Posted on 03/28/2006 10:51:21 PM PST by goldstategop
Getting high can be bad. Putting people in prison for it is worse. And doing the latter doesn't stop the former.
I was once among the majority who believe that drug use must be illegal. But then I noticed that when vice laws conflict with the law of supply and demand, the conflict is ugly, and the law of supply and demand generally wins.
The drug war costs taxpayers about $40 billion. "Up to three quarters of our budget can somehow be traced back to fighting this war on drugs," said Jerry Oliver, then chief of police in Detroit, told me. Yet the drugs are as available as ever.
Oliver was once a big believer in the war. Not anymore. "It's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again," he says. "If we did not have this drug war going on, we could spend more time going after robbers and rapists and burglars and murderers. That's what we really should be geared up to do. Clearly we're losing the war on drugs in this country."
No, we're "winning," according to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which might get less money if people thought it was losing. Prosecutors hold news conferences announcing the "biggest seizure ever." But what they confiscate makes little difference. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons -- do we really think we can keep them out of all of America?
Even as the drug war fails to reduce the drug supply, many argue that there are still moral reasons to fight the war. "When we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans," said President Bush. But the war destroys American souls, too. America locks up a higher percentage of her people than almost any other country. Nearly 4,000 people are arrested every day for mere possession of drugs. That's more people than are arrested for aggravated assault, burglary, vandalism, forcible rape and murder combined.
Authorities say that warns people not to mess with drugs, and that's a critical message to send to America's children. "Protecting the children" has justified many intrusive expansions of government power. Who wants to argue against protecting children?
I have teenage kids. My first instinct is to be glad cocaine and heroin are illegal. It means my kids can't trot down to the local drugstore to buy something that gets them high. Maybe that would deter them.
Or maybe not. The law certainly doesn't prevent them from getting the drugs. Kids say illegal drugs are no harder to get than alcohol.
Perhaps a certain percentage of Americans will use or abuse drugs -- no matter what the law says.
I cannot know. What I do know now, however, are some of the unintended consequences of drug prohibition:
1. More crime. Rarely do people get high and then run out to commit crimes. Most "drug crime" happens because the product is illegal. Since drug sellers can't rely on the police to protect their property, they form gangs and arm themselves. Drug buyers steal to pay the high black market prices. The government says alcohol is as addictive as heroin, but no one is knocking over 7-Elevens to get Budweiser.
2. More terrorism. The profits of the drug trade fund terrorists from Afghanistan to Colombia. Our herbicide-spraying planes teach South American farmers to hate America.
3. Richer criminal gangs. Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone. The gangs drug prohibition is creating are even richer, probably rich enough to buy nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden was funded partly by drug money.
Government's declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them. It just creates a black market, where even nastier things happen. That's why I have come to think that although drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
Neo-Tech and it's messiah [INSERT ONE OF THE CONVICT'S ALIASES HERE].
Not "remembered" globally.
The only real power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. -- So, there is only one way to rule innocent men, by making them into "criminals" with prohibitory 'laws'.
'_fan' comments:
Eloquently written, solidly reasoned, although you would strengthen your argument considerably if you eschewed quoting Ayn Rand. The lady was not sane.
Your own sanity is questionable, seeing that you agree that the principle is "eloquently written, solidly reasoned", yet you object that its author is insane.
When -- the libertarian 'self-determination' crowd -- start winning elections above the level of school district, then I might take what they say more seriously.
Again, its pretty weird to claim you'll take libertarianism 'seriously', - but only when it becomes PC.
Can you explain your own confusions?
Your comment on my sanity was a bit over the top, sport. So much for civility.
Just a bit, seeing that your own civility is in question.
I was referring to the poster's argument in toto,
So was I.
and thought the inclusion of an Ayn Rand quote detracted from that argument, since her objectivist philosophy is essentially a watered-down Nietzschean muddle.
Yep, that's what many non-objective people 'feel' about Rand.
Read Whitaker Chambers' review of 'Atlas Shrugged' for the definitive conservative critique of that work, which I'm sure is available on the 'net somewhere.
Your 'authority', Chambers, was not a constitutional conservative. At best he can be seen as a communitarian.
Insofar as my comment on dismal libertarian electoral performance is concerned, I was pointing out--albeit in a roundabout way--that in our type of government, the value of political philosophies is measured by the vote; the vote is the coin of the realm.
Yep, thats how 'majority rule' people think. Thanks for sharing.
Ergo, libertarianism--as a party, as a platform, as an ideology--is pathetically penniless. I'd use the term 'bankrupt', but that would imply that at some point in the past, the libertarians actually had something worthwhile to say.
They still do. They support our constitution & individual liberties.
The term 'PC' has nothing to do with anything I wrote. So by all means, keep voting Libertarian. Your party is a nice place for like-minded folks to hang out and affirm each others' beliefs
I do not support the 'party'. I support our Constitution.
without needing to submit to the rigor of opposing debate--a rigor, by the way, which you and your buddies don't seem to like much,
I, - like most libertarians, welcome debate. Its infantile bashing, like yours, that initiates flame wars.
given the infantile spitefulness of the ad hominem attacks aimed my way. The insults don't have much effect, though, because in my mind's eye, I can see the Libertarian presidential candidate now, standing in front of his bathroom mirror, practicing his acceptance speech, thinking to himself, 'This year for sure.' And then I break out laughing, drawing strange looks from my kids.
