How do you feel about the War on Drugs?

Too Many Choices!?

March 7, 2005, 03:45 PM

Since people are going to do what they want, the government should make anything that does not violate someone elses rights legal, period ;) ! If you want to do or sell "crack" or any other drug that is selfdestructive, the law will not deter you only eventually catch you! You are not harming the public unless you bring it into the public....Possession of an item should not be a crime unless it is intended for a criminal act or being used in a criminal act!(like having a bomb in a car)

Everything now in this Country is being called a "War on (subject of the day)" and this trend scares me! How long before all these "Wars on Evil" are seen to be "Wars against the BOR and the Constitution".......The most insidious thing about our governmet is that many times the sheeple are all too anxious to give away liberty for PERCEIVED safety! Ex....Did the 86 ban on public registration prevent the Hollywood shootout? No! Did the so called assault weapons ban stop Columbine? No! Does the so called "War on Drugs" stop drug use or even prevent it? No!! Do these programs and stances cost the country billions upon billions in money and manpower/hours? Yes! Could the "Patriot act" and the war on terror stop the 911 terror attacks? No!! Yet Congress gives awaya our freedom since they are above suspicion and the law!In the end is it worth it?........You tell me :cuss:

We liberate Iraq and in some places, it is looking like they may need to return the favor(komiefornia) :( . Ironic yes?

Justin

March 7, 2005, 03:55 PM

Just because people feel the need to rot their brains, destroy their health, and destroy their familes, doesn't mean its a liberty. Choosing the way one lives is the absolute essense of liberty, even if it does mean that some individuals end up ruining their lives, or engaging in behaviour that you, yourself find immoral.

Legalizing murder would reduce crime also. False dichotomy. :rolleyes:

As such, I offer the following thoughts, written somewhat at random:

Quite frankly, if a family member has a drug problem then it is a problem for their family, friends, church, etc. to deal with. Unless they are acting violently I see no reason for the justice system, at great expense, to get involved.

Just because some nitwit gets a monkey on his back is no justification for the state to shake me down financially in order to arrest, convict, and incarcerate him.

And then there's that whole bit where the so-called War on Drugs has been used as justification to infringe upon the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution.

With regard to interdiction as well as reducing addiction and use the Drug War has been a massive public policy failure in every way, shape and form.

This should be painfully self-evident to anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics. If there is demand for a product, buyers and sellers will always find a way to circumnavigate the legal meddlings of do-gooder social engineers.

Gordon Fink

March 7, 2005, 03:55 PM

Worst policy failure in world history.

~G. Fink :( :mad:

Black Snowman

March 7, 2005, 03:56 PM

I think it's been a resounding success for it's intended purposes. It has successfully distracted the masses from issues of corruption and waste in the government at times when we had no signifigant international threats. It provided the government with an excuse it stick it's nose into the business of the other nations in the western hemisphere where we previously had no business. It expanded the nations police forces with military style equipment and training that would be more useful in controlling the population. It created an illusion of action by the government.

I'm sure there are other, very obvious and equally intended consequences I'm missing. The formula for reducing the effects of substance abuse on a society and for reducing the crime and violance associated with it are as well known as they are ignored by those who would stand to loose power if the WoD were to disappear.

Neo: "What does he want?"
The Oracle: "What all men of power want. More power."

Catuela

March 7, 2005, 04:11 PM

The war on drugs is something that I have discussed with my friends several times in the past. The number one thing I hate about drugs and reason I currently support the continued efforts to keep drugs off the street is the fact I can't stand the horror stories of kids who ruined thier lives because of drug use, however......

Something that I have felt since I became an adult and grows stronger as I meet more and more of America's newer generation. I think they should start a "War against worthless parents" If an adult wants to ruin his life and that adult has no children that will be negatively impacted, it's his/her perogative. But a child is a different story. Until the day comes when we can lock up dead-beat parents that let their kids do whatever they want and who provide no moral structure for the child to learn from, the "war on drugs" and a few other pieces of contested law should continue.

deej

March 7, 2005, 04:15 PM

Don't forget, it's not the "War on Drugs."

It's the "War on some Drugs."

cracked butt

March 7, 2005, 04:18 PM

Worst policy failure in world history.
No, that will have to get in line after Socialist Security and 'Great Society' welfare programs for that title in the United States history. World history is a stretch for any of them.

Oleg Volk

March 7, 2005, 04:21 PM

WOD is the Inquisition by another name and with a slightly updated excuse.

TallPine

March 7, 2005, 04:23 PM

Don't forget, it's not the "War on Drugs."

It's the "War on some Drugs."
Close, but not quite ...

It's the "War on People using some Drugs"

If it were a war on drugs, they would just be spraying 24D on MJ patches ;)

To be even more correct, it's the

"War on People Using Certain Substances Determined to be Not Allowed by Self-Righteous Busybodies" :D

Outbacker

March 7, 2005, 04:35 PM

The bedrock upon which criminal law is built is the degree to which one person's actions negatively impact the lives of others. Only pigheaded megalomaniacal religious fanatics would dictate the personal behavior of another individual which has no impact on the quality of their own life.

Those who would attack "libs" in this thread take note. As if this issue as simple as "right" and "left". No, you can't co-op this debate for political gain by throwing around words like 'liberal' and 'conservative'. The use of recreational drugs pre-dates partisan polemics and balkanizing rhetoric by a few thousand years, so spare me the "far right rant". I ain't no liberal, Sparky. That's a dog that just won't hunt...

If Joe Sixpack wants to smoke a bone on Friday night in the comfort of his home and he doesn't break any laws (other than the ridiculously ineffective drug laws in question) while doing it, I say let him. He can get stoned out of his mind on Jack Daniels, but the Morality Police all come a runnin' when he sparks up a joint or does a line.

The real reason recreational drug use is "dangerous" in our culture is because it has been pushed to the criminal margins of society. That's why folks get gunned-down over a dime bag, but not a fifth of bourbon.

DUH!!! :fire:

Chut1st

March 7, 2005, 04:43 PM

The "war on drugs" was lost years ago when the government decided to let the demand side of the equation slide and only attack the supply side. As long as there are willing and ready buyers out there, someone will supply it.

To keep this topic on THR, the worst effect of the drug war, IMHO, is that it has been used to rationalize more gun bans, gun control and loss of freedom than any other domestic policy.

All that being said, I've never used any illegal drugs and never will (unless they make Jack Daniel illegal again). But every one of us has certainly paid the price for other's decisions to do so in taxes, friends mourned and families shattered.

fjolnirsson

March 7, 2005, 04:43 PM

what42

March 7, 2005, 04:47 PM

The war on drugs is a massive failure. It's been a waste of our money and encourages crime.

One thing I don't understand is the different ways the government treats marijuana and alcohol. Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than marijuana yet alcohol is legal while weed is not. It makes no sense. I have never seen anyone become violent after smoking marijuana but violence after alcohol is seen every day in bars across the country. There is also no case I've ever heard of where someone has overdosed on marijuana but people od on alcohol all the time.

I don't think any of these activities and items should be illegal. The only time something should be illegal is if someone is harming me. Some heroin user ODing in his basement affects me in no way and I see no reason why I should have to pay to house this person in prison.

cracked butt

March 7, 2005, 05:14 PM

I'd love to pass all of this naive idealism about drug use along to a childhood friend named Al. Al was a straightlaced straght A student and a good friend of mine until he got in junior high and started 'experimenting' with dope. His grades and appearance went to crap, and not a year later he hacked up his 6 year old brother with a meat cleaver while high on PCP. Al is now in a mental institution and will remain so for the forseeable future. Al is a little bit of an extreme example, but there are others out there like him or worse, and hordes of drug users that are easy to identify by their apathy and bad appearance.

We can all sit back and armchair quarterback governement policies, but none of this fixes the everyday realities of what actually happens to drug users and their families. Its easy and very convenient to simply ignore the bad incidents that can be attributed to drug use, while on the other hand cannot come up with a single story where a person has become a societal success due to their drug use.

Sean Smith

March 7, 2005, 05:17 PM

Here is a quesiton for the pro-War on Drugs folks: how will it succeed where prohibition so spectacularly failed? :confused:

cracked butt

March 7, 2005, 05:24 PM

Here is a quesiton for the pro-War on Drugs folks: how will it succeed where prohibition so spectacularly failed?

Prohibition failed politically, because the majority of people liked to use alcohol. Drugs are used by a small minority of Americans and they are politically irrelevent and most are politically apathetic, as they with other areas of their lives.

what42

March 7, 2005, 05:24 PM

while on the other hand cannot come up with a single story where a person has become a societal success due to their drug use.
Legalizing drug use has nothing to do with whether it will help someone be "successful". It's all about personal choice. If someone chooses to send their life spiraling into a pile of ???? then that is their right. I have no right to tell them what to do with their life and they have no right to tell me what to with mine. I feel for people who have had their lives impacted by friends and family members on drugs but I don't think that the few serious incidents (like described above) are worth taking away the liberty of many thousands of people.

The problem with something like the war on drugs is that once you give the government the right to take some liberties away they will never stop. Government naturally has no limiter on it. It takes as much from the people as the people will allow.

rock jock

March 7, 2005, 05:35 PM

I am all for legalization of drugs.........in someone else's state. I will vote and demand that drugs remain illegal in Texas. Quite frankly, I would shoot to kill drug dealers if I could get away it. Let all the drug using losers move to a state where the residents can bask in the glow of drug addiction, family violence and property crime.

Outbacker

March 7, 2005, 05:39 PM

Quite frankly, I would shoot to kill drug dealers if I could get away it.

Hey, knock yourself out. I'm not from Texas, I'm originally from NYC where the drug dealers have automatic weapons and actually SHOOT BACK.

Some folks crack me up... :rolleyes:

Sindawe

March 7, 2005, 06:40 PM

Drugs are used by a small minority of Americans and they are politically irrelevent and most are politically apathetic, as they with other areas of their lives. Horse-pucky. Drug use in the past month, as per the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings.

Alcohol: 119.0 Million
Tobacco products: 70.8 Million
Marijuana and dervatives: 14.6 Million
Cocaine: 2.3 Million

Sourcel http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/2k3NSDUH/appg.htm#tabg.15

That ain't no "small minority" cracked butt. Yes, you alcohol and tobacco users are drug users just like the pot smokers and cocaine sniffers.

big inch

March 7, 2005, 06:44 PM

Not to mention the number of prescription drug abusers out there.

The Rabbi

March 7, 2005, 06:48 PM

must resist at all costs....cannot do this again. argh. stop me before I post again!!!!!! :banghead:

Igloodude

March 7, 2005, 06:51 PM

I'd love to pass all of this naive idealism about drug use along to a childhood friend named Al. Al was a straightlaced straght A student and a good friend of mine until he got in junior high and started 'experimenting' with dope. His grades and appearance went to crap, and not a year later he hacked up his 6 year old brother with a meat cleaver while high on PCP. Al is now in a mental institution and will remain so for the forseeable future. Al is a little bit of an extreme example, but there are others out there like him or worse, and hordes of drug users that are easy to identify by their apathy and bad appearance.

Funny, I have nearly the same story about a kid who got hooked on first-person-shooter computer games. As yet I've resisted the urge to call for a ban on those and shooting Electronic Boutique employees. :scrutiny:

Gordon Fink

March 7, 2005, 06:56 PM

No, that will have to get in line after Socialist Security and “Great Society” welfare programs for that title in the United States history. World history is a stretch for any of them.

The Social Security debacle is a minor inconvenience compared to the damage caused by the “war on drugs,” which has squandered the first real chance we’ve had at lasting freedom in nearly 2,000 years. More people will suffer the consequences of this failure than have ever previously lived, so I contend that it has an unprecedented impact on world history.

Enjoy the tyranny …

~G. Fink

ksnecktieman

March 7, 2005, 07:00 PM

ok, in a nut shell. The profit in illegal drugs is ASTRONOMICAL because they are illegal. As long as that profit potential is there, someone will be standing on the corner by the schoolhouse, giving away samples to create himself a "customer base". Legalize it all, let bayer, or lilly or any of the other major companies produce drugs to federal standards, and with reasonable profit margins. Sell it over the counter to anyone over 21 years of age.

There will be no one standing on the corner by the school selling it, or giving it away. It will not be shoved onto our youth for someone to make five thousand bucks from a two hundred dollar investment in chemicals. There will be no wars over "drug turf" because the turf will be worthless. It stops the next generation of addicts from becoming, and when the addicts of the present are gone the problem will fade to insignificance.

And while we are at it, we should make it legal to buy all medicines over the counter, we should not have to pay a doctor fifty bucks to tell us it is ok to take an antibiotic, or a pain killer. ( Personally I think it is a war on ALL drugs.)

Gordon Fink

March 7, 2005, 07:12 PM

Cracked, was PCP legal when Al had a bad trip and murdered his brother? No? Then how can laws prevent drug abuse?

~G. Fink

Rico567

March 7, 2005, 07:18 PM

At the end of World War i, a soldier-poet wrote "Do you ever stop and wonder 'Is it all going to happen again?'" Well.....history doesn't exactly repeat itself, and even if it did, it's doubtful if we learn from it on any dependable basis. For the answer to your question, read up on "The Noble Experiment." The 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919, attempted to tell people they couldn't drink alcohol, and by a Federal law as comprehensive as the ones that attempt to eliminate "controlled substances." It was one of the most squalid failures at legislation in our history. The only permanent effect of Prohibition 1919-1933 was to make organized crime big business- a headache we are still trying to get over. I submit that the "War on Drugs" is Noble Experiment II.

rock jock

March 7, 2005, 07:21 PM

The idea that laws don't prevent crime is ludicrous. Don't need to go any further than our public roads where MOST folks obey the speed limit (or close to it anyway) MOST of the time simply because they don't want to get caught. Its called deterrence. And no, it didn't help Al, but drug laws may have prevented another young person from doing the same.

Nitram68

March 7, 2005, 07:22 PM

IMO, the war on drugs is as big a failure as was prohibition. Perhaps more as we haven't learned our lesson from prohibition.

benEzra

March 7, 2005, 08:38 PM

I used to be firmly in the anti-drug warrior camp, but have since changed my mind about cannabis after studying pharmacology a good bit. There is no rational way to consider cannabis as even remotely as dangerous as alcohol, both to the individual using it and to others. I don't use drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) and never have, but I think it is the height of irrationality that alcohol is legal and the cannabinoids are Schedule I (absolute prohibition, not even medical use allowed). It is also irrational that it is illegal for medical purposes but morphine and codeine and novocain and valium and whatever else are rightly recognized as being very useful medically.

BTW, schedule I is more tightly restricted than morphine. (BTW, my 5-year-old son has had morphine on many occasions--he's had two open-hearts, seven angioplasties, and abdominal surgery--and has been through full-blown morphine withdrawal once, which is a very, very hard thing to watch a young child go through. So I've seen both sides of that coin, in a sense.)

It's also irrational to me that morphine is legal for medical use, but diacetyl morphine is banned (Schedule I) in the U.S. as having no legitimate medical use even though it is converted to morphine in the brain (it just crosses the blood-brain barrier more easily, allowing the same CNS effects with a lower systemic dose).

As far as cocaine, PCP, whatever, I have mixed feelings about that since those drugs are far less benign than the cannabinoids. However, I suspect that if even just the cannabinoids were decriminalized and people didn't have to visit illicit dealers to get it, you'd have fewer people using the hard drugs because you'd have a lot fewer people coming into contact with pushers of hard drugs. (Right now there is a strong profit motive for drug dealers to push cannabinoid users onto more expensive and profitable drugs.) And I realize that banning them hasn't done squat to make them less available, considering that even heroin is probably easier for an average city person to obtain than prescription foot powder, if he/she doesn't mind breaking the law.

Daemon688

March 7, 2005, 08:52 PM

War on Drugs? A complete failure. How do I feel about drugs in general? I feel that people should be able to make their own decisions with what they do to their own bodies.

However, if we legalize these drugs what will the consequences be? Will millions of people start taking these drugs like cigarettes? Do we really need a nation of addicts? A problem of addiction was clearly evident in the 1900's with the Chinese and opium. Are we going to draw limits on harder drugs like cocaine? Besides that, many of these drugs alter the state of mind more severely than alcohol and cigarettes which can inherently make them more dangerous. Is this a box we really want to open up? I guess I'm more of a fence sitter on this issue.

Old Dog

March 7, 2005, 09:05 PM

So, you legalize some drugs or de-criminalize them ... the government can actually collect tax revenue on drug sales, or at least, street prices go way down ...

so instead of having addicts jailed, they're all still out there, on the streets ... most of them will still be incapable of holding jobs and supporting themselves ...

so either their families or friends will shelter them until it becomes unbearable, or the ranks of the homeless will be maintained or even grow ...

the crime rate will not necessarily dip simply because some drugs are legal. To the contrary, the addicts and habitual users will still have to get money to pay for their drugs. How will they get it? How do they get the money for drugs now?

Now, I'm not talking about marijuana. As drugs go, it's fairly benign; my issue would be with the highly addictive, dangerous and deadly drugs such as heroin, but more specifically, cocaine and crystal meth. I submit that most folks who've been involved -- on the law enforcement end, with the court (and especially the juvenile court) systems and the social services agencies -- with combatting drugs or otherwise dealing with the results of illegal drug use, will not favor legalizing or decriminalizing any drugs beyond marijuana ... I sure don't. Coke and crank are evil, evil drugs, and anyone who doesn't believe that hasn't seen the aftereffects tear through a community ...

Good thread going on crystal meth right now in the general discussion forum.

NMshooter

March 7, 2005, 09:25 PM

We need to try banning sex next...

:neener:

Standing Wolf

March 7, 2005, 09:48 PM

You want to steal my aspirin? Is it worth your life?

The only difference between prohibition of the 1920s and today's war on some drugs is that the prohibited stuff of the 1920s was sold in bottles rather than plastic bags.

Jeff

March 7, 2005, 10:56 PM

The war on drugs is probably useless for the most part. However, just because a problem is bad when the substance creating the problem is already illegal, doesn't mean the problem won't get worse if said substance is made legal. Poor logic to think otherwise. And logic is all we have when we choose to speculate on the results of a policy we have yet to implement.

I'm sure there is some deterrent value to keeping drugs illegal; but is it worth it?

I say legalize all drugs when and only when they eliminate all forms of gun control, so good people everywhere can adequately and legally protect themselves if they choose to do so. Otherwise, it would be an irresponsible policy.

Sindawe

March 7, 2005, 11:06 PM

I say legalize all drugs when and only when they eliminate all forms of gun control, so good people everywhere can adequately and legally protect themselves if they choose to do so. Otherwise, it would be an irresponsible policy. What? Legalize all drugs in exchange for getting rid of all gun controle? :what:

Sounds good to me. :D

Joejojoba111

March 7, 2005, 11:14 PM

Lol, you know how it's illegal to murder people by shooting them? They have a law against that, but then they go 1 step farther and pass laws against firearms so you know it's really illegal to murder people by shooting them, in case you didn't understand that. That's why you can't own an original Kalashnikov with a drum magazine - because it's illegal to murder people by shooting them. Come on, they're the same thing, owning a gun is EXACTLY the same as murdering a person.

Now they reall really want us to know it's illegal to rob people on the street (or hack up little brothers with butcher knives!). They already have laws against doing that. But they really want people to understand that, so to prevent this from happening they make using marijuana illegal. And just to make it perfectly clear that you shouldn't rob people they make growing marijuana illegal. And they make possessing marijuana illegal. Now you won't get robbed on the street. What, someone got robbed on the street? Well I guess we have to make possessing marijuana paraphanelia illegal. There, problem solved. Now people won't get robbed.

