For those against the War on Drugs
- Thread starter kludge
- Start date
- Status
More of a small-l libertarian actually.
I think using drugs is pretty dumb, but it doesn't look as if the War On Drugs has has much success. Seems to me that nearly anyone who wants to get high, pretty much can, and the jails are jammed with people on drug convictions.
Long long ago, when I was working as a reporter I interviewed a guy who was a former police chief and he told me "Most honest cops would tell you that if problem drinkers switched to pot, assaults and homocides would go way down." The other side to that is that pizza deliveries would go Waaaay up.
As a country, maybe we should look at some other options besides prohibition....
I think using drugs is pretty dumb, but it doesn't look as if the War On Drugs has has much success. Seems to me that nearly anyone who wants to get high, pretty much can, and the jails are jammed with people on drug convictions.
Long long ago, when I was working as a reporter I interviewed a guy who was a former police chief and he told me "Most honest cops would tell you that if problem drinkers switched to pot, assaults and homocides would go way down." The other side to that is that pizza deliveries would go Waaaay up.
As a country, maybe we should look at some other options besides prohibition....
General Geoff
Member
Libertarian, never used illegal drugs. Hell, I try to keep drug use at a minimum period. About the only drug I can think of that I consume on a regular basis is caffeine (in soft drinks; I don't even drink coffee). Last time I took an OTC medication was three years ago. Prescription, about 10 years ago. I dislike using any kinds of drugs, as I like knowing exactly what my body is doing, and like being in a stable state of mind. Oh, and yes, this includes Alcohol. I've only ever gotten drunk once, that was several years ago. I don't care for it, I see no point and I now generally refuse any and all alcohol regardless of the occasion.
That said, I believe anyone should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies. You wanna smoke pot? I won't stop you. You'll never get me to do it, but I certainly won't stand in your way. Drug use (both legal and illegal) is at its core a victimless crime, just like prostitution.
That said, I believe anyone should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies. You wanna smoke pot? I won't stop you. You'll never get me to do it, but I certainly won't stand in your way. Drug use (both legal and illegal) is at its core a victimless crime, just like prostitution.
Well there are two sides to every coin.
But I believe that the most sovereign form of liberty is what a person can do with/ to their own body, provided that they are a consenting adult. I don’t use drugs (unless you count caffeine, then I’m an addict), but I feel that if you are an adult, and you want to, you should be able to, especially those that are used in their naturally occurring states such as cannabis or tobacco.
The benefits would be:
Tax revenue. Cigarettes cost society a lot of money because the cause cancer and other health problems, but the fact is that they generate 3X their “cost”.
Safety (for users). Right now street drugs range from very impure to almost 100% pure. This is the reason for most overdoses. Junkies get used to 50% pure stuff, then they get some 90% pure and take the same dose. Also, who knows what toxic substances street drugs were “cut” with. If they were manufactured by pharmaceutical companies they would be consistent and safe. Also, revenue from these corporations would be traceable, and they would have to pay income tax on it. Then, when they are sold, they would generate sales tax.
The biggest reason would be to stop the out flow of money to terrorist and drug cartels. Most “insurgent” groups and terror cells are funded by drug money.
Also, it would eliminate a lot of “drug raids” by swat teams who kick in grandpa’s door at 3 in the morning.
Sure it would be the wild wild west for a little while, but even if there were no tangible benefits, my first point should be reason enough.
But I believe that the most sovereign form of liberty is what a person can do with/ to their own body, provided that they are a consenting adult. I don’t use drugs (unless you count caffeine, then I’m an addict), but I feel that if you are an adult, and you want to, you should be able to, especially those that are used in their naturally occurring states such as cannabis or tobacco.
The benefits would be:
Tax revenue. Cigarettes cost society a lot of money because the cause cancer and other health problems, but the fact is that they generate 3X their “cost”.
