View Full Version : drug legalization (from: GOP talk of military action in Mexico)
davidjinks
08-26-23, 06:06
What the **** is the difference if some asshole goes out and buys a case of Jack Daniel’s versus buying a bag of coke?
Who gives a shit! Last reported statistics was something like 107,000 people died last year from OD. Let them die! Legalize it and it will sort itself out. 42,000+ died from being drunk and behind the wheel. No one is going to war with alcohol makers. I’ve yet to see the BATFE raid Jack Daniel’s.
It’s a waste of ****ing time, money and resources.
Yep, instead of controlling our borders, let's just let Mexican drug cartels turn the entire US into an opium den. You think shit is an out of control disastrous failure now? Go ahead and legalize it.
It will make you long for the days when choking on people's second hand legal skunk weed in public places was the biggest annoyance about legalized drugs. Oh your family got killed by somebody on meth? Well it's legal so he's in treatment.
…
Who gives a shit! Last reported statistics was something like 107,000 people died last year from OD. Let them die! Legalize it and it will sort itself out. 42,000+ died from being drunk and behind the wheel....
That’s not how things work.
ChattanoogaPhil
08-26-23, 08:33
There really is a big difference. Teens are taking a single pill that they think is an Oxy then dying of fentanyl poisoning. That isn't even remotely comparable to when I was a teen in California during the 70s and drugs were literally everywhere. Kids weren't dropping dead like they are today, even with far more sophisticated OD treatments now available.
davidjinks
08-26-23, 08:38
So explain how things work
Prohibition was the same as the war on drugs. Modern day, you can go out and buy a case of Jack and no one blinks an eye.
That’s not how things work.
davidjinks
08-26-23, 08:39
Hate to tell you, teens are dropping dead from alcohol just like they are drugs.
Again, what’s the difference?
There really is a big difference. Teens are taking a single pill that they think is an Oxy then dying of fentanyl poisoning. That isn't even remotely comparable to when I was a teen in California during the 70s and drugs were literally everywhere. Kids weren't dropping dead like they are today, even with far more sophisticated OD treatments now available.
So explain how things work
You should look up how the first opium wars went.
Maybe visit a city where drug use is legal or not enforced.
There really is a big difference. Teens are taking a single pill that they think is an Oxy then dying of fentanyl poisoning. That isn't even remotely comparable to when I was a teen in California during the 70s and drugs were literally everywhere. Kids weren't dropping dead like they are today, even with far more sophisticated OD treatments now available.
Adulterated alcohol(via greed, ignorance, and even .gov edict) was a thing during prohibition which caused death.
It really appears the war on alcohol and the follow up war on other drugs had/have more to do with stripping away rights(2A is one) and doing away with .gov limitations than any concern about public health or safety.
There also seems to be a decent chance it is also geared toward knocking off competitors of those with connections.
You should look up how the first opium wars went.
Maybe visit a city where drug use is legal or not enforced.
Like this? https://www.foxnews.com/us/crisis-kensington-philadelphia-area-safe-haven-hell-earth
https://www.foxnews.com/us/crisis-kensington-want-shoot-up-front-police-place-mayoral-candidate
Or this? https://www.foxnews.com/media/oregon-da-crime-rates-tragic-result-decriminalzing-hard-drugs
Andy
Like this? https://www.foxnews.com/us/crisis-kensington-philadelphia-area-safe-haven-hell-earth
https://www.foxnews.com/us/crisis-kensington-want-shoot-up-front-police-place-mayoral-candidate
Or this? https://www.foxnews.com/media/oregon-da-crime-rates-tragic-result-decriminalzing-hard-drugs
Andy
Use may be legal, buy they are still buying an illegal product that is produced in someone's garage.
While it is still an overall drain on society, legalized alcohol isn't adulterated and causing blindness and jake leg nor are Miller and Bud distributors getting in shootouts over sales areas as occurred during alcohol prohibition.
That’s not how things work.
Well.... don’t leave us hanging here Obi Wan.
Hate to tell you, teens are dropping dead from alcohol just like they are drugs.
Not really. I can't tell you the last time we had to resuscitate a kid with extreme alcohol poisoning in the ED. Last week alone we probably had 5 come in for OD.
I could buy the argument that a lot of kids who die from ETOH-related problems die in MVCs, and not ETOH overdose.
Just because there are abuses in laws and enforcement doesn’t mean the only alternative is legalization. This is an oversimplification I think is too common in the legalization crowd.
To me that’s like saying we shouldn’t have fought AQ because the Patriot Act is bad.
We will never stop drunk driving, but it doesn’t mean we should stop enforcement. But I think we should stop unconstitutional DUI checkpoints.
We should eliminate the unconstitutional laws and enforcement against drugs, stop calling it a “war”, and stop claiming it’s something we can “win”.
Just because there are abuses in laws and enforcement doesn’t mean the only alternative is legalization. This is an oversimplification I think is too common in the legalization crowd.
Thanks to the WOD we live in a country where dogs can issue search warrants. The amount of freedoms you have lost because of some random plant is astounding, you are on a pro 2A gun website and yet you just don’t care.
When I entered LE in the very early 2000’s I was a Reagan loving Republican, when I left LE about a decade later I was a hardcore Uber libertarian...
Prohibition worked like a champ...comparable to wod.
ChattanoogaPhil
08-26-23, 10:49
Hate to tell you, teens are dropping dead from alcohol just like they are drugs.
Again, what’s the difference?
The difference? All the alcohol poisoning deaths for those 24 and under are about 100 a year. In that same age bracket about 6,500 opioid deaths during 2021.
My original point what that fentanyl laced pills are nothing like when I was a kid during the 70s. Drugs were everywhere... whites, reds, yellows, black beauties... you name it. Anyone living during that time knows what I'm talking about. Kids weren't dropping dead from taking a pill or even a blotter hit anywhere near like kids are today. The situation is MUCH different today. If you want to convince yourself otherwise... enjoy.
Well.... don’t leave us hanging here Obi Wan.
Despite spending too much time on this forum, I do have a life outside the internet. Perhaps that’s why I have perspective.
Others have actually responded well enough.
How many people have been killed or permanently damaged (physical or psychological) by alcohol use after one instance of use?
We’ll never get rid of drugs. And I used to be OK with marijuana legalization. But we’ve actually seen the result of that.
We’ll also never get rid of murder.
Every thing that is legal becomes easier. As a society, we get to decide whether we want that for ourselves and our kids.
People aren't out robbing and breaking into houses to support their alcohol habit, or if they are, the numbers are so small so as to be insignificant.
Take the numbers for violent crime and start looking for the tie ins to narcotics. It is immediately clear they are linked at a high level. That doesn't mean all, but so much crime ties back into the drug trade it is obscene. Making it legal might drop the price a bit, but the rest of the crime that goes around it still exists.
ChattanoogaPhil
08-26-23, 11:00
Not really. I can't tell you the last time we had to resuscitate a kid with extreme alcohol poisoning in the ED. Last week alone we probably had 5 come in for OD.
I could buy the argument that a lot of kids who die from ETOH-related problems die in MVCs, and not ETOH overdose.
Right. A kid drinking his first beer might gag on the taste and maybe puke after two or three, but that's much different that taking a fentanyl laced pill and ODing shortly thereafter.
Thanks to the WOD we live in a country where dogs can issue search warrants. The amount of freedoms you have lost because of some random plant is astounding, you are on a pro 2A gun website and yet you just don’t care.
When I entered LE in the very early 2000’s I was a Reagan loving Republican, when I left LE about a decade later I was a hardcore Uber libertarian...
Concur: the abuse of authority and even worse our civil rights under this so-called 'war on drugs' has become little more than an empowerment mechanism. Some 'dog' supposedly 'alerts' on your car, and how much of your rights go out the window right there and then?
And we also know this 'alert' situation is a situation where the handler can manipulate the dog and 'claim' it is a bonafide alert, as well as it is becoming documented these dogs are not as accurate as claimed.
Where are the standards that define what constitutes a legitimate alert by a dog? None that I know of. Only a subjectively specious claim on an animals behavior, not a standard I want my civil rights to be subjected to.
The same for the 'claim' that if both windows are open, an officer can claim he/she 'smells the odor of weed' < this is case law if memory serves me correctly and also if memory serves me correctly gives probable cause for search.
Again, a specious claim of which there is almost no defense against unless an individual knows to keep one window up at all times during an LE interaction.
Legalization may not be the perfect answer, cultural change in regards to drug use would be a good starting point along with legalization. However this farce of a "war on drugs" needs to stop.
Thanks to the WOD we live in a country where dogs can issue search warrants. The amount of freedoms you have lost because of some random plant is astounding, you are on a pro 2A gun website and yet you just don’t care.
When I entered LE in the very early 2000’s I was a Reagan loving Republican, when I left LE about a decade later I was a hardcore Uber libertarian...
You are proving my point of oversimplifying. You don’t HAVE to legalize hard drugs to remove bad laws.
You are proving my point of oversimplifying. You don’t HAVE to legalize hard drugs to remove bad laws.
No sir, I believe you are missing the point entirely. These bad laws exist because of it, the loss of liberty and rights because of it. If any part of it is allowed to continue it will be repurposed and used against you.
We are too over policed as it is and you can thank the war on some drugs because of it.
The amount of power the average street cop has over you should be alarming to you. A simple traffic stop for something purely subjective such as a failure to maintain lane, following too close or “obstructed tag” yeah that’s a fun one. All can turn into a full blown you’re in cuffs, disarmed and having you car tossed all because some rookie thought he smelled weed, the odor of burnt crack or such. Or he sees something that he believes is in plain view is contraband and initiates a search based upon that.
Oh look, he just found that $1200 in cash you have in your center console that you took out of your bank yesterday. You were on your way to meet me to buy some cool piece of kit I have for sale.
Damn, now it’s gone, never to be seen again down the rabbit hole of civil asset forfeiture. Cop claimed it’s proceeds for a drug transaction even though he never found the weed he claimed to smell to begin with. But that starts the narrative of his report and is the foundation of the prosecutors basis for seizing your cash. Cops willing to testify to it, judge gonna buy it, you gonna lose it.
All because of the glorious war on some drugs.
It all needs to go, every last bit of it.
Cops will whine and argue it’s harder to do the job now. Guess what it should be, it should be incredibly hard for me to stop you, detain you, cuff you and search your car roadside.
It should be a monumental task for me to build a case present it to a judge and secure a search warrant allowing me to enter your house with force if necessary and without your consent search your belongings looking for evidence to use against you.
No sir, I believe you are missing the point entirely. These bad laws exist because of it, the loss of liberty and rights because of it. If any part of it is allowed to continue it will be repurposed and used against you.
We are too over policed as it is and you can thank the war on some drugs because of it.
The amount of power the average street cop has over you should be alarming to you. A simple traffic stop for something purely subjective such as a failure to maintain lane, following too close or “obstructed tag” yeah that’s a fun one. All can turn into a full blown you’re in cuffs, disarmed and having you car tossed all because some rookie thought he smelled weed, the odor of burnt crack or such. Or he sees something that he believes is in plain view is contraband and initiates a search based upon that.
Oh look, he just found that $1200 in cash you have in your center console that you took out of your bank yesterday. You were on your way to meet me to buy some cool piece of kit I have for sale.
Damn, now it’s gone, never to be seen again down the rabbit hole of civil asset forfeiture. Cop claimed it’s proceeds for a drug transaction even though he never found the weed he claimed to smell to begin with. But that starts the narrative of his report and is the foundation of the prosecutors basis for seizing your cash. Cops willing to testify to it, judge gonna buy it, you gonna lose it.
All because of the glorious war on some drugs.
It all needs to go, every last bit of it.
Cops will whine and argue it’s harder to do the job now. Guess what it should be, it should be incredibly hard for me to stop you, detain you, cuff you and search your car roadside.
It should be a monumental task for me to build a case present it to a judge and secure a search warrant allowing me to enter your house with force if necessary and without your consent search your belongings looking for evidence to use against you.
The amount of individual Freedoms and Liberty surrendered for the (lost by any metric...) "war on drugs" should be what really bothers otherwise conservative people. It's a blind spot they can't seem to over come. Anyone who knows anything about the topic will never utter the statement "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" then support the war on drugs, should never utter that statement as they don't actually mean it. I think it's just existed long enough, it's normal to them, yet far worse than say Patriot Act and others to our Liberty.
It's a blind spot they can't seem to over come.
It must be, and it’s so discouraging to those of us who are trying to sound the alarm. You’d think the ones like me who’s actually done the job and saw firsthand how quickly you can have your life upended, that our opinions might rank slightly higher than others.
The difference? All the alcohol poisoning deaths for those 24 and under are about 100 a year. In that same age bracket about 6,500 opioid deaths during 2021.
My original point what that fentanyl laced pills are nothing like when I was a kid during the 70s. Drugs were everywhere... whites, reds, yellows, black beauties... you name it. Anyone living during that time knows what I'm talking about. Kids weren't dropping dead from taking a pill or even a blotter hit anywhere near like kids are today. The situation is MUCH different today. If you want to convince yourself otherwise... enjoy.
Now try alcohol someone is distilling out behind their barn or adulterated by .gov mandate as was occurring 100 years ago.
SomeOtherGuy
08-26-23, 12:38
Michigan legalized marijuana in 2018. It went suddenly from a trivial illegal drug that few people used, to an extremely common "legal" drug that has retail stores, advertising, and a user base of something like 20-30% of Michigan adults. It's now a major issue in schools down to middle school, maybe even older elementary school, because of vaping and edibles.
Before the state const. amendment vote, I was ambivalent on legalization. Now, seeing the effects, I think full legalization was a terrible idea. A close relative lives in Colorado and has seen the same there.
But I also agree with the legitimate criticism of the stupid "war on drugs" that has largely failed, while wrecking our general civil rights.