Wait, just writing that I think I changed my mind, I now believe it is wrong to criminalize an action because of a potential following action could be a crime. Wow, that changes my whole perspective!

8830

March 7, 2005, 11:29 PM

I laugh when I hear about the War on Drugs. I've been a cop 11yrs and there is no stopping people from using, buying, producing, etc. I find it funny how all the cops I work with get excited over a few grams or even a whole ounce of crack or meth and most have never seen any pounds of marijuana like I have. There is no War. It's all about how can I seize whatever this doper has and get funding from the state and feds and get my picture in the paper with alot of lip service to the community on all the good I'm doing. We have actual combat troops in Afghanistan where most of the worlds heroin comes from and I don't see a shortage of it around here. Meth is real easy to make since it can be cooked anywhere and marijuana can be grown in your backyard. There is no end....

Art Eatman

March 7, 2005, 11:33 PM

The last time I saw any numbers, it was around 700,000 deaths per year associated with health problems due to alcohol and tobacco. 30,000 health-associated deaths from drugs. So, to me, "health" is out of the equation.

What bugs me is the "either-or" nature of these arguments. Why legalize ALL drugs? (Or "de-criminalize"...)

Say marijuana possession and/or use were rendered no cause for arrest, but "Driving while stoned" was treated the same as DUI/DWI. Stoned on the job treated the same as drunk on the job, etc.

Why not take the money not spent on law enforcement and prisons for MJ users, and spend it on anti-drug education programs, halfway houses, better drug treatment facilities in general?

Generally, if the lure of the illicit is taken out of something, it's less attractive, less "cool". That's certainly true for kids, as most of us who've dealt with kids and guns have learned.

And if the profit motive is removed from anything, there is always less of it. Always.

Marijuana is a tranquilizer. Heroin is a tranquilizer; the problem is when an addict can't afford the next fix. Designer drugs and meth are problem-causers, as is Crack. There are reasonable odds that usage would shift from illegal (and therefore hazardous insofar as one's arrest) to legal drugs.

Cocaine? That's a sort of "I dunno". I've known people who limited their use to a pattern similar to my own social drinking; I've known people who got truly messed up from it.

Regardless, the WOD as it has been "fought" has been more of a war on the Bill of Rights than anything else. To me, with the street price of cocaine staying approximately static for some 25 years, while every other consumer item has roughly tripled in cost, WE AIN'T WINNIN'!!!

We've had 40 years of interdiction efforts. We're holding a constant rate of capture of 10% of drugs headed toward the U.S. Somebody needs to explain to me how this shows any success? What's the deal? "Repeating an experiment exactly but expecting different results is a sign of insanity."

Art

Group9

March 7, 2005, 11:35 PM

I worked in Baltimore for six years where drugs were about as close to being legal as you could ask for as a test bed. No one was being arrested for selling or using marijuana, and street dealers who were arrested for selling heroin and crack were almost all released on recognizance bonds until their charges were passed to the files.

They had a mayor who was openly advocating drug legalization, and who was later found to be a cocaine addict himself. Heroin there was so cheap ($7 a dosage unit) that it couldn't have been more available if it had been sold over the counter at Wal-Mart. Everywhere you went, you saw people buying drugs, using drugs and just basically degenerating as civilization pretty much collapsed in inner city Baltimore. They finally reached a point where they lead the nation in heroin AND cocaine emergency room admissions for overdoses and over ten per cent of the town's citizens were heroin addicts.

It was not nirvana, and after about twelve years of living like this, the citizens revolted and threw out the mayor and demanded that the police take back the town. They have found that it may be too late.

Selfdfenz

March 8, 2005, 12:19 AM

While many Americans in the 50's and 60's might have cheered as the feds slowly accererated their programs to catch dealers of illegal narcotics, I bet most would be or are very upset with the erosion of civil liberities due to the WOD in current times. They, and I, would rightly point out the feds have overreacted and over reached in their disregard for the rights on non-using citizens to catch the few BGs they do catch.

Now....today......let's assume many of the narcotics that are now illegal are legalized. [same overreacting and overreaching .govs still on the job however]

1. Wouldn't it make sense that state governements might seek to have drug testing hooked to the ability to get and keep a drivers license? Sure would to me, at least at renewal and perhaps randomly too.......that means you and I.

2. What about firearms purchases and possession? I wonder if federal or state governments wanted drug testing to vet firearms purchases, if gun dealers and the gun industry might just support such a move if it mitigated law suites arising when intoxicated peps shoot people for good or evil purposes.......that means you and I could be impacted. Naturally if you are going to test for gun purchases, you would want to test for continued ownership and use.

3. Naturally employers will want random drug testing increased......that could mean you and I. I wonder if insurance companies would seek legal ways to deny coverage to users that are hooked but still "sorta" able to work. I wonder if employers would be cool with giving some hooked employees "certain" jobs, but no benefits. Where would S-OX accountablity stand in this scenario for publically traded companies.

So, from a strictly personal POV, under certain scenarios, I might just be bothered to a considerable extent in very personal ways if narcotics are legalized at some not too distant future time. Who can deny these things might not happen given the fast track the feds have taken since 9-11 to "secure the country", much of it at the cost of our personal freedoms one way or the other?

[Asbestos suit instillation mode complete]

Frankly in a World where drugs are legal or decriminalized, I might just be 100% in favor of all of the above and I hate big government. :eek:
I know I can pass the tests, no problemo, but I think me and mine would be safer knowing that because you or John Q. Public can use legally now, you/they can't hold certain jobs (already the case), may not be able to drive and have no business or legal right owning firearms.

I feel pretty sure my civil liberties have been damaged by the WODs but I'm equally sure if drugs are legaized/decriminalized I will still be bothered and marginalized as a law abiding citizen .....just in different, more problematic and probably unimaginable ways.

The old saying, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it" seems very appropriate.

Best,

S-

Jeff

March 8, 2005, 12:51 AM

The last time I saw any numbers, it was around 700,000 deaths per year associated with health problems due to alcohol and tobacco. 30,000 health-associated deaths from drugs. So, to me, "health" is out of the equation.

That disparity might be the result of one group of drugs being legal, and one group being illegal.

Why not take the money not spent on law enforcement and prisons for MJ users, and spend it on anti-drug education programs, halfway houses, better drug treatment facilities in general?

Because taxpayer's money is still being spent to help fix other people's bad choices. I guess either one sucks. Only now, the emphasis is put on the cure, rather than the prevention.

If we have to spend the money, why not try to prevent the problem in the first place?

I seldom sloganeer, but An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.

Clean97GTI

March 8, 2005, 01:44 AM

ksnecktieman, I would almsot agree with your statement about antibiotics and pain-killers except for the fact that abuse or misuse of these medications can have some pretty bad side effects. One, the over-use and mis-application of antibiotics tends to build resistance to the drug. Bacteria doesn't seem to care about the antibiotics. Just look at penicilin. In its early days, it would kill any bug on the block. Now, it is less than 80% as effective as it was before. Newer strains of bacteria requried new antibiotics, but they got sucked into the same quagmire. The more you use them, the faster resitant strains generate.

Ditto for painkillers. The more you use, the more your body begins to tolerate the drug. I know a man with debilitating back pain. His doctor recently switched him from Hydrocodone (Lortab or Vicodin are the main brand names) to Oxycodone (Oxycontin) because he needed such large doses to stop the pain. Oxycodone is for people who have become opioid-resistant. It is stronger, and also has the potential for greater abuse. Overdosing on these things also tends to cause nasty things like death. I support doctor control over such drugs simply to keep them more effective. I also advocate a revamp of our medical systems.

As far as "illegal" drugs. I say legalize the majority of them. The recreational drugs are used for that purpose and if you let capitalism in on the game, you'd see illegal sales disappear almost overnight. Why meet some drug dealing scum in the 'hood when you can just stop by a local store for the stuff? The penalties should be similar to those for alcohol should you be dumb enough to drive on drugs.
The "drug problem" in the USA isn't a criminal one, it is a medical one. Lets treat it as such and actually move towards an improvement.

The right to destroy ones mind and body are as sacred to me as the right to own guns and the right to die. I'm voting and being an activist as often as I can to get pot legalized (decriminalized) here in NV. Let the tobacco companies be responsible for growing it, and tax it like cigarettes. Drug dealers (the main source of crime) would disappear overnight.

Justin

March 8, 2005, 02:42 AM

Al was a straightlaced straght A student and a good friend of mine until he got in junior high and started 'experimenting' with dope. His grades and appearance went to crap, and not a year later he hacked up his 6 year old brother with a meat cleaver while high on PCP. And yet, this seems to me a perfect illustration of just how pathetically ineffective the drug war has been. The bit that ticks me off about it is that people glom on to tragedies like this as a reason to support the drug war, and by extension the abrogation of the civil rights of all, including those who've never touched a narcotic in their life!

And no, it didn't help Al, but drug laws may have prevented another young person from doing the same. Gee, where else have I heard this line of thinking...

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/27/brady.reax/sbrady.jpg

Prohibition failed politically, because the majority of people liked to use alcohol. Drugs are used by a small minority of Americans and they are politically irrelevent and most are politically apathetic, as they with other areas of their lives. Perhaps you have proof to back this up? Because according to the ONDCP fact sheet available here (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/#general) the percentage of people who have tried drugs at least once has been steadily increasing since 1979. The percentage for those who have used some sort of illicit drug in the last year is at 12.6% for 2001. The current population of the United States is somehwhere around 290 million. 12.6% of that is 36.5 million people who admit to having tried an illicit substance in the last year.

Say what you will, but 36.5 million is a lot of people.

Now, according to the same fact sheet, the percentages drop off drastically for those who have used within the last thirty days, down to 7.1%, or roughly 20.6 million people.

This data would seem to suggest that the number of heavy users and addicts is much smaller than those who have used at least somewhat recreationally. As a result we can pretty much conclude that becoming a hardcore addict is much less likely to happen than the governmental scaremongers would have you believe.

Anecdotally speaking, this would tend to jive with what I've observed personally. I've known a number of recreational drug users, all of whom were either students or held full-time day jobs. I've never personally known anyone whose drug use got completely and utterly out of hand.

Justin

March 8, 2005, 02:58 AM

Its easy and very convenient to simply ignore the bad incidents that can be attributed to drug use, I have yet to see one post on either this thread or any of the other myriad drug legalization debate threads where any of the legalization advocates have ignored or denied the horrors of drug abuse.

Strawman argument.
http://www.seykota.com/tribe/FAQ/2003_May/May_18-24/scarecrow.jpg

Greymoor

March 8, 2005, 03:04 AM

The “War on Drugs” can only fail. There is too much desire for the product and too much money to be made from it sales to ever end it use. I also do not see the WoD ending anytime soon as a lot of money is made on both sides of the legal fence.

The truly sad thing is that much of the crime in the US today is due to drugs being illegal. If you think about how much of the thefts, assaults, and murders in the country that have drug ties, it is staggering. Add to that the massive money being made by organized crime and insurgence all over the world with their selling of drugs. The WoD is actually empowering some of the worst elements of the world today. If we end this flow of money we will severely weaken these elements.

Some would say that if we legalize drugs that the country would be full of addicts. I liken this statement to the one that says that if we give the people CCW blood will flow in the streets. Neither of these things would be true. Just as with alcohol leading to a number of alcoholics, narcotics would lead to a number of addicts. It’s human nature. There are organization already in place across the nation to help these people. The narcotics could be taxed as heavily as they do alcohol and tobacco with the proceeds going to these support organization.

China tried to stop opium use in the 1830s by summarily executing anyone caught in the trade. Even with these severe punishments the trade continued. Could you imagine a neighbor being caught with a ounce of weed being taken out into the street and shot. Sad thing is there would still be people willing to deal in and use narcotics even if getting caught meant death. Would you want to live in a country that had these harsh laws. What would be next ?

Too many people want the government to be our parents. To take care of us and let no harm come to us. However this kind of existence, like a lab rat, is devoid of freedom or the burden of choice. I do not want the government making my choices for me. I may not like the next experiment at the lab.

thorn726

March 8, 2005, 04:52 AM

the war on drugs is a total waste bent on feeding itself.

legalized, the violence would decrease dramatically, MORE importantly-
jails would empty, giving room for LONG sentences for violent crimes.
hmmm so if we kept the drug addicts who actually hurt or tried to hurt others in jail???

but then the police and courts would not need so much funding,

the police wouldnt need more ways to search me unhindered,

guns wouldnt be used in turf wars so people wouldnt be as afraid of them, so willing to see them banned=
(you thought the SF gun ban stemmed from guns??? kid on, it's about crack selling turf being fought over With guns)

the drug war is a total scam , being bought because parents are not confident they can trust their own kids, not willing to admit they cant raise their own kids well enough to know not to use dangerous drugs.

dealers can't push stuff on kids that know better.

if controlling the sales of drugs on a piece of "turf" wasn't feasible, that violence would end immediately.

At the moment thousands and thousands of young men in the ghetto see selling illegal drugs as a quick, easy ,relatively safe way to get enough money to get out of the ghetto, otherwise they would go straight to robbery.

they think they are "business men".

the money used to put them in jail could be used to give them a better option.

the poeple dumb enough to get so hooked they are maninacs and hurt steal etc to get drugs= should be locked up HARD for the CRimes of stealing, violence etc.

if you expect people to believe guns don't kill people , idiots kill people,

realize the equivalent is true with drugs.

REALLY nice to see most of the posts already reflect this, makes me feel like there is hope.

Selfdfenz

March 8, 2005, 07:48 AM

"Some would say that if we legalize drugs that the country would be full of addicts. I liken this statement to the one that says that if we give the people CCW blood will flow in the streets. Neither of these things would be true."

Probably one of the poorest comparisons yet to be made in one of these narco threads. Legal or illegal, this country will be full of addicts. We already have plenty and an industry devoted to supposedly curing them. Check your local yellow pages.

"I have yet to see one post on either this thread or any of the other myriad drug legalization debate threads where any of the legalization advocates have ignored or denied the horrors of drug abuse."

True but in the process of stating their position "horrors of drug abuse" are marginalized by the pro legalization advocates. How can you logically embrace legalization without ignoring or denying the horros of drug abuse and addiction to at least some extent? .... how about my hypothetical regarding the unintended consequences of legalization?

The pros postulate a less intrusive government under legalization. I think a good case can be made for the opposite. While it would seem that logically crime should drop under legalization, I wonder. Ditto for experimentation and with experimentation an increase in the number of people hooked on this or that.

S-

The Rabbi

March 8, 2005, 10:06 AM

<sigh>

In places where decriminalization/legalization has been tried, the results have not been good. Crime has increased. The quality of life has gone down significantly. In places with very strict drug laws and enforcement the rate of drug use is very low.
If you make something cheaper, there will be more of it around.
But no one who is convinced that legalization will lead to nirvana will see it any other way. And those who think it ought to be coupled with removal of all gun laws are asking for trouble.

Ezekiel

March 8, 2005, 11:40 AM

How do you feel about the War on Drugs?

Oh, pretty much the same way I feel about the "War on Poverty", the "War on Terror", the and "War on Crime"...

Success across the board, don't you think? :uhoh:

Art Eatman

March 8, 2005, 11:52 AM

Legal or illegal, there will always be some sort of drug problem. Can we agree on that?

So: Given the amount of money we now spend, whether public or private, why not try something different from the present methodology?

Look: Right now, we spend tax dollars on interdiction efforts, court costs including public defender money as well as physical plant and judges and their assistants. Next is the $30K/yr/person for imprisonment.

Private money includes heightened insurance premium costs and medical costs as well as other personal-loss costs due to crimes.

Nobody attempts to sell anything whatsoever if there is no profit motive. (Ignoring governments.) That just does not happen. If you can't make a profit on an item, why would you try to be involved with it other than as a user? Why?

If there is no profit in drugs, why would there be gang wars about "turf" from which to sell drugs?

If one need not rob in order to get money with which to buy drugs, why would one rob? Or, why would one rob with the present frequency?

We already spend billions of dollars in an effort which as I see it is a losing proposition. We are not stopping any appreciable percentage of the drugs intended for use in this country. We never have, ever since Nixon's folks started the officially-named "War on Drugs". How long ago was that? Why continue more of the same effort? Why? If it's not doing any notable amount of good, why fly in the face of reality?

Note that none of what I've said has anything to do with freedom or liberty or one's view on the good or bad of drugs. I've watched all this for forty years, now, and I'm generally fed up with the nonsense of it all.

If what's being done does not work, why continue without change?

Why?

Art

White Horseradish

March 8, 2005, 12:15 PM

In places where decriminalization/legalization has been tried, the results have not been good. Crime has increased.

Hmm. Holland sure comes to mind when I think "cesspool of crime". Oh, wait...

Where did you get that information?

The Rabbi

March 8, 2005, 12:43 PM

Private money includes heightened insurance premium costs and medical costs as well as other personal-loss costs due to crimes.

How will health-care costs go down if more people use drugs?

Nobody attempts to sell anything whatsoever if there is no profit motive. (Ignoring governments.) That just does not happen. If you can't make a profit on an item, why would you try to be involved with it other than as a user? Why?

Why will making them legal eliminate the profit motive? If there is no profit motive at all then there will be no suppliers. I agree it will make drugs less costly, thus driving down profit margins and making it less profitable to deal in them. But it wont eliminate profit. And it sure wont eliminate usage.

If one need not rob in order to get money with which to buy drugs, why would one rob? Or, why would one rob with the present frequency?

So are you saying that under legalization drugs will be cost-free? No, they will still cost money and there will always be people with more appetite for drugs than money to pay for them.

The Rabbi

March 8, 2005, 12:55 PM

Hmm. Holland sure comes to mind when I think "cesspool of crime". Oh, wait.

From a Canadian report on crime. But I am sure you'll have a list of reasons why this is biased, unreliable, unresponsive.....As I said, people who are closed to any ideas but their own will always find some refutation.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/crim_jus/corrections_21_e.asp

Throughout the world, a variety of approaches have been adopted to deal with problems associated with drugs. Some countries view drug use as a social and medical concern, while other countries consider drug use to be a criminal problem. In those countries where drug use is primarily seen as a medical and social problem, there has been support for the implementation of alternative methods of dealing with drug use (Junger-Tas 1992: 208).
For instance, in Dutch countries a "harm reduction model" has been implemented whereby legal control is expressed in intensified criminalization of the drug trade paralleled by a decriminalization of drug users (Kemmesies 1997: 188). It includes the use of substitute prescription and needle exchange programs for drug users. Similarly, in the Netherlands drug policies have been adopted which aim to curtail the illegal drug trade while helping the individual user. In addition, Britain has implemented a needle exchange program (Killias 1998: 249) and methadone prescription has been utilized in various countries throughout the world.
Although studies on the effectiveness of these programs show mixed results, some reports indicate that the number of individuals addicted to heroin has actually increased following the implementation of these alternative methods of treating drug use. One study indicates that there has almost been a tripling of the number of heroin addicts in Holland since the country first liberalized its drug policies and a substantial increase in the number of individuals being treated in the methadone-maintenance programs run by the Ministry of Public Health (Collins, 1999). Further, these figures indicate that Holland has twice as many heroin addicts per capita as Britain, which is known for having one of the most serious heroin problems in Europe (Collins, 1999). Lastly, the introduction of the "coffee shop" laws was followed by an increase in marijuana use among Dutch youths aged 18 to 25 (Collins, 1999).

what42

March 8, 2005, 12:59 PM

Why will making them legal eliminate the profit motive? If there is no profit motive at all then there will be no suppliers. I agree it will make drugs less costly, thus driving down profit margins and making it less profitable to deal in them. But it wont eliminate profit. And it sure wont eliminate usage.
Of course legalization won't eliminate profit motive. But it will eliminate the profit motive for criminals. No longer will you have drug pushers on the corners of our streets. When someone can walk into a liquor store and purchase one of their favorite drugs at a reasonable price, there will be no motive for armed dangerous drug dealers to fight over turf to sell drugs. There will be no pushers giving these drugs to kids to get them hooked because the supply will be sufficient to take out any motive for the criminals to do so.

