Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: pine on March 09, 2012, 05:05 am
-
For the record, I'm not actually pro-legalization. That brings a whole new suite of other problems related to supply side issues e.g. the cheaper a drug, the more frequently it will be used. It applies to every single other commodity in economics, I don't see how it suddenly stops applying to the drug market, the pro-side never seems to quite address that issue. Also, I could lose my job you guys! The horror! I notice the consumers of drugs are, unsurprisingly, all pro-legalization, I assure you a lot of vendors are a bit more ambivalent about the entire subject! :o
No, I'm in favor of the illegal drug market being made into an extra-legal market. This is sometimes called a grey market. Grey markets exist for prostitution all over the world, where slave trafficking, children is illegal, but being a voluntary sex worker is not. Because if you are really pro-legalization, and you need the evangelical anti-drug types agreeing with you in order to change society, then you're gonna wait until the cows come home. There are options outside of getting the entirety of society to agree on rights and wrongs of drugs!
tldr; legalization, not as hot as it's cracked up to be.
-
Are you suggesting you are in favor of, say decriminalization?
If you are then have you considered this actually only increases illegal activities in other ways?
Say a government decriminalizes possession, as in some places, yet manufacturing is still illegal. How does this solve anything? It simply promotes individuals using the drug as well, because their is no fear of legal implications. However, that then increases demand on growing, and more people will then start manufacturing the drug... which is promoting an activity still against the law and thus doesnt really solve any problems in my mind
I was just hoping you could clarify what you mean by gray market?
Interesting point to bring up, I would largely agree in many way... especially given a logical progression that is not so drastically a step from illegal to legal and the ramifications. Imo opinion after this happens, only those who dont use the drug because they fear prosecution or those who did not previously have access will use, and then those who are curious will either continue or stop and after the first initial instability the levels of use would stabilize and people would balance it out drug use like with any other potentially addictive activity. Sure some are going to ruin their lives, but drugs are already so rampant and widely accessible those who want them can find them. Imo if we promoted responsible use and education the cots on society would be reduced. Cigarettes are a perfect example as they are widely available but given their danger current and recent education of the risk, usage has actually been declining.
tldr: stop being so lazy :)
-
@microRNA
Yes, but not just for decriminalizing possession as in Portugal. The entire chain from customer to manufacturer.
The key thing in an extra-legal market, it can mostly supervise itself because there are clear standards for drug purity, drug manufacture standards etc. The only criminal activity, is those cow-boy operations that persist in dangerous manufacture practices, lie about their product or use violent practices to obtain customers etc.
Instead of organizations like the DEA, we'd have the drug market equivalent of a 'Food Standards Agency', with inspectors investigation operations and giving out licenses to operate. Similarly, there would be certain restrictions on the point of sale. e.g. not to minors etc
You don't necessary have to get the drug from decent operators with a certificate, but you'd be well advised to.
In such a world, the vast majority of the black market would become grey. Not illegal or legal, but outside the law, extra-legal. Here society isn't validating your drug use, they were merely putting up with it and defining a valid route.
I don't have all the answers, but there's some ideas there. I think it's best to experiment and see what works best rather than bumbling along in the dark into perpetuity. We're never going to get rid of some form of government interference, and we're never going to get rid of drug markets, so we might as well come to some clearly defined solution so harm reduction is at its most optimal.
-
When I read the title to this thread, I rolled my eyes, then I saw it was from pine so I knew it'd be a worthwhile read :)
Certainly no perfect solution to this issue. One thing I've considered would be a system where users would have to obtain certification to buy drugs. The cert process would include taking classes on whatever drugs you were interested in to learn sustainable dosage schedules, interactions, and general harm reduction techniques etc. I think this would actually make drugs boring for a lot of people, when you have someone in an official capacity teaching a class in a routine matter-of-fact 'nothing special here' sort of way. Half of the appeal of drugs is rebellion and 'forbidden fruit' (give or take), take that out of the picture and they're not nearly as exciting. The certification would have to be renewed every so often. Eligibility would be based on records of good citizenship i.e. no robbery, violence, intoxicated driving etc. Make it a privilege not a right. Of course there would be problems with diversion, but I think this would be a vast improvement over the current system. Like pine says, it really would be worth experimenting...I don't understand why someone hasn't brought that up in decrim/legalization debates...if it was an epic failure it only takes a few drop of ink to change the laws back or try something else...
-
No, I'm in favor of the illegal drug market being made into an extra-legal market. This is sometimes called a grey market. Grey markets exist for prostitution all over the world, where slave trafficking, children is illegal, but being a voluntary sex worker is not. Because if you are really pro-legalization, and you need the evangelical anti-drug types agreeing with you in order to change society, then you're gonna wait until the cows come home.
Well if Pat Robertson just said we should legalize weed, who knows how many of his mindless followers are going to turn pro-legalization?
