Would it be better if drugs were legalized?

[Fenrisúlfr]

The logical conclusion of government weighing things based upon what it does and does not want to "see" instead of the rights of the people is tyranny, any measure of which is insidious. It is not the role of the state to provide deterrents and incentives regarding these things, that is the role of the free market. The only legitimate of the role of the state is the preservation of natural rights, in which it would be wise to provide deterrents to murder (life), that which violates liberty, and property rights including violations of contracts.

Then again, upon reading this pithy phrase, methinks it is futile for me to bother with this one:

"...people have far to many rights in this country."
source: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/7348292-post9.html

Look at Britain since they elected the socialist Atlee and see how it fared. If it was not for Thatcher, they would be emigrating to Poland instead of the Poles emigrating there, though Blair has done a very good job of bungling their public bourse.

 

[Blowtus]

OK, I see, what you dont understand is... it is a step backwards for me, if I were not to understand why drugs are illegal. Whats wrong with the expression "we dont want to see that" ? The opposite is "we want to see that" (people addicted to drugs). Do you not see legalization as a promotion ? Has anyone been exposed to the uglier side of alcohol where many children of parents or older siblings who drink heavily just accept it as a way of life and follow suit ? Dont we need deterrents ? Some would say education, I would say this only helps to a degree, so laws help to some degree as well, common sense in others helps, yet others seems to throw the common sense out the door. Legalization will only add to those that sidestep the common sense, "its legal, its alright"

Legalisation is comprehensively *not* promotion.
Does the government promote eating mcdonalds for every meal? Having 40 kids? Anal sex with the funny looking bloke at the bus stop? There is more to decision making than whether something is legal.

Basic notions of liberal democracy are that everything should be allowed unless clear reason for restriction can be shown.

 

[Blowtus]

The logical conclusion of government weighing things based upon what it does and does not want to "see" instead of the rights of the people is tyranny, any measure of which is insidious. It is not the role of the state to provide deterrents and incentives regarding these things, that is the role of the free market. The only legitimate of the role of the state is the preservation of natural rights, in which it would be wise to provide deterrents to murder (life), that which violates liberty, and property rights including violations of contracts.

You keep saying this stuff as though it is universal law - it is not. Mill originally promoted libertarian ideals with a utilitarian justification - that a free market / free people promotes most happiness. Others have since decided that a watering down of such hardline libertarianism is more suited to modern society's needs. The only argument for the 'rightness' of one over the other is the amount of 'insert value here' (ie, happiness) they promote.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Thankfully, some of us still man the hard line. Cato's gone a bit soft, though the Von Mises Institute (and many authors on LewRockwell.com) will not water down these ideals.

As for Mill, I concur with him on the harm principle and of the notion of tyranny by the majority. However, his gaffe lies in the implications of the utilitarian idea. The ones who would 'maximize happiness' would invariably wind up maximizing their own happiness. The end result of this doctrine would be socialism.

In lieu, natural rights determine right and wrong.

 

[Blowtus]

Do you want to maybe start a new thread and tell me where these 'natural rights' come from?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I may do so, though in all fairness I keep alluding to them on account that they figure into the philosophical perspective from which I argue

 

[razoredge]

Legalisation is comprehensively *not* promotion.
Does the government promote eating mcdonalds for every meal? Having 40 kids? Anal sex with the funny looking bloke at the bus stop? There is more to decision making than whether something is legal.

Basic notions of liberal democracy are that everything should be allowed unless clear reason for restriction can be shown.

I understand you want to see it from that point of view, but sorry from a typical human point of view, especially that of youth it will be a clear signal that its alright... thus promotion.

Yes our governemnt does promote massive child production, where have you been ?

I could be mistaken but I thought I loosely covered the decision makeing process or variables close enough as not to have to be reminded of it.
--------------------------------------------------------

The free market can "suck a cock" might as well better legalize murder, rather than have it as a measure to protect theiving capitalist pigs. Free market is little more than a method of organized crime which excapes through loop holes carefully put in place by their lawmaker brothern.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Am I to take offence or have you been reading someone's Little Red Book a bit too much lately (in which case I shall overlook your petulance)? By the way...if you are typing from a computer, you have the ever-despised "free market" to thank for it.

My business in this sub-forum is done.

P.S. oink oink

 

[razoredge]

yes, little laddie we have the free market to thank for many things, some good, many bad. Abuse same as slavery and thieft comes in many colors and forms, however does not make it difficult to identify with the open eye... nor the keen nose to smell the pigs in their pen.:danceboy:

 

[Blowtus]

I understand you want to see it from that point of view, but sorry from a typical human point of view, especially that of youth it will be a clear signal that its alright... thus promotion.

