Posted on 02/16/2010 7:27:44 PM PST by ggrrrrr23456
>>I am interested in how you think that violent crime would be reduced by the legalization of drugs. Can you expand on this please?<<
As I said, 80% of all violent crime is from the drug trade. It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to project that with no more illegal drug trade, the associated crimes would go down as well. No more drug deals, no more drug deals gone bad. No more cartels, no more cartels (and street gangs) killing each other off for turf.
I am not saying crime would go away — it would just be a big dent in it.
Simple thought experiment: Think about all of the Mafia activity back during alcohol prohibition. Now think of all of today's Budweiser and Coors delivery folks and how they completely refuse to shoot at each other or push their products on underage consumers.
Not sure why this calculus is hard for some folks to understand.
>>Take $3 worth of vegetable matter. Make it illegal and worth $3000. Now make it legal again and worth $3.
Not sure why this calculus is hard for some folks to understand.<<
Ripple effects can be difficult to predict, but I think they are clear in this case. Others may think differently.
They “keep sprouting up” because we attack the sprouts, but never the ideological soil in which they flourish.
Brewing your own beer, distilling your own bourbon, etc. is time consuming and messy, and hard to get right.
But if pot were legalized, anyone with fifty square feet of back yard and a temperate climate could grow all he'd ever want for personal use.
Easy and cheap to produce = not much sales volume to tax = not likely to ever be legalized.
It'd be messy for a while, but things would shake out for the better. The return of real freedom, less taxes, less government are worth it IMO.
Anti ALL drugs?
Or just some drugs?
For example, should we reenact the 18th Amendment?
Nicotine is demonstrably an addictive drug which has major health effects, should we make its sale illegal?
Smoking dope isn't my thing, but hemp alone has a myriad of other uses that are difficult to produce in today's silly legal climate.
If they used the same standard as THC, you'd have to outlaw all tomato products because of their nicotine content.
true, but with the likes of muslims .. they have been at war with one part of the world or another since 600 ad.
You can’t fight the ideology. It is what is built into their religion.
Here is a summary on Libertarians:
Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action and even the abolition of the state.
Libertarians, however have viewpoints that range across a political spectrum. They go from pro-property to very anti-property stances. They also range from minimal state views to openly anarchist.
There are Republican-Libertarians which include Ron Paul and also Libertarian-Socialists which include Noam Chomsky. And a Libertarian Party which includes the likes of Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root.
The libertarian-socialist oppose authority and hierarchy in personal relations and social order.
Ron Paul, however, describes himself as a conservative-constitutionalist and libertarian. Paul supports constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees. He opposes the Patriot Act, federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national ID card, domestic surveillance, and the draft. Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states’ rights to decide how to regulate social matters not directly found in the Constitution.
Ron Paul opposes federal regulation of the death penalty,of education,and of marriage. He also opposes the federal War on Drugs. He thinks state have a right to decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical marijuana.
Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics and has authored six books on the subject.He has pledged never to raise taxes and he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul also believes the longterm erosion of the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power through inflation is attributable to its lack of any commodity backing. Paul does not support a complete return to a gold standard, instead preferring to legitimize gold and silver as legal tender and to remove the sales tax on them. He also advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve System.
Paul’s stance on foreign policy is one of consistent nonintervention which avoids war of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations. Thus, it made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others. He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending massive, unaccountable foreign aid.
The National Journal labeled Paul’s overall foreign policies in 2006 as more conservative than 20% of the House and more liberal than 77% of the House.
Paul is affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty.
A libertarian Republican is a person who subscribes to libertarian philosophy while typically voting for and being involved with the United States Republican Party. While a libertarian Democrat is a person who generally supports and upholds a libertarian philosophy while being a member of the Democratic Party of the United States also know as a “libertarian progressive”.
Libertarian Democrats have been a part of U.S. politics since the early 19th century when Presidents Jefferson and Jackson, U.S. Rep. Davy Crockett of Tennessee and civil-rights activist Moorfield Storey supported libertarianism.
Libertarian Democrats support personal liberty, economic liberty, limited government and social responsibility. They are more likely than most Democrats to support tax cuts, the right to keep and bear arms, equal marriage rights, the decriminalization of marijuana, and restrict government-provided services to only “necessary services that cannot currently be provided adequately by the non-government sector (non-profit or for-profit groups).”
Libertarian Republicans often differ from traditional Republicans in their emphasis on protection of civil liberties. The most common belief libertarian Republicans share is fiscal conservatism.
They are strong believers in the traditional Republican principle of economic libertarianism that was advocated by past leaders such as Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul.