Maybe there's an in-between land of decriminalization - keep the drugs and their use illegal, allow for confiscation of actual drugs, but do away with the no-knock raids, civil forfeiture, etc., all of those abuses. Or maybe that's worse, because it would life easier for the dealers. I don't know. The national experience with alcohol suggests this may be a predicament rather than solvable problem.
People aren't out robbing and breaking into houses to support their alcohol habit, or if they are, the numbers are so small so as to be insignificant.
Take the numbers for violent crime and start looking for the tie ins to narcotics. It is immediately clear they are linked at a high level. That doesn't mean all, but so much crime ties back into the drug trade it is obscene. Making it legal might drop the price a bit, but the rest of the crime that goes around it still exists.
That is due to alcohol not being illegal or a disqualifier in trace amounts for getting/staying employed.
Try alcohol prohibition again(to include the adulterated alcohol), add in alcohol testing for employment, and watch the fun begin.
Every bad part of prohibition combined with unemployment would truly be a sight to behold considering the similarities between alcohol and opiate withdrawal multiplied with the tendency of alcohol to cause violent behavior.
Legalizing drugs has done wonders for Portland, San Fran, LA and other liberal paradises. Watch some videos of the Kensington district in Philadelphia to see a good example of what happens when drug laws are not enforced. It is sad and a disgrace.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/crisis-kensington-want-shoot-up-front-police-place-mayoral-candidate
Averageman
08-26-23, 14:17
I don't trust our .Gov to be able to do this correctly, safely or without corruption.
After COVID, there would likely be a long and very valuable list of who will control production and I'm sure the same cast of characters would step up to the government trough to feed again.
There might be a few ways to at least slow this down, but to be honest we "F"up everything our .gov touches.
Alcohol is legal, yet we have clearly unconstitutional DUI checkpoints. How is that possible if bad laws are only made for prohibited substances?
End the “war on drugs”
End the idea that we could “win” it with just one more oppressive law
That doesn’t mean we have to legalize everything and make the whole country into Portland and SF.
ChattanoogaPhil
08-26-23, 15:46
The amount of individual Freedoms and Liberty surrendered for the (lost by any metric...) "war on drugs" should be what really bothers otherwise conservative people. It's a blind spot they can't seem to over come. Anyone who knows anything about the topic will never utter the statement "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" then support the war on drugs, should never utter that statement as they don't actually mean it. I think it's just existed long enough, it's normal to them, yet far worse than say Patriot Act and others to our Liberty.
Unless living in the woods alone, we all give up some degree of liberties to live in society, everything from decency laws to drug laws.
Is walking down a sidewalk jerking-off or laying on the sidewalk with a needle stuck in your arm “essential liberties". Both are activities that some feel are public safety concerns. Are they wrong? I can tell you I certainly wouldn't want my teenage granddaughter or wife near either. Most agree, and laws are created to restrict and prevent such.
When laws aren’t enforced… not the society I wish to reside.
https://i.imgur.com/6gb6O1P.png
Alcohol is legal, yet we have clearly unconstitutional DUI checkpoints. How is that possible if bad laws are only made for prohibited substances?
Little bit of history about these roadblocks or checkpoints started popping up in the 1970s. Guess what else happened in the early 70’s?
Yup Nixon declared war on drugs...
In most cases, groups of officers pulled over every vehicle that passed to verify drivers’ licenses.
But the reality, these checkpoints had one purpose, to allow officers to conduct warrantless searches of persons and vehicles to look for evidence of drug crimes and weapons violations. Alcohol and other infractions were a little ways down the list.
So guess where you were most likely to encounter one of these roadblocks at?
Yup, poor predominantly minority neighborhoods where drug activity was considered highest.
It wasn’t until the mid to late 90’s when federal money began flowing into local cop shop coffers to fund tasks forces that people started hearing about DUI becoming the primary focus of these clearly unconstitutional roadblocks.
These things y’all are all using as examples are all indeed bad and unconstitutional, but their genesis isn’t from where you think it is.
The most intrusive blatantly unconstitutional shit we endure today is all brought to you by the failed drug war.
Little bit of history about these roadblocks or checkpoints started popping up in the 1970s. Guess what else happened in the early 70’s?
Yup Nixon declared war on drugs...
In most cases, groups of officers pulled over every vehicle that passed to verify drivers’ licenses.
But the reality, these checkpoints had one purpose, to allow officers to conduct warrantless searches of persons and vehicles to look for evidence of drug crimes and weapons violations. Alcohol and other infractions were a little ways down the list.
So guess where you were most likely to encounter one of these roadblocks at?
Yup, poor predominantly minority neighborhoods where drug activity was considered highest.
I lived in a dry option area for about 35 years on the same road as a country club which had a restaurant that was byob(plus allegedly had a 12oz can machine for beer). Lots of sobriety check points in the county during that time, but only one I recall seeing between the club and the main population/business area.
ViniVidivici
08-27-23, 11:44
We already have legalized drugs.
Ever watch TV?
Every single ****ing commercial break has a drug commercial, many are "ask your doctor about 'get happy', if you feel you're not super duper happy 24/7".
And of course ethanol containing products everywhere. Funny, socially accepted and legal drug there, so it's okay, right?
Fudds who drink a case a night look down their noses at folks who smoke a bowl every now and then.
Disclaimer: no personal dog in the fight, I don't use ANY of that shit, just caffeine.
The only way legalizing EVERYTHING works is if it is accompanied with a VERY harsh handling of crime. THAT is where our modern idiot-society would undoubtedly fall short.
Example: legalize possession and use of...whatever. But you steal/rob/harm to get your fix? You go away for 20 years.
THAT is the problem with "legalize" arguments, it NEVER is accompanied by how to properly handle the crime aspect.
Things aren't out of control because drug laws aren't being enforced, they're out of control because CRIME isnt being dealt with as severely as it should be.
Averageman
08-27-23, 12:14
We already have legalized drugs.
Ever watch TV?
Every single ****ing commercial break has a drug commercial, many are "ask your doctor about 'get happy', if you feel you're not super duper happy 24/7".
And of course ethanol containing products everywhere. Funny, socially accepted and legal drug there, so it's okay, right?
Fudds who drink a case a night look down their noses at folks who smoke a bowl every now and then.
Disclaimer: no personal dog in the fight, I don't use ANY of that shit, just caffeine.
The only way legalizing EVERYTHING works is if it is accompanied with a VERY harsh handling of crime. THAT is where our modern idiot-society would undoubtedly fall short.
Example: legalize possession and use of...whatever. But you steal/rob/harm to get your fix? You go away for 20 years.
THAT is the problem with "legalize" arguments, it NEVER is accompanied by how to properly handle the crime aspect.
Things aren't out of control because drug laws aren't being enforced, they're out of control because CRIME isnt being dealt with as severely as it should be.
In the boradest terms I agree with you, but I have to ask?
If our State Governments couldn't handle legalizing Marijuana, how would they ever be able to control stronger drugs?
The Money and Power involved brought by Big Pharma will corrupt the very idea of what you're trying to achieve. As soon as you tell Politicans it's legal, they tax the shit out of it because they all have a plan to get rich by scamming the system.
Just like they are doing with Marijuana.
And when they tried to control it and tax it, the folks who can legally buy grass buy from small independant Growers. They refuse to buy it from an overbearing State and Federal System made to be milked by politicans.
Greed.
In the boradest terms I agree with you, but I have to ask?
If our State Governments couldn't handle legalizing Marijuana, how would they ever be able to control stronger drugs?
The Money and Power involved brought by Big Pharma will corrupt the very idea of what you're trying to achieve. As soon as you tell Politicans it's legal, they tax the shit out of it because they all have a plan to get rich by scamming the system.
Just like they are doing with Marijuana.
And when they tried to control it and tax it, the folks who can legally buy grass buy from small independant Growers. They refuse to buy it from an overbearing State and Federal System made to be milked by politicans.
Greed.
The "tax the shit out of it" idea got tried off and on with alcohol too along the way and everytime that happened miniature versions of the Volstead Act Era crime resulted. Creating crime is a fairly large business.
In the boradest terms I agree with you, but I have to ask?
If our State Governments couldn't handle legalizing Marijuana, how would they ever be able to control stronger drugs?
The Money and Power involved brought by Big Pharma will corrupt the very idea of what you're trying to achieve. As soon as you tell Politicans it's legal, they tax the shit out of it because they all have a plan to get rich by scamming the system.
Just like they are doing with Marijuana.
And when they tried to control it and tax it, the folks who can legally buy grass buy from small independant Growers. They refuse to buy it from an overbearing State and Federal System made to be milked by politicans.
Greed.
Money is the key to the legalization issue. So if the feds would make it legal many of the problems would disappear.
Here in MI they made recreational pot legal, but they didn't convince the feds change their definition of legal. The pot stores couldn't get bank accounts or credit, so the hoodrats that lost money from the sales they are no longer making, then go kill the store employees and steal the money and pot from the store.
I voted no to having pot legalized, but after having a severe illness last year I've changed my mind as I found that legal pain medicine is near impossible to get these days but pot is readily available. 3 gummies and I could sleep through the night.
If they made tests available to detect the drugs in a persons system like they have for detecting alcohol, I would be ok with making it all legal. Drive while messed up on (add drug name here) you get the same treatment drunks get. Same with being messed up on anything in public, treat it like alcohol and actually enforce the laws they pass, it could work.
Averageman
08-27-23, 16:58
Money is the key to the legalization issue. So if the feds would make it legal many of the problems would disappear.
Here in MI they made recreational pot legal, but they didn't convince the feds change their definition of legal. The pot stores couldn't get bank accounts or credit, so the hoodrats that lost money from the sales they are no longer making, then go kill the store employees and steal the money and pot from the store.
I voted no to having pot legalized, but after having a severe illness last year I've changed my mind as I found that legal pain medicine is near impossible to get these days but pot is readily available. 3 gummies and I could sleep through the night.
If they made tests available to detect the drugs in a persons system like they have for detecting alcohol, I would be ok with making it all legal. Drive while messed up on (add drug name here) you get the same treatment drunks get. Same with being messed up on anything in public, treat it like alcohol and actually enforce the laws they pass, it could work.
If the Federal Government would step in it would be better for all, however I dont see that happening any time soon.
The States and locals need to learn not to be so greedy with taxing marijuana as that's what drives sales underground. If you want normalicy, then act normal and don't act like this is a money maker, tax it like you tax medicine or groceries.
I would agree that we need to be sober to drive and there should be stiff penalties for driving while intoxicated.
If the Federal Government would step in it would be better for all, however I dont see that happening any time soon.
The States and locals need to learn not to be so greedy with taxing marijuana as that's what drives sales underground. If you want normalicy, then act normal and don't act like this is a money maker, tax it like you tax medicine or groceries.
I would agree that we need to be sober to drive and there should be stiff penalties for driving while intoxicated.I can agree with this.
I've never asked what the tax rate is on alcohol or cigarettes but a neighbor said that pot had a 10% tax plus the states 6% sales tax. I don't know if that is true but it does seem excessive if it is.
I no longer buy the gummies (so asking while in the store isn't an option now) because the illness I had has mostly went away.
MJ should be dropped from schedule totally, but that would be a step in the right direction for freedom of choice and Liberty. The "war on drugs" was lost decades ago by any metric, yet millions in prison and billions of $ thrown in the toilet every year. The Right/GOP is 100% wrong about the drug issue while the left/Dems are 100% wrong on the gun issue. We Libertarian types seem to be the only group who fully "get" that.
Maybe the Brandon admin might do one thing right, maybe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyEfvLfRTY0
If the Federal Government would step in it would be better for all, however I dont see that happening any time soon.
The States and locals need to learn not to be so greedy with taxing marijuana as that's what drives sales underground. If you want normalicy, then act normal and don't act like this is a money maker, tax it like you tax medicine or groceries.
I would agree that we need to be sober to drive and there should be stiff penalties for driving while intoxicated.
MJ should be dropped from schedule totally, but that would be a step in the right direction for freedom of choice and Liberty. The "war on drugs" was lost decades ago by any metric, yet millions in prison and billions of $ thrown in the toilet every year. The Right/GOP is 100% wrong about the drug issue while the left/Dems are 100% wrong on the gun issue. We Libertarian types seem to be the only group who fully "get" that.
Maybe the Brandon admin might do one thing right, maybe...
First, I don't know that want the feds involved anything, period, including this.
Second, if I have a drink, that's something my body clears in a finite amount of time, and has graduated levels. MJ? Not sure they can do that. So if I drink tonight, I can work tomorrow. If I have MJ tonight, am I safe tomorrow? What would show up on a tox screen? Would you want ME taking care of you?
I think there's a lot of logistics that need to be satisfied.
First, I don't know that want the feds involved anything, period, including this.
Second, if I have a drink, that's something my body clears in a finite amount of time, and has graduated levels. MJ? Not sure they can do that. So if I drink tonight, I can work tomorrow. If I have MJ tonight, am I safe tomorrow? What would show up on a tox screen? Would you want ME taking care of you?
I think there's a lot of logistics that need to be satisfied.
Research is what answers the Qs and no one will research due to the ridiculous schedule of MJ. Clearance rates of MJ, and like booze, no doubt, partially dose dependent:
https://www.healthline.com/health/how-long-does-weed-stay-in-your-system
Good read.
Psychoactive Substances and Violence.
by Jeffrey A. Roth
ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/psycho.txt
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/psycho.txt
First, I don't know that want the feds involved anything, period, including this.
Second, if I have a drink, that's something my body clears in a finite amount of time, and has graduated levels. MJ? Not sure they can do that. So if I drink tonight, I can work tomorrow. If I have MJ tonight, am I safe tomorrow? What would show up on a tox screen? Would you want ME taking care of you?
I think there's a lot of logistics that need to be satisfied.
While this was written up with a focus on sports, just about every point applies to any other endeavor. I assume this was based on alcohol that was taxed(or could have been) instead of illicit varieties.
