Legalize Drugs?

[Saevrok]

Ladies and gentlemen that is why you never, ever have to worry about a libertarian government. Because while it would start out fairly nicely, it would descend into balls deep chaos very quickly. Let me be honest, laws and governance keep the beast in most of us at bay. You take away peoples crutches and they will flail and then flop, and if you dont think they'll take you down with them, then you're not quite as intelligent as you would like to think.

Legalize drugs and have a police force to keep the people from hurting others? Are you out of your mind, half of the force would be on drugs to deal with the constant stress, and the other half would be going insane trying to keep order. You think a campus full of frat boys blasted on beer is bad? Try PCP or crack. Have the local team win the soccer match and have ten thousand coked out fans going apeshit all over you town. You'll be having sweet fond dreams of our flawed republic. You think what we have is bad, children you dont have a damned clue how ugly it can get. You're saying, "Here you go kids, here are some guns. You can play with them, but dont point them at other people." right, thats going to work. Some of you need to wake up.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Our experience with prohibition would tend to indicate otherwise.

[Harlowe]

I don't know how many times Embar or I have to explain that Libertarianism isn't about no government or regulations. It's not a black and white scenario - it's not choosing between total control like federal parents or total chaos. It's about empowering states and giving individuals as much power to choose their destiny and to make their own choices as possible - without it hurting others. As far as drugs are concerned, I don't think we're literally talking about all drugs. We're primarily talking about decriminilizing things like marijuana. People have access to far worse just in an Office Depot store.

Frankly, the whole argument sounds like hysterical, prohibition redux.

[Select]

I don't understand why it's being seen as total chaos after so much discussion.

I still dislike the idea of it because I don't want each state to have that much power. With all the deflecting of chaos comments, there wasn't more discussion about state powers, which I would have liked to see.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't understand why it's being seen as total chaos after so much discussion.

I still dislike the idea of it because I don't want each state to have that much power. With all the deflecting of chaos comments, there wasn't more discussion about state powers, which I would have liked to see.

You'd rather have all the power concentrated in the hands of jsut a few people in Washington?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

The more control the states get over laws and such -- the more power "we the people" get. Also, I think it would help with the diversity of the laws. What is a good law in Indiana, may be a totally crappy law in California, and vice-versa.

An example might be wind power. Indiana people don't care about the power lines, and support the installation of the alternative power source. Yet, people from California come out here and protest on "behalf of the Hoosier state" about how wind power crushes bat lungs or something. If Cali doesn't want wind power or power lines, fine...but, keep out of my state's business. Don't like it, don't come here.

-TF

[Klast Brell]

I don't understand why it's being seen as total chaos after so much discussion.

I still dislike the idea of it because I don't want each state to have that much power. With all the deflecting of chaos comments, there wasn't more discussion about state powers, which I would have liked to see.

You'd rather have all the power concentrated in the hands of jsut a few people in Washington?

You'd rather have all the power concentrated in the hands of just a few people in the state capital?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

You'd rather have all the power concentrated in the hands of just a few people in the state capital?

Yes - it's easier for me to get to my state capital and present my thoughts than it is for me to get on the floor in Congress. Also, the idea my state reps are, supposedly, focused on their group of counties (their district) it's much easier to meet with them as well. At a minimum, I can visit members of their staff any day of the week by visiting my county seat.

-TF

[Select]

You'd rather have all the power concentrated in the hands of jsut a few people in Washington?

No, not all of it. I like that states may rise up and oppose certain things to try changing the tide of the country, but all of the power in the hands of a few people on the state level can be just as bad. I don't like what I've seen on a township level with a lot of the power in the hands of the leaders, I don't think it would be much different on a state level. I think it's easier to hide things because less people are scrutinizing the leaders. Now, I do not think the Federal is innocent by any means, don't take it that way, but I feel like corruption has less room to happen with so many eyes.

I think it would help with the diversity of the laws. What is a good law in Indiana, may be a totally crappy law in California, and vice-versa.

Which is what I don't think would be best. I see some states going way overboard. Not everything is confined to a state either, some people work in one state and live in another, so "move away if you dislike it" can't always be the solution.

[Partha]

I'm always glad to see 'glibertarians' like Embar continually arguing for States' Rights. Pray tell, has that sort of thing ever been tried before?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

I still continue to think comparing the current times with the 1950's isn't relevant or helpful. The times change. Public opinion changes. Great people make changes...so on and so on...

Unless you'd like to make a specific point that correlates to this discussion...

-TF

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't understand why it's being seen as total chaos after so much discussion.

I still dislike the idea of it because I don't want each state to have that much power. With all the deflecting of chaos comments, there wasn't more discussion about state powers, which I would have liked to see.

You'd rather have all the power concentrated in the hands of jsut a few people in Washington?

You'd rather have all the power concentrated in the hands of just a few people in the state capital?

Absolutely yes.

[Harlowe]

I agree with Tarfang on a couple points - a good statute for one state isn't necessarily a good one for another. To a certain degree, I think empowering states, empower the people more.

[Partha]

I still continue to think comparing the current times with the 1950's isn't relevant or helpful. The times change. Public opinion changes. Great people make changes...so on and so on...

Unless you'd like to make a specific point that correlates to this discussion...

-TF

The Confederacy was the MODEL of States' Rights. Southern politicians of BOTH parties invoked States' Rights as the reason it was ok to beat and kill blacks who were trying to exercise their Constitutional rights. Read that first link for the 1948 perspective.

We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

There is still a government, but most of the governing is done at the state level. If the state (or more likely city) had codes that prevented purple stripes on houses, or meth labs, then so be it. If they didn't, and you wanted that type of regulation, move to a state that had that, or work to change the governmental structure iin the state in which you live.

Dress it up pretty, fellas.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Except we aren't living in the mid 1800s, and the Constitution still applies, as do all the Supreme Court rulings.

[Ddrak]

I'd argue that the philosophy isn't so much about State's rights, but about pushing the responsibility as far away from central government as practical whether that government is a world government, federal government, state government, city government or body corporate.

Dd

[Partha]

Except we aren't living in the mid 1800s, and the Constitution still applies, as do all the Supreme Court rulings.

Sure it does, which is why in 1948 people were still killing Negroes who tried to vote and whites who tried to help them do it.

Why don't you explain to the class exactly how the bad, bad central government is oppressing your freedom?

[Harlowe]

That's easy, the Patriot Act.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

The problem with the current government situation is that we, as a country and as a group of people have out grown the statutes that were set 300 or more years ago and nothings been done to reform the problem. Once upon a time it was convenient to have all the power held in the hands of a few anywhere, now more people should be allowed to be involved in the actual process without just saying "Ok Senator, you make the choices that will affect me". The power needs to be held by someone, we can't live in a constant state of chaos or anarchy however the problem is the power will never be distributed evenly enough to make anyone happy.

[Ddrak]

Ari,

Power in the US is MUCH, MUCH more centralized than it was 200 years ago (not 300 - the US was still a British colony in 1708). It really wasn't until about the civil war that the Federal Government started to serious grow in power, and over the last 50 years it's pretty much taken any serious power from the states through the back door of "governing interstate commerce".

Dd