-
@Nikodym
What I think of as 'social engineering' (not in the hacker sense of the expression), isn't done very often by governments. Yes, there *are* lessons we should take from the Communists. I say that as an ardent Capitalist who literally hates Communism. Not in developing a command economy, which is now long understood to be a enormous waste of intellect and resources by the Party in China and in the West (seems it's just Chomskyite-types in US universities that maintain it's a great idea), but by using the scientific method to the best of our ability to aid and extend the power of the market as much as possible. To study our assumptions and to rigorously test our understanding of the economy.
There is a giant difference between being laissez faire, and being merely ignorant of how it works. A fucking mammoth gulf I should say. To I, 1 scientist who's gone to the trouble of finding and analyzing data (e.g. Prof David Nutt in the UK, who was kicked out of his job for saying that weed and MDMA cause less damage than alcohol and tobacco) trumps that of a 100 civilians who wouldn't know reality unless it smacked them in the face.
I stress this, because in the past Science has been manipulated and abused by the left, notably the anti-Darwinian Lamarkian view being forced upon scientists by 1 government scientist in Soviet Russia, a forced meme if ever there was one (it led to crop failure and millions died in famines). As a result, there has been a reasonable fear on the right, of too much scientific 'fiddling' with the economy, but it is unjustified.
So, clearly it is proper to compartmentalize, in case your idea is completely wrong. So, you should try tests in specific areas and necessarily run lengthy trials, long before you implement the concept across entire regions.
Using the scientific method to experiment with political and economic policy, is, to my mind, a far less laborious and difficult task than mindlessly using democracy to make scientific and economic decisions. If you have a small, powerful state, it is much much easier to think in this way. Also, it is fantastically less expensive in the long term.
Note how Adam Smith's work The Wealth of Nations was received by the Government of the day!
.. they met on one occasion, of which recollection has been preserved, at Dundas’s house on Wimbledon Green, - Addington, Wilberforce, and Grenville being also of the company; and it is said that when Smith, who was one of the last guests to arrive, entered the room, the whole company rose from their seats to receive him and remained standing. ‘‘Be seated, gentlemen,” said Smith. ‘‘No,” replied Pitt; ‘‘we will stand till you are first seated, for we are all your scholars.”
This was a special group of men, they appreciated scientific work, esp. that which they knew would further the nation. Not just mere patriotism, but also an activism, which I do NOT see today in the West, to my great displeasure. Look at what historians say about William Pitt, the PM at the time:
Pitt always confessed himself one of Smith's most convinced disciples. The first few years of his long ministry saw the daybreak of free trade. He brought in a measure of commercial emancipation for Ireland ; he carried a commercial treaty with France ; he passed, in accordance with Smith's recommendations, laws simplifying the collection and administration of the revenue.
Intellectual strength *and* balls. That's what it takes to make a great nation. Britain went from a backwater to the world's largest empire within less than 120 years, all on the basis of the free trade philosophy. In 1 century, everybody went from illiterate to literate.
Today, I see a collection of men who are so weak I am necessarily forced to use capitalization for the first time on SR: I mean they are WEAK. They neither the courage nor the intellectual strength nor the ideals to make a better world. They are not innovators, they are merely managers of a giant ship they do not understand the workings of. They've never been down to the engineering deck, and are quite content to be social butterflies instead, forever afraid of other people's opinions.
tldr; where are the real men?
-
fuck legalization...
silk road would not exist if drugs were legal. and i will be out a job!
dumbasses don't realize theres a big difference between legalization and decriminalization!
-
@Nikodym
What I think of as 'social engineering' (not in the hacker sense of the expression), isn't done very often by governments. Yes, there *are* lessons we should take from the Communists. I say that as an ardent Capitalist who literally hates Communism. Not in developing a command economy, which is now long understood to be a enormous waste of intellect and resources by the Party in China and in the West (seems it's just Chomskyite-types in US universities that maintain it's a great idea), but by using the scientific method to the best of our ability to aid and extend the power of the market as much as possible. To study our assumptions and to rigorously test our understanding of the economy.
There is a giant difference between being laissez faire, and being merely ignorant of how it works. A fucking mammoth gulf I should say. To I, 1 scientist who's gone to the trouble of finding and analyzing data (e.g. Prof David Nutt in the UK, who was kicked out of his job for saying that weed and MDMA cause less damage than alcohol and tobacco) trumps that of a 100 civilians who wouldn't know reality unless it smacked them in the face.
I stress this, because in the past Science has been manipulated and abused by the left, notably the anti-Darwinian Lamarkian view being forced upon scientists by 1 government scientist in Soviet Russia, a forced meme if ever there was one (it led to crop failure and millions died in famines). As a result, there has been a reasonable fear on the right, of too much scientific 'fiddling' with the economy, but it is unjustified.
So, clearly it is proper to compartmentalize, in case your idea is completely wrong. So, you should try tests in specific areas and necessarily run lengthy trials, long before you implement the concept across entire regions.
Using the scientific method to experiment with political and economic policy, is, to my mind, a far less laborious and difficult task than mindlessly using democracy to make scientific and economic decisions. If you have a small, powerful state, it is much much easier to think in this way. Also, it is fantastically less expensive in the long term.