"Alcohol impairs skills crucial to athletic performance for up to 72 hours (3 days). Effects include:
- slowed reaction time
- impaired precision, equilibrium, hand-eye coordination, accuracy, balance and judgment
- diminished focus, stamina, strength, and power
Alcohol will also slow recovery from injury and illness by:
- delaying muscle repair
- increasing risk for nutrient deficiencies-- vitamins and minerals used for normal function are now being used to break down alcohol
- suppressing immune function
- impairing sleep"
How Alcohol Affects Your Body | UMatter
https://umatter.princeton.edu/limits/tools/alcohol-and-your-body
Please stop trying to paint all of us into a binary choice on drugs. There is an enormous amount of room between WOD and everything is legal, for other policies that might better strike a balance between freedom and community safety.
We Libertarian types seem to be the only group who fully "get" that.
You libertarians don’t get human nature.
Outside of small and self sufficient communities, full libertarianism is no more compatible with human nature than communism.
The ideal for more freedom isn’t wrong, but you all fail to realize that more responsibility needs to come first. Let me say that again, NEEDS to come FIRST.
Real, full, responsibility isn’t compatible with the compassion that comes with our cushy modern life. So our compassion easily becomes enablement.
The Dumb Gun Collector
09-02-23, 13:59
I once, in a DUI case, had a lab tech claim that marijuana could impair up to 24 hours and one of the jurors audibly laughed. I knew at that point people were moving on from drug war propaganda.
Please stop trying to paint all of us into a binary choice on drugs. There is an enormous amount of room between WOD and everything is legal, for other policies that might better strike a balance between freedom and community safety.
You libertarians don’t get human nature.
Outside of small and self sufficient communities, full libertarianism is no more compatible with human nature than communism.
The ideal for more freedom isn’t wrong, but you all fail to realize that more responsibility needs to come first. Let me say that again, NEEDS to come FIRST.
Real, full, responsibility isn’t compatible with the compassion that comes with our cushy modern life. So our compassion easily becomes enablement.
Thankfully, today your opinion is in the dying minority...
Thankfully, today your opinion is in the dying minority...
Not dying fast enough ...
Please stop trying to paint all of us into a binary choice on drugs. There is an enormous amount of room between WOD and everything is legal, for other policies that might better strike a balance between freedom and community safety.
You libertarians don’t get human nature.
Outside of small and self sufficient communities, full libertarianism is no more compatible with human nature than communism.
The ideal for more freedom isn’t wrong, but you all fail to realize that more responsibility needs to come first. Let me say that again, NEEDS to come FIRST.
Real, full, responsibility isn’t compatible with the compassion that comes with our cushy modern life. So our compassion easily becomes enablement.
Cut and paste would have saved a lot of typing.
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it.”
I will also add in that libertarians apparently understand human nature much better than the disciples of the unipartisan(d&r) ruling class.
Always an interesting thing to complain about how things are while simultaneously denigrating libertarian ideas considering libertarians aren't part of the ruling class that has been running the show for over a century and a half.
Averageman
09-02-23, 15:17
First, I don't know that want the feds involved anything, period, including this.
Second, if I have a drink, that's something my body clears in a finite amount of time, and has graduated levels. MJ? Not sure they can do that. So if I drink tonight, I can work tomorrow. If I have MJ tonight, am I safe tomorrow? What would show up on a tox screen? Would you want ME taking care of you?
I think there's a lot of logistics that need to be satisfied.
Buddy;
I hope to heck you never learn the true amount of drinking/drunk people you deal with everyday.
I used to work High Rise Construction and everybody drank and they drank all damn day long.
I know a guy that closed the Bar, bought a twelve pack and drove out to the site and slept in his car so he couldn'tmiss work.
It scared the heck out of me to be working up 14 floors with a bunch of drunks.
Those guys could sober up for a day and seriously still be too drunk to drive.
Please stop trying to paint all of us into a binary choice on drugs. There is an enormous amount of room between WOD and everything is legal, for other policies that might better strike a balance between freedom and community safety.
You libertarians don’t get human nature.
Outside of small and self sufficient communities, full libertarianism is no more compatible with human nature than communism.
The ideal for more freedom isn’t wrong, but you all fail to realize that more responsibility needs to come first. Let me say that again, NEEDS to come FIRST.
Real, full, responsibility isn’t compatible with the compassion that comes with our cushy modern life. So our compassion easily becomes enablement.
Like "common sense gun laws"? All one has to do is replace "drugs" for the word "guns" and you get an almost identical conversation as that of anti gun types. That you at al can't see it affirms the amazing level of cognitive dissonance there. Libs and conservatives are two sided of the same coin as to their illogical, unconstitutional, denial of reality over drugs/guns, yet can't see it, both antithetical to what claim to stand for.
Money flows from drug cartels to pay off politicians on both sides of the border. It's a massive cash cow they want to keep milking.
Like common sense DUI laws? Drunk in public laws?
Dry Counties?
You really can’t find anything between prohibition and no alcohol laws or regulations at all?
I’m all for legalizing everything, AFTER we have decided as a society to allow the drug addicts to OD. I’m tired of buying them narcan, and paying for EMT and Fire to respond.
And you want real full freedom with full responsibility? Let the kids of drug addicts starve to death. Sell that to society FIRST.
Like common sense DUI laws? Drunk in public laws?
Dry Counties?
You really can’t find anything between prohibition and no alcohol laws or regulations at all?
I’m all for legalizing everything, AFTER we have decided as a society to allow the drug addicts to OD. I’m tired of buying them narcan, and paying for EMT and Fire to respond.
And you want real full freedom with full responsibility? Let the kids of drug addicts starve to death. Sell that to society FIRST.
Just like Will posted with the gun analogy freedom can be scary...
Just like I posted earlier, when I entered LE in the early 2000’s I was a Reagan Republican, when I left LE about a decade later, I was a hardcore Uber libertarian. I'm ready to accept my positions have consequences. But then again, I'm the kind of libertarian who believes that crew served artillery should be sold in the lawn and garden section of Walmart.
Like common sense DUI laws? Drunk in public laws?
Dry Counties?
You really can’t find anything between prohibition and no alcohol laws or regulations at all?
I’m all for legalizing everything, AFTER we have decided as a society to allow the drug addicts to OD. I’m tired of buying them narcan, and paying for EMT and Fire to respond.
And you want real full freedom with full responsibility? Let the kids of drug addicts starve to death. Sell that to society FIRST.
Lived in a dry option area for several decades which had plenty of alcohol via bootleggers along with those who drove the 45 minutes to an hour to a wet county popping a few open on the drive back so they were pretty well lit by the time they hit the county line.
A few things dulled my enthusiasm for public intoxication laws.
Diabetics dying via le interaction by beating and/or getting tossed in the drunk tank till they die because in the cops' experience they were drunk.
I have known people walking home drunk or sleeping it off so they wouldn't be driving drunk get popped for public drunk(or dui sleeping in a vehicle) have the epiphany the drive time from Point A to home would have been reduced enough that they wouldn't have helped boost a cops arrest numbers.
I think this was the last one to click. What's the difference between a drunk stumbling around and someone with a neuromuscular disorder, physical deformity, or age stumbling around?
Just like Will posted with the gun analogy freedom can be scary...
I’m not scared. I’m saying you will never get our society to agree to a level of punishment and responsibility to allow that much personal drug freedom, without TAKING my freedom through taxation to subsidize keeping them alive.
Civilization going back to tribal has always been some limitation of personal freedom for the good of society.
Real life is always some shade of grey. It’s not black and white just because you want it to be.
I’m not scared. I’m saying you will never get our society to agree to a level of punishment and responsibility to allow that much personal drug freedom, without TAKING my freedom through taxation to subsidize keeping them alive.
Civilization going back to tribal has always been some limitation of personal freedom for the good of society.
Real life is always some shade of grey. It’s not black and white just because you want it to be.
So you are ok with being taxed to pay for the war on certain drug suppliers which is inextricably linked to the war on the 2A and 4A?
Averageman
09-03-23, 00:34
Have you considered how rich this will make Big Pharma?
Have you considered how rich this will make Big Pharma?
Seriously, I've always suspected that was what was holding legalization up.
Once Big Pharma figured out how to capitalize on it, then legalization would happen overnight.
Have you considered how rich this will make Big Pharma?
Not clear as to relevance but pharma opposes legalization strongly as they don't want the competition. It would cost them billions and they know it.
So you are ok with being taxed to pay for the war on certain drug suppliers which is inextricably linked to the war on the 2A and 4A?
Again, it’s not binary. The WOD or legalized everything are not the only options.
So you are ok with being taxed to pay for the war on certain drug suppliers which is inextricably linked to the war on the 2A and 4A?
We have spent over a trillion $ on the failed war on drugs since its inception. Tax $ in the toilet to pay budgets of various fed orgs that don't need to exist, the single biggest source of infringement of Const Rights, and on it goes. Anyone supporting the war on drugs but does not want to waste our tax $, needs to do some more research. Like guns, become a partisan issue, so always opposed/supported by left/right.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-23, 12:53
We legalized weed and how has that worked out? Drug arrests take a lot of the bad guys off the streets. There will always be a black market for drugs because the legal stuff gets regulated and taxed to the point where it is cheaper to bring it in illegally.
Decriminalization sounds great. Like people have mentioned, it is a major reason a lot of people are against guns. But it just isn’t going to solve our problems, and will likely make it worse.
Averageman
09-03-23, 14:10
Not clear as to relevance but pharma opposes legalization strongly as they don't want the competition. It would cost them billions and they know it.
Really?
Because if I wanted clean narcotics to make available, I think I would go with Big Pharma to provide them.
We legalized weed and how has that worked out? Drug arrests take a lot of the bad guys off the streets. There will always be a black market for drugs because the legal stuff gets regulated and taxed to the point where it is cheaper to bring it in illegally.
Decriminalization sounds great. Like people have mentioned, it is a major reason a lot of people are against guns. But it just isn’t going to solve our problems, and will likely make it worse.
Alcohol has been over taxed at times too so that illicit production and distribution became worthwhile.
Government doing something wrong(swinging for the fences on taxation) doesn't seem to be a good reason to further empower government.
.Gov opposition to arms would still exist if every drug could be made to disappear. .Gov knows from experience that making drugs illegal causes crime which they then point to as a reason to ban guns.
We legalized weed and how has that worked out? Drug arrests take a lot of the bad guys off the streets. There will always be a black market for drugs because the legal stuff gets regulated and taxed to the point where it is cheaper to bring it in illegally.
Decriminalization sounds great. Like people have mentioned, it is a major reason a lot of people are against guns. But it just isn’t going to solve our problems, and will likely make it worse.
Bad in some areas, and not relevant. It has to happen at the fed level, and whether it increases or decreases use etc, it's not relevant to a lost "war" by any metric, all data and historical facts that prohibition does not work (ever), impact on Const. Rights, and so forth. Again, such discussion are very reminiscent of debating with anti gun types for me.
War on drugs!!!
War on drugs!!!
War on drugs!!!
I feel like you want to debate against the war on drugs, and not against my positions.
Again, I believe that there are drug policies BETWEEN the war on drugs, and Seattle or San Francisco.
Civilization is always going to come with some infringement on freedom. Pretending civilization isn’t necessary for the way everyone but the unibomber wants to live is just not a viable premise of a honest debate.
Averageman
09-03-23, 19:26
We legalized weed and how has that worked out? Drug arrests take a lot of the bad guys off the streets. There will always be a black market for drugs because the legal stuff gets regulated and taxed to the point where it is cheaper to bring it in illegally.
Decriminalization sounds great. Like people have mentioned, it is a major reason a lot of people are against guns. But it just isn’t going to solve our problems, and will likely make it worse.
Bad in some areas, and not relevant. It has to happen at the fed level, and whether it increases or decreases use etc, it's not relevant to a lost "war" by any metric, all data and historical facts that prohibition does not work (ever), impact on Const. Rights, and so forth. Again, such discussion are very reminiscent of debating with anti gun types for me.
I see no reason why we couldn't do this correctly and responcablly.
The worst thing in the mix is the Politicans, they see your freedom as a Cash Cow that needs it's tits milked off.
It's actually stupid.
War on drugs!!!
War on drugs!!!
War on drugs!!!
I feel like you want to debate against the war on drugs, and not against my positions.
Again, I believe that there are drug policies BETWEEN the war on drugs, and Seattle or San Francisco.
Civilization is always going to come with some infringement on freedom. Pretending civilization isn’t necessary for the way everyone but the unibomber wants to live is just not a viable premise of a honest debate.
I am saying there is no practical difference between alcohol and other drugs.
The effect of alcohol/other drugs on society is, at best, neutral and frequently more on the negative side.
Comparing 2023 alcohol to 2023 other drugs is apples to oranges.
Comparing 1923 illicit alcohol to 2023 other drugs gets much more inline with each other. That way you get:
-public corruption
-adulterated product
-wealthy/connected getting the good stuff and lots of it
-wars over sales areas
And as bad as alcohol prohibition was, there still weren't piss tests to negate employment. Imagine an army of alcoholics unemployed and wanting to avoid very opiate like withdrawals on top of the 4 points I mentioned above.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-23, 23:05
Bad in some areas, and not relevant. It has to happen at the fed level, and whether it increases or decreases use etc, it's not relevant to a lost "war" by any metric, all data and historical facts that prohibition does not work (ever), impact on Const. Rights, and so forth. Again, such discussion are very reminiscent of debating with anti gun types for me.
So weed in Indiana is causing drug problems in Chicago... or is it guns?
I'm just telling you that legalization is not the answer to all these societal problems. Drugs take away your ability to make rational decisions, and that is enough of. a reason to outlaw them.
Meth addict was licking cars on my way home last week, and it isn't even salt season yet on the roads...
All I'm saying is that decriminalizing drugs isn't the answer, and I'm not saying criminalizing them is the best answer. We have a totally screwed up society and values system and that is the problem. Drugs, mass shooting, the Alphabet Crew+, personal debt and on and on. Now, I'd be willing to put up with some of that crap, if we had a freer society, but we don't. We have the worst of all outcomes, a strict society that restricts your actual freedoms, why they leave alone the BS crap.
