Economics 101 Tells Us That the War on Drugs is a Complete Failure: Prices Are Going Down, Not Up

Carpe Diem ^ | July 6, 2012 | Mark Perry

[starlifter]

You are no libertarian. Instead, you seem to be a control freak leftist.

[RFEngineer]

“In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.”

These are your words, not mine.

Having drug addicts live with personal responsibility and consequences of their freedom is something that is entirely constitutional, yet that is entirely absent discussions about legalizing drugs.

In other words, give me my drugs, and pay for my consequence. In other words “gimme gimme gimme”.

I think the legalize drugs crowd really just love their drugs, and have no special reverence for the Constitution.

If you love the Constitution, then with legalized drugs would come no drug treatment, real throw-away-the-key punishments for crime related to drug use, no “great society” programs, etc. This would, of course, have grave consequences for a great many people, should states legalize drugs (which they won’t do if we are truly going back to Constitutional principles).

So which parts of the Constitution do you want? Just the parts that allow you to get a fix for freedom? Or do you really want the freedom and liberty to choose so poorly you end up dead or in jail for life?

[RFEngineer]

“As far as I know, employer testing is legal and unchallenged. Do you have reason to think otherwise?”

There are generally limits - and usually it is after an incident, or at the beginning of a project. Most employers are compelled to provide drug treatment to employees that test positive, give “second chances”, etc.

If you truly want the freedom to toke, you should willingly accept every consequence that comes about - including getting fired for testing positive for any substance, legal or illegal, that an employer wishes to make a condition of employment - including applying for government benefits, including applying for student loans or grants.

You want the great society AND legal drugs - you don’t truly care about what is and is not constitutional, in my opinion.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

while we don’t generally disagree on the merits of states rights, to me, you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them.

In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.

These are your words, not mine.

My words accurately express your position - and I'll be happy to keep both sets of words in each post so FReepers can judge for themselves.

Having drug addicts live with personal responsibility and consequences of their freedom is something that is entirely constitutional, yet that is entirely absent discussions about legalizing drugs.

And legalization of drugs is entirely absent from discussions about ending welfare. People tend to discuss one issue at a time - nothing nefarious there.

In other words, give me my drugs, and pay for my consequence.

Nonsense - there's no basis for concluding from one's silence on issue X while discussing issue Y that one holds any particular view about issue X.

If you love the Constitution, then with legalized drugs would come no drug treatment,

I fully support an end to federal funding of drug treatment.

real throw-away-the-key punishments for crime related to drug use,

The Constitution is silent on that point. I think real crimes with actual victims (murder, theft, etc.) should be punished without regard to the lawbreaker's drunkness, druggedness, or lack of same - 'I was drunk/drugged' should be neither a mitigating nor an aggravating factor.

no “great society” programs, etc.

I fully support an end to such programs.

This would, of course, have grave consequences for a great many people, should states legalize drugs (which they won’t do if we are truly going back to Constitutional principles).

How do Constitutional principles stand in the way of states legalizing drugs? The Constitution says it's each state's decision to make since no authority over the matter is granted to the federal government.

So which parts of the Constitution do you want?

All of it - and the more the better. I'd never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate.

do you really want the freedom and liberty to choose so poorly you end up dead

Yes. Do you want to return to Prohibition of the potentially fatal drug alcohol?

or in jail for life?

Not sure what you're trying to ask - if one ends up in jail, it should be only for doing something one has no legitimate liberty to do.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

As far as I know, employer testing is legal and unchallenged. Do you have reason to think otherwise?

There are generally limits - and usually it is after an incident, or at the beginning of a project.

Do you have evidence, beyond your by-definition limited personal experience, for these claims?

Most employers are compelled to provide drug treatment to employees that test positive, give “second chances”, etc.

Compelled by what statute?

If you truly want the freedom to toke, you should willingly accept every consequence that comes about - including getting fired for testing positive for any substance, legal or illegal, that an employer wishes to make a condition of employment -

I fully support that.

including applying for government benefits, including applying for student loans or grants.

So if government denies benefits or loans to tobacco or alcohol users, that's OK with you? What about readers of Marxist literature?

You want the great society

You want to lie about me because you can't refute my actual position.

[RFEngineer]

“Do you have evidence, beyond your by-definition limited personal experience, for these claims? “

If you got out more and did actual work, you’d know this to be true.

“Compelled by what statute? “

Lawsuits for wrongful termination, among other things. Again, if you had done something that actually resulted in you employing people doing actual work, you’d know this.

“You want to lie about me because you can’t refute my actual position.”

Do you always immediately go to MAX WHINE when someone disagrees with you?

[RFEngineer]

“My words accurately express your position”

Whatever you say, Kreskin.

“And legalization of drugs is entirely absent from discussions about ending welfare. People tend to discuss one issue at a time - nothing nefarious there.”

So personal responsibility is so far from drug legalization in your opinion, that they aren’t even worthy of discussion together? Gotcha.

“Nonsense - there’s no basis for concluding from one’s silence on issue X while discussing issue Y that one holds any particular view about issue X. “

Except when X = Y.

“I fully support an end to federal funding of drug treatment. “

Ok, great. We agree on something.

“All of it - and the more the better. I’d never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate. “

I advocate to the contrary. The “legalize” crowd wants to pick and choose. They want their drugs now AND their disability checks from Uncle Sam.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Do you have evidence, beyond your by-definition limited personal experience, for these claims?

If you got out more and did actual work, you’d know this to be true.

I've been steadily employed for 22 years and I don't know it to be true.

