Should drugs be legalized ?

[bulletsmith]

No, you're absolutely right. I do not. I want it cooked in a factory with proper safety equipment where it belongs, then sold at reasonable market prices so that the people who want to kill themselves with it can do it without breaking into my car to steal my stereo.

So I'm curious. In this government free, utopian country, who exactly will determine what proper safety equipment is? And who will determine reasonable market prices?

 

[steveh_131]

So I'm curious. In this government free, utopian country, who exactly will determine what proper safety equipment is? And who will determine reasonable market prices?

First of all, this is not government free.

Safety can be largely governed by civil and criminal courts as it is today. Harming others with your business should be harshly punished.

Prices are of course determined by the free market forces of supply and demand.

 

[bulletsmith]

First of all, this is not government free.

Safety can be largely governed by civil and criminal courts as it is today. Harming others with your business should be harshly punished.

Prices are of course determined by the free market forces of supply and demand.

I'm not at all sure that safety is governed by civil or criminal courts. By the time an issue gets to those courts, the damage is done. Also since your product, by your own description, is provided for those who want to kill themselves; Wouldn't you require harsh punishment?

 

[poptab]

First of all, this is not government free.

Safety can be largely governed by civil and criminal courts as it is today. Harming others with your business should be harshly punished.

Prices are of course determined by the free market forces of supply and demand.

Sure. But who will build the roads, Steve?

Who?

 

[jbombelli]

This isn't speculation. Ending alcohol prohibition shrunk crime and shrunk government. It's all been done before.

You say that like people care about what actually works.

 

[yote hunter]

This sure has had some really strange comments from where I thought it would go, but I should of known it would its INGO... And CM even forgot he wasn't going to post anymore and has made me LOL.... Thx CM... Now I will just set back and see what else comes.

 

[ATM]

True as far as it goes, but the Courts have ruled on this many times and there is no Constitutionally protected right to do the drug of your choice

The right existed before the constitution or its courts. Neither could reasonably alter such a natural principle.

...and the Constitution allows for government regulation of drugs.

It is just a piece of paper, powerless to stop the government from doing a thing.

That is current reality.

The reality is that an illegitimate monopoly of force rules us according to its whims.

If people want to have ethereal discussions about the nature of rights floating around in the cosmos that are neither recognized, nor protected, fine, but that's not where any change will come as to this issue.

No change will come about until the unsustainable State implodes or it is met with enough resistance to alter its course. If you don't want to participate in such discussions, just sit out and wait.

 

[AA&E]

The government has no business attempting to dictate what a man or woman do with their own body. If they wish to outlaw criminal enterprise trafficking such substances, I have no issue with that thought process as long as there are legitimate ways in which to obtain the substances without a criminal elements involvement. We are attempting to legislate moral decisions. That is a failure on our part, not on those abusing drugs. Criminal activity to support habits is already illegal, that should be enough. Other nations that have experimented with decriminalization and legalization haven't experienced a rise in usage. I'd expect the same outcome here.

Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason by making crimes of things that are not crimes, a prohibition law strikes a blow upon the very principles on which this nation was founded. - Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Alcohol is taxed and regulated and is still cheaper than the [now non-existent] black market alternatives. While I would advise against even this much regulation, it still makes progress.

Far from non-existent.

I am aware that people still make it as a hobby. But apart from areas where liquor is still prohibited, it's production and distribution is no longer surrounded by violent crime. That is the point.

Why bother when you can buy a bottle of a better moonshine equivalent at the store cheaper than you can make it at home?

It's still done as a business and not just a hobby. And while I've never tried the "moonshine" from the store, I've seen the prices, trust me it's not cheaper. iirc At the local grocery store the moonshine was something like $25-30 a qt at 80 proof. Last time I had moonshine $20 a qt (cheaper if you supply the container or buy in quantity) at we estimated a minimum of 150-160 proof, from what I understand the "shiner" told the guy about 170.