If these drugs are legalized, they can be taxed and regulated much like alcohol and tobacco are. I'm not saying the way tobacco and alcohol are handled is perfect but you don't see the extensive criminal element associated with those that you do with the illegal drugs.

The Rabbi

March 8, 2005, 01:11 PM

Of course legalization won't eliminate profit motive. But it will eliminate the profit motive for criminals. No longer will you have drug pushers on the corners of our streets. When someone can walk into a liquor store and purchase one of their favorite drugs at a reasonable price, there will be no motive for armed dangerous drug dealers to fight over turf to sell drugs. There will be no pushers giving these drugs to kids to get them hooked because the supply will be sufficient to take out any motive for the criminals to do so.

It costs a lot of money to make good, drinkable whiskey. There is an investment in machinery, barrels, the aging process etc etc. Sure people make whiskey in their basement but the quality is terrible and is substantially different from what you can buy in the store. This is why there are no cheap knock-offs of Jack Daniels made in someone's garage.
But with drugs the marginal cost of producing the stuff is negligible. And the quality difference between one lot and another is negligible. So the marginal cost to produce, say, an ounce of marijuana is next to nothing. Thus anything much over actual cost to transport invites illegal activity. There are tons of illegal cigarettes sold in NY because the difference in cost between a pack there and the same pack in NC invites people to load up in NC and bring them to NY. You wont eliminate that problem by legalizing and taxing. You will still have an enormous underground illegal market.

CAS700850

March 8, 2005, 01:43 PM

Let me start this off by saying/repeating that I am an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney(D.A.). An increasingly large percentage of my work load is spent on drug cases, and I am being assigned more and more frequently to the drug enforcement task force. And, I am have great success at it, if I do say so myself. :D Everything that follows is colored by my experiences as an APA/DA, either in Child Protective Services cases, Juvenile Crime cases, of Adult Felony cases I have handled.

I think that the "war" on marihuana should be abandoned. Marihuana is almost politically correct these days. It is openly talked about, admitted to, and doesn't even give a good basis for revoking probation/parole in many cases. Simply put, society's norms are changing to the point where marihuana is no longer taboo, so let's make the best of this one. Let's legalize it, sell it from licensed dealers, pay farmers to grow it, tax it, regulate it, regulate its use, criminalize certain behavior with certain amounts in the system (driving, doing risky work like airline pilot, surgeon, etc.), and call it a day.

I think the "war" on other drugs should continue. I have seen too many people destroy their lives due to cocaine/herion/methamphetamine use and addiction. Making it more readily available and legal will not stop this problem. If anything, it may increase the problem. I have seen mothers choose crack over the welfare of their child. I saw a case where a father traded his 15 year old daughter for a week (sexually) for a large amount of heroin, and then get her hooked on it to get over being sexually abused by the dealer. I have seen people choose meth over food. I have seen crack babies. I have seen women beaten badly by a live-in/husband in a meth induced rage. I saw a man who was high on a mixture of drugs, including LSD, who cut off his own penis with a razor blade, because he hallucinated it being a snake that was trying to kill his wife.

Making these kinds of drugs readily available is not going to stop any of these things from happening. It would reduce crime, sure, by eliminating trafficking, possession, etc., as criminal offenses. But related crime isn't going to come down. Think the crack addict is going to get/keep a job to support his habit? And, these dealers, do you really think they'll go from easy criminal money selling dope to flipping burgers at McDonalds for minimum wages? Not a chance.

I think that the costs of fighting the war with these drugs is worth it, compared to the costs of making these drugs legal? Would you rather pay me to prosecute drug dealers, or pay me to take children away from drug addicted mothers who won't properly care for them?

kfranz

March 8, 2005, 01:56 PM

Gov't intervention when no rights have been violated isn't right. Life is about choices and consequences. Let people make choices and experience consequences. If those choices infringe on the rights of others, then gov't intervention is warranted. Until then, any excuse will serve.....

I think that the costs of fighting the war with these drugs is worth it, compared to the costs of making these drugs legal? Would you rather pay me to prosecute drug dealers, or pay me to take children away from drug addicted mothers who won't properly care for them?

The latter

cracked butt

March 8, 2005, 02:16 PM

Hmm. Holland sure comes to mind when I think "cesspool of crime". Oh, wait...

Holland, an often stated example, is not the drug users' utopia that people think it is.

Posession of marijuana is still illegal. In small amounts its really no different than misdemeanor marijauna possesion in this country, though the laws there aren't exactly strictly enforced. Marijauna can be purchased and used legally inside strictly regulated 'coffee shops' located in and around Amsterdam but once again, it cannot be bought, sold, or possessed legally outside of these shops. If the shops were to break laws and sell hard drugs, they would be quickly shut down by law enforcement.Hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, ecstacy are very illegal in Holland, if youy don't believe me, take a trip there and try it out for yourself.
I don't think Amsterdams policies are at all too bad, as the sale of marijauna is tightly controlled, but once again, its not exactly a dopers paradise either.

Too Many Choices!?

March 8, 2005, 02:17 PM

Would you rather the government take away guns(from the civillian market) or prosecute those that commit crimes with them :confused: ? The latter :neener: !

halvey

March 8, 2005, 02:19 PM

I wish they'd quit calling it a war.

White Horseradish

March 8, 2005, 02:32 PM

Holland, an often stated example, is not the drug users' utopia that people think it is.

Posession of marijuana is still illegal. In small amounts its really no different than misdemeanor marijauna possesion in this country, though the laws there aren't exactly strictly enforced. Marijauna can be purchased and used legally inside strictly regulated 'coffee shops' located in and around Amsterdam but once again, it cannot be bought, sold, or possessed legally outside of these shops. If the shops were to break laws and sell hard drugs, they would be quickly shut down by law enforcement.Hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, ecstacy are very illegal in Holland, if youy don't believe me, take a trip there and try it out for yourself.
I don't think Amsterdams policies are at all too bad, as the sale of marijauna is tightly controlled, but once again, its not exactly a dopers paradise either.
Today 12:56 PMSo, what you're saying is that nobody has actually legalized anything. Hey, Rabbi, I guess that study is wrong then. Can't talk about experience with legalization if there is no legalization, can we?

Too Many Choices!?

March 8, 2005, 02:33 PM

As we all know you can't declare war on an inanimate objects or ideas.. :cuss: ...Only on people and their behaviors :( ...Too bad things that offend some people are the rights of others....We all have Too Many Choices....I like it that way! Why do some wish to control every aspect of others lives against the Founding Fathers explicit documented ideal :uhoh: ! Could it be a MORAL superiority complex....hmmmmm!

hso

March 8, 2005, 02:34 PM

Waste of money and lives.

CAS700850

March 8, 2005, 02:34 PM

Too Many Choices: Trust me, I do prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. Every chance I get. It allows me to go test fire the evidence. :D

And, Halvey, I agree. Stop calling it a war, or get me combat pay, a uniform allowance, unlimited ammo, an M-4, PX privileges, and USO tickets. :D

Gordon Fink

March 8, 2005, 03:54 PM

It costs a lot of money to make good, drinkable whiskey. There is an investment in machinery, barrels, the aging process etc etc. Sure people make whiskey in their basement but the quality is terrible and is substantially different from what you can buy in the store. This is why there are no cheap knock-offs of Jack Daniels made in someone’s garage.

But with drugs the marginal cost of producing the stuff is negligible. And the quality difference between one lot and another is negligible. So the marginal cost to produce, say, an ounce of marijuana is next to nothing. Thus anything much over actual cost to transport invites illegal activity. There are tons of illegal cigarettes sold in NY because the difference in cost between a pack there and the same pack in NC invites people to load up in NC and bring them to NY. You wont eliminate that problem by legalizing and taxing. You will still have an enormous underground illegal market.

An argument in favor of improving drug safety via legalization, followed by an example of how too much regulation leads to more crime.

~G. Fink

Werewolf

March 8, 2005, 04:16 PM

Would you rather pay me to prosecute drug dealers, or pay me to take children away from drug addicted mothers who won't properly care for them?
Legalalize drugs and there are no more pushers.

Legal drugs or illegal drugs there will always be drug addicted mothers who have no business being a parent.

So to answer your question - I choose the second option. The pusher and the mother are a lost cause. Save the child and you may actually have done something good.

CAS700850

March 8, 2005, 04:24 PM

what42

March 8, 2005, 04:32 PM

Funny, I thought that more of you would have favored prosecuting the bad guy as opposed to taking kids away from mothers. that's what I love about THR. Always shows me to never take for granted my belief as to what you'll say.
The problem is that in many cases the 'bad guys' are the mothers. If some mother decides crack is more important than her baby she deserves all kinds of hell and that kid should be found a new home. This has nothing to do with the legal status of drugs. Anytime any parent chooses that something is more important than feeding their kids they should be arrested, shot, burned in hell, etc... This could be someone spending money on drugs, alchohol, new parts for their AR15.

I don't think that because some people make bad choices, everyone's freedom should be curtailed. I think we should do our best to protect the innocents without restricting the rights of other innocents. (The right to flush your life down the crapper included)

kfranz

March 8, 2005, 04:35 PM

Those that value freedom will almost always prefer that you punish those who've violated the rights of others, rather than punish those that have not... :)

Too Many Choices!?

March 8, 2005, 04:38 PM

If the mother decided to do (any socially unacceptable deeds) instead of her responsibilities as a parent then, she deserves to lose her kids.....No different than a drunk mom, a stupid mom, a stoned mom, a stealing mom or a gambling mom.* Irresponsible is as irresponsible does* Negligence to a chld is simply not tolerated in this society(you wanna play? DON'T HAVE KIDS be one!)....When you have kids your rights become secondary to theirs.....ie Your right to get drunk is below the childs right to have a responsible parent :neener: ! So the drug dealer is still not the cause of the woman getting stoned, drunk, gambling in a casino, or stealing clothes :cuss: ! If the mother makes bad choices like gambling away the rent money(instead of smoking it up)do we blame the casino........ :confused: NO! But she is no less guilty of negligence in her parental duties, duh!

The new politicions think if we just ban enough of the "evil items" like guns, drugs, prostiitution, and smoking,then all evil will disappear from the hearts and minds of mankind........Our tax dollars hard at work :cuss:

The Rabbi

March 8, 2005, 05:15 PM

An argument in favor of improving drug safety via legalization, followed by an example of how too much regulation leads to more crime.

If thats what you got out of it then there is nothing more to discuss. Actually there is nothing more to discuss anyway.
We've had a DA recount the horrors of drug addiction, some very real victims of drug use and all people can say is "yeah. let 'em rot in hell." I think I wrote elsewhere that Libertarianism is immoral. I think people have proven that point.

Too Many Choices!?

March 8, 2005, 05:23 PM

We already have had it brought out in this thread that there are places for those that are addicted and need treatment......Same as alcohol.....Same as mental disease/problems. For everyone else, Choices Rabbi, Choices......Make'm, then deal with them.....

ksnecktieman

March 8, 2005, 05:34 PM

CAS? It appears we are on opposite sides of this, so may I ask you a few things?
At what age do you think our children are being exposed to, and encouraged to, use drugs?

Do you think if Bayer was producing methamphetamines, and selling them for a dollar a dose that anyone would be standing at the school house corner giving away samples?

As things are now, Joe Smoe spends a weekend in a garage (if he does not blow up the neighborhood), three hundred bucks on chemicals, and makes what ?? maybe a thousand doses, with a street value of ten dollars a dose. Can you understand why Joe is giving away free samples to our children? Can you understand why he would fight over his "territory"?

I will agree with you that addiction is terrible. I also think that some things are very hard to change. I think it would be very easy to stop "pushers", and replace them with "drug salesmen".

Remove the windfall profits by legalizing and taxing all drugs, the feds can probably make money in the process,,,,,,, I am not a liberal, but I am going to use one of their lines,,,,,, "Do it for the Children"

Nitram68

March 8, 2005, 05:37 PM

Given a choice between a law and freedom, I choose freedom. Please don't say freedom to murder either, fools. Freedom that hurts nobody but myself, if I choose to indulge to excess... and then I live/die by my choice.

Gordon Fink

March 8, 2005, 06:52 PM

If thats what you got out of it then there is nothing more to discuss. Actually there is nothing more to discuss anyway.

Rabbi, you are a man of God, are you not? (I assume such from your pseudonym.) If so, you should understand that people are responsible for their own actions, including their poor choices. God has given us free will, and it is not the state’s responsibility to protect us from our own mistakes.

No one is arguing that drug abuse can’t have terrible consequences. Abuse of anything can have negative repercussions. However, trying to control material things (drugs, guns, pocket lint, etc.) will never change behavior or significantly reduce these abuses.

Tyranny is a self-sustaining process … to a point. Drug control leads to gun control. In turn, privacy rights must be infringed. Criticism of government can soon no longer be tolerated, so anti-sedition laws are passed. Then dangerous/different religions are outlawed. Until the state behemoth finally collapses into anarchy.

I don’t use or abuse drugs, but I still suffer the consequences of the “war on drugs.”

~G. Fink

DRZinn

March 8, 2005, 07:57 PM

Libertarianism is immoral :rolleyes:

Selfdfenz

March 8, 2005, 09:43 PM

"We already have had it brought out in this thread that there are places for those that are addicted and need treatment......Same as alcohol.....Same as mental disease/problems. For everyone else, Choices Rabbi, Choices......Make'm, then deal with them....."

:confused:
Make'm, then deal with them

The junkies make'em we all deal with'em as a resilt.

S-

Too Many Choices!?

March 8, 2005, 10:38 PM

Please clarify the intended meaning :confused: .....

To everyone else, why is there no law against mutilating your own body? In fact we allow it and even force it onto little girls(ear piercing)! Why do we allow metal bars to be inserted into the human body that serve no function but decoration? Because I have a right to mutilate my body if I want to....If I want to pierce my nose, tounge, eyebrow, nipple, or genitals(why I don't know but that's another thread) I have a right to! Why because in this country I don't have to show a need to exercise a right! The fact that it does no harm to the liberty of others is enough :neener: ! Drugs, alcohol,body mutilation, pornography, cigarretes, and even homosexual sex are all right protected by the constitution(just not in public, duh).......Even if it sends most peoples moral compass into a tail spin and is not explicitly written in as an ammendment..... :neener: HUMAN TORCH mode "Flame on!"

PS Quote"Liberitarianism is immoral! Too Many Choices has spoken! It is fun though :evil: Your name calling only adds fuel to the confligration.....whata tool! lol (just kiddin bout the tool part but you see how it does not help ;)

The Rabbi

March 8, 2005, 10:44 PM

Sorry, which "right" are you referring to? Which article and section of the Constitution guarantees the right to mutilate your own body? I musta missed that one.

Too Many Choices!?

March 8, 2005, 10:53 PM

I did not know that if a right was not expressly written into the Constitution that it never existed :rolleyes: , thanx for setting me straight :neener: You learn something new everyday.....

So I don't have a right to hunt on private property or fish or do anything that is not illegal on private or public land:uhoh: .....I am done with this one, but you guys feel free to set the rabbi back to reality if you like :) ....

Ok I lied, I am back to clear up that last paragraph....I have a right to own property correct, Rabbi? My body is the ultimate expression of that right....If I want my property/body to have tattoo, bar through the nose, mo hawk made of nails, a split added to my tounge to be serpent-like, or to have plastic surgery(mutilation as it serves no physiological medical reason other than "I want to look this way!") It is my Right .....Curios how my last post was about sending moral compasses into a tail spin and the Rabbi responds :) !

Sindawe

March 8, 2005, 10:56 PM

Let me refreash your memory Rabbi, its a little thing known as the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Rabbi

March 8, 2005, 10:57 PM

Hey rabbi now you've done it....I Call BS

You dont have to call BS. You seem to have plenty already.
You postulated there was a "right" to mutilate yourself. I asked where that "right" exists. Right and fundamental right are very specific terms that mean very specific things. If the government passed a law tomorrow that you could no longer hunt on private land then you couldnt. You have no right outside of government regs. Go read up on this please.

Selfdfenz

March 8, 2005, 10:57 PM

Too Many Choices,

I could not determine from your post if you were advocating choices in regards to drug users, The Rabbi or the public in general.

"Drugs, alcohol,body mutilation, pornography, cigarretes, and even homosexual sex are all right protected by the constitution(just not in public, duh)"

Regulated perhaps, protected ...?
I'm not sure there is any constitutional right to drink, view child pornography, or mutilate your body.

S-

The Rabbi

March 8, 2005, 11:05 PM

Let me refreash your memory Rabbi, its a little thing known as the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

You must be one of those judicial liberals rather than an original intent person. The 9th was only construed to refer to other rights starting with Griswold.
But by that logic, every law in the US is unconstitutional if it interferes with any action by an individual. If you believe that you are welcome to it.

Ky Larry

March 8, 2005, 11:08 PM

In the words of Chris Rock:" If crack cocaine is cheaper than asthma medecine, and easier to get, you've already lost the war on drugs."

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We've tried prohibiting booze and it didn't work. We've tried prohibiting homosexuality and it didn't work. We've tried prohibiting gambling and it didn't work. Why do we think prohibiting drugs will work? :banghead:

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY!!! :cuss:

Sindawe

March 8, 2005, 11:12 PM

But by that logic, every law in the US is unconstitutional if it interferes with any action by an individual. If you believe that you are welcome to it. If said law interferes with the actions of an individual that do not violate the rights of another individual, be they enumerated in the Constitution (such as freedom of speach, keeping and bearing of arms) or unenumerated in that document, then yes, they are unconstitutional.

Too Many Choices!?

March 8, 2005, 11:17 PM

My body is not on loan from the government :cuss: ! If I want to cut ALL MY BODY HAIR off and rename myself," The NAKED MOLE RAT KING", it is my right......Why? Cause its none of your business and doesn't affect you in the least.....If you don't like it deal with it in a grown up way like not doing it yourself, duh!

Selfdefenz: If my body is not mine to do with as I will then who does it belong to?....I swear if anyone says the government I will jump through your screen and do that thing from the"Ring" to you :evil: If what I do with my body does nothing to infringe the rights of another then it is constitutionally protected.....
If you are not sure there is a right to drink or mutilate yourself that is too bad for you.....You have no belief in who you are as an individual and are simply a cog in the wheel of big government....I am an individual with a duty to society but am still an individual :neener: Now the child porn issue is not protected and is a red herring if you ask me.....As a right can not infringe on anothers rights like mureder does....Child porn. is not a right because children can not give consent to sexual acts.....So what was the point in bringing it up other than to "add fuel to the fire"? :confused:

Too Many Choices!?

