Posted on 07/06/2012 4:52:57 PM PDT by BfloGuy
The "drug war" is an invention of the federal government. All they want from you is to pay your taxes, do what you're told, and don't ask questions. Once you give it to them, you don't have anything to say about it. It's not your turf anymore, it's theirs.
Cocaine Slurpees will be an invention of Seven-Eleven coming near you. That will happen once drugs are marketed everywhere for the lowest possible price.
As for your bureaucrats, they may be be obtuse and power-hungry, but we do need police to keep the streets safe. Streets will not be safe with your libertarian addicts wandering around and vicious gangs lurking in the shadows.
Yep. You’re right.
If you learn the difference between a policeman and a career beltway bureaucrat you might be able to form more coherent arguments.
It's nearly a mile to the nearest neighbor, who the hell would build a Seven-Eleven near me? If we had one and they started selling Cocaine Slurpees, we'd probably just burn it down. I don't know where you live, but I think it's messing with your head.
Cocaine Slurpees would be a nice little profit center. Seven-Eleven could afford to build more stores, develop more teenage customers.
Seven-Eleven could offer straight from the fountain a delicious brown-and-white heroin/cocaine concoction beyond all libertarian dreams.
And you’d sell us all into into slavery for the promise of salvation from demon Cocaine Slurpee, wouldn’t you?
If you think laws against heroin are the equivalent of slavery, you are a seriously ill person.
Mebbe some bright eyes over at the NYT will be able to someday document the “convenient” loss of Constitutional freedoms in parallel with the expansion of the drug war.
So far Freedom has been the only issue constrained by the so called drug war.
The DEA was an active and willing participant in Fast and Furious, and they knew they were doing it to manufacture evidence of an "iron river of guns" flowing into Mexico that would be used to justify more gun control laws.
I'm not willing to be collateral damage because you're scared stupid of imaginary Cocaine Slurpees to the point that you're blind to the unintended consequences.
Imaginary Cocaine Slurpees? Hardly. Just the free market at work. For people bored with regular Slurpees.
zChildren would be the collateral damage, as you said. But hey the kids should be smart enough to figure it out. They grow up fast nowadays.
Now, you cant take the last word and go, and stay far the hell away from me.
Since kids report that they can get marijuana more easily than beer or cigarettes, it seems the best way to keep substances out of kids' hands is to legalize them for adults, giving their sellers a disincentive to sell to kids (namely, the loss of their legal adult market).
I'm in favor of regulating other drugs the way the drug alcohol is regulated - and you'll notice they don't sell alcohol Slurpees at 7-11, or any alcohol to any kids anywhere.
I will fight needle parks in my neighborhood.
Nobody supports that - legalizing use in only a small area was the worst drug policy ever.
I will fight the gangs that will inevitably thrive in the quasi-legal shadows of legal drugs (see Netherlands).
There is criminal involvement because they didn't full legalize ... growing marijuana is still illegal, and that's where the criminals take their profit.
I will fight any libertarian who sticks a needle in my child’s arm
Nobody, especially not libertarians, supports forcing drugs on anyone. I have kids too - don't let concern for them make you hysterical.
thanks for the detailed answers. Unfortunately, there will always be a police state with powerful, heavily addictive drugs. Criminals will cluster in areas where we don’t fully legalize, and even if we do fully legalize, the drugs will create other problems that require police attention.
So we may as well have a simple bright-line law against hard drugs.
I retire from the field as victor. The Cocaine Slurpee has won. Libertarians have no response for that one.
Nothing.
It’s RobertPaulsen all over again. Been there, done that, and know how it turns out.
I rebutted that argument two posts before your chest thumping.
How is this claim relevant? Will a simple bright-line law against hard drugs take powerful, heavily addictive drugs away from the police state?
even if we do fully legalize, the drugs will create other problems that require police attention.
Nobody is less of a problem to the police than the quietly nodding heroin user or the Pink Floyd-grooving stoner. What requires police attention is nanny-state laws against drugs.
So we may as well have a simple bright-line law against hard drugs.
What about the hard drug alcohol?
"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior"
- "Psychoactive Substances and Violence", Department of Justice National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Weak response = no response. Hard drugs, once legal or semi-legal as you imagine, will be marketed heavily. They will be as ubiquitous as alcohol. There will be lots of police around to enforce the incoherent web of legal and semi-legal laws that you envision.
Cocaine Slurpees, here we come!
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.