PDA

View Full Version : FFF: Why Do Conservatives Still Love the Drug War?




FrankRep
04-03-2010, 12:14 PM
Why Do Conservatives Still Love the Drug War? (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=739)


Jacob Hornberger | Future of Freedom Foundation, Campaign For Liberty
April 2, 2010


An article by a conservative named Cliff Kincaid, who serves as editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report, provides a perfect example of how different libertarians are from conservatives and, well, for that matter, how there ain't a dime's worth of difference, when it comes to individual freedom, between conservatives and liberals.

The article concerns the drug war and is entitled, "Dopey Conservatives for Dope. (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/dopey-conservatives-for-dope)" Ardently defending the continuation of the drug war, despite some 35 years of manifest failure, Kincaid takes fellow conservatives to task who are finally joining libertarians in calling for an end to the drug war. He specifically mentions columnist Steve Chapman, whose article "In the Drug War, Drugs are Winning (http://townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2010/03/28/in_the_drug_war,_drugs_are_winning)," which was posted on the website of the conservative website Townhall.com, was apparently what set Kincaid off.

Chapman made the point that it is the illegality of drugs that has produced the drug gangs and cartels, along with all the violence that has come with them. The reason that such gangs and cartels fear legalization is that they know that legalization would put them out of business immediately.

Consider alcohol. Today, there are thousands of liquor suppliers selling alcohol to consumers notwithstanding the fact that liquor might be considered harmful to people. They have aggressive advertising and marketing campaigns and are doing their best to maximize profits by providing a product that consumers wish to buy. Their competitive efforts to expand market share are entirely peaceful.

Now, suppose liquor production or distribution was made a federal felony offense, just like drug production or distribution. At that point, all the established liquor businesses would go out of business.

However, prohibition wouldn't mean that liquor would cease being produced or distributed. It would simply mean that a new type of supplier would immediately enter the black (i.e., illegal) market to fill the void. Those suppliers would be similar in nature to the current suppliers in the drug business or, say, Al Capone -- that is, unsavory people who have no reservations about resorting to violence, such as murdering competitors and killing law-enforcement officers, to expand market share.

At that point, the only way to put these Al Capone-type of people out of business would be by legalizing booze. Once prohibition of alcohol was ended, the violent liquor gangs would immediately go out of business and legitimate businesses would return to the liquor market. The same holds true for drug prohibition.

The big objection to the drug war, however, is not its manifest failure and destructiveness but rather its fundamental assault on individual freedom. If a person isn't free to ingest any substance he wants, then how can he possibly be considered free?

Yet, for decades Kincaid and most other conservatives and most liberals have taken the audacious position that the state should wield the power to punish a person for doing bad things to himself. In fact, the drug war reflects perfectly the nanny-state mindset that has long afflicted both conservatives and liberals. They feel that the state should be a nanny for American adults, treating them like little children, sending them to their jail cell when they put bad things in their mouths.

Kincaid justifies his statism by saying that drugs are bad for people. Even if that's true -- and people should be free to decide that for themselves, as they do with liquor -- so what? Why should that be any business of the state? If I wish to do bad things to myself, why should the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, and John McCain wield the power to put me into jail for that?

Quite simply, Kincaid: It ain't any of your business or anyone else's business what I ingest, whether it's booze, drugs, candy, or anything else. I am not a drone in your collective bee hive. I am an individual with the natural, God-given right to live my life any way I choose, so long as my conduct doesn't involve the initiation of force against others.

For decades, conservatives and liberals have been using the drug war as an excuse to assault freedom, free enterprise, privacy, private property, civil liberties, and the Constitution. They have brought nothing but death, violence, destruction, and misery with their 35-year old failed war on drugs. There would be no better place to start dismantling the statism that afflicts our land than by ending the drug war.


SOURCE:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=739

FrankRep
04-03-2010, 12:15 PM
John Stossel: The War on Drugs!

YouTube - John Stossel : The War on Drugs! (Part 1/6)! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P6pNIKxWgA)

YouTube - John Stossel : The War on Drugs! (Part 2/6)! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myg7euxdzmY)

YouTube - John Stossel : The War on Drugs! (Part 3/6)! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIoJyHox-Go)

YouTube - John Stossel : The War on Drugs! (Part 4/6)! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDg0gJJegvI)

YouTube - John Stossel : The War on Drugs! (Part 5/6)! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZMiVl5nlKE)

YouTube - John Stossel : The War on Drugs! (Part 6/6)! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLis0uuoO1w)

forsmant
04-03-2010, 12:20 PM
Because the conservatives have a moral view of the world and would like you to as well.

Expatriate
04-03-2010, 12:34 PM
This is the "hockey stick graph" that we should really be worried about.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/US_incarceration_timeline.gif

SociallyRenderedImage
04-03-2010, 12:37 PM
Consider how easy it would be to pay a lowly DEA agent to not be somewhere during a certain time frame?