So weed in Indiana is causing drug problems in Chicago... or is it guns?
I'm just telling you that legalization is not the answer to all these societal problems. Drugs take away your ability to make rational decisions, and that is enough of. a reason to outlaw them.
Meth addict was licking cars on my way home last week, and it isn't even salt season yet on the roads...
All I'm saying is that decriminalizing drugs isn't the answer, and I'm not saying criminalizing them is the best answer. We have a totally screwed up society and values system and that is the problem. Drugs, mass shooting, the Alphabet Crew+, personal debt and on and on. Now, I'd be willing to put up with some of that crap, if we had a freer society, but we don't. We have the worst of all outcomes, a strict society that restricts your actual freedoms, why they leave alone the BS crap.
Gotta have anti 2a and other amendment laws to make the war on drugs work.
Try criminalizing alcohol at the federal level so production occurs in someone's back yard who either doesn't know what they are doing or knows how to add adulterants to increase the yield or effect. Now have a few cities decide not to arrest people for possessing or using the adulterated booze.
And you still have shootouts between distributors over territory as well as those drinking it barred from employment.
Gotta have anti 2a and other amendment laws to make the war on drugs work.
Try criminalizing alcohol at the federal level so production occurs in someone's back yard who either doesn't know what they are doing or knows how to add adulterants to increase the yield or effect. Now have a few cities decide not to arrest people for possessing or using the adulterated booze.
And you still have shootouts between distributors over territory as well as those drinking it barred from employment.
And yet, prohibition lead to the rise of the mob from local thugs to the wealthiest and most powerful, and lead to the The National Firearms Act Of 1934. Again, worst thing that has happened to our Civil Rights, Const Rights, and gun Rights/2A, was the war on drugs, a "war" that was lost decades ago, but keeps a certain segment in power and the $ a flowing. Again, we have no lack of evidence how that works out, every single time. That otherwise intelligent people can't see that is what's mind boggling to me, reminds me of the gun debate as ignoring history, data, and reality is the hallmarks of anti gun types.
Did ending prohibition solve our social issues? Obviously not, no one claimed it did, nor would ending the war on drugs to take a rational approach to it that focused on Individual Rights, Civil Liberties, and Const. Rights, personal responsibilities.
I feel like you want to debate against the war on drugs, and not against my positions.
Again, I believe that there are drug policies BETWEEN the war on drugs, and Seattle or San Francisco.
Civilization is always going to come with some infringement on freedom. Pretending civilization isn’t necessary for the way everyone but the unibomber wants to live is just not a viable premise of a honest debate.
War on drugs is what we have to discuss as that's the issue at hand, you didn't offer any specific positions. I'd recommend reading articles and such from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and good summary HERE (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/law-enforcement-prohibitions-10-reasons-end-senseless-costly-deadly-immoral-war-drugs/), and issue covered well by Police Captain Peter Christ (Ret.) on the facts and realities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk&t=1s
I see no reason why we couldn't do this correctly and responcablly.
The worst thing in the mix is the Politicans, they see your freedom as a Cash Cow that needs it's tits milked off.
It's actually stupid.
Agreed, "on paper" it can be done correctly, politicians will do all they can to benefit from it and further gather power while further degrading our Individual/Civil/Const Rights while telling us how they are protecting us from ourselves. Again, the issue of how that applies to guns is no different than how it's applied to drug laws, yet drugs are a left/lib topic while guns are a Right/GOP topic normally. They have done a masterful job of making sure most don't see they are two sides of the same coin as to Individual/Civil/Const Rights.
So weed in Indiana is causing drug problems in Chicago... or is it guns?
I'm just telling you that legalization is not the answer to all these societal problems. Drugs take away your ability to make rational decisions, and that is enough of. a reason to outlaw them.
Meth addict was licking cars on my way home last week, and it isn't even salt season yet on the roads...
All I'm saying is that decriminalizing drugs isn't the answer, and I'm not saying criminalizing them is the best answer. We have a totally screwed up society and values system and that is the problem. Drugs, mass shooting, the Alphabet Crew+, personal debt and on and on. Now, I'd be willing to put up with some of that crap, if we had a freer society, but we don't. We have the worst of all outcomes, a strict society that restricts your actual freedoms, why they leave alone the BS crap.
No one has claimed such a thing anywhere, just as no one claims prohibition, and or its ending, solved our problems with booze per se. See vid posted above for rational comparisons and comments in#71, and first and foremost is Individual/Civil/Const Rights, of which the war on drugs has done more damage than you et al appear to realize or appreciate, and specifically used to remove 2A Rights too.
Money flows from drug cartels to pay off politicians on both sides of the border. It's a massive cash cow they want to keep milking.
And who benefits from continuing the failed war? As always, follow the $ and the power:
https://www.history.com/news/americas-war-on-drugs-was-designed-to-fail-so-why-is-it-being-revived-now
Judge went from hard core self admitted drug warrior to waking up and "getting it." More like him, this disaster goes away:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6t1EM4Onao
Anyone on the fence on the topic, must watch that. I'm admittedly biased, but who made the case for/against the drug war/legalization in that debate? Milton Friedman and ex Gov. of CA, Pete Wilson debate the issue.
"America has spent three decades and hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a national war on drugs. Has the war on drugs been an effective way of dealing with America's drug problem or does it cause more harm than good? How should we weigh the moral and utilitarian arguments for and against the war on drugs; in other words, do we need to intensify the war on drugs or is it time to declare a cease fire?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIznGX7sCqQ
I find the most pragmatic people - usually viewed as very conservative - like Friedman, and Thomas Sowell always come to the same conclusions, when examining the drug issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZbHndilYsI
Averageman
09-05-23, 11:11
Probobly the smart and right thing to do is allow people to grow at home first.
Once that's allowed and working slowly begin legalization and sales, but if that's a year or two later it might not even be wanted or needed.
The Market is best left to small growers who barter with other small growers.
I would define small growers as folks with under 20 plants at any one time.
And yet, prohibition lead to the rise of the mob from local thugs to the wealthiest and most powerful, and lead to the The National Firearms Act Of 1934. Again, worst thing that has happened to our Civil Rights, Const Rights, and gun Rights/2A, was the war on drugs, a "war" that was lost decades ago, but keeps a certain segment in power and the $ a flowing. Again, we have no lack of evidence how that works out, every single time. That otherwise intelligent people can't see that is what's mind boggling to me, reminds me of the gun debate as ignoring history, data, and reality is the hallmarks of anti gun types.
Did ending prohibition solve our social issues? Obviously not, no one claimed it did, nor would ending the war on drugs to take a rational approach to it that focused on Individual Rights, Civil Liberties, and Const. Rights, personal responsibilities.
Watched a documentary on alcohol prohibition and one of the people mentioned was a lady(cannot recall her name) who was part of a wealthy and connected northeast family who had supported prohibition and (like a lot of other wealthy families) had stocked up on booze before the law kicked in.
During one of their frequent parties for fellow elites(who had also supported prohibition) sitting around drinking she flipped from being a supporter to opponent since her kids were being exposed to the hypocrisy of it it all and she was concerned they would have no respect for laws.
ChattanoogaPhil
09-05-23, 19:01
Last year...
Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Legislation Cracking Down on Opioid Dealers and Traffickers
excerpts
LAKELAND, Fla. — Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 95, which enhances penalties for the sale and distribution of opioids in Florida, including fentanyl.
“Floridians of all walks of life have witnessed the destruction caused by the opioid epidemic across our state,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “While the Biden administration has failed to stop the flow of dangerous drugs, including fentanyl, across our southern border, we are taking action in Florida to lower both the demand and the supply of illicit and illegal drugs.”
Watched a documentary on alcohol prohibition and one of the people mentioned was a lady(cannot recall her name) who was part of a wealthy and connected northeast family who had supported prohibition and (like a lot of other wealthy families) had stocked up on booze before the law kicked in.
During one of their frequent parties for fellow elites(who had also supported prohibition) sitting around drinking she flipped from being a supporter to opponent since her kids were being exposed to the hypocrisy of it it all and she was concerned they would have no respect for laws.
And that's how things turned out writ large with the "war on drugs." People know the gubment has no moral authority when booze and cigs are legal, yet far less harmful drugs are not.
Averageman
09-06-23, 08:41
And that's how things turned out writ large with the "war on drugs." People know the gubment has no moral authority when booze and cigs are legal, yet far less harmful drugs are not.
It's funny to me that what we now call a Federal Government cannot control it's own borders, yet wants to control my morality.
It's funny to me that what we now call a Federal Government cannot control it's own borders, yet wants to control my morality.
And I think to a large degree, that's a major reason we are in this chit mess. It's those types of blatant inconsistencies that destroys any moral authority a gubment may have. As far as I'm concerned, the gubment has no authority, morally or legally, or Const. to control morality. As long as your behavior does not negatively impact my "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it's none my business nor the gubments. That's what Liberty is. Any self professed conservative that supports the war on drugs on that basis alone is not true conservative, but what amounts to a Fudd in the gun world. To me, the parallels between those that support the war on drugs and those who support gun control are almost identical in how they ignore history, stats, and the Const with what amounts to "If it saves on child..." type positions. To repeat:
"Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither."
As long as your behavior does not negatively impact my "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it's none my business nor the gubments. That's what Liberty is.
Some people think the natural human state needs to be constrained, and morality comes from religion, social norms, or a government.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
The Dumb Gun Collector
09-06-23, 10:39
The drug war has two big problems as far as I can tell: (1) it undermines individual liberty, and (2) It has been a complete failure. If you want me to give up my liberty, it would be a little more persuasive if I could be confident the sacrifice would be worth it.
People love to talk about the "deep state." But the drug war is just another endless government perpetual motion machine that is nearly impossible to stop. Too many people have an interest in keeping this project going, all the way from the local LE who use it to forfeit property(mostly poor folks who have their old car paid off), to police unions, private prisons, Federal Agencies, and various private drug prohibition organizations that have long since become naked money grabs (Look at the History of MADD for an eye-opener). It is all an endless scam.
The drug war has two big problems as far as I can tell: (1) it undermines individual liberty, and (2) It has been a complete failure. If you want me to give up my liberty, it would be a little more persuasive if I could be confident the sacrifice would be worth it.
People love to talk about the "deep state." But the drug war is just another endless government perpetual motion machine that is nearly impossible to stop. Too many people have an interest in keeping this project going, all the way from the local LE who use it to forfeit property(mostly poor folks who have their old car paid off), to police unions, private prisons, Federal Agencies, and various private drug prohibition organizations that have long since become naked money grabs (Look at the History of MADD for an eye-opener). It is all an endless scam.
If one really goes down the rabbit holes, it's (1) so much larger than most can be fathom (2) how anyone, once learning of the facts, can continue to support it, is pure denial and hypocrisy. What happened in Panama is one of endless examples of how far and wide it goes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBDwTQQ3rcU
Some people think the natural human state needs to be constrained, and morality comes from religion, social norms, or a government.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
That quote as far as I'm concerned says, Freedom is not free and immoral people will abuse the Liberty. Liberty requires morality and self responsibility. It can't be dictated, legalized nor enforced at the end of a gun. Hence, once reason we have the largest % of our population in jail - aside from the almost 50% there due to minor non violent drug offenses - is that many can't handle the Freedom thing. In fact, I'm not convinced humans can and the amazing experiment in Liberty and Individual Freedom that is the USA, may not survive considering the directions we are heading.
Excellent vid via a self prescribed conservative judge who held the record for drug bust as a prosecutor who "got it" at some point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abLNSE-4PbA
Some people think the natural human state needs to be constrained, and morality comes from religion, social norms, or a government.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
The drug war has two big problems as far as I can tell: (1) it undermines individual liberty, and (2) It has been a complete failure. If you want me to give up my liberty, it would be a little more persuasive if I could be confident the sacrifice would be worth it.
People love to talk about the "deep state." But the drug war is just another endless government perpetual motion machine that is nearly impossible to stop. Too many people have an interest in keeping this project going, all the way from the local LE who use it to forfeit property(mostly poor folks who have their old car paid off), to police unions, private prisons, Federal Agencies, and various private drug prohibition organizations that have long since become naked money grabs (Look at the History of MADD for an eye-opener). It is all an endless scam.
100%.
Averageman
09-06-23, 17:04
I just think if the War on Drugs came out of a spigot we might just see how much harder it is to turn off than on.
These folks all will fight tooth and nail to remain relevant and in power.
If one really goes down the rabbit holes, it's (1) so much larger than most can be fathom (2) how anyone, once learning of the facts, can continue to support it, is pure denial and hypocrisy. What happened in Panama is one of endless examples of how far and wide it goes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBDwTQQ3rcU
If you really want to start down a rabbit hole read up on the Mena, AR airport and the drugs that ran through there.
WillieThom
09-07-23, 02:22
If you really want to start down a rabbit hole read up on the Mena, AR airport and the drugs that ran through there.
It’s still hard for me to believe how involved Tom Cruise was in all of that…
I watched a YouTube video one time—the guy tells stories, lore, conspiracies, etc., but I forget the exact channel name—and one of the videos was about the murder, errr… deaths… of Don Henry and Kevin Ives in Arkansas. It’s said to be related to Arkansas/drug trafficking/Barry Seal/the Clintons. But yeah, you can get lost in all of it, there is just so much to learn and ponder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Don_Henry_and_Kevin_Ives
It’s still hard for me to believe how involved Tom Cruise was in all of that…
I watched a YouTube video one time—the guy tells stories, lore, conspiracies, etc., but I forget the exact channel name—and one of the videos was about the murder, errr… deaths… of Don Henry and Kevin Ives in Arkansas. It’s said to be related to Arkansas/drug trafficking/Barry Seal/the Clintons. But yeah, you can get lost in all of it, there is just so much to learn and ponder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Don_Henry_and_Kevin_Ives
And that's just tip of of the iceberg ...
