Legalize Drugs?

[Arkaron]

I come from a family where drug and alcohol abuse are widespread. In the instances where I have been physically attacked by family, it was because they a) already had incindiary tempers while sober and b) had consumed a great deal of alcohol.

In the grand scheme of things, alcohol addiction I percieve as just as destructive as "hard" drugs. Pot I never really had an issue with.

[Beestyall]

So anything that affects the body is a mixed bag. One man's cure is another man's poison. And I agree you couldn't ban them all. My point is that it's hypocritical to ban any of 'em. Leave it up to the individual to decide the line between recreational and medicinal. The pot helps me with anxiety - I'm a hyper guy. I could take atavan legally with pretty much the same results, but I also enjoy the high. The side effect of the pot is that I enjoy music much more.

The general population does not have the foundation of knowledge to accurately understand the line between recreational and medicinal drugs. With the notable exception of pot, there's a valid reason to disallow meth, crack, crank or a host of other "drugs" out legally, these drugs have, through several reviews, shown no positive medicinal value AND the risk of addition is very high (there's a few old studies about cocaine but those are being dropped/disproved). While I support legalization (or a drastic paradigm shift from current drugs beliefs), it's not because I think the general population should be able to determine personal recreational vs medicinal choices , it's because I think the government has no business telling me I can't be stupid if I want to be stupid AND it does not directly hurt other people.

[Rsak]

My point is that it's hypocritical to ban any of 'em.

Not true. If the drug has no benefit to the society making the rules then they can ban it because the detrimental (whether direct harm to body or ancillary crimes) effects overwhelm the sole benefit of getting a high. In medicinal drugs there are benefits that require the drug to be available for hospital use, but any medicinal drug can be abused in a negative way and even in legal ways be damaging to the body (your son).

So I'm a criminal in the same sense of the asshole in so. cal. that cuts me off in his BMW and almost kills my whole family because he's late for some soiree. He'll pay the $300 ticket also, but which is more of a danger to society?

My comment was only aimed at the definition from your typical talk with your father. I place no weight on the crime to say which is a larger crime over another.

[Taxious]

I think it's silly that things like marijuana & mushrooms are illegal while something like alcohol is not.

I agree with you about pot here, but have you ever tried shrooms? Even with experience heavy binge drinking and trying other stuff, I've never felt so out of control than I did with shrooms.

I've never done coke/meth, but some friends of mine who have and have tried adderall, say that adderall is actually stronger and lasts longer (than coke). Keep in mind this is the drug that I make a 30 second call for once a month and get at the pharmacy for $20. I've never understood the hypocrisy of offering these strong prescription drugs to people (and kids) while keeping marijuana on the illegal list.

[Taxious]

The gub'ment should not regulate what goes into your body. Green tea, cannibus, diet coke, alcohol, red meat, heroin, trans-fats, cocaine (and its deriviatives), smack, crack, roofies, pringles, pork rinds, pepsi, Mt. Dew, barbiturates, what-the-fuck-ever.

Embar, I would love to become a libertarian, but it seems to me like the whole philosophy is based off of everyone inherently being "good." It would be great if America didn't have anti-drug laws, I know my life wouldn't change much, but I can't say the same for some of the people I know. The only reason they aren't completely wasting their life on drugs is because the drugs they are after are sometimes hard to find and expensive. For this reason, I'm glad the anti-drug laws are in effect.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The gub'ment should not regulate what goes into your body. Green tea, cannibus, diet coke, alcohol, red meat, heroin, trans-fats, cocaine (and its deriviatives), smack, crack, roofies, pringles, pork rinds, pepsi, Mt. Dew, barbiturates, what-the-fuck-ever.

Embar, I would love to become a libertarian, but it seems to me like the whole philosophy is based off of everyone inherently being "good." It would be great if America didn't have anti-drug laws, I know my life wouldn't change much, but I can't say the same for some of the people I know. The only reason they aren't completely wasting their life on drugs is because the drugs they are after are sometimes hard to find and expensive. For this reason, I'm glad the anti-drug laws are in effect.

No Tax. Libertarians don't beleive everyone is inherantly good. We beleive people are responsible for their own actions.