Safety (for users). Right now street drugs range from very impure to almost 100% pure. This is the reason for most overdoses. Junkies get used to 50% pure stuff, then they get some 90% pure and take the same dose. Also, who knows what toxic substances street drugs were “cut” with. If they were manufactured by pharmaceutical companies they would be consistent and safe. Also, revenue from these corporations would be traceable, and they would have to pay income tax on it. Then, when they are sold, they would generate sales tax.
The biggest reason would be to stop the out flow of money to terrorist and drug cartels. Most “insurgent” groups and terror cells are funded by drug money.
Also, it would eliminate a lot of “drug raids” by swat teams who kick in grandpa’s door at 3 in the morning.
Sure it would be the wild wild west for a little while, but even if there were no tangible benefits, my first point should be reason enough.
Zundfolge
Member
Not sure what you're trying to figure out with the poll here ... other than maybe trying to bolster the argument that the only reason people oppose the WOD is because they are addicts themselves (or wish to be addicts).
I also noticed you capitalized "Libertarian" so I'm assuming you mean registered members of the Libertarian Party.
I also noticed you capitalized "Libertarian" so I'm assuming you mean registered members of the Libertarian Party.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I'll just say that it is one thing for a State to have drug laws that the people of that State prefer, and quite a different matter for the federal government to step in and declare war on drugs.
Mad Chemist
Member
I think you'll find that most of us who are against "The War on Drugs" are not drug abusers. The erosion of personal liberty that has been directly associated with prohibition is the reason that I am personally opposed to most current drug laws.
Prohibition of alcohol did not work. Instead of deterring vice it ushered in a brand new era of violent organized crime. When prohibition was lifted, the newly emboldened criminal syndicates turned to more lucrative illegal enterprises like prostitution, pornography, gambling and illegal drugs.
I am a Libertarian and I am a firm believer in capitalism. Prohibiting certain goods and services will not eliminate them from the markets. It may cause an initial scarcity of supply which leads to a drastic increase in black market prices. This in turn leads to "entrepeneurs" stepping in to fill the supply gap and making substantial sums of money for doing it. The more valuable a particular item is and the more peril associated with trafficking it will correlate with how violent the syndicates associated with it become. Converesly, higher prices for addictive substances will increase petty theft and property crime rates among addicts.
This is not rocket science and one does not need to be a master of social theory to understand it. It's simple suppy and demand economics.
Provided I had the will and enogh cash I could: pick up a hooker in Provo, Utah, buy a handgun in London, buy heroine in Singapore.
All of these locations have strict ordinances against these practices yet despite the resources and lives wasted, traffic in illegal items continues.
Prohibition of alcohol did not work. Instead of deterring vice it ushered in a brand new era of violent organized crime. When prohibition was lifted, the newly emboldened criminal syndicates turned to more lucrative illegal enterprises like prostitution, pornography, gambling and illegal drugs.
I am a Libertarian and I am a firm believer in capitalism. Prohibiting certain goods and services will not eliminate them from the markets. It may cause an initial scarcity of supply which leads to a drastic increase in black market prices. This in turn leads to "entrepeneurs" stepping in to fill the supply gap and making substantial sums of money for doing it. The more valuable a particular item is and the more peril associated with trafficking it will correlate with how violent the syndicates associated with it become. Converesly, higher prices for addictive substances will increase petty theft and property crime rates among addicts.
This is not rocket science and one does not need to be a master of social theory to understand it. It's simple suppy and demand economics.
Provided I had the will and enogh cash I could: pick up a hooker in Provo, Utah, buy a handgun in London, buy heroine in Singapore.
All of these locations have strict ordinances against these practices yet despite the resources and lives wasted, traffic in illegal items continues.
The "War on Drugs" is a creation of our government. Even the definition of "drug" is artificial, since it is defined as something under the DEA's jurisdiction, not as something that intoxicates. Some intoxicants are not legally "drugs" at all.
The "War on Drugs" requires a great deal of money, time and energy -- even lives -- to be spent.
Those who do "drugs", do so by choice. There is a market for drugs, whether that's a free market, a regulated/restricted market, or a black market.
Therefore, one is obligated to justify the "War on Drugs" if he wishes to win a debate in its favor. By default, there is no "War" at all.
