Oh wow, thanks for the information.

Makes sense. A lot. I’ll read up on that, thanks again.

Why not both?

Your arguments suck. Get some better ones.

I don’t trust your understanding of psychiatry to be so well versed that you could say with authority that this kid is beyond help.

He may or may not have Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), but that simple fact alone isn’t anywhere near enough to say he’s beyond help.

https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/

#Treating antisocial personality disorder

In the past, antisocial personality disorder was thought to be a lifelong disorder, but that’s not always the case and it can sometimes be managed and treated.

Evidence suggests behaviour can improve over time with therapy, even if core characteristics such as lack of empathy remain.

No, it’s definitely not normal to murder someone, but also, you definitely don’t have the authority to say he’s definitely beyond ANY help. That’s the part I find ridiculous, not the part where you think there’s something wrong with him. Of course there’s something wrong with him; he stabbed someone to death. The point is that despite murder being a horrific crime, as a society, we have moved past defining people as singularly evil for all killings.

If he did not know the kid, this isn’t even probably murder — it’s manslaughter. And if crimes of passion basically are things that you consider evidence of people being “outside ANY possible help”, then what, should we just start killing anyone who kills another person? Don’t listen to any reason, anything, just the death penalty for them, even if it was an accident? (Which this obviously wasn’t but this wasn’t premeditated either, meaning it’s not legally murder, that’s just a way for us to emphasise the horrific nature of the crime.)

Here. https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/teippasi-uhrin-painonnostotankoon-ja-upotti-jokeen-paasee-ehdonalaiseen/3336726 it’s a Finnish article, title translates as: “Taped victim to a weightlifting pole and sunk them into a river - gets free on parole.”

When he got out on parole, he moved to the building I lived in. He made friends with me (because I was the weeder in a building of grannies). By that time he was already 50 something I think. Very polite, pretty nice guy to be around, never felt threatened. Made good food. And he asked me about a pound of meth that someone stole from the storage that I too had access to (not his cabin specifically, but the room the locked shacks/cabins are in). Now even back then I had driven a taxi for years in Finland, and knew all manners of criminals. This murderer (who actually did murder as it was premeditated, unlike the kid) definitely got rehabilitated to at least some extent. Never killed anyone again, that we know of, and I don’t doubt he did. He did beat one guy up, but that guy really had it coming and I don’t believe in violence. And I do mean he really had it coming. More sort of a vigilante thing, not random violence. And totally justified. I won’t go into details about that though. I get that this paragraph is now a pretty poor argument from the reader’s point of view, but trustmebro, he was alright, and prison had definitely changed him a lot as a person. Neatest dude I ever knew, spotless apartment, kitchen, fridge. Ate healthy, exercised. Then he got a bit too much into meth again at the time I moved out of the building and then I didn’t really hear from him until he was dead, but he definitely didn’t at least get convicted of killing anyone during those last few years.

The point I’m making is most criminals can be rehabilitated to quite an extent, even if not “completely”. To the extent that they understand not to pull of shit like stabbing people, at least. The kid probably has no idea of the hell he unleashed on his own life. And once he gets to feel that for a few years, I think he’ll be humbled a bit. So I would not say that he is “definitely beyond ANY help”.

It’s worth it to try

That’s very much my point. My point isn’t that teenagers are especially murder-y, but that they’re somewhat especially emotional.

So the other guy giving up on him before he’s even had a fully developed brain is sad to me. Perhaps he’s a violent shit who will stay a violent shit, and in that case he should remain confined, but like you said, it’s worth it to try to help him.

We can’t fix our society until the government stops prioritizing profit over health and education.

If you stabbed someone to death after a brief conversation, there’s something wrong with you

I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with that.

Point is, you don’t get better from being a psychopath.

You’re a psychiatrist then, I take it?

You’re essentially saying that this kid is beyond ANY help at all. That’s a horrible opinion to hold, and it’s wrong. It’s a 15-year old. Teenagers are extremely volatile.

Like are you saying that when you went to school as a teenager, you didn’t witness several people practically wanting to kill others? Those kids managed to control their stabbiness. This kid didn’t. You’re asserting with absolute confidence he will never be able to.

That’s ridiculous.

Oh so we shouldn’t help people unless they were perfect?

What an insanely simplistic take on the matter. I don’t believe you’re seriously suggesting that the murderer didn’t actually understand that stabbing people to death is wrong.

I love how the statement receiving laughter from the crowd was a point in showing how it was political commentary.

Fentanyl shouldn’t be available to anyone but doctor’s, but that’s just the flavour of opiates. If there’s a legal, mild one, people will gravitate towards that more than a hard to get, illegal, dangerous thing which more or less does the same thing as the legal one.

