Libertarians Advocate Drug Legalization: Recipe For Escalating Societal Decay

GOPUSA.COM ^ | May.16,2002 | Carol Devine-Molin

[cruiserman]

Legalizing is like giving up.

I sure am glad we gave up on alcohol prohibition :).

[Kevin Curry]

While we're making the world safe for the liberty of the drunk or stoned superman, let's prohibit all laws banning the gratuituous discharge of firearms in buildings and busy city streets. Some of us are pretty good shots. Why, I know men who could drill a pigeon or rat at 500 yards as it walked between the feet of a person standing on a sidewalk. Probably wouldn't even touch the person, either.

Heck, let's get the sharpshooter liquored-up or stoned first just to show how truly impressive his aim and control are.

Shazzam! Isn't Liberdopia a fun place to live? Until you actually kill or injure someone, you're safely "in the zone" of unalienable rights.

And if you fail? Well, that's why taxpayers exist: to clean up and pay for your messes after you.

[Kevin Curry]

Do you like payng your share of the $80 billion it costs to clean up after irresponsible drunks?

Of course you do. It't the nanny government socialist in you peering out from behind the mask of libertarianism.

You are all for allowing pople to get stinking drunk or stoned and allowing others to pay for the consequences. Admit it: you prefer that devil over the devil of prohibition. Just be honest and admit it. That's all we ask of you nanny government pro-dope socialists--just a little bit of honesty.

[Fry]

Seriously, who does it hurt if I drive like a maniac? It's my car, it's my body, I paid for the roads. I'm an adult, I can choose to drive any way I want. If I want to use both lanes, hey, I paid for 'em, I'll use them anyway I want.

Boy, I'd really like to do some cocaine right now, but I'm afraid to deal with the ruffians that sell it.
I don't know if you drink, but I do on occasion. If I faced jail time and the prospect of getting shot and robbed by the clerk at the 7-11 every time I wanted a six pack, you know, I wouldn't drink. Some other people would, but it I wouldn't. Not even for Pilsner Urquell.

Pretty much everyone who wants to do drugs in this country does them
Okay, let's pretend that is the case. If you drop the price, if you make it more widely available, if you make it legal, and if you ensure purity and quality, don't you think this might increase the number of people who want to use them?

[jimt]

Noteworthy, the marijuana of today is many times more potent than the marijuana available in the 1960's and the 1970's. It is more addictive, and more debilitating than the older versions of the substance, and now often requires intensive treatment for recovery.

These two blatant lies throw every other statement made by the author into doubt.

The weed of the '60s and '70s was every bit as good, if not better, than anything sold today. It was easy to smuggle, there were few people trying to interdict it, and outstanding quality was readily available. This "more potent" crap is a myth invented by the drug warriors to justify their JBT tactics and the rape of our civil liberties.

The second lie is the "addictive" nature of marijuana. There has never been a credible study showing it to be physically addictive. EVER ! There was one study conducted that showed it to be toxic, though. When they fed cats 2 to 4 OUNCES of HASHISH per kilogram of body weight, the cats died. The fact that this would be equivalent to a normal man eating 14-1/2 POUNDS of hashish never seemed to dawn on them. Anybody with any experience regarding marijuana would find this utterly ridiculous - a regular, heavy user could smoke an ounce of hashish in a month. Eating 14-1/2 pounds is about as likely as unassisted space travel.

The weak sisters who claim psychological addiction are those wimps who are always looking for someone else to be at fault, and who won't take responsibility for their actions.

The LP's position on drugs is correct. While the author does accurately state the LP position in her first two paragraphs, her refutation contains unproven opinions and some blatant falsehoods, like the two above.

[68 grunt]

Wierd, dontch think?

Their attendance at FReeper events is also extremely rare. More and more of us are realizing their attempt.

[Fry]

THC levels have increased in pot over the years. This is a scientific fact. THC can be measured. In fact, here's a quote:
According to University of Mississippi analyses, the THC content of commercial-grade marijuana has slowly risen over the years from an average of 3.71 percent in 1985 to an average of 5.57 percent in 1998. These analyses also show a corresponding rise in sinsemilla THC content from 7.28 percent in 1985 to 12.32 percent in 1998.

Plants with higher levels are selected to create the next crop. The same way farmers select tomato varieties, pot farmers select their crops. A quick google search will provide you with hundreds of sites discussing ways to increase THC levels. Pot is stronger now and it will continue to get stronger.

[truenospinzone]

Seriously, who does it hurt if I drive like a maniac? It's my car, it's my body, I paid for the roads. I'm an adult, I can choose to drive any way I want. If I want to use both lanes, hey, I paid for 'em, I'll use them anyway I want.

That's a strawman argument. Once you are interacting in public with fellow citizens, safety laws are completely valid. You are in direct contact with other citizens, and the possibility of negligence on your part causing another person harm is acutely viable. There is a world of difference between a law governing direct public conduct and a law governing public contact twice removed. In other words, it is completely reasonable to tell someone who is driving on a public road to follow laws put in place to ensure a greater degree of safety. It is NOT at all reasonable to tell that person that they cannot own a car at all because they may use the road and may cause injury when doing so.