That's my question: what NET GOOD has the War on Drugs done?
I know plenty of educated, middle class professionals who smoke pot regularly. I think the stuff is stupid, but when I wanted to try some, it was easy to find. Nobody I know hurts anyone but themselves when they smoke pot, and relative to some legal activities, the harm to themselves is minimal.
So I don't think that the "War on Drugs" stops many people from using whatever they feel like using. At best, it incents the creation of substitutes for more expensive drugs, e.g. crystal meth for cocaine. Homemade Meth is truly a scourge; however, medical grade amphetamines have been used regularly, even by our armed forces in combat. The real harm comes from the fact that the drug is made by dirtbag criminals; amphetamines themselves, while not exactly vitamin pills, are not nearly as bad as desert trailer Crystal.
So there's the question: what good, exactly, is the "War on Drugs" accomplishing, other than spending money, getting people killed, increasing Federal power and government intrusion into our lives, feeding money to violent gangs, and keeping a lot of Law Enforcement agents and prison guards employed?
Does the "War on Drugs" really prevent addiction, or does it just suck addicts into the criminal underworld? It seems to me that churches, 12 step programs, and rehab centers do a lot more to help addicts get over their addictions than the DEA. And oddly, these institutions seem have a steady supply of new addicts, so the "War on Drugs" didn't stop them from becoming addicted.
Can we really cure afflicted souls with gunboats and midnight raids?
The "War on Drugs" requires a great deal of money, time and energy -- even lives -- to be spent.
Those who do "drugs", do so by choice. There is a market for drugs, whether that's a free market, a regulated/restricted market, or a black market.
Therefore, one is obligated to justify the "War on Drugs" if he wishes to win a debate in its favor. By default, there is no "War" at all.
That's my question: what NET GOOD has the War on Drugs done?
I know plenty of educated, middle class professionals who smoke pot regularly. I think the stuff is stupid, but when I wanted to try some, it was easy to find. Nobody I know hurts anyone but themselves when they smoke pot, and relative to some legal activities, the harm to themselves is minimal.
So I don't think that the "War on Drugs" stops many people from using whatever they feel like using. At best, it incents the creation of substitutes for more expensive drugs, e.g. crystal meth for cocaine. Homemade Meth is truly a scourge; however, medical grade amphetamines have been used regularly, even by our armed forces in combat. The real harm comes from the fact that the drug is made by dirtbag criminals; amphetamines themselves, while not exactly vitamin pills, are not nearly as bad as desert trailer Crystal.
So there's the question: what good, exactly, is the "War on Drugs" accomplishing, other than spending money, getting people killed, increasing Federal power and government intrusion into our lives, feeding money to violent gangs, and keeping a lot of Law Enforcement agents and prison guards employed?
Does the "War on Drugs" really prevent addiction, or does it just suck addicts into the criminal underworld? It seems to me that churches, 12 step programs, and rehab centers do a lot more to help addicts get over their addictions than the DEA. And oddly, these institutions seem have a steady supply of new addicts, so the "War on Drugs" didn't stop them from becoming addicted.
Can we really cure afflicted souls with gunboats and midnight raids?
WildeKurt
Member
The war on drugs? Truly a joke. For over twenty years this has gone on. The results: The type of drugs being pushed has gotten much more dangerous (if you don't believe that, do some research on crystal meth). Illicit drug use has not gone down. Violence has gone up.
Regardless on how you feel about it, some people use illicit drugs. All the prohibition does is move them onto a black market where we have no control of them at all. It didn't work for booze and won't work for other illicit drugs.
Regardless on how you feel about it, some people use illicit drugs. All the prohibition does is move them onto a black market where we have no control of them at all. It didn't work for booze and won't work for other illicit drugs.
MrDig
Member
As a person actively involved in AA for 18 years now I believe the "War on Drugs" is as effective as the Prohibition was in it's time. It should be noted that the Two men Credited for Founding AA did their worst and most destructive drinking during the Prohibition.