If you really want to start down a rabbit hole read up on the Mena, AR airport and the drugs that ran through there.
That's the guy who landed the plane at that airport:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udh22kuLebg
That's the guy who landed the plane at that airport:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udh22kuLebg
He was also on episode #38 Shawn Ryan podcast, well worth listening to.
All of this is ignored by the media. The US is the black hole of demand for drugs so gets the most attention. One of the most suppressive socially conservative countries in the world, can't do chit against drugs. Anyone who wants to further degrade our Const Rights while pushing for yet harsher sentences as the way out of the drug problem, is in pure denial and ignoring facts, stats, and history:
"Iran and USA don't tend to agree on much, but perhaps in fatally mismanaging an opioid crisis, they may finally have found some common ground"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bT1VUymjQg
In the real world, even Portland sees a problem with Oregon’s legalization of everything.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2023/09/portland-leaders-approve-public-drug-use-ban-state-law-must-first-change-to-enact.html
In the real world, even Portland sees a problem with Oregon’s legalization of everything.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2023/09/portland-leaders-approve-public-drug-use-ban-state-law-must-first-change-to-enact.html
State level progressive run chit hole. Any real impact has to be on the fed level, not following the examples of progressive idiots obviously who defund LE, don't prosecute criminals, etc. Two, just like guns: I don't care if guns owned by law abiding ultimately raises or lowers crime. I'm happy data suggests it's a net benefit to crime, but if it was not, would have no impact on my support for the 2A, individual Liberty, and personal responsibility.
Averageman
09-07-23, 15:03
State level progressive run chit hole. Any real impact has to be on the fed level, not following the examples of progressive idiots obviously who defund LE, don't prosecute criminals, etc. Two, just like guns: I don't care if guns owned by law abiding ultimately raises or lowers crime. I'm happy data suggests it's a net benefit to crime, but if it was not, would have no impact on my support for the 2A, individual Liberty, and personal responsibility.
As I see this it appears to be two issues converging at the same time.
Legalizing drugs and then not prosecuting crimminals and to top it off making very restrictive gun laws is a trifecta of lunacy.
Eradicating Drug Laws + failing to prosecute means a lot of people are going to go way off the edge, restrciting gun laws only means normal people have to fight the Zombies hand to hand.
Lunacy.
If you legalize drugs, you still need laws or you're inviting anarchy.
As I see this it appears to be two issues converging at the same time.
Legalizing drugs and then not prosecuting crimminals and to top it off making very restrictive gun laws is a trifecta of lunacy.
Eradicating Drug Laws + failing to prosecute means a lot of people are going to go way off the edge, restrciting gun laws only means normal people have to fight the Zombies hand to hand.
Lunacy.
If you legalize drugs, you still need laws or you're inviting anarchy.
I don't disagree with any of that. Personally I see it as a decade long plan at least to implement. First we must start by the admission the drug war is lost. There's not one metric a drug warrior type can supply that concludes otherwise. It's also antithetical to Liberty, which matters even more in my view. So now what? Again, if we take the actual history as a guide, prohibition, and it's end, that may be a place to start at least. Again, we lost major 2A Rights due to prohibition and the war on drugs and Const Right losses, 2A in particular - via National Firearms of 1934 - have gone hand in hand. See also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOBcRTWLGAs
People should be aware, our loss of 2A Rights have gone hand in hand with the gubment using crime gangs they created to remove our Rights. Don't lose sight of that reality, one has been used to remove 2A Rights by design:
Prohibition-Era Gang Violence Spurred Congress To Pass First Gun Law
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484215890/prohibition-era-gang-violence-spurred-congress-to-pass-first-gun-law
Averageman
09-07-23, 15:43
Well, I don't know what kind of money the Cartels are making but making Marijuana legal to cultivate at Home, I feel would be taking a good first step.
Think of it as backwards prohibition. First you cut out the gangsters and everyone gets to run their own distillery at home if they want to.
Kind of takes a lot of money out of it doesn't it?
But we still have a pretty highly regulated and taxed alcohol system. The end of prohibition wasn’t just “no rules”.
It’s still hard for me to believe how involved Tom Cruise was in all of that…
I watched a YouTube video one time—the guy tells stories, lore, conspiracies, etc., but I forget the exact channel name—and one of the videos was about the murder, errr… deaths… of Don Henry and Kevin Ives in Arkansas. It’s said to be related to Arkansas/drug trafficking/Barry Seal/the Clintons. But yeah, you can get lost in all of it, there is just so much to learn and ponder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Don_Henry_and_Kevin_Ives
Post 2020, I was always thinking of Fahmy Malak when reading the repeated claims of medical examiners being incapable of dishonesty concerning covid death determinations.
Averageman
09-07-23, 17:55
But we still have a pretty highly regulated and taxed alcohol system. The end of prohibition wasn’t just “no rules”.
Thats very True, it was heavily taxed and regulated, if you were making your own whiskey you were still doing so against the law.
They wanted it taxed and highly regulated.
Today, you can make your own whiskey at home, but the rest of it still buy it Federally Regulated. We made jobs for thousands of bureaucrats and lawyers didn't we?
Lets not do that this time and see what happens?
It’s still illegal to distill your own whiskey.
What I’m saying is that there wasn’t just an on/off switch for all regulations on alcohol, and it’s dumb to say that’s the only way to handle drug laws.
It’s still illegal to distill your own whiskey.
What I’m saying is that there wasn’t just an on/off switch for all regulations on alcohol, and it’s dumb to say that’s the only way to handle drug laws.
So what reasonable anti 2A(and other first 10) laws do you support?
What amendment protects drug use?
I generally support the existence of defamation laws, and that prohibited persons should not have guns. Though I would like to see crazy people locked up in institutions and felons on some kind of lengthy probation system.
ChattanoogaPhil
09-08-23, 10:52
It's not like pharmaceutical companies and other industry selling narcotics to the public wasn't done in the past. Around the turn of the century Bayer pharmaceutical began marketing Heroin. In short order there were hundreds of thousands of heroin addicts in NYC. There were countless unregulated tonics, including coca-cola, containing cocaine. Sears & Roebuck catalogue offered a syringe along with cocaine and heroin. The examples are as endless as the addiction that followed.
So what is it exactly that the anti-war on drug liberty-minded suggest today? Value packs of Dilaudid next to the Aspirin at Walmart? THC brownies in the snack isle at the grocery store? Heroin and needle combo packs at Amazon? If someone has a headache while watching a sad movie about someone dying of brain tumor, should they be able to go to Walgreens and grab some Avastin OTC just cuz?
What amendment protects drug use?
I generally support the existence of defamation laws, and that prohibited persons should not have guns. Though I would like to see crazy people locked up in institutions and felons on some kind of lengthy probation system.
No amendment protects any right(nor do they grant sny right), but instead recognize rights. The other thing is rights aren't comsidered to be enumerated, while .gov's allowed functions are.
So for drugs you have the 9th and 10th amendments saying hands off for feds since 1791 and the 14th applying hands off to the states since 1868.
Why do you think the ban on the drug alcohol required the 18th Amendment?
Might want to raise the bar a little considering the constant push to create more "prohibited persons", "crazy", and "felons" out of people who have harmed no one nor shown any interest in harming another while people who have harmed/stated plans to harm others have been granted protected class status.
It's not like pharmaceutical companies and other industry selling narcotics to the public wasn't done in the past. Around the turn of the century Bayer pharmaceutical began marketing Heroin. In short order there were hundreds of thousands of heroin addicts in NYC. There were countless unregulated tonics, including coca-cola, containing cocaine. Sears & Roebuck catalogue offered a syringe along with cocaine and heroin. The examples are as endless as the addiction that followed.
So what is it exactly that the anti-war on drug liberty-minded suggest today? Value packs of Dilaudid next to the Aspirin at Walmart? THC brownies in the snack isle at the grocery store? Heroin and needle combo packs at Amazon? If someone has a headache while watching a sad movie about someone dying of brain tumor, should they be able to go to Walgreens and grab some Avastin OTC just cuz?
The early drug addicts were generally the elite while the early war on drugs targeted those who weren't elites.
Another one of those "the more things change, the more they stay the same" deals.
The early drug addicts were generally the elite while the early war on drugs targeted those who weren't elites.
Drugs laws, like gun laws, are by their nature and intent, elitists and racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONAqaxgIoo
This is a good summary of the Portuguese experience. They didn't legalize drugs but did de criminalize drugs and made other large scale changes. It's a true focus on harm reduction vs punishment model. It also does point out it's not perfect, etc. Also discusses other countries also. We are not Portugal and can't expect a 1:1 approach in the US, but again, there are other countries with decades of experience now and much we could learn, and apply as it makes sense to us culture, laws, Const etc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYVctc-87b8
Tennessee braces for potential change in cannabis scheduling
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/mid-south/tennessee-braces-for-potential-change-in-cannabis-scheduling/
Bringing the schedule down doesn’t legalize cannabis, but it does allow for much further research, interstate commerce, and tax breaks. Though, depending on who you ask, full legalization could be inevitable.
“It’s going to get there, we know it,” Burchett said.
The Knoxville Congressman said he was in favor of legalization, but that he’d actually prefer it to happen without taxation. He pointed to the low capacity of prisons as a potential reason.
It's not like pharmaceutical companies and other industry selling narcotics to the public wasn't done in the past. Around the turn of the century Bayer pharmaceutical began marketing Heroin. In short order there were hundreds of thousands of heroin addicts in NYC. There were countless unregulated tonics, including coca-cola, containing cocaine. Sears & Roebuck catalogue offered a syringe along with cocaine and heroin. The examples are as endless as the addiction that followed.
So what is it exactly that the anti-war on drug liberty-minded suggest today? Value packs of Dilaudid next to the Aspirin at Walmart? THC brownies in the snack isle at the grocery store? Heroin and needle combo packs at Amazon? If someone has a headache while watching a sad movie about someone dying of brain tumor, should they be able to go to Walgreens and grab some Avastin OTC just cuz?
There you go. Again, not like we don't have proof of concept examples running decades now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haT4FrOYPtk
Spent 14 years as a narcotics LEO unit in NJ. You wanna know what the war on drugs is really about as it actually happened? There ya go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ctoEoagqAo
ChattanoogaPhil
09-08-23, 13:34
There you go. Again, not like we don't have proof of concept examples running decades now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haT4FrOYPtk
Whatever is in the link doesn't come up for me, but please do tell us in your own words. Perhaps you could tell us from the list I offered which ones you would support, if any, while keeping in context and consistent with your posted sentiments below:
As long as your behavior does not negatively impact my "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it's none my business nor the gubments. That's what Liberty is.
Whatever is in the link doesn't come up for me, but please do tell us in your own words. Perhaps you could tell us from the list I offered which ones you would support, if any, while keeping in context of your posted sentiments below:
That's the direct URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haT4FrOYPtk
Between that and what's in #113 and comments etc all through thread, it's what we will need to get out of this ridiculous $ pit and death trap we made. Each drug is its own topic and must be assessed and approached based on it's own issues, also covered well in vid.
If we continue to allow it to be an issue taken on by the far left "progressives" in our nation, it will be a disaster. Conservatives need to wake up and not allow that to continue, adding better ideas and controls etc then progressives bent on tearing down the US for which stands and what it stands for. As I said, the right has the drug topic all wrong as the left has the gun issue all wrong, and yet they're tied together as one side of the same coin.
This is a good summary of the Portuguese experience. They didn't legalize drugs but did de criminalize drugs…
So it’s possible, and maybe even preferable, to separate ending the war on drugs from just make everything totally legal?
So it’s possible, and maybe even preferable, to separate ending the war on drugs from just make everything totally legal?
Yes, I think that's the realistic path. Personally, I'd want to see it as a 10 year plan at least to make smart changes that does not produce more harm than good. People are way too stupid and destructive to just make smack etc legal and OTC. Many people just not capable of the Liberty thing requiring personal responsibility, but we must head in that direction or it's all for nothing as far as what the US is supposed to stand for.
Unfortunate, drugs, like guns, are now a political position of the Left/Right vs a what's best for the US topic, so they will make sure it's terrible and costly to "win" their positions and don't give a damn how many it kills in the process. If a GOP type even hints at drug law reforms and such his enemies will call him "soft on crime" and it goes to chit from there. Nixon invented the drug war to be seen as tough on crime and get elected. We didn't actually have a drug problem until the war on drugs was declared.
ChattanoogaPhil
09-08-23, 17:50
That's the direct URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haT4FrOYPtk
Between that and what's in #113 and comments etc all through thread, it's what we will need to get out of this ridiculous $ pit and death trap we made. Each drug is its own topic and must be assessed and approached based on it's own issues, also covered well in vid.
If we continue to allow it to be an issue taken on by the far left "progressives" in our nation, it will be a disaster. Conservatives need to wake up and not allow that to continue, adding better ideas and controls etc then progressives bent on tearing down the US for which stands and what it stands for. As I said, the right has the drug topic all wrong as the left has the gun issue all wrong, and yet they're tied together as one side of the same coin.
Woah now... You just got done telling us that as long as someone's behavior doesn't negatively impact you then it's none of government's business. You then post a link to a youtube vid suggesting that narcotics are all about making it government's business. Regulating, rationing, banning advertising and marketing... on and on... up to and including government monopolies manufacturing the product. Just one of several nuggests in the vid: "The more risky a drug is, the stricter levels of regulation is warranted and the more government intervention is justified in the market."
I earlier mentioned Delaudid. In YOUR opinion, should it be sold OTC in 500ct bottles at Walmart just like Bayer Aspirin? Or... do you think it's government's business because it negatively impacts your life? There is no right or wrong answer, simply curious to see what your position actually is.
As long as your behavior does not negatively impact my "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it's none my business nor the gubments. That's what Liberty is.