You could give him $10k to just avoid a certain street, during a certain time frame.

Now the only way you could be in a position to affect this and make this bribery, is to have presented yourself as an opponent to the drug trade. The trade is far too profitable for the oligarchy and the creation of a ruse of resistance allows management of the condition. That is not to say there are those who are true believers (on either side), but if they really wanted to stop it they could. My guess is that it brings in far too much profit tax free.

Real Conservatives don't like the drug war.

silentshout
04-03-2010, 12:39 PM
I wouldn't say conservatives do, just the Republicans. They want to legislate their version of morality for everyone to follow. Oh, and keep making sure the police and prison guard unions make money, keep the DEA in business and their friends in the pharmaceutical industry as well. The same could be said for the Democrats.

Slutter McGee
04-03-2010, 12:42 PM
Drugs are bad...mmm kay.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

idirtify
04-03-2010, 07:26 PM
There would be no better place to start dismantling the statism that afflicts our land than by ending the drug war.



QFT!!!

Yet we not only have external enemies of freedom, called “prohibitionists”, to deal with; we also have at least a couple prohibitionist factions inside these circles that will readily disagree with your last sentence. They make themselves known in drug threads on these forums quite often. One claims ALL drugs should not be legalized. Although it’s the more indefensible position, it’s not as bad - because it’s so clearly ridiculous. But the second one is worse; in that it sounds less offensive, but is more insidious. It claims that anti-drug-war positions should not be given high priority – because it’s bad politically (too unpopular). Yes, I know it’s actually just as ridiculous; but since its rebuttal is just a wee bit longer and more complex, its proponents tend to interject more fallacies. Now let’s see if we can entice any members of this element into this discussion.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-03-2010, 07:37 PM
Haven't you heard? The drug war is the politically correct modern version of Jim Crow laws in an age of anti-discrimination.

nate895
04-03-2010, 07:50 PM
The "drug war doesn't work" is a stupid argument to end the drug war. I am not necessarily in favor of drug laws, but "we can't get drugs off the streets using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to get drugs off the streets" is not a good argument. Via that logic, "we can't end murder using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to end murder." Find some good argumentation instead of logically fallacious bogus. Once again, I am not in favor of the drug war. I just want to see if there is anybody out there who isn't too intellectually lazy to actual make a valid argument.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
04-03-2010, 08:21 PM
The "drug war doesn't work" is a stupid argument to end the drug war.

I think the actual argument there is that "the drug war doesn't work... to reduce harm." Assuming that harm reduction is the goal (and I believe it is for some), then the logic works fine.

I personally don't accept that as a valid goal.

nate895
04-03-2010, 08:28 PM
I think the actual argument there is that "the drug war doesn't work... to reduce harm." Assuming that harm reduction is the goal (and I believe it is for some), then the logic works fine.

I personally don't accept that as a valid goal.

The thing is, even that argument still doesn't hold validity because it is a version of the naturalistic fallacy and it can still prove too much. Theoretically speaking, if we made murder legal, and since most murders are crimes of passion, more murders would be carried out in a humane way, and we wouldn't have to spend months fretting about whether someone is dead or not. If all the elements of the argument are true, that would be a valid argument to legalize murder.

idirtify
04-03-2010, 08:34 PM
The "drug war doesn't work" is a stupid argument to end the drug war. I am not necessarily in favor of drug laws, but "we can't get drugs off the streets using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to get drugs off the streets" is not a good argument. Via that logic, "we can't end murder using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to end murder." Find some good argumentation instead of logically fallacious bogus. Once again, I am not in favor of the drug war. I just want to see if there is anybody out there who isn't too intellectually lazy to actual make a valid argument.

Good point, but you sound as if that’s the only argument you have ever seen/heard. For better ones, read the OP.

nate895
04-03-2010, 08:40 PM
Good point, but you sound as if that’s the only argument you have ever seen/heard. For better ones, read the OP.

I know it isn't the only one, it is just the one most often cited, and the one that convinces the most often. That should not be the case.

idirtify
04-03-2010, 09:02 PM
I know it isn't the only one, it is just the one most often cited, and the one that convinces the most often. That should not be the case.

I generally agree, but your analogy to murder is not entirely accurate; since the white house never made the proclamation that they were waging a “War On Murder”. I think those who argue as you dislike are only replying to what term “war” implies: that it can be won. Even so, I agree that there are better arguments.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
04-04-2010, 07:40 AM
The thing is, even that argument still doesn't hold validity because it is a version of the naturalistic fallacy and it can still prove too much. Theoretically speaking, if we made murder legal, and since most murders are crimes of passion, more murders would be carried out in a humane way, and we wouldn't have to spend months fretting about whether someone is dead or not. If all the elements of the argument are true, that would be a valid argument to legalize murder.


