drugs again, guys?

>Everything legal to use in own home
>all products must be regulated by the FDA or whatever its called
>advertising any drug for recreational use is illegal (including alcohol and sigs)
>public use is illegal (except for places with a permit for specific drugs, so that bars can get a permit for alcohol and sigarets,or someone can start a meth den if they want)
>Make it legal for businesses to discriminate based on a persons drug use if it impairs their work
>Use tax money to fund one (1) free rehab stay per person

Alcohol is permitted but crimes committed while intoxicated have penalties doubled.
No limit or regulation on sales, anyone can sell and serve, no age limit. The only tax applied would be sales taxes if those are in effect.

A reasonable high blood alcohol limit, 0.14 or something close to that. However traffic infractions carry the double penalty. You can be drunk in public so long as you don't violate any other law. Safety requirement jobs have a 0 limit.

Everything else from Tobacco up is illegal with penalties for dealers or distributors starting at death and scaling up to death by torture.
Punishments for users start at 1 year in prison for tobacco, and scale up to death for repeat offenders of meth or opiates.

The police will never conduct a no knock raid, and privacy rights are fundamental. A traffic stop has an upper time limit and searches by dogs or equipment can't be waited for. Stop and frisk would be illegal.
Tourists that violate the law at customs would be subject to a scaling punishment depending on amount and suspected intent.

No laws on carrying medication in non marked containers or anything stupid like that.
Opiate painkillers would only be prescribed in extreme cases and abuse carries the same penalties.
Marijuana isn't medicine and wouldn't be prescribed to anyone.
Industrial uses for marijuana would be legal however, selling it as a recreational drug would carry normal death sentences for selling drugs.

Legalize marijuana and slap a 100% tax on it, licenced sellers only, selling without licence 10 years prison.
Punish all other drugs, both distrubution and possession, with death by firing squad.

>nothing's stopping them to use their own initiative and turn away druggies.
exactly, and that should be allowed. If you want to be a druggie, the consequences are on you, and the gubment isn;t paying for it.

>make all drugs legal and tax them moderately

>Continue jailing and killing cartels/people who broke the law before it was legalized

>Legalize firearms for honest citizens in case cartels fragment and begin branching to other crimes

>Use the taxes to educate kids on the dangers of drugs, responsible drug use, and educate them on why people falsely believe drug addiction is a way out of their life's problems

>Use taxes to educate single mothers and fathers on how to prevent their kids from using drugs, give them counseling in general to produce good children

>Use the taxes to help addicts out of their addiction, help them with jobs and give them a purpose in life

>Give non violent, small-time traffickers an opportunity to settle their debt with society with a small sentence

>Use taxes to fund research of benefits of drugs which can be used to promote new, non addictive medical products

>Use taxes to fund research that quantifies social, physical, and monetary damage that drugs cause

Did I miss anything? Do you see any issues with these policies?

i would decriminalize every drug. you would get grade a heroin and from drug stores for very cheap price. would treat weed just like another plant, how people use it, is not the governments buisness.
would encourage buisnesses to research psychedelics and marijuana for medical and other purposes.

Government programs tend to bloat over time. If you give them access to a doctor, for example, that doctor will try to argue that they need to treat anything they find, and that the patient is in no position to pay. I know it sounds like a slippery slope argument, because that's exactly what it is.

>Why haven't we legalized drugs again, guys?
Go read about the Opium Wars, then come back.

>40 seconds
how?

>Implying we haven't had similar excuses to invade developing countries since.
I'll just put my petrodollars over here then.

Uh.. what?

>he thinks the opium wars were about opium and not just a convenient excuse for the euro empires to assrape china

But those are dumb chinks trying to IL-legalize drugs and getting BTFO'd for their trouble. Also that's hundreds of years ago.

It's fairly easy to create a script in Python or whatever that checks every new post, and if it finds an url it just submits it to the archive and posts it back to the thread.

They were about opium, at least about the UK selling opium to China to destroy the Chinese economy and reverse the trade imbalance of silver payments from Europe to China.

>"china or some other country would never immediately hop on an opportunity to assrape america"

>Also that's hundreds of years ago.
Has the nature of man or opium changed?
If you make opium legal huge amounts of your population will become users and addicted.

Addiction is a myth

Yeah, just how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is the ONLY reason WW1 happened and if he lived, WW1 wouldn't have happened.

Trigger for war =/= cause of war
For instance: the trigger of the Iraq war was "Saddam has WMDs" whereas the cause of the Iraq war was "Saddam wants to sell oil in euros"

I get what you're saying man, but we're talking about an "ideal scenario", or maybe that's just my mindset. I guess I just think that if you're going to allow any and all drug use, and get taxes for it, it's not unreasonable to use some of that new tax revenue (that you wouldn't have otherwise) to provide resources to prevent addiction, in particular for people who aren't chronic users.