March 8, 2005, 11:33 PM

If you honostly believe that then mores to pity.....Another cog in the wheel..on the bus to the Police state......All aboard! If there was a law that was passed about not hunting on private property it would be struck down as Un-Constitutional, you remeber the Constitution right? The precursor to Americas laws as we know them....Private property means just that....Private. I can not be told what to do on my property anymore than I could tell you what to watch on YOUR tv.....Is that really such an astounding leap in logic for some...My body = private property.....Private property= mine to do with as I please without infringing anothers rights, duh! The right to own property is a fundamental human right. I ask the question again, If my body does not belong to me then who does it belong to Rabbi? If my property does not belong to me, then who owns it? Answer these questions honostly and you will see the fundamental flaw in your logic, IMHO :)

Selfdfenz

March 9, 2005, 12:12 AM

I hate to break this to you but you are wrong if you beleive as a land owner you have unlimited rights to hunt whatever you please, whenever you please, however you please.

You may own the land but the wildlife resources on it still have state and sometimes federal regs protecting and regulating that resource as need.

Don't think so:
Bag a few ducks out of season on your property and a fedaral agent will be glad to throw the ever-loving book at you if they find out.

Just because you have doves in your back yard at your bird feeder does not mean you can gun a few anytime the notion hits.

I hope I misunderstood the context of the commenst in your post.

Best,

S-

Firethorn

March 9, 2005, 12:13 AM

Rabbi,

I wouldn't say that we libertarians are immoral. Indeed, we often have very strict morals. However, it's a different set of morals.

We believe that a adult has the right to do as he or she wishes, as long as that doesn't interfere with another's rights.
We believe that personal responsability is a inevitable requirement. That trying to impose morals from outside is inevitably futile. That also means that letting a person suffer the consequences of his actions is necessary.

We view it as a choice of the adult, and if we think it's a poor one, the adult may not think so. Or it might be a poor choice, even to the adult, in which case it's a learning experience, much like when my mother allowed me to make minor mistakes as a child as a learning experience. I still remember the time I bought one of those "neat" toys at the supermarket, spending some of my precious money on one of those supermarket gimcrack toys. It looked neat to my young self, but after it broke almost immediatly later, I learned a lasting lesson on "quality". A minor lesson, but important one. After that, I'd save my money until I found a *really* good toy. :rolleyes:

If dressing up in latex and dragging a cart around is their thing, so be it, it's not hurting me. If smoking marijuanna is their thing, so be it. If it leads to them losing their job and living in the street, well that's their choice.

Now children, they don't have that choice, though the older the minor, the more responsability, and therefore the more consequences they can experience. But because that child lacks the ability to choose, lacking a reasonable amount of experience, maturity, etc... Normally the parents are considered the guardians of the child. When the parents are unable or unwilling to properly protect the child, there are procedures for selecting others to guard the child.

You see, let's say a woman makes some poor choices. She ends up having a kid, and trys to keep it. She's reduced to a state where the child can't be properly protected (food, shelter, education, etc...). Or even a family. As a libertarian, we're commited to allowing the parents to suffer the consequences of their actions. But it's not the childs fault. So we place protections in place for the children. It's extremely complicated, and not my specialty, so I won't go further.

From Anarchangel (http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/politics-of-liberty.html)
"I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a constructive anarchist. Basically what that means is that I believe that all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as no one is getting hurt who isn't paying extra"

If you read the rest of the link, I agree with him. In many ways, I'm often at odds with the Libertarions over matters of foreign policy and national defense. My problem? Libertarion ideas would work fine: As long as we only apply them to other substantially libertarian countries.

Selfdfenz

March 9, 2005, 12:25 AM

Too many

Now the child porn issue is not protected and is a red herring if you ask me.....As a right can not infringe on anothers rights like mureder does....Child porn. is not a right because children can not give consent to sexual acts.....So what was the point in bringing it up other than to "add fuel to the fire"?

I was responding to and qualifying your statement. You specifically listed porn as a right. If you are prepared to claim porn to be a "right" be prepared to defend your position. Obviously given your response to "child porn" you recognize there are limits to some of your so called rights.

If the FDA or CDC decided to ban cigs tomorrow I'm not sure they are without the regulatory mandate to do just that.

There are timing and context limits to every one of the items you list as "rights" and some .gov some place has control.

S-

Selfdfenz

March 9, 2005, 12:37 AM

"You see, let's say a woman makes some poor choices. She ends up having a kid, and trys to keep it. She's reduced to a state where the child can't be properly protected (food, shelter, education, etc...). Or even a family. As a libertarian, we're commited to allowing the parents to suffer the consequences of their actions. But it's not the childs fault. So we place protections in place for the children. It's extremely complicated, and not my specialty, so I won't go further."

Let me say first I have zero tolerance for child neglect and abuse etc. but wasn't a minor twist of this logic employed to take children from their parents in places like Cuba? in Nazi Germany?
In those cases the parenting deficit identified by the "state" was in the area of political education.

S-

DRZinn

March 9, 2005, 09:54 AM

You have no right outside of government regs.You are obviously insane. Good day, sir.

Werewolf

March 9, 2005, 10:35 AM

The Rabbi

March 9, 2005, 10:54 AM

I wouldn't say that we libertarians are immoral. Indeed, we often have very strict morals. However, it's a different set of morals.

We have seen one post declaring that pornography is a "right." I will agree in light of that that it is a very different set of morals.

We believe that personal responsability is a inevitable requirement. That trying to impose morals from outside is inevitably futile. That also means that letting a person suffer the consequences of his actions is necessary.

That's terrific, as long as people also have the means to exercise their personal responsibility. But when a crack addict cuts off his penis and ends up in the ER, costing probably $100k in medical care and he has no money and no insurance, then his "personal responsibility" is meaningless. When a mother neglects her kids to buy drugs and the kids then have to become wards of the state then the someone has to pay the social costs. And it sure isnt the mother. What you are advocating is not personal responsibility but personal irresponsibility, the right to do whatever you want and have someone else pay for the consequences.

Too Many Choices!?

March 9, 2005, 11:00 AM

Quote from myself:"So I don't have the right to hunt on private propety or fish or do anything that is NOT illegal on private or public land" I think that quote says it all about my hunting comments..... Back to this porn thing....Adult porn is a right....Wrong to many but a right....Child porn is not a right as I said as children can not give consent to sexual acts.Child porn is illegal because it violate a childs right not to be violated. Murder is illegal because it invades someones right to exist/live. Stealing is a crime because it violates someones right to own property.You see the law is very clear although politi-CONS want to convolute.....My rights end exactly where they start to effect the rights of another,period. All laws on the books today have this basic premise at their core :)! Even the Federal ones are supposed to be about the rights of the many being violated somehow. Politi-Cons of today wish to change that to where my rights end where they say they end, and this is just wrong, but judging from some of these responses they are doing a good jobn! Our tax dollars hard at work!

Someone show me the Fed Regulations AGAINST body mutilation? If it is not in the law books(and not violating others rights) then it is legal, period.....
Why is speeding illegal, drinking and driving illegal, dui illegal, and why did they try to make cell phone use in a car illegal.....In the name of the Public good. It woudl be hard to prove the public good served by not allowing body mutilation....You see the government has the burdon of proof when trying to establish laws....Which recently they have not been meeting......WOD,WOT, AWB,'86 ban, and entire NFA......None of these show measurable benifits to the public as laws are already against crimes of these types or with these items ! Our tax dollars hard at work to save us from ourselves :cuss: !

Too Many Choices!?

March 9, 2005, 11:12 AM

I have a right to have sex with a woman.... I have a right to own a camera ...... I have a right to tape sexual acts between consenting adults(keywords people adults and not in public). Rabbi , show me the Fed Regs, or state for that matter, that say taping sexual acts between consenting adults is illegal or immoral :cuss: ! Maybe on your moral compass which I threw into a tailspin as pointed out earlier; but the reality is , I am right and you are working from a position of a moral superiority complex.... :) . Consenting adults taping or watchin sexual acts is not your job to stop or "save them from themselves"! When someone becomes the world morality police inevitably their moarlas are what is followed....Thankfully you are not in charge....As you have stated we have no rights outside what government says and that porn is a "wrong" not a right simply because it is not moral to you.....Not a quote but I can connect the dots with the best of them.....So if you ran the country anything you decided to be "immoral" would be a no no :confused: I will pray for you again...... :(

The Rabbi

March 9, 2005, 11:26 AM

Listen, I cautioned you earlier to read up on rights and fundamental rights before you spout off. You havent done it.
Just because something is presently legal does not equate to you having a "right" to do that. Those are two very different things.
You have no right to own a radio. Currently it is not illegal for you to have one but you have no right to. If they passed a law tomorrow making it illegal you would have no recourse. Similarly you have no right to operate radio broadcasting equipment without a license. Go ahead and set up a pirate radio station and see what happens. When they arrest you go ahead and claim your rights. I'll visit you in jail. Ditto with owning a full-auto sear and AR rifle or whatever the illegal combo is.
Assuming you are a citizen, over 18, registered, and not a felon you do have a right to vote. If someone passed a law prohibiting you from voting you would have a case against it because you do have such a right, which was being violated.

Too Many Choices!?

March 9, 2005, 11:43 AM

A radio is property. I have a right to own a radio. If the government tried to pass a law against owning a radio, it would have to show a connection to the public good somehow. Or can government just pass whatever laws they want,for whatever reason they want, at whatever time they want? .If no it would be struck down as unConstitutional...Again simply because a right is not numbered in the constitution does not mean it does not exist.....I have property rights and therefore have a right to a radio....If I believe as you would have me then I don't have any property rights at all, only what government thinks I need to have.....That just sounds funny to me.....More like a dictatorship than a democracy......

The Rabbi

March 9, 2005, 11:57 AM

A barrel of whiskey is property too and yet you have no right to own one. In fact you would be violating the law if you did have one (I know because I did make inquiries about buying one).
Again, before you post please go back and look up what right and fundamental right mean. It does not mean what you are saying.

Werewolf

March 9, 2005, 12:05 PM

If I believe as you would have me then I don't have any property rights at all, only what government thinks I need to have.....
Now you get it!That just sounds funny to me.....
Not funny at all - it's just the way things are, always have been and always will be. Darwin made this pretty clear a bit over a hundred years ago. It all boils down to: He who has the biggest stick makes the rules.
More like a dictatorship than a democracy......
Every government in the final analysis is a dictatorship. Some governments (called republics, democracies, what ever) just spread the power around a little bit and even allow input from it's citizens.

A right prohibited is no right at all. If you have to ask one's masters for permission to exercise a right then it isn't a right it is a privelidge.

The sheeple in the US have given up all their power and delivered it to the government at all levels. If anyone doesn't believe this try doing something as simple as building an addition onto your home without government permission or better yet head on down to your local Walmart and buy that MP-5 fully automatic submachine gun you've been wanting. Tried getting on a plane lately without your government issued papers? Good luck. More examples abound. I could go on and on but I suspect it would be an exercise in futility.

People can only do what their government allows them to do. If they believe otherwise they either live in isolation out in the boonies or end up in prison when they decide to do that which the government prohibits.

Sindawe

March 9, 2005, 12:37 PM

Rabbi, in your view, where to Rights and Fundimental Rights originate?

Gordon Fink

March 9, 2005, 12:56 PM

We are so screwed. :uhoh:

~G. Fink

The Rabbi

March 9, 2005, 01:18 PM

Rabbi, in your view, where to Rights and Fundimental Rights originate?

Truthfully no one has ever proven they exist separate from government. Even the Founders located the source as "from their Creator" which of course would be no-no today. They seem to be inherent in the Western tradition, based in the Bible (whatever that means) and Greek/Roman philosophy, especially Cicero, who was a big favorite with the Founders.
The easy answer is that are granted by the Constitution. The landmark of Griswold was to locate rights in the "penumbra and emanations" of the Constitution. I personally find that approach distateful. Maybe that makes me a legal positivist.

Sindawe

March 9, 2005, 01:50 PM

Nice jig Rabbi, but you did not answer the question. Where do YOU, The Rabbi, view Rights originating from? The easy answer is that are granted by the Constitution. Which is also the inncorrect one.

Art Eatman

March 9, 2005, 02:14 PM

The sarcasm ends, or this thread does.

Art

CAS700850

March 9, 2005, 02:20 PM

Boy, is this my fault? Hey, like I tell people all the time, don't like the law, please call your rep. at the State House/Congress and tell them it needs changing. In the meantime, I'll just use what's in the book.

About a page back, I was expressing my concern, based upon my experiences in cases I prosecuted. Yes, I know that putting Meth for sale next to the beer is not going to make everyone an addict. But I think putting meth/cocaine/heroin for sale, approved by the government, and taxed appropriately, AS A SOLUTION TO THE CRIMES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS will not be the cure-all to crime that many say it would be. Dealers sell drugs because it is easy money, and pays a lot more than a minimum wage job. Do we think that putting them out of the dope business will cause them to all go finish their education and take jobs that pay less in a week than they made in a day, where they actually have to get up in the morning, get dressed, do real work, and put up with the hell of teh workplace? Nah, just change criminal enterprises.

I just prosecuted a man who went from Meth manufacture/sales to illegal gun sales. He actually was making his own full auto weapons, short barreled weapons, etc., and also buying up a ton of second-hand handguns, then selling to people, no questions asked, cash only, no background check necessary, no paperwork, good shooting.
Why the career change? He said meth was too dangerous to make. Why not get a regular job, maybe as a machinist? He told the judge that he just couldn't see working for someone else, making them rich, while getting paid less in a month than he used to make in a day.

Look, my position has nothing to do with the morality of drug usage. It has everything to do with some peoples belief that "legalization" will end a ton of crime. No way. It'll just change what types of crime I'm prosecuting.

Too Many Choices!?

March 9, 2005, 02:48 PM

I apologize for my semi antagonistic comments to some of you guys....You know who you are but my points are still valid I believe.....

So Mr. Eatman where do you stand on this one? Does my body belong to me? If so does, that not mean what goes into/onto it is also my choice?

benEzra

March 9, 2005, 03:03 PM

The reality of it is that the only rights anyone has are the rights that the government under which they live gives 'em.
That's backward, IMO. The only rights anyone has are the rights that we successfully prevent the government under which we live from taking. The government does not grant rights; it can only restrict them.

Gordon Fink

March 9, 2005, 03:06 PM

I just prosecuted a man who went from [m]eth manufacture/sales to illegal [sic] gun sales.…

:banghead:

~G. Fink

The Rabbi

March 9, 2005, 03:30 PM

Nice jig Rabbi, but you did not answer the question. Where do YOU, The Rabbi, view Rights originating from?

I guess I'll answer it again.
I am a legal positivist. I think rights are granted by the ruling entity, whatever that is. It is impossible to prove their existence separate from legal constructs. And if you are going to throw the Nazis and their legal regime at me I will answer they were legally correct but morally wrong. Morality does not always equate with legality, although it should.
As for the source of morality, that should be obvious from the screen name.

And you?

Werewolf

March 9, 2005, 03:45 PM

That's backward, IMO. The only rights anyone has are the rights that we successfully prevent the government under which we live from taking. The government does not grant rights; it can only restrict them.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. Ya know what I mean Vern?

Pragmatically we're saying the same exact thing.

Sindawe

March 9, 2005, 04:49 PM

I am a legal positivist. I think rights are granted by the ruling entity, whatever that is. It is impossible to prove their existence separate from legal constructs. OK, that makes more sense to me than your first answer. I think you are incorrect, but such is life.

In my view, Rights are inherent in the individual due to their being alive, and DO NOT flow from a sovereign, State or legal body. Goverments are formed to PROTECT those rights, not grant them. And if you are going to throw the Nazis and their legal regime at me... Say WHAT? Where did THAT come from? :uhoh:

Werewolf

March 9, 2005, 05:01 PM

Goverments are formed to PROTECT those rights, not grant them. Nice thoughts and words to make the masses feel good but inherently false.

Governments are formed and exist to put the brakes on and to control the chaos that would result in their absence.

Man being a social animal needs rules to provide for the continuation of his group, tribe, nation - what ever. Even the smallest of social groups has rules. At the macro level the system of rules become government.

Without rules - backed up by force of law and arms - groups would simply not exist. The individual Man by nature is an aggressive beast who lives by the same rules nature established - survival of the strongest. That may work for solitary beasts but not for the Group Man.

Governments restrict and grant rights, privelidges - what ever you want to call them. Some may even protect to a certain degree (they evolve eventually into restricters). To believe otherwise indicates a lack of historical knowledge and a pink sky, blue bunny outlook on life as we know it.

Sindawe

March 9, 2005, 05:12 PM

Well, I guess the fine fools who signed off on the following words were ignorant of history and fans of blue bunny, pink sky outlook on life, eh? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

The Rabbi

March 9, 2005, 05:49 PM

In my view, Rights are inherent in the individual due to their being alive, and DO NOT flow from a sovereign, State or legal body. Goverments are formed to PROTECT those rights, not grant them.

So what is the source of those rights, what are they specifically, and how do you know that?

Werewolf

March 9, 2005, 06:02 PM

Well, I guess the fine fools who signed off on the following words were ignorant of history and fans of blue bunny, pink sky outlook on life, eh?
No... they weren't ignorant of history. Quite the contrary. They knew it well.

BUT! They had a cause to sell and they knew they weren't gonna sell it by telling people the truth about governments. The uneducated and otherwise mindless masses liked being stroked, petted and told how wonderful things are. They still do.

:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...Fine words describing the way things ought to be but not the way they really are nor will ever be. Fine words to sway the masses to a cause though - pure unadulterated propaganda.

No government has ever lived up to the standard of those words including that of the US. They are an unachievable goal towards which to strive. IMO the nature of man himself will prevent the ideal from ever becoming reality.

Firethorn

March 9, 2005, 06:15 PM

Let me say first I have zero tolerance for child neglect and abuse etc. but wasn't a minor twist of this logic employed to take children from their parents in places like Cuba? in Nazi Germany?
In those cases the parenting deficit identified by the "state" was in the area of political education.

SelfDefenz- That's why I said the issue is extremely complicated. I'll honestly say that I feel that child protection involving the removal from their parents are more complicated than the various scenarios where we all scream "Too many factors, can't say what we'll do without being in the situation".

That's terrific, as long as people also have the means to exercise their personal responsibility. But when a crack addict cuts off his penis and ends up in the ER, costing probably $100k in medical care and he has no money and no insurance, then his "personal responsibility" is meaningless. When a mother neglects her kids to buy drugs and the kids then have to become wards of the state then the someone has to pay the social costs. And it sure isnt the mother. What you are advocating is not personal responsibility but personal irresponsibility, the right to do whatever you want and have someone else pay for the consequences.
The Rabbi,

And where have I suggested, beyond taking the kids away, that the state's paying for this stuff? When the crack addict and mommie end up in a work program to pay for their bills, it's ends up being neutral. Besides, This is the situation as it is now!!! We are already paying the crack-heads medical bills, we're already paying for drug-mommy's kids. Heck, it's likely that drug-mommy still has her kids, and we're paying for them AND her. Not to mention that we're paying for the failed and failing drug war. Besides, it's unlikely that the crack head's going to chop pieces of himself off because he's less likely to have a bad trip because he can buy safe drugs from legal locations, not stuff made up in a basement. Heck, I think that cocaine would mostly push crack out of the now legalized marketplace. And call me wierd, but as I'm not a "pure" libertarian, I have no problems with placing a tax on the sale of these drugs to cover these incidents. As long as the tax only goes to those purposes. I'm a part of the "legalize it, tax it, and regulate it" crowd.

Legalize it: Kills the Black market
Tax it: Changes a money sink into a money fountain
Regulate it: By making it legal, it gives the government some say in it's production and usage. Purity, safety, stuff like that. Very much reduces the risk of overdose and bad side effects.