Note how Adam Smith's work The Wealth of Nations was received by the Government of the day!
.. they met on one occasion, of which recollection has been preserved, at Dundas’s house on Wimbledon Green, - Addington, Wilberforce, and Grenville being also of the company; and it is said that when Smith, who was one of the last guests to arrive, entered the room, the whole company rose from their seats to receive him and remained standing. ‘‘Be seated, gentlemen,” said Smith. ‘‘No,” replied Pitt; ‘‘we will stand till you are first seated, for we are all your scholars.”
This was a special group of men, they appreciated scientific work, esp. that which they knew would further the nation. Not just mere patriotism, but also an activism, which I do NOT see today in the West, to my great displeasure. Look at what historians say about William Pitt, the PM at the time:
Pitt always confessed himself one of Smith's most convinced disciples. The first few years of his long ministry saw the daybreak of free trade. He brought in a measure of commercial emancipation for Ireland ; he carried a commercial treaty with France ; he passed, in accordance with Smith's recommendations, laws simplifying the collection and administration of the revenue.
Intellectual strength *and* balls. That's what it takes to make a great nation. Britain went from a backwater to the world's largest empire within less than 120 years, all on the basis of the free trade philosophy. In 1 century, everybody went from illiterate to literate.
Today, I see a collection of men who are so weak I am necessarily forced to use capitalization for the first time on SR: I mean they are WEAK. They neither the courage nor the intellectual strength nor the ideals to make a better world. They are not innovators, they are merely managers of a giant ship they do not understand the workings of. They've never been down to the engineering deck, and are quite content to be social butterflies instead, forever afraid of other people's opinions.
tldr; where are the real men?
Yes your so right! But we seem to be in times where everything you know is wrong? We have a prison industrial complex in the U.S? They need to feel those beds? I think they threw the law out the window after 911? because the could. any Opinion on Women who are trying to make positive change? Such as Naomi Klein, Eve Ensler, Amy Goodman? or are they those ( Chomskyite-types in US universities). I know I'm way in over my head in these forums. I'm just trying to get and understanding what different voices have to offer?
-
The consequences of the drug war far out-weigh the consequences of legalization, IMO.
Alcohol is legal, yet the percentage of alcoholics is what...less than %10??? Now, let's just say marijuana was legal and more people decide to smoke instead of drink, you now have a significant number of people that willfully choose a drug that makes you happier and isn't connected to violence, car accidents, cancer, domestic abuse, cirrhosis of the liver, etc, etc.
Also, think for a second if we offer free care/therapy to the current heroine/ coke addicts instead of trying to teach them by throwing them in prison. Read about Portugal because I think that's what's happening there! Junkies are getting help and getting off of drugs as opposed to continuing to take them because let's be honest, when you're that far gone it's not about having fun anymore, if it ever was in the first place.
I think the biggest reason for this never ending drug war is the old and rich that aren't about to risk shaking things up. It's too risky and if they give an inch we'll want a foot!
-
Not breaking the law would be peace of mind.
-
As a businessman involved in the sourcing and selling of illicit products, I obviously don't want to see drugs legalized - I'm out a business.
That being said, on a moral level there should be no "illegal" or "legal" when it comes to substance of any kind, or any two-way-voluntary association regarding any substance. A thing can not in and of itself be evil. The law even loosely recognizes this because it is ACTS that are illegal (possession, selling, manufacturing, distributing, transporting, etc). All verbs. So we are talking about human action here, and according to the moral code by which I live, and human nature is generally centered when it doesn't have a sugar-daddy-with-guns at its back, a human action cannot be wrong unless it violates one of the negative rights we are vested with by nature of our humanity.
I'm going to have to strongly contest you on extra-legal drug markets, Pine. There should be no recognition of a state claiming authority over ANY voluntary human exchange, unless it violates the NAP (child sex trafficking, slavery, etc.). All you do by handing the ability to license production/distribution/sales of drugs over to the state is create another oligopoly that become the next set of cartels. The state can still smash anyone producing on their own without being overlord-approved. That is horrible.
You aren't going to change the minds of legalists. Ever. they are on the fast track to fire and brimstone and I say let them fucking eat it up, and good riddance. They are apostates, the truly lost, and they can have that shit all the way to their miserable graves. We have to remove the ability for "democracy" to even exist in the first place. I've mentioned this several times before, but under democracy you essentially have a 100% post-modern collective/mob morality of 50%+1. This is why in the past we had laws that put a black man in jail for trying to marry a white woman, that put people in jail for attempting to help slaves escape the plantations (and yes Lincoln signed off on some of those laws, for all those who think he was anything but a sadistic tyrant), or that decided the ownership, use, manufacture, or sale of a particular arrangement of molecules is suddenly wrong and warrants murdering people or locking them in cages.
Once you hand that power over there is no going back. You either have to wait it out until it devolves into a parasite that has outgrown the host and dies its death, or revolt. As soon as the scale is tipped and the majority lesser-producers/or parasites can start violently appropriating from the productive class, it's done until the process is complete and the productive class have fled entirely or have nothing left to bleed.