Who said it is better at the store......

Just saying there is still a market for the good stuff. Always will be.
Not much violence involved.

The stuff I had at a wedding on the 4th of July down in TN was gooooood. Smooth no burn on the way down, but you could feel the warmth just start blooming in your belly.

 

[jamil]

You can tell it's a real market when there's a reality show about it. Moohshiners.

Point is, after alcohol was legalized the violence related to alcohol sales died. There's no big money in moonshine. It's a niche. Comparatively, the black market moonshine industry disappears in the shadow of legal alcohol sales.

Using alcohol as a real life example seems a very reasonable parallel for comparison. So I just don't see that the violence related to drugs sales could get any worse by legalizing it. It would probable lessen.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not at all sure that safety is governed by civil or criminal courts. By the time an issue gets to those courts, the damage is done.

And by the time gun violence gets to those courts, the damage is done. Should we then prohibit guns? Of course not.

I've done extensive design work in government safety compliance in manufacturing. It is an absolute joke. It is a bureaucracy, effective at nothing. The real safety procedures are in place to protect the manufacturer from lawsuits.

Sure. But who will build the roads, Steve?

LOL. MUH ROADS!

Far from non-existent.

Show me an alcohol black market in the U.S. that isn't created by government regulation. Got anything? Maybe a murder of a 'shine dealer? Drive by shooting of a speakeasy?

It's still done as a business and not just a hobby. And while I've never tried the "moonshine" from the store, I've seen the prices, trust me it's not cheaper. iirc At the local grocery store the moonshine was something like $25-30 a qt at 80 proof. Last time I had moonshine $20 a qt (cheaper if you supply the container or buy in quantity) at we estimated a minimum of 150-160 proof, from what I understand the "shiner" told the guy about 170.

You can get Everclear at 190 proof for a heck of a lot less than that. Grain alcohol. It's nothing complicated.

http://www.argonautliquor.com/r/products/everclear-grain-alcohol-190-proof

Nevertheless, show me the black market. Show me the crime. Show me the violence. Show me the cartels, the organized crime, the mobs, the illegal distribution networks that produced guys like Al Capone. Show it to me.

 

[steveh_131]

You can tell it's a real market when there's a reality show about it. Moohshiners.

 

[ol' Huff]

None of us have the right to criminalize the mere vices of another, nor do we have the authority to delegate such an absurd function to any pack of thugs.

Yet we have the right to curtail other regarding action taken by individuals that harms the life, liberty or property of another. Self-regarding versus other-regarding action (best defined by Mills in On Liberty) is an inherent determiner in the righteousness of an action. Drug abusers continuously behave in other-regarding fashion. Even when their vices come cheaply the users often separate themselves from the social contract, and begin feeding on others sometimes literally but mostly figuratively vid a vis the free rider dilemma for example). Theft and assault are often the most obvious examples. If you can prove that abusers will just sit at home and waste themselves on their own dime it is one thing, but a continuous history shows that is not the case. In my role as a citizen I acknowledge that government has a duty to public health and safety to take steps to curtail such activity. While I'm not certain our current efforts are the best I much prefer that police attempt to apprehend habitual meth head offenders who rob their grandmothers while they are at their grandfather's funeral ad, if by chance, things get feisty they can shoot that f***** on the 4th of July.

 

[steveh_131]

Drug abusers continuously behave in other-regarding fashion. Even when their vices come cheaply the users often separate themselves from the social contract, and begin feeding on others sometimes literally but mostly figuratively vid a vis the free rider dilemma for example). Theft and assault are often the most obvious examples. If you can prove that abusers will just sit at home and waste themselves on their own dime it is one thing, but a continuous history shows that is not the case.

Interesting. So how many participants in a given hobby are allowed to commit crimes before you prohibit that hobby? 25%? 50%? 75%?