This is to prove the point that Illegalizing something as a means of preventing people from having access to it is virtually impossible. Drugs, Alcohol, whatever.
Cocaine and Marijuanna have never been Legal, and yet I had pretty much unfettered access to them.
Furthermore I spent great amounts of revenue on them. Where did and is all that revenue currently being spent going? It is only funding the scum of the earth to continue to gain wealth and riches at the expense of the addicts, and impoverished who cannot ignore the allure of the wealth accumulated by Drug Lords.
Legalize, Tax, and Regulate access stop trying to prevent access it is not working.
This is to prove the point that Illegalizing something as a means of preventing people from having access to it is virtually impossible. Drugs, Alcohol, whatever.
Cocaine and Marijuanna have never been Legal, and yet I had pretty much unfettered access to them.
Furthermore I spent great amounts of revenue on them. Where did and is all that revenue currently being spent going? It is only funding the scum of the earth to continue to gain wealth and riches at the expense of the addicts, and impoverished who cannot ignore the allure of the wealth accumulated by Drug Lords.
Legalize, Tax, and Regulate access stop trying to prevent access it is not working.
That's correct.
As to my reasoning... well, I see a lot of folks say, "that's the law and we have to live by it" when it comes to gun laws, regardless of their constitutionality. On the other hand, I don't see the same comment when it comes to the War on Drugs. The reason for the poll is two-fold 1) to see how many people who are against the "war on drug" are Libertarian vs. not Libertaian, and 2) to see how many of those against the "war" are drug users themselves. (I don't fit the criterion, so I didn't take it myself)
Oh, and I don't really expect to see anyone admit that they are a drug user on this poll, since that would disqualify them from purchasing a firearm, but I listed that option for completeness.
I find myself agreeing with Libertarians on many issues, and might vote for such a canditate if only they didn't want to legalize certain substances.
griz
Member
I'm not registered with any party but believe personal freedom should be the default position in almost all matters. So I voted Lib/never.
Mad Chemist
Member
Please elaborate. The arguments thus far have been completely one-sided, it would be interesting to see a dissenting opiniion.
No ad-hominem or mud slinging, just a fair debate of the issue.
bogie
Member
Hey, I inhaled. Unlike some folks, I had the intelligence to realize that that was required.
Haven't in about 20+ years. Of course, if it was legal, I'd probably get a mild buzz some weekends. Marijuana use, however, is nowhere near as hazardous to your health as a marijuana bust...
You know, a lot of folks who think that the war on drugs is legitimate seem to dwell solely on the fact that the substances at hand are illegal, and go no further.
"It's illegal, so it's bad!"
Cluebat time, folks... RIght now, if someone wants to buy something, there's someone willing to sell it. And that someone is completely unregulated - I _do_ think that the government has some duties as far as quality, re the FDA, FTC, FAA, etc...
Since the war on drugs was started, every year there's an epidemic. Every year it's worse. Why? Because there's LOTS of money in it. On both sides. This money leads to a very large black market, of criminals by definition, and users, also criminals by definition, which tends to cause more crime. After all, they're already guilty of possession, so why not go out and do other things? The dealers and distributors fight wars over business location. And civilians are caught in the crossfire.
Now, when did you see two rival liquor stores or bars, even across the street from each other, commence to shooting each other up?
Take the dealers, and make them go legit. Sell whatever in liquor stores, whatever. Tax it to a degree, and use that money for ad campaigns, rehab, whatever... I suspect, however, that with the large profits due to black market dealing removed, that drug use will become less "glamorous" as time passes. I'm arriving at this conclusion based upon what happened with the illicit alcohol markets following repeal of prohibition.
Eventually I'd guess that most of the substances in question would be marketed by currently existing pharma, alcohol or tobacco companies, with the exception of "microgrowers," much like we've got microbreweries.
Another side effect will be serious changes made to law enforcement. LOTS of funding and manpower cuts, or movements to taxation and regulatory agencies. I think this is the primary reason why a lot of law enforcement organizations oppose legalization, even if the "legalization" in question is just to provide analgesia for terminal patients.