Do you think that's reasonable? If yes, do you have an idea that might work?

The opium wars were about trade, not drugs. The only reason drugs were relevant was because the brits were pumping the place full of it for money. The negative societal effects are similar regardless of what is being "harshly negotiated".

Big countries bully smaller countries into selling them things and buying their other things at less than market rates. This sometimes takes wars. The opium wars were among these.

maybe you should provide an argument from Opium Wars instead of saying
>LOL JUST GO LOOK IT UP STOOPID

If you let them suffer the consequences they will shape up on their own, or die and be replaced by those who can.

Yeah, but user. If you keep addicts alive, then they'll keep buying drugs; it's just good business. And since they'll die earlier than the average non-user, society won't have to deal with any kind of geriatric care, which is expensive as fuck.

>wet blanket
Yeah but it's pretty clear from his replies over the last few months that Nordbot isn't a bot. I guess he could have a script that archives shit and alerts him through his phone and he can post his own message?

Yep

>Yeah, just how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is the ONLY reason WW1 happened and if he lived, WW1 wouldn't have happened.
It was barely even the trigger.
>For instance: the trigger of the Iraq war was "Saddam has WMDs" whereas the cause of the Iraq war was "Saddam wants to sell oil in euros"
The cause of war was Saddam invaded Kuwait because he though it was fine with the US government to do so.
After losing in the 90s the Iraq government almost instantly violated the terms of the cease fire restarting the war.
The 2000s invasion was because Saddam had been in constant violation of the terms of both the cease fire and UN resolutions. Iraq did not comply with weapons inspections. To see how weapons inspections should be done look at what South Africa did.

Anyway, what does that have to due with the Opium Wars? China attacked the UK to try and stop the trade of Indian Opium into China. They actually fought two different wars for the exact same reason. The Opium trade only stopped when the population of the UK turned on the government believing that addicting a population to opium for monetary gain was immoral.

I don't know of any method of converting money into cures for addiction.

If people aren't chronic users then they're not addicted. If they're not addicted yet they won't use the program. If they are addicted, they are already chronic users.

Important to keep the addicts healthy enough to keep buying the drugs, too. McD is a great model for that style of business.

Nordbot has a bot, but also posts himself. Since it's the same IP, it gets the same flag and ID

>The opium wars were about trade, not drugs. The only reason drugs were relevant was because the brits were pumping the place full of it for money. The negative societal effects are similar regardless of what is being "harshly negotiated".
>Big countries bully smaller countries into selling them things and buying their other things at less than market rates. This sometimes takes wars. The opium wars were among these.
China attacked the UK to end the trade of drugs because such a huge amount of the population was addicted. The UK was trading opium because it was the only good they had to trade that China 'wanted' other than being paid in silver and gold.

The Opium Wars were only about opium, not some mythical trade of goods between the UK and China.

>I don't know of any method of converting money into cures for addiction.
There's no pill that magically cures it but there are effective treatments.
>If people aren't chronic users then they're not addicted.
That's simply false. An obvious counterexample is people who become addicted to opioids because they took pain killers after a surgery.

>If you let them suffer the consequences they will shape up on their own, or die and be replaced by those who can.
They will turn to crime first. Subjecting your population to a crime wave just because you think you have a good drug policy by letting people personally learn the hard way is retarded.

China attacked the worlds largest power in two different wars to try and stop the trade of opium because so many Chinese were addicted it was causing mass economic disruption up to famine due to a lack of workers.

It would be like Australia attacking the US to try and stop the US from selling something to them. Starting a war, losing it, then a few years later starting another war for the exact same reason.
China knew they were going to lose, they had no hope at all for victory but did it twice because that was a better option that doing nothing.
If that doesn't cast a glimmer of the seriousness of the opium problem I'm not sure what would.

If you think legalization is a good policy for opium then if you want to make a factual argument you should be aware of the times in history of defacto mass legalization of opium.

>There's no pill that magically cures it but there are effective treatments.

If you're talking about junkies and such, the recommended treatments are just less fun prescription drugs. In America, at least, the preferred treatment is to get people on something like Suboxone which is a partial agonist for all of those receptors.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of helping addicts out. It makes good sense socially and financially. There's no sense in investing all the money in educating a child just to let them die at age 24 before they get a chance to really pay it back in taxes, and it's even dumber to let people die when you're the one selling them drugs.

It's true that if you make things harder for people, then fewer people are going to do it, which is why there are more people injecting drugs in Seattle, where drugs are everywhere and needles are cheap / free than there are in prison, where drugs are expensive / rare and needles are used 100+ times.