If you want to take 'promotion' as merely the signal that something is legally ok, then yes, I guess you can call it promotion. I don't really recall hordes of youths suddenly indulging in gay sex when that was legalised around these parts though...

Yes our governemnt does promote massive child production, where have you been ?

I've been in Australia. Based on your assumption, I'll assume you're in the U.S

The free market can "suck a cock" might as well better legalize murder, rather than have it as a measure to protect theiving capitalist pigs. Free market is little more than a method of organized crime which excapes through loop holes carefully put in place by their lawmaker brothern.

Hey hey... we find an area where you dislike the established norm. Calling anything you don't like organised crime kind of seems to negate the use of the word 'crime' though...

 

[razoredge]

If you want to take 'promotion' as merely the signal that something is legally ok, then yes, I guess you can call it promotion. I don't really recall hordes of youths suddenly indulging in gay sex when that was legalised around these parts though...

Not sure if the gay sex as opposed to drug usage is a legit comparison



I've been in Australia. Based on your assumption, I'll assume you're in the U.S

Australia must not have anything like our social services ? This is a good thing if thats the case



Hey hey... we find an area where you dislike the established norm. Calling anything you don't like organised crime kind of seems to negate the use of the word 'crime' though...

I quess I dont understand this one ?

...

 

[Blowtus]

If you're going to claim it's not a useful comparison at least tell me why? Surely it is still promotion?

 

[razoredge]

OK, well sex in itself has been in huge promotion by comparision over the past decades. I would not be at all surprised to find more try bisexual activity. However one would assume straight people would still seek out compliant, personally attractive opposite sex for their pleasures. One would also think sex would be harder to refrain from celibacy and laws would be less effective "when nature calls". I simply find sex and drugs to be two totally different relmns.

One a hunger hard to fight
One stupid

we chase the little girls around on the playground
do we chase the drug dealers around ? No! That comes later, when we get stupid.

I could keep going and build this thing, but no, you dont want that, trust me.

 

[derek]

That hinges partly on your interpretation of changing sexual attitudes. That in itself can often be part of an imagined history.

 

[razoredge]

so what is it Im imagining ?

 

[derek]

There was no pigeon holed conservative past. Bi-sexual activity has hardly sprung up in the past 30 years, arguably only the therm "bi-sexual" has, when the practice has much deeper roots.

 

[Einherjar86]

I believe in individual rights. That said, I can't decide if I want drugs to be legalized. Ultimately, I think I'd have no problem with it. We have to look at the consequences. If drugs could be purchased legally, and anywhere, the crime rate would decrease because there would be no black market for drugs.

razoredge, I know you're a very righteous person, and that's good for you. But it's not our place to make decisions for the rest of humanity. People know the consequences of drugs, in this day and age. You can warn people against drugs all you want, but you can't force the needle from their hand. People will do what they want. Whether drugs are legal or not, people will continue to abuse them. The best thing to do would be to legalize them and decrease the amount of crime surrounding the drug trade. There would be no need for secrecy, no negotiation of deals, no gang involvement, and no more use for drug mules. I don't think it would drastically increase the number of users, and it would in fact benefit the lives of people both within and without this country.

 

[razoredge]

There was no pigeon holed conservative past. Bi-sexual activity has hardly sprung up in the past 30 years, arguably only the therm "bi-sexual" has, when the practice has much deeper roots.

But I didnt say it was new ? I simply said more people will most likely try it as it become more accepted... which converts back over on topic with legalizing DRUGS...

Some of these drugs cant be "tried" too many times before one becomes fucked. My Grandmother remembered the Opium dens, I guess it was a sad state of affairs

But hey... if you guys want to go back to that, have at it, but good luck getting America to go along with you

 

[Einherjar86]

But hey... if you guys want to go back to that, have at it, but good luck getting America to go along with you

Thanks, we appreciate it. Now stop trying to appeal to everyone's emotions by evoking visions of opium dens. There are positive effects to legalizing drugs. You're too stubborn to admit that.

 

[razoredge]

The most positive side is the boys in the hood will be out of work, so they will come out of the hood and start robbing houses, car jackings, kid nappings whos know how they will apply their resourcefulness, new capitalistic job opportunities that will be good.

The imporverished ************** companies will get a chance to make some hard cash for a change... that will be good... all while making junkies at the same time... win/win

"Date rap drugs now available over the counter, you'll find them in the aisle next to the condoms and gay porno mags"... multiple win there

Doctors will no longer have to subscribe morphine or any of those other drugs, you just go the the ******** and get what you want bro.

No more counting pills and taking an hour to fill prescription, we'll just make larger drug stores and line the shelves with bottles... it will be far better than any candy store... fuck the supermarket... who needs to eat ?

AND the quencher... all fully taxable to support our earnest political machine and their flavorful venture of the hour

TOTAL WIN DUDES!