war on drugs getting bigger?

[chucK]

[...] overboard by granting the government a monopoly on the distribution and sale of all drugs that are currently illegal.

 

...and legislating that all profit derived from such sales go to something abhorrent to the current policymakers, such as the govt. of Iran, or the opposition political party.

[JayB]

One could easily toss this red-herring "I'm not against personal freedoms, I'm against the CORPORATE DOMINATION OF THE UNIVERSE!!! [C'mon fellow travelers, I know my other argument was weak, but no one here likes Walmart...]" overboard by granting the government a monopoly on the distribution and sale of all drugs that are currently illegal.

 

I'm not sure which weak argument you're referring to. Personal freedom is absolute; laws are merely deterrents. I stand by my assertion that the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves. For example, we have seatbelt laws not because we want to crush free will, but because we're pretty sure it makes you safer.

 

I'm also opposed to seatbelt laws for adults who have sufficient health and disability insurance to cover the tab if they jack themselves up too badly. IMO the only defensible argument for seatbelt laws applies in the cases where the state is likely to pick up the tab for your care if you mess yourself up.

 

In any event, driving is a privilege that requires the use of a public good, so seatbelt laws fall into a different class of laws than those that pertain to what people can do with their own bodies. Mentally competent adults exercising a fundamental right to determine what they ingest is something else entirely. If you buy the argument that our bodies constitute a public good that the state should have discretion over that supercedes our own, then your analogy makes sense. Your leap from one to the other with nary a thought for the manifold differences between the two is a classic example of the slippery slope in action.

 

 

 

"I stand by my assertion that the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves."

 

You mean like soloing, alpine climbing, etc, etc, etc? I'm pretty sure that the actuaries could run the numbers and determine that engaging in either constitutes a far greater risk to the participants than the consumption of any drug known to man. Better get the state on the job and fund a massive bureaucracy of rangers to patrol the mountains and prevent the naive from taking extraordinary risks to themselves.

[Crux]

Our country is the principal market for refined alkaloids, rich bored druggies begging to pour money into a lucrative and often violent third-world drug trade. The majority of the population of this country would never survive legalization. Shit, we can't even stop overeating. Furthermore if you legalized things, what makes you think that corporations wouldn't behave just as badly as the cartels? The source countries would still be getting fucked, and there would be more junkies than ever.

 

Sure. "We" are a fat, willfully malnourished people, and that goes to show that most of us would have died from ingestion of "refined alkaloids" by now if it were not for drug laws and heroism of the DEA. Glad to be set straight on this. And grateful to be saved from the tyranny of Khat, for only the small price of a few hundred million dollars today and the cost of building and staffing yet another and another prison tomorrow.

[chucK]

Is it actually legal to buy/sell/distribute heroin, cocaine, opium, marijuana in the Netherlands?

 

When I was there (many years ago) there was a nightclub (across from the police statiion) that had a very temporary-looking card table set up to sell MJ. Looked like it could be broken down and hidden real quicklike. Gave me the impression that not all was above board. I seriously doubt one is free to sell Heroin at the A&P in The Hague.

 

A decriminalization deal where users are not prosecuted but major distribution is frowned upon would seem to remove the Walmart complaint.

 

 

[jmace]

You can posses small amts of weed in the netherlands, I believe hard drugs are illegal but are de-criminilized.

[chucK]

In any event, driving is a privilege that requires the use of a public good, so seatbelt laws fall into a different class of laws than those that pertain to what people can do with their own bodies.

 

Though I agree with most all your arguments so far, I don't get this one. What have seatbelt laws to do with public good other than protecting the body of the wearer? Seems very similar to the drug prohibitions protecting people from themselves. In fact if you buy the argument that addicts turn to crime and hurt more people, then the anti-drug laws are a lot more toward protecting the public good than seatbelt laws. Are they worried someone is going to get out of control behind the wheel because they aren't wearing a lap belt?

[jmace]

Seat belt laws are good because it protects you from employers who have decided for you that they do not need to provide a safe vehicle for you to use. As well as children field trips, same for car seats.

[JayB]

In any event, driving is a privilege that requires the use of a public good, so seatbelt laws fall into a different class of laws than those that pertain to what people can do with their own bodies.

 

Though I agree with most all your arguments so far, I don't get this one. What have seatbelt laws to do with public good other than protecting the body of the wearer? Seems very similar to the drug prohibitions protecting people from themselves. In fact if you buy the argument that addicts turn to crime and hurt more people, then the anti-drug laws are a lot more toward protecting the public good than seatbelt laws. Are they worried someone is going to get out of control behind the wheel because they aren't wearing a lap belt?

