A safer society? Legalize drugs

The Boston Globe ^ | June 6, 2006 | Bill Fried

[LowCountryJoe]

Meanwhile, politicians puff sanctimoniously about ``cleaning the streets" and ``ridding the projects of drug dealers

[Lazamataz]

All I ever get is knee jerk responses and slogans fromboth sides.

Tippecanoe and Tyler too. If it saves one child, it's worth it. Never give bacon to a Jew. Avoid folding, spindling, or mutilating.

[mugs99]

But as was pointed out to me, we would probably wind up doing as other countries have done. By legalizing drugs, we would still be spending money on the lowlifes by giving them clean needles, setting up clinics where they could get free drugs safely and all that. So we probably wouldn't see much in the way of savings for the taxpayers.

The ones doing the pointing are not telling the truth. "Harm reduction" in Switzerland and the Netherlands has not increased drug use. Harm reduction has lowered violent crime and AIDS. Harm reduction gets the addicted off drugs and back in the labor pool. If your addiction causes you to be a danger to yourself or others you must seek treatment or they will lock you up. Harm reduction has saved the taxpayers money.
.

[jmc813]

Robby, the prohibitionistic socialist faction you represent will ~never~ agree to "cutting off welfare".

I beleive that RP is sincere about being anti-welfare. The thing is, though, that he is in a tiny minority of anti-libertarians. The vast majority of them are subscribers to Bush's brand of "compassionate conservatism" and defend nonsense such as the Medicare Prescription crap as well as No Child Left Behind.

[Badray]

So drug use is only 60 years old?

People have used substances for hundreds of years, if not longer.

Toast with grape juice then. Why use alcohol? Especially those who don't drink will tell you that impairment begins with the first drink and that toast will impair those who abstain more than it will a regular drinker.

I didn't say that people used good judgment, but I know people who use drugs that don't get wasted and hold down steady jobs and have for years.

[Badray]

Agreed, 100%.

That is a perfect example of who should be helped and those who shouldn't.

Are you anywhere near the North Hills of Pittsburgh?

The reason that I ask is that a bunch of FReepers and other conservative and libertarian minded people get together the first Wednesday of each month (that's today) at Silvioni's Restaurant on Babcock Blvd.

If you are in the area and in the mood, stop by. The meeting starts at 7, but most get there early for dinner. Afterwards, most stay to enjoy an adult beverage or to light up a fine cigar.

[Badray]

That's not just a slogan, that's the brand name of the drug.

[socialismisinsidious]

Well, isn't that special!

What a bunch of dopes...pun intended.

[fatnotlazy]

Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, I have evening classes on Wednesdays. But if it ever happens that I can get away, I will do so. Sounds like fun.

[tpaine]

Robby, the prohibitionistic socialist faction you represent will ~never~ agree to "cutting off welfare". 'Social benefit programs' give them the excuse needed for more control over society. - Which is the main agenda.
Nice spin on your normal agitprop tho...

I beleive that RP is sincere about being anti-welfare. The thing is, though, that he is in a tiny minority of anti-libertarians.

You seem to be able to ignore his socialist style endorsements supporting prohibitions on most any-damn-thing. Anyone that committed to 'controlling society' is suspect in my estimation .

[robertpaulsen]

"So drug use is only 60 years old?"

I was pointing out that alcohol has always been part of our culture and that drug use has not. Not only that, but drug use was actually part of the counterculture in the 1950's and 60's.

"but I know people who use drugs that don't get wasted and hold down steady jobs and have for years"

And we should overturn our drug laws because you know a few people who work for employers who don't test for drugs. And when their employer does test and they lose their job, who are they going to blame? (Hint: Not themselves.)

[robertpaulsen]

"Anyone that committed to 'controlling society' is suspect in my estimation."

I'll end the suspense -- I'm anti-welfare. Moreso than those libertarians who believe in socialistic programs such as free needles, free methadone, and free drug treatment programs.

[mugs99]

I was pointing out that alcohol has always been part of our culture and that drug use has not.

Baloney...Drug use has been a part of our culture since the beginning!
.

[jmc813]

I'll end the suspense -- I'm anti-welfare.

I believe you. I realize tpaine is suspicious, but unless their integrity is proven bad elsewhere on FR, I tend to take freepers for their word.

Moreso than those libertarians who believe in socialistic programs such as free needles, free methadone, and free drug treatment programs.

People who favor such programs might call themselves libertarians, but they are really anything but.It's like Bill Mahar calling himself a libertarian despite being pro-gun control or certain freepers considering President Bush to be "conservative" despite his large-government leanings.

[robertpaulsen]

"Baloney...Drug use has been a part of our culture since the beginning!"

Recreational drugs. And they have not.

[satchmodog9]

Culture of corruption.

[mugs99]

Recreational drugs. And they have not.

You must be basing your view of early America on 1940s Hollywood movies. Smoking opium was taxed from colonial times to 1909. It was not until the post civil war Chinese 'guest workers' that opium fell from favor.
.

[tpaine]

Robby, the prohibitionistic socialist faction you represent will ~never~ agree to "cutting off welfare". 'Social benefit programs' give them the excuse needed for more control over society. - Which is the main agenda.
Nice spin on your normal agitprop tho...

jmc:
I beleive that RP is sincere about being anti-welfare. The thing is, though, that he is in a tiny minority of anti-libertarians.

You seem to be able to ignore his socialist style endorsements supporting prohibitions on most any-damn-thing.
--- Coupled with his constant support for 'majority rule' schemes...

Anyone that committed to 'controlling society' is suspect in my estimation .

paulsen:
I'll end the suspense -- I'm anti-welfare.

How bout if the people so rule? What's to stop out of control welfare schemes in a State where paulsen says the US Constitution can be ignored? [see below]

jmc:
I believe you. I realize tpaine is suspicious, but unless their integrity is proven bad elsewhere on FR, I tend to take freepers for their word.

I do too. -- And believe me that in this case Constitutional integrity has proved to be sorely lacking:

Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen _

[rebelyell]

Paine, do you never tire of beating up these dolts?


lol

[tpaine]

"Baloney...Drug use has been a part of our culture since the beginning!"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


robbie:

Recreational drugs. And they have not.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



paulsen's agitprop never stops:



History of the Non-Medical Use of
Drugs in the United States
Address:http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/history/whiteb1.htm


The Situation in 1900

If you are interested in the non-medical use of drugs in this country, the time to go back to is 1900, and in some ways the most important thing I am going to say to you guys I will say first.
That is, that in 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today. Depending upon whose judgment, or whose assessment, you accept there were between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900.

[tpaine]

Hey, somebody has to get their hands dirty.. -- And I was told years ago that mine were 'unclean' to begin with...