Posted on 02/10/2012 9:16:22 AM PST by Superstu321
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren't that different.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.aei.org ...
“We’ll never know.
No, I think we know. I think we pretend not to know so we can conform to Libertarian social philosophy.
Drug abuse reduces or eliminates your judgement, grip on reality, and conscience. You therefore commit more crime when you are high.
Yes, people who aren’t high sometimes commit crimes. Yes, people who are high sometimes don’t.
Yes, people who abuse meth probably have underlying problems that who tend to make them more violent in general.
However, drug abuse serves no positive purpose and ONLY serves to make people stupider, more irrational, crazier, more violent, or more comatose. I include drunkenness in drug abuse. It should not be legal. Innocent people suffer and die because others want to get and stay high.
“I can point to vile crimes committed by drunks - but that’s no support for a general ban on the drug alcohol. “
No, but it’s support for a general ban on drunkenness. Which I support.
I googled “drunk felony child endangerment.” Google is your friend. Or, watch COPS. I’ve seen in happen in more than one state. Parent/s arrested for being drunk/high with minor kids in the home.
Not legal. The children are endangered. They are taken to foster care. For reals.
Yes, I have. It’s called “felony child endangerment.” While a probable cause or warrant it needed, it is indeed a felony (against the law).
You've made the further claim that a single incident of drunkenness with minor children in the home qualifies as felony child endangerment - but you've provided no evidence for this claim.
Fine - and then we’d have to apply the no-being-really-high rules consistently. Since there’s no evidence on the table for any no-being-really-high-on-alcohol rule inside private homes under any circumstances, there’s no basis for such a rule for any other drug. And of course no basis here for completely banning any of them.
Disagree, alcohol is normally used without negatively affecting a person’s rationality or long term mental stability.
Irrelevant to a discussion of defining "really high" - unless you're saying that defining "really high" was just a red herring on your part.
No, it’s not irrelevant. Irrationality and rationality are on a continuum, just like adulthood and childhood. You need to draw a line somewhere
Whether "alcohol is normally used without negatively affecting a person’s rationality or long term mental stability" is irrelevant to where the rationality line is drawn.
Generally true,
So no support there for a "clear and present danger" argument for the current sweeping drug bans.
* No reply to this point?
unless they are thinking up trouble. Like the speed freak killers whose victims’ bodies are being pulled out of an old well in California this week.
I can point to vile crimes committed by drunks - but that's no support for a general ban on the drug alcohol.
I know, they’d have killed all those people even if they hadn’t been out of their minds on meth! Yeah, right.
We'll never know. You don't think the sort of people predisposed to commit violent crimes aren't proportionally overrepresented among the sort of people predisposed to use a drug like meth?
No, I think we know. I think we pretend not to know so we can conform to Libertarian social philosophy.
Drug abuse reduces or eliminates your judgement, grip on reality, and conscience. You therefore commit more crime when you are high.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. If, as seems likely, drug use also increases your paranoia, that may well keep you from venturing beyond the place where you used the drugs and thus from committing crimes.
Yes, people who aren’t high sometimes commit crimes. Yes, people who are high sometimes don’t.
Yes, people who abuse meth probably have underlying problems that who tend to make them more violent in general.
All of which clearly tends against your claim - so, manfully conceded.
However, drug abuse serves no positive purpose and ONLY serves to make people stupider, more irrational, crazier, more violent, or more comatose.
"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis."
- "Psychoactive Substances and Violence, Research in Brief", National Criminal Justice Reference Service. US Department of Justice
I include drunkenness in drug abuse. It should not be legal.
Our society tried that and found that it failed; we should exhibit the same wisdom with regard to drugs other than alcohol.
Innocent people suffer and die because others want to get and stay high.
Once in a while they do - much more often they don't. Innocent people suffer and die because others want to drive recreationally - should that be banned?
Swell! Feel free to post any URLs that support your claim - and do keep in mind that the burden of proof is always with the party making the claim, that is, YOU.
I can point to vile crimes committed by drunks - but that's no support for a general ban on the drug alcohol.
No,
Then vile crimes committed by users of other drugs are no support for a general ban on those drugs.
but it’s support for a general ban on drunkenness. Which I support.
I don't - to the extent that it would apply to being drunk in a private residence (or bar or such) - but bans on public drunkenness or druggedness are OK with me.
Swell! Feel free to post any URLs that support your claim - and do keep in mind that the burden of proof is always with the party making the claim, that is, YOU.
I had some time to kill, so I did that search. Every link on the first page refers to drunk driving - except the link where the parent and child were both drunk.
I did your homework for you - and you FAIL.
“I did your homework for you - and you FAIL. “
Nonsense, I’ve seen it happen.
If you are drunk and taking care of a minor child in your own home, you are busted, if they find out. Of course it is easy to hide in the home. However if they have probable cause or a warrant, and this is discovered, you are charged with felony child endangerment. As you should be.