 

The public owns the roads and has some legal claim on them in terms of its ability to set speed limits, vision requirements, etc. Unless you accept the claim that your body represents the same class of public good as a a piece of publicly funded infrastructure, the legal scope for the state to determine what you do with it in private is effectively nil. Accepting that what you do with your body while using a public resource like a road requires some acceptance of the state's authority to govern your conduct while you are using it doesn't justify the proposition that the the state should have the same level of authority over what you do with your body in private anymore than laws against having sex in public justify the government arresting you for having sex in the privacy of your own home.

 

IMO the only proper role for the state with regards to laws that regulate the use of the roads is insuring that a given driver's actions do not pose a threat to other drivers. I don't think that the safety of the driver constitutes an acceptable argument for the state to mandate seatbelt use, except in the case of children or mentally incompetent adults who cannot determine the risks for themselves. Aside from the principal that actions that don't directly harm anyone else should be legal, I also oppose seatbelt laws on the grounds because they give rise to the very mentality that I've been arguing against on this thread - which is that the state has the right and the responsibility to protect mentally competent adults from actions which can only directly harm themselves. The argument for seatbelts in terms of the probability that those who don't wear them will end up having their medical care paid for by the public in some fashion or another is a rather tenuous one, but still stronger than those which insist that state has the right and the duty to protect autonomous adults from themselves.

 

 

[lizard_brain]

[ashw_justin]

 

"I stand by my assertion that the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves."

 

You mean like soloing, alpine climbing, etc, etc, etc?

 

Yeah sure. If hypothetically climbing resulted in as many destroyed lives as hard drug use today (thousands? millions?) then I would appreciate the logic in such laws. But I don't think that will ever be the case. As a concrete example, requiring MLU's on Hood may not be philosophically satisfying, but considering the clowns that throw themselves at it, they may not be such a bad idea. (ducking)

[JayB]

So is your argument based on the principle that the state should forcibly prevent people from engaging in voluntary activities that exceed a certain risk threshhold, or on the sheer number of people that harm themselves engaging in any particular activity? If your argument is founded on sheer numbers - which it must be if you claim that the state should forcibly prevent people from using drugs but not free-soloing - then by this logic, the state would be justified in forcibly preventing people from overeating, which currently inflicts a much higher toll on society both in terms of expense and mortality than those who use illegal drugs.

[ashw_justin]

Ok, I should have said "the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves and thereby to society as a whole." It's not my right to say that someone shouldn't do whatever drugs they want, as long as it doesn't affect me either directly or through negative impacts on the society in which I live. But I am of the opinion that broad legalization of highly potent drugs would lead to mass consumption and addiction, which in turn would negatively effect this society.

 

It's possible that after some tough times, society would eventually learn how to deal with legal drugs. It's also possible that it might be forever changed for the worse. The third and scariest possibility is that those given the legal power and resources to capitalize on the sale of addictive drugs would engineer a whole new population of slave consumers. But hopefully since we learned that lesson with cigarettes, we could figure out a way to legalize drugs while severely restricting their marketability.

 

The overeating phenomenon... proves that some of the most profitable drugs on the market today are high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils. Who is to blame for the fast food epidemic? Either careless corporations are to blame for pushing incredibly unhealthy food, or people are just unwilling or unable to think about what goes in their mouths. Or both. What can be done? How about banning the use of public airwaves for food advertizing, for a start. If the information age has taught us anything it's that mind control is easier than it ever has been. If you have the money, people will eat whatever you tell them to. To keep getting the money, you sell them the cheapest shit you can pass off as food (such as highly decorated corn syrup and converted veggie oil). And if you end up as grotesque disease-bag from eating our food 24/7? Whatever, not our fault. We only brainwashed you, and that's legal.

[sk]

Thats it. we need to hire a lawyer. the next big money making class action suite should be against Hostess for all the fucking twinkies they made me eat when i was a kid because they brainwashed my mother into buying them. That contributed to my food addiction and my unhappy miserable every day battle with food now. I am going to sue for all the money i have spent on therapy and medical bills incurred by my anorexia and for the amount of money i have spent on junk food in my life time.