I'll hit the other points shortly, but let me just thank you for being civil and keeping this a true debate. Dealing with a lunatic like Curry reminds me that's not always easy.

[Virginia-American]

a few thousand more

A few thousand more users, a few tens of thousand fewer gov't employees. Seems like a good tradeoff.

[palo verde]

hi jimt
your post is accurate
back in the '60s I smoked aculpulco gold
it was strong pot
I do not think pot is addictive, when I stopped having enjoyable experiences on it, I never smoked it again
it is not like cigs, each time I tried to give them up, I spent whole time cravin' a cig
lol finally I stopped tryin' to give up cigs, it's easier to smoke cigs and be happy, than fight with myself
but after pot stopped bein' sublime experience, I never did any drugs after that
people try to say coffee and cigs are drugs, but they are not mind altering, what pot offered was expansion of consciousness
Love, Palo

[tacticalogic]

Plants with higher levels are selected to create the next crop. The same way farmers select tomato varieties, pot farmers select their crops. A quick google search will provide you with hundreds of sites discussing ways to increase THC levels. Pot is stronger now and it will continue to get stronger.

But does that mean that people who smoke pot will ingest more thc, or does it simply mean that they will smoke less to get the desired effect? If someone goes out to a bar and asks for a beer, and the barkeep says "Sorry, the tap's broken, would you like something else?" he's not going to say "Okay, give me a mug of bourbon".

[jayef]

Exactly. Who wants to sit and smoke schwag all night, when one binger of the chronic will do the job.

[68 grunt]

Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, Columbian, Thia stick ... oh yeah, baby, those were good daze!

[jayef]

So we punnish people for dangerous behavior based on their potential to engage in it. Brilliant. Do you have bleach in your home? Any gasoline or matches? Got any fertilizer? Firearms? Axes, shovels, machetis? We might just have to send an agent down to evaluate your potential for causing harm. You won't mind, will you?

[sawsalimb]

I've pointed out before on these WOD threads that anyone who wishes to really fight the WOD can do so themselves. All they have to do is go bang on the door of a house where they suspect illegal drug use is taking place,and demand to inspect the place. If illegal drug use is indeed taking place on the premises,they can then make a citizen's arrest,and deliver the malefactors over to duly constituted law enforcement officials.

So far,I haven't heard of anyone trying it. Why could that be?

[Liberal Classic]

"Heck, let's get the sharpshooter liquored-up or stoned first just to show how truly impressive his aim and control are."

Here's a question. Should people who drink be allowed to own firearms?

[jimt]

According to University of Mississippi analyses, the THC content of commercial-grade marijuana has slowly risen...

While the University of Mississippi may be getting their weed out of roadside ditches, I can't say for sure. I can say for sure that I knew three extremely regular users in the early 1970s who were unable to finish a single "pinner" (very thin joint) between them of some marijuana available then. Its pedigree was known, it was not laced or adulterated. I know of another fella, renowned in my school days as the quintessential "overindulger", who always used twice as many intoxicants as his friends, who stopped smoking some hashish after seven "tokes" - because he was getting way too high. This also was in the early seventies.

The "potency" MYTH is a justification for the ludicrous, un-Constitutional, civil-liberties-destroying, STUPID War on Some Drugs. Its premise is utterly flawed, its results horrendous and its continuation lunacy. The LP is right.

And before one of our resident Warriors stoops to the slur, yes I am a drug user - tobacco, tea and coffee, along with the occasional recreational aspirin. Tylenol and Ibuprofen are too "hard" for my taste.

[truenospinzone]

Even better, I remember a WoD-er (completely blanking on which one) who qualified his knowledge of the destruction that drugs cause by admitting that he had an evil cousin who was a drug dealer. He failed to respond to numerous demands that he turn said cousin in to the proper authorities to serve his mandatory minimum sentence in the anal-rape camp.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

All they have to do is go bang on the door of a house where they suspect illegal drug use is taking place,and demand to inspect the place. If illegal drug use is indeed taking place on the premises,they can then make a citizen's arrest

Jay Santos of the "Citizen's Auxillary Police" who frequently appears as a guest on the Phil Hendrie call in radio show claims to do this all the time. You should hear the outrage of the befuddled soccer mom/dad-church lady/men callers when Jay tells them that his group (easily distinguished by their blue arm bands and large pith helmets) are conducting inspections in the callers' neighborhoods! What's most amazing is that most of these callers will gladly allow an LAPD costumed person to inspect their dirty laundry--but not some nut with a blue arm band and a pith helmet. Even they have their limits!

[Eagle Eye]

You are right when you say that drug and alcohol abuse are bad for people, but you are wrong when you insist that it is the government's responsibility to legislate and enforce this type of behavior.

If spirituality and morality are your true concerns, then why don't you get out there and spread the Good Word and win some hearts and souls to Jesus to help them forsake sinful ways?

The fact that you rely on government to do for you what you should be doing yourself indicates your unwillingness or ineptness at winning souls and changing hearts.