The same goes for drugs. All you would do in the extra-legal sense is create an oligopoly that is fully controlled by the state, and would be run for the benefit of the sadistic political class and their cronies. What we actually need is the recognition that no fictional entity that backs its every mandate by violence can ever claim the authority to sanction, modify, regulate, or interfere with any voluntary human interaction. Whether that's sitting down for a cup of coffee with a friend of shooting up heroin in a coffee shop and relaxing for a few hours, the state (should it exist at all) gets to go fuck itself sideways and just watch humanity progress, leaving the dinosaurs in the dust.
-
tl;dr - legalize it all. if people are too dumb and OD thats darwinism in effect. this world is overpopulated anyways. what else is there? working slave labor 9-5 everyday just to put food on your plate? we all die someday, why procrastinate?
-
The consequences of the drug war far out-weigh the consequences of legalization, IMO.
Alcohol is legal, yet the percentage of alcoholics is what...less than %10??? Now, let's just say marijuana was legal and more people decide to smoke instead of drink, you now have a significant number of people that willfully choose a drug that makes you happier and isn't connected to violence, car accidents, cancer, domestic abuse, cirrhosis of the liver, etc, etc.
Also, think for a second if we offer free care/therapy to the current heroine/ coke addicts instead of trying to teach them by throwing them in prison. Read about Portugal because I think that's what's happening there! Junkies are getting help and getting off of drugs as opposed to continuing to take them because let's be honest, when you're that far gone it's not about having fun anymore, if it ever was in the first place.
I think the biggest reason for this never ending drug war is the old and rich that aren't about to risk shaking things up. It's too risky and if they give an inch we'll want a foot!
Agreed, not to mention the incredibly horrible amount of death and violence. Real Horror! Not for most SR users though! We have our risk, sure, but when was the last time you've seen a beheading. Or an entire drug treatment center getting all it patients slaughtered! If were here as Libertarians anyway. Not speaking for everyone just myself. I should be able to do what i want to my own body. So yeah if it means less violence vs market issues? Let your conscience guide you.........peace
-
Yes, Im sure I'm pro-legalization. Whatever your drug of choice is. Just do it responsibly. Make good personal choices. Driving home is not the time to partake. Alone or w/friends in a safe place. No responsibilities.... Go for it.
-
@microRNA
Yes, but not just for decriminalizing possession as in Portugal. The entire chain from customer to manufacturer.
The key thing in an extra-legal market, it can mostly supervise itself because there are clear standards for drug purity, drug manufacture standards etc. The only criminal activity, is those cow-boy operations that persist in dangerous manufacture practices, lie about their product or use violent practices to obtain customers etc.
Instead of organizations like the DEA, we'd have the drug market equivalent of a 'Food Standards Agency', with inspectors investigation operations and giving out licenses to operate. Similarly, there would be certain restrictions on the point of sale. e.g. not to minors etc
You don't necessary have to get the drug from decent operators with a certificate, but you'd be well advised to.
In such a world, the vast majority of the black market would become grey. Not illegal or legal, but outside the law, extra-legal. Here society isn't validating your drug use, they were merely putting up with it and defining a valid route.
I don't have all the answers, but there's some ideas there. I think it's best to experiment and see what works best rather than bumbling along in the dark into perpetuity. We're never going to get rid of some form of government interference, and we're never going to get rid of drug markets, so we might as well come to some clearly defined solution so harm reduction is at its most optimal.
Am I wrong, but to me this reasonably fits the definition of "legalization."
It sounds like you're describing a legal, very lightly regulated market.
-
My main issue with people who think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised is that their views tend to create a cognitive dissonance between what will happen if they are caught and what they believe should happen. This is the cause of a large number of poor security practices.
-
legalize the safer tried and true drugs and market them like alcohol and tobacco. All these dangerous analouges coming out are gonna cause problems.
Free up drug war money!
-
I'm not taking a side. I just want to share a joke I found to be on topic.
Give a man a fish, he knows where to get fish.
Teach a man to fish, you just destroyed your customer base.
~Digi
-
legalize the safer tried and true drugs and market them like alcohol and tobacco. All these dangerous analouges coming out are gonna cause problems.
Free up drug war money!
legalize all drugs in a controlled way maybe? Like the harder class ones. But no one should be in jail for a drug crime unless there was violence involved or a deadly weapon. But the game is to fill the prisons. And if youe Black or Latino, you chances of winding in there are much better:(
-
Why am I scared about attempts to decriminalize? Because with the market being illegal it drives the prices up. Say, if the United States wanted to totally decriminalize a type of drug that is a big market for drug cartels suddenly there may be pressure on the government by a (possibly) violent group to keep things criminalized.
-
I'm definitely pro legalization. No doubt whatsoever in my mind.
I fully understand why the Vendors on here don't want legalization. The price of the product should drop like a brick depending on how heavily taxed it is. And then, of course, they'd be out of business.