 

p.s. when are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions? Your argument is retarded. i smoked for 20 years. I started because i made a conscious decision to smoke. at 11 i knew that nicotine was an appetite suppressant and i was tired of being roundish and looking like a little girl. not the best choice i have ever made but it was MINE TO MAKE. no one made me no one held a gun to my head. it wasn't about the advertising. my dad smoked and he was skinny and i knew that if i smoked i could forget to eat. it is not the governments responsibility to protect the naive, or the ignorant or the uneducated. the only thing the government is obligated to protect us from is invading enemy forces. they can offer services, education and information. after that fuck people who don't care enough to read a little.

 

the legalization of drugs will not lead to mass consumption and addiction any more than the legalization of alcohol has led to the down fall of all morality. I don't think that anyone who doesn't use drugs today would take it up just because it is legal. if there are any people like that they are in a very small minority. what would happen is that the people who like to use would be paying a hefty tax to the government, the quality and strength and ingredients of the substances would be monitored and kids would have to find a more creative way to rebel as using would not be seen as "on the edge."

 

muffy's .02$

[joblo7]

alcohol is pervasive. yet education on its limited usefulness render it useless....

 

education, knowledge and self control will always win.

[E-rock]

Yes sadly enough, the masses are willing to let the system do their thinking for them.

 

And yet, after this quote, you go on to explain exactly the ways you think the system should think for them. It seems to me that you're the kind of person who believes you have higher credentials than everyone else merely because you believe it. For example, you believe that you know exactly who should be on a particular mountain at a particular time - e.g., anyone (including yourself) who -after the fact- doesn't get in an accident!

 

How are WE to know that YOU'RE not the kind of idiot who needs an MLU on Hood, a railing on Half Dome, or Big Brother making sure you don't watch Cheetos commercials before nap time? You're credentials seem only to be the fact that you claim to have them.

 

True or False - 90% of people are idiots.

 

If you answer T to this one, you need to spend a lot more time checking yourself and a lot less time worrying about what fat people watch on TV.

Edited May 17, 2007 by E-rock

[JayB]

Ok, I should have said "the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves and thereby to society as a whole." It's not my right to say that someone shouldn't do whatever drugs they want, as long as it doesn't affect me either directly or through negative impacts on the society in which I live. But I am of the opinion that broad legalization of highly potent drugs would lead to mass consumption and addiction, which in turn would negatively effect this society.

 

It's possible that after some tough times, society would eventually learn how to deal with legal drugs. It's also possible that it might be forever changed for the worse. The third and scariest possibility is that those given the legal power and resources to capitalize on the sale of addictive drugs would engineer a whole new population of slave consumers. But hopefully since we learned that lesson with cigarettes, we could figure out a way to legalize drugs while severely restricting their marketability.

 

The overeating phenomenon... proves that some of the most profitable drugs on the market today are high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils. Who is to blame for the fast food epidemic? Either careless corporations are to blame for pushing incredibly unhealthy food, or people are just unwilling or unable to think about what goes in their mouths. Or both. What can be done? How about banning the use of public airwaves for food advertizing, for a start. If the information age has taught us anything it's that mind control is easier than it ever has been. If you have the money, people will eat whatever you tell them to. To keep getting the money, you sell them the cheapest shit you can pass off as food (such as highly decorated corn syrup and converted veggie oil). And if you end up as grotesque disease-bag from eating our food 24/7? Whatever, not our fault. We only brainwashed you, and that's legal.

 

Uncritically accepting virtually ever proposition put forth by Chomsky and adopting them en-masse as the core of your own world-view hardly puts one in a position to lament a generalized susceptibility to "mind control" in others.

[ashw_justin]

p.s. when are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions?

 

This is exactly my point too. Apparently people do not. Is it right to allow people with a lack of personal responsibility and judgment to become a burden on society, based on the principle that they should be allowed to do anything they want to? Do you let your kids do anything they want to?

[ashw_justin]

alcohol is pervasive. yet education on its limited usefulness render it useless....

 

education, knowledge and self control will always win.

 

Only if it is taught and exercised.

[ashw_justin]

And yet, after this quote, you go on to explain exactly the ways you think the system should think for them. It seems to me that you're the kind of person who believes you have higher credentials than everyone else merely because you believe it.

 

Congratulations, I haven't responded to any of the several misquided personal insults yet. Please explain to me what 'credentials' I am claim to have here on cc.com?

 

I'm willing to hear your argument that it is possible to ensure that every human being responsibly exercises rational free will. Trust me, I believe in that ideal, but it assumes that the average human being is capable or even interested in being critically rational. It is easier to believe than to actually think; religion and ignorant love of political parties proves this.

 

How are WE to know that YOU'RE not the kind of idiot who needs an MLU on Hood, a railing on Half Dome, or Big Brother making sure you don't watch Cheetos commercials before nap time?

