Posted on 06/24/2010 9:12:15 PM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
The central conceit of the Left is their regard for outcome above principle, results above rights. “Progressivism” repackages the age-old idea that society has a collective right superior to the individual’s. We saw this in the argument for universal health care, where the Left regarded the outcome of “universal coverage” above the principle of personal liberty.
Unfortunately, this conceit is not limited to the Left. Social conservatives are willing to borrow à la carte from statist arguments when the results suit their taste. No issue evokes this phenomenon more than drug control policy.
NewsRealBlog hosted much debate on the legalization of marijuana over the weekend. The discussion was prompted by Sarah Palin’s recent statement that private in-home consumption is a negligible concern. Calvin Freiburger objected to the characterization of prohibition as a liberty issue, citing among his supporters Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and John Locke. Though Calvin is clearly not a statist, his argument depends upon a fundamentally statist belief.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Nonetheless that's never going to happen, hence the "War on Drugs(TM)", instituted under Richard Nixon. This is the single biggest issue I have with Republicans and there is little if anything to choose between demmy and pubby pols on the issue. The "war on drugs" leads to
It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/weapons-ban-urged-to-rein-in-mexican-drug-war/
The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.
Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.
"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."
The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.
A rational set of drug laws would:
Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?
Marijuana prohibition particularly has an onerous history, starting with the lies and manipulations of Harry Anslinger and the blatantly unconstitutional enforcement of the Marijuana Tax Act. Then we had the Shafer Commission report.
Raymond Shafer was apparenly a man of good politically conservative values and tried to objectively report the results of the resarch into the effects of marijuana, without trying to cherry pick or manipulate the date to reach a pre-ordained conclusion or "spin" the results. He got pilloried and the report buried.
Most of the information you do see coming from the government can be traced back to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. You'll find they have a long and odious history of liberal political activism and manipulating their research data and spinning their publications to support it.
It's all out of whack.
I’ve lived in countries that don’t have zoning laws.
Heck, my last apartment in South Korea was below a church... which was below a video store...which was below a gym... which was below a massage parlor.
So, tell me again how bad it gets without zoning laws?
As much as I hate child pornography, I can't let this argument stand, because it ignores one basic avenue of child pornography very common in Japan.
That is the animated cartoons (anime). It's a pretty common sight to see DVDs of animated child porn.
And your assertion is that the only way to create child porn is via rape. So, my question is, how does any child get raped in anime?
And if there isn't any rape, then is it legal (should it be legal)?
On murder social conservatives trend statist.
On rape social conservatives trend statist.
On DUI social conservatives trend statist.
Outstanding strawmen. But par for you drug warriors.
Progressivism is not Statism.
If I may, I’ll take a crack at the question as to how a L/libertarian can oppose the gay agenda.
The gay agenda wants laws to be passed that confer upon them the same privileges extended to heterosexuals (e.g., marriage, automatic transfer of certain benefits upon death), as well as laws that make them “more equal” (e.g., hate crime laws). Not to forget of course the desire to require that everyone accept their [public] behavior, while at the same time not tolerating the behaviors or actions of those who disagree with them.
A libertarian, on the other hand, would likely first believe that marriage is an issue which with the state shouldn’t even be involved (it’s a contract between two individuals, barring any religious aspects of course), so they probably would be against gay marriage primarily because it’s yet another case of the government getting involved where it shouldn’t. Likewise for any other position where the gay agenda advocates for special rights, privileges or protection — at the end of the day, the state shouldn’t be involved in this.
In short, the gay agenda wants the government to use its power to enforce special laws aimed only at other gays (or for laws restricting the actions of those who are against the gay agenda). The libertarian does not want the government to take any of these measures. The libertarian can be aligned with a person who happens to be gay, but not a person who supports the gay agenda.
How many people now smoke as compared to 20 years ago? Smoking is legal, but somehow the government managed to keep it to a minimum by advertising and making laws confining places where one can smoke. Alcohol is legal, yet drunk driving is punished. Could we not do the same thing with drugs? If the use of drugs is confined and made socially unacceptable, wouldn't that eventually cause a decrease in use? Just asking for the sake of debate.
