War on Drugs

Well, of course they do! It's money without effort on the part of the recipient. The connection between the stomach and the spine is very strong. Make those that can, WORK! And take welfare out of the governments's hands. Welfare should be a privatized endevour of churches, private organizations and individuals.

THE ONLY THING THE GOVERNMENT IS REALLY GOOD AT IT TAKING YOUR MONEY AND GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE! E.G.: Taxes (ALL of them) and confiscations. Both being well connected the the WOD.

If you were to de-criminalize drugs, how many people do you think would OD themselves into oblivion? Take about removing a portion of irresponsible members of society.

This is something that does not need to be proved. It is a historically grounded fact. A people who excercise personal responsibility, sound ethics and morals need NO govenment entity to tell them how they should behave. They HAVE that spine. But, remove the punishment from the crime, or change it so that there is no connection made between the two, and suddenly the government is "needed" to fix the problem.

Let's start by making the connection again...
 
Okay, then, a challenge.

Everyone who supports the legalization of recreational pharmaceuticals publicly -- loud, proud and in public, mind you -- announce that they will decriminalize dope only after returning Personal Responsibility/Accountability to the country, and reforming the welfare laws.

Libertarians et al., do that, and stick to it, and I'll be behind you 100%.

LawDog
 
Lawdog said "Won't be too long before someone puts the disease of addiction on the list of stuff an addict can get my tax money for."

Sorry to say Lawdog, but in CA they have already done that. Yep my Taxes here go to pay some dopper so he can have something to eat and a roof over his head. Really P*sses me off.
 
Law Dog and everyone:

Since we will not solve this problem here, can we agree that Asset Forfeiture prior to conviction is simply a Bill of Attainder which is prohibited in Art 1, sect 9 of the US Constitution and therefore should be illegal? How about some of the loosened search proceedures where the 4th amendment is concerned?

In the meantime, my solution is to raise my kids right. Spend so much time with them that not only will they resent me for not letting them sneak around, but they might also learn from my example. All the while, I proclaim how I think drug users are worthless, and those who cheat/steal/lie have no earthly purpose.

I want my kids to grow up to know where and why their government is infringing on their rights. I want them to think clearly, critically, and openly about issues of freedom and liberty and other things they won't experience due to the generations that preceeded them. I have no hope of living as a free man in my lifetime. I do have a little hope that my children will, but only if they learn what freedom is. If we let that disappear, how many hundreds of years will pass before another John Locke, or George Mason appears to reinvent liberty?

Freedom is NOT being allowed to do whatever the government allows you to do. This being said, none of us posting here are truly free if you live in the USA. You are just less of a slave than a person living with a more totalitarian regime. It is a matter of degrees here.

Freedom is when the government only concerns itself with TRUE criminal acts (malum in se) or those acts which cause personal or financial damage to another, or interfere with someone elses rights to Life, liberty or property. All other government acts are illegitimate (though they may be lawful).

I applaud LEO's when they stop the miscreants who rape, rob, steal, or destroy. That is their legitimate purpose, and to those ends I wholly support any force (even deadly force) needed to stop these acts. I despise LEO's who bust in on a pair of old hippies who grow a basement garden for personal use, or who eagerly inforce laws where no victims are created but the accused. I will teach my kids the difference, and pass on the knowlege of freedom, so that they may govern themselves according to their own moral values (that I taught them), and won't need the law to punish them for acts that they do not commit out of common sense, not unwise legislation.

Just My Opinion.
 
Of course, we must fight the war on drugs. I mean the police ought to spend half their time dealing with non-violent crimes such as drugs so they can take a break from arresting rapist, murders, and child molesters.

A good book on that doesn't specifically speak on the drug war, but speaks of Bill of Rights and an immoral, godless government providing citizens its moral laws is Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Idea."
 
Ostracizing drug users, where to start?

Given that alcohol and nicotine each cause far more deaths than all illicit drugs combined; given that alcohol alone ruins far more lives and families than all illicit drugs combined; shouldn't we then ostracize drinkers and smokers in the same manner some here want to ostracize users of illicit drugs? Of course, we might get pretty lonely and depressed, what with having to be a friendless hypocrite and all.

The Prohibition of some drugs is the direct cause of: violent crime (turf wars); overdose (unknown concentrations and qualities of drugs purchased from the black market); and, to me, most importantly, the loss of personal freedoms for everyone, not just the users of some drugs. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and it hasn't worked for some other drugs, either. Further, if anyone can show me where in the Constitution, the federal government is given the power to regulate any drugs, I'll listen to their ideas on regulation. Remember, we needed the 18th Amendment to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

Many, many addicts are functioning, contributing members of society. Thousands of them go to work every day, make millions of dollars, and invent useful items which make all our lives better, safer and cheaper. Some of them are addicted to heroin, some to cocaine, but most to good ol' alcohol and nicotine.