I just prosecuted a man who went from [m]eth manufacture/sales to illegal [sic] gun sales.…

:banghead:

Don't forget, in a more libertarian society, it would be VERY difficult to find a black market with lots of money to be made. Heck, if you limited the BM to only what (l)ibertarians would keep illegal, ie slave trading, child porn, and misrepresented goods, and still had as many illegal manufacturers/dealers, there would be more compitition for illegal goods than the legal ones!

Think about it, this guy was staying in the illegal goods business, why? Because he could make more money. If the BM is stripped to the point that even he wouldn't stomach the remaining black market items, he's going to have to take that pay cut. If he can't make money selling illegal drugs or weapons, he'll have to take the cut and work a legal job. Heck, rather than taking the easy money BM goods route, maybe he would have gotten further education and either found a better job or started his own business(easy in a libertarian society). Heck, would we even have a problem with meth if the other, harder to synthesize drugs were legal? Does meth provide some sort of unique high? Or is it just made because it can be made from easily available chemicals?

The Rabbi

March 9, 2005, 08:33 PM

Firethorn,
Wrong. Total misunderstandng of the economics of it and the sociology of it. The idea that a crack head is suddenly going to be productive by being in the work-fare program and able to pay off $100k in medical bills is just nonsense. If you give medical care you will incur expense. If you deny medical care you will have people dying in the street. You know some way around that dilemma? I sure dont. If you lower the total price of drugs you get more of them in circulation. You cannot argue away this basic law of economics. Crack will always supersede cocaine as the drug of choice. On and on and on. I think we've covered this topic sufficiently.

Sindawe

March 9, 2005, 08:59 PM

So what is the source of those rights, what are they specifically, and how do you know that? Those rights are inherent to my being, simply by virtue of being a sentient being. Specifically, the rights cover all that I may do in what I judge to be my own best interests, so long as I do not injure or harm another person, or violate their rights. Enumerating them all would take more time and space than I have to devote to the topic.

Sindawe

March 9, 2005, 09:14 PM

No government has ever lived up to the standard of those words including that of the US. They are an unachievable goal towards which to strive. IMO the nature of man himself will prevent the ideal from ever becoming reality. Too true, few if any .govs have lived up to their espoused ideals. But does that mean we should let them slide, be content with the scraps of quasi-freedom we have left, hoping no more are taken? Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

The Rabbi

March 9, 2005, 09:22 PM

Those rights are inherent to my being, simply by virtue of being a sentient being. Specifically, the rights cover all that I may do in what I judge to be my own best interests, so long as I do not injure or harm another person, or violate their rights. Enumerating them all would take more time and space than I have to devote to the topic.

How do you know this to be the case?
How did these rights originate?
Where are they spelled out?

CarbineKid

March 9, 2005, 09:29 PM

I think the war on drugs is like the war on terror. We are not going far enough. To win a war you must destroy the enemy, it isnt really happening in the war on drugs.

Selfdfenz

March 9, 2005, 09:30 PM

Good thread and still civil at 6 pages!!!

S-

gezzer

March 9, 2005, 10:04 PM

Useless war. We learned nothing from prohibition.

Werewolf

March 9, 2005, 10:07 PM

Too true, few if any .govs have lived up to their espoused ideals. But does that mean we should let them slide, be content with the scraps of quasi-freedom we have left, hoping no more are taken? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. I agree - it doesn't.

Like I said in a previous post - he who has the biggest stick makes the rules. The founding fathers understood that. They went out and found a bigger stick (or at least one big enough to convince ole George that he didn't wanna be hit by it) and thus made their own rules.

Over the last 200+ years those rules have transcended into a corrupted version of their vision.

Until the majority decides they don't like the current set of rules enough to find leaders willing to wield a big stick of their own we will indeed be subject to the whims of the current crop of stick wielders.

I have no idea when that day will come - but come it will - history proves that.

NOTE: That big stick currently takes the form of the vote. I have serious doubts that the current crop of US citizens will ever wield it in any manner other than exactly as the media and the politicians wish. At some point that stick will stop being the vote and will transform into action (either passive or active).

Gordon Fink

March 9, 2005, 11:07 PM

If you give medical care you will incur expense. If you deny medical care you will have people dying in the street. You know some way around that dilemma?

You mean other than your idea of paying to incarcerate them, paying to feed them, paying to clothe them, and paying to care for their health?

~G. Fink

DRZinn

March 10, 2005, 01:24 AM

Sindawe: Keep the faith.

Rabbi:

when a crack addict cuts off his penis and ends up in the ER, costing probably $100k in medical care and he has no money and no insurance, then his "personal responsibility" is meaningless.How's this: he cut off his own penis, having made that decision as a result of the effect of drugs he chose to take. Let him bleed to death from the bloody stump that used to be his penis, and let him serve as a lesson to anyone else who wishes to engage in self-destructive behavior: "We will allow you to self-destruct."

Sindawe

March 10, 2005, 01:58 AM

How do you know this to be the case?
How did these rights originate?
Where are they spelled out? Some things you just have to take on faith, Grasshopper. Reason alone does not always suffice. Remember, Faith and reason are like the shoes on your feet, you will travel further with both than with just one."We will allow you to self-destruct." Well, I'd at least cauterize the wound to keep the poor fool from bleeding out while under the influence. Not that I'd expect any renumeration or gratitude for such of course.

Lycanthrope: I think I see your point now. :cool:

stevelyn

March 10, 2005, 08:28 AM

How do you feel about the War on Drugs?

First of all it, isn't a war on drugs. It's a buzz word to disguise the fact the the drug producers/dealers and the gov agencies fighting it are the ones benefitting from it. Meanwhile our rights further errode in the name of it. :fire:
I've commented on this extensively in posts on similar threads. I won't waste any more time other than to say that the current policy isn't working to stop the supply and demand. Perhaps we need to p!$$ away more of our rights and money.............yeah that'll work. :rolleyes:

The Rabbi

March 10, 2005, 10:34 AM

Some things you just have to take on faith, Grasshopper. Reason alone does not always suffice. Remember, Faith and reason are like the shoes on your feet, you will travel further with both than with just one.

So you are positing the existence of a set of rules that outweigh not only the laws of the US but also the Constitution. Yet you cannot articulate what these rules are, who made them up, where they came from, what language they are written in, how they were transmitted to anyone, including you. Since you cannot list them or point anyone to any text about them they cannot be discussed.
So essentially your entire argument for legalizing drugs rests on this premise of "trust me, I'm right."
Well, you can believe that. You can believe we never landed on the moon. You can believe your dog tells you what to do every morning. But I think that loud hiss you heard is the steam going out of your argument. We're done. Thanks.

kfranz

March 10, 2005, 10:50 AM

Rabbi, they are written in his post. They now carry as much weight as any other written word.

The Rabbi

March 10, 2005, 11:02 AM

Rabbi, they are written in his post. They now carry as much weight as any other written word

ROFLMAO!! :neener:

Too Many Choices!?

March 10, 2005, 11:19 AM

Government would be reactionary....Responding to the will of the people....Lately we have politicons passing off their moraity(not in the name of the people) simply to have their finger prints all over the law books.....Trying to get their pet legislations codified.....AWB anybody....Politi-cons that write these legislations need to have an immediate consequence for even trying to pass anti American legislation......How about a national vote be instituted at the petition of the people to have these Congress critters IMMEDIATELY thrown out of congress for any attempted abuse of the public entrusted powers :cuss: ! The problem with this system as it stands, is that there is no immediate response that government members fear.....I say sue them for the people or have them atleast lose their job...We the people have to pay for our breaking the laws why don't government officials :confused: The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and breaking it should be the highest punishable offense there is ;)

Firethorn

March 10, 2005, 12:00 PM

Wrong. Total misunderstandng of the economics of it and the sociology of it. The idea that a crack head is suddenly going to be productive by being in the work-fare program and able to pay off $100k in medical bills is just nonsense. If you give medical care you will incur expense. If you deny medical care you will have people dying in the street. You know some way around that dilemma? I sure dont.
I agree with DocZinn and Gordon Fink. If he's still not productive he ends up starving to death. Though in the case of injury, I err on the side of caution and say provide emergency medical care.

As for having people dying on the streets, well that's what street-sweepers are for, right? ;) :neener:

Now, I am a nice enough guy, and enough of a compromiser that I'd compromise and say "Tax the drug enough to pay for the side effects". Drugs will be taxed enough to pay for treatment centers and emergency medical care. If he can't find a job, we will provide one, that covers the basics(food&shelter) and nothing more, in exchange for what work he can do. He's not getting any money for drugs, as they're considered a luxury. If he wants drugs, he's going to have to somehow obtain money to buy them. If he's caught doing illegal things to get money, well he'll end up in a work-prison to pay off that debt, and he'll dry out in there as well.

If you lower the total price of drugs you get more of them in circulation. You cannot argue away this basic law of economics. Crack will always supersede cocaine as the drug of choice. On and on and on. I think we've covered this topic sufficiently.

Sure, we'll have more drugs in circulation. Some drugs, at least. I believe that there would be more responable users, and the abusers will stay at about the same rate. I also think that the more dangerous drugs would be pushed out by the safer ones. Meth, for example, is common drug simply because it's easy to make with common chemicals. Most of the more 'natural' drugs are safer, especially if you are assured of medical level quality and purity. I've heard all sorts of cases of somebody being busted for drug use and people saying "I had no idea". The guy had a good job, etc. Heck, look at Rush Limbaugh. He managed to keep his job as a conservative talk show host while addicted to pain killers!

As for your condition that Crack trumps cocaine, why do you think that? Cocaine is still sold on the BM. Heck Marijuanna, Heroin, morphine, all of them are still on the BM.

Johnnybgood

March 10, 2005, 12:24 PM

with legalization that other countrys have found is with the increase in crime perpetuated by the druggies trying to get more money for thier monkey. So I say we legalize everything, with them legally being sold in certain areas. Then have a national concealed carry law so all U.S. citizens can protect themselves. This would reduce the crime, probably a few druggies and put alot of tax dollars back in the general fund for our Government to waste. Oh and I think the Constitution party (www.constitutionparty.com) pretty much goes along with if it's not in the constitution you can't make a law about it. Just a thought.

The Rabbi

March 10, 2005, 12:53 PM

I believe that there would be more responable users, and the abusers will stay at about the same rate.

Have you ever met a "responsible" drug user? I havent. They dont exist. The pathology of drug abusers is to want more and more to get the same effect. This is why crack is more popular. So the user will need more and more and as he deteriorates he will be less and less able to provide money for himself by legitimate means. So then he turns to crime, violent and otherwise.
Now people might believe otherwise but merely carrying a gun is no panacaea. Even being trained is no guarantee. That poor CCW in Tyler TX was a firearms instructor and still managed to lose his life and fail to stop the gunman.
Just to bring the libertarian arguments to the logical conclusion: they want both legalized drugs and legalized carry. That will mean drug users carrying guns probably in a compromised state. That sure sounds like a big improvement in living condition from now. Not.

Sindawe

March 10, 2005, 01:43 PM

Have you ever met a "responsible" drug user? I havent. They dont exist. The pathology of drug abusers is to want more and more to get the same effect. This is why crack is more popular. So the user will need more and more and as he deteriorates he will be less and less able to provide money for himself by legitimate means. So then he turns to crime, violent and otherwise. So, since YOU'VE never met them, they must not exist then. Gosh, since I've never met Sarah Brady, so I guess that must mean she does not exist. Rabbi, you've met responsible drug users in this very forum. Their drug of choice happens to be legal, currently. Or have you blanked out on the threads where we've talked about our favorite beer, what kind of distilled spirits are best and how we like our coffee. Your error is equating drug use with drug abuse. They are two separate concepts. So you are positing the existence of a set of rules that outweigh not only the laws of the US but also the Constitution....So essentially your entire argument for legalizing drugs rests on this premise of "trust me, I'm right." Rules? That exchange was about the nature and origin of rights, not rules. But you are correct, we are done. You want to talk about rocks, and I want to talk about trees.

My premise for legalizing more of the currently illegal drugs is that the individual has ownership over their body, and may do with it as they please, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of another. If they chose to flush their life down the crapper, it is not MY job to prevent them from doing so. It is also not MY job to take care of them when they do so. I MAY elect to do so out of compassion, friendship or even self interest. Or I may not.

The Rabbi

March 10, 2005, 01:57 PM

My premise for legalizing more of the currently illegal drugs is that the individual has ownership over their body, and may do with it as they please, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of another

Yes, and you have failed to show the existence of these "rights" other than in your head.
But when addicts need medical care and have debilitated themselves to the point that they have no way to pay for it then they do in fact infringe on others' rights by demanding that we subsidize them out of our own property. Or are you proposing also that we refuse treatment and let them die on the pavement?

2nd Amendment

March 10, 2005, 02:00 PM

Or are you proposing also that we refuse treatment and let them die on the pavement?

BINGO! Give that man a Qupie doll!

DRZinn

March 10, 2005, 04:11 PM

In the case of an injury caused by someone else, or even (maybe) an accident, I'd want the state to provide bare-minimum emergency health care. But no more than that, and nothing if you did it to yourself deliberately. And if you were on drugs well, you weren't always on drugs. You made a choice. Live with it.

Firethorn

March 10, 2005, 04:28 PM

2nd, no no, we don't let them die on the pavement. Just think about the stink. No, we haul them off to be buried in a pauper cemetary. Or we just incinerate them.

TheRabbi,

There is indeed a line between "users", "abusers", and even "addicts".
If you look at history, there has always been abusers of drugs that others used without disrupting their lives to the point that they are unable to function. Think of it as the difference between a glass of wine and half a bottle of vodka.

My definition of abuse, is when the use disrupts an individual's life in a negative fashion, and the individual does not stop.

Why haven't you seen any users who are non-abusers of drugs? I bet you have, you just don't realize it. Like what was said before, caffeine, tobacco, and alchohol are all drugs. What we are saying is that there is no fundamental difference between these legal drugs and illegal drugs. Caffeine is a stimulant, like cocaine. Alchohol is a depressant. I think tobacco is a stimulant too. People who are going to use, and not abuse, are not going to broadcast their usage of an illegal drug. People who are going to abuse, are going to do it regardless, at least until their life sinks to the point that they can't get the drug. Then again, people abuse many things. They eat too much food, watch too much TV, drive around too much, spend too much on credit cards, etc. Users who are not addicted are going to tend not to use illegal substances, because they don't have to, and they recognize the (artificial) downsides as being too much.

The Rabbi

March 10, 2005, 05:01 PM

Rabbi, you've met responsible drug users in this very forum. Their drug of choice happens to be legal, currently. Or have you blanked out on the threads where we've talked about our favorite beer, what kind of distilled spirits are best and how we like our coffee. Your error is equating drug use with drug abuse. They are two separate concepts.

and

Why haven't you seen any users who are non-abusers of drugs? I bet you have, you just don't realize it. Like what was said before, caffeine, tobacco, and alchohol are all drugs. What we are saying is that there is no fundamental difference between these legal drugs and illegal drugs.

You two have just provided one of the very best arguments against legalization I have seen. It is the very fact that there are responsible users of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine that suggests those should continue to be legal. It is the very absence of responsible users of heroin, crack, and methamphetamines that suggest those drugs should remain illegal.
Thanks. I never would have come up with that on my own.
Marijuana you could maybe make a good case for legalizing. Maybe not.

Derby FALs

March 10, 2005, 05:11 PM

How do you know there are no responsible users of those particular drugs? Surely thery haven't caught all the users. Or is the WoD over?

The Rabbi

March 10, 2005, 05:14 PM

How do you know there are no responsible users of those particular drugs?

Because his obituary was in the paper 2 months ago.

Glock Glockler

March 10, 2005, 05:33 PM

Or are you proposing also that we refuse treatment and let them die on the pavement?

I propose that, yes.

Because his obituary was in the paper 2 months ago

You refer to one indivdual, and in his case the problem is self-correcting, and I can also point to plenty of people that drink, smoke, and eat themselves to death.

standingbear

March 10, 2005, 06:59 PM

I think its a flop. I have several issues with it

- theres things besides the whole "my body, my right issue". take a gander at the laws that have been passed since then for the war on drugs, the seizure of property,kicking in doors at 3 am and all that jazz.maybe I am off base a bit. there are too many laws on the books that people can use for just about anything...and seize anything. it not only nails the dopers but nails anyone even remotely connected whether they are aware of it or not.it can and has been used to gain access to someones land and property.

- making it illegal as it has been done hasnt stopped people from doing it. it has created more crime and filled more prisons because of the get rich quick or get shot or busted vs getting a legit job where these people will have to work for a living by getting out of bed and doing some manual labor. they arent going to work. theyre going to sell their dope. the profit is there and the demand is there and they are willing to risk it.

- it gives antigunners another reason to ban certain guns because its the guns fault and the weapon of choice for gang bangers...or so they say.who loses? we do

- its out of control.its had millions(if not billions) of dollars dumped into it and criminals just come up with another clever way around it.we lose again

I just think something else needs fixed cause this isnt working.what that something is I dunno.

just my .02 cents worth

Art Eatman

March 10, 2005, 11:05 PM

standingbear, I've been watching all this drug stuff since the early 1960s. The "War" was lost before it began; the only success in the so-called War on Drugs is the War on the Bill of Rights.

If it weren't for the War on Drugs, gun-control would be a non-issue.

You're right; it all needs "fixing"--but nobody in any position of power is willing to take any political chance. There is too much "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts!" for there to be any politically viable answer. Example? Look what happened to Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders when she merely suggested taking a look at the laws and how they're enforced! Can't even seek a public debate! (IMO, that was the only smart thing that woman ever said, and she got canned. Sheesh!)

Art

Too Many Choices!?

March 10, 2005, 11:41 PM

I say legalize the hard stuff and "pay" it to druggies for the jobs nobody wants ;)...... Guest worker problem with Mexico solved.....A lot of the violent crime for drugs vanishes....Kids see crappy life of druggies, and numbers of druggies shrink.....We(society) get work from the stoners. They get their "fix" and society at large gets left alone...

PS Morality is not a part of this equation.....only common sense :evil:

standingbear

March 11, 2005, 08:16 AM

yes art, its a sad sad day when politicians are so blind that instead of trying to listen to new ideas and work together to solve it, they dump more and more tax dollars into something that just isnt working. Every president since it started (I think it was pres. nixon that started the whole thing) has dumped money and resources into it. politicans have no problem taking rights away from everyone to fight something that they cant even see.

...and here we are with working folks living off low wages and high insurance rates because jobs are going to countries that pay their workers a buck a week,the elderly worried if they can pay their bills next week and have to choose between affording medicine or paying their skyrocketing heating bills, let alone getting food. right here, right now.

13A

March 11, 2005, 11:13 AM

The best political cartoon I have ever seen shows an elephant and a donkey chopping down a tree with axes. The tree is titled "Bill of Rights". The ax the donkey is using is titled "War on Guns". The ax the elephant is using is titled "War on Drugs".

So true.

Gordon Fink

March 11, 2005, 12:46 PM

Have you ever met a “responsible” drug user? I havent. They dont exist.

Rabbi, I mean no offense, but when you write something like this, you merely demonstrate your ignorance.

I have met both responsible users and irresponsible users (i.e., abusers) of legal and illegal drugs.

~G. Fink

The Rabbi

March 11, 2005, 12:52 PM

Gordon Fink,
I just can't comment on your choice of associates.

Gordon Fink

March 11, 2005, 12:58 PM

You know, Rabbi, there are some you can’t choose, but I try not to associate with the abusers.

~G. Fink

Domino

March 11, 2005, 01:23 PM

This is one of those emotionally charged subjects that people have very strong feelings about and it shows by all of the posts on this thread. But, if you must point out the facts than that can be done logically.