Follow the money, folks. Follow the money. The dealers don't want it legalized. And neither do the police.
Haven't in about 20+ years. Of course, if it was legal, I'd probably get a mild buzz some weekends. Marijuana use, however, is nowhere near as hazardous to your health as a marijuana bust...
You know, a lot of folks who think that the war on drugs is legitimate seem to dwell solely on the fact that the substances at hand are illegal, and go no further.
"It's illegal, so it's bad!"
Cluebat time, folks... RIght now, if someone wants to buy something, there's someone willing to sell it. And that someone is completely unregulated - I _do_ think that the government has some duties as far as quality, re the FDA, FTC, FAA, etc...
Since the war on drugs was started, every year there's an epidemic. Every year it's worse. Why? Because there's LOTS of money in it. On both sides. This money leads to a very large black market, of criminals by definition, and users, also criminals by definition, which tends to cause more crime. After all, they're already guilty of possession, so why not go out and do other things? The dealers and distributors fight wars over business location. And civilians are caught in the crossfire.
Now, when did you see two rival liquor stores or bars, even across the street from each other, commence to shooting each other up?
Take the dealers, and make them go legit. Sell whatever in liquor stores, whatever. Tax it to a degree, and use that money for ad campaigns, rehab, whatever... I suspect, however, that with the large profits due to black market dealing removed, that drug use will become less "glamorous" as time passes. I'm arriving at this conclusion based upon what happened with the illicit alcohol markets following repeal of prohibition.
Eventually I'd guess that most of the substances in question would be marketed by currently existing pharma, alcohol or tobacco companies, with the exception of "microgrowers," much like we've got microbreweries.
Another side effect will be serious changes made to law enforcement. LOTS of funding and manpower cuts, or movements to taxation and regulatory agencies. I think this is the primary reason why a lot of law enforcement organizations oppose legalization, even if the "legalization" in question is just to provide analgesia for terminal patients.
Follow the money, folks. Follow the money. The dealers don't want it legalized. And neither do the police.
kludge-
You are creating a false dichotomy, which is that someone must use drugs or deal drugs in order to want to stop spending money and lives, and losing unrelated freedoms like 4th amendment protections, in the name of the "War on Drugs."
Did someone who opposed, say, the "War on Poverty", which was a specific government program, want people to be poor? No! The Gingrich/Clinton changes to our welfare system were made in order to improve things, not because anyone wanted more poor people.
In the same way, someone opposing the current "War on Drugs" does not mean that that person has or wants any involvement with drugs. It just means he/she sees the government program as an expensive failure.
Read MDig's post. Read my post.
Forget what your preconceived notions are if you really want to understand.
Here: read this. http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html
Don't waste your time with the Libertarian Party. That's not the point here. The National Review is probably the premier Conservative publication.
You are creating a false dichotomy, which is that someone must use drugs or deal drugs in order to want to stop spending money and lives, and losing unrelated freedoms like 4th amendment protections, in the name of the "War on Drugs."
Did someone who opposed, say, the "War on Poverty", which was a specific government program, want people to be poor? No! The Gingrich/Clinton changes to our welfare system were made in order to improve things, not because anyone wanted more poor people.
In the same way, someone opposing the current "War on Drugs" does not mean that that person has or wants any involvement with drugs. It just means he/she sees the government program as an expensive failure.
Read MDig's post. Read my post.
Forget what your preconceived notions are if you really want to understand.
Here: read this. http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html
Don't waste your time with the Libertarian Party. That's not the point here. The National Review is probably the premier Conservative publication.
Autolycus
Member
I have used marijuana when I was younger. The last time was 7 years ago. I am 25 now and I dont use it. I would like to get a government job and that sort of thing is frowned upon.
However I will freely admit that I enjoyed marjijuana more than alcohol. I think that it is safer and less harmful overall based on my own experiences with both drugs.
I cannot speak on crack, coke, extasy, acid, meth, or other drugs besides marijuana. I do feel that they should be legal for people to use. If they harm anyone then they should be punished. I am for imposing a DUI style laws once we figure out how to test for impairment of the above substances.