Guess what, blowhard? Your personal experiences don't support claims about what is "generally" or "usually" true for "most."

[text posted but most recently omitted by RFEngineer:] You want the great society

You want to lie about me because you can’t refute my actual position.

Do you always immediately go to MAX WHINE when someone disagrees with you?

No, I point it out when someone lies about me. And when they try to hide the evidence.

Lies, personal attacks, invalid generalizations ... yup, it's a Drug Warrior.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

[underlined text omitted by RFEngineer:] while we don’t generally disagree on the merits of states rights, to me, you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them.

In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.

These are your words, not mine.

My words accurately express your position - and I'll be happy to keep both sets of words in each post so FReepers can judge for themselves.

Whatever you say, Kreskin.

I've restored the text you omitted, so that FReepers can judge for themselves.

And legalization of drugs is entirely absent from discussions about ending welfare. People tend to discuss one issue at a time - nothing nefarious there.

So personal responsibility is so far from drug legalization in your opinion, that they aren’t even worthy of discussion together?

I never said nor implied that. Your feeble straw man argument is duly noted for the record. One may certainly discuss them together - and one may discuss them separately without implying anything about one's position on either one.

Nonsense - there’s no basis for concluding from one’s silence on issue X while discussing issue Y that one holds any particular view about issue X.

Except when X = Y.

In this case it doesn't: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs.

All of it - and the more the better. I’d never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate.

I advocate to the contrary.

False - you said, "you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them."

The “legalize” crowd wants to pick and choose. They want their drugs now AND their disability checks from Uncle Sam.

Then go argue with them. I want all Constitutional limits obeyed - unlike you.

[RFEngineer]

“Lies, personal attacks, invalid generalizations ... yup, it’s a Drug Warrior.”

Exaggerations, hypersensitivity, and more whining about perceived unfairness.....a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain.

What was it? a bad batch of ecstacy? Pesticide in your hookah?

“I’ve been steadily employed for 22 years and I don’t know it to be true. “

Congratulations. Try being an employer. That’s when you have to be an adult and worry about people like you failing a piss-test, and having to coddle you with “counseling” instead of firing you like you deserve.

[RFEngineer]

“In this case it doesn’t: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs. “

Pay attention stoner!

X = Personal Responsibility for ones legalized drug use
Y = Legalizing Drugs

They must go hand-in-hand, because they are the same argument.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

In this case it doesn’t: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs.

Pay attention stoner!

X = Personal Responsibility for ones legalized drug use

So you don't think personal responsibility for one's legalized drug use means ending welfare? Don't drink and post.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Lies, personal attacks, invalid generalizations ... yup, it’s a Drug Warrior.

whining about perceived unfairness

Where did I do that? Looks like another of your lies.

.....a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain.

What was it? a bad batch of ecstacy? Pesticide in your hookah?

And more personal attacks. Keep making my case for me.

[RFEngineer]

“So you don’t think personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use means ending welfare? Don’t drink and post.”

I’m keeping it simple for you, since you aren’t tracking too well.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

So you don’t think personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use means ending welfare? Don’t drink and post.

I’m keeping it simple for you, since you aren’t tracking too well.

So now you'd have us believe that "personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use" is simpler than "ending welfare"? Dance, clown, dance.

[RFEngineer]

“And more personal attacks. Keep making my case for me. “

I already want you to have your drugs, if your state wants you to be able to have them. I just don’t think they’ll want you to have them if the users in and the lawmakers of a state actually have to live with the consequences.

I was just asking you a question, it wasn’t a personal attack. Have you ever used ecstacy? I’ve seen it affect other people like you are affected. It’s sad, really.

[RFEngineer]

“So now you’d have us believe that “personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use” is simpler than “ending welfare”? Dance, clown, dance.”

Simpler? No, it’s more complicated. See what I mean? You just aren’t tracking too well. It was ecstacy, wasn’t it?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I already want you to have your drugs, if your state wants you to be able to have them. I just don’t think they’ll want you to have them if the users in and the lawmakers of a state actually have to live with the consequences.

So you no longer hold that "you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them"?

I was just asking you a question, it wasn’t a personal attack.

"a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain." is not a question.

Have you ever used ecstacy?

No.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

In this case it doesn’t: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs.

Pay attention stoner!

X = Personal Responsibility for ones legalized drug use

So you don't think personal responsibility for one's legalized drug use means ending welfare?

I’m keeping it simple for you, since you aren’t tracking too well.

So now you'd have us believe that "personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use" is simpler than "ending welfare"? Dance, clown, dance.

Simpler? No, it’s more complicated.

I referred to "ending welfare" (see above) and you then addressed "personal responsibility for one's legalized drug use" which you explained as "keeping it simple for" me. Now you've reversed yourself. Don't drink and post.

[RFEngineer]

“So you no longer hold that “you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them”? “

Read it again. It might seem complicated to you, but it’s actually in complete congruence with your own stated position on the Constitution. However, if like many stoners, you are doomed to not be able to follow a concept from beginning to end, you could misunderstand that statement. You have done exactly that.

“”a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain.” is not a question. “

You are right. That was a statement of fact.

When I said “What was it? a bad batch of ecstacy? Pesticide in your hookah?” You’ll note is actually 3 questions.

You can count the number of question marks to be sure (and I only used one question mark per question - to keep it easy for you)

You must have missed them.

“No.”

So why can’t you track the conversation properly? I was really counting on it being ecstacy, but I suppose it could be any number of things. Which was it?