If the argument is that the drug war causes more harm, and if harm reduction is the goal, then it makes sense to stop the actions causing the harm. (drug war) I'm missing the fallacy there.

The only reason people use that argument much is because the average person seems to have problems understanding whether the violence and crime are caused by the substances or the associated black markets. It's easier to identify a substance than a concept or social structure.

It's real hard to use a murder analogy for a number of reasons. More humane murder won't make up for the lack of fretting, for most people. And whether legal or not, there is still aggression and violence being committed. That's not the case when making possession of a substance legal or not.

I know it's just a thought experiment for you, but I wouldn't say your elements are true, either.




I know it isn't the only one, it is just the one most often cited, and the one that convinces the most often. That should not be the case.


I certainly agree with that. The problem, as I see it, is the unwanted interference in the affairs of others. But if people believe they are supporting harm reduction when really supporting the opposite, then someone should let them know. If nothing else, it's the polite thing to do.

james1906
04-04-2010, 07:56 AM
http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/03/06/afghanistan_south?page=2

Dreamofunity
04-04-2010, 08:23 AM
Self-righteousness.

catdd
04-04-2010, 08:30 AM
Pandering for the soccer mom votes

Working Poor
04-04-2010, 09:30 AM
Here is an argumment for you nate895:

The drugs that are illegal are natural they have been here as long or longer than mankind has. They have medicinal purpose instead of being regulated they ought to be available to anyone who wants them. They have been illegal for less than 100 years. Before then no wars were fought over them and people did not go to jail because they possessed or, used them, back then the CIA wasn't the biggest drug dealer in the world, and gang wars were not fought over controlling the traffic. To me it seems like a no brainer.

LibertyMage
04-04-2010, 09:52 AM
Because neo-conservatism is about cultural isolation. It would do us well to remember that neo-conservatives are the real isolationists.

tangent4ronpaul
04-04-2010, 10:21 AM
With the cold war and the "missile gap" and the "bomber gap", both the USSR and the US used each other for political power and to justify the military industrial complex. With it's end, the Intelligence community, the military and the military industrial complex were left searching for a new mission - a new justification for their existence. growth, power and profits. They found one in terrorism and the terrorists likewise benefited as there is nothing like dead civilians to radicalize a population and win them to your side.

Prohibition gave birth to 2 organizations - the FBI and the mafia. When it ended, both went searching for new purposes in life and found them. This is a basic problem with ending the drug war - where will the cartels and the DEA find a new mission? They won't go away, though one could be abolished (the DEA).

While I believe opiates and coca had actions taken against them earlier, the real kick off of the drug war came with DuPont's invention of nylon. They actively lobbied Congress to outlaw hemp in order to eliminate competition for their product. This has evolved into the growth of industries that are far reaching. From drug testing, to private prisons (outsourced - American sweat shops) There is a reason the US has the highest prisoner population in the world, per-capita. Weapon sales, military assistance, funding for several agencies, the rise of street gangs and police units to fight them and with them skyrocketing drug prices. The worst is that it is used as a pretext to meddle in the affairs of foreign governments.

In the case of pot, many states with the budget crisis are looking at legalizing it, at least for medicinal purposes, but keeping the cost very high. This does not make the illegal drug market go away, rather it introduces competition between street and legal pricing. Further, if pot as a market goes away for the black market, the cartels will just switch to harder drugs, as they have to an extent as pot is bulky and becoming harder to smuggle. Domestic production has been the answer.

I was talking to a former DEA sniper a few years ago who was expressing his disappointment over his service in South America. He indicated that at the time, it would have been trivial to take out the cartels when they were small, but there was no political interest in doing this, so they were not allowed to. Just like the cold war, the cartels and the government/corporations needed each other.

The root cause of most of this is the practice of lobbying and the existence of corporate person-hood. Artificial persons that have more influence and better financial backing than a representatives constituents. Going a bit deeper, it's corporations ability to influence elections at all and the whole fund raising part of the electoral process.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
04-04-2010, 06:25 PM
No comments?

-t

Expatriate
04-05-2010, 01:22 PM
The "drug war doesn't work" is a stupid argument to end the drug war. I am not necessarily in favor of drug laws, but "we can't get drugs off the streets using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to get drugs off the streets" is not a good argument. Via that logic, "we can't end murder using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to end murder." Find some good argumentation instead of logically fallacious bogus. Once again, I am not in favor of the drug war. I just want to see if there is anybody out there who isn't too intellectually lazy to actual make a valid argument.

The argument I would prefer to use is that it is OBVIOUSLY WRONG to throw people into rape dungeons for doing something that at the worst only harms themselves.