I would also support slowly legalizing some drugs. Lets take it in slowly so that the nation can adapt to the idea.
And I will freely admit that if marijuana were legal I would probably enjoy a smoke every so often.
The simple facts are that many people dont feel it is wrong. I am in a college town and people here could care less however maybe in your town things are different. It is all relative to what you believe and your own situation. But in the end I think that if your actions dont harm anyone then let it be.
However I will freely admit that I enjoyed marjijuana more than alcohol. I think that it is safer and less harmful overall based on my own experiences with both drugs.
I cannot speak on crack, coke, extasy, acid, meth, or other drugs besides marijuana. I do feel that they should be legal for people to use. If they harm anyone then they should be punished. I am for imposing a DUI style laws once we figure out how to test for impairment of the above substances.
I would also support slowly legalizing some drugs. Lets take it in slowly so that the nation can adapt to the idea.
And I will freely admit that if marijuana were legal I would probably enjoy a smoke every so often.
The simple facts are that many people dont feel it is wrong. I am in a college town and people here could care less however maybe in your town things are different. It is all relative to what you believe and your own situation. But in the end I think that if your actions dont harm anyone then let it be.
PotatoJudge
Member
For those of us that believe that one person's rights end where another's begin, drug use isn't an issue until, say, that person gets in their car. My right to life and the pursuit of happiness is infringed upon when I or someone I care about is harmed by an impaired driver. The problem lies in the fact that drugs alter judgement so that people who would normally know better than to drive impaired may do so. While sober, people can make the argument about sitting in front of the TV stoned and how that's their right because there is no harm in that- without considering how their judgement changes under the influence. Not to mention people with addictive personalities, first time users with low tolerance and ignorance/stupidity, and people that are just generally selfish enough not to consider other people's rights on or off drugs.
Also, in a day of increasingly socialized medicine, non-users rights are violated when their taxes, insurance dollars, or medical bills are put toward cleaning up the messes left by drug use. This can also apply to the man hours LEOs spend on drug and alcohol related accidents.
For the Libertarians, how do you think a "free market" on drugs would work out? Would quality really be much higher given an unchanging amount of greed on the dealers part? Would a person out of their mind on drugs really have any recourse against a crooked merchant? Can drug users consolidate their power in the market to effect any change- a necessary component for a free market to benefit consumers? I have my doubts. Or do you want the government to regulate the drug industry, and how much do you think that would cost us? "But the government would make it back in taxes and then some," if so, do you really think they need more money, would put it to good use, or would cut taxes elsewhere?- because I don't think so.
By the way, I feel the same way about tobacco and alcohol as I do about illegal drugs.
Also, in a day of increasingly socialized medicine, non-users rights are violated when their taxes, insurance dollars, or medical bills are put toward cleaning up the messes left by drug use. This can also apply to the man hours LEOs spend on drug and alcohol related accidents.
For the Libertarians, how do you think a "free market" on drugs would work out? Would quality really be much higher given an unchanging amount of greed on the dealers part? Would a person out of their mind on drugs really have any recourse against a crooked merchant? Can drug users consolidate their power in the market to effect any change- a necessary component for a free market to benefit consumers? I have my doubts. Or do you want the government to regulate the drug industry, and how much do you think that would cost us? "But the government would make it back in taxes and then some," if so, do you really think they need more money, would put it to good use, or would cut taxes elsewhere?- because I don't think so.
By the way, I feel the same way about tobacco and alcohol as I do about illegal drugs.
cropcirclewalker
member
Mr. PotatoJudge said:
The rationality of the argument just bit the dust.
So, you long for the days of 1925 except that it would be illegal to smoke too?
Ah, yes, Al Capone, those were the good old days.
Lots of employment for the .gov barrel smashers too.
No, in conclusion, there are too many feeding in the .gov trough of the war on drugs for them to ever get un-prohibited.
Look what happened at the repeal of prohibition. Gotta find work for the revenooers....Ah, lets start up the atf.