That’s why moonshine really isn’t a thing after the prohibition of alcohol ended, because it’s too strong for a consumer, so it’s not provided legally and despite people still being able to illegally manufacture moonshine, there’s zero market for it, because who’d go for illegal moonshine when you can go buy legal beer or wine or even vodka.

Regulation is key. For instance with alcohol things milder than 3% aren’t illegal for under-18’s to buy here in Finland, although nowadays most stores don’t sell them to underage people. However even as an adult, you can still buy them at any hour of the day. A few years back the strongest you could get from a store was 5%, now it’s 8%, anything stronger than that is from Alko, a government owned liquor store chain with a monopoly on selling out alcohol. As in “takeaway”, restaurants can still sell to people ofc and buy from companies which aren’t Alko. But Alko has the monopoly on selling consumers unopened alcohol stronger than 8%. From alko you can buy alcohol up to 21% when you’re 18. At 18, you can get stronger drinks like vodka in a restaurant, but you can’t go purchase a bottle of it to take home. Only when you turn 20 are you allowed to buy the stronger stuff from Alko as well.

Something like that, but for drugs. Should work well enough. It doesn’t need to have all substances ever made, but most of the basics. Weed, amphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, some milder opiates, shrooms, ketamine, etc.

I just think that the ones which require more responsibility and knowledge in using them should have a licence of some sort, which can then be taken away if you’re found abusing or behaving poorly.

This would actually take the drug trade away from the cartels and manage the worst abusers at the same time. This would mean that literally most visible type of crime in a lot of the most affected countries could just up and vanish.

Most violent gun crime in the states for example? Like the people who keep saying “18-year olds aren’t kids” (referring to the leading cause of death study), most of the gun crime with youth is gang related. And if it’s gang related, well, gangs are funded by the drug trade. So what happens when there’s actually no money in hustling? Like literally? Those gangs won’t be able to sustain themselves. They’ll “starve”.

And the people who actually are high up in the current drug trade? They would obviously keep the situation as is, because of how much it makes, but I wonder if some of them wouldn’t prefer their business being legal so they could actually use all their money and wouldn’t have to be worried about getting killed all the time. It’s a business, and the only way they have of settling scores is violence. If they were allowed — through paying taxes and following the regulations — access to the systems other businesses use to resolve their conflicts, they wouldn’t need the violence. A debt could be reliably collected without chopping off limbs or busting kneecaps.

There’s seriously almost only positives I can think of. And massive positives they are. And what’s the alternative, as drugs are currently completely prohibited, yet completely ubiquitous. I could have pretty much any drugs delivered to my door faster than the shops will open for alcohol. You can get them even in prison. So as long as you don’t encourage abuse and have systems to take care of potential abusers, how much worse could it really be?

The worst thing I see is purely decriminalising use. Honestly. Societally, that is. Individually, it’s great and it is beneficial and it’s the step we’re gonna have to go through. But my point is if we stop purely at decriminalising personal use, then the situation won’t change for the cartels, for drug dealers, for gangs. In fact, it will improve for them, as people will buy easier.

Which is why we have to actually legalise in some form to take control of the market which will exist whether we want it to or not. We can’t allow a trade of hundreds of billions be left to violent criminals just because we’re prudish about using drugs.

Since the premise is everyone who votes against Trump are sexy in your mind, then doesn’t “change my mind” sort of imply you suggesting they shouldn’t vote against Trump, which would make them not-sexy in your mind?

That wouldn’t help. The software would have to know what to look for, and the scanner would need to see something.

One method used for instance is infusing drugs into other materials, like tents. Then just shipping said tents. Scan the packets, you just see tents. Drogs (drug dogs brainfart but im leaving it lol) won’t smell it, and quicktests won’t reveal it, because of the altered composition.

There is literally no way of shutting down the drug trade.

“Signal people to take action”

You seem to underestimate how many people use illegal drugs, I think, and you still believe that it’s just about proper policing and we can “get rid of drugs”. Never gonna happen. Pretty much all drug laws need to be completely rehauled for progress.

All drugs have be legalised to put them under regulation and take the markets away from the cartels.

And they’re not catching even a tenth, much less 90%.

What’s dogging without an audience?

Blind greed and incredible selfishness.

Basically you’re trying to reason madness.

I remember a religious girlfriend going on about that with bonus cards and Facebook and whatnot.

Nothing new…

You can’t be that naive, honestly

“We will have to think about scheduling a call to plan a meeting to start having talks about perhaps organising a committee which would make a recommendation as to how we should go about getting ready to write a sternly worded press release (in which we won’t criticise Israel too much).”

The four stage strategy