However, most proponents of the drug war seem stuck in the frame of mind that it's morally wrong to take drugs, and so in order to make them question their position, you have to point out the utter failure of the drug war to eradicate drug use. Once they realize that the whole idea has totally backfired and is actually INCREASING crime, they would have to become a walking contradiction in order to continue their support of it.

Do you really think you're going to get anywhere by going up to an evangelical Republican and saying "The drug war is immoral"? They will block you out as soon as you say that.

idirtify
04-05-2010, 10:56 PM
With the cold war and the "missile gap" and the "bomber gap", both the USSR and the US used each other for political power and to justify the military industrial complex. With it's end, the Intelligence community, the military and the military industrial complex were left searching for a new mission - a new justification for their existence. growth, power and profits. They found one in terrorism and the terrorists likewise benefited as there is nothing like dead civilians to radicalize a population and win them to your side.

Prohibition gave birth to 2 organizations - the FBI and the mafia. When it ended, both went searching for new purposes in life and found them. This is a basic problem with ending the drug war - where will the cartels and the DEA find a new mission? They won't go away, though one could be abolished (the DEA).

While I believe opiates and coca had actions taken against them earlier, the real kick off of the drug war came with DuPont's invention of nylon. They actively lobbied Congress to outlaw hemp in order to eliminate competition for their product. This has evolved into the growth of industries that are far reaching. From drug testing, to private prisons (outsourced - American sweat shops) There is a reason the US has the highest prisoner population in the world, per-capita. Weapon sales, military assistance, funding for several agencies, the rise of street gangs and police units to fight them and with them skyrocketing drug prices. The worst is that it is used as a pretext to meddle in the affairs of foreign governments.

In the case of pot, many states with the budget crisis are looking at legalizing it, at least for medicinal purposes, but keeping the cost very high. This does not make the illegal drug market go away, rather it introduces competition between street and legal pricing. Further, if pot as a market goes away for the black market, the cartels will just switch to harder drugs, as they have to an extent as pot is bulky and becoming harder to smuggle. Domestic production has been the answer.

I was talking to a former DEA sniper a few years ago who was expressing his disappointment over his service in South America. He indicated that at the time, it would have been trivial to take out the cartels when they were small, but there was no political interest in doing this, so they were not allowed to. Just like the cold war, the cartels and the government/corporations needed each other.

The root cause of most of this is the practice of lobbying and the existence of corporate person-hood. Artificial persons that have more influence and better financial backing than a representatives constituents. Going a bit deeper, it's corporations ability to influence elections at all and the whole fund raising part of the electoral process.

-t

Let me get this straight. You disagree with complete legalization because you fear what new missions the cartels and the DEA will create? Before I comment further, I need your reply.

AggieforPaul
04-05-2010, 10:58 PM
Because most conservatives are religious, and even though the Bible supports natural remedies and moderate wine drinking, the church culture is one of neo-prohibitionism.

tangent4ronpaul
04-06-2010, 08:35 AM
Let me get this straight. You disagree with complete legalization because you fear what new missions the cartels and the DEA will create? Before I comment further, I need your reply.

No, I'm in favor of complete legalization as well as making all Rx drugs OTC. I'm just saying that legalizing drugs won't make the cartels go away. The DEA could be abolished as an agency.

-t

idirtify
04-06-2010, 09:12 AM
No, I'm in favor of complete legalization as well as making all Rx drugs OTC. I'm just saying that legalizing drugs won't make the cartels go away. The DEA could be abolished as an agency.

-t

Good. I agree.

ChaosControl
04-06-2010, 09:32 AM
I don't know how people can be okay with believing that the government owns you to the extent that they can tell you what you can consume.

Drugs suck, but people should have the right to take them just as they should have the right to drink toxic waste if they really want to.

fisharmor
04-06-2010, 09:34 AM
The "drug war doesn't work" is a stupid argument to end the drug war. I am not necessarily in favor of drug laws, but "we can't get drugs off the streets using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to get drugs off the streets" is not a good argument. Via that logic, "we can't end murder using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to end murder." Find some good argumentation instead of logically fallacious bogus. Once again, I am not in favor of the drug war. I just want to see if there is anybody out there who isn't too intellectually lazy to actual make a valid argument.

And the hole in this argument is that it relies on the notion that police are capable of ending anything.
They are not.
Police are capable of doing two things:
1) making arrests and feeding people into the judicial system, and/ or
2) dispensing "justice" on the spot.

If you're arguing that the use of #2 is ever apropos, then the conversation is over.

And #1 is not really the police doing anything. In that case (the intended case) the police are really just agents of the judicial system. Unless they are the also the judge, jury, and executioner, then all they can do is feed offenders into the system, and the system ultimately throws people into the rape dungeons for smoking something.

You can fear the cops because they'll put you in prison, or you can fear them because they're going to sodomize you with a broomstick. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima)

Yes, I might be splitting hairs to jump on you for insinuating that the police are even capable of having an effect, but it's an important distinction. If you believe that it's possible for police to make a difference, you're equally guilty of fallacy here. It assumes a fact not in evidence, which was never in evidence, and which never will be in evidence.

