And he goes for the 2nd amendment!

[Camikaze]

I'm glad you've changed your position on RU-486.

 

[LucyDuke]

Bleh, you know he wouldn't consider its typical use victimless.

Look at this, you have me defending Dommy.

 

[Hygro]

Not sure if Chiteng serious.......

The treaty does not infringe on domestic manufacture, sale, or ownership of firearms. How does it relate to the 2nd Amendment? We get to bear as much arms and armaments as before.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm glad you've changed your position on RU-486.

I'm glad you've changed your position on trolling.

 

[Camikaze]

Bleh, you know he wouldn't consider its typical use victimless.

Look at this, you have me defending Dommy.

It's a gateway to the point that perhaps some other drugs aren't entirely victimless either. Crystal meth, as an example, has a notoriously deleterious effect on emergency workers and vulnerable dependants. And to tie into the thread topic, I imagine it's even less of a victimless drug in the presence of 2nd amendment rights. It might be argued that the drug-taking itself is still victimless, and it's just the consequent violence that isn't, but that seems to be the same sort of logic that says drink driving is victimless until someone gets hurt. So 'legalise everything' might be principled, but I'm not sure it would end up working out so well.

That's of course not to say that recreational drug-taking isn't in general victimless, but rather that the theory that what you do with or to your body can never have an impact on anyone else, often doesn't reflect reality.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

All the tax payers are victims to drug abusers. If those for legalization of drugs also payed a higher tax rate to cover the extra cost, I'd allow them. I don't see this happening though.

 

[Hygro]

All the tax payers are victims to drug abusers. If those for legalization of drugs also payed a higher tax rate to cover the extra cost, I'd allow them. I don't see this happening though.

Is this a joke?

Other than the "legalize and tax" argument for how it brings in loads of revenue, legalization cuts down on so many expenses it more than pays for itself. Court, police, jails, prisons, emergency health costs from the misuse that comes with illegality...

If you're serious, I'd love a justification.

 

[holy king]

 

[El_Machinae]

All the tax payers are victims to drug abusers.

Totally agree. 100%

If those for legalization of drugs also payed a higher tax rate to cover the extra cost, I'd allow them. I don't see this happening though.

Not sure if agree. I don't know if I'd be willing to pay higher taxes to legalise currently illicit drugs. That said, I don't fully accept the premise.

I believe that legalization would have effect of reducing the net burden on the taxpayer. In fact, my fiscal conservativeness is a major portion of my position on the topic.

 

[bhsup]

I assumed he meant by higher taxes some sort of excise/sin-tax on the product in question, thus ensuring those who partake pay a higher share. As a dedicated smoker, I'm quite familiar with the concept

 

[Crezth]

This is very correct, Crezth, but I think you'll find that GW16 is actually philosophically consistent in this case. He's quite opposed to the war on drugs from what he's said.

Great. If he's also opposed to immigration laws, I think we'll be on to something.

 

[LucyDuke]

It's a gateway to the point that perhaps some other drugs aren't entirely victimless either. Crystal meth, as an example, has a notoriously deleterious effect on emergency workers and vulnerable dependants. And to tie into the thread topic, I imagine it's even less of a victimless drug in the presence of 2nd amendment rights. It might be argued that the drug-taking itself is still victimless, and it's just the consequent violence that isn't, but that seems to be the same sort of logic that says drink driving is victimless until someone gets hurt. So 'legalise everything' might be principled, but I'm not sure it would end up working out so well.

That's of course not to say that recreational drug-taking isn't in general victimless, but rather that the theory that what you do with or to your body can never have an impact on anyone else, often doesn't reflect reality.

There are plenty of things that are "victimless" that aren't entirely victimless. Referring to as "victimless" something whose exclusive use you know perfectly well the guy you're talking to doesn't consider victimless (in any way at all!) is not a way to make that point. Just talk about drunks, that makes sense.

 

[El_Machinae]

I assumed he meant by higher taxes some sort of excise/sin-tax on the product in question, thus ensuring those who partake pay a higher share. As a dedicated smoker, I'm quite familiar with the concept

There's already a giant six tax on illegal drugs, it's just not fairly applied

And, for some reason, I need to pay higher taxes (real cash) in order to maintain that weird sin-tax system

 

[Camikaze]

There are plenty of things that are "victimless" that aren't entirely victimless. Referring to as "victimless" something whose exclusive use you know perfectly well the guy you're talking to doesn't consider victimless (in any way at all!) is not a way to make that point. Just talk about drunks, that makes sense.