First off, the war on drugs has been ineffective if the goal is to eliminate illegal drug use. I find it hard to argue that it has been persuasive in stopping illegal trafficing and use as the United States is the #1 drug consumer in the world (not sure if the numbers include legal perscription drugs).

Secondly, Can the War on Drugs be won? No, if you look at history its only been a very recent phenomenon in which entire societies have tried to control substances like "drugs" despite the fact that humans have been using these substances for thousands of years without significant evidence of ill-effect on mankind.

Lastly, you have to consider whether or not it is the position of a government to control what people ingest in their bodies in a self-destructive manner. After all, people abuse their bodies in more ways than the use of illegal drugs. Bieng Obese, smoking, and drinking all have ill-effects on the human body but they are perfectly legal to do.

If the drug war is just, than control of other lifestyle choices would be just in the same manner if the goal is "its for the public good", would it not? After giving the amount of people who are sick and die from these things think about all of the money the taxpayers would save from medicade and lowered health insurance.

So my conclusion is: The War on Drugs has been an utter failure as well as a massive burden on the prison system. It cannot win as there is no achievalble goal and it does not seem constitutional if we have the "right" of life and for the pursuit of hapiness (without violating others rights of course). Giving the effects of Prohibition and the War on Drugs I cannot support them as the results are unacceptable despite thier good moral nature. If we make all laws to reflect moral beliefs than this country wouldn't be very free, would it?
But, everyone can make their own conclusions but I can't help but point out the hypocracy of it all.

fallingblock

March 12, 2005, 03:19 AM

I am far more in agreement with The Rabbi.

The "recreational drug use is the user's business" approach will not provide any socially desirable outcome, and has little to do with the actual issue of liberty.

If it is not obvious to Gordon that his recreational drug-using associates have impaired judgement and responsibility while using, then perhaps Gordon has a lower expectation for the responsibility of his friends than others do.

More power to him.

I rented an isolated Hoosier farmhouse to a couple of responsible, job-holding, drug-using 'associates' away back in 1973. I even lived there for a while.

Their antics bordered on the hilarious...well, except for some gratuitous violence, anti-social behavior to the distant neighbors and their drug sales to minors. :eek: We eventually had to evict them over those sort of things.

Recreational drug use promotes anti-social behavior.

I see little parallel between RKBA and the issue of recreational drug use or the
prohibition of recreational drugs.

RKBA is the right of a responsible citizen to look after his own defense -
and that of his community and nation if need be.

There is no "right" to be a danger to the rest of us in pursuit of escape from reality. More of a desire than a right, I should think.

Recreational drug use is simply the choice to be irresponsible, at least temporarily.

Surely the difference between the two issues is apparent?

Can the "War on Drugs" be won?

Nope. Not as long as there is sufficient demand.

Should we control the availability and use of recreational drugs?

Yes. Definitely. :)

DRZinn

March 12, 2005, 09:23 AM

recreational drug-using associates have impaired judgement and responsibility while usingNot quite. They have impaired judgement, but this effects their responsibility for their actions none. Maybe they don't act responsibly, but as long as they were un-impaired when they made the decision to take the drug, we can (and should) still hold them 100% accountable;gratuitous violence, anti-social behavior to the distant neighbors and their drug sales to minors. for example. All of those actions are wrong independent of their drug use, and can be treated as such. (Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-social behavior, but the violence and sales to minors, at least.)

I, too, have known "responsible" users of illegal drugs. What that usually means is staying home when using those drugs, so as not to endanger anyone else. If a user leaves his home and, for example, drives his car while impaired, then you have a crime. But as long as it's possible to use drugs and not harm anyone else (which it is), there's no moral basis for banning the drugs themselves.

Werewolf

March 12, 2005, 10:02 AM

There is no "right" to be a danger to the rest of us in pursuit of escape from reality. More of a desire than a right, I should think.

If you truly believe that then I respectfully submit that you are a closet anti. Gun Control exists as a means to proactively prevent potentialy dangerous behavior (or at least that is what the antis profess to believe).

What you've espoused above is exactly the same thing. Drug control to proactively prevent potentialy dangerous behavior.

I believe that most here would agree that what should be punished is an irresponsible and dangerous act. Current laws punish the many in order to potentially prevent the irresponsible and dangerous acts of the few.

Drug laws are no different from gun control laws. They both attempt to accomplish exactly the same thing.

Many, many people use alcohol responsibly. Alcohol is not illegal.

The very fact that recreational drugs are illegal almost guarantees that only the irresponsible and those not concerned with consequences will be the ones doing them hence the paucity of anectdotal evidence relating to the responsible drug user.

Drug laws are no different from gun laws - they both punish the many in a futile attempt to prevent dangerous behavior by the few.

Punish the irresponsible behavior that derives from irresponsible use not the responsible use that leads to no dangerous act.

Selfdfenz

March 12, 2005, 03:07 PM

Drug laws are no different from gun control laws. They both attempt to accomplish exactly the same thing.

No, I don't think that is even close to right. If they were putting a joint or a 9mm bullet in your brain would have the same effect and outcome which they certainly do not.

S-

yinyangdc

March 12, 2005, 03:54 PM

Selfdfenz,
No, I don't think that is even close to right. If they were putting a joint or a 9mm bullet in your brain would have the same effect and outcome which they certainly do not.

So you are suggesting that it is more important to have gun control laws than drug control laws, because misuse of a gun would have a more devestating effect?

Sam

March 12, 2005, 05:17 PM

Speaking as a long term participant in the S.A. end of the WOD

It's what the people want. If they didn't, the legislative types wouldn't keep it going or we would have new legislators.

Personally, I don't care if they legalize the stuff. But the stoners will have to stay away from me. Don't like the crap that goes with that mentality. Don't care for drunks either.

Sam

saltydog

March 12, 2005, 07:29 PM

A BIG WASTE of our tax dollars. Prohibition on Alcohol did not work! What the hell is the difference? :confused: :confused:

The people who are going to use drugs could care less if they are legal or not. Of course its pretty obvious that the war on drugs is working. :barf:

The Rabbi

March 12, 2005, 08:09 PM

Not quite. They have impaired judgement, but this effects their responsibility for their actions none. Maybe they don't act responsibly, but as long as they were un-impaired when they made the decision to take the drug, we can (and should) still hold them 100% accountable

That;s great, Doc. What does it mean to hold someone 100% responsible? Most hard core druggies have no job, no money, no assets of any kind. The only thing they do have is liberty, which you can deprive them of by putting them in jail. That's after they've done something potentially heinous. Why not beat the rush and stick them there before they do this, since their actions already predispose them to doing it?

I discussed this briefly with a friend of mine into philosophy. He told me, at first I was seduced by the Libertarian argument but some people are just so darn stupid you have to protect them from themselves.

Can we admit that while there are some users that will never be deterred there are many more potential users who are deterred?

DRZinn

March 12, 2005, 08:18 PM

Why not beat the rush and stick them there before they do this, since their actions already predispose them to doing it?I'll leave out the gun-control comparison that just begs to be made from that statement. You can't morally punish someone for what they haven't done, no matter how "predisposed" they are to do it.

some people are just so darn stupid you have to protect them from themselves.Why?

The Rabbi

March 12, 2005, 08:34 PM

Doc,
You managed to avoid my question: what does it mean to hold someone responsible when they have nothing?

As for the gun control comparisons, let's admit right away that such comparisons, esp on this board, are spurious and merely a form of flaming.

You are not punishing anyone for something they havent done. You are punishing them for something they have done, which is illegal, and which predisposes them to do something even worse in the future. Same principle behind the "3 strikes you're out" laws.

As far as having a duty to protect people from themselves, I have commented several times on this board about Libertarianism being immoral and here it comes again. Common decency suggests one owes a duty of care to his fellow man. Interstingly those most for legalization are the same people who would let someone bleed to death in agony on the sidewalk rather than pay for his medical care since "he did it to himself."

DRZinn

March 12, 2005, 08:52 PM

Actually, I didn't avoid the question, I thought it was rhetorical, so I ignored it. Holding them responsible means subjecting them to criminal punishment appropriate for the wrong they have done. What's so hard to understand? You think a poor man can't be punished?

Edited to add:

As for the gun control comparisons, let's admit right away that such comparisons, esp on this board, are spurious and merely a form of flaming.Punishing something for a crime you think they are "predisposed" to commit doesn't sound familiar to you?

You are punishing them for something they have done, which is illegal, and which predisposes them to do something even worse in the future. That's called circular reasoning, and it makes no sense at all.

Same principle behind the "3 strikes you're out" laws.Not even close. The 3-strikes laws punish someone for having committed three (count 'em) felonies.

Common decency suggests one owes a duty of care to his fellow man. maybe. but you have no right to use my money to fulfil that duty.

Interstingly [sic] those most for legalization are the same people who would let someone bleed to death in agony on the sidewalk rather than pay for his medical care since "he did it to himself."
Trying to find an inconsistency? None there.

happy old sailor

March 12, 2005, 08:52 PM

i hate to seem wishy washy, but i agree with about everyone. i think the war on drugs is a LUCRATIVE JOKE. i dont have the answers, but if i did, it would be of no avail. too many people milking this cash cow. so, i stand palm out and say "not for me".

The Rabbi

March 12, 2005, 09:04 PM

Doc,
I dont know whether you are being disingenuous or merely obtuse. But either way I am not going to get straight answers out of you that make even a modicum of sense. Your ideas are contradictory and/or unrealistic. You refuse to accept reality and drag in spurious comparisons that do nothing to clarify your arguments.
I said in the first post on this thread that we shouldnt be doing this yet again. Anyone in the future interested in a debate on drug laws should search first before posting. Thats a request. Will save everyone a lot of time and trouble.
Have a good 'un, y'all.

MICHAEL T

March 12, 2005, 10:21 PM

Gives the cops a reason to dress like commandos ,jump ouy of choppers and act bad ass. Other than that a waste of taxpayers money .Another waste of money is that DARE program they put on in schools.

peacefuljeffrey

March 12, 2005, 10:46 PM

How do you feel about the War on Drugs?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think the WoD has been a success or failure?

I feel that about the only thing that has been accomplished is a large increase in our prison population and a large chunk of money gone from the taxpayers' pockets.

I don't take drugs of any kind. I have never even "experimented". However, I don't feel it is right for me to force my beliefs on others. If someone wants to put something into their body that harms them, then I feel it is their right.

I feel that the War on Drugs is an outright farce, fraud, and failure.

I have never done drugs in my life (except nitrous oxide, which I get at the dentist, and alcohol, which I do so rarely as to be a non-issue, and anyway it's considered the one "acceptable" drug).

I used to be very anti-drug, and I was completely okay with the idea that drugs were illegal. Then I became much more "libertarian," and realized that doing what he/she wants with his/her mind and body is a person's right.

Couple that with the simple, unavoidable fact that the WoD accomplishes NOTHING, and you see it needs to be abandoned. Tell me, if you know anyone who does drugs, are they having a hard time getting them? The WoD sets penalties for doing/selling/buying/producing drugs, but it certainly does not stop these behaviors. Everyone who wants drugs, gets them.

If we who are pro-gun point out that gun control will always fail because criminals will always get the guns they want, how can we possibly claim that the drug war will prevent people who want drugs from getting them? We can't have it both ways. Prohibition fails. ALWAYS. All it does is enrich those whose job it is to enforce the prohibition. And there is stupendous job security in being in that kind of a line of word, because the supply of offenders who want the prohibited item never depletes itself. That's what makes it a fraud. The people in the profession of enforcing the WoD never admit that it can never be won and will never be won. Instead, they deceitfully insist that they just need more of our money to prosecute the war.

I oppose the war on drugs. Not because I support drug use in the slightest (I think it's dumb), but because of the intellectual dishonesty of thinking that it is a winnable war, and a useful cause to spend money and lives on.

-Jeffrey

Parallax

March 12, 2005, 11:50 PM

Re-legalize all drugs. It's not the government's place to tell you what you can and can't put in your own body.

Or are you proposing also that we refuse treatment and let them die on the pavement?

"Ding Ding Ding! What've we got for him Johnny?"

If someone ODs, let them die on the sidewalk. They chose to do the drugs, they knew the possible consequences. They can expect no sympathy from me. Let em' rot.

Firethorn

March 13, 2005, 12:28 AM

Rabbi, I've found doc's statements to be internally consistant. I actually think that your statements aren't as internally consistant as the docs.

What does a streetbum(and not just a druggie one) have to loose, other than his/her liberty? Life and Health for one. As for the druggie one, well, if they're broke they won't be able to afford drugs. If they turn to crime to attempt to fund their habit, then we'll throw them in jail, or take other action. Just like we do today. But at the same time, we're going to keep the prisons drug-free, because that's a luxury that criminals don't deserve. Part of the libertarian 'utopia' is the idea that if people want or choose to self-destruct, that they can. If I can't earn enough money for drugs, I don't get them. If I turn to unacceptable methods to get them (ie stealing), then I'm removed from society. If I choose to use marijuana rather than have cable TV, that's my choice. If I choose to chew coca leaves (a very raw form of cocaine) rather than drink coffee, again, that's my choice. If it affects my work, my employer has the choice of what to do with me, whether that be fire me, tell me to stop, pay for a treatment program, etc...

And you keep talking about how drugs predisposes you towards commiting a crime, thus we need to ban it. And like we've said, you draw lines between drugs that we don't. Tobacco is more addictive than most of the illegal drugs. Alchohol related accidents kill many each year.

Using your thinking, we should ban cars, because cars lead to vehicular homicide. Ditto alchohol, because of all the deaths due to DUI and the various other things people do under it's influence. Owning a gun increases the odds of you using one to kill yourself.

Despite this, most people who drink alchohol don't abuse it. Most people who own guns do perfectly safe and legal things with them.

Remember, the idea here is that it isn't the government's problem until it harms a non-consenting party. That means that a true libertarian thinks that the government should allow somebody to starve to death, if they can't earn enough for food. "Hunger is a wonderful motivator". Realistically, we believe that private agencies/charities will fill the role that government has stepped into, and be more effective at it. I've donated money to private charities before, and they receive huge amounts of funding. Most of them are also more efficient than the government. Heck, look at some of the internet success stories, where aid pours in when their case is stated.

To find if a libertarian will consider something illegal, simply ask yourself this question: "Does this action bring direct harm on a non-consenting individual?" If the answer is no, then it's not a crime. Stealing/vandalism from somebody is a crime, their victim's 'balance sheet' is lower after your action than before. Physical harm is obvious. Doing drugs? Not a crime. Beating your wife when you're drunk is assault, and the law shouldn't care one whit that you're doing it under the influence of the 'devil's brew'. It was your choice to drink it(if you are drugged against your will or knowledge and you do harm, it's the fault of the one who did it to you). Very simple.

Stand_Watie

March 13, 2005, 01:12 AM

As far as having a duty to protect people from themselves, I have commented several times on this board about Libertarianism being immoral and here it comes again. Common decency suggests one owes a duty of care to his fellow man. Interstingly those most for legalization are the same people who would let someone bleed to death in agony on the sidewalk rather than pay for his medical care since "he did it to himself."

Or we could just as well say that socialism is immoral. Purely subjective I guess.

I happen to believe I owe a duty of care to my fellow man, not that I am obliged to use the power of the state to take your money to apply that care as I see fit.

fallingblock

March 13, 2005, 03:03 AM

"I happen to believe I owe a duty of care to my fellow man, not that I am obliged to use the power of the state to take your money to apply that care as I see fit."
*********************************************************

And that extends to the concept of a 'free' agent deciding what to do with his/her body.

However, arguments such as this:
*********************************************************
"Using your thinking, we should ban cars, because cars lead to vehicular homicide. Ditto alchohol, because of all the deaths due to DUI and the various other things people do under it's influence. Owning a gun increases the odds of you using one to kill yourself."
*********************************************************

Are spurious, with the exception of the reference to alcohol, which is a recreational drug, legal though it may be.

Automobiles DO NOT of themselves, elicit or induce irresponsible behavior.

Guns do NOT 'cause' irresponsible behavior.

Neither of the above inert objects is capable of inducing irresponsible behavior, only responding to the commands of the user.

Recreational drugs DO INDEED induce irrational behavior in their user, however 'rational' that person may be before consuming the drugs.

This is the error of the many failed attempts by the libertarians to link 'gun control' with 'drug control'.

Recreational drugs are substances which it is of the utmost interest of wider society to control or regulate the ingestion of.

The use of these substances actually PROMOTES irresponsible behavior, unlike the possession of inanimate objects such as cars or guns.

Let me add once again, that the so-called "War on Drugs" is a dismal failure.

The consequent usurpation and infringment of our rights is a tragedy.

But irresponsibility-promoting recreational substances ought to be regulated and their use controlled by a cogent society.

:)

Selfdfenz

March 13, 2005, 07:12 AM

No.

Comparing drug and gun laws and saying regulators are tying to accomplish the same thing is wrong in a couple of ways.
There has never been a 2A for drugs, you're not intoxicated after you fire a weapon, the penalties are different etc.

Perhaps you could make a better case for motor vechicles and firearms sharing some commonality in the ways regulators look at them but not drugs and firearms.

Even the gun/car comparison is weak as the is no 2A equivalent for cars.

S-

The Rabbi

March 13, 2005, 11:27 AM

Perhaps you could make a better case for motor vechicles and firearms sharing some commonality in the ways regulators look at them but not drugs and firearms.

Well, for starters when people act irresponsibly with their vehicles we take away their rights to drive. Do 100mph in a school zone, even when no one is around, and you'll lose your license. You werent hurting anyone. The only one you might damage is yourself. Yet your irresponsible behavior means that you are more likely to damage someone, including yourself, and your license is revoked. Anyone have a problem with that?
Why should drugs be any different?

DRZinn

March 13, 2005, 11:30 AM

Dead

March 13, 2005, 11:38 AM

Drugs were available in your local store many years ago, without a HUGE problem. It seems that many people do drugs just for the thrill. Take prohibition as an example, Alcohol was LEGAL, then BANNED. People still drank, some more, it was widely available, the ONLY thing it did was get crime organzied, and directly lead to a vast amount of crime, violence (gang fights etc), and the arrest of many people. It was then however made LEGAL again, but the gangs, and the "mob" were born from this. Today's drug war is akin to the prohibition against alcohol, but its negative impact on society is greatly exceeds that of anything this country has know before. :banghead:

When I was in H.S. some years ago it would have been easier for me to get pot, or other drugs, that it was for me to get beer. Shows you how well making something TOTALY illegal really works. At most now "illegal" drugs should be "controlled" the same way as alcohol. That of course would mean that the goverment would have to admit that the war on drugs is a complete and total failure, and all the rights they have tramped on for many years was a complete and utter waste of liberty, lives, and money. Not going to happen.

Dead

March 13, 2005, 11:43 AM

As far as cars go, while there might not be anything written about it directly, stopping anyone from travelling around the country would be a blatant abuse of their civil rights. However I think we should NOT need a license to drive a car, as it really does mean anything in the first place. Take a course to LEARN the traffic laws maybe, though if you just use common sense you will be a safe driver. THere are MANY people out on the roads that either a) have no common sense at all, or b) just do not care it they kill others or themselves. I mean how many of us have seen those drivers that absolutely should never have been issued a drivers licenses, yet they have one any?? I can cite numerous examples that I see on a day to day basis. (yea yea I live ina highly urban area around the NYC area that explains a lot I am sure) :cussing:

Flying V

March 13, 2005, 12:06 PM

Drug prohibition is one of the worst mistakes the government of this country has ever made.