We already have massive amounts of (violent) crime due to drugs being criminalized. Do you think that decriminaliing would create so many more addicts than we have now that the additional crime that some of them might commit would outweigh the elimination of virtually all current drug-related violence?

Most people that want drugs right now can already get them - it's not hard. Decriminalizing them doesn't break some dam that was holding back a flood of people who were just dying to do them if only they were legal. It just means you can now legally regulate them which completely eliminates the need for a black market from which most of the violent crime stems.

All drugs are legal but only in suppository form, and they come pre-coated with feces

Full legalization. Prohibition is immoral and only serves to enrich criminals both on the streets and in the government.

Legalization of everything. Let the idiots rid themselves out of the gene pool.

But criminalize operating any machinery while on anything, obviously.

drugs are mandatory anyone found not smoking weed will be executed on the spot

>If you think legalization is a good policy for opium then if you want to make a factual argument [sic] you should be aware of the times in history of defacto mass legalization of opium.
You're aware that there is an opioid epidemic in the US despite regulations and the fact that heroine is illegal, right?

Also, when you say
>defacto legalization
after stating two consequences of a problem that you haven't defined, you look like a moron?

You realize that the US spends a shit load of money trying to stop the trade of heroine right now (and marijuana, and pot...) because it's a massive economic burden and that these things are easy to get (i.e. defacto legal), right?

If you think criminalization is a good policy for drugs then if you want to make a factual argument you should be aware of the present time.

>use government funds to put out drugs laced with high potency poisons
>wait for the druggbois to either be scared straight or die

I'd suggest therapy first (or even only, in the context of state-funded treatment), not drugs, but if drugs are deemed appropriate, then of course you can prevent people from abusing the system.

>It's true that if you make things harder for people, then fewer people are going to do it, which is why there are more people injecting drugs in Seattle, where drugs are everywhere and needles are cheap / free than there are in prison, where drugs are expensive / rare and needles are used 100+ times.
I think your point is correct, but I don't think the difference in drug use between our current regulations and complete decriminalization would be very significant, and certainly not as drastic as prison vs. no regulation though I appreciate the point that regulation does have an effect. The reality is that now, drugs are incredibly easy to get.

Also, what's your stance on gun control?

>Libertarian
>Criminalize behavior on private property regardless of whether or not it affects other people
pick one

>All drugs are legal and can be sold with regulations and taxes on par with alcohol.

>Advantages:
>>defund all gangs
>>bankrupt drug cartels
>>eliminate all the violence associated with the drug trade
>>prison costs plummet
>>LE costs plummet
>>degenerates kill themselves by overdosing

>Disadvantages:
Gangs will fund themselves with all the other things they do.

Prohibition was actually very successful depending on what measures you gauge it.

Our drug policy has failed because it has not been implemented honestly. Our govt is literally in the heroin biz. See Afghanistan for example. There is also massive collusion in finance. See the HSBC money laundering scandal, for one.

So, legalizers have it wrong.

Existing addicts will be allowed to use with impunity.

All drugs will be prohibited, including alcohol and tobacco.

>therapy
Crackheads don't want therapy. Crackheads want crack.

PS I use crack as a catch all term for all drugs including weed. There's no practical difference between them.

i like it, long term strategy

Therapy is more expensive and less effective than treating an expensive, dangerous drug addiction with a safe, cheap one. Once the body is dependent on something like heroin, it'll need it just to approximate normal. Most people can heal over time with full abstinence, but it's tough for some to pull off when they're depressed and physically incapable of experiencing pleasure from regular life.

I think there would be a lot more drug use if it were decriminalized. I remember during the Oxy craze, when doctors were writing big prescriptions for all kinds of sketchy things, pills were cheap and everywhere. After they got shut down, it was suddenly harder to get pills, and the price went up. Like, way up. Lots of people quit, sure, but some people just can't handle sobriety and went to heroin, if they hadn't already gotten there.

I don't think dangerous people and the mentally ill should be able to get guns, but I'm not sure it's possible for the government to stop that from happening without fucking lots of good people over, so no thanks. I don't really think about gun control much. I live in WA state, where it's pretty darn easy to get a gun, and it doesn't bother me at all. I think the people in states should decide how they want to live in their states. These people in New York City who can't sleep at night knowing that someone miles and miles and miles away in Colorado can buy a gun, and worst of all, have the people living in Colorado be okay with that need to fuck off and mind their own business. In my opinion.

desu you can bankrupt drug cartels by napalming them and keep prison costs low by executing dealers after a trial that lasts two weeks max

prohibition fails because governments half-ass it
you can't have needle programs and amnesties if you want to remove drugs

I'd legalize the personal use, not for profit trade and possession of all drugs in any amount on private property but should you get caught selling even a gram of weed or smoking a joint at the park you get shot.

