But we do let the poppy growers fund the people who are killing our soldiers in Afghanistan.
How is that working out?
Posted on 04/25/2015 11:12:58 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Have you ever bought printer ink?
>> The whole idea is to take the profit motive out of the drug trade
Indeed, it’s an industry that puts food on the table, pays the bills, builds retirement, and pays for the kids’ college tuition. And I’m talking about the good guys...
But we do let the poppy growers fund the people who are killing our soldiers in Afghanistan.
How is that working out?
Slavery is slavery...
The wages of sin are death but that equation is immune to Prohibition.
The taxation and licensing were actually tried first because our forebears actually thought that it was un-constitutional to tell Americans what we could, or could not put in our bodies!
So, no prohibition. We should allow, gay marriage, abortion, rape, murder for hire, doctors to by their medical license, bribery. Because prohibition is automatically bad.
The other great thing is when you harm someone on a substance, you get a fraction of the legal penalty. Get drunk and kill someone and you get a fraction of the penalty. Get high on meth, kill some people, slap on the wrist.
like I said, that’s the policy change we need.
I do see a parallel, on the other hand, to federal prohibition or federal mandating of gay marriage to federal Prohibition as well as to federal prohibition of drugs.
Why is George Soros so hot for legalization? It leads to megasocialism. A meth addict can get their drugs paid for by the government, their food, housing, etc. If you don't believe this will add to the welfare state, you are seriously naive.
We need to let the workers and producers in this country know they need to work harder to support everyone else. That's their job.
Prohibition is prohibition.
We need to take the profit motive out of abortion, rape, murder for hire, doctors who buy their licenses and bribery. They only way we can do it is by total legalization.
It is true to say that in some criminal contexts it might be possible to plead a defense to a higher crime because drugs or alcohol have so incapacitated the criminal that he could not form the requisite evil intent. These cases are exceedingly rare and the policy is generally disfavored.
Much more enlightened is the policy of criminalizing the behavior rather than the use of the alcohol. The exception to this rule is to be found in drunk driving statutes which in effect assume that to put a 3000 pound automobile into movement at 60 miles an hour while impaired is so inherently dangerous that it must be criminalized. But the potential to harm here is to society in general as well is to the driver and so one can argue that there is a rational relationship between the prohibition on driving while intoxicated and harm to another person. That relationship is much more attenuated than merely being intoxicated or being high. In those later cases prohibition has caused more harm than good, that is, the unintended consequences such as corruption and encouragement of illegal sale by providing a profit motive exceed whatever protection to the innocent society derives from the prohibition.
Basically, when you take away all the fancy language about profit motives etc., what you are saying is that I should spend most my time working to pay for people that can’t or don’t want to work. You can say “we shouldn’t pay for blah blah blah,” but this is the United States in 2015, so that’s just a fairy tale. You want to punish the workers for the actions of others. You want the productive people to pay more and more.
… Are not made more profitable by being made illegal.
In each case there is an identifiable and innocent victim. In the case of prohibition of drugs there is an identifiable and innocent victim, the person who is mugged on the street by the addict seeking relief for his addiction.
Prohibition of drugs transfers the pain of the addiction to the innocent while profiting the guilty. That metaphor extends all the way to the socialism which you complain of and which we both deplore and which is mightily supported by our drug policies.
With Newsweek for $1.25 a week who needs meth? /SILLY
To the contrary who is it that wants the productive people to spend billions and billions of dollars annually to incarcerate drug users and make them nonproductive? Who is it that wants the productive people to spend billions and billions of dollars on law enforcement and the war on drugs which we are indisputably losing and, in fact, have lost? Who is it that wants billions of dollars of productive people to be sent abroad buying illegal drugs which could be had so much cheaper if they were legal?
If you think you get off cheaper by insisting that drugs remain illegal, you need another tax accountant.
Evading the question. You want me to work hard so I can pay for meth addicts lives.
The people who use meth are victims.
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.