I assume that for the sake of consistency you also support the prohibition of alcohol, since its abusers are often known to misbehave, correct?

 

[dusty88]

Here's something that I believe needs to be made clear. You do not decide what my version of liberty is, or if it is being infringed upon, anymore that I can decide for you.

You are right in the sense that our society does have to define what constitutes liberty and what its infringements are.

Most of us would consider direct harm to have occurred (and therefore a violation of liberty) if a 30 year old man had sex with our 14 year old daughter. Some societies might not look at that the same way.

But certainly we can at least discuss things in terms of direct harm.

So the guy does meth in his home. Invites friends over to do the same. I no longer feel safe having my kids play out in the yard with that element being so close. I feel that is an impingement on my pursuit of happiness. I want to call the liberty police!!!

What you are proposing is that a violation of "feelings" constitutes an impingement on your liberty.

Feelings aren't in my direct harm metric.

Are "hurt feelings" something you would consistently support as defining violation of liberty?

 

[dusty88]

So I'm curious. In this government free, utopian country, who exactly will determine what proper safety equipment is? And who will determine reasonable market prices?

It's a strawman to suggest that drug legalization would be "utopia". In fact, that's a way of dismissing any argument "well your idea doesn't bring utopia so your idea sucks"

and.... The market price is what someone is willing to pay, and is not influenced by the threat of going to jail or being killed

Yet we have the right to curtail other regarding action taken by individuals that harms the life, liberty or property of another.

Right, and not to curtail someone for being of a category that might cause them to take action that harms another.

Drug abusers continuously behave in other-regarding fashion. Even when their vices come cheaply the users often separate themselves from the social contract, and begin feeding on others sometimes literally but mostly figuratively vid a vis the free rider dilemma for example). Theft and assault are often the most obvious examples. If you can prove that abusers will just sit at home and waste themselves on their own dime it is one thing, but a continuous history shows that is not the case. In my role as a citizen I acknowledge that government has a duty to public health and safety to take steps to curtail such activity. While I'm not certain our current efforts are the best I much prefer that police attempt to apprehend habitual meth head offenders who rob their grandmothers while they are at their grandfather's funeral ad, if by chance, things get feisty they can shoot that f***** on the 4th of July.

Yes, they should apprehend a robber.

What does that have to do with someone who is an addict?

And what if that addict isn't even currently using drugs? By your definitions, that addict is at high risk of later using drugs and becoming a dangerous person. So we lock up all people who have a predictable tendency for being harmful?

 

[AA&E]

Far from non-existent.



It's still done as a business and not just a hobby. And while I've never tried the "moonshine" from the store, I've seen the prices, trust me it's not cheaper. iirc At the local grocery store the moonshine was something like $25-30 a qt at 80 proof. Last time I had moonshine $20 a qt (cheaper if you supply the container or buy in quantity) at we estimated a minimum of 150-160 proof, from what I understand the "shiner" told the guy about 170.



The stuff I had at a wedding on the 4th of July down in TN was gooooood. Smooth no burn on the way down, but you could feel the warmth just start blooming in your belly.

When you compare the quantities sold through legitimate channels to the black market, it is statistically insignificant and nearly non existent.

 

[AA&E]

Interesting. So how many participants in a given hobby are allowed to commit crimes before you prohibit that hobby? 25%? 50%? 75%?

I assume that for the sake of consistency you also support the prohibition of alcohol, since its abusers are often known to misbehave, correct?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to steveh_131 again.

 

[indiucky]

I assume that for the sake of consistency you also support the prohibition of alcohol, since its abusers are often known to misbehave, correct?

Now wait a minute Steve...When I drink Bourbon I get very witty, sing in perfect harmony, am shocked at how suave and good looking I am, and do not understand the need for body armor due to the fact that I am 10 feet tall and bullet proof......

Are you saying that is an illusion....

 

[indiucky]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to steveh_131 again.

Got him for you bro....From one river rat to another....