Libertarians Advocate Drug Legalization: Recipe For Escalating Societal Decay

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

[truenospinzone]

I know - just because all of us immoral Libertarians want to mainline our evil caffeine every day with no consequences doesn't mean we should be forcing our pro-coffee stance on poor defenseless children!

[BlackbirdSST]

The statists are getting nervous as they see the anti-prohibition camps gaining momentum. The prohibitionists are cranking up the propoganda mills in an effort to staunch the debate. Their desperation is showing. Absolutely. Then of course Roscoe starts this thread out with L bashing, then whines like a baby when fewer and fewer people jump on the bandwagon. It's great and getting better all the time! He'll be flagging the rest of the statist for backup. Blackbird.

[Aedammair]

A libertarian society is exactly the way to accomplish this; families will have the time to spend with their children when we end the War On Drugs and the taxes that support it. Mothers will be able to stay home with their children and teach them these values; study after study shows the benefit of 2-parent households. We can't have many of those by stealing money from both parents, thus forcing both to work outside the home.

So all of these two parent households are working because they'd rather not have that second car, really nice clothes, makeup, golf and getting their nails done? Two parent households don't exist in large numbers because neither parent is willing to make the sacrifice of staying home with their child or children. I am the daughter of immigrants whose parents went without in order to rear their children. As did many other lower middle class people of that era. If parents had the same goals today they would make the same choices.

Libertarianism holds freedom of choice above all other values, and is loathe to penalize except in the most flagrant, unavoidable cases. Libertarianism may have some thing to offer the country, but only when part of the eclectic mix already arrived at by the electorate. They will never gain but a slight amount of steam, because more people than not perceive the results of pure libertarianism as an economic, defense of state, socially devolving abyss.

[Reagan Man]

In other words, "social conservatives" admit that they are pet program socialists.

Not at all. I think it means "social conservatives", have a deep rooted personal understanding and appreciation for traditional beliefs and values that stipulate, human beings follow a code, that distingishes, what is right from what is wrong. Social conservatives have a deep moral and spiritual compass, that promotes a society based on the principle of law and order, and not, chaos and anarchy.

[Ol' Sparky]

Thanks for posting this....You can bet the libertarian potheads at Free Republic will be flooding this thread with their pro-druggie propaganda.

[PaxMacian]

Ahh! 'SOCIETY' powerful corporate lobbies attempting to control and tax the particulars of the twisting of your minds. (alcohol and the A.M.A.) Reality is a greater decay of individual freedom and true liberty. This is the great country which is the bastion of freedom, where the possesion of a plant which countless generations have, with the grace of God, partaken should allow masked government thugs to pillage your possessions and send you to jail to be sodomized.

[GSWarrior]

There are thousands and thousands of drug dealers who share your hope that drugs remain illegal.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

If not legalizing drugs, we should at least not jail people for just using them. However, people who use drugs and then commit crimes, while on the drugs, should have the book at them. But if they use drugs and just zone out in their own little corner, leave them alone. Basically, treat drugs like we presently treat alcohol.

For the record, I do not use illegal drugs, I never have used them, and I have no desire to use them. If I wanted to use them, I had every opportunity during college. (Heck, I was sometimes the only person at a party not getting stoned.) However, I do consume large amounts of caffeine. More seriously, I take prescription medication for Attention Deficit Disorder and/or Depression.

[avenir]

I'm glad that drugs are illegal. If they weren't, people would probably use them.

I think you are right. It remains to be seen if they would all "like" them and continue using them, but surely without social stigma and with ready availability many would try them who otherwise would have passed.

Libertarianism insists on personal responsibility, which is good. But "too many are far from the self-restrained, healthy type envisaged by democratic theory" (Ernest Van den Haag).

Which is why some things are illegal.

[f.Christian]

Total... proof!

[Reagan Man]

Not to nag, or anything, but what constitutional foundation exists to support Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970?

The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive-branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can so long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure/guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law (due process, review and comment, etc).

[hove]

Yes this essay sure makes sense. It's a good thing that drugs are illegal and unobtainable. Imagine all the people that would run out to find drugs so they could become addicts...if drug became legal! Everybody I know would go looking for drugs if that happened. Because of the war on drugs, there just aren't any drugs to be found. That is why we don't have any drug users and addicts. I vote we stay drug free as a nation.....like it is now!

[tacticalogic]

fairly settled law,

The Commerce Clause was "fairly settled law" for 150 years before FDR screwed with it. Steak 'N Shake is older than the New Deal.

[truenospinzone]

I don't know that I actually expect a lucid response here, but I'll ask anyway.

In every one of these threads, you insist that Libertarians and those who oppose the Wo(s)D are "dope-smokers" and "pro-druggie". Many in the thread, myself included, then assert that we do not use drugs of any kind and oppose their use from a social perspective, i.e. would not personally associate with drug users. You ignore those responses and continue to call all Libertarians "Pro-druggie dopeheads".

So, either you believe that every one of us is lying, or you choose to be intellectually dishonest and continue to use qualifiers that you know are untrue. Which, may I ask, is it?

[grin]

One of the biggest problems this country has is people like you. My way or no way, mentality. The person that wrote this bs article, said it all when he he mentioned he was a proffesional in the criminal justice system. Its a bread and butter issue for this person, keep the money rolling in for this insane drug war. Typical dogooders, I know whats best for you. Lets ban something pot, tobacco, greasy hamburgers or whatever else catches their attention. More criminals = more money for the system.

[Liberal Classic]

The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable."

What was that again? ;)

[ActionNewsBill]

Basically, treat drugs like we presently treat alcohol.

I agree. What's so hard to understand about that? Why should we treat other drugs any differently than we do alcohol?

Alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug available, but I don't hear any of the "Drug Warriors" calling for a return to prohibition.

Probably because too many of them are addicted to their nightly martini or six-pack.

[Roscoe]

...the anti-prohibition camps gaining momentum.

Source?

[Charlotte Corday]

Yep, burn down that pot patch, but by gosh let's keep the Ritalin, Zoloft and Prozac rolling off the lines. That's the way to a "Drug-Free America"