Right? Not Stossel

Vancouver 24 Hours ^ | June 2, 2006 | Irwin Loy

[Beagle8U]

"I don't believe in platforms and parties. Not any more."

I only ask because many that say they are mostly libertarian, don't agree with the platform, or want anyone to think thats what they agree with.

It makes it hard to understand where they fall on the issues.

[beavus]

"drugs are more plentiful, cheap, and easily obtained than ever"

Apparently the business costs of trading in contraband don't match the costs of regulation and taxation.

[cryptical]

Crime and murder are moral laws too. Do you think gov. should have any regulation on those?

Murder is immoral because it's unjustified use of force against another person. Other crimes may or may not be immoral, depending if they infringe on the rights of others.

[Mannaggia l'America]

Buying it legally would be cheaper so why would they buy it on the street?

Why would it be cheaper? If the market supports the current price of illegal drugs, it would make business sense to me that the price would remain the same. Higher in fact, with the government adding taxes, not to mention the cost of sure-to-follow lawsuits from those "injured" by the product. (See tobacco industry.)

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

What I said is not false, so please don't imply that I am lying.

Stossel claims that if we legalize drugs and put the government in charge of regulating them, the fees and taxes associated with the legal purchase would be ample to cover the cost of rehab.

I suppose he doesn't claim it will solve ALL the problems, but his claim is that essentially it will eliminate the major problems we have now.

Incidentally, it seems a tad hypocritical for someone who claims to be anti big government to support a bureaucracy that will have to get its tentacles into everything from unemployment, to rehab, to intervention, to health care and health insurance.

It's one the reasons I stopped reading his works and listening to his television spots--that and the number of times he has screwed up his facts and had to issue disclaimers.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

The bright side of prohibition -- as much as I would have been against it -- is that it accomplished the goals that the prohibitionists wanted to accomplish. Unemployment dropped. Personal incomes rose. Broken marriages dropped. Domestic abuse dropped. Non-organized crime (assault, simple burglary, disorderly conduct, etc.) dropped.

Yes, organized crime increased. And yes, all of the benefits that prohibition brought about were also lost. My argument against legalizing drugs has little to do with crime. It has to do with the volatility of drugs, how much more volatile they will become, and the effect on society if anywhere even near 20 percent of the populace has their lives ruined by recreational drug usage.

Do you think it would not have organized crime if it were not for prohibition?

Criminals are not criminals because something is illegal. They are criminals because they want to make a lot of money fast, by filling the niche of a criminal enterprise. Those that are currently dealing drugs will switch to another crime to make their money. They won't simply join up with society and get desk jobs.

[Beagle8U]

"Murder is immoral because it's unjustified use of force against another person. Other crimes may or may not be immoral, depending if they infringe on the rights of others."

The main question I was asking to the other poster (which was never answered) was do you think gov. should have any regulation over those crimes?

[Mannaggia l'America]

We've been though this before.

Didn't see an answer about how Joe Schmoe will get money to feed his drug addiction.

You can compare alcohol to hard drugs if you want - it just ain't the same.... Drinking a glass of wine every day isn't going to make you an alcoholic. Shooting heroin every day will make you an addict.

[flintsilver7]

I wonder - is it possible for the recreational drug lobby to make an argument for the legalization of illicit drugs (such as marijuana) WITHOUT referencing alcohol? I can't recall ever seeing that. I don't know if I've ever seen a pro-drug person make a cogent argument without pointing the finger at Mr. Alcohol saying "But, but, but, he got away with it!"

I do like the idea that "ending prohibition will eliminate the problems associated with prohibition." You think? That's a tautology. Decriminalizing the possession of drugs will do nothing to alleviate the problems associated with the abuse of drugs, but yes - it will decriminalize possession. The abuse of drugs is a problem with drugs, not with prohibition.

There is a reason things are done the way they are. Marijuana is where "the line" is drawn. Despite what the drug lobby might repeatedly pound, jails are not full of recreational drug users. I've known more than a few people who have been cited for marijuana possession, and I think it's been worse to run a red light. So as long as the line stays there, marijuana has its status as illegal but "not that bad." And hence not strictly enforced. It's much like driving 5 MPH over the speed limit. If you raise the speed limit, can you still drive 5 MPH over the limit? Where does it stop?

Alcohol IS a drug that can be abused. The difference between alcohol and hard drugs is that you really need to try to abuse alcohol, as your body physiologically rejects excessive consumption of alcohol. As such, alcohol tends to be used in moderation with minimal effects - often unnoticeable. Harder drugs don't work that way - or at least nobody's told me about "Heroin Lite." Unless, of course, you want your drugs "altered" by the people seeking profit.

As long as demand exists, profit will exist. It's simple. Legalized recreational drugs would be heavily regulated and we'd have a whole host of "legal limits" for a whole host of different drugs. Great, let's creative a massive new department called the ATFCHM (or whatever other drugs you want to add) so we can make the government bigger.

This is not that difficult to understand. Legalizing drugs would at best transfer problems from one area to another and would undoubtedly create a massive new bureaucracy to deal with all of it.

[BlazingArizona]

Crime and murder are moral laws too. Do you think gov. should have any regulation on those?

These are crimes with VICTIMS.

[flintsilver7]

A stoner journalism student growing weed in his studio apartment is committing a victimless crime.

That is not what the war on drugs is about, but you already knew that, didn't you?

[BlazingArizona]

So now Joe Schmoe can be even more self-destructive and get fried, and as you said above, will likely get fired from his job because of poor performance. But that's his problem, not ours. But now Joe Schmoe has no job. But he's addicted to (drug of choice). So where does Joe get money to feed his addiction?

That's what the Second Amendment is for. Evolution in action: very swiftly, people learn by example not to become addicted spongers.

[Beagle8U]

All moral laws are crimes with victims, even if its mostly those that commit them.

[BlazingArizona]

I see, so everyone buy their own insurance, even wives and children would need to buy a separate health ins. policy.

Assuming that every private. non-regulation-coerced insurance company were to set up their policies this way, how is this less fair than our current system, in which a married couple with no kids pays the same "family" rate as a family of eight with all the usual ear infections and braces?

[carenot]

You must like paying more in taxes and subsidizing health care for an unhealthy lifestyle?

Well...Duh. We already are.

[rolling_stone]

Didn't see an answer about how Joe Schmoe will get money to feed his drug addiction.

You can compare alcohol to hard drugs if you want - it just ain't the same.... Drinking a glass of wine every day isn't going to make you an alcoholic. Shooting heroin every day will make you an addict.

Um ok so joe is hooked, wouldn't he be hooked when they were illegal also? How much does his fix cost now and where does he get the money for it? CRIME? What will it cost if legal and where will he get the money for it then? LESS CRIME!

[Beagle8U]

You seem to just dance around questions, rather than really answering anything.

If you totally strike legal marriage from the books, there are many things that would be effected beyond taxes. I mentioned insurance as one of those.

It would totally strike family policies off the books also, there would be no legal definition of family!

You could find some hokie faux church to marry your entire neighborhood to you, and your employer is going to pay all their Insurance under a family policy?

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

he's right 50% of the time...

Which puts him way ahead of 90% of other journalists.

[Echo Talon]

Yep. :)

[skr]

Yes, indeed. Unborn babies don't distinguish between legal or illegal drugs when it comes to physical harm. Neither do the others in vehicle accidents caused by intoxicated drivers.