Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[tpaine]

States can regulate in a constitutional manner, yes. -- Prohibit, without due process? NO.

Think about it, as they are your rights too, roscoe. - #66

Following the law is due process, tpaine.

Not true. -- Fiat, prohibitionary law against life, liberty, or property, without due process, are violations of the 14th amendment. - Thus the failed attempt to prohibit alcohol federally by the 18th.

[Roscoe]

[Following the law is due process, tpaine.]

Not true. -- Fiat, prohibitionary law against life, liberty, or property, without due process, are violations of the 14th amendment

You're spinning in circles. Following the law is due process, tpaine.

[ashrad]

However, if we executed all the drug dealers, we'd have less social problems.

I agree, but that's only if we included tobaco and booze.

[donh]

States have no history of pre-emptive regulation of crack and heroin

Heroin was occasionally regulated by the States prior to the Harrison Narcotics Act.

[OWK]

the fact is all we see from the libertarian ideologues here are moral-liberal arguments for allowing people to destroy themselves

I for one, think it would be ridiculous and foolhardy for an individual to destroy his life with drug abuse, promiscuous sexuality, or other potentially harmful vices. I do not advocate these things. I condemn them.

But even as I condemn these actions, I recognize them as rights because they do not initiate force or fraud upon others. The moment initiated force or fraud come into the picture, rights have been violated, and the state has the moral authority to act as a restraining force.

People have a right to make foolish decisions, and the right to live with the consequences of their own foolishness. They have a right, even to act in ways which are potentially harmful to themselves. Smoking, drinking, and consumption of fatty foods come to mind.

Those who recognize the right of rational adults to make their own decisions (even potentially harmful ones) do not endorse vice. They reject arbitrary government influence in the lives of free men.

Government does not exist to make decisions for free adults. It exists to protect rights.

[Buckeroo]

Today, following the law is about $2M per case through all the lower courts up to a final decision by the USSC. The law has turned into nothing more than a method to plunder America.

[Liberal Classic]

Well, the Declaration talks about the inalienable rights to an early death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering, according to the Hussein's Libertarian-Baathist Party.

Seeing as how I believe our tax dollars should be spent to blow Mr. Hussein in to tiny bits, I find this statement to be offensive.

[MadameAxe]

Your analogy is a non sequitur.

[Roscoe]

Occasionally? The regulation of alcohol was almost entirely a matter of state and municipal regulation.

[Liberal Classic]

I've made a New Year's resolution to stop trying to reason with a brick wall(i.e the Libertarian drugs are freedom crowd).

Really?

[tpaine]

Great quote by JR, tex. -- It will serve to shut up the cultist for awhile. -- But then he will return, with his same absurd 'druggie' rhetoric, over & over.

He's a fanatic on the subject, pure and simple.

[Cultural Jihad]

But even as I condemn these actions, I recognize them as rights because they do not initiate force or fraud upon others.

As I said, the libertarians are really just moral-liberals, not unlike the DNC, the Greens, or that Spartacist League when it comes to moral issues. The Constitution Party is not enamoured with moral-liberalism at all, and hence has my nod of approval.

[Roscoe]

Your analogy is a non sequitur.

No, it's right on the money.

[Cultural Jihad]

Jim Robinson has never offered moral-liberal arguments on why people should be allowed to destroy themselves and their society. Heaven knows we have the whole of the moral-liberal mass media and the Marxist professors offering these cruel arguments.

[A CA Guy]

You have get a supply of drugs for an addict to maintain their habit or for a provider to grow new addicts.
Unfortunately wisdom comes with age and not youth. Therefore I love to see all sources of illegal drugs under attack. Preferable at or outside our borders.

[donh]

However, if we executed all the drug dealers, we'd have less social problems.

Executing drug dealers only assures that only the most ruthless, reckless drug dealers, with the firmist grip on legislatures and law enforcement though bribery and intimidation will be selling drugs to our kids. In no other realm of discourse but this one, is the notion that supply drives demand taken seriously. If increasing the penalties drives away dealers, why hasn't it done so here in the last 80 years?

There was one year in this century when the violent crime rate, in one year, sunk to a fraction of the previous year. It was the year we ended prohibition. This is also the last year that reporting of instant rotgut-induced blindness was daily newspaper fare.

If you don't give turd what happens to children (which is what I suspect), than by all means, execute drug-dealers.

[southern rock]

You have get a supply of drugs for an addict to maintain their habit or for a provider to grow new addicts.

So? Sounds like capitalism to me. Personally, I don't see any usefulness in preventing any adult who wants to use drugs from using them. Unlike some people, I am fully prepared to accept any and all consequences of living in a free society, where people can get high or outright kill themselves if they choose.

[Roscoe]

If you don't give turd what happens to children (which is what I suspect), than by all means...

...join the LP.

[Cultural Jihad]

Another point worth making vis-a-vis Jim Robinson's words: Calling for an end to the Federal WOD and turning the issue over to the States is not the same as calling for their legalization or decriminalization.