But, for most of us it would be a major win. No more worry, no more attempting to work the streets, and plentiful and cheap dope. What's not to like?
-
I absolutely support full legalization 100%. There is zero logic in supporting anything else. The idea that the number of users may increase doesn't matter at all even if it were true. People are free to do as they please and old white guys making scribbles on paper and frowny faces on television will never change that.
I can understand why sellers would wish for it to remain illegal. If you make profit off of something being illegal and cannot make profit from it being legal than you're probably going to be opposed to legalization. That makes economic sense to the dealers. I don't really care. It's time for the Al Capones' to go out of business and the Jack Daniels' to come into business.
-
legalization still "recognizes" that the most sadistic class of people in our society have "authority" (only exists due to the ability to coerce/kill/cage) to make that call in the first place.
What we actually need is to remove all oversight and jurisdiction of the matter from the state, entirely. Drugs and private individual choices made regarding our own bodies. Your body is your property and yours alone simply by nature of your humanity. Any government telling you what you can and cannot consume is telling you they have more of a right to your body and/or the fruits of your labor (if you are a manufacturer/distributor/etc), which is also a product of your body, than you do.
This is a non-state issue.
-
There are certainly many interesting economic and practical-order arguments against legalization.
The thing is, they're all bollocks.
The issue is a moral one. Every individual owns her own body, and gets to choose what does and doesn't go inside it. That's a natural birthright of every person. If we do not accept this right as valid, we have absolutely no basis for establishing any other right, be it a property right, a personal safety right or a moral right. Sovereignty over one's body is the source from which every right stems. And, therefore, any imposition that violates that right is immoral and has to be eliminated. This is the simple truth of the matter.
Should this or that drug be legalized or decriminalized? They should never have been made illegal to begin with. Arguing that an evil, tyrannic law should be kept in place because it's convenient for the market is, quite frankly, an absurdly wrong position to hold. It's saying that you should have the right to benefit from the globalized, systematic violation of every single human's individual freedoms. It's no different from the copyright lobby attempting to stifle innovation and independent distribution in the creative industry because they can line their pockets more thickly by sustaining legislation that forces artists of all walks to either stick to their obsolete distribution models or be coerced by the State into bankruptcy.
Would full-out legalization destroy the Silk Road in its current form? Yes, probably. But this market is a product of its time, and it exists to serve a specific need that only arose due to the illegality of most drugs. When/if the world changes, the market can either change with it and grow or stagnate and go extinct. In that, it's no different from anything else that has ever existed in Nature.
-
The only people who want drugs illegal are drug dealers, drug cartels, idiots and tyrants.
-
I for one would be hard-pressed to be buying weed from my government in any way shape or form. I would still go to my personal dealers even if the shit was legal, hell it's not like Uncle Sam is gonna be hooking it up price wise, they'd be in it for the money after all.
Furthermore, I have doubt that Uncle Sam's minions could have the quality bud that we see here consistently, we are talking about the difference between people who have done this work their whole life and some morons in D.C. who hasn't ever even smoked pot. Me personally I'll take the 'experts' that have been around in our field for years and years.
I wouldn't fund their bullshit scheme if that was my only choice to get weed. It's not right for them to say for years and years that something is harmful, isn't right, etc. then one day you realize you can make money on it and you think there's nothing wrong with it, that's what's the most fucked up thing about the whole situation.
toker
-
I for one would be hard-pressed to be buying weed from my government in any way shape or form. I would still go to my personal dealers even if the shit was legal, hell it's not like Uncle Sam is gonna be hooking it up price wise, they'd be in it for the money after all.
Furthermore, I have doubt that Uncle Sam's minions could have the quality bud that we see here consistently, we are talking about the difference between people who have done this work their whole life and some morons in D.C. who hasn't ever even smoked pot. Me personally I'll take the 'experts' that have been around in our field for years and years.
I wouldn't fund their bullshit scheme if that was my only choice to get weed. It's not right for them to say for years and years that something is harmful, isn't right, etc. then one day you realize you can make money on it and you think there's nothing wrong with it, that's what's the most fucked up thing about the whole situation.
toker
Legalization doesn't imply nationalization. Does your government sell booze and cigarettes?
-
@Horizons
In my country, this would mean nationalization for sure as the only reason they'd consider legalization is for taxation.
Also yes my government does sell booze and cigarettes, but I don't buy either from them. I don't use tobacco and I prefer some good moonshine over any store bought booze anyday.
-
Too many posts to comment with thoughts individually, but it occurs to me the discussion essentially revolves around the conflict between natural justice and social justice. The movie 'Dogville' is an excellent representation of these two ideals smacking into each other head on.
Natural Justice -> the way the world works, reality, survival of the fittest, markets, meritocracy, your choices are your own responsibility alone.
Social Justice -> how most people want the world to be, idealism, everybody gets a go, equality, you are what your environment makes you to be.
Is it fair that drug dealers and governments hike the price of drugs to incredible levels? No. It is natural, not fair.
