Yeah I don’t think so.

The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision.

I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world.

> The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision.

That would be an arguable point, but you certainly didn't make that with your shit analogy. If you'd care to provide any evidence for that point whatsoever, I'd be happy to address that evidence, but you haven't provided any evidence for that point to even argue against.

The shit analogy isn't evidence because the problems of putting shit in the streets aren't cause by its visibility, they're caused (mostly) by bacteria.

> I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world.

Again with the argument from analogy being fallacious.

You likely won't see open air drug markets on the way to the park with your kids unless you already lived in a neighborhood where your children were already going to be exposed to drug use. These open air drug markets aren't opening in the Hamptons, they're opening in areas where the drug crisis was already pervasive.

Is that an argument? Because the open air drug markets exist in places that had drug use in them they are OK? How does B follow from A?

The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society.

It’s a sort of obvious mainstream view that everyone most likely shares outside of this sort of bizzare too-online culture that has developed.

My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad.

The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards.

> Is that an argument? Because the open air drug markets exist in places that had drug use in them they are OK? How does B follow from A?

> The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society.

Anywhere drug addiction is pervasive is full of human misery, unsanitary, and violent conditions.

"Not tolerating" isn't a solution.

The concrete solution you're actually proposing is prohibition, which not only doesn't solve the problem, but makes the problem worse. It makes it harder to provide sanitation solutions such as needle exchanges, and it makes it harder to provide solutions to violence such as security presence.

> My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad.

And no one disagrees with that.

The problem is, prohibition just means that people trying to live normal lives and raise children now live in a neighborhood with more violence and more unsanitary conditions that is less visible and harder to avoid. Your "solution" is not solving the sanitation or violence problems in any way, it's making both worse.

If anything, concentrating drug sales into specific areas makes the problems more avoidable for parents, because they know exactly where the problems are and can avoid those areas.

And, if you're concerned about children, surely you'd support programs to help families with children move away from violent and unsanitary areas. I'd certainly support that. That seems like it would actually solve the problem, unlike anything you've proposed.

> The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards.

It's tiring to continuously explain to you the differences between the analogies you keep proposing and the discussion at hand. Analogies still aren't a valid argument. Please make an effort to talk about the actual situation we're talking about, instead of bringing in various unrelated situations.

The difference in this case is that removing porn from billboards doesn't make the problems of porn worse, while making drugs illegal does make the problems of drugs worse.

I mean it's possible to have large scale programs that offer treatment and support for those who need it and decriminalization or a diversion focused approach to drug laws, while also making it illegal to shoot up in parks or defecate in public, and to enforce those laws.

It's really not all that complicated. The only places I see people breathlessly explaining that it's impossible are a few specific cities on the west coast of the United States.

> I mean it's possible to have large scale programs that offer treatment and support for those who need it and decriminalization or a diversion focused approach to drug laws, while also making it illegal to shoot up in parks or defecate in public, and to enforce those laws.

> It's really not all that complicated. The only places I see people breathlessly explaining that it's impossible are a few specific cities on the west coast of the United States.

You've certainly destroyed that straw man thoroughly! Now that we're agreed on the obvious that shooting up in parks and defecating in public should not be allowed, would you care to explain why you disagree with anything I've actually said?

I'm sure you can find some crazy person who believes that defecating in public should be legal, but there does not exist any significant movement of people who think that. If you think there is, that indicates a problem with your understanding of the situation.