Replies

On the contrary, there are several places that have dabbled in drug decriminalization: traffic tickets for pot possession in this country (at least at the local or state level), pot cafes in Holland and elsewhere, needle parks, etc. The results aren't nearly as ugly as the drug warriors warn, much as gun grabbers always promise "blood in the streets" if shall-issue passes somewhere, even though it has never come to pass. But the gun grabbers essentially never admit they are wrong, despite mountains of evidence against them. Especially the true believers.

I don't see the Rosy picture you describe, but it is a wonderful place to look. Dutch society was very homogeneous and different from American society, so you have to compare pre with post Dutch statistics. There is also a matter of watching progression. Very generous welfare appeared to work wonderfully in the first few years. Finally, the Dutch don't have the only model of open drug use. The Chinese, Somalis, and a few others have had very negative results, so which example do you use? You ask me to be reasonable, but where exactly are you being reasonable? You want me to look at statistics, but then say that statistics really don't matter to you because drug use is a "inalienable right".

Why would someone spend time building an argument against the benefits of legalization, when your fallback position is that the benefit/harm relationship simply doesn't matter?

Let me try again. Is there any level of harm, if definitively shown to be a result of drug use by YOUR OWN standards, that would dissuade you? If your answer is "No", then there is really no point in discussing benefits versus harm.

If 90% of gun owners, in a non-skewed population, committed murder, I would admit that my perception of reality might be wrong. That is called intellectual honesty. Do try to attempt some level of this in your response.

Look, I just realized that there is zero chance of your actually answering my question, so let me propose the following.

You need to start a Constitutional Amendment process. I'm sure you don't think it should be necessary, but given our history with slavery, etc. you'll just have to accept it. If I understand your positions correctly it needs to say:

All behaviors and actions are hereby legal despite any probability of resulting harm, danger, or bodily injury. Only actions that actually result in direct harm will be punishable.

That should cover it. No more regulations of any kind, no traffic laws, no more building codes, no limits on anything of any kind.

I predict you will fail miserably, at which point you will have to decide whether to undertake an insurrection, or accept curbs in a republican democracy. Let me know how it goes.

Silly me. I posted to myself, so I'm readdressing.

Look, I just realized that there is zero chance of your actually answering my question, so let me propose the following.

All behaviors and actions are hereby legal despite any probability of resulting harm, danger, or bodily injury. Only actions that actually result in direct harm will be punishable.

That should cover it. No more regulations of any kind, no traffic laws, no more building codes, no limits on anything of any kind.

I predict you will fail miserably, at which point you will have to decide whether to undertake an insurrection, or accept curbs in a republican democracy. Let me know how it goes.