Is it natural that markets are manipulated by the afore mentioned parties and artificial barriers are setup to hike price? No. It is fair, but not natural.
If you're paying attention, you'll realize this is a wee bit paradoxical. But they both make sense! How to resolve? Well, I think they are both true, but it depends on what level we're talking about. At the level of the drug dealer and police officer it is natural for self interest to promote criminalization to, literally, create work. The higher the risks, the more lucrative the rewards for the dealer, and the more criminals apprehended, the further a police officer rises up through the ranks. Notice how the customer/tax payer gets screwed by an arms race they don't directly influence. This is natural but unfair.
Then, at the the macroscopic level of society, most people want drugs to be controlled/restricted. It's a vague sort of feeling for most of them, but democracy is a bit like gravity in that way. It results in the Drug War and the expansion of the Black Market, since most people also want drugs for themselves. They only want them to be restricted for other parties, not themselves. It's a primeval instinct writ large. It probably made more sense when we walked the earth in small tribes of 20 or 30. This is fair since most people want it this way, but it is unnatural since they are fighting their own impulses.
Instead of thinking of humans as individuals, you should think of them as a collection of different agents, who roleplay differently over time. The dude reading Rolling Stone will one day be glued to the Wall St Journal instead. If 1 person can't be consistent over time, I don't see how we can expect society to be consistent.
Anyway, I'm not pointing fingers, I believe free markets are the best way to prosperity, for us all that is, but I also know a market tilted by regulation e.g. DEA, is beneficial to my profit margins personally. So... :-X
tldr; watch Dogville!
-
Legalization would be the moral choice.
Your body, your choice, blah blah blah. You know the typical libertarian ideology.
Not like it matters...
Keeping drugs illegal is beneficial for the groups that have the money -- governments and criminal groups. Legalization will not happen. The amount of people unemployed would blow your mind. Some drug dealers would be able to make a living legitimately, but impoverished people would have to resort to actual crime in order to survive. What would all the government employees do? The government doesn't understand the concept of downsizing.
Too many variables to discuss in a forum post... But honestly, it doesn't matter. Silk Road is proof that regardless of legality, the market will provide what is in demand. I'll roll with my wife every few months, or eat some mushrooms regardless of what the government threatens me with.
-
Watch all of Lars Von Trier's movies while your at it :P
-
Watch all or Lars Von Trier's movies while your at it :P
Yes absolutely, some people have been saying that Lars von Trier's movie Dogville is anti-american, and I think that puts off a lot of people from watching it that would otherwise enjoy it.
I assure you, you couldn't get more pro-American than myself, this is flat out wrong.
If your ideal of America is 'The American Dream' where everybody automagically becomes rich and successful, the land of the beautiful and the good, then yes, Dogville must be anti-American. But then you're being anti-reality and pro-fairytale, I'm not sure I'd think your opinions have any more weight than a feather.
If your ideal of America is that of a place where hard nosed meritocracy is the order of the day, where individual responsibility is sacrosanct i.e. Natural Law then Dogville must be radical pro-American propaganda.
It is ironic that some left wing commentators have embraced Dogville, because I can't think of a more devastating critique of the concepts of fairness and equality.
Anyway, thread derailed a bit, sorry folks.
-
maybe off course a little, but interesting all the same:) I'm going to have to re watch it now after hearing your take. I would love to go on about all his work, but wrong forum. ...peace
-
The biggest issue I see about the legalization of any sort of drug is the fact of responsible people will pay for the irresponsible ones.
In a "public health world" the unrestricted legalization is totally immoral.
And I'm not talking only about crack and heroin. I smoke cigarettes a lot, I know it's totally unhealthy and, even I do not agree with the terrorist anti-smoking program, I agree with the idea that every cigarette smoker should pay for his treatment if his disease is diagnosed as a consequence of smoking.
Legalization in a public health world is the same of subside of the self-destructive behavior. And who will pay the bill?
-
legalization still "recognizes" that the most sadistic class of people in our society have "authority" (only exists due to the ability to coerce/kill/cage) to make that call in the first place.
What we actually need is to remove all oversight and jurisdiction of the matter from the state, entirely. Drugs and private individual choices made regarding our own bodies. Your body is your property and yours alone simply by nature of your humanity. Any government telling you what you can and cannot consume is telling you they have more of a right to your body and/or the fruits of your labor (if you are a manufacturer/distributor/etc), which is also a product of your body, than you do.
This is a non-state issue.
A non-state issue? It's a state issue as long as they have laws forbidding it and that threatens me with my freedom.
-
dtugs 1 something 0
-
i dont understand the arguments supporting anything but legalization?
pine, your idea to point towards absolute decriminalization would help to an extent, but left alone would continue to cause a load of problems which are a result of criminalization already; issues with quality, drug cartels, under age drug sales. These would all be an issue with a decriminalised stance.
If we are to legalise, we embrace it fully. its the only way it would work. From the moral standpoint, its simple. But equally as important, the other negative aspects of the drug market would be all countered almost instantly.