A drug is a drug is a drug. We're not fighting the war on some drugs on the basis of their danger to individuals; if we were alcohol and nicotine would be the first to be banned. We're not fighting the war on some drugs in order to reduce violent crime; on the contrary, the lucrative black market encourages violent crime. We are fighting this senseless war on the American people because of some outdated social mores which have their roots in racism, just like gun control has its roots in racism.

I don't accuse anyone here of being racist, I simply encourage folks to learn the history of the war on some drugs in the U.S. It started long before Nixon...
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/303a.htm#illegal
 
A Serious Question or Two...

What is the difference between our situation with drugs and the situation with alcohol during Prohibition?

We decriminalized alcohol because we lost the war on alcohol and today it is a legal product subject to government control and outlandish taxation.

Would you change the way government controls alcohol?
 
Mrat, the argument against the status quo (WOD) is answered in your own last post. If drugs were decriminalized, Mr. Downy would use drugs (as he does now) and would be a producive member of his trade (as he is now). His recreational use (as I believe 90% of drug use is) would change only in the fact that he wouldn't be incarcerated for it.
 
Law Dog posted a challenge to libertarians: Let's first work to make a society where Personal Responsibility is perfectly applied, where no one gets a free ride, and nobody gets away with violent crime. Or at least, prove that it can be done. Then he will graciously allow us the right to consume, or not, psychoactive substances.

I'd like to try this shoe on the other foot: Let Law Dog and his fellow Drug Warriors work to make prohibition work as advertised, getting rid of all the drugs, and do it without destroying the Bill of Rights. Or at least prove from history or unassailable logic that it can be done. Then I will join the Republican Party and help whip society into military condition.
 
LawDog, My personal position on the subject is: Drugs should be decriminalized. State and Local governments should tax it. Prostitution should not be a crime at all. Welfare should be handled by local government and private groups. Personal responsiblity is always demanded of all adult citizens. There should also be no laws based on religious grounds. The only laws would be to regulate violent actions. Everything else falls under personal responsibility. If a building falls down because the contractor knowingly used faulty materials the contractor is responsible.

If we could get judges, DAs and politicians who believed this too, we'd have fewer non-violent offenders in jail and those who were violent would go there for serious time. Electing Libertarians would effect this, but the people are too conditioned to two parties and can not see beyond their immediate satisfaction, whether it be more welfare or more war on our own citizens.
 
No, Beez, I said announce it. Not do it.

Libertarian, my personal view on the subject has become: Fine, you want drugs handled the way they were in the early 1900's? Then people need to start bloody well acting like they did in early 1900's. And not just one or two or 7000 of us, either.

I think that taxing the dope will result in another black market, similar to the one now existing in Canada for cheap cigarettes -- and we'll probably be back to square one, but if it makes a bunch of personally reponsible adults warm-and-fuzzy -- fine.

I'm with you on the prostituition, and by God I'm with you on the Personal Responsibility.

Welfare should be handled by private instituitions -- only. If government has enough money to give it away, then I'm paying too much in taxes.

I'm not exactly with you on the laws to only regulate violent actions: child pornography, for one, doesn't initially have violence directed at the child, and neither do most scams to bilk money out of the elderly, to name a couple. We can hash something out, though.

I voted Libertarian for everyone under the position of President this election, mind you. I probably won't do it again, but you got my vote this year.

LawDog
 
Good points Lawdog

One CAN infringe on the rights of another without necessarily causing a violent act upon them. Child pornography is obviously a transgression of the rights of the child, as they cannot, at their age, give lawful consent to such acts. Buying such material is, in effect, supporting the acts depicted therein, and/or possession of evidence. White-collar crime is not violent, but I doubt hacking into someone’s computer and transferring their funds to your account is not an infringement on rights.

We cannot reasonably expect to just repeal laws one by one in an arbitrary manner and have things return to the way things were before Statism became "in". Each repeal with have effects, which will in turn have effects (i.e. ripples in a pond). What our attention must remain focused on is the best way to deconstruct the current system to blunt and negative changes that will result.

For example, if we legalize drugs and release all the non-violent drug offenders at once, we will have people who have not been supporting themselves for possibly many years suddenly faced with that situation who might not be ready for it in many ways. Will they commit other crimes to land themselves back in the security of prison? Will they get on welfare and vote for the Socialists who will vote to keep them on the gravy train, thereby creating a strong voting block for our enemies, who will then be stronger in their fight to destroy freedom? What will happen to all the millions of people employed in the industry that has grown around the prison system? Will they jump on welfare? These are questions the we must ask and attempt to answer before we charge blindly into a repeal of laws, for we might just make things worse as a result of our efforts.

Now, I might add that I am firmly against the drug war, and support dismantling it in a well thought out process.

1 Welfare must go, incrementally, but it needs to be eliminated.

2 Evaluations of the current inmates who would be released must be made, and actions would then be taken to facilitate their release. Many of them who have been in jail for many years might be completely unprepared for today’s job market, so some job training might be necessary first.

3 Marijuana and the other light drugs should be legalized first and somewhat gradually. There must also be an education campaign to actually focuses on educating kids rather than propagandizing them.

