Reclaiming Liberalism

[MobBoss]

You draw your weapon and shoot until the threat to your life has ceased. Or you call 911. Or you run away. Or you hand him your money.

How is this related to whether drug use is allowed?

The point is that drug use indeed has further effects upon society. I personally feel that such ideas as "its ok as long as no one else is hurt" all fine and dandy, BUT, extremely few things actually qualify for such a label....drug use not being one. Drug use eventually impacts us all, one way or another, even if done in the privacy of your own home.

 

[IglooDame]

The point is that drug use indeed has further effects upon society. I personally feel that such ideas as "its ok as long as no one else is hurt" all fine and dandy, BUT, extremely few things actually qualify for such a label....drug use not being one. Drug use eventually impacts us all, one way or another, even if done in the privacy of your own home.

Yeah, and DEA no-knock raids, drug cartel purchase of officials, massive amounts of cash dangled in front of teenagers, and police being able to throw lots of people in jail for possession of $40 worth of controlled substance eventually impacts us all, if you use that definition of "impacts us all". But whether the guy is robbing you to support his drug habit, his gambling habit, his Civ4 habit, his alcohol habit, or his adrenalin junkie habit really has no bearing on which of the four options you choose to respond with to his robbery attempt.

 

[Mastreditr111]

frankly, i really dont think we're going to allow much drug use any time in the future, and none of the things igloo dude just named, outside of the police interference, would stop just because we did legalize them. it would almost certainly cause more harm than good, as the police would now have no ability to stop that duggie before he breaks into your house and attacks you. What about those of us who dont own guns (NOT ME, my house is an arsenal) and get killed by a druggie who was just stopped on a street corner by the police, who couldn't do anything because he wasn't breaking the law yet?

 

[tomsnowman123]

frankly, i really dont think we're going to allow much drug use any time in the future, and none of the things igloo dude just named, outside of the police interference, would stop just because we did legalize them. it would almost certainly cause more harm than good, as the police would now have no ability to stop that duggie before he breaks into your house and attacks you. What about those of us who dont own guns (NOT ME, my house is an arsenal) and get killed by a druggie who was just stopped on a street corner by the police, who couldn't do anything because he wasn't breaking the law yet?

And what if legalizing it reduces all the gang violence that is increasing across the nation, gang violence for drugs, that they no longer have to kill over.

 

[Mastreditr111]

ok which is worse? Better yet how can we know?

I personally think that long sentences for drug use will slow the problem here, and may help those in the countries taken over by drug cartels: instead of being caught in the crossfire of US-backed counter-drug wars, they will be able to live in peace as drug cartels fail without American demand.


Drug use should be a crime. You are f***ing with your life, that of Americans, and that of poor, helpless peasants in a foreign country whom you have never met and have done nothing wrong. Kill the demand, and the supply will follow.

EDIT: I suspect that gangs will find something else to fight over... they fought before drugs, and would fight after them.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Drug use should be a crime. You are f***ing with your life, that of Americans, and that of poor, helpless peasants in a foreign country whom you have never met and have done nothing wrong. Kill the demand, and the supply will follow.

"F***ing with your life" is one thing. That's their life, they have a right to use drugs if they want. I don't see how you are screwing everyone else over.

 

[Mastreditr111]

One, drug use impairs your judgement far more than even alcohol. Try driving, or perhaps just getting into an argument, when you are drunk, then multiply by 10
Two, I am sure I can find statistics showing how many drug users turn to crime to support their habits, and how large a portion of all robbery is drug-related. I suspect that statistics will not be good.
Three, as I already said, US-backed counter-drug operations, since they are in reality carried out by other countries, tend to be very bloody. As an alternative I proposed trying to attack the problem from the supply end.
Four, those innocent bystanders conscripted by a drug cartel and then killed in a raid? They were basically enslaved for the 10 years prior to that because their coca farms can't refine the drug, and they sell it for next to nothing to the cartels, who refine it and make millions.
Five, they cause massive amounts of money and police attention to be wasted trying to uproot the problem. The police are thus unavailable to deal with other threats to civilians.

Only two of these (3 and 5) could be stopped, or slowed, by legalizing drug use. The others will get worse, more than make up the difference. The third one will probably continue as 3rd world countries try to wrest control back from the cartels. More people will die.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Only two of these (3 and 5) could be stopped, or slowed, by legalizing drug use. The others will get worse, more than make up the difference. The third one will probably continue as 3rd world countries try to wrest control back from the cartels. More people will die.

Can we at least legalize it for medicinal purposes? I would be fairly happy with that.

 

[Mastreditr111]

that i can live with, as i have read entire medical JOURNALS on the effectiveness of THC (or whatever) as a painkiller. It is possible to use marijuana at least as a medical drug. I'm not so sure about others. Heroin is basically morphene, so no point there, and Cocaine is far too dangerous, and a stimulant, not a painkiller. Some of the new designer drugs may have medical purposes, as well. But i think it would definitely have to be regulated, and i also strongly suggest a new source for these drugs. Like buying them legitimately from the government of these countries, so they can invest the profits in trying to build a non-drug based economy.

 

[Mastreditr111]

buying them from the cartels just condemns thousands of people in the 3rd world to slavery, more or less

 

[tomsnowman123]

that i can live with, as i have read entire medical JOURNALS on the effectiveness of THC (or whatever) as a painkiller. It is possible to use marijuana at least as a medical drug. I'm not so sure about others.