Making some substance illegal doesn't stop people from using it. The war on drugs has failed. People who wan't to abuse, will find a way to abuse.

[Harlowe]

Barr's involvement in the whole "war on drugs" movement is another reason I find him a ridiculous, opportunist joke as a Libertarian candidate.

[Taxious]

No Tax. Libertarians don't beleive everyone is inherantly good. We beleive people are responsible for their own actions.

That's great and all, but when those actions have an effect on other lives, I would like the government to step in. If a mother is busy getting high and not paying attention to her child, I believe something needs to be done. Sure, it's her choice to be doing drugs, but she's taking someone else down with her.

Embar, let's say every night you have to listen to your neighbor abuse his dog. You hear the dog yalping and screaming and wish something could be done. Being the libertarian you are, you don't believe the government should uphold animal abuse laws and interfere with your neighbor's choice of hitting his pets. What should be done?

[Embar Angylwrath]

No Tax. Libertarians don't beleive everyone is inherantly good. We beleive people are responsible for their own actions.

That's great and all, but when those actions have an effect on other lives, I would like the government to step in. If a mother is busy getting high and not paying attention to her child, I believe something needs to be done. Sure, it's her choice to be doing drugs, but she's taking someone else down with her.

Embar, let's say every night you have to listen to your neighbor abuse his dog. You hear the dog yalping and screaming and wish something could be done. Being the libertarian you are, you don't believe the government should uphold animal abuse laws and interfere with your neighbor's choice of hitting his pets. What should be done?

Tax..those laws are already on the books. If the mom is getting high (crack, pot, alcohol) every night, the government steps in and takes the child.

I think you're making the assumption that decriminalization of drugs will lead to an explosion of addicts. I don't think it will happen. It didn't happen with the repeal of prohibition. There wasn't an explosion of drunks laying in the streets.

Also, I think you're forgetting that people with tendencies to abuse drugs are already doing so. They just find other substances to abuse with.. people huffing paint, you with your Adderall, an alcoholic, meth-head, etc.

Let me ask you this, Tax.. why is ok for you to abuse Adderall, yet you have some holier than thou attitude when it comes to drugs you don't abuse?

[Klast Brell]

, I would love to become a libertarian, but it seems to me like the whole philosophy is based off of everyone inherently being "good."

I never thought of it that way, but i agree with it 100%. It puts a lot of my other ideas in perspective.

Self regulation only works if companies are inherently good. , etc.

[Taxious]

GDI, the board just ate my reply...

Let me ask you this, Tax.. why is ok for you to abuse Adderall, yet you have some holier than thou attitude when it comes to drugs you don't abuse?

I never meant to come across that way in the least bit. I believe that people should have the right to fuck up their own lives using whatever drug they want to. EverQuest is still the hardest and most addictive drug I've ever "abused."

Tax..those laws are already on the books. If the mom is getting high (crack, pot, alcohol) every night, the government steps in and takes the child.

Of course those laws already exist, but as I understand it, a libertarian would like such laws to be abolished to keep government to personal life interaction minimal.

[Garrdor]

I say don't legalize marijuana. I don't want it industrialized at all. It's good where it's at right now.

It really depends on the area you live in. I mean, I used to live in Fairbanks, AK. Outside of the AFB I lived on, It's pretty much unheard of (someone getting busted for pot). Here in Medford, OR - it's a bit different. People get busted for posession all the time. But then again, as I said - it's the area. If I drive 20 mins out to Ashland... I can (and have) walk down the street and smoke a j - and blow smoke in the cops faces. They won't care.

But then again, it's legal to be publicly naked in Ashland as well.

I think hard drugs like meth/heroin should be outlawed. If it comes from the ground - I'm down. Thats my saying.

[Embar Angylwrath]

GDI, the board just ate my reply...

Let me ask you this, Tax.. why is ok for you to abuse Adderall, yet you have some holier than thou attitude when it comes to drugs you don't abuse?

I never meant to come across that way in the least bit. I believe that people should have the right to fuck up their own lives using whatever drug they want to. EverQuest is still the hardest and most addictive drug I've ever "abused."

Tax..those laws are already on the books. If the mom is getting high (crack, pot, alcohol) every night, the government steps in and takes the child.