I'd also limit the sale of drugs to certain areas, mainly in malls, so that the constant traffic of degenerates is mostly contained and kept out of public sight. This way it's kept almost completely out of sight and mind of everyone except those already involved with the consumption of drugs and since all the profits would be government owned I'd use the money to gentrify the area where the drugs are sold to further drive the addicts inland leaving behind a much nicer area for normal people to enjoy.

>Gangs will fund themselves with all the other things they do.
Such as? Also, you're argument here is
>Cutting of the foundation of gang funding is a disadvantage to decriminalization because they have other sources of money
Are you retarded?

>Prohibition was actually very successful depending on what measures you gauge it.
Such as?

>Our govt is literally in the heroin biz. See Afghanistan for example.
Going to need specific claims and specific evidence of your conspiracy theory.

>There is also massive collusion in finance. See the HSBC money laundering scandal, for one.
Same comment as above but more importantly, what does this have to do with drug deregulation?

>So, legalizers have it wrong.
>So
You have failed to demonstrate "So" in the least, tiniest bit. You're a moron; don't use that word. Also off limits are "therefore" and "thus".

Still seems like a better alternative than the violence and misery caused by the war on drugs

>Crackheads don't want therapy. Crackheads want crack.
Had you red the whole thread (in particular, my first post) you'd realize that they aren't the one's I'm suggesting get therapy funded by drug dollarydoos.

Back in the day mafia types used to hijack cigarette trucks and sell cigarettes, to avoid the taxes. A person could make a pretty penny just buying cigarettes retail in South Carolina for $35 a carton and selling them in NYC.

He's being dumb though. The old rule that making things harder for people means that fewer people will do them applies to gangs too. Some of them would still find ways to make money, undoubtedly, but a lot of people would just go out of business, and the ones sticking it out would definitely be making less.

Total freedom.

The US does seem to tolerate Afghani farmers growing poppies for heroin, but that's probably just pragmatism. Destroying the fields would cause a lot of harm to folks without any real benefit to us, because Afghani heroin doesn't generally make it to the States in any quantity. It's not like trashing Afghanistan even more to make it a little bit harder to get heroin in Russia is a top priority, nor should it be.

That's the argument anyway, I think.

>Therapy is more expensive and less effective than treating an expensive, dangerous drug addiction with a safe, cheap one. Once the body is dependent on something like heroin, it'll need it just to approximate normal. Most people can heal over time with full abstinence, but it's tough for some to pull off when they're depressed and physically incapable of experiencing pleasure from regular life.
But that's just it: therapy is about healing over time with full abstinence. The whole point of therapy is to get you through that without using drugs.

>I think there would be a lot more drug use if it were decriminalized. I remember during the Oxy craze, when doctors were writing big prescriptions for all kinds of sketchy things, pills were cheap and everywhere.
Well yeah, doctors prescribing drugs to everyone who comes in with pain problems would of course increase the use of them. This isn't the same as drug-seeking behavior.

>After they got shut down, it was suddenly harder to get pills, and the price went up. Like, way up. Lots of people quit, sure, but some people just can't handle sobriety and went to heroin, if they hadn't already gotten there.
Well yeah, it was harder to get prescriptions because doctors stopped giving them and there wasn't a black market for them because there was no need. But they went to heroine DESPITE the fact that it was illegal. The access was already there regardless of the legality.

if you're a drug user, you get one shot at state-managed rehab, after which you get shot.
if you're a drug dealer, you get shot.
crimes committed under the influence of drugs (but not directly related to drugs) carry a sentence four times worse.

>I don't think dangerous people and the mentally ill should be able to get guns, but I'm not sure it's possible for the government to stop that from happening without fucking lots of good people over, so no thanks. I don't really think about gun control much. I live in WA state, where it's pretty darn easy to get a gun, and it doesn't bother me at all. I think the people in states should decide how they want to live in their states. These people in New York City who can't sleep at night knowing that someone miles and miles and miles away in Colorado can buy a gun, and worst of all, have the people living in Colorado be okay with that need to fuck off and mind their own business. In my opinion.
Also, literally agree with everything you said here and to be fair I was just trying to bait you into some kind of "government is/isn't allowed to regulate something because it's dangerous" comment.

>crimes committed under the influence of drugs (but not directly related to drugs) carry a sentence four times worse
agree with this type of policy 100%

This I would believe. Don't think it qualifies as
>Our govt is literally in the heroin biz LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLDURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR