Replies

After all I have read here unspun, I think we are IMO seeing the heart of the pro-drug movement trying to take a foothold here at FR.

They are either stupid and just can't get the concept that there are checks and balances in life, or they have a pro-drug agenda.

Most that are for illegal drug use are void of morals or ethics as conservatives know them here at FR.
The way that is addressed by these pro-addiction folks is that they try to redefine morals and ethics DOWN by giving both of those words little value in their limited vocabulary.

To me these folks remind me of an obstinate teenager who won't go anywhere in life because they won't listen to their elders.

Most into the drug culture in a use-capacity are known to be developmentally immature in their personal life and I don't see that as a way to advance the American people.

Most people in life look down the road at the ramifications of choices. Most draw a logical conclusion as to what is safe and not safe and travel the best path.

What I have read over and over here on FR is that most Libertarians and all the pro-illegal drug supporters lack the LOGIC GENE that makes a normal conclusion. Somewhere in their thinking an anarchy filter gets in the path and all logic and reason flys out the window.

Well, agree with some of your revulsion, if not ad hominem sentiments.

...redefine morals and ethics DOWN by giving both of those words little value in their limited vocabulary.

I'd particularly feature this statement. I believe this is a consequense of taking an "objectivist" view of ethics and morality. A part of the fundamental discrepancy between American political philosophy and much of libertarian thought is that the former is based upon self-evident truths (including natural law theory of law) while the Ayn Rand style libertarian tries to look only at cause and effect (something unnatural and counterintuitive and prone to resistance and breakdown even in their own minds).

Most that are for illegal drug use are void of morals or ethics as conservatives know them here at FR. The way that is addressed by these pro-addiction folks is that they try to redefine morals and ethics DOWN by giving both of those words little value in their limited vocabulary.

Actually the libertarian view is intensely moral. We have a first principle that we summarize as "no initiation of force" that is our moral guidepost. This is just a grown up version of the lesson you were taught on the playground by your parents when you were about 3 years old. If two kids got into a fight, the adults broke it up and wanted to know who started it. The starter was punished and the defender was comforted.

Using that principle, we see a drug user as a person not initiating force but minding his own business. We see the government that wants to punish him for that as the initiator of force and the criminal. On the other hand, if a person assaults another, then the government arrests him, it is applying either defensive or retaliatory force and is doing right. This is where we come up with the phrase "victimless crime". If no one was hurt or stolen from, against whom was force initiated?

So I am not impressed by your moral statements because I do not see their basis as moral at all. A drug user is morally correct. A drug warrior is a vicious criminal. For this purpose drug warrior includes every step in the process of punishing drug users: The congressmen, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the prison guards, and the politically active people who support this evil.

A drug user who commits other, real crimes to facilitate his drug use is guilty but the drug warriors who created the situation and made the drugs so expensive are accomplices to those crimes and equally guilty.