Of course those laws already exist, but as I understand it, a libertarian would like such laws to be abolished to keep government to personal life interaction minimal.

A principle libertarian philosophy is "your rights end where mine begin". Libertarainism isn't about the absense of government, its about restricted government. A government that looks after those not able to make informed decisions (children) is well within the libertarian philosophy. I libertarian-themed government would still have police, social services, etc.

[Harlowe]

I think hard drugs like meth/heroin should be outlawed. If it comes from the ground - I'm down. Thats my saying.

Totally with you on that. But I do think marijuana should be decriminalized for the simple reason there are great medical uses for it.

[Alluveal]

Absolutely marijuana should be legalized. The issue is with the patent (or lack of one,) and the gov't can't make a whole lot on it, so why legalize it when you make more through the judicial system?

I agree with the growing thing, though heroin comes from poppies, right? Unless some of the stuff out there is purely synthetic.

As for drugs and class, it's definitely an interesting topic. For example, the difference between crack and cocaine is that crack is the same thing, only with baking soda cut into it (or sometimes, ammonia) to make it smokable.

100 grams of cocaine = the same sentence as someone carrying 1 gram of crack. Why? Because crack is considered a "dirty drug," a "lower class" drug. Cocaine is still considered a yuppie drug.

The upper class seems to be more the "abuse of oxycontin/vicoden" variety, though I've known a person or two who has been very well off and addicted to crack or meth.

The war on drugs is a joke, imho. I'm not sure what the solution is, though.

[Taxious]

Embar, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just curious as to how some of this makes sense.

I'm assuming you are against affirmative action, correct? Without affirmative action, you've got to assume that institutions will accept people based on qualifications rather than traits like ethnicity or race. What happens, in this situation, when someone is rejected solely on the color of their skin? How would your ideal government type deal with this?

[Embar Angylwrath]

The person rejected on the basis of skin color (or ethnicity, gender, etc) would have standing to sue in the courts, just like he does today. Those are constitutional rights. Libertarians don't want to change the constitution, with the exception of the repeal of the 16th amendment.

And I think you might be confusing some issues too. Libertarianism is more about turning over the majority of the government to the states. Individual states would get to decide tax policy, drug policy, welfare policy, most environmental policy (I differ with the libertarians here, however, since the air and water in one state doesn't just stick around in that state), abortion rights, pretty much any right having to do with an individual or property. In a libertarian US, you might have states such as Idaho declare some drugs and abortion illegal, and slap the death penalty on doctors who perform it, or perps who deal the drugs. And in nearby Washington, you might have an abortion policy that allows 12 year olds to get scooped clean without parents consent, while smoking on a big blunt.

The federal government would be responsible for protection of borders, defense, ad international relations. The real power in the US would fall to the state governors and state legislatures.

[Ddrak]

The core of a libertarian philosophy isn't that people are good, it's that people should be free to do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't interfere with someone else against their wishes. It makes no assumption about "good" or "bad" but attempts to restrict the bad person to only damaging themselves.

In a purely libertarian belief, affirmative action would be unnecessary because a company restricting employment based on skin color would necessarily not be hiring as qualified people as one that didn't, so it should (over time) perform less well and fail compared to a company with more results based employment policies.

In relation to drugs, legalize everything. If people destroy themselves with crack addictions then you let them, acting only to prevent them hurting others in the process.

In relation to the economy, you let everything fail. No bailouts. Home owners will suffer, but next time they'll do more research into what they can and can't afford, and which company to get their loan with which is likely to last 30 years given their business practices. Companies with bad practice just fail.

Foreign policy - you don't get involved.

etc.

As a *result* of these beliefs, the government is trimmed because it provides nothing more than the infrastructure to prevent one person interfering with another.

Dd

[Select]

In a purely libertarian belief, affirmative action would be unnecessary because a company restricting employment based on skin color would necessarily not be hiring as qualified people as one that didn't, so it should (over time) perform less well and fail compared to a company with more results based employment policies.

That seems like it would only work well on paper (with the companies failing). Shady practices can keep bad performers in the game.

[Ddrak]

In the long term, shady practices don't pay off. The problem is politics is all short term. If it doesn't pay off in 2 years then it's not worth doing.

Dd