MICHAEL MEDVED: Losertarians Choose Porcupine for Mascot

It isn't taxed sufficiently to pay for all the costs of alcohol use and abuse imposed on other citizens.

Out of the usual flame thread comes this interesting point.

What are the "social costs" of alcohol abuse? Should alcohol use be calculated into this formula or only abuse? How does one calculate them? It is the same formula used by the leftists in calculating the "social cost" of firearm ownership?

If alcohol and marijuana were taxed sufficiently to cover the "social cost" of abuse imposed on other citizens, would you not oppose their sale to adults? Instead of a tax could alcohol drinkers and marijuana smokers pay a cost bond or insurance policy to indemnify others from accidents relating to abuse?

Is it possible to adress your concerns about the "social cost" of all drug use (including alcohol) without prohibition laws?

Yeah, right; tell that to former US Senator Slade Gorton (1988-2000). Your statement is not true all the time, which it would have to be in order to be relevant.....

If you don't like things the way they are, then tell you what, leave them the way they are and they won't get better.

That's another attempt to stifle debate - you're trying to make this an all-or-nothing issue, a process that turns most drug-war threads into mindless school playground exchanges. I am simply challenging the notion that drug use is somehow vicitmless, beyond the user, when our experiences with a legal drug, alcohol, clearly don't bear that out.

I'm not advocating a liberal approach--I'm advocating a completely free market approach. Let people buy what they want. You're saying that we should be concerned about the consequences, and the question is, WHY?

Gee, I dunno, maybe I don't care to have a meth lab blow up in my neighborhood? Or see kids neglected or abused by junkie parents?

What, constitutionally or morally, calls us to intervene in others' behavior or the results of it, if it physically or financially causes us no harm?

Once again, there is adequate legal history for government to try and detemine a certain threshhold for PROBABLE harm, and not just harm itself, with the laws against drunk driving a prime example. I do agree that society gets carried away with that approach at times - but that does not invalidate the validity of the concept.

If you want to tell me that with legalization under the current system I am harmed by paying medical care for addicts and by the DUIs that addicts would have and the care for the children of addicts and the psychological harm done to these kids, well, I'm with you, but who says that legalization has to include care for this stuff?

The impact of drug abuse goes far deeper than just the immediate family.

Why is that a given? We sure don't mind providing this kind of care for alcoholics and their kids--why is this the argument AGAINST legalizing something that in the cases of many drugs are simply not as evil in their effect as 'ol demon rum.

Once again, it is about determining a threshhold of potential harm. I see pot and booze as being pretty similar in their impact and they therefore should be treated in a similar matter. Harder drugs, however, have a very high probability of harm, both to users and to those around them. There is one problem with waiting for actual harm to happen before acting in many of these cases - when the harm does happen, it is often catastrophic and life-altering, if not life-ending, for people other than the users. And no legal remediation can adequately compenstate for such damage.

No, it is relevant and your statement is bogus. I was describing my personal experiences with Libertarians of my own acquaintance, and intentionally NOT making a global statement that Libertarians help Republicans *all* of the time.

That Libertarians help at least some of the time should be enough to be considered at least partial allies. *Non-fringe* (important point here) Libertarians generally have more in common with the Republican Party than with the Dems, whose desire for bigger and bigger government is a non-starter with anyone with a Libertarian bent.

At the very least, the economic beliefs of both 'Pubs and LP are very close, even if the social opinions are different. And in case you haven't noticed, not even all 'Pubs march in lock-step.

LQ

That's another attempt to stifle debate - you're trying to make this an all-or-nothing issue, a process that turns most drug-war threads into mindless school playground exchanges. I am simply challenging the notion that drug use is somehow vicitmless, beyond the user, when our experiences with a legal drug, alcohol, clearly don't bear that out.

And I'm AGREEING with you. But I don't care that the outcome might be more victims in the way that you do, because you see this as a matter of the drug creating victims, and I see this as a matter of both the drug AND the illegalization of the drug creating victims. I don't see how legalizing drugs make things worse; in fact, I think that the options are a lot better for those who are addicted to legal drugs than illegal ones.

Gee, I dunno, maybe I don't care to have a meth lab blow up in my neighborhood? Or see kids neglected or abused by junkie parents?

Okay, I'm the one trying to stifle debate. With a line like that, you have room to accuse me of making this an all or nothing issue? You put up the notion that this is discussion and then scream 'What about the children?' Sheesh. I guess turnabout is fair play!

Once again, there is adequate legal history for government to try and detemine a certain threshhold for PROBABLE harm, and not just harm itself, with the laws against drunk driving a prime example. I do agree that society gets carried away with that approach at times - but that does not invalidate the validity of the concept.

Okay, but at what point does that concept become invalid due to society getting carried away? Does it ever? I say the notion of preemption, banning something due to its probable harm, is invalid when we have a significant enough percentage of our population essentially disregarding the laws and/or a significant enough percentage of officials uninterested in enforcing them. Laws should be stricken from the books if they're not enforced or actually considered law any more, because that cheapens the notion of legal sanction.

The impact of drug abuse goes far deeper than just the immediate family.

So it does. So what? So does the victimization of societal mores that comes from a culture of prohibition. Flappers didn't come about because alcohol was legal, and Cheech and Chong didn't arrive in pop culture because pot is. It's purely because it's mala prohibita that it's enticing.

Once again, it is about determining a threshhold of potential harm. I see pot and booze as being pretty similar in their impact and they therefore should be treated in a similar matter. Harder drugs, however, have a very high probability of harm, both to users and to those around them. There is one problem with waiting for actual harm to happen before acting in many of these cases - when the harm does happen, it is often catastrophic and life-altering, if not life-ending, for people other than the users. And no legal remediation can adequately compenstate for such damage

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time making a statistical case comparing the injury caused by those hopped up on coke or heroin vs. alcohol or many prescription drugs. I'm so tired of hearing "This is Angel-Dust! PCP!...DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS STUFF DOES TO KIDS!?!?" If no legal remediation can compensate for such damage, let's just lock down society and issue pass cards for travel outside homes. That would prevent that damage that we can never, ever repair. It'd also prevent REAL LIFE, which sucks, so get a helmet.

I understand you're stating your case in earnest, and I'm just asking you this: if you're so for preemption, in the case of possession of things that invite or maybe even incite crime, when are you taking away guns? When are you banning cars in the possession of teens? Both have a correlation to crimes a-plenty, and certainly a case every good as one connecting drugs and crime could be made for both of those.

Preemptive strike now, while we can make the world a safer place! /sarcasm