Making a perfect Government

[Delta1212]

Yes, a publication can have bias, but if multiple studies from various publications says one thing, then the likelihood of bias is decreased. If you only one present one study against a multitude, claiming that the group of articles are all bias to one agenda is somewhat irrational.

Raider posted more links, not more studies.

 

One was a Newsweek opinion piece that included almost no numbers and failed to cite sources for a few assertions that I most wanted to follow up on. One was a study from a federal anti-drug enforcement organization. Two were reports on that same study and one was a very long police study that he admits he didn't even read, and until someone does, we have no idea where it falls.

 

He also posted one report saying that the program was a success, which Phi also cited.

 

So in total, we have exactly one study for each side and one report that nobody bothered to read, plus some links to various news organizations referring to one or the other previously mentioned study.

 

That's why I think we need some actual numbers posted in the discussion.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Delta1212

[Raider5678]

I think you may mean "fly in the face."

"Spit in the face" is rather hostile language.

Also, I'm going to go dig around for some numbers and see if I can figure out what the actual results are based on various stats. I find that when I look for articles, they're usually looking to push a narrative, one way or the other, so I'm going to see if I can get us a better organized list of raw numbers we can look at and discuss. I'm going out to dinner tonight, so I'm not sure what time I'll be done with it, but I'll try to post something before I go to bed at least.

Please do that

That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.

What I said was "More people get killed by anti drug legislation than by drugs."

and that's what I meant.

People die of overdoses because the drugs are not subject to legal control of their quality. People die in gang fights because the gangs deal in drugs because there's a lot of money in drug dealing because you have to bribe or otherwise evade the law.

And so on.

If the anti-drug legislation were not there much of the direct reason for the deaths would go away.

So..... Smokings good for you? How about acholoics? Drug addicts? If they were legal it would be easier to get to drugs. Can you, without a dought, say drug use will decrease if we were to make it legal?

 

 

 

 

Also, are there any other outcomes we want to add? I want to add less regulations on businesses.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

What does less regulation on business look like? What is the purpose of having less regulation on business? What does that accomplish?

 

 

Personally, when developing any system of rules, I think you should have in place the rules you need to accomplish what needs being accomplished and no more, but also no fewer.

[Ken Fabian]

Personally, when developing any system of rules, I think you should have in place the rules you need to accomplish what needs being accomplished and no more, but also no fewer.

Agreed. Personal freedoms may include drinking, smoking, gambling, recreational drugs etc that can and usually do result in harms beyond that to the individual. The balance between rules that work to reduce those harms and inhibiting personal choices isn't easy to find.

 

I'm a bit suspicious of simplistic policy slogans - like "harsh penalties for drugs" or "less regulation on business", that don't allow much space for the interconnecting complexities. Governments have a role to look beyond such truisms even whilst politicians and media seek to popularise them. Climate responsibility for example does not sit well with a simplistic goal of "less regulation", but in my view unregulated GHG emissions are a kind of institutionalised (traditional?) cheating that shifts the burden of the full costs of climate consequences away from those who are responsible for them - which includes those benefiting during their lifetimes from cheap energy, products and services as well as policy makers and fossil fuel exploiting and dependent industries - and puts them onto others that include people who have had little benefit. It's a kind of systemwide problem that individual 'free choice' and no regulation fails at.

 

Raider - it sounds like your ideal government would, for want of a better description, be more 'Conservative'. For others it would be more 'liberal' or 'progressive' or even more 'socialist'. Or be more representative of popular opinion or, as I've suggested, be more responsive to expert opinion. Is it 'good government' if it cannot accommodate and be inclusive of wide differences?

[Raider5678]

Agreed. Personal freedoms may include drinking, smoking, gambling, recreational drugs etc that can and usually do result in harms beyond that to the individual. The balance between rules that work to reduce those harms and inhibiting personal choices isn't easy to find.

 

I'm a bit suspicious of simplistic policy slogans - like "harsh penalties for drugs" or "less regulation on business", that don't allow much space for the interconnecting complexities. Governments have a role to look beyond such truisms even whilst politicians and media seek to popularise them. Climate responsibility for example does not sit well with a simplistic goal of "less regulation", but in my view unregulated GHG emissions are a kind of institutionalised (traditional?) cheating that shifts the burden of the full costs of climate consequences away from those who are responsible for them - which includes those benefiting during their lifetimes from cheap energy, products and services as well as policy makers and fossil fuel exploiting and dependent industries - and puts them onto others that include people who have had little benefit. It's a kind of systemwide problem that individual 'free choice' and no regulation fails at.

 

Raider - it sounds like your ideal government would, for want of a better description, be more 'Conservative'. For others it would be more 'liberal' or 'progressive' or even more 'socialist'. Or be more representative of popular opinion or, as I've suggested, be more responsive to expert opinion. Is it 'good government' if it cannot accommodate and be inclusive of wide differences?

Alrighty....

 

I meant making it a lot less harder for people to open up small buisnesses., not taking away air pollution regulations etc.

[StringJunky]

Legalization aside, decriminalization and emphasis on rehabilitation is clearly a better path.

If you define rehabilitation as giving up drugs for a good length of time (years), or for good, the rate is likely extremely low. In my city, according the local social services substance misuse team, it is less than 1% for those mandatorily coerced into their care. It's a joke really. Rehab can only come from within. I don't know what the answer is.

[iNow]

The fact is as it is. The experiment failed, multiple studies show it, in fact, most of them do.

Merely repeating an invalid claim doesn't magically render it true. Your "most studies" show it to be working amazingly well.

---

Merged post follows:

[/mp]

 

It's a joke really. Rehab can only come from within. I don't know what the answer is.

It's not throwing them into private prisons to rot, I do know that.

[mp]

 

Several good articles on legalization: http://www.economist.com/topics/marijuana

[StringJunky]

It's not throwing them into private prisons to rot, I do know that.

I forget, we are in different countries. There is a much more proactive program of rehab here in the UK for prisoners; they are way too soft. Here, they often get a choice of going to prison, or early release if already inside, if they join a monitored rehab program. They reoffend as soon as they are out and the social workers don't put them back inside because it makes them look incompetent and their statistics poor.

Edited May 27, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Seems there's a problem with how the social workers are being measured.

[StringJunky]

Seems there's a problem with how the social workers are being measured.

Absolutely. They are victims of the target-driven policies that are prevalent nowadays in professional life; it is here anyway. The consequence of this policy is that the bar is set very low as to what constitutes 'success'. I am one of their real success stories (free for 14 years) but I went into rehab voluntarily and wasn't compelled to. The two years I was with them and the fact I went to them on my own initiative allowed me access to the facts surrounding the rehabilitation process. It really works, using CBT, but only if you want to be helped.

[Raider5678]

Absolutely. They are victims of the target-driven policies that are prevalent nowadays in professional life; it is here anyway. The consequence of this policy is that the bar is set very low as to what constitutes 'success'. I am one of their real success stories (free for 14 years) but I went into rehab voluntarily and wasn't compelled to. The two years I was with them and the fact I went to them on my own initiative allowed me access to the facts surrounding the rehabilitation process. It really works, using CBT, but only if you want to be helped.

In america the teachers are blamed when kids don't pass test. Seems like its slightly related. Just thought I'd mention it.

[StringJunky]

In america the teachers are blamed when kids don't pass test. Seems like its slightly related. Just thought I'd mention it.

It is the same. They have the same problem. It's all wrong; they are educating people not making a product.

[marieltrokan]

The perfect government is not the absence of structure, but the absence of hierarchy; all must not exercise power.