Woah now... You just got done telling us that as long as someone's behavior doesn't negatively impact you then it's none of government's business. You then post a link to a youtube vid suggesting that narcotics are all about making it government's business. Regulating, rationing, banning advertising and marketing... on and on... up to and including government monopolies manufacturing the product. Just one of several nuggests in the vid: "The more risky a drug is, the stricter levels of regulation is warranted and the more government intervention is justified in the market."
Yes, my personal Libertarian oriented position is make it legal and OTC, and let er rip. That's not gonna happen and is not realistic, and would be a chit show for a decade until the Darwinian thing settled itself. The realistic practical realities are, follow the booze model: regulate it, tax it, sell it to adults, follow the models that are working in some other nations. What we know as a fact is the drug war lost a long time ago by any metric we can apply. It must end. If that's not recognized and admitted to by all involved, we continue with this nonsense.
I earlier mentioned Delaudid. In YOUR opinion, should it be sold OTC in 500ct bottles at Walmart just like Bayer Aspirin? Or... do you think it's government's business because it negatively impacts your life? There is no right or wrong answer, simply curious to see what your position actually is.
Realistically, follow the decriminalization model that focuses on harm reduction which may at least get traction among the dumb drug warriors and their voting base, maybe transitioning to what I outlined above as legal with more controls the more hard/toxic the drug. My personal Libertarian fantasies will not happen, or at least not within 2-3 decades and only if the those other approaches workout and politicians don't intentionally F it up for votes and $. I'm more inclined to expect them to make sure it's a disaster to maintain control than ever improve from where we are now. There's no perfect answer, no silver bullets.
There's no perfect answer, no silver bullets.
We may agree on this subject more than we realize.
You are focused more on your liberty ideals, and I don’t think you are wrong to have them.
I’m focused more on the lack of morality and responsibility in our culture and my very pessimistic view of how that will work with human nature.
We may agree on this subject more than we realize.
You are focused more on your liberty ideals, and I don’t think you are wrong to have them.
I’m focused more on the lack of morality and responsibility in our culture and my very pessimistic view of how that will work with human nature.
No reason both aspects can't be equally focused on.
And on the latter aspect, you really should focus on everyone with a human nature instead of just a certain segment.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
We may agree on this subject more than we realize.
You are focused more on your liberty ideals, and I don’t think you are wrong to have them.
I’m focused more on the lack of morality and responsibility in our culture and my very pessimistic view of how that will work with human nature.
Either way stop making it a LE issue. We’re the sledgehammers in the toolbox not scalpels... the lawyers are the surgical instruments not the cops.
ChattanoogaPhil
09-09-23, 07:21
Yes, my personal Libertarian oriented position is make it legal and OTC, and let er rip. That's not gonna happen and is not realistic, and would be a chit show for a decade until the Darwinian thing settled itself. The realistic practical realities are, follow the booze model: regulate it, tax it, sell it to adults, follow the models that are working in some other nations. What we know as a fact is the drug war lost a long time ago by any metric we can apply. It must end. If that's not recognized and admitted to by all involved, we continue with this nonsense.
Realistically, follow the decriminalization model that focuses on harm reduction which may at least get traction among the dumb drug warriors and their voting base, maybe transitioning to what I outlined above as legal with more controls the more hard/toxic the drug. My personal Libertarian fantasies will not happen, or at least not within 2-3 decades and only if the those other approaches workout and politicians don't intentionally F it up for votes and $. I'm more inclined to expect them to make sure it's a disaster to maintain control than ever improve from where we are now. There's no perfect answer, no silver bullets.
Thanks. That's a more consistent perspective from a libertarian than was suggested in your linked video of a socialist dystopian world of government monopolies in manufacturing and drug consumption rooms.
I don't believe people start out wanting to become addicted. After a surgery I was given opioid pain pills. Quite candidly, I liked them. When I was out of pills that was that... I would never consider turning to the black market for more pills. However, if the drug was given out simply for the asking at the pharmacy inside Publix grocery... just a dozen more... and again... until addicted... is much more likely. Society should be careful what they wish for.
'Dumb drug warriors and their voting base'? Are you referring to Ron DeSantis, his voters and supporters?
------
May 2022
LAKELAND, Fla. — Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 95, which enhances penalties for the sale and distribution of opioids in Florida, including fentanyl.
“Floridians of all walks of life have witnessed the destruction caused by the opioid epidemic across our state,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “While the Biden administration has failed to stop the flow of dangerous drugs, including fentanyl, across our southern border, we are taking action in Florida to lower both the demand and the supply of illicit and illegal drugs.”
Adds methamphetamine to the list of specified controlled substances which, if the substance causes the death of a person, can subject the person who distributed the controlled substance to a conviction for first degree felony murder.
Enhances the penalties for the sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of substance abuse treatment facilities.
Increases the mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking fentanyl from 3 years to 7 years for 4-14 grams, and from 15 to 20 years for 14-28 grams.
More here: https://www.flgov.com/2022/05/19/governor-ron-desantis-signs-legislation-cracking-down-on-opioid-dealers-and-traffickers/
A good discussion as to why say Oregon run by progressive types has gone to hell vs say Portugal as to their system approaches. Contrary to some claims, Oregon didn't follow Portugal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lxqT5ABIY
Thanks. That's a more consistent perspective from a libertarian than was suggested in your linked video of a socialist dystopian world of government monopolies in manufacturing and drug consumption rooms.
I don't believe people start out wanting to become addicted. After a surgery I was given opioid pain pills. Quite candidly, I liked them. When I was out of pills that was that... I would never consider turning to the black market for more pills. However, if the drug was given out simply for the asking at the pharmacy inside Publix grocery... just a dozen more... and again... until addicted... is much more likely. Society should be careful what they wish for.
'Dumb drug warriors and their voting base'? Are you referring to Ron DeSantis, his voters and supporters?
------
May 2022
LAKELAND, Fla. — Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 95, which enhances penalties for the sale and distribution of opioids in Florida, including fentanyl.
“Floridians of all walks of life have witnessed the destruction caused by the opioid epidemic across our state,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “While the Biden administration has failed to stop the flow of dangerous drugs, including fentanyl, across our southern border, we are taking action in Florida to lower both the demand and the supply of illicit and illegal drugs.”
Adds methamphetamine to the list of specified controlled substances which, if the substance causes the death of a person, can subject the person who distributed the controlled substance to a conviction for first degree felony murder.
Enhances the penalties for the sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of substance abuse treatment facilities.
Increases the mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking fentanyl from 3 years to 7 years for 4-14 grams, and from 15 to 20 years for 14-28 grams.
More here: https://www.flgov.com/2022/05/19/governor-ron-desantis-signs-legislation-cracking-down-on-opioid-dealers-and-traffickers/
I would be ok with people who support the drug war being barred from receiving any abused medications.
Thanks. That's a more consistent perspective from a libertarian than was suggested in your linked video of a socialist dystopian world of government monopolies in manufacturing and drug consumption rooms.
I don't believe people start out wanting to become addicted. After a surgery I was given opioid pain pills. Quite candidly, I liked them. When I was out of pills that was that... I would never consider turning to the black market for more pills. However, if the drug was given out simply for the asking at the pharmacy inside Publix grocery... just a dozen more... and again... until addicted... is much more likely. Society should be careful what they wish for.
'Dumb drug warriors and their voting base'? Are you referring to Ron DeSantis, his voters and supporters?
------
May 2022
LAKELAND, Fla. — Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 95, which enhances penalties for the sale and distribution of opioids in Florida, including fentanyl.
“Floridians of all walks of life have witnessed the destruction caused by the opioid epidemic across our state,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “While the Biden administration has failed to stop the flow of dangerous drugs, including fentanyl, across our southern border, we are taking action in Florida to lower both the demand and the supply of illicit and illegal drugs.”
Adds methamphetamine to the list of specified controlled substances which, if the substance causes the death of a person, can subject the person who distributed the controlled substance to a conviction for first degree felony murder.
Enhances the penalties for the sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of substance abuse treatment facilities.
Increases the mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking fentanyl from 3 years to 7 years for 4-14 grams, and from 15 to 20 years for 14-28 grams.
More here: https://www.flgov.com/2022/05/19/governor-ron-desantis-signs-legislation-cracking-down-on-opioid-dealers-and-traffickers/
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this, but the Right/GOP is wrong about drugs while the Left/Dem are wrong about guns, they are two sides of the same coin and overlap. That's one of various reasons I'm not a conservative nor a Lib, but Libertarian in most views. I'm in FL, voted for Desantis, and thinks he's done a great job as Gov and would make a solid POTUS. He's not perfect however. Not looked deeper into that new law, but appears focused on trafficking and will have zero impact on drug use and availability in FL. Again, that's a politician pandering to his base.
See vid in #127, Oregon went all carrot and no stick, going all stick and no carrot to be "tough on crime" will be equally useless and infringe on Liberty. again, historical realities, stats, and metrics exist. Why do the blinders to that fact persist? Cognitive dissonance is a real mo fo.
A good balanced look at Oregon via talking with LE. It reflects what differences are between those places (e.g. Portugal, etc) that had net success and less:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAWt7mY2WLw
ChattanoogaPhil
09-09-23, 09:53
A different perspective...
I don't necessarily agree with all the positions but challenging the notion that valuing freedom and liberty of personal choice requires the freedom to impair one's cognitive ability to make choices is worthy of consideration, as well as government's responsibilities to same.
-----
excerpts
The Libertarian Case for Drug Prohibition
Many libertarians argue that we should legalize recreational drugs in the name of freedom and personal autonomy. Drug prohibition, they argue, infringes on personal freedom by denying individuals the liberty to do what they want with their own bodies.
This is mistaken. In fact, it is drug legalization that infringes on freedom. Drug prohibition, not legalization, is the real pro-liberty position.
Let me explain.
The Foundations of Freedom
All should agree that one of the essential responsibilities of government is to protect and promote personal freedom. To that end, governments have an interest in restricting activities that impair, destroy, or otherwise undermine personal freedom.
Now, freedom cannot flourish unless certain background conditions are met. Consider an analogy with markets. If a government wants to protect and promote markets, then it must safeguard the conditions that make a market economy possible. These conditions include the protection of life, exchange, contracts, and private property. Without these prerequisites in place, it would be all but impossible for markets to flourish.
The same is true of freedom. If the government has a responsibility to protect and promote freedom, then it must also protect and promote the conditions that make it possible. On this point, one essential ingredient of personal freedom is rationality. Choices can only be free if they are made by a person whose cognitive faculties are functioning in the right way. Reason confers on our actions a certain order and intelligibility that make them explicable and coherent. It is what makes our actions ours, such that we are responsible for them. Our ability to act freely is diminished or destroyed if we are unable to deliberate and think coherently, or if we are subject to overwhelming coercive forces.
In other words, freedom isn’t just the bare ability to do something; it is the ability to act under the influence of properly functioning cognitive faculties. This point is pivotal in making sense of the legal concepts of consent, coercion, and competence. Young children are unable to enter into legally binding contracts because their cognitive capacities are not fully developed. Likewise, insanity defenses are based on the understanding that cognitively disabled or insane persons cannot be held criminally liable for their actions. There cannot be freedom without rationality.
Accordingly, since the government has a responsibility to protect personal freedom, it must also protect and promote a culture that is conducive to clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. The government, therefore, has a responsibility to restrict activities that impair, destroy, or otherwise undermine clear thinking.
Recreational Drug Use Undermines Freedom
Recreational drug use interferes with clear thinking. The very activity is centered around the consumption of an intoxicating substance that impairs one’s cognition. The whole point is to impair one’s ability to think clearly, which in turn impairs one’s ability to act freely. Thus, recreational drugs should be legally restricted because their use is incompatible with the vision of a freedom-respecting liberal state.
There are two ways in which drugs affect cognition. First, there are the immediate effects of consuming certain drugs. The immediate effects of hallucinogens such as LSD and PCP include rapid mood swings, delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, and a distorted sense of time and self. Heroin produces euphoria followed by nausea and clouded mental functioning. The immediate effects of marijuana—which is often heralded as a “safe” drug—include anxiety, dysphoria and paranoia, altered judgment, cognitive impairment, and psychomotor impairment.
Second, there are the long-term effects of drug use. Many drugs have addictive effects that impair the freedom of drug users by exerting a powerful influence over their future actions. Drug addicts who become physically and psychologically dependent on drugs have their sense of self-control diminished or even destroyed. These addictive effects can bleed into other areas of an addict’s life, affecting his ability to work, learn, care for himself, interact with others, and form relationships. They may impel him to act destructively in order to fuel his addiction, thereby affecting the freedom of others besides himself.
Opponents of drug legalization typically focus on the long-term effects of drug use and their spillover effects to third parties, specifically children and teenagers. These are very serious concerns, to be sure, but the immediate effects of drug use are by themselves enough to show that recreational drug use is intrinsically antithetical to the good of freedom and personal autonomy. The opponent of legalization need not appeal to third party spillover effects to make his case.
Let’s sum up the argument so far. One of the government’s chief responsibilities is to protect and promote freedom. In order to do this, it must also protect and promote the underlying conditions that make freedom possible, one of these being clarity of thought. The government therefore has an interest in cultivating a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. Since recreational drug use impairs the user’s ability to reason, governments should therefore enact legal restrictions on recreational drugs.
In other words, if you value freedom, then you should oppose the legalization of recreational drugs.
Drug Prohibition: Myths and Realities
So far I’ve been defending drug restrictions. But the term “restriction” is vague. What kind of restrictions should the government adopt?
Answer: the government should prohibit those substances that have no legitimate use aside from recreation. In addition to making them difficult to obtain, prohibition serves to drive up the cost of drugs, which in turn reduces demand by making it more expensive. It’s simply a matter of supply and demand: the more expensive you make something, the less willing people are to buy it. The added threat of legal punishment also serves to drive down demand. Conversely, if something is cheap, legal, and widely available, then people are more inclined to buy it.