There is always going to be people who choose to destroy their lives. We can offer as much help to them as possible in order to improve their chances of becoming useful citizens, but ultimately, I believe that we all live lives that are determined by the choices we make. Those who choose Jesus Christ have the best chance of having a good and fruitful life, and are equipped to give the maximum help to those who make poor choices.
Oh yes it is.
exactly the same thing
“More likely legalizing pot will be followed by legalizing the illegal invaders who grow the stuff. Then we’ll redistribute our national forests to the invaders so they can keep growing drugs on them.”
The cartels spend a lot of money on irrigation pipe, pesticide, fertilizer and security for their ‘farms’ in our national forests. This only makes sense if they don’t have much competition and get a sufficient payback on their investment. Some Californians can already grow a small number of plants for their personal use if they have one of those ‘doctor’s notes’. Apparently this isn’t enough competition to discourage the Mexican cartels from farming our forests. But greater competition ought to put them out of the pot business.
Oh, you mean its AGAINST THE LAW? Now why would that be? Why isn't the age of consent 12 or 14? And why isn't it OK for them to be in naked peep shows bumping and grinding and simulating the sex? Even amongst each other - no adults in the film? IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE SOCIETAL STANDARDS OF ACCEPTED ACTIVITY CODIFIED BY LAW. Therefore child exploitation is considered RAPE, or similar. Of course, you have NAMBLA types and homo groups trying to change the laws
Laws are moral judgments. All of them are. If you want to argue that the FEDERAL gov't has no business making laws regarding drugs, I'm all ears. Just as federal gov't shouldn't be making laws regarding porn. These are state issues, as the constitution spells out the limitations of federal law-making.
HOWEVER, social conservatives will and do support states' laws banning or regulating both porn and drugs, and it has nothing to do with 'trending statist'. It has everything to do with common sense and accepted, time tested, moral judgments.
As for your bleating on about heroin, I was responding directly to another poster regarding heroin. And since you're so libertine about maryjane, WHY NOT HEROIN? Be consistent. PCP. LSD. Meth. Ketamine. Ecstasy. etc etc
“150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out? “
In fact there was a widespread drug problem in the US that started almost exactly 150 years ago. The Civil War left a huge number badly injured soldiers in its wake and many of them became addicted to morphine. But late 19th century drug addiction wasn’t limited to disabled vets. Powerful drugs were widely available in patent medicines sold over the counter. The main restriction on 19th century drug abuse is the fact that a good number of compounds weren’t synthesized until the 1800s.
Depends on who is making up the definition I suppose.
How can you say that it is in the states power to regulate what a person consumes? What they do in the privacy of their own homes? Where is that power granted? In mazes of laws and regulations? Who gave them that power to write these laws and impose these regulations?
Once you give away a piece of your freedom, you have given them the right to any freedom they wish to seize. We are seeing that play out today.
The slope leads to the state telling you what you can eat, where you can live, how big your dwelling can be, what you can do with the land you rent from the government.
“There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.
All laws are moral judgments
What was the states response to the soldiers that had become addicted to morphine? They made it harder to obtain a product that was very effective at relieving their pain. One that they could walk into any drugstore and for a pittance purchase a pain reliever. Did some abuse it? Of course they did. Are people abusing alcohol? Of course they still are.
Want to save the world? Do it yourself, don’t use the state power of force. Government is force at the point of a gun. Develop another pain reliever that is not addictive that is superior in effectiveness than the substance that is addictive.
In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many per capita as there are today.
My note: The population in 1880 was 50 million, so the addiction rate to opium alone was 0.8%. The DEA goes on to say:
By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict.
That is a 0.5% addiction rate counting cocaine and opium addicts.
¹http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
“Want to save the world? Do it yourself, don’t use the state power of force. Government is force at the point of a gun. Develop another pain reliever that is not addictive that is superior in effectiveness than the substance that is addictive.”
Since I never mentioned what my own views are regrading drug prohibition it’s curious to see you assume that you know what they are. Smoking too much, maybe?
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.