Drug War Had To Fail

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hank,
Here in Illinois (and also in many other states) it is illegal to "fortify" your home. These laws were passed to fight the fortified crack houses that appeared several years ago. They are almost never prosecuted even on the residents of crack houses. Prosecutors refer to them as "throw aways" charges that are brought but then dropped in return for a plea to another charge. Many are loosely worded and could be used by an over zealous prosecutor against someone he just wanted to get. The public rolls over and accepts these laws because they are meant to help out in the drug war, but then the political wind changes and they are used for other purposes.
Jeff
 
Ellesworth, you make some good points.

I don't think that comparing food and narcotics is very valid, though.

While we require food to survive, the vast majority of us is not addicted to food.

(Insert favorite Rosie joke here)

My original question was a little murky, let me try a new one:

The Libertarian Party has won the election, legalized drugs, and Lady Luck has dealt them the joker in the deck: the above posted scenario is true and the economy is collapsing primarily due to the legalized narcotics.

Does the Libertarian Party continue to allow the addicts the right to legalized narcotics, even though the economy is crashing?

And, if not, how would the Libertarian Party go about fixing the crash?

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 04, 2000).]
 
Why isn't it Lawdog. They are both "chemical dependancies." Even if they were not, it would not matter economically. Economics does not care about the charachteristics of a commodity. It doesn't care why it is in demand, only that it is. Economics doesn't care where the supply comes from, only that it does. Economics is a science,and like the other sciences, it is misused for political purposes.

------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
 
First of all, I object to the blanket term 'narcotics'. The drug warriors use it just like media whores use 'powerful semiautomatic weapons' :. By medical definition a narcotic is a opiate-based substance...morphine,heroin,opium,etc.

If all drugs were legalised, would you rush out and buy cocaine or heroin? Probably not.

Do you go out now, and drink yourself into oblivion because you can buy alcohol?

"Does the Libertarian Party continue to allow the addicts the right to legalized narcotics, even though the economy is crashing?"

Lawdog, that's a 'straw man' argument. Have you quit beating your wife?

The state can't 'allow' one the right to self-medicate. It's God-given, just as the right to carry a weapon is.

Please show where the Bill of Rights allows the state power to supress self-medication OR self-defense.
 
Did the economy collapse when they re-legalized booze?
Prohibation was enacted because of the misery of people who were addicted to alcohol. It was reppealed because it failed to stop people from abtaining booze. Even today alcohol is the courage of the rapist, a excuse for the wife-beater, and the cause of neglect for the children of alcoholic mothers.
(Read any book on the temperance movement for more insight on that time in history.)
Today heroin, crack, and all the other illegal drugs fill the same function as booze did a hundred years ago; a method of taking a vacation from reality. And some humans have shown they will do ANYTHING to do so, regardless of the consequences.
In other words: We ain't gonna win this war any better than we did against booze.

God help us all.
 
Hmm. Okay.

I shall substitute 'Recreational Pharmeceuticals' for 'Narcotics'.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Lawdog, that's a 'straw man' argument. Have you quit beating your wife?
[/quote]

This isn't court.

I have posed a hypothetical question, based on a speech given some years ago.

No one is going to prison over the response, no one will owe large sums of money over the response, the fate of nations does not hinge on the response and I desire said response merely to satisfy my own curiosity on a certain subject.

That subject, by the way, not being the legalization--I'm sorry, decriminalization of--what was it? Recreational Pharmaceuticals.

But thank you for playing.

LawDog
 
The government generally will not give back 'rights' that they have taken away. Government employees generally will not support the giving back of those 'rights' either. Besides the repeal of Prohibition, what 'right' has the government ever restored?
 
And when Prohibition was repealed, all those Federal LEO's had to do something so we got the NFA of '34. Did we gain anything? NFL.

If the "War on Drugs" is stopped because it has failed and will continue to fail for various reasons, those LEO's involved in the "War" will be unleashed on some other "crime problem."

We all lose, either way.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Lawdog, you've posed a hypothetical question which has as much connection with reality as, "The Libertarian party has won the election, legalized guns, and life threw us a joker; The economy is crashing around us because half the population is either dead or wounded!"

When we demand that these unconstitutional gun laws be repealed, and the anti-gunners claim that every fender bender will turn into a war zone, do we say, "Well, gee, you've got me there; It's not likely, but can we afford any chance at all of that happening?" No, we point out to them that as recently as the 1960's, there were essentially no gun laws at all throughout most of the country, and children could buy gun and ammo mail order through advertisements in the backs of comic books, AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Well, I'm going to point out to you that for most of our history, there was no such thing as an "illegal drug"; And how did people consume their coke? In soft-drinks, that's how! Cocaine played the role then that caffine plays today. Sure, there were people who took it in more concentrated forms, and suffered as a result. Even today, people kill themselves with over the counter caffine tablets! (It might not make the headlines, but it DOES happen!) But is that a reason to seize a person's home because you find a bottle of No-Doze?

There isn't a right we possess, guaranteed by the Constitution or left implicit, for which you couldn't draw such a nightmare scenario. Do NOT tell us we have to endure unconstitutional laws, and a not so slow slide into a totalitarian police state, just to stave off a hypothetical nightmare; It just won't wash.

In other words, don't tell me I have to give up my rights over hypotheticals; Get back to me when it HAPPENS, and we'll discuss it.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
And, on that note, we seem to be running out of agreeable rules of engagement for a discussion so extruded from guns and RKBA, that my finger is now hovering over the "Lock" button.

There have been some EXCELLENT points made well here. I'm proud of our membership at maintaining their composure over a topic that can typically ignite some rather harsh debate.

I understand that the government's powers to regulate (restrict) the rights of the people is an amorphous topic. I therefore understand that gun rights and drug rights both fall squarely in the middle of that topic. But that does NOT mean that a discussion on "recreational substance" use (not much of a better term than "narcotic"; it's sometimes as inaccurate. What of those who are actually trying to self-medicate with restricted substances? Etc, etc, and I'm getting pulled in, now.) addresses gun ownership. Apples and oranges. Both are fruit, but an apple is not an orange. Yes, one can cover a blanket discussion on "fruits"-- in this case, right to self-euthanize, right to land use without interference, right to run businesses without government interference, etc, etc, etc...

This will NOT turn into a blanket discussion on Libertarianism. There are other forums (fora?) for that. We're just a bit more focused, here.

Finger is coming down, slowly, on the "Lock" button. Tell me again, quick, why this discussion is pertainent to RKBA or guns?

L.P.

[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited March 05, 2000).]
 
When they finally ban the legal sale of guns then the underground economy will be the only source of guns for the general populace. The same tactics used to fight the drug war would then be used against those who import, sell, and buy guns. And will probably have the same results, too.
 
I'm locking this for 2 reasons
1) its approaching 100K

2) and more importantly, its obvious that folks can't (in some topics) stay on track.

Never once, not one single time, when this topic has been posted has it been able to be discussed in terms of the moral authority/legal authority/ right of the gov't to interfer.

It has always degenerated into positions of anti-drug/pro-drug/accusations. It is telling that many people are exactly like the anti-gunners when drugs are substituted for guns. Further, the exact same arguments and justifications for Federal intervention are used.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top