Drug Laws as Cultural Lobotomy

Liberty Magazine ^ | 9/1995 | John Dentinger

[rolling_stone]

Things that cause social harm and spiritual destruction are not recognized at all...If I had a dollar for every kid messed up by druggie parents who were "non violent users" who defend legalization, I would be rich.

What, you mean the WOSD's isn't working ? How can all these people get illegal drugs? I imagine you get more than a dollar for every prescription you write....

I agree some people will never be good parents, druggies or otherwise, should we pass a law outlawing having children unless the parents pass certain state mandated criteria? Such as they can't use tobacco or alcohol, no affairs, contract to stay together until child reaches 18, must provide certain level of income for child, spend x number of hours per week with child, etc...I suspect many of those things also can affect a child's life but I don't see any laws about that now, maybe we should stop the WOSD's and start policing parents, yeah that's the ticket pass a law making the parent's toe the line and be responsible...

[cynicom]

rooster...

OK OK I went back and read that epistle.

Firstly, having once been addicted to prescription drugs, I have enough knowledge to be scared of them. I did not like not living in my own mind and quit cold turkey.

People that abuse drugs for recreation purposes always have someone to blame, never themselves.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

You are correct that power is one of the key desires of men - I made the point that people rationalize about any idea or behavior.

Without some overall guiding principle men are lost in this world looking for power and shirking responsibility.

[Ches]

Like all large government programs driven by unions, protecting jobs with bureaucracies and private industries as beneficiaries of these programs, they will always justify themselves with the same old argument - that we can not compare apples to oranges. There are too many variables in quality of life arguments (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and can not possibly be weighed against their hard statistical data that directly justifies their myopic existance.

It's a social disease.
"Officer Krupki, I'm down on my knees as no one wants a fella with a social disease."
West Side Story

[coloradan]

To follow up on my previous question, how does the "inalienable right ... [to the] pursuit of happiness" clause of the DOI fit in with your contention that "feeling good" is an unworthy goal, or something that should be prohibited?

[William Terrell]

We should be encouraging all the unfit to use more chemicals and die, preferably before breeding.

That's a hardnosed position. But Mother Nature is not kind, fair, loving and sweet. If we refuse to allow natural selection, she will refuse to allow us.

We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please

Not while Doc Savage and Tarzan are still around to kick ass.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[William Terrell]

Hello, hello? Would you care to give some indication that you base your thinking on any aspect of objective reality rather than your own prejudices and programing?

Let's not be a hit and run, shall we? You do your position no good by avoiding hard questions.

[Bob Mc]

"Without some overall guiding principle men are lost in this world looking for power and shirking responsibility."

Our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our 3 branches of government with checks and balances on each other, our representative form of LIMITED government established by our founding fathers IS the "overall guiding principle".

Unfortunately today, it is completely ignored.

[tacticalogic]

What's intrinsically wrong with being "high", euphoric or having an alterered state of consciousness? God says not to? Where does He say that?

And how do you reconcile that with the Penatcosts, who experience "The Rapture", where they enter an altered state of mind, speak in tongues, handle poisonous snakes and drink rat poison - in the name of God.

[William Terrell]

Another good question for BabyDoc, I mean LadyDoc.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

"Our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, "

All based on natural rights that have been given by God -- this is what the Founding Fathers envisioned -- a nation of moral people. We have been given freedom to do what is right not to do what feels good. It is difficult to undo the leftist programing of the last 50-60 years that is now ingrained in society that to be conservative is to be un-American and responsibility can and must be done by legislative bodies.

[jayef]

This is brilliant. I think we should do the same thing with alcoholics. Alcoholics should be offered no treatment for their addition, no counseling for their families and no treatment for the inevitable diseases of the heart, liver and brain that are the result of their abuse of this drug. Right on!

[jayef]

This presumes that smoking pot is an immoral action. I guess you also presuppose that there is a scale on which God measures these things. So to God, a hit of acid is worse than a line of coke, a line of coke is worse than a tab of X, a tab of X is worse than a joint and a joint is worse than a glass of wine. Does that about sum up your moral argument? Do you understand how utterly bankrupt such an argument is?

[jayef]

. . . or is the coke worse than the acid? Maybe the X is worse than the coke? I don't know. Biblical references anyone?

[Bob Mc]

" "We have been given freedom to do what is right not to do what feels good."

It is obvious we agree on much, I particularly agree about how many so called "conservatives" are wrong thinking more legislation cam make a more moral people.

But be careful with your statement above. Doing something because it "feels good", even if it is self destructive, is still a right we should have.

I prefer the founding fathers attitude, that you are free to do as you please (even what feels good), as long as you do not violate the equal rights of others.

[_Jim]

Does drug prohibition bring us closer to God?

Yes, you may say that - as ingesting and inhaling intoxicating substances does not *sharpen* one's senses -

- but rather ingesting and inhaling intoxicating substances *dulls* them -

- putting you at a substantial disadvantage when it comes time to first receive God's message and secondly the subsequent understanding of that message ...

Do you think your ultimate goal as deigned by God is to become stoned at each and every opportunity?

In the Bible the purpose for strong drink *is* mentioned - and it does not condone it it's use for the purpose of keeping oneself in a perpetual state of numbness to life's pain ...

[_Jim]

WOD Ping

Make that an "HoD" Ping -

- as in another "Hyperbole on Drugs" argument ping ...

[robertpaulsen]

"Liberty Magazine, the monthly libertarian (classical liberal, or individualist) review of thought, culture and politics." As if we couldn't have guessed by the total amount of bull$hit contained therein.

I got as far as the fifth paragraph -- "honest, credible drug education may increase drug use -- but decreases drug abuse", and thought to myself, "Yeah, that worked for alcohol, didn't it?"

BTW, diphenylhydantoin is an anticonvulsant medicine. Toxicology: Toxic. Human carcinogen, neoplastigen, teratogen, mutagen. Experimental carcinogen. May cause systemic effects. May case reproductive defects.

Personally, I'd rather continue smoking than take this crap to quit. No wonder it's not FDA approved.

[_Jim]

The fair disclosure clause for this piece should read thusly:

The source of this piece is from: Liberty Magazine whose index page states, at the opening:

Liberty Magazine

Liberty Magazine is the web site for Liberty magazine, the monthly libertarian (classical liberal, or individualist) review of thought, culture and politics.