The Rabbi

March 13, 2005, 12:16 PM

Just show me an inconsistency, Rabbi, in allowing people to exercise their rights and holding them to their responsibilities (ie: dealing with the consequences of what you put in your body, with no money out of my wallet).

Doc, there is no right to take drugs. None. No Constitutional right, no natural right (whatever that is). None. At all. So get off it.
People's responsibilities include obeying the law and being productive members of society. How does becoming a drug addict aid that?
Given that addicts tend to have no resources, their destructive acts towards themselves and others cost everyone else in society, including you. You dont think so? Let a crack house move in down the street from you and see what it does to property values in the neighborhood. What are you going to do, sue the addicts? They steal things. Who pays for that? You do, Doc. Whether you were the victim here or not. Your insurance bills will go up. Your taxes will go up to pay for increased police protection.

Parallax

March 13, 2005, 12:55 PM

People's responsibilities include obeying the law

Yes.

and being productive members of society.

No. If people want to destroy themselves with drugs, that's their right- as long as they don't hurt anyone else while they're doing it.

Sam

March 13, 2005, 02:19 PM

And as long as I am not required by law to pay for it.
Sam

Parallax

March 13, 2005, 03:15 PM

^ Right. So if they want to take drugs, they can deal with the consequences.

FeebMaster

March 13, 2005, 04:27 PM

Drug prohibition is one of the worst mistakes the government of this country has ever made.

Not if the goal was to massively increase government power.

Linux&Gun Guy

March 13, 2005, 04:48 PM

This type of thread - or at least the last 20 or so posts anyway - always cracks me up.

A bunch of generally right leaning guys talking cuda, shuda, wuda type BS just like a bunch of whiny, crybaby, bleeding heart liberals filling up a boat with good intentions until it sinks. Pull your heads out of the clouds guys.

Rights, shmights! It is all well and good to talk about natural rights, god given rights etc.

The reality of it is that the only rights anyone has are the rights that the government under which they live gives 'em.

Moan and groan about it, philosophize about it, proselytize about it, cry about it but none of that is gonna change the reality.

Darwin always wins. He who has the biggest stick gets to decide who gets to do what and when. That is the essence of a right.

Don't like the rules. Then:

GET A BIGGER STICK!

In case no one has noticed that's been the way of MAN since man became man. Hell that's the way of just about every living thing on the planet.

No one's beaten that system yet though many have tried.

I agree compleatly. Still I say that rights are natural when I am talking to antis and such but in reallity he who has the gold and the sticks make the rules. Thats just how it is; like water going down hill.

Anyway as far as drugs go most people here concentrate on drugs like meth, cocaine, opiates, benzos and other addictive drugs that have harmfull mental, physical and social effects.

I don't support those drugs as they are addictive and unclean. Plus they are not safe for the body and offer no mental benefits.

However many people that don't know much about drugs paint them with a large brush. Drugs such as LSD,LSA,MDA,MDMA,salvia d., mushrooms, cannabis, DMT, DXM(perhaps), and many research drugs should IMO be legal because they are safe for the body and offer mental benefits if used correctly. Some are also good for recreational use.

Parallax

March 13, 2005, 06:35 PM

All drugs should be legal. Whether or not they're bad for you is irrelevant. The government has no business telling you what you can and can't put in your own body.

The Rabbi

March 13, 2005, 07:19 PM

If people want to destroy themselves with drugs, that's their right- as long as they don't hurt anyone else while they're doing it.

Last time I say this:
1) There is no right to take drugs.
2) They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

big inch

March 13, 2005, 07:53 PM

1) There is no right to take drugs.

There is no right to eat fatty foods, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, pierce your eyebrows, skydive, bungy jump, etc... So, what's your point again?

2) They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

Many people who drive, practice medicine, enforce the law, play sports, etc...will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. So, what's your point again?

Parallax

March 13, 2005, 07:54 PM

Please explain how it hurts you if I smoke a little weed?

Freedom= being able to do or say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

You don't believe in freedom :(

Too Many Choices!?

March 13, 2005, 08:09 PM

Just curious on opinoins.....If government can regulate anything, then there could be a law passed with a minimum yearly wage for all potential parents.....

Drugs are a right just like having children.....No one has to ask can they have a child as it is their body.....Children (under 18 for this example) can not legally chose, as I have stated earlier, so legislation against minors drinking and taking drugs and having sex are completely legal....but not adults ...

If a person has a child they can't support, that child eventually becomes a state funded kid anyway in one way or another(government programs),period!

Fredhead

March 13, 2005, 08:14 PM

To " The Rabbi":
It is you, sir, who "lives in a vacuum".
You know someone who uses.
They won't tell you because they know
how you feel about such usage.
They are likely to be productive citizens,
perhaps even someone very close to you.

Prohibition failed then, and fails now.

Too Many Choices!?

March 13, 2005, 08:32 PM

Simply because a right is not written down on paper, does not mean that right does not exist......By it's very nature a right is just that, something that you have by virtue of being sentient and able to perform it without infringing anothers rights, period........ I have a right to own a car and drive it,period....I don't have a right to drive it on public funded roads with out permission(ie license you can drive on priv. prop. with no license and undr 16). I have a right to smoke tobacco if I so desire.....I do not have a right to "light up" on a crowded flight to (anywhere)....I have a right to have children because I was born a man with functional genitalia......If there is no right to have children then judges need to order a few more vesectamys(sp? the clip clip) for guys that contiunue to have kids and not support the first ones :confused: If you can not see the common denominator in the above examples it is that they all can be done with ZERO harm to you or your rights.....or they can also be done while violating anothers rights.....What does that mean? It all goes back to responsibility/choices!!!! Choices people choices.......
Don't try to limit another persons choices simply because you don't agree with their position that infringes non of your liberty or rights all you have to do is not make that same choice....It is as simple as that.....

You have a right to commit suicide if you want to, just no right to take me with you
:uhoh: ;)

DRZinn

March 13, 2005, 09:17 PM

Doc, there is no right to take drugs. None. No Constitutional right, no natural right (whatever that is). None. At all. So get off it.
People's responsibilities include obeying the law and being productive members of society. How does becoming a drug addict aid that?There's no such thing as a Constitutional right. The rights I have, I have by virtue of being a human being. Some of those are enumerated in the Constitution, some are not. Let me give a short class on what I have a right to do:

ANY DAMN THING I WANT TO DO THAT DOES NOT HARM ANYONE ELSE.

Clear enough? And my responsibilities do not include obeying any law that restricts any of my rights.

As for being a "productive member of society," I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean not being a drain on society, you're right. That's why that drug addict should be allowed to bleed to death in the street from the stump of his penis. You see, we can force an individual to be responsible for his actions.

Simple.

Derby FALs

March 13, 2005, 10:03 PM

Hear, Hear! :D

The Rabbi

March 13, 2005, 10:27 PM

There's no such thing as a Constitutional right. The rights I have, I have by virtue of being a human being. Some of those are enumerated in the Constitution, some are not

Doc,
You must have been asleep when Sindawe and I had this exact conversation. I was able to elicit that he had no idea what these rights were, where they came from, how he knew what they were or learned of their existence. His sole "proof" consisted of an assertion that he must be right and that I needed to trust him. You obviously come from the same school. So maybe you can answer the questions that Sindawe was unable to answer.

Further it is interesting that you maintain there is no such thing as a Constitutional right. What do you suppose the BOR is??

thorn726

March 13, 2005, 10:37 PM

2) They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

this is pure insanity.

someone else already said=
CARS -will in evitably hurt someone.

uh GUNS???
good, you just gave the antis more ammo.

Humans SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN FROM SPEAKING!!!
2) They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

should we get started on the manufacture of everyday products?
work????
no more=
lumberjacks
POLICE
firemen
no more metal, someone will get hurt melting/ welding it.

no bridges! someone will die in the building!!

NO MORE ELECTRICITY!!

They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

any electrical item you use, you might hurt someone.
the wires, the plants, someone is going to die!

i am always amazed by two things=
people who want to keep arms legal but think drugs should be illegal,
people who want drugs legal but arms illegal

until both are going to grant the other freedom to live as they please, neither will have what they want

Art Eatman

March 13, 2005, 10:38 PM

Rights come from the Creator; the Constitution and the first ten amendments are intended to protect those rights--and others not enumerated. The whole deal of the Constitution itself is to set up an orderly process for that protection.

Remember that the Federalists believed that The BOR wasn't needed, as the Constitution itself already protected those rights. The Anti-Federalists believed that enumeration of the more important rights was necessary in order to avoid abuse of power by the State, as stated in the Preamble to the BOR.

Art

DRZinn

March 13, 2005, 11:15 PM

maybe you can answer the questions that Sindawe was unable to answer.May be.

What do you suppose the BOR is??A partial enumeration of those rights that I have as a human being.

I was a little unclear when I said there is no such thing as a Constitutional Right. I meant that in terms of what most people, consciously or other wise, mean when they cite Constitutional Rights: those rights we have because they're in the Constitution. In other words, none. The Constitution is one of the greatest political documents ever written, but if it had never been written I would have exactly the same rights that I do now.

Orthonym

March 14, 2005, 12:06 AM

Amen!

Selfdfenz

March 14, 2005, 12:22 AM

Doc Zinn, Too Many Choices, Parallex et al,

If the theory that people own and can do with their own bodies as they see fit is true...shouldn’t all free men be able to sell themselves into slavery.

I seems that the self-instigated slavery option would pass the acid test of harming only the user, being done or not done strictly by decision of the individual selling him or herself, in theory, would not create a burden on society etc being applied to the drug issue. I'm not in favor of taxes but the transaction could be taxed.

What do you say? Free means free, or are there limits?

S-

Gordon Fink

March 14, 2005, 01:15 AM

[S]ome people are just so darn stupid you have to protect them from themselves.

On that justification alone, I could wipe out three quarters of the worldwide human population and probably just be getting warmed up. No thank you. :mad:

~G. Fink

Sindawe

March 14, 2005, 01:35 AM

Doc, You must have been asleep when Sindawe and I had this exact conversation. I was able to elicit that he had no idea what these rights were, where they came from, how he knew what they were or learned of their existence. His sole "proof" consisted of an assertion that he must be right and that I needed to trust him. You obviously come from the same school. So maybe you can answer the questions that Sindawe was unable to answer. No, you just did not like my answer. As I stated, I may do all that I judge to be in my own best interest, so long as I do not injure or harm another person, or infringe on their rights (to do the same(yes, that sould have been clarified earlier)). If you want a listed enumeration, we will be here until the stars go cold & dark. They are inate to our being, "...something that an individual can claim as due just by the nature of that individual's existence. Breathing is a right. Self-defense is a right. Worship is a right. The ability to come and go freely is a right, as is the right to peaceably assemble, to associate with whom you will. Thinking is a right. Education is a privilege." As to where I learned of them, that was from reading the writings and reasonings of men like Jefferson, Voltaire and Heinlein. The thing is Rabbi, you and I have a fundamentally different view of the world. I think rights are granted by the ruling entity, whatever that is. If they are granted by a ruling entity, that grant can be revoked. If they can be revoked, they are a temporary privilege. A temporary privilege is NOT a right. If the theory that people own and can do with their own bodies as they see fit is true...shouldn’t all free men be able to sell themselves into slavery. Yep. All free men are able to voluntarily enter into a binding contract with another. If the terms of such contract include a lifetime of servitude and absolute obedience to the other party, it is a foolish thing to do, but still they are still free to so. Just as all free men are able to stick their heads in the jaws of crocodiles if it pleases them.

DRZinn

March 14, 2005, 01:48 AM

shouldn’t all free men be able to sell themselves into slavery.Why not? It'd be monumentally stupid, but still their choice to make.

Firethorn

March 14, 2005, 07:26 AM

Don't forget that slavery has had multiple meanings down through the ages. Heck, you had serfdom, which was more oppresive than some earlier forms of slavery.

Now one of the more traditional forms of slavery involves your kids being considered property too. For one thing that's right out.

Today, it really wouldn't be considered slavery, you'd be signing to an extensive, transferable contract with severe breakage or buyout penalties. :scrutiny:

Think about long-term contracts, non-compitition agreements, enlistments, etc...

And eventually, the fact that today 'slaves' are generally not the best workers, so you actually get more work & value out of a free worker.

Parallax

March 14, 2005, 09:27 AM

shouldn’t all free men be able to sell themselves into slavery.

Yes.

Werewolf

March 14, 2005, 10:56 AM

The Anti-Federalists believed that enumeration of the more important rights was necessary in order to avoid abuse of power by the State, as stated in the Preamble to the BOR.
Hmmmmp...

It appears on the face of it that current history has proven the Anti-Federalists correct in their evaluation of the potential for abuse of power by the State.

Lucky for us that they prevailed - to some extent anyway.

To Rabbi who asked what the BOR's was:

It's a list of rights that the government is bound to protect and not infringe. The 9th or 10th amendment (I forget which one) specifically states that the list is not complete and that just because a right isn't mentioned in the previous 8 doesn't mean that the right does not exist. Pretty simple concept actually. To understand it all one must do is actually read the Bill of Rights.

Too Many Choices!?

March 14, 2005, 11:40 AM

As has been stated many times over in this thread now, to "enumarate" all the rights held by the people would fill a "Library of Congress" , wall to wall ceiling to floor with cd-roms........ :confused: I have a right to buy whatever I can afford and government should not try to use taxing to regulate items from the public......ie...cigarettes, ammo, alcohol, or anything else seen as "disturbing" to the masses...... :neener:

Derek Zeanah

March 14, 2005, 02:47 PM

I hate how we go round 'n round on this topic.

Here's a summary of my thinking on this issue.

Our society has determined that alcohol prohibition was a failure, and that legalized alcohol sale and use is OK. This means that as a society, we've determined that 76,000 alcohol-attributable deaths and 2.3 million years of potential life lost due to alcohol (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm) per year is preferable to the harms associated with prohibition.
Nicotine is also allowed for public sale and consumption. We, as a society, have decided that 430,000 tobacco-related deaths (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/cdnr/cdnr_fall0102.htm) per year is better than the alternative (banning, and the resulting black market and gang warfare associated with such a lucrative black market).
IIRC, Air Force pilots are handed methamphetamines for long missions, without a prescription, without doctor supervision. It's a performance enhancer, and it's apparently good enough for Uncle Sam.
When drugs like cocaine were still legal, we didn't see the social harms we're seeing today. Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp) (hence the name), for instance. The harms most people are mentioning seem to me to be results of the drug war, not a justification for it. Drug-related crime exists because the product is so expensive -- a direct result of prohibition. In fact, it looks like 10-17% of crime (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/) might disappear if drugs were legalized because users wouldn't need to commit crimes in order to afford their fix. In 1996, 22% (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/correct.htm) of inmates were in for drug crimes, at something like $30k per year each. Some numbers (http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/costs/real-costs.htm) I found in a quick Google search tag the costs of the drug war from 1992-2000 at over a trillion dollars. That's almost $15,000 per household in the US.With regard to the success of prohibition, here's a quote from Mark Thornton (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0874803756/qid=1110828697/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-2029700-3030540?v=glance&s=books):Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became 'organized'; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.

Is it really that hard to believe we'd see the same changes if we legalized drugs? Wouldn't that be better than the current situation, where we've got the worst of both worlds? I've really got to question whether we'd see people huffing paint and gasoline (with a measurable decrease in IQ with each use) if marijuana were available from Phillip Morris at even three times the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Crack is sold because it's more profitable than powdered cocaine -- would anyone choose to smoke a mixture of crack and God-knows-what if they could purchase the powder for even 10 times the cost of flour? Heroin has been mentioned here -- I thought the desires of heroin users were to shoot up and sit immobile for hours listening to music - -where's the harm to society? Wouldn't the harm go down if opiates were commercially available to users? What if we just legalized the growing of opium-producing poppies, or made methodone something you could get in the drug store?

It's hard to argue that the current system is anything other than an expensive failure that's destroying the rights of all Americans. We need to do something differently, and IMHO any course of action needs to cause less harm than simple legalization. I don't know that anyone has come up with such a solution, so count me in among the "legalize it" crowd. Moral arguments aside, it's the only rational choice.

publius

March 14, 2005, 09:02 PM

The two are absolutely connected, as they have been for some time.

They share the same federal legislative history, both having been born as a tax, since that was a convenient route around the Constitution. Later, the Constitution grew, as living documents are prone to do, so that today, both federal drug laws and federal gun laws are based on the interstate commerce clause. There are two Supreme Court cases about it right now, the Raich case (is a homegrown pot plant for personal consumption interstate commerce?) and the Stewart case (is a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption interstate commerce?).

If you believe that the connection between the two is some Libertarian fantasy, maybe you could explain how Libertarians have infested the Bush Justice Department, which wrote a cert petition in the Stewart case asking the court to hold off hearing their case until Raich is decided because the two cases are about the same issue.

More here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=53941
and here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=110380

fallingblock

March 14, 2005, 10:25 PM

"I've really got to question whether we'd see people huffing paint and gasoline (with a measurable decrease in IQ with each use) if marijuana were available from Phillip Morris at even three times the cost of a pack of cigarettes."
*********************************************************

That's certainly the case here in Central Australia. Petrol is even used by some Aboriginals to "quieten down" their unruly children. Of course, there are plenty of alcohol-related incidents as well, but some folks just seem to like the "slap" that accompanies petrol-sniffing. :rolleyes:

*********************************************************
"Crack is sold because it's more profitable than powdered cocaine -- would anyone choose to smoke a mixture of crack and God-knows-what if they could purchase the powder for even 10 times the cost of flour? Heroin has been mentioned here -- I thought the desires of heroin users were to shoot up and sit immobile for hours listening to music - -where's the harm to society?"
*********************************************************

What's the harm of drug-affected driving while listening to their music?
Simply that the drug-user's judgement is impaired and 'normal' behavioral
clues are no longer guiding their actions.

This is a result of consuming a substance deliberately for the escape from reality. It's not a good idea for those in the society around the escapee.

*********************************************************
"Wouldn't the harm go down if opiates were commercially available to users? What if we just legalized the growing of opium-producing poppies, or made methodone something you could get in the drug store?"
*********************************************************

Would the incidence of opiate-influenced accidents/deaths rise?
What about those non-substance abusers affected by the user's actions?

*********************************************************
"It's hard to argue that the current system is anything other than an expensive failure that's destroying the rights of all Americans."
*********************************************************

No argument from me there!

*********************************************************
"We need to do something differently, and IMHO any course of action needs to cause less harm than simple legalization."
*********************************************************

LESS harm than simple legalization is a good idea, alright. ;)

*********************************************************
"I don't know that anyone has come up with such a solution, so count me in among the "legalize it" crowd. Moral arguments aside, it's the only rational choice."
*********************************************************

We'll disagree there. I don't think it's at all that simple.

publius:
*********************************************************
"The two are absolutely connected, as they have been for some time."
*********************************************************

Your attempt to link the two issues is based merely upon the similarity of the Federal Government's approach to control.

The difference between possession/use:

of an inert object responding to the command of the user-

of a substance ingested by a user seeking physical and/or psychological effect, to include diminished responsibility-

remains clear-cut.

Especially with respect to the effect upon the greater society involved.

The contention that there is a serious parallel between lawful firearms ownership (RKBA) and the mythical 'right' to recreational use of psychotropic drugs (and reduction of individual responsibility) is indeed a libertarian fantasy. ;)

Derek Zeanah

March 14, 2005, 10:44 PM

What's the harm of drug-affected driving while listening to their music?
Simply that the drug-user's judgement is impaired and 'normal' behavioral
clues are no longer guiding their actions.

This is a result of consuming a substance deliberately for the escape from reality. It's not a good idea for those in the society around the escapee.