Prominent libertarian Republicans include Alan Greenspan, Neal Boortz, Larry Elder,P.J. O’Rourke, Tucker Carlson, Drew Carey, John Stossel, Dennis Miller and Clint Eastwood.
Libertarian Democrat personalities who use ideas within the platform include Stephen Colbert, Denis Leary, Markos Moulitsas, and Russ Feingold among others.
The actual Libertarian Party in the United States was founded on December 11, 1971. In the 30 states where voters can register by party there are over 225,000 voters registered with the Libertarian Party.
The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects that group’s particular brand of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries.
By several measures, the Libertarian Party is considered the largest third party in the United States—a nation which is overwhelmingly dominated by two major parties that typically capture more than 95% of the vote in partisan elections. Libertarians have won hundreds of elective offices, including city mayors and state legislators in a number of states.
Libertarians point to the performance of their presidential candidates, who have often finished above most other permanently-organized third parties. For example, in 2008, Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr received more votes (523,686) than any other third party; although Ralph Nader, running as an Independent, received 725,696.
No other currently active third party has finished third in a presidential election more than once other than the Libertarians.
>Simple thought experiment: Think about all of the Mafia activity back during alcohol prohibition. Now think of all of today’s Budweiser and Coors delivery folks and how they completely refuse to shoot at each other or push their products on underage consumers.<
I think this is very over simplified and not really considering the impact of the drugs themselves on the people that use them. They will still commit the same amount of crime to get the drugs.
On teh supply side, maybe you will see a lowering in some gang to gang crime, maybe not. They will still try to get drugs in and keep their multi billion dollar business going despite the government getting involved and providing it. It will just be a price war.
But the users will still steal, still rob and still do crimes to get money for their habits.
>As I said, 80% of all violent crime is from the drug trade. It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to project that with no more illegal drug trade, the associated crimes would go down as well. No more drug deals, no more drug deals gone bad. No more cartels, no more cartels (and street gangs) killing each other off for turf.<
80% seems VERY high to me, more like the users are the ones who are doing it.
You may have a different view than me of the gang to gang violence. But in many areas of the country, they have their turf, they don’t have many turf wars, they are looking to do business for the most part.
In my experience I have seen a lot of drug related violence. Robbery, burglary and even murder to get money to buy the drugs. Certainly i have also seen new factions moving into established selling territories and homicide over that. But the vast majority of the crime, either property or violent has been against people who were no more than a cash cow for the users.
I can easily agree that each state should make it’s own decisions on the issue. That way the people by majority could make that decision based upon their location.
Moral’s can vary from area to area and should be considered as locally as possible. Perhaps not even state by state but county by county
Also, I should have provided a caveat; after a certain amount of time has passed, abortion should not be allowed except to save the mothers life. Perhaps after 6 - 9 weeks.
I believe that is when a fetus starts actually having some sense of it’s surroundings. But this is a philosophical, medical and spiritual mixed bag that I really prefer not to go into.
Same arguments were used during Alcohol prohibition.
As for modern drugs, prices drop=less crime. Restore our true RKBA to us and we'd be able to easily defend ourselves against the 1/10 of .1% who get violent while under the influence. Plus, we could actually keep violent repeat offenders in jail longer as we wouldn't have them full of non-violent hippies who's only crime was possession.
But the users will still steal, still rob and still do crimes to get money for their habits.
People do this for food, sex, and out of a sense of sheer chaos. Maybe we should just make everything illegal...
> As for modern drugs, prices drop=less crime. Restore our true RKBA to us and we’d be able to easily defend ourselves against the 1/10 of .1% who get violent while under the influence. Plus, we could actually keep violent repeat offenders in jail longer as we wouldn’t have them full of non-violent hippies who’s only crime was possession.<
Prices would drop? Like in cigarettes? give me a break, they are outrageously taxed now. That is why people are smuggling them across the boarder of Canada at an alarming rate.
The Right to KBA . I agree with 100% but you have a large percentage of the population that will not or can not use them. Are you willing to go out and protect someone else grandmother? I doubt it. because that is who they will target.
>1/10 of .1% who get violent while under the influence.<
you are SO far off base you have not seen anyone on crystal meth have you? PCP? Pot laced with either of these?
I am a living witness that the numbers are far greater than you are posting. I am also here to tell you about something called ambulation after death. Look it up, it’s damn scary.
I have seen hand cuffs ripped apart, street signs ripped from the ground and officers attacked with them. Doors to patrol cars kicked from their hinges.
You could shoot these people and they will still beat you to a bloody pulp.
yet somehow, YOU are going to stop all of this, or you believe that all americans are gonna have guns and stop it, But you fail to realize that everyone does not want a gun. Even many that do, if not most, would never shoot someone when it comes down to it.