With legality:
-we control purity issues ( im talking PURE LSD, ganj grown in specified grow spaces- sprays would be outlawed. cocaine would be pharmacuitical grade...)
-we control who buys them! this is a huge issue with an illegal market SR alike. When i was a kid, it was easier to get a bag of weed or some pills than get alcohol. i feel the same would be the case if drugs were legalised and sold in shops/ pharmacies. the likes of moonbear would be eliminated.
-price. Economies of scale would destroy current prices. just look at the price of a gram of LSD for legitimate testing...i found one place were they were charging a couple hundred pounds for a gram. weed could equal tabaco.
-taxing; there would be HUGE tax brackets on this. due to the power of economies of scale, i think price would still be cheaper by a mile than todays standard. But taxing is a good thing. the government would have a shitload more money, money that could be poured into medical care, infastructure,...you get the picture
-money spent on the war on drugs is now free to be spent on more worthwhile projects.
- criminality; mexicos drug cartels would VERY quickly loose their power and money. as would the taliban. as would more organised criminals.
- due to the affordablilty of drugs after large companies put investments into the cause, criminality on the users side would be greatly reduced. Nobody would be robbing to get their gear if they weren't paying extortionate prices for poor quality. daily heroin doses could be given to addicts for free with a fraction of the war on drugs budget.
criminalization causes these problems. Decriminalization allows these issues to continue. Legalization is the only way to solve everything.
-
legalization still "recognizes" that the most sadistic class of people in our society have "authority" (only exists due to the ability to coerce/kill/cage) to make that call in the first place.
What we actually need is to remove all oversight and jurisdiction of the matter from the state, entirely. Drugs and private individual choices made regarding our own bodies. Your body is your property and yours alone simply by nature of your humanity. Any government telling you what you can and cannot consume is telling you they have more of a right to your body and/or the fruits of your labor (if you are a manufacturer/distributor/etc), which is also a product of your body, than you do.
This is a non-state issue.
A non-state issue? It's a state issue as long as they have laws forbidding it and that threatens me with my freedom.
It is a non-state issue in that there is no legitimate authority by which the state can claim to own your body. Only you have that claim/right. Their 'authority' is at the point of a bunch of guns, and that is it.
-
@alwaystrying
- you aren't going to get legalization of all drugs at once, at least not in today's climate.
- by 'we', you don't mean the civilian population or even drug using population, you mean the government.
The last point is important. The drug trade, as regulated by market forces, has certain natural limits on it's activities. e.g. people have to pay with their own money.
If you research what happens with nationalized housing, food etc, you won't feel so comfortable about giving that much control to a government department. Nightmare scenarios could come true with government intervention, drugs could evolve into a method of social control quite easily. You are only looking at the potential advantages without seeing the dark side. A government lab would be able to make any drug by the ton, enough for a hundred years of users.
As long as monetary incentive runs the show, this is unlikely, there is no conspiracy apart give me your money. But if political ends become involved, there's no telling where it'd wind up. Like social housing, it could start out benevolently but become cancerous over time. There's no cure that couldn't kill you.
-
That is a problem, but i think the only way to achieve our goals is by setting them at what we truly want to achieve. Anything less and we're accepting defeat. time and time again in history you could look and an era and just half a century before change would seem unfathomable. the abolishin of slavery, woman's rights....the list goes on and on. Its not enough to comprimise, we must set a goal based on reasoning that fits within our moral guidelines and push for nothing but that.
By we i do mean the civilian population, granted only by the allowance of the government. But it is us as a society who must push for the change and it is us a population who have to determine to what extent and parameters it must follow. the government will follow if its people insist it does.
through legalization the drug market would continue to be run by market forces- just as any other business sector. It would just be run in the parametres of an aggreed upon law and guidelines. I'd go as far to say nationalization could be worse or as bad as criminalization itself. but they don't go hand in hand.
I think your approach is slightly clouded by your prejudice towards the government. I do agree though, nationalization has potential to lead to the issues you brought to light, but there is no reason to suggest legalisation could lead to nationalization.
through legalization you'd have to look for drugs to be produced and ran by corporations. Just as the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries are. Granted the political power of industry leaders in a capitalist society are a whole other problem in itself (looking at lobbyist groups and such) and do lead to a degree of political control. But much less so than suggested with nationalization.
-
@alwaystrying
- you aren't going to get legalization of all drugs at once, at least not in today's climate.
- by 'we', you don't mean the civilian population or even drug using population, you mean the government.
The last point is important. The drug trade, as regulated by market forces, has certain natural limits on it's activities. e.g. people have to pay with their own money.
If you research what happens with nationalized housing, food etc, you won't feel so comfortable about giving that much control to a government department. Nightmare scenarios could come true with government intervention, drugs could evolve into a method of social control quite easily. You are only looking at the potential advantages without seeing the dark side. A government lab would be able to make any drug by the ton, enough for a hundred years of users.