Unless you agree with the broomstick method.

To answer your charge, I can throw intellectual laziness back at you, too.
The facts on the ground are thus: it costs money we don't have to prosecute the drug war, it intervenes in the affairs of sovereign nations, it starves peasants, it throws our own citizenry into rape dungeons, it surrounds the entire trade with dangers not present in a free market, it makes the product less safe for consumption, it now throws citizens not even involved in the sale or use of hard drugs into rape prisons (think sudafed), it undermines private property rights in ways never before accomplished in this nation....

....and it doesn't even fucking work. By all metrics I've ever seen (the apologists never seem to offer any) it seems to be having the opposite of the intended effect.

What possible reason could there be for its continuance? And how is it not more intellectually lazy simply to accept it?




I'm just saying that legalizing drugs won't make the cartels go away. The DEA could be abolished as an agency.

I don't follow. Cartels only exist because of government intervention.
If drugs were legalized, the only way the cartels could continue to exist is through licensing. So I agree with your statement, but only in the sense that the first thing governments would do post legalization is immediately regulate it.
And those regulations would probably mean hefty fees for production.
And that would mean that I could get thrown in a rape prison for growing a single pot plant, because I wouldn't (more likely couldn't) pay the fee.

Which would mean that the four or five corporations who could pay the fee would have sick profits to lobby with, in order to keep things status quo.

It's something I hadn't thought about.... in a push for legalization, we also need to point out that regulation isn't ok, either.

tangent4ronpaul
04-06-2010, 12:37 PM
The cartels would either go legit, or more likely find different crimes to commit.

Agree that regulation needs to be addressed to. Not just about drugs, but for example, that's the major reason why Americans pay twice what anyone else in the world pays for medical care and what's driven so many jobs overseas.

-t

AuH20
04-06-2010, 12:52 PM
Interesting article to say the least. Though the manner in which it minimizes the negative effects of drug use as being confined to the individual is comical to say the least. You can do a litany of extremely dangerous things to your fellow man while under the influence of drugs, as seen with alcohol.

With that said, we should attempt to streamline the system somehow and alleviate the exorbitant costs that go along with non-violent incarceration and DEA funding. I don't think there is a single, compelling argument that forces any rational person towards total legalization or all-out enforcement. It's truly the grayest of issues. I'm in the middle on this entire drug war effort.

fisharmor
04-06-2010, 03:26 PM
Though the manner in which it minimizes the negative effects of drug use as being confined to individual is comical to say the least. You can do a littany of extremly dangerous things to your fellow man while under the influence of drugs, as seen with alcohol.

Of all people in this world who have ever committed murder, a full 100% of them - every single one - breathed oxygen.
I therefore see no other alternative than to ban oxygen.

M House
04-06-2010, 03:28 PM
Programming it's just cuz that's what conservatives are supposed to support.

Liberals-drugs good
Conservatives-drugs bad

AuH20
04-06-2010, 04:00 PM
Programming it's just cuz that's what conservatives are supposed to support.

Liberals-drugs good
Conservatives-drugs bad

Drugs are fantastic! ;) We've been conditioned to be fools about toxic substances like Methamphetamine.

http://www.irishurls.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/montana_meth.jpg

AuH20
04-06-2010, 04:00 PM
Of all people in this world who have ever committed murder, a full 100% of them - every single one - breathed oxygen.
I therefore see no other alternative than to ban oxygen.

How does oxygen alter moods and behavior? Secondly, if the most vile drugs are legalized, can I take justice against any junkie that attempts to steal from me? Like I said, some people form their conclusions FIRST and then erroneously build their argument downward around that flawed premise.

You would have to dramatically revise the legal, justice & health system if you want to completely remove the drug enforcement barrier. With that said, I think we should decriminalize the more benign substances and attempt to mitigate the criminal market for the supply of such products. Yes, the current drug war is a failure, but the other extreme could be as worse.

andrewh817
04-06-2010, 05:28 PM
The title is a trick question. Conservatives don't love the drug war.

idirtify
04-07-2010, 01:18 PM
How does oxygen alter moods and behavior? Secondly, if the most vile drugs are legalized, can I take justice against any junkie that attempts to steal from me? Like I said, some people form their conclusions FIRST and then erroneously build their argument downward around that flawed premise.

You would have to dramatically revise the legal, justice & health system if you want to completely remove the drug enforcement barrier. With that said, I think we should decriminalize the more benign substances and attempt to mitigate the criminal market for the supply of such products. Yes, the current drug war is a failure, but the other extreme could be as worse.

