Cabin-dwelling recluse Planned Parenthood gunman was once a happily married father&art dealer but

I think you lack sufficient understanding of addiction and what it does to the mind and how those around them suffer. It is not a self inflicted only blight...it affects many people around those who suffer addiction.

Legalization will undoubtedly result in increase in abuse, crime, addiction, etc. Libertarians want to pretend that the world is run by man’s perfect reasoning (libertarianism) but in reality, libertarian philosophy makes the exact same mistakes ultimately that Nazism, Communism, etc. make. The negate God from their consideration.

Illegal cigarettes are not really a suitable case study for drugs which alter minds. You probably should read some information on how addiction to drugs (including alcohol) impacts the minds of those afflicted. I think you will maybe alter your stance on this subject.

BTW, I would be for making alcohol illegal...gasp!!! LOL

The vast majority of those who do crime do have drugs or alcohol in their system...

What is not measured in crime are the broken homes, the cheating of spouses, the abuse in the home, etc. that drugs and alcohol causes. Not to mention the impact it has on children who are raised in this unhealthy atmosphere.

It is not a self inflicted only blight...it affects many people around those who suffer addiction.

If I quit my job to pursue my dream of being a professional competitive surfer, that affects many people around me ... but it's none of the government's business. The test for legitimacy of government compulsion is not "effect" but the much narrower "violation of rights" - which drug sale and use are, in and of themselves, not.

legalization (without overtaxation or overregulation) will lower the price of a fix and thus the crime needed to pay for it.

Legalization will undoubtedly result in increase in abuse, crime

So you claim - with no rebuttal for my point above. Advantage, me.

Illegal cigarettes are a factor only in those liberal cities that tax them astronomically; if legal-pot states don't excessively tax or restrict market entry, illegal pot will eventually be about as big as illegal alcohol.

Illegal cigarettes are not really a suitable case study for drugs which alter minds.

My economic argument applies to any desired product, mind-altering or not. And alcohol is a drug which alters minds - yet is not sold illegally (to any significant extent) because it's available legally.

I would be for making alcohol illegal

We tried that already and found it did more harm than good: Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure.

the vast majority of those who do violent crime have some drug/alcohol in their blood system.

The vast majority of those who have some drug/alcohol in their blood system don't do violent crime.

The vast majority of those who do crime do have drugs or alcohol in their system...

You do, I hope, understand that your statement does not contradict mine?

I don’t know HTML and not interested in learning so that is why I answer the way I do...besides it would be too cumbersome anyway.

First fact of life...man is flawed, man’s reasoning is ultimately flawed. Your example of you taking up surfing is perfect for that. If you injure someone with your surfboard or, if becoming a surfer causes you to hurt others you might have some kind of reasoning to match the one I made regarding addiction. Mood altering drugs, including alcohol changes us...it does affect others directly. It is not like anything you can use an analogy to compare...I would agree most people do not abuse enough to cause others harm...but, the numbers of those who do...mostly under the radar...do great harm. We haven’t even broached the deaths and injuries by impaired driving...

I am not sure your legalization without over taxation and over regulation holds true. Of course it depends upon those factors somewhat...but that isn’t the whole denominator either. Other supply and demand factors come into play. Your assumption that inexpensive drugs are a crime limiting tactic are also assumptions which I think can hardly be applied with confidence. As I keep explaining drug and alcohol use changes our minds...makes us more likely to do harm intentionally or unintentionally. One can be a one time user/drinker and do great harm. Habitual use guarantees great harm to others. To ignore that is to not understand the problem. My claim on this is truth...you can research it yourself and try to disprove it if you like. It is so obvious that there is not a need to provide further data.

Your “economic” argument is not a valid economic argument because you make false assumptions in your argument. Libertarians are nearly always thinking they are economic experts...but rarely are. I actually studied economics in college...minored in it. But have used sound economic analysis throughout my career to enjoy a fair amount of success.

But, having said that...a deeper truth needs to be realized to bring one to understand that economics is a study of value...but not a determinant in and of itself of value. There are other considerations to value that are relevant. Those are moral laws. Specifically God’s moral laws. When we break those we literally break the weave as created and suffer. Those around us suffer from our lack of moral consideration. Drugs and alcohol thus end up hurting others by its intrinsic changing of the minds of the users making the proclivity to do harm to others higher. This is getting a bit philosophical/theological, but any deep truth has to. One cannot truly find truth simply quantitatively or “scientifically” with quantifiable analysis. That is why, when we forget or ignore God’s morality we as men ultimately fail in our reasoning to commit great harm. A great example are the Nazi’s who were very scientifically oriented in their notions of superior race. The immorality of killing millions of Jews were justified via their Darwinian/Nietzsche basis. Libertarians in their exclusive “economic” reasoning without moral consideration make the same mistake.

Abortion is a great example of that...under Libertarian thought abortion is a decision best made by the mother...completely ignoring the baby’s God given right to life. Abortion has been worse than the Nazi’s holocaust and is the most barbaric act in human history.

I already explained your flawed economic thinking comparing other things (non mind affecting) to drug addiction...

We did not have our heart into it...and I would like to see us do it by changing the hearts and minds (educating) people of the beauty of sobriety. However, I am not convinced that more harm would be done through prohibition if there was government cooperation at local levels, which there was not. There was corruption...

My statement that most who do criminal acts are either under the affects of drugs and/or alcohol or are regular users whose minds have been altered by it.

I think the difference mainly in our thinking is that you do not consider the mind altering affects of drugs and alcohol nor really care that others are harmed because of that. I have personal experience and thus understand it more clearly probably. To argue that ignoring the detrimental affects of drugs and alcohol are appropriate is to ignore the understanding of the argument.