That would be making the point that he shouldn't support a 'legalise everything' approach, rather than that he actually doesn't.

(Though taken, bringing up abortion can be a slippery-slope).

 

[GhostWriter16]

All the tax payers are victims to drug abusers. If those for legalization of drugs also payed a higher tax rate to cover the extra cost, I'd allow them. I don't see this happening though.

I'm for legalization but have no desire to use myself so...

I shouldn't be victimized to pay for the state covering people for doing stupid things. If you use drugs and get sick you should be required to pay for it.

Is this a joke?

Other than the "legalize and tax" argument for how it brings in loads of revenue, legalization cuts down on so many expenses it more than pays for itself. Court, police, jails, prisons, emergency health costs from the misuse that comes with illegality...

If you're serious, I'd love a justification.

If we are going to have the robust welfare system we have, then I agree with "Legalize and tax." Otherwise the costs are getting passed on to me, which, while I want drugs legalized, I don't want to use them so it would be unfair to have me pay for it.

And yes, of course, its a net reduction in price.

That said, in my ideal world the welfare system would be very, very different, and it would not cover people who ruin their own lives with drugs.

Great. If he's also opposed to immigration laws, I think we'll be on to something.

I think the laws should be far, far less restrictive than they are now. Immigration should be easy. But it should be done legally.

@Camikaze- In the case of drunk driving it would be up to the owner of the road. Which, in this case, is indeed the state.

I reject all seatbelt laws (For adults, and in this case teenagers as well) and I reject certain speed limit laws because I find them relatively useless and "Nanny stateish" but there's good reason for the road owner (Again, the state in this case) to ban it for safety reasons.

Neither seat belt laws or speed limits are really at the top of my priorities, if they were the only things I perceived as wrong with society I probably wouldn't even bother talking about politics, but I still think speed limits laws should be laxed and seat belt laws eliminated.

If it happened to be a private road (Read: Private property) however, I would not say the government had any right to ban drunk driving, only the property owner would have that right.

When it comes to drugs, it is not inherently victimizing anyone so no drugs should be inherently criminal. However, driving while high on public roads should be illegal for the same reason drunk driving should be illegal.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm glad you've changed your position on RU-486.

I'm assuming RU-486 is in fact an abortion pill (I honestly am having trouble figuring out which pills are abortificants and which ones aren't, some people say birth control pills cause abortions while others say that even morning after pills do not always cause abortions. Is this actually something that's disputed or are certain people just ignorant?) If so, it is not a "Drug" in the typical sense. A valid comparison would be using drugs while pregnant, which is not necessarily victimless either, but worse since, unlike using meth or cocaine while pregnant, it is actually deliberately killing.

At least in my view. I get that some people disagree with that, but in my case my argument for "Legalizing victimless crimes" is irrelevant to abortion. In fact, whichever side you are on abortion has nothing to do with victimless crimes. You could surely take the position that people should be prohibited from hurting themselves, but if you don't think a fetus is a person, you'd probably still allow abortion.

 

[Hygro]

If we are going to have the robust welfare system we have, then I agree with "Legalize and tax." Otherwise the costs are getting passed on to me, which, while I want drugs legalized, I don't want to use them so it would be unfair to have me pay for it.

Costs of use are already passed onto you. Social benefits of use are also already passed on to you, from scientific breakthroughs aided by drugs to music, to keeping certain troublesome people stoned at home.

But yeah, to me it's like, legalize cars (which are very dangerous), but mandate seatbelts so that someone's recklessness doesn't get passed on to me in financial and upsettingly violent roadside scene costs. We should legalize drugs in a loosely analogous way.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@GhostWriter16:

If the state owns the roads, do they not have the right to tell you that you must wear a seatbelt and drive below a certain speed?

Seems to me you are happy to apply the logic 'if you own it, you make the rules' to private property, but are very selective when it comes to State owned property.

 

[Crezth]

It's different because nothing the state does is legitimate, it is only legitimate if you use money to force your convictions in the private markets.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's state because state property is defended through violence, while private property is defended through disapproving looks and sternly-wagged fingers.