Once again, Libertarians are comparing weed to alcohol. Here is my usual response.
"They get Alcohol!!!!!
We Want our Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddd!!!!!!!"
Posted on 05/13/2015 11:22:41 AM PDT by Olog-hai
MPs from the Green Party and Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have joined forces to say that cannabis should be regulated and legalized.
Economic policy spokespeople Joachim Pfeiffer of the CDU and Dieter Janecek of the Greens told broadcaster ARD that they thought it no longer made sense to criminalize possession of or trading in the drug.
“Every year we spend between one and two billion euros to punish consumers, although real organized crime should be the focus of our efforts,” they wrote in a position paper.
The pair believe that a state-regulated cannabis market would bring in between one and two billion euros of tax revenue annually, based on the examples of countries that have successfully liberalized their rules. …
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.de ...
Why is it that humans have this wonderful gift of a brain yet they are so often seeking to do nothing more than kill brain cells. I don’t get the appeal.
And yet the appeal is a fact - alcohol has been around almost as long as mankind itself. Trying to legislate away human nature is a liberal project, not a conservative one.
If they believe that, then someone needs to point out to them how much money they could make with a legalized Opium Market!
Once again, Libertarians are comparing weed to alcohol. Here is my usual response.
"They get Alcohol!!!!!
We Want our Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddd!!!!!!!"
I do not equate alcohol and drugs. Alcohol can be consumed more moderately and with little effect. Obviously it is not always used that way, but very often it is used that way. There are some laws. You can’t drive drunk and I think there are still issues with public drunkenness. It is a foolish thing whether or not it is illegal, imo. Some things you do while drunk can land you in prison for life.
Drugs have a stronger effect, even pot. Unless you plan on doing away with prescription drug rules, you too favor some drug laws. Some issues take brain cells to negotiate the correct balance.
You use the term conservative like it is the same thing as libertarian. It is not. Libertarians and liberals are the ones in denial of human nature. Besides it is no kind of argument. Just because children will want to put a knife in an outlet slot doesn’t mean you should let them do it.
Human nature will always produce some thieves and murderers, too. We still legislate against that. Drugs have a powerful ability to actually rob the user of his free choice. Freedom is best served with some regulation. How much is an issue those with enough brain power left can discuss. The power of drugs over the mind of the user leaves the drug seller in a very powerful position of control. Doctors can handle it. Some greedy thug from Columbia cannot.
Alcohol is a drug and generally the “gateway” drug to those who end up down a horrible path of addiction.
And yet the appeal is a fact - alcohol has been around almost as long as mankind itself. Trying to legislate away human nature is a liberal project, not a conservative one.
Once again, Libertarians are comparing weed to alcohol. Here is my usual response.
"They get Alcohol!!!!! We Want our Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddd!!!!!!!"
In the context of the original statement about killing brain cells, the comparison is entirely apt - and your irrelevant bot-like response leaves egg on your face once again.
Your position is not worth a thoughtful response.
And yet the appeal is a fact - alcohol has been around almost as long as mankind itself.
I do not equate alcohol and drugs.
Nor I - but both are relevant to your original post, above.
Alcohol can be consumed more moderately and with little effect. Obviously it is not always used that way, but very often it is used that way.
And quite often is not consumed moderately - and was even more often not consumed moderately when that drug was illegal. Pot also can be consumed more moderately - as witness the existence of "one-hitter bowls" on the market.
There are some laws. You can’t drive drunk and I think there are still issues with public drunkenness.
And there should be similar laws for drugs other than alcohol.
Drugs have a stronger effect, even pot.
For alcohol, pot, or any other drug, the degree of effect rises with amount taken.
Trying to legislate away human nature is a liberal project, not a conservative one.
You use the term conservative like it is the same thing as libertarian. It is not. Libertarians and liberals are the ones in denial of human nature.
Except for drug laws, where it's some conservatives in denial of human nature.
Just because children will want to put a knife in an outlet slot doesn’t mean you should let them do it.
Government is not authorized to treat adults like children.
Human nature will always produce some thieves and murderers, too.
Those acts violate the rights of others - drug sale and use do not.
The power of drugs over the mind of the user leaves the drug seller in a very powerful position of control.
Alcohol is more addictive than pot; of all those who have used alcohol, 15% have at some point been dependent, whereas the corresponding figure for pot is a sustantially lower 9%.