Mood altering drugs, including alcohol changes us...it does affect others directly. It is not like anything you can use an analogy to compare...

My job change also affects others directly - the analogy holds.

We haven't even broached the deaths and injuries by impaired driving...

It's unjust and immoral to punish ALL drinkers and druggers for the impaired driving done by SOME drinkers and druggers. And lack of sleep also impairs driving ... but it's not the government's business to set adults' bedtimes.

if legal-pot states don't excessively tax or restrict market entry, illegal pot will eventually be about as big as illegal alcohol.

Of course it depends upon those factors somewhat...but that isn't the whole denominator either. Other supply and demand factors come into play.

Unless you can show that those other factors systematically boost the competitiveness of illegal as compared to legal drugs more than they do for the drug alcohol, your observation does not refute my argument.

legalization (without overtaxation or overregulation) will lower the price of a fix and thus the crime needed to pay for it.

drug and alcohol use changes our minds...makes us more likely to do harm intentionally or unintentionally.

And yet the numbers show that murder was higher during Prohibition than before or after.

Your "economic" argument is not a valid economic argument because you make false assumptions in your argument.

So you claim. What are those alleged false assumptions?

Drugs and alcohol thus end up hurting others by its intrinsic changing of the minds of the users making the proclivity to do harm to others higher.

Prohibtions end up hurting others more by their intrinsic giving to criminals the means and motive to greater violence.

I am not convinced that more harm would be done through prohibition if there was government cooperation at local levels, which there was not. There was corruption...

Corruption is also an inevitable byproduct of prohibitions, which inflate profits and restrict them to the hands of criminals who can thus more readily bribe humanly flawed government agents.

you do not consider the mind altering affects of drugs and alcohol nor really care that others are harmed because of that.

False - I have addressed both points ... you just don't like my responses.

Your job change does not endanger others...so it does not apply no where near equal to addiction problems.

Depriving people of mood and mind altering drugs and alcohol is not a punishment. Using them is a punishment.

But, this is going to be my last post because we are just going back and forth and in your libertarianism you are not conducive to looking at factual information fully. Your lack of understanding value...which is literally what economic science is the study of is why you do not have valid assumptions. You try to simply say, oh, freedom freedom, freedom, without any restrictions other than those you arbitrarily come up with. It is like looking at the surface of the glass window without peering through to see what is actually on the other side. Or, in another way to put it, you are viewing 2 dimensions in a 4 dimensional world.

However, I will relate a real life story that just happened last week in our area. Husband and wife separated...husband drinks too much and is abusive from alcohol changing his brain. He calls the wife and begs her to meet him and see if they can work it out. They go out he gets drunk...she leaves him there. He gets ride to his home (not hers) he gets a gun drives in his car over to his house kills the wife. Calls the daughter telling her that he had killed her mother and was going to kill himself. The daughter talks him out of killing himself. He called the police who arrested him.

Now, what you think is that well, until he committed the crime he was fine. He wasn’t...there was great damage already done to not only the wife and his kids but to employees (he owned a business) and those close to him by any other means. In other words, way before the crime in which you would limit your analysis to, there was great harm being done.

Reasoning without God’s morality ALWAYS goes bad eventually, by the influence of evil into our lives. That is more factual than your misguided version of economic science which you really do not understand well anyway.

But, you are free to believe whatever you desire ConservingFreedom. So best of luck to you and yours.

Mood altering drugs, including alcohol changes us...it does affect others directly. It is not like anything you can use an analogy to compare...

My job change also affects others directly - the analogy holds.

Your job change does not endanger others...

Move those goal posts: from "affect" to "endanger". Government may legitimately act against clear and present dangers - but only a tiny minority of uses of mood altering drugs end in harm, so clearly such use is not endangering.

Depriving people of mood and mind altering drugs and alcohol is not a punishment.

Imprisoning (or even fining) them for possession of alcohol or other drugs IS a punishment.

if legal-pot states don't excessively tax or restrict market entry, illegal pot will eventually be about as big as illegal alcohol.

Of course it depends upon those factors somewhat...but that isn't the whole denominator either. Other supply and demand factors come into play.

No response to this point?

legalization (without overtaxation or overregulation) will lower the price of a fix and thus the crime needed to pay for it.

drug and alcohol use changes our minds...makes us more likely to do harm intentionally or unintentionally.

And yet the numbers show that murder was higher during Prohibition than before or after.

No response to this point?

Your "economic" argument is not a valid economic argument because you make false assumptions in your argument.

So you claim. What are those alleged false assumptions?

Your lack of understanding value...which is literally what economic science is the study of is why you do not have valid assumptions.

That's a baby step toward an answer; what "value" have I allegedly not understood?

Drugs and alcohol thus end up hurting others by its intrinsic changing of the minds of the users making the proclivity to do harm to others higher.

Prohibtions end up hurting others more by their intrinsic giving to criminals the means and motive to greater violence.

No response to this point?

I am not convinced that more harm would be done through prohibition if there was government cooperation at local levels, which there was not. There was corruption...

Corruption is also an inevitable byproduct of prohibitions, which inflate profits and restrict them to the hands of criminals who can thus more readily bribe humanly flawed government agents.

No response to this point?

there was great damage already done to not only the wife and his kids but to employees (he owned a business) and those close to him by any other means. In other words, way before the crime in which you would limit your analysis to, there was great harm being done.

Such harms are not government's business - any more than the financial and psychological harm I'd do by quitting my job to pursue my dream of being a professional competitive surfer.

Reasoning without God's morality ALWAYS goes bad eventually

Must everything immoral be illegal?

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.