“Once in a while they do - much more often they don’t. Innocent people suffer and die because others want to drive recreationally - should that be banned? “
I have already said it’s a continuum. You have a risk/benefit analysis. Otherwise we’d all be home in bed, and that in itself will cause problems.
There is no benefit to legal drug abuse. Therefore the risks are obviously not worth it.
There is great benefit to driving, I am not even going to bother to list all the benefits, so we take the risk of accidents as a cost for the benefit.
I am not willing to pay any costs for anyone else’s “right” to get stoned.
(sigh), anyway, here’s the CA statute used to remove minor kids from the home of drunken/stoned parents
“726.6 Child endangerment.
1. A person who is the parent, guardian, or person having custody or control over a child or a minor under the age of eighteen with a mental or physical disability, or a person who is a member of the household in which a child or such a minor resides, commits child endangerment when the person does any of the following:
a. Knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to a child or minor’s physical, mental or emotional health or safety.
Like this CA teacher:
“A teacher from Southern California has been arrested for teaching under the influence. She was taken into custody from Toro Canyon Middle School in Thermal, California on Tuesday and booked into the Indio Jail. The charges were felony child endangerment, even though it has been said that no children were ever actually in any danger. The case is under investigation.” (Thaindiannews.com)
These were 7th graders, by the way, not preschoolers.
“Drunken breast-feeding: Woman sentenced to get treatment
A judge in North Dakota has ordered a woman arrested for drunken breast-feeding of her 6-week-old baby to get treatment.
It could help her avoid jail time after she pleaded guilty to child neglect in June, officials said.
Stacey Averina was observed breast-feeding while intoxicated by police officers who were responding to to a domestic disturbance call.
Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/crime_time/child_endangerment/page/2/#storylink=cpy";
Not going to find any more for you, you know they are out there.
And you know for a fact that they were busted for the sole reason of being drunk - no other bad acts, no prior incidents? I can't see how you would be privy to such information.
See the examples I ended up posting. It took me two minutes to find and post them.
Prior acts? Why would a Libertarian care about prior acts?
I did your homework for you - and you FAIL.
(sigh), anyway, here’s the CA statute used to remove minor kids from the home of drunken/stoned parents
“726.6 Child endangerment.
1. A person who is the parent, guardian, or person having custody or control over a child or a minor under the age of eighteen with a mental or physical disability, or a person who is a member of the household in which a child or such a minor resides, commits child endangerment when the person does any of the following:
a. Knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to a child or minor’s physical, mental or emotional health or safety.
No mention of alcohol there.
Like this CA teacher:
“A teacher from Southern California has been arrested for teaching under the influence. She was taken into custody from Toro Canyon Middle School in Thermal, California on Tuesday and booked into the Indio Jail. The charges were felony child endangerment, even though it has been said that no children were ever actually in any danger. The case is under investigation.” (Thaindiannews.com)
These were 7th graders, by the way, not preschoolers.
I can find no record of charges being filed. For finding an arrest, I'll change your fail to a D-.
“Drunken breast-feeding: Woman sentenced to get treatment
A judge in North Dakota has ordered a woman arrested for drunken breast-feeding of her 6-week-old baby to get treatment.
It could help her avoid jail time after she pleaded guilty to child neglect in June, officials said.
Stacey Averina was observed breast-feeding while intoxicated by police officers who were responding to to a domestic disturbance call.
Obviously the issue there is exposing the child to alcohol.
you know they are out there.
Here's what's out there: "Anytime injury or harm is caused to a child because of alcohol consumption, it is considered child endangerment. [emphasis added]" - http://www.ehow.com/info_8474440_can-front-minor-child-endangerment.html
See the examples I ended up posting. It took me two minutes to find and post them.
And only one is on point - and there's no evidence in that one case that charges were ever filed.
Prior acts? Why would a Libertarian care about prior acts?
Red herring - prior incidents would negate your supposition that what you saw was evidence that a single episode of drunkenness qualifies as child endangerment.
(So are you going to tell us what you actually do know about the incident you saw - or would you prefer to let it drop?)
I have already said it’s a continuum.
No, actually, you said that about the competely unrelated issue of degree of high-ness.
You have a risk/benefit analysis. Otherwise we’d all be home in bed, and that in itself will cause problems.
There is no benefit to legal drug abuse. Therefore the risks are obviously not worth it.
Are the modest health benefits of small quantities of alcohol worth the DUI carnage and other "costs" (as you'd reckon them) of legal alcohol?
There is great benefit to driving, I am not even going to bother to list all the benefits, so we take the risk of accidents as a cost for the benefit.
I said recreational driving. What are the benefits of recreational driving that don't exist for recreational drug use?
I am not willing to pay any costs for anyone else’s “right” to get stoned.
But you're willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive recreationally? Nice.
Libertarians don't want to force you to do anything. They just want you to leave them alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.