Yeah, I am basically for marijuana, as that has been shown to have some actual medicinal purpose.

 

[Mastreditr111]

idle curiousity:Tomsnowman, have i actually convinced you of anything, or did I just disagree long enough to get you sick of it? lol

 

[tomsnowman123]

idle curiousity:Tomsnowman, have i actually convinced you of anything, or did I just disagree long enough to get you sick of it? lol

Well, I have always been supportive of legalizing marijuana, but, seeing as how so many disagree with me, I am willing to make some concessions (for now) such as merely legalizing it for medicinal purposes.

 

[Mastreditr111]

sounds good.

 

[Mastreditr111]

well, not really to me, but the fact that you are willing to compromise is definitely a good thing.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Think drugs are bad? Then stop drinking alcohol. And coffe. And using asprin. Or paracetimal.

My body - I will do what I wish with it. Nothing gives you the rght to dictate what i can and can't do with my own flesh and blood.

 

[MamboJoel]

You might want to wipe off that smile.
Your very simple and IMHO not very convincing assertions seems to based on:
- A lack of appreciation of historical perspective.
- A shallow or insufficient knowledge about the classical liberals and Enlightenment thinkers.
- A confusion of means and ends.
- A conscious mystification for self-serving purposes.
- A combination of two or more of those mentioned above.
Judging from what you wrote in another thread and your quite post here, you (and the OP)seem to think that those classic liberals were freemarket- fetishists. They were not.

Sorry to get personal, but since you are beeing personal : I don't think I should consider as objective any historical remark about someone claiming he's a history porn star.
If you consider I'm using *biased* perspectives of history for political issues than it's the pot calling the kettle black !
Though, as I said, I understand that some might evacuate from their definition of freedom some essential elements of it for "social, ethnic, religious in fact simply personal or emotional reasons" .

 

[Richard Cribb]

Sorry to get personal, but since you are beeing personal : I don't think I should consider as objective any historical remark about someone claiming he's a history porn star.

Please develop some reading abilities.
I never claimed such a thing myself, it is a quote from another poster which I found amusing. I leave it entirely to others to judge how fitting it is.

If you consider I'm using *biased* perspectives of history for political issues than it's the pot calling the kettle black !

Every historian, politician or economist is "biased", but that is not the point. I have no problems with that.
I do however, have a problem with people failing to understand that a certain political or economical concept in general can be progressive at one point of societal development, and heart-renderingly reactionary at another one, and that the concept of liberal in particular must necessarily mean something different today, given the transition Western societies has undergone since Enlightenment.

Though, as I said, I understand that some might evacuate from their definition of freedom some essential elements of it for "social, ethnic, religious in fact simply personal or emotional reasons" .

I think anybody who perpetuates the mantra of a free market in a world where mega corporations roam freely has preciously little authority for lecturing about freedom to others.

 

[MamboJoel]

Please develop some reading abilities.
I never claimed such a thing myself, it is a quote from another poster which I found amusing. I leave it entirely to others to judge how fitting it is.

Come down, of course I know it's a quote, but still you're using it as your signature.

Every historian, politician or economist is "biased", but that is not the point. I have no problems with that.

You should, considering historians and politicians are on the same stance in front of *biasing* is problematic.

I think anybody who perpetuates the mantra of a free market in a world where mega corporations roam freely has preciously little authority for lecturing about freedom to others.

Mega corporations, hostile takeovers, speculation ...
Let's -both- come down off our high horses. Advocating free market in today's world is not preaching for these.
In my country, there are 2.000.000 small businesses, they represent the essence of our economy and employment, freemarket is the right to start a business without beeing over-charged (check the percentage of small business that fail after 2 years of existence), the right to buy the beer you like at your perfered bar, I think you can agree with any evil free market fetishist like me one that without reclimbing on your high horse "vendeting" against mega corporations.

 

[IglooDame]

One, drug use impairs your judgement far more than even alcohol. Try driving, or perhaps just getting into an argument, when you are drunk, then multiply by 10
Two, I am sure I can find statistics showing how many drug users turn to crime to support their habits, and how large a portion of all robbery is drug-related. I suspect that statistics will not be good.
Three, as I already said, US-backed counter-drug operations, since they are in reality carried out by other countries, tend to be very bloody. As an alternative I proposed trying to attack the problem from the supply end.
Four, those innocent bystanders conscripted by a drug cartel and then killed in a raid? They were basically enslaved for the 10 years prior to that because their coca farms can't refine the drug, and they sell it for next to nothing to the cartels, who refine it and make millions.
Five, they cause massive amounts of money and police attention to be wasted trying to uproot the problem. The police are thus unavailable to deal with other threats to civilians.

Only two of these (3 and 5) could be stopped, or slowed, by legalizing drug use. The others will get worse, more than make up the difference. The third one will probably continue as 3rd world countries try to wrest control back from the cartels. More people will die.

One, driving under the influence of drugs should and would remain a crime - alcohol is legal and yet DUI is still a crime, right?

Two, if you're already violating the law by using the drugs in the first place, that makes jail time for other crimes that much less of a deterrent. Further, costs for (currently-illegal) drugs would probably drop precipitously, as smuggling and danger overhead costs go away, so less theft needed per drug addict in any case.

Three, we've been attacking the supply end for years; what makes you think we're suddenly going to become significantly more successful at it?

Four, if you don't have to grow the crops overseas anymore, those innocent bystanders can be employed by Nike et al, instead.

Five... well, I don't disagree with five.