Drug legalization would make drugs both cheaper and more available, which in turn increases use. A 2015 study in the Journal of Health Economics found that medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use in both adults and adolescents. In adults aged 21 and older, the frequency of binge drinking also increased. Similarly, a 2017 study published in JAMA Psychiatry found that “medical marijuana laws appear to have contributed to increased prevalence of illicit cannabis use and cannabis use disorders.” Increased availability is also associated with increased use of other drugs, including alcohol.
Prohibition makes drugs more expensive and less available, which in turn reduces drug use. Alcohol prohibition, which many think ended in failure, actually reduced per capita alcohol consumption by about 30 to 50 percent. Cirrhosis death rates, admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis, and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct also declined dramatically. While is true that alcohol prohibition did ultimately fail, it failed for political reasons. In terms of reducing alcohol use, prohibition was a success. And given that excessive alcohol consumption impairs clear thinking (in addition to the $250 billion annual cost that it imposes on the nation), it is worth asking whether we should bring back some form of stringent alcohol regulation for reasons considered earlier.
Of course, not all drugs are used recreationally. Alcohol can be consumed as a mild social lubricant without the intention to get drunk. But this is not true of marijuana, as the whole point of non-medical marijuana use is to get high (and, as we will see, most cases of so-called “medical” use are indistinguishable from recreational use). Nobody smokes a joint wanting to avoid the high. So too with heroin, cocaine, and other drugs. These drugs would be the target of prohibition, since their paradigmatic use is abuse, unlike alcohol.
It is true that there will still be some who will go through the effort to illegally obtain drugs even if prohibition is enacted. Perfect compliance, however, isn’t the standard of success when it comes to lawmaking. Laws against murder, assault, and theft don’t stop all of these crimes, but nobody is proposing that we legalize these things.
Where Libertarians Go Wrong
Where many libertarians go wrong in their support for drug legalization is in their conception of freedom. If we think of freedom as just the bare ability to make choices, then it is understandable why one might think that drug restrictions infringe on personal freedom, since such restrictions do limit our ability to make a range of choices.
But not all choices are worth respecting. As I noted earlier, we cannot respect freedom without also respecting the conditions that make freedom possible. One such condition is the preservation and maintenance of properly functioning cognitive faculties. The free choices we should respect, therefore, cannot seek to undermine this condition. Since recreational drug use seeks to undermine clear thinking, the choice to partake in such an activity should not be respected.
This is not, as some liberal political theorists might object, to adopt a “moralized” conception of freedom. Rather, what is being appealed to are structural conditions needed to make sense of respecting freedom under any conception of the good life.
Indeed, it would be bizarre to argue that the state’s goal of promoting freedom is served by allowing its citizens to impair their own freedom. The initial decision to engage in recreational drug use may be free, but the end result is the diminution of freedom. One cannot realize his freedom by suppressing it, any more than one can become healthy by becoming ill. The idea that recreational drug use can be justified by an appeal to freedom or liberty is thus self-defeating in the same way that drinking seawater to remedy thirst is counterproductive to its own goal.
Some argue that there is a moral right to use drugs that is derived from our right of ownership over our own bodies. According to libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer, “it is hard to see how anyone who believes in rights at all could deny that . . . drug use, considered merely as altering the user’s body and mind, is an example of the exercise of one’s rights over one’s own body and mind.”
There are numerous problems with Huemer’s argument. For one, it does not follow from the fact that one owns himself that his rights over his own body are absolute and unlimited. Many philosophical traditions have held that we have duties of self-respect to ourselves, such as duties to preserve our own health and personal integrity, and to develop our talents. If there are such duties, then they would seem to count against a moral entitlement to debase one’s cognitive functioning. Appeals to bodily autonomy hinge on the background moral theory we adopt, and Huemer’s conception of self-ownership is no different. Huemer presupposes a controversial philosophical anthropology that needs to be justified, and he does not give us any reason why we should accept it.
Nor will it do to argue, as some libertarians do, that the defender of drug prohibition must also be committed to bans on fatty foods, soft drinks, and the like. The argument I have given here pertains only to activities that are intrinsically destructive to clear thinking, which unhealthy foods (which typically are only unhealthy when consumed excessively) do not affect. So this objection simply doesn’t apply.
The Bottom Line
To be clear, the argument I’ve offered here is not that recreational drug use should be restricted because it is unhealthy or immoral. Rather it is that recreational drug use impairs and undermines the conditions for freedom, and so the legalization of recreational drugs is incompatible with the vision of a freedom-respecting state.
As John Stuart Mill said, “the principle of freedom cannot require that [one] should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.” A society that values freedom must cultivate a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. For that reason, recreational drugs should be legally prohibited. Libertarians, therefore, should stand opposed to drug legalization.
More here: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20650/
A different perspective...
I don't necessarily agree with all the positions but challenging the notion that valuing freedom and liberty of personal choice requires the freedom to impair one's cognitive ability to make choices is worthy of consideration, as well as government's responsibilities to same.
-----
excerpts
The Libertarian Case for Drug Prohibition
Many libertarians argue that we should legalize recreational drugs in the name of freedom and personal autonomy. Drug prohibition, they argue, infringes on personal freedom by denying individuals the liberty to do what they want with their own bodies.
This is mistaken. In fact, it is drug legalization that infringes on freedom. Drug prohibition, not legalization, is the real pro-liberty position.
Let me explain.
The Foundations of Freedom
All should agree that one of the essential responsibilities of government is to protect and promote personal freedom. To that end, governments have an interest in restricting activities that impair, destroy, or otherwise undermine personal freedom.
Now, freedom cannot flourish unless certain background conditions are met. Consider an analogy with markets. If a government wants to protect and promote markets, then it must safeguard the conditions that make a market economy possible. These conditions include the protection of life, exchange, contracts, and private property. Without these prerequisites in place, it would be all but impossible for markets to flourish.
The same is true of freedom. If the government has a responsibility to protect and promote freedom, then it must also protect and promote the conditions that make it possible. On this point, one essential ingredient of personal freedom is rationality. Choices can only be free if they are made by a person whose cognitive faculties are functioning in the right way. Reason confers on our actions a certain order and intelligibility that make them explicable and coherent. It is what makes our actions ours, such that we are responsible for them. Our ability to act freely is diminished or destroyed if we are unable to deliberate and think coherently, or if we are subject to overwhelming coercive forces.
In other words, freedom isn’t just the bare ability to do something; it is the ability to act under the influence of properly functioning cognitive faculties. This point is pivotal in making sense of the legal concepts of consent, coercion, and competence. Young children are unable to enter into legally binding contracts because their cognitive capacities are not fully developed. Likewise, insanity defenses are based on the understanding that cognitively disabled or insane persons cannot be held criminally liable for their actions. There cannot be freedom without rationality.
Accordingly, since the government has a responsibility to protect personal freedom, it must also protect and promote a culture that is conducive to clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. The government, therefore, has a responsibility to restrict activities that impair, destroy, or otherwise undermine clear thinking.
Recreational Drug Use Undermines Freedom
Recreational drug use interferes with clear thinking. The very activity is centered around the consumption of an intoxicating substance that impairs one’s cognition. The whole point is to impair one’s ability to think clearly, which in turn impairs one’s ability to act freely. Thus, recreational drugs should be legally restricted because their use is incompatible with the vision of a freedom-respecting liberal state.
There are two ways in which drugs affect cognition. First, there are the immediate effects of consuming certain drugs. The immediate effects of hallucinogens such as LSD and PCP include rapid mood swings, delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, and a distorted sense of time and self. Heroin produces euphoria followed by nausea and clouded mental functioning. The immediate effects of marijuana—which is often heralded as a “safe” drug—include anxiety, dysphoria and paranoia, altered judgment, cognitive impairment, and psychomotor impairment.
Second, there are the long-term effects of drug use. Many drugs have addictive effects that impair the freedom of drug users by exerting a powerful influence over their future actions. Drug addicts who become physically and psychologically dependent on drugs have their sense of self-control diminished or even destroyed. These addictive effects can bleed into other areas of an addict’s life, affecting his ability to work, learn, care for himself, interact with others, and form relationships. They may impel him to act destructively in order to fuel his addiction, thereby affecting the freedom of others besides himself.
Opponents of drug legalization typically focus on the long-term effects of drug use and their spillover effects to third parties, specifically children and teenagers. These are very serious concerns, to be sure, but the immediate effects of drug use are by themselves enough to show that recreational drug use is intrinsically antithetical to the good of freedom and personal autonomy. The opponent of legalization need not appeal to third party spillover effects to make his case.
Let’s sum up the argument so far. One of the government’s chief responsibilities is to protect and promote freedom. In order to do this, it must also protect and promote the underlying conditions that make freedom possible, one of these being clarity of thought. The government therefore has an interest in cultivating a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. Since recreational drug use impairs the user’s ability to reason, governments should therefore enact legal restrictions on recreational drugs.
In other words, if you value freedom, then you should oppose the legalization of recreational drugs.
Drug Prohibition: Myths and Realities
So far I’ve been defending drug restrictions. But the term “restriction” is vague. What kind of restrictions should the government adopt?
Answer: the government should prohibit those substances that have no legitimate use aside from recreation. In addition to making them difficult to obtain, prohibition serves to drive up the cost of drugs, which in turn reduces demand by making it more expensive. It’s simply a matter of supply and demand: the more expensive you make something, the less willing people are to buy it. The added threat of legal punishment also serves to drive down demand. Conversely, if something is cheap, legal, and widely available, then people are more inclined to buy it.
Drug legalization would make drugs both cheaper and more available, which in turn increases use. A 2015 study in the Journal of Health Economics found that medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use in both adults and adolescents. In adults aged 21 and older, the frequency of binge drinking also increased. Similarly, a 2017 study published in JAMA Psychiatry found that “medical marijuana laws appear to have contributed to increased prevalence of illicit cannabis use and cannabis use disorders.” Increased availability is also associated with increased use of other drugs, including alcohol.
Prohibition makes drugs more expensive and less available, which in turn reduces drug use. Alcohol prohibition, which many think ended in failure, actually reduced per capita alcohol consumption by about 30 to 50 percent. Cirrhosis death rates, admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis, and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct also declined dramatically. While is true that alcohol prohibition did ultimately fail, it failed for political reasons. In terms of reducing alcohol use, prohibition was a success. And given that excessive alcohol consumption impairs clear thinking (in addition to the $250 billion annual cost that it imposes on the nation), it is worth asking whether we should bring back some form of stringent alcohol regulation for reasons considered earlier.
Of course, not all drugs are used recreationally. Alcohol can be consumed as a mild social lubricant without the intention to get drunk. But this is not true of marijuana, as the whole point of non-medical marijuana use is to get high (and, as we will see, most cases of so-called “medical” use are indistinguishable from recreational use). Nobody smokes a joint wanting to avoid the high. So too with heroin, cocaine, and other drugs. These drugs would be the target of prohibition, since their paradigmatic use is abuse, unlike alcohol.
It is true that there will still be some who will go through the effort to illegally obtain drugs even if prohibition is enacted. Perfect compliance, however, isn’t the standard of success when it comes to lawmaking. Laws against murder, assault, and theft don’t stop all of these crimes, but nobody is proposing that we legalize these things.
Where Libertarians Go Wrong
Where many libertarians go wrong in their support for drug legalization is in their conception of freedom. If we think of freedom as just the bare ability to make choices, then it is understandable why one might think that drug restrictions infringe on personal freedom, since such restrictions do limit our ability to make a range of choices.
But not all choices are worth respecting. As I noted earlier, we cannot respect freedom without also respecting the conditions that make freedom possible. One such condition is the preservation and maintenance of properly functioning cognitive faculties. The free choices we should respect, therefore, cannot seek to undermine this condition. Since recreational drug use seeks to undermine clear thinking, the choice to partake in such an activity should not be respected.
This is not, as some liberal political theorists might object, to adopt a “moralized” conception of freedom. Rather, what is being appealed to are structural conditions needed to make sense of respecting freedom under any conception of the good life.
Indeed, it would be bizarre to argue that the state’s goal of promoting freedom is served by allowing its citizens to impair their own freedom. The initial decision to engage in recreational drug use may be free, but the end result is the diminution of freedom. One cannot realize his freedom by suppressing it, any more than one can become healthy by becoming ill. The idea that recreational drug use can be justified by an appeal to freedom or liberty is thus self-defeating in the same way that drinking seawater to remedy thirst is counterproductive to its own goal.
Some argue that there is a moral right to use drugs that is derived from our right of ownership over our own bodies. According to libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer, “it is hard to see how anyone who believes in rights at all could deny that . . . drug use, considered merely as altering the user’s body and mind, is an example of the exercise of one’s rights over one’s own body and mind.”
There are numerous problems with Huemer’s argument. For one, it does not follow from the fact that one owns himself that his rights over his own body are absolute and unlimited. Many philosophical traditions have held that we have duties of self-respect to ourselves, such as duties to preserve our own health and personal integrity, and to develop our talents. If there are such duties, then they would seem to count against a moral entitlement to debase one’s cognitive functioning. Appeals to bodily autonomy hinge on the background moral theory we adopt, and Huemer’s conception of self-ownership is no different. Huemer presupposes a controversial philosophical anthropology that needs to be justified, and he does not give us any reason why we should accept it.
Nor will it do to argue, as some libertarians do, that the defender of drug prohibition must also be committed to bans on fatty foods, soft drinks, and the like. The argument I have given here pertains only to activities that are intrinsically destructive to clear thinking, which unhealthy foods (which typically are only unhealthy when consumed excessively) do not affect. So this objection simply doesn’t apply.
The Bottom Line
To be clear, the argument I’ve offered here is not that recreational drug use should be restricted because it is unhealthy or immoral. Rather it is that recreational drug use impairs and undermines the conditions for freedom, and so the legalization of recreational drugs is incompatible with the vision of a freedom-respecting state.
As John Stuart Mill said, “the principle of freedom cannot require that [one] should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.” A society that values freedom must cultivate a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. For that reason, recreational drugs should be legally prohibited. Libertarians, therefore, should stand opposed to drug legalization.