That'd be a compelling argument, if we weren't already seeing more than 17,000 drunk driving related deaths (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa/supp/p-ch17.htm) yearly (you can find newer stats if you look, I'm sure). If those drivers had been smoking marijuana, I doubt they'd have had their judgement impaired in the same way.

You're making an argument for prohibition; please see my previous post. I don't want anyone who's functioning at a less than normal level driving (there are already too many frightening drivers anyway), but let's not pretend that the harms you're talking about are already happening under our current system. It turns out that alcohol seems to make for the most dangerous drivers...

What about those non-substance abusers affected by the user's actions?Oh, you mean those that are already affected under the current system?

Firethorn

March 14, 2005, 11:45 PM

Some studies have actually shown that those who smoke mary jane are safer drivers. Something about being relaxed, in no hurry, and having no 'road rage'. Their response to somebody cutting them off was to slow down, not tailgate, etc...

And I'm not voting for 'simple legalization'. I don't remember anybody suggesting making it legal for non-adults. Let's at least have a test period where it's legal for 21 year olds, then 18 year olds, and then we'll talk. I'm a "legalize it, regulate it, tax it" person. I believe that we can better keep drugs out of the hands of our children by taking the profit out of it. By making it so that corner drugstores can sell the junkie his fix, you take the profit out of it. The "free sample" looses it's appeal, and the distributer doesn't have a 'lock in', as the drug store should be able to undercut the distributer's business quite effectivly. After all, the pusher still has to avoid the cops, pay legal bills, etc. You look at inner-city crime, murders, and it's mostly drug-traffic related. Now what's that mean? We get rid of the drug war, and we'll likely have a murder rate below that of Europe!

I have an argument for legalization of alchohol for consumption by minors w/parent/guardian. Why? If he or she shows signs of overindulging, addiction, etc, at least it's happening while still under the parent's control. And you make drinking a no big deal, and fight binge drinking.

fallingblock

March 15, 2005, 01:17 AM

"That'd be a compelling argument, if we weren't already seeing more than 17,000 drunk driving related deaths yearly (you can find newer stats if you look, I'm sure). If those drivers had been smoking marijuana, I doubt they'd have had their judgement impaired in the same way."
*********************************************************

I want the substance abused by the drunk-drivers to continue to be controlled as well. :)

Ever try to buy alcohol at a liquor shop as a 15-year old? Good controls!

Marijuana? So now you're arguing that marijuana does not impair judgement?

Any solid proof?

*********************************************************
You're making an argument for prohibition;
*********************************************************

In certain cases, perhaps.

Certainly for effective restriction on the availability of substances which serve only to diminish judgement and responsibility.

This is a worthwhile goal for any society.

I do agree that the way the U.S. approach is not particularly effective,
and that the flow-on effect for individual liberty is not encouraging.

*********************************************************
"please see my previous post. I don't want anyone who's functioning at a less than normal level driving (there are already too many frightening drivers anyway), but let's not pretend that the harms you're talking about are already happening under our current system."
*********************************************************

I'm not pretending anything about alcohol. I would like to see current restrictions on the availability of alcohol maintained. It is an example of a "legal" drug where harm is not eliminated by simply allowing consumption.

"Prohibition":
________________________________________________________________
"National Prohibition Act of 1919, more popularly known as the Volstead Act, enforced the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, dealing with the prohibition of alcohol. The Act is named for Andrew Volstead, a Republican representative from Minnesota.

In doing so, it defined the term "beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquors" to mean any beverage with greater than 0.5% alcohol by volume. It was passed by the U.S. Congress on October 28, 1919 over the veto by President Woodrow Wilson. It went into effect with the Eighteenth Amendment on January 16, 1920."
________________________________________________________________

The Volstead Act was a failure because enough folks wanted their alcohol escape to provide demand - which was supplied by various crooks and organized crime. The government lacked the resources (as it always will, under such a situation).

Note that there was sufficient demand for prohibition from the community at the time to override Wilson's Presidential veto. Why?

I'd guess that most folks at the time knew of lives and families and businesses ruined by alcohol addiction and abuse.
They agreed that maybe it would be a good idea to prohibit alcohol.

Of course that won't work, any more than simply 'legalizing' even more damaging drugs will not work....

if your goal is any sort of livable society, that is. :)

A combination of regulation and education seems to me to be the wisest approach.

Driving down demand is the only sane approach to substance abuse.

*********************************************************
"It turns out that alcohol seems to make for the most dangerous drivers..."
*********************************************************

Derek, you obviously haven't experienced drivers who sniff their fuel! :eek:

*********************************************************
"Quote:
What about those non-substance abusers affected by the user's actions?

"Oh, you mean those that are already affected under the current system?"
*********************************************************

Not so much as those who would be subjected to the expanded use of substances in an unregulated environment.

I'm not surprised that libertarian politicians regularly fail to gain votes if they advocate such an irresponsible position as unregulated access to incapaciting substances. :uhoh:

Firethorn:
*********************************************************
"I'm a "legalize it, regulate it, tax it" person."
*********************************************************

You're sure not going to decrease consumption that way, but I agree that that's the way to jerk the rug out from under the criminal distribution system.

*********************************************************
"....as the drug store should be able to undercut the distributer's business quite effectivly."
*********************************************************

Great! Now all we have to do is clean up the mess from the uninhibited users and their trail of social woes....unless we just bury them. :evil:

*********************************************************
"We get rid of the drug war, and we'll likely have a murder rate below that of Europe!"
*********************************************************

Yes, no argument there. Although there'll still be the 'income gap' and the isolation/concentration of the ghettos to work on. ;)

*********************************************************
"I have an argument for legalization of alchohol for consumption by minors w/parent/guardian."
*********************************************************

Yep. Good idea. Keep it regulated so kids have difficulty obtaining alcohol (as opposed to this absurd concept of 'no controls').

*********************************************************
"Why? If he or she shows signs of overindulging, addiction, etc, at least it's happening while still under the parent's control. And you make drinking a no big deal, and fight binge drinking."
*********************************************************

Yes! Education.

From the source it ought to be coming from...responsible parents. Good!

But the regulations are still necessary. Lots of folks without responsible folks.

My whole 'burr-under-the-saddle' with this issue is the absurd notion that there is any parallel between psychotropic substance use and RKBA. :fire:

publius

March 15, 2005, 05:52 AM

Your attempt to link the two issues is based merely upon the similarity of the Federal Government's approach to control.

I did not write the cert petition for the Bush administration. They (along with anyone who supports the federal drug war) are the ones who are buying into the New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause. They are the ones who are recognizing the fact that precedents set in the one area (Raich) will affect federal actions in other areas (Stewart). That seems like a linkage to me.

Where's that Rabbi character to back me up in saying that rights defined by the government are the only ones worth discussing?

Stand_Watie

March 15, 2005, 05:52 AM

I have an argument for legalization of alchohol for consumption by minors w/parent/guardian. Why? If he or she shows signs of overindulging, addiction, etc, at least it's happening while still under the parent's control. And you make drinking a no big deal, and fight binge drinking

Actually Texas sort of already does this... My little brother actually had occasion to use the 'spouse' provision when his wife was underage.

§ 106.04. CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY A MINOR. (a) A
minor commits an offense if he consumes an alcoholic beverage.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the alcoholic beverage was consumed in the visible
presence of the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse....

§ 106.06. PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL FOR A MINOR; FURNISHING
ALCOHOL TO A MINOR...(b) A person may purchase an alcoholic beverage for or give an alcoholic beverage to a minor if he is the minor's adult parent,
guardian, or spouse, or an adult in whose custody the minor has been
committed by a court, and he is visibly present when the minor
possesses or consumes the alcoholic beverage.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/AL/content/htm/al.004.00.000106.00.htm

publius

March 15, 2005, 06:01 AM

We can't talk about the approach to control in a thread about the "war on drugs"? Isn't the war on drugs the approach to control of drugs?

Selfdfenz

March 15, 2005, 07:19 AM

I don't disagree that drug and gun legislation have much in common in the way they function but there are many difference in the reasoning behind why each set of regulations came into being and what each is trying to control. It's an over generalization to think otherwise but I can see why the tactic of linking the two in the minds of the pro-legalization group raises the drug issue to a higher plane. It's a bogus tactic IMO but MO (like all of our opinions) and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

One thing I'm 100 % sure of is that drug threads on THR are taking the shape of threads regarding the banned topics of religion and abortion. There will never be agreement on the matter and the fact the topic comes up here with suspicious regularity does nothing in the end but burn ban width and reinforce the polarization on each side.

Best OAO,

S-

(...and he walked off into the sunset promising never to post on a drug thread ever again)

publius

March 15, 2005, 07:33 AM

I don't disagree that drug and gun legislation have much in common in the way they function but there are many difference in the reasoning behind why each set of regulations came into being and what each is trying to control.

That's true, but it's also true that gun laws and drug laws aren't really about drugs or guns, but about the "other people" that "we" need to control.

This guy (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm) explains that point more fully.

I can see why the tactic of linking the two in the minds of the pro-legalization group raises the drug issue to a higher plane. It's a bogus tactic IMO

Again, I didn't write the cert petition for the Bush administration. I have, however, spent many years telling drug warriors that ignoring the stretching of the constitution in order to prosecute the federal drug war would have consequences which would reach back to issues they cared about.

Now there is a Supreme Court case with a cert petition from a Republican administration that says I was right. There just can't be any debate any more. The fate of Stewart IS TIED TO the fate of Raich. The fate of federal gun laws IS TIED TO the fate of federal drug laws. Got any current Supreme Court cases or current cert petitions that say that is bogus? Because I backed up my opinion with facts and links. You just stated an opposing opinion.

publius

March 15, 2005, 07:54 AM

Rabbi: The landmark of Griswold was to locate rights in the "penumbra and emanations" of the Constitution. I personally find that approach distateful.

How do you feel about the "living document" theory? When federal (edit: cannabis and/or narcotic, not alcohol) prohibition was first enacted, it was understood that Congress did not have that kind of regulatory power, so they enacted a tax in order to grab regulatory power. Later, the Constitution grew, and now Congress has sufficient regulatory power under the interstate commerce clause to declare that a homegrown plant for personal consumption (or a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption) is under their control.

Is that what the interstate commerce clause was intended to do? Is that what it should be doing?

thorn726

March 15, 2005, 05:28 PM

I have an argument for legalization of alchohol for consumption by minors w/parent/guardian. Why? If he or she shows signs of overindulging, addiction, etc, at least it's happening while still under the parent's control. And you make drinking a no big deal, and fight binge drinking.

this is not a good idea. you are setting up a kid for alcoholism.
alcohol is ADDICTIVE. you drink enough , you will get hooked. younger you are , less resistance to addictiion you will have, your liver, organs, muscles are not developed, you slow all that down.,
there is more to the age limit than just actions.

you would be getting a person used to alcohol very early , making heavy drinking more likely and easier later.

all the kids i knew in school who had paret s who let them drink (some parents actually supplied kegs) - those kids now drink to no end.

Derby FALs

March 15, 2005, 05:40 PM

Bull puckey, I say. The countries that that have no minimum drinking age have less problems with adult alchoholism. A person can always be a heavy drinker and not be an alcoholic. Tolerance levels changing are a sign of alcoholism. There is a peak and then tolerance drops in stage III alcoholics.

publius

March 15, 2005, 05:41 PM

Your anecdotal experiences contradict mine, thorn. I went to a high school with many foreign exchange students. We had several European kids who were accustomed to drinking. They looked at their American counterparts undergoing our clumsy and unsupervised first experiments with alcohol in about the same way that American college seniors view American high school students in that situation. They had no interest in drinking until they puked, they really didn't have much interest in drinking period, but when they did do it, you could tell that they were experienced, knew their limits, and had learned under responsible supervision, not under the supervision of other teenagers like the rest of us.

DRZinn

March 15, 2005, 05:46 PM

Let me chim in on that one too. Where alcohol is treated as something less than a deadly poison, it's less of a problem. I remember sitting down to dinner in Greece at age 12 and being offered a beer...

Gordon Fink

March 15, 2005, 07:09 PM

I forget. Is alcohol physically or only psychologically addicting?

~G. Fink

Derby FALs

March 15, 2005, 07:17 PM

It is both to the addictive personality.

Gordon Fink

March 15, 2005, 07:19 PM

“Addictive personality”? So it’s just psychological then?

~G. Fink

Derby FALs

March 15, 2005, 07:22 PM

I wouldn't consider DTs to be purely psychological. :what:

DRZinn

March 15, 2005, 07:26 PM

As I understand it, some people are genetically predisposed to become physically addicted to alcohol.

Anything can be psychologically addicting, and some are more predisposed to that, as well.

Gordon Fink

March 15, 2005, 07:28 PM

Derby, do you mean detoxification? Do alcoholics really detox when they “dry out”?

I know some substances cause changes in brain chemistry, which is what leads to physical addiction, but I’m not sure if alcohol is one of those.

~G. Fink

Derby FALs

March 15, 2005, 07:33 PM

DTs are potentially fatal from seizures. Abrupt mental changes and hallucinations are also possible. Usually they dose them up on Librium and try to bring them down easy.

Firethorn

March 15, 2005, 07:42 PM

Yes, I'm using my experiences in Europe on my position on legal drinking age. Not purchasing age, but drinking age. They have a fraction of our problems as far as drinking goes. They don't drink just to get drunk

this is not a good idea. you are setting up a kid for alcoholism.
alcohol is ADDICTIVE. you drink enough , you will get hooked. younger you are , less resistance to addictiion you will have, your liver, organs, muscles are not developed, you slow all that down.,
there is more to the age limit than just actions.

you would be getting a person used to alcohol very early , making heavy drinking more likely and easier later.

all the kids i knew in school who had paret s who let them drink (some parents actually supplied kegs) - those kids now drink to no end.

Thorn - I have a different example for you. Milk. Specifically Lactose. A baby is born with the ability to process Lactose. In most animals this metabolic path eventually shuts down when the animal is weaned. Large sections of people, in China for example, are lactose intolerant when adult. But studies have shown that for the Chinese who emigrated here and milk was a regular part of the diet of their children, most of those children grew up tolerant to lactose.

What's my point? Well, a child's body is still developing, yes. But it's also at it's most adaptable. Babies can take brain damage that would leave an adult a vegetable and grow up as more or less normal adults.

As for alchohol being addictive, I've heard that physical addiction is a first drink thing-you're an addict the moment you take your first drink. Pschycological addiction is a different matter, and in it's own way just as serious. But the treatment needed there is a different affair. I really dislike the blurring of the addiction types.

all the kids i knew in school who had parents who let them drink (some parents actually supplied kegs) - those kids now drink to no end.

I think the key works here are "let" and "keg". If you notice those of us who advocate the European model, our examples are a glass of wine, or a beer. Preferably provided during a meal. The parents you're talking about are poor ones, advocating heavy drinking. *** are they doing providing a keg? I can understand one at a family reunion or something, but for the kids? Do you think that a teenager, having grown up with a glass of wine or beer during dinner, is more likely to do something stupid like down 21 shots of liquer on their 21st birthday, like the half a dozen or so deaths I've heard about recently? Or go out and get smashed, etc? The problem in America(besides bad parents), is the whole forbidden fruit thing. We're raising bubble babies in some ways, sheltered from the outside world, who drop dead once introduced to the real world.

publius

March 16, 2005, 07:10 AM

When I was a senior in high school, my parents had a party for my friends and me, and they bought a keg. It was Spring Break. Many of us were 18. There were plenty of cars and boats available to us. My parents knew we were going to drink some beer, and decided they would rather supervise the situation. We had a good time. FWIW, my folks are fairly strict, not big drinkers, certainly anti-anyotherdrugs, and were trying to limit the alcohol consumption, not increase it. It worked, too.

My (conservative) mother doesn't like answering questions like these either:

Is that what the interstate commerce clause was intended to do? Is that what it should be doing?

:neener:

Group9

March 16, 2005, 08:31 AM

When I was a senior in high school, my parents had a party for my friends and me, and they bought a keg. It was Spring Break. Many of us were 18. There were plenty of cars and boats available to us. My parents knew we were going to drink some beer, and decided they would rather supervise the situation. We had a good time. FWIW, my folks are fairly strict, not big drinkers, certainly anti-anyotherdrugs, and were trying to limit the alcohol consumption, not increase it. It worked, too.

It worked that night. But, how well does it work with all of the high school kids who get hooked on alcohol at parent's parties who have to go off and regulate themselves after they grow up?

Firethorn

March 16, 2005, 12:59 PM

It worked that night. But, how well does it work with all of the high school kids who get hooked on alcohol at parent's parties who have to go off and regulate themselves after they grow up?

And realistically, how many got addicted at that party? I mean, if it's better than a 1% chance that you become addicted with each drink, every joe who has a beer after work for the last ten years would be addicted. Sure, Joe might miss that beer, but odds are he's not going to go nuts about it. Also, parents were there. Which would you rather have, the parents there, or have them having the party out in a cornfield with no supervision?

From what I've seen, you have two kinds of 'addicts'(and you don't have to be an addict to abuse).
1. Physical addict: These are the people who get DT's without. Major changes in the body on withdrawal. They're also the most likely the ones who became addicted on the first drink. In the parent party scenario, the parents notice that Johnny is drinking too much, and when they catch him really trying for the drink after school, before breakfast, etc they can take action. Johnny isn't allowed alchohol anymore, and at least his first introduction wasn't while he was in college, where the frats encourage binge drinking.

2. Psychological Addict: These are the people who can become violent or depressed when denied their everquest. Odds are, they're going to become 'addicted' to something. Whether that be cigarettes, alchohol, weed, cocaine, Everquest, World of Warcraft, chocolate, internet, porn, women's shoes, D&D, anti-bacterial soap, etc. This is where the parents can at least try to guide Johnny into fixating something not self-destructive. Or get him counseling.

3. Abusive: The stereotypical college weekend binge drinker. Sure, he can stop, but for some reason he just enjoys getting smashed on the weekend, and doesn't care about the consequences. Maturity and experience helps control this, most stop sometime later. Still, this is a very dangerous position to be in. The parent parties can have a huge effect at reducing this, as the young adult is used to alchohol, but also used to using it in moderation already.

publius

March 16, 2005, 03:12 PM

And realistically, how many got addicted at that party?

Well, late in the evening, my friend Stephen did dispense with the formality of a cup and go to drinking out of a large plastic pitcher. Even later in the evening, he got rid of the pitcher and just sat near the keg hosing beer directly into his mouth.

That might be indicative of a problem. ;)

fallingblock

March 17, 2005, 04:16 AM

and the thread drifts off into teenage binge-drinking. :rolleyes:

Y'all have heard of George Soros and his "Open Society Institute"?

Well, don't you have to ask why they are such tireless advocates of legalized drugs AND banned firearms? :scrutiny:

My theory is that both approaches lead to a population which is much more easily controlled by a global government.

Lots of stoners who couldn't care less about government as long as they get their substances with minimum hassle,

and no weapons available for those who might resist the elites.

On the teenage drinking thing:

In my first army assignment after AIT, I was quartered in a barracks bay which contained 60 bunks.

Some of the troops whiled away a Friday night and early Saturday morning drinking their way through 24 bottle cases of the old long-neck bottles, one after another. By early-morning, several G.I.'s were sufficiently inebriated that they could no longer make their way to the latrine. No problem, use the empty bottles, put them into the 'empty' end of the case.

It worked well, until a visit from the drunks in the next bay, who had run right out of beer.

They made themselves at home, and drank up everything remaining-

including the 'refills' :eek: .