Alcohol is somewhat of a drug. Someone who has had a drink or two is usually pretty clear thinking. Someone who has had a joint or a —whatever— of some other street drug is generally not so clear thinking. Just as a bartender is expected to stop serving a drunk, I think the issue of ability to choose comes into play with drugs. That is even if you don’t count the health and crime issues associated with it.
I do not drink. It is wasted calories. I would MUCH rather spend empty calories on chocolate or cheesecake than on alcohol. I find drunks extremely irritating. For that matter even moderate drinkers can be irritating to me. But the possibility of drinking in moderation is far greater than using cocaine or heroine or even pot in moderation. We aren’t going to make valium or oxycontin (sp?) or phenobarbitol or ritalin over the counter drugs. We know they can be dangerous. Same goes for street drugs. It is just common sense.
But druggies will alway fight for their drugs. It is pitiful, really. It is what they do because they crave it — they are slaves to their drug masters.
What the world does not need is more potheads.
...and left-wing and right-wing authoritarians will always fight over whose narrow, conceited vision of Tyranny will prevail.
When someone infringes on someone else's rights, that's a crime. All else is Tyranny.
When Prohibitionists, in the absence of any violation of anybody's rights, advocate arbitrarily imprisoning their brother for merely possessing the wrong plant, medicine, or liquid spirits, against the edicts of the state, that's a crime in and of itself.
Prohibition necessarily involves trampling the Fourth Amendment, and necessarily requires an ever-expanding nanny/police state in order to enforce its self-righteous authoritarian goals.
Freedom carries with it many challenges, but I'd much rather face the admittedly challenging aspects of decriminalization, than embrace the absurd rationalizations of those who insist on the existence of a bloated state (with its requisite bereaucracy) to preemptively save people from themselves.
Anybody objective person knows that alcohol is the worst drug on the face of the earth. Vehicular homicides, murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, health problems, they all combine to exceed the damage of all other drugs combined.
Does that mean alcohol should be illegal? Of course not. We tried that, and the consequences were quite predictable. They're the same consequences we see nowadays with the War on Drugs.
Is that to say the people who drive impaired or hurt others due to their use of any drug shouldn't be prosecuted energetically for their crimes? Of course not.
But people who party responsibly, whatever their poison of choice is, should generally be left alone. In the absence of actual criminal activity, the right to be left alone is a central pillar of American Liberty.
It's laughable to me that anybody could call himself a conservative who believes that any American belongs in prison for violating contraband law.
The hypocrisy is astounding, and the arguments used by the right to justify such authoritarian nonsense are identical to the arguments used by the left to justify their particular flavor of authoritarian nonsense.
To accept the legitimacy of one is to accept the legitimacy of the other, and using such reasoning, there is no practical limit to the power of the state. None.
One cannot believe in minimal government while simultaneously supporting no-knock warrants, abuse of probable cause, destroying the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, and so on, because such handy-dandy "tools" are the only way to enforce such law.
Advocacy of such expansive state power has nothing to do with Liberty. It's fundamentally incompatible with the concept.
If someone decides to pursue happiness by smoking weed, drinking booze, or popping pharmaceuticals, then so be it. If we want to change such people's behavior, it can only be legitimately done with education, not the convenient shortcut of Tyrannical law.
Drug decriminalization is the worst solution to America's drug abuse issues. Except, of course, for the Tyrannical, Constitution-crushing abomination known as the War on Drugs.
Fine if they do it in a locked cage. Otherwise it affects the rest of us.
BTW, alcohol is not the worst drug. That is an assessment made by users who never see themselves under the influence of their drugs.
I know a person who battled drug abuse over a lifetime. Videos should be made of these people so they can look at themselves realistically.
I have also known alcoholics. That is a huge problem. But alcohol is used in moderation by many. A little LSD or heroine is still monster making. And beyond the first usage it ceases to be a choice. The person selling who is motivated by his own profit is the one choosing. THAT IS NOT FREEDOM.
I am done argument this issue. My experience informs me that drug users will not budge. They want it because they are enslaved to it. They gave up choosing a long time ago. It’s sad. They sold their constitutional rights for a manic high. Hope it was worth it.
Government is not authorized nor competent to give the world what it needs. Government has a big enough job preventing violations of rights - which drug sale and use are not.
Hysterical nonsense - no drug is universally addictive after one use (although there are some addicts of drugs, including alcohol, who do say they were hooked at their first use).
Almost everything anyone does "affects" someone else in some way - if that's the criterion for government force, kiss liberty goodbye.
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.