More here: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20650/
He dances around a lot of stuff with one being
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Perhaps he can write another article on what the organizer in New Mexico just did.
Oregon went all carrot and no stick.
We should end the excess with the “war” and idea that it can be won. The idea that the carrot and stick needs more balance is not the problem. But most of the people pushing legalization are just trying to destabilize our society to bring in communism.
We should end the excess with the “war” and idea that it can be won. The idea that the carrot and stick needs more balance is not the problem. But most of the people pushing legalization are just trying to destabilize our society to bring in communism.
You've been living under most of it your entire life.
https://www.conservativeusa.net/10planksofcommunism.htm
ChattanoogaPhil
09-10-23, 05:32
We should end the excess with the “war” and idea that it can be won. The idea that the carrot and stick needs more balance is not the problem. But most of the people pushing legalization are just trying to destabilize our society to bring in communism.
There's a sinister element in most any agenda, but I think for the most part folks are well-meaning or otherwise enamored with their arguments and bashing others over the head with words like freedom and liberty while paying little regard to real world consequences of what they profess. How many private property, drug legalization and autonomous advocates (read libertarians) would enjoy their nice suburban home being next to a meth lab, opium den or whore house? Perhaps some would but I doubt many. Sanctuary City advocates in NYC are getting a taste of what they profess. They don't seem to like it much. Libertarians professing the free movement of people across borders and ending the classifying of 'undocumented immigrants' as lawbreakers should take note.
There's a long list of reasons that libertarian thinking as it relates to policymaking has been largely dismissed by society as unrealistic, fringe kook, but I don't believe having communist aims is on the list. Of course the libertarian-minded will tell you that they are the enlightened ones and everyone else 'doesn't get it' or is 'dumb'. And so it goes...
ChattanoogaPhil
09-10-23, 07:16
He dances around a lot of stuff with one being
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Frederic Bastiat, The Law
A crack-addicted mind does not reflect the natural state of man. It's an impaired state and loss of freedom according to the author. The interviews with drug users in Will's linked vid support this. Far from being free, you'll hear remarks that they don't want their life, don't recommend their life to anyone but can't stop themselves. These are not the remarks of a free man, but rather an imprisoned man enslaved by a drug, unable to exercise the natural tendencies of man to break free.
There's a sinister element in most any agenda, but I think for the most part folks are well-meaning or otherwise enamored with their arguments and bashing others over the head with words like freedom and liberty while paying little regard to real world consequences of what they profess. How many private property, drug legalization and autonomous advocates (read libertarians) would enjoy their nice suburban home being next to a meth lab, opium den or whore house? Perhaps some would but I doubt many. Sanctuary City advocates in NYC are getting a taste of what they profess. They don't seem to like it much. Libertarians professing the free movement of people across borders and ending the classifying of 'undocumented immigrants' as lawbreakers should take note.
There's a long list of reasons that libertarian thinking as it relates to policymaking has been largely dismissed by society as unrealistic, fringe kook, but I don't believe having communist aims is on the list. Of course the libertarian-minded will tell you that they are the enlightened ones and everyone else 'doesn't get it' or is 'dumb'. And so it goes...
The real world.
http://libertytree.ca/quotes/Bill.Clinton.Quote.7332
Good info on why drug decriminalization isn't working for Oregon as it could, etc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0im-9v4-rI
ChattanoogaPhil
09-10-23, 08:22
Oregon... July 2023: In a nonpartisan statewide poll earlier this year, more than 60 percent of respondents blamed Measure 110 for making drug addiction, homelessness, and crime worse. A majority, including a majority of Democrats, said they supported bringing back criminal penalties for drug possession.
ViniVidivici
09-10-23, 08:23
And once again, places like Oregon, and now parts of WA, don't have a drug decriminalization problem, they have a CRIME decriminalization problem.
And once again, places like Oregon, and now parts of WA, don't have a drug decriminalization problem, they have a CRIME decriminalization problem.
Same basic idea with this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile
No interest in prosecuting crimes against persons or property so let's put up billboards telling everyone to call in when they think they see an illegal gun.
Averageman
09-10-23, 09:10
Just a thought;
You know you can do this slowly and in incriments right?
I'm just saying you do not have to go from being a bunch of Quakers to Wife swapping Hippies overnight right?
Also along with more freedoms comes more responcabilities, only you can F' this up kind of attitude. Hard line Law Enforcement.
Say Yes to freedom and No to Crimminals. Pretty simple.
ChattanoogaPhil
09-10-23, 10:22
The good people of Oregon may have been misguided three years ago but according to polling they're not blind to the results. More drug use, more homelessness and more crime. Drug use contributes to both crime and homelessness. Regardless of poor or effective law enforcement, a contributor to crime and homelessness has been expanded due to drug legalization policies according to those who live in Oregon. Not surprising, a significant majority of Oregonians now want to return to criminal penalties for drug possession.
In context of autonomy and freedom of choice, it was interesting to watch WillBrink's vid of apologists explaining Oregon's failed policy and druggies not wanting treatment, then pointing to Portugal's "heavy legal pressure" to push druggies into treatment. What happened to freedom of choice and autonomy, freedom from government coercion? Libertarians tell us that government coercion is the antithesis of freedom.
Of course misguided policy is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps there's not many Anarchists complaining.
There's a long list of reasons that libertarian thinking as it relates to policymaking has been largely dismissed by society as unrealistic, fringe kook, but I don't believe having communist aims is on the list.
Libertarians were not the cause of legalization in Oregon, Soros and Zuckerberg funded most of it.
Horseshoe theory is why they can sound similar. Libertarians don’t have bad intentions, they just don’t realize that large groups of people naturally reject the level of responsibility needed for it to work.
ChattanoogaPhil
09-11-23, 13:05
Libertarians were not the cause of legalization in Oregon, Soros and Zuckerberg funded most of it.
Horseshoe theory is why they can sound similar. Libertarians don’t have bad intentions, they just don’t realize that large groups of people naturally reject the level of responsibility needed for it to work.
If you mean that Libertarians have little influence in America that's a given. But there's no Libertarian that I know of who needs George Soros to tell them what to think on this subject. Oregon's prop 110 passed by 58%. No doubt there was influence by those you mention but I believe there was considerable existing support among dems and independents, and some reps too. Three years later... now a similar majority want to return to criminalizing possession, so says polling. I am reminded of the phrase: Some people have to learn the hard way. I hope we'll see a similar learning process on things like border security and illegal immigrants.
This was a good watch. Interesting that he keeps mentioning Monadnock region NH top area for opioid crisis. I'd like to know what the source is for that one. I went to school in that area. Other than the college, there was a lot of very poor depressed towns and a lot ( I mean a lot!) of heavy alcohol use. But that was the 80s and I'd thought the area had been taken over by wealthier hipsters and such looking for cheaper houses and such. Interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVMN3DgcRYk
WickedWillis
09-15-23, 14:07
What the **** is the difference if some asshole goes out and buys a case of Jack Daniel’s versus buying a bag of coke?
Who gives a shit! Last reported statistics was something like 107,000 people died last year from OD. Let them die! Legalize it and it will sort itself out. 42,000+ died from being drunk and behind the wheel. No one is going to war with alcohol makers. I’ve yet to see the BATFE raid Jack Daniel’s.
It’s a waste of ****ing time, money and resources.
I am pro do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else. That being said, when was the last time you were in downtown Portland?
I’ve been hearing a bunch of promising stories about the use of psychedelics in treating depression, PTSD, and TBI, among other things, mainly on various episodes of Shawn Ryan Show. I need to get my hands on some studies to read to see if the reported benefits are real or just anecdotal.
I’ve been hearing a bunch of promising stories about the use of psychedelics in treating depression, PTSD, and TBI, among other things, mainly on various episodes of Shawn Ryan Show. I need to get my hands on some studies to read to see if the reported benefits are real or just anecdotal.
I posted bunch of studies etc in the appropriate section of the forum (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?191252-Psilocybin-Mushrooms-and-depression) as well as others in that section.
I posted bunch of studies etc in the appropriate section of the forum (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?191252-Psilocybin-Mushrooms-and-depression) as well as others in that section.
Awesome, you Sir are a wealth of information, thank you Will, I’ll delve into it when I get a free moment.
Awesome, you Sir are a wealth of information, thank you Will, I’ll delve into it when I get a free moment.
When in doubt, use ye search function. There's a lot of good stuff in that section of the forum that should get more wub I think.
I am pro do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else. That being said, when was the last time you were in downtown Portland?
They blame the obviously failed by any metric legalization on everything else.
-But drugs aren’t legalized federally.
-That’s not “true communism”, err legalization.
But they also fail to see how the west coast is soaking up drug tourism/junkies and lessening the drug problem wherever they live. Junkies won’t look to move to the west coast if it’s legal everywhere.
I’ve been hearing a bunch of promising stories about the use of psychedelics...
Come to Oregon, shrooms are legal here too.
They blame the obviously failed by any metric legalization on everything else.
-But drugs aren’t legalized federally.
-That’s not “true communism”, err legalization.
But they also fail to see how the west coast is soaking up drug tourism/junkies and lessening the drug problem wherever they live. Junkies won’t look to move to the west coast if it’s legal everywhere.
The concept of getting .gov out of the drug business is communism now? Lol
Why aren't alcohol distributors getting in shootouts over territory?
How are alcohol addicts avoiding jake leg and blindness?
The same excuse for failure.
Marijuana is obviously a gateway drug to full legalization of hard drugs. I remember when the legalize crew only tried to compare marijuana to alcohol.
Averageman
09-16-23, 10:13
The same excuse for failure.
Marijuana is obviously a gateway drug to full legalization of hard drugs. I remember when the legalize crew only tried to compare marijuana to alcohol.
I remember that also, at this point I really don't think marijuana needs to be a crime.
But I would say, you can grow 20 plants in your back yard at any one time. You just have to get out there and work at it.
The same excuse for failure.
Marijuana is obviously a gateway drug to full legalization of hard drugs. I remember when the legalize crew only tried to compare marijuana to alcohol.
Do you drink alcohol?
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/the-real-gateway-drug
The same excuse for failure.
Marijuana is obviously a gateway drug to full legalization of hard drugs. I remember when the legalize crew only tried to compare marijuana to alcohol.
Does anyone remember way back when opium was considered a gateway drug? Ya know, when Chinese laborers were using it as an escape from the misery and drudgery of their labors while building the western segment of the Trans-continental railroad? 'Gateway Drug' isn't really a medical term and it isn't really an actual thing except as a term used as a perjorative and to justify the failed War on Drugs. Everyone should watch the old Reefer Madness propaganda as an example.
to justify the failed War on Drugs. Everyone should watch the old Reefer Madness propaganda as an example.
You’d think that as many current, former and retired cops here and well, everywhere else that say the same would start to resonate with all the pro drug war fudds out their who advocate for even harsher penalties for drug crimes all while chugging down a bottle of Jack...
Do you drink alcohol?
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/the-real-gateway-drug
I’m not sure if my style of writing/sarcasm is the problem here, or if you didn’t really read what I wrote.
I am pointing out the remarkable (but predictable) movement of what drug the pro drug crowd is trying to equate to alcohol. It used to be marijuana, but now that most people think it should be legal you all are comfortable comparing meth and opioids to my drinking a couple beers.
I’m not sure if my style of writing/sarcasm is the problem here, or if you didn’t really read what I wrote.
I am pointing out the remarkable (but predictable) movement of what drug the pro drug crowd is trying to equate to alcohol. It used to be marijuana, but now that most people think it should be legal you all are comfortable comparing meth and opioids to my drinking a couple beers.
You brought up "gateway drug" and alcohol is frequently the first drug that a person tries.
I have also pointed out that as bad of an effect alcohol has on society, prohibition(which may have lowered the numbers drinking based on lower numbers of cirrhosis cases) was still worse overall due to the crime associated with it as well as tainted alcohol related health problems.
Imagine alcohol was still illegal at the federal level, but your town decided against enforcing laws against alcohol. Now imagine someone brewing up your beers and either not knowing what they were doing or figuring out they could add various chemicals to the process to increase yield or give it more of a kick.
You keep missing my point. Legalizing pot has become a gateway to legalizing hard drugs.
People have been making beer for thousands of years. It’s not hard or dangerous. Bad liquor during prohibition came from the government regulations for denaturing.
Liquor is nowhere near as unregulated as most of the legalize drugs crowd thinks, or wants fentanyl to be.
You keep missing my point. Legalizing pot has become a gateway to legalizing hard drugs.
People have been making beer for thousands of years. It’s not hard or dangerous. Bad liquor during prohibition came from the government regulations for denaturing.
Liquor is nowhere near as unregulated as most of the legalize drugs crowd thinks, or wants fentanyl to be.
Not missing the point you want to make at all that drugs are bad. One drug that is bad is alcohol. As bad as alcohol is, alcohol prohibtion was even worse.
Alcohol frequently leads to the use of other drugs.
Government decreed denatured alcohol was not the only route to bad alcohol.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonshine#:~:text=Adulterated%20moonshine,-See%20also%3A%20Clandestine&text=The%20incidence%20of%20impure%20moonshine,primarily%20from%20increased%20lead%20content.
So, maybe the ridiculous scheduling of MJ is going to change, but that's going to get dragged out and out. Nice to see a GOP Congressman pushing for MJ changes with evidence why it should be done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1orQCtFYImQ
Narcan addicts.
https://youtu.be/fBH_Gszmd8U?si=BT8zVaJIuO6eyKk8
I generally prefer stories from the US because it's the US war on drugs I'm most focused on - which impacts the entire world one way or another - that matters to me mostly. Many (most in my personal experience) LEOs who actually deal with drugs on a ground level conclude drug laws and their enforcement are net negative to society. Most start out feeling one way about drugs and drug users, have a red pill transition, which is always interesting aspect to me. I can't fathom doing that work and the stress levels and dangers involved.
"Successful drug policing just increases the violence" is his conclusion.
Interesting interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlse-4pNCwQ
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.