Look again, -- your kids are being very perceptive about weird old dad.
Granted, but the Founders also gave great latitude to the states. Prior to the incorporation of (some of) the federal Bill of Rights, states were pretty much free to do what they wanted (limited, of course, by their own state constitutions).
I believe the 14th amendment took away more state autonomy than the Commerce Clause ever will.
"Gambling is not an immoral activity."
Neither is eating or drinking alcohol. It can be immoral if done to excess.
Roscoe (aka Mojave), hiding from what?
By libertarian theory, it would be the responsibilty of any unwilling bystanders to just look away and mind their own business. The statists!
And "Zon" refuses to answer the bell...
And nationalized abortion and sodomy. Freedom!
please tell me how she was actually harmed. Offended, insulted, shocked, sure. I agree she could be any of these. How was she harmed through force or fraud? Why will no one answer this question? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. She was not "harmed".
Paulsen, -- the harm is intrinsic in your act. Wagging your weenie in public is a forceful aggressive act, intended to offend, insult, & shock your victim, who is entitled to fight back.
-- Now, - in order to stop fights between weenie waggers & their victims on crowded subways, -- we have laws against wagging & flashing.
If the harm is intrinsic, if she was flashed she was harmed, correct?
Correct bobby. You seem to be 'getting it'.. -- You even wrote to Zon a few posts later:
If she was threatened with harm, then I agree she has a case. Now, was this threat real or imagined?
In the other thread that discussed the incident, the guy just stood there, exposed, saying and doing nothing.
The 'threat' is real. The harm is intrinsic in your act. Wagging your weenie in public is a forceful aggressive act, intended to offend, insult, & shock your victim, who is entitled to fight back.
Where's the threat? There is none
Round & round you go paulsen, trying to defend the indefensible.
I say the harm to the rest of society is intrinsic in drugs. And I rest my case.
You can't make a case that private use of drugs harms anyone but the user, -- just as you can't make a case that wagging your weenie in private harms anyone but you.
And what if the perp had been exposing himself to another happy pervert? By libertarian theory, it would be the responsibilty of any unwilling bystanders to just look away and mind their own business. The statists!
You're proving that perverts think differently than us normal people moj.. Thanks for the insight that only people like you can provide. -- You fellas live in a whole different world.
Those whose minds have been shaped by state institutions are inevitably unnatural men.
And what if the perp had been exposing himself to another happy pervert? By libertarian theory, it would be the responsibilty of any unwilling bystanders to just look away and mind their own business. The statists!
You're proving that perverts think differently than us normal people moj.. Thanks for the insight that only people like you can provide. -- You fellas live in a whole different world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those whose minds have been shaped by state institutions are inevitably unnatural men.
450 headsonpikes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I've mentioned before:
Communitarian's are afflicted with a social disease.
Drugs are bad. People who take drugs are bad. Bad people go to Hell when they die. So the government has to do something to prevent bad people from going to Hell.
Ah, shucks. They don't go to dope heaven with Tim Leary?
That's right. Unlike many of you I'm not a group-think communitarian.
Really? Cult-think is different than group-think?
A person lives in the present, not the past nor the future. A person thinks and acts as necessary according to reach a future goal. The more accurate a person can perceive the future the greater their ability to set higher-quality goals and ability to accomplish them.
When this country was founded change occurred slowly. A person didn't have to account for technology advancement. The scientific revolution was the seed that would sprout the industrial revolution that overture to exponential technology advancement .
"Exponential growth starts out slowly and virtually unnoticeable, but beyond the knee of the curve it turns explosive and profoundly transformative. My models show that we are doubling the paradigm-shift rate for technology innovation every decade. ...To express this another way, we won't experience 100 years of technology advance in the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of 20,000 years of progress (again, when measured by today's progress rate), or progress on a level of about 1,000 times greater than what was achieved in the twentieth century". -- The Singularity and Human Destiny, by Patrick Tucker, assistant editor, THE FUTURIST
The article is well worth reading.
A trip through history highlights man's dominance of nature by his continual increased understanding of nature. Science, technology and business -- they're the measure of conscious man. Protecting the individual from the initiation of force so that he may pursue his nature uninterrupted is the purpose of government.
The founders couldn't contemplate our present technologies. They could contemplate the advancement of the power of politics and power of religion.. Why and how could they not contemplate our present technology but could contemplate our present politics and religion? Because politics and religion advance linearly. Exponential advancing technology will dictate linear advancing politics and government. The dictate will be The Universal Constitution. Prohibiting any person, group or government from initiating force, threat of force or fraud against any individual.
The more accurately a person can contemplate future technology advance -- exponential -- the more accurately he or she can predict what government advance -- linear -- will be.
The promise of life is that their is none in death.
Those whose minds have been shaped by state institutions are inevitably unnatural men.
I suspect many of these 'unnatural' men have a catch 22 problem with our rights to life, liberty & property.
They think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty, and therefore anyone who protests this power is crazy, - a belief that 'proves' their point.
They think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty, and therefore anyone who protests this power is crazy, - a belief that 'proves' their point.
Reminds me of the drug czar John Walters rationalization that marijuana is the most addictive drug.
Walters: Marijuana is the most addictive drug. .
Larry Campbell, Mayor of Vancouver: How is that?
Walters: Convicted marijuana users have a choice of going to prison or entering rehab. Most go to rehab.
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.