Since you don’t want ALL drugs to be legalized, you disagree with the OP (that “there would be no better place to start dismantling the statism that afflicts our land than by ending the drug war”); and therefore you qualify as a member of a prohibitionist faction within LF that I was talking about in post #8. Thanks for volunteering. I agree with the OP and challenge all of your positions.

Start your reply by telling us which drugs you think are “vile” and which are “more benign”? Show us your two lists.

Next, tell us why you would be more worried about junkies stealing from you after legalization, since their drugs would be cheaper and they would be LESS likely to steal in order to afford them.

Next, tell us why you base part of your prohibitionism on having to “dramatically revise the legal, justice & health system if you want to completely remove the drug enforcement barrier”, when your creative wording only describes all the things that depend on the drug war and need to be eliminated anyway.

Finally, describe your version of the “other extreme”, and explain why and how it would be worse than the current drug war.

idirtify
04-08-2010, 11:07 AM
BUMP one more time. Yooohooo…AuH20, where are you!??? You have a prohibitionism accusation to contend with. Please reply to my challenge above.

Working Poor
04-08-2010, 11:26 AM
What is morally wrong with taking drugs? Other than the fact that there are laws against it. Why did after centuries of people living in harmony with opium, cocaine and pot did all of a sudden they become illegal? Does it say somewhere in the bible that drugs are wrong? I can't seem to find it anywhere in the bible that it is wrong to take drugs. In fact I found out that Jesus used the finest cannabis sativa oil to anoint his head with.

bruce leeroy
04-08-2010, 11:31 AM
My personal view on the "war on drugs" is that marijauna should be completely legal and other drugs should be decriminalized and custodial sentences ended for all but the biggest time dope dealers.

Krugerrand
04-08-2010, 11:33 AM
The "drug war doesn't work" is a stupid argument to end the drug war. I am not necessarily in favor of drug laws, but "we can't get drugs off the streets using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to get drugs off the streets" is not a good argument. Via that logic, "we can't end murder using the police, therefore we shouldn't use the police to end murder." Find some good argumentation instead of logically fallacious bogus. Once again, I am not in favor of the drug war. I just want to see if there is anybody out there who isn't too intellectually lazy to actual make a valid argument.

I agree with you completely.

For a long time, the fallacy of the "the drug war doesn't work and therefore should be ended argument" had me wrongly supporting the drug war for a long time. That was the primary argument I always heard for legalizing marijuana and it never made any sense to me.

Constitutional authority (and lack there of), liberty, and personal responsibility are far better foundations on which to build a case.

Krugerrand
04-08-2010, 11:36 AM
Why Do Conservatives Still Love the Drug War?

I think it's because historically liberals got all mushy-gooshy for the criminals of the world. it became a statement of toughness.

Then, 'the war' built a buddy-buddy relationship with law enforcement - which obviously got boosted for the effort.

AuH20
04-08-2010, 11:45 AM
Since you don’t want ALL drugs to be legalized, you disagree with the OP (that “there would be no better place to start dismantling the statism that afflicts our land than by ending the drug war”); and therefore you qualify as a member of a prohibitionist faction within LF that I was talking about in post #8. Thanks for volunteering. I agree with the OP and challenge all of your positions.




Start your reply by telling us which drugs you think are “vile” and which are “more benign”? Show us your two lists

Vile (extreme mood-altering) - Methamphetamine, Heroin, LSD, Crack
Benign/Limited - Marijauna, Cocaine


Next, tell us why you would be more worried about junkies stealing from you after legalization, since their drugs would be cheaper and they would be LESS likely to steal in order to afford them.

Psychological and physical dependency overshadow any price dropoffs that come with legalization. You're potentially dealing with a consumer who is most likely not in control of their own actions. They'll jump through a plate of glass for a fix if the downturn is painful enough. Imagine running on a treadmill you can't shut off?


Next, tell us why you base part of your prohibitionism on having to “dramatically revise the legal, justice & health system if you want to completely remove the drug enforcement barrier”, when your creative wording only describes all the things that depend on the drug war and need to be eliminated anyway.

Um. Operating vehicles and heavy machinery while being impaired? Combine that with the extremely litigious nature of our society where personal negligence can award one hundreds of thousand dollars in compensation. Then think about the effect on health care costs, if the dam is broken on highly addictive substances. Knuckleheads still inject meth even though it's made of chemicals obtainable at Home Depot. I agree with you that you cannot partially dismantle the irresponsible nature of our social welfare net and justice system if you want to legalize drugs.


Finally, describe your version of the “other extreme”, and explain why and how it would be worse than the current drug war.

We have enough zombies as it is. We don't need any more clawing at our doors.

Captain Shays
04-08-2010, 11:58 AM
Vices are Not Crimes---GREAT piece!

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm


Spread it to all you love

fisharmor
04-08-2010, 12:17 PM
Vile (extreme mood-altering) - Methamphetamine, Heroin, LSD, Crack
Benign/Limited - Marijauna, Cocaine
Hoo boy...