I’m sure you can think of other steps which will have to be taken along the process, and I'd be glad to hear them. This is a very necessary part of approaching the problem and in making the transition to a better approach than we've been using.

An unexpected economic bonus to ending the drug war would be the relegalization of Hemp. For anyone who would like to know about the uses for this amazing plant and how it can improve our lives, check out http://www.hempnation.com You'll be glad you did.






[Edited by glock glockler on 12-04-2000 at 06:54 PM]
 
The way things are now any decriminalization will unlock the floodgates of insanity.

Sanity, responsibility, maturity must come first.

It'll take at least another generation for sanity to come back as the "to be expected," the unremarkable. I fully expect to spend a significant part of the waking hours of my remaining years coping with the paranoid delusions of the emotionally mangled.

Does anyone seriously believe that decriminalization will actually reduce the amount of mental illness and general nuttiness we have to deal with?

The only thing I'm interested in is a rise in maturity and sanity. Everything else is a smokescreen which draws attention from that essential issue, and further empowers the irresponsible
 
End the War on Drugs? Are you crazy? Where will the slush money come from to fund our political campaigns? What will the multinational banks do that live on money-laundering? How will oppressive Third World regimes friendly to us survive the loss of income and avoid democratic revolutions? How will we divert attention from America's other "addictions," cigarettes, alcohol, bad TV, and the WWF? What will happen if the State accepts that the idea that your mental state, however achieved, is your own domain?

"The gods gave man wine to make the pain of life bearable."
 
"Announce?" What Law Dog wrote was...

Someone gives me a guarantee that:


addicts will be ostracized, and addiction would be regarded along the lines, oh say, child molestation


everyone will be held reponsible for their acts, no exceptions, no excuses, no whining


my tax dollars won't be spent by some pansy-***ed addict on his drug of choice


I get that guarantee, and I'll be the first guy in line to strike down the drug laws.
Click to expand...

Okay, so at first it appeared Law Dog was demanding a perfect society be established as a precondition for repealing the Drug War. Another way to read this is that he'll only favor repeal if it's coupled with other political and social changes.

Libertarianism does in fact "guarantee" the second and third points, at least as far as government policy is concerned. No one would be taxed to support addicts, or anyone else for that matter, because there would be no taxes.

Under a Libertarian regime people who are honest and productive will get to keep all that is theirs; those who steal will be punished and made to pay restitution, those who cheat will be blacklisted. Those who are irresponsible will suffer Nature's consequences for irresponsibility and no one will be compelled to bail them out.

I don't know how to guarantee popular fashion, and I doubt anyone does. Advertisers and marketers spend millions trying to influence fashion and wind up chasing their own tails more often than not.

I can only suggest that a public that would vote for a Libertarian government would be one that values liberty, and liberty and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. It's impossible to have one without the other, in the long run. Or even the medium run.

In a regime where the only "safety" net is a very minimal one supported entirely by voluntary contributions; where the same laws apply with equal force to the banker, the day laborer, the police officer, the nightclub musician, the city councilman, and the liquor store clerk; where you keep everything you earn and no one holds your hand and tells you how you must spend it; I quite expect there will be little sympathy for persistent losers. Everyone screws up now and then, and there will be compassionate people ready to help us get back on our feet, but not to support us in dependency.

So I can't guarantee that drug addicts will be viewed as equal to child molesters. Do you really want this to occur? I think it trivializes child molestation. Would it be sufficient for drug addicts to be known as pathetic losers who can't get laid?
 
Given the number of people who voted Libertarian versus the number of people who voted Liberal, I think we can guesstimate how much of America is ready for our second and third points.

How many people voted for more welfare, more Federal intervention and more entitlements in New Mexico alone? The Democrats took the State, so we can guess that the people who don't mind the Government udder outnumber those who do. And yet, here's the Governor of New Mexico pushing for dope legalization in his State.

And he, or someone like him, has got a better than average chance of getting getting dope legalized. On the other paw, a gunpowder cat has a better chance of getting through Hell, than welfare/tax reform has of getting through the New Mexico state legislature.

A pattern that I would imagine holds pretty true for most of the country: we can get the dope legal, but we've got three chances of fixing welfare/taxes: slim, none and fat.

I'm here to tell you, legal dope combined with the welfare system we have now (or the Democrats utopian ideal for a welfare system) throw in the snivelling masses yearning to blame their problems on someone else -- nightmares, anyone?

So, I say again my last: I will not back any organization or program that doesn't fix welfare and taxes before trying to legalize dope. Welfare/tax reform first, then, and only then, legalization of dope. Period. Full stop. End of story.

LawDog
 
LawDog,

Not many people these days are able to understand the logical conclusions of their presuppositions. There has been a complete disconnection between the concept of "cause" and the concept of "effect."

Folks who think that dope's no problem need to spend time in places where it's readily available.

And how in the hey can you vote for the Libertarians when there's a perfectly good Constitution Party out there? ;)
 
Munro, You suppose too much. I, for one, has been there and seen the pain, fear and death. I stand by all of my earlier statements. The WOD must be stopped. And the sooner the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top