The rationality of the argument just bit the dust.
So, you long for the days of 1925 except that it would be illegal to smoke too?
Ah, yes, Al Capone, those were the good old days.
Lots of employment for the .gov barrel smashers too.
No, in conclusion, there are too many feeding in the .gov trough of the war on drugs for them to ever get un-prohibited.
Look what happened at the repeal of prohibition. Gotta find work for the revenooers....Ah, lets start up the atf.
crazed_ss
Member
IMO, legalizing all drugs might remove the violence between warring cartels and gangs, but it would not solve other ills that come with drugs and addiction. People need to keep in mind that not all drugs are created equal. Alcohol and Marijuana are not nearly as destructive as say Meth or Crack.
If crystal meth was available at Wal-Mart, you'd still have women selling themselves to get another fix and junkies breaking into your house so they can steal things to sell.
The problem is the highly addictive nature of the hard drugs. It doesnt matter how strong-willed you think you are, you put poison like meth into your body and it will have an effect. When too many people get addicted to these drugs, you start having a lot of problems.. The problem is Libertarians see everything from an individual's perspective and dont consider the social aspects.
They say, "It's my body and it only effects me if I take drugs" .. This simply isnt the case. What about the children of drug addicts? What happens when you cant fuction anymore at work because of your addiction? You get fired.. now you're a unemployed person with hungry kids.. now you become a burden on the rest of society.
If crystal meth was available at Wal-Mart, you'd still have women selling themselves to get another fix and junkies breaking into your house so they can steal things to sell.
The problem is the highly addictive nature of the hard drugs. It doesnt matter how strong-willed you think you are, you put poison like meth into your body and it will have an effect. When too many people get addicted to these drugs, you start having a lot of problems.. The problem is Libertarians see everything from an individual's perspective and dont consider the social aspects.
They say, "It's my body and it only effects me if I take drugs" .. This simply isnt the case. What about the children of drug addicts? What happens when you cant fuction anymore at work because of your addiction? You get fired.. now you're a unemployed person with hungry kids.. now you become a burden on the rest of society.
tincat2
Member
just a few points here
first, legality is not morality.
second, framing an issue by attaching 'loaded' words('war on') to the argument is a sorry trick,
and third, i'm not sure why a woman should have control over her own body to the extent that she may cause a parasitical growth(framing,gentlemen) to be forcibly and brutally removed from her uterus regardless of that growth's potential when i am not allowed to access even legitimate substances for my own use without the permission of the properly sanctified authority.
don't know the answer to what do we do here as we seem to have reached a critical mass of morons who in their quest for secure blisshood will bring us all to ruin.
first, legality is not morality.
second, framing an issue by attaching 'loaded' words('war on') to the argument is a sorry trick,
and third, i'm not sure why a woman should have control over her own body to the extent that she may cause a parasitical growth(framing,gentlemen) to be forcibly and brutally removed from her uterus regardless of that growth's potential when i am not allowed to access even legitimate substances for my own use without the permission of the properly sanctified authority.
don't know the answer to what do we do here as we seem to have reached a critical mass of morons who in their quest for secure blisshood will bring us all to ruin.
ok
This is happening now. The only difference is that the money is going to cartels and terrorists, instead of staying in the US and generating tax revenue.
You are thinking like an anti now. The right to keep and bear arms is a wonderful personal right but can be horrible for society. In fact most individual rights are bad for society. Societies should not come at the expense of personal rights. If they do, what is that society worth? We as free people must realize that we are no freer or safer, nor are our liberties more secure, when we constrict those of our neighbors.
This is happening now. The only difference is that the money is going to cartels and terrorists, instead of staying in the US and generating tax revenue.
You are thinking like an anti now. The right to keep and bear arms is a wonderful personal right but can be horrible for society. In fact most individual rights are bad for society. Societies should not come at the expense of personal rights. If they do, what is that society worth? We as free people must realize that we are no freer or safer, nor are our liberties more secure, when we constrict those of our neighbors.
- Status