First problem: you walked right into it. Separate drugs into two completely arbitrary categories and get everyone to agree with you how, exactly? Maybe we could trample property rights, dispense street justice, and throw people into rape dungeons for one category and basically ignore the other.....

....kind of like how we already do with alcohol and other drugs. Different categorization, same idea. So you're actually in favor of the status quo.


Psychological and physical dependency overshadow any price dropoffs that come with legalization. You're potentially dealing with a consumer who is most likely not in control of their own actions. They'll jump through a plate of glass for a fix if the downturn is painful enough. Imagine running on a treadmill you can't shut off?

Do you say this from experience, or was this on an after school special?
People are in control of their actions no matter what the scenario. Of course prohibitionists don't believe this. Stop excusing bad behavior simply because someone displayed other behavior you also consider to be bad.
Your assertion of their uncontrolled state is purely gratuitous. Any gratuitous assertion can be equally gratuitously denied.


Um. Operating vehicles and heavy machinery while being impaired? Combine that with the extremely litigious nature of our society where personal negligence can award one hundreds of thousand dollars in compensation. Then think about the effect on health care costs, if the dam is broken on highly addictive substances. Knuckleheads still inject meth even though it's made of chemicals obtainable at Home Depot. I agree with you that you cannot partially dismantle the irresponsible nature of our social welfare net and justice system if you want to legalize drugs.

So, what you're saying is that legalizing drugs would necessitate the complete dismantling of the systems which most of us think of as broken glass under our skin, so in the name of preserving that system we need to keep drugs illegal?



We have enough zombies as it is. We don't need any more clawing at our doors.

I know man, you should see Amsterdam! They have tons of zombies enjoying legal drugs there, and as a result I got some particularly shitty restaurant service! Not to mention the fact that all the hostels were booked. Come to think of it, how did I escape with my brains intact?

tremendoustie
04-08-2010, 12:18 PM
Because the conservatives have a moral view of the world and would like you to as well.

I have a highly moral view of the world. I believe going around with a gun, threatening people who consume things I don't approve of, is immoral behavior.

Elwar
04-08-2010, 12:21 PM
The "drug war doesn't work" is a stupid argument to end the drug war.

I agree...just as bad as being against the Iraq war because "we can't win"...

idirtify
04-08-2010, 02:28 PM
My personal view on the "war on drugs" is that marijauna should be completely legal and other drugs should be decriminalized and custodial sentences ended for all but the biggest time dope dealers.

So, like AuH20, you only want to stop PART of the drug war and think it’s OK to SOMETIMES use force and violence to control others’ non-violent victimless behavior? Is this really what you want us to see as your opening position?

idirtify
04-08-2010, 02:30 PM
Vile (extreme mood-altering) - Methamphetamine, Heroin, LSD, Crack
Benign/Limited - Marijauna, Cocaine



Psychological and physical dependency overshadow any price dropoffs that come with legalization. You're potentially dealing with a consumer who is most likely not in control of their own actions. They'll jump through a plate of glass for a fix if the downturn is painful enough. Imagine running on a treadmill you can't shut off?



Um. Operating vehicles and heavy machinery while being impaired? Combine that with the extremely litigious nature of our society where personal negligence can award one hundreds of thousand dollars in compensation. Then think about the effect on health care costs, if the dam is broken on highly addictive substances. Knuckleheads still inject meth even though it's made of chemicals obtainable at Home Depot. I agree with you that you cannot partially dismantle the irresponsible nature of our social welfare net and justice system if you want to legalize drugs.



We have enough zombies as it is. We don't need any more clawing at our doors.

Thanks for firmly establishing you only want to stop PART of the drug war and think it’s OK to SOMETIMES use force and violence to control others’ non-violent victimless behavior?

I love attacking drug-war mentality; it’s so fallible. But thanks to fisharmor, my reply is much shorter. I’ll only address what he/she didn’t:

Spare us your boogeyman stereotyping of drug-users. It’s not only fear-mongering; it’s irrelevant to the realities of black-market crime. Today’s drug crime is more a result of high drug prices than high drug users. Being high does not necessarily influence the user to commit crime. If anything, it is the opposite: the user sobers up and wants to get high again but can’t afford the high prices (caused by prohibition). Getting the government out of the picture and eliminating the black market of drug prohibition would send drug prices straight down. So your worries that legalization would increase theft have no merit.

No version of legalization advocates operating vehicles or heavy machinery while impaired. Your comment implying that it does is more fear-mongering; and a strawman argument against legalization, commonly used by prohibitionists.