Now we are talking about non violent hippies, but your not counting all the other users .. are we talking about pot or hard core drugs?
>>But the users will still steal, still rob and still do crimes to get money for their habits.<<
>People do this for food, sex, and out of a sense of sheer chaos. Maybe we should just make everything illegal...<
No just add gasoline to a fire already i suppose /s
Have you seen the increase in smuggling of tobacco as governments levy more and more taxes? Wait until they try and outlaw tobacco altogether. You'll pay by the ounce just like dope and at about the same price.
Are you willing to go out and protect someone else grandmother?
Why aren't they protecting their Grandmother? I offered to pay for my MIL to take a Carry course. But yeah, if I'm armed and I see a bad situation happening... I'd do that even if I weren't armed though.
You could shoot these people and they will still beat you to a bloody pulp.
I've heard the stories. My Father was a Deputy for 27 years. Use more gun. Don't be a puss...
But you fail to realize that everyone does not want a gun.
And they create an undue burden on the rest of us. They should be taxed for the extra security the rest of of provide.
Or are you now going to start arguing FOR gun control as well? After all, more people die via gun violence (all causes including shot by cop, suicide, accident around 28,000 annual) than do your illicit drugs (direct or indirect ingestion of illicit drugs not including marijuana 17,000 annual).
Gas to the fire? How about you do the one thing you still seem to be missing, take steps to protect yourself first. If everyone did this, there would be a lot less crime from all sources period. Instead of running off crying to the government like a little sheep screaming "save me! save me!".
>Have you seen the increase in smuggling of tobacco as governments levy more and more taxes? Wait until they try and outlaw tobacco altogether. You’ll pay by the ounce just like dope and at about the same price.<
I don’t agree with them taxing as they do. But again, your comparing apples to oranges. Your now giving them another source of revenue to tax from by doing this and driving up the costs. You are defeating your own purpose weather you realize it or not.
Not to mention the fact that .. especially out of MANY people here and from the other side of the political landscape, if cops or people use more guns .. then they will outlaw them or give the anti- gun rights people more ammunition to try and take away our RKBA.
>I’ve heard the stories. My Father was a Deputy for 27 years. Use more gun. Don’t be a puss...<
Pump 33 rounds into a guy and he still keeps coming .. tell me about it would you? This is the problem with arm chair quarterbacks. No clue at all.
Plus the fact, are you going to shoot a guy for breaking his cuffs? Kicking the door off the car?
Yeah that’s gonna happen!
>I offered to pay for my MIL to take a Carry course. But yeah, if I’m armed and I see a bad situation happening... I’d do that even if I weren’t armed though.<
The point is, YOU aren’t going to see it happen. You think that criminals aren’t going to take the softest target that they can?
>And they create an undue burden on the rest of us. They should be taxed for the extra security the rest of of provide. <
ummm .. okay, tax people who don’t want to carry guns. Yeah that makes sense. /s
> Or are you now going to start arguing FOR gun control as well? After all, more people die via gun violence (all causes including shot by cop, suicide, accident around 28,000 annual) than do your illicit drugs (direct or indirect ingestion of illicit drugs not including marijuana 17,000 annual).<
You are just on a rant, and this has NOTHING to do with the subject matter. Your trying to suck me into some gun control issue and I am a very hard core RKBA person.
>Gas to the fire? How about you do the one thing you still seem to be missing, take steps to protect yourself first. If everyone did this, there would be a lot less crime from all sources period. Instead of running off crying to the government like a little sheep screaming “save me! save me!”.<
You are missing the fact that everyone CAN NOT do this.
Maybe you need some life experience and see what is really out there before you act all sanctimonious.
You ever shoot at someone? Been shot at? It isn’t so easy.
I am willing to bet that more than half the people who have guns would never use them against another person.
Not to mention panic factor, disbelief and shock that sets in when someone is being victimized.
WAY over simplifying things to prove your point that just doesn’t hold up to the cold hard realities of life and how things actually go down.
I can understand the argument that people should decide for themselves what they do or what they do not do as long as it does not violate the rights of my neighbor. My freedom ends where your nose begins. I do believe that the government is too intrusive, and there are so many rules and regulations that I am certain that I must break some law or rule on a daily basis. I can only speak for myself, but I am not happy with many things that the government does. I have being visiting jails for about twenty years now as part of Prison Fellowship. I would guess that over 90% of the inmates are in there as a result of drugs. It is our tax dollars that supports them while they are guests of the state. It is not a crime that hurts only those taking drugs, it hurts everyone. I am not for anything that increases the usage of drugs. If that means that I have to give up some of my liberty, I will be willing to do it.
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.