 

Well, you don't know that. You do know that that the more unskilled people climb Mt. Hood, the more accidents will occur that are expensive, threaten the lives of rescue personnel, and give climbing a bad name. There is a problem: people are doing stupid things, and it is negatively impacting you. Should you do nothing, and ignore the drain on society that a rescue represents?

 

True or False - 90% of people are idiots.

 

If you answer T to this one, you need to spend a lot more time checking yourself and a lot less time worrying about what fat people watch on TV.

 

I won't answer T or F to that statement because it is meaningless and defeatist. How about this: 90% of people could improve their lives by being smarter and more responsible for themselves. Many of you are arguing that the path to responsibility is through complete freedom to make mistakes, and thereby learn from them. I tend to agree with that, but only as long as the mistakes are recoverable, and that people are in control of their own decisions.

[ashw_justin]

Uncritically accepting virtually ever proposition put forth by Chomsky and adopting them en-masse as the core of your own world-view hardly puts one in a position to lament a generalized susceptibility to "mind control" in others.

 

You really take the cake for personal attacks JayB. You've continually insulted me personally from the minute that I took the other side, as if belittling my own character somehow nullifies any argument I put forth. Is that what they teach you in your profession?

 

I appreciate your intended irony, but if you could put Friedman down for a second, you might realize that idea of mind control is most certainly not the sole intellectual property of Noam Chomsky, nor does one need to crack a book to come up with the idea. Just turn on the TV.

 

[sk]

p.s. when are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions?

 

This is exactly my point too. Apparently people do not. Is it right to allow people with a lack of personal responsibility and judgment to become a burden on society, based on the principle that they should be allowed to do anything they want to? Do you let your kids do anything they want to?

 

I do not let my children do anything they want to do. i teach them to think about what they are going to do before they do it by teaching them what consequences are and letting them suffer them. society as we know it will not learn personal responsibility until people get the idea that what we do or do not do affects us. when the government provides my food clothing house and entertainment, MAYBE then they can tell me what to do. as long as my ass is working for a living i want the government to stay the fuck out of my business.

 

 

 

the point is to not take responsibility for those that will not take responsibility for them selves. the point is to let the ones winning the Darwin awards DIE to make room on the planet for those with a somewhat cultivated idea of common sense.

[ashw_justin]

Partly to defend myself from JayB's attack, let me say that I have read Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government," in which he puts forth the idea that law itself is an agent of mind control. I argue that this is true, but that law is a necessary evil as long as people are deficient at knowing and doing what he refers to as "right."

 

That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have.

 

Emphasis mine.

[ivan]

p.s. when are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions?

 

This is exactly my point too. Apparently people do not. Is it right to allow people with a lack of personal responsibility and judgment to become a burden on society, based on the principle that they should be allowed to do anything they want to? Do you let your kids do anything the want to?

we let people drive cars/boats/planes, own guns/lawnmowers/baseball-bats, and a million other things that require personal responsibility based on the principle that we are born free to do as we wish up to the point that we interfer w/ the rights of others - soooo, we should able to use drugs just as we should be able to use alcohol/weedwackers/power-tools/etc until we personally demonstrate that we can't be trusted w/ them, no? we don't tell everyone they can't buy guns, just people who demonstrate they can't use them responsibly.

[sk]

i have been reading more of what you said justin and totally disagree with you. there are mistakes that people make that should be irrevocable. you can not recover from accidentally shooting someone. so you should never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill. period.

 

if we raise our children, our society, to believe there is always a way back, a reset button just like the video games we are robbing them of a sense of wholeness. they will believe that nothing they do really matters any way. this is untrue and you are trying to get the resolution to the issue you see in a backwards way.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer

[ashw_justin]

i have been reading more of what you said justin and totally disagree with you. there are mistakes that people make that should be irrevocable. you can not recover from accidentally shooting someone. so you should never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill. period.

 

if we raise our children, our society, to believe there is always a way back, a reset button just like the video games we are robbing them of a sense of wholeness. they will believe that nothing they do really matters any way. this is untrue and you are trying to get the resolution to the issue you see in a backwards way.

 

We're not in disagreement. I never said that shooting someone was recoverable. I said that "the path to responsibility is through complete freedom to make mistakes, and thereby learn from them. I tend to agree with that, but only as long as the mistakes are recoverable, and that people are in control of their own decisions."

 

We definitely can learn to be more responsible by making mistakes. The question is which mistakes the government should have a right to forbid us from making.