Your fear of higher health-care costs after legalization is just as irrational when you consider the vast amount of harm prohibition currently does to people (it’s called “violent crime” and most of it today is a direct result of drug prohibition). Even a slight understanding of black-market economics and prohibition dynamics would allow you to realize that both crime AND harm would be REDUCED by legalization.

idirtify
04-08-2010, 02:43 PM
I have a highly moral view of the world. I believe going around with a gun, threatening people who consume things I don't approve of, is immoral behavior.

Exactly!

AuH20
04-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Thanks for firmly establishing you only want to stop PART of the drug war and think it’s OK to SOMETIMES use force and violence to control others’ non-violent victimless behavior?

I love attacking drug-war mentality; it’s so fallible. But thanks to fisharmor, my reply is much shorter. I’ll only address what he/she didn’t:

Spare us your boogeyman stereotyping of drug-users. It’s not only fear-mongering; it’s irrelevant to the realities of black-market crime. Today’s drug crime is more a result of high drug prices than high drug users. Being high does not necessarily influence the user to commit crime. If anything, it is the opposite: the user sobers up and wants to get high again but can’t afford the high prices (caused by prohibition). Getting the government out of the picture and eliminating the black market of drug prohibition would send drug prices straight down. So your worries that legalization would increase theft have no merit.

No version of legalization advocates operating vehicles or heavy machinery while impaired. Your comment implying that it does is more fear-mongering; and a strawman argument against legalization, commonly used by prohibitionists.

Your fear of higher health-care costs after legalization is just as irrational when you consider the vast amount of harm prohibition currently does to people (it’s called “violent crime” and most of it today is a direct result of drug prohibition). Even a slight understanding of black-market economics and prohibition dynamics would allow you to realize that both crime AND harm would be REDUCED by legalization.


Psychoactive drugs affect one's brain chemistry. These aren't sweet tarts. Secondly, if a drug user cannot afford their habit, where are they going to retrieve income? the drug money fairy? You think they're in any mental state to go knock on their neighbor's door and ask for a loan? Really? You haven't heard of the horror stories of junkies ransacking their own family's homes for any type of valuables to sell? So much for victimless acts of recreation, eh? I think many of the full legalization advocates underestimate the limbic system of the brain and it's nasty repurcussions.

Expatriate
04-08-2010, 04:05 PM
Psychoactive drugs affect one's brain chemistry. These aren't sweet tarts.
It's recently been shown (http://lifehacker.com/5504437/fatty-foods-may-have-a-drug+like-effect-on-your-brain) that many types of food have an identical effect on one's brain chemistry as hard drugs. Are you in favor of starting a War on Food as well? How about banning Twinkies and telling me how many pieces of pizza I can eat per month?


Secondly, if a drug user cannot afford their habit, where are they going to retrieve income? the drug money fairy? You think they're in any mental state to go knock on their neighbor's door and ask for a loan? Really? You haven't heard of the horror stories of junkies ransacking their own family's homes for any type of valuables to sell? So much for victimless acts of recreation, eh? I think many of the full legalization advocates underestimate the limbic system of the brain and it's nasty repurcussions.

If you're in favor of continuing the drug war on any front, you're merely helping to keep such "horror stories" in existence.

Without the drug war artificially inflating prices, even the poorest junkie could afford as much deadly deadly poison as he/she could literally ever want (That's assuming the government isn't levying absurdly high "vice taxes" on it like they currently do with alcohol and tobacco).

idirtify
04-08-2010, 08:00 PM
Psychoactive drugs affect one's brain chemistry. These aren't sweet tarts. Secondly, if a drug user cannot afford their habit, where are they going to retrieve income? the drug money fairy? You think they're in any mental state to go knock on their neighbor's door and ask for a loan? Really? You haven't heard of the horror stories of junkies ransacking their own family's homes for any type of valuables to sell? So much for victimless acts of recreation, eh? I think many of the full legalization advocates underestimate the limbic system of the brain and it's nasty repurcussions.

"Psychoactive drugs affect one's brain chemistry. These aren't sweet tarts."

So what? Many things affect brain chemistry. For example: prohibition has disastrous effects on brain chemistry. What’s your point? Do you think you have the right to use violence to control people who choose to experience a different brain chemistry?

"Secondly, if a drug user cannot afford their habit, where are they going to retrieve income? the drug money fairy? You think they're in any mental state to go knock on their neighbor's door and ask for a loan? Really? You haven't heard of the horror stories of junkies ransacking their own family's homes for any type of valuables to sell? So much for victimless acts of recreation, eh?"

You make no sense! What you are describing are direct effects of prohibition and its black markets (that exist NOW); problems that would certainly be improved after legalization. Why are you ignoring my previous points about the black market and drug prices and theft?

"I think many of the full legalization advocates underestimate the limbic system of the brain and it's nasty repurcussions."

OMG, you actually believe the OLDEST prohibition myth - that drug-war violence is a result of drug pharmacology! Why are you trying to argue something about which you obviously have very little education?