Comments by "Tim Murphy" (@timmurphy5541) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

  1. Legalization has 2 aspects. Once you get large companies selling it, they'll want to promote it. As for regulating such companies....how long did it take us to do that to big tobacco? What about the companies that produce those opioid drugs that are causing so much trouble now. Do their profits get taxed enough to deal with the misuse of their product? Do they suffer if misuse increases? Nope. Eventually a portion of the population will make its living from other peoples addictions and will want and lobby to expand that living - I suggest that is the case right now - how easy will it be to put them back in their box? We made mistakes with alcohol and tobacco because we didn't entirely understand and now that those 2 cats are out of the bag you want to add another?
    1
  2. Telling people to grow up adds nothing to your argument - it's just rude and why would you be rude if you didn't have doubts that your argument was enough? Alcohol was already "out of the bag" long before prohibition and it's obvious that attempting to stop it dead in less than several generations was going to be too difficult. There are countries where drinking is far less common than in others and that's at least partially due to efforts to discourage it. Once drug production is legal consumption will increase to the point where it too will be extremely hard to deal with. Think about opium in china for example. The pushers (the British) even fought and won a war to keep their market open.
    1
  3. cannabased  No, that is not rude, it's an issue and one can debate issues without ad-hominem remarks. Wiki tells me: "The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2001, and was legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance." So it's not quite decriminalisation. It might be a sensible policy but decriminalising supply would be a very different matter.
    1
  4. This isn't a convincing refutation. What's wrong with radioactive waste being in a high orbit for example? Why would we crash it onto the moon instead of neatly landing it there? etc etc. Only cost and the danger of launch seem valid and both of those things can change in future.
    1
  5. If it orbits us far enough away then what's the problem?
    1