As long as monetary incentive runs the show, this is unlikely, there is no conspiracy apart give me your money. But if political ends become involved, there's no telling where it'd wind up. Like social housing, it could start out benevolently but become cancerous over time. There's no cure that couldn't kill you.
If drugs become legal it doesn't necessarily mean that the government will become both the producer and seller. For instance in the States it would probably be the tobacco company's that would assume production and sales. Would the government attempt to "Social Engineer" it through taxes? Probably but, that would be a hell of a lot better system than what we have now. Just think, in the States alone you would reduce your prison population by half. Of course, they would have to think of something else to fill all of those prison cells. After all, prisons are "Big Business", at least in the States.
-
@alwaystrying
- you aren't going to get legalization of all drugs at once, at least not in today's climate.
- by 'we', you don't mean the civilian population or even drug using population, you mean the government.
The last point is important. The drug trade, as regulated by market forces, has certain natural limits on it's activities. e.g. people have to pay with their own money.
If you research what happens with nationalized housing, food etc, you won't feel so comfortable about giving that much control to a government department. Nightmare scenarios could come true with government intervention, drugs could evolve into a method of social control quite easily. You are only looking at the potential advantages without seeing the dark side. A government lab would be able to make any drug by the ton, enough for a hundred years of users.
As long as monetary incentive runs the show, this is unlikely, there is no conspiracy apart give me your money. But if political ends become involved, there's no telling where it'd wind up. Like social housing, it could start out benevolently but become cancerous over time. There's no cure that couldn't kill you.
If drugs become legal it doesn't necessarily mean that the government will become both the producer and seller. For instance in the States it would probably be the tobacco company's that would assume production and sales. Would the government attempt to "Social Engineer" it through taxes? Probably but, that would be a hell of a lot better system than what we have now. Just think, in the States alone you would reduce your prison population by half. Of course, they would have to think of something else to fill all of those prison cells. After all, prisons are "Big Business", at least in the States.
They are "big business" everywhere. Prison Guards are paid a hell of a lot more up here, in Canada, than in the US (government union). Whether it's public or private, there are multi-billion dollar industries built around imposing legalism on people and locking them in cages.
-
When I read the title to this thread, I rolled my eyes, then I saw it was from pine so I knew it'd be a worthwhile read :)
Exactly that ^^
I'm continually astounded by the quality, coherence and content of Pine's posts.
-
Yeah, this has been a hugely interesting thread. Thank you, pine.
Ultimately, there's just too much money invested in the war on drugs to imagine any end to it. What do you do, lay off the entire DEA? The only solution I can see happening is total (or near total) government control of the drug market, which as pine explained, is truly a horrible outcome.
-
When I read the title to this thread, I rolled my eyes, then I saw it was from pine so I knew it'd be a worthwhile read :)
Exactly that ^^
I'm continually astounded by the quality, coherence and content of Pine's posts.
Yeah, this has been a hugely interesting thread. Thank you, pine.
Thanks, y'all trying to make me blush ;-)
-
Although I am a regular user of amphetamines and psychedelic agents, I am completely in favour of the prohibition of drugs for the general population.
Drugs should be regulated in such a way as to exclude 95% of the human population. Plain, simple-minded working-class folk are too likely to abuse drugs and in any case are not likely to get anything enlightening out of them anyway, even if they don't cause any physical harm.
The use of psychedelics and disassociatives in particular should be restricted to an intellectual elite consisting of artists, philosophers, scientists, mystics, literary men, etc.
-
That brings a whole new suite of other problems related to supply side issues e.g. the cheaper a drug, the more frequently it will be used. It applies to every single other commodity in economics, I don't see how it suddenly stops applying to the drug market, the pro-side never seems to quite address that issue.
Didn't read other replies, but above statement is just false. US have about the most strict drug laws you can find but all research show currently also relative most highest drug use (somehow i also think this is cultural related, had a lot of US friends when younger and they seemed to abuse every substance available hehe)
Take for instance Portugal where they decriminilized most drugs including C and H and there was a decline in use.
Why is a bit hard to assess but i think partly has to do with the fact for teens using illegal substances is exciting, perhaps some peer pressure as well. In a legalized environment first thing you see there is much more focus on the prevention side.
Other benefits are (imo) cleaner product and less steppingstoning :)
-
Although I am a regular user of amphetamines and psychedelic agents, I am completely in favour of the prohibition of drugs for the general population.
Drugs should be regulated in such a way as to exclude 95% of the human population. Plain, simple-minded working-class folk are too likely to abuse drugs and in any case are not likely to get anything enlightening out of them anyway, even if they don't cause any physical harm.
The use of psychedelics and disassociatives in particular should be restricted to an intellectual elite consisting of artists, philosophers, scientists, mystics, literary men, etc.
Oh Really! Well I'm one of the simple minded working class people your taking about:) Blue blood true and through. Its the working class that need the drugs the most! And how do you think those people became artists, philosophers, mystics, ect ect......Are you for the drug war too! throwing away people to fund prisons? Your post reeks of elitism.......Bah!
-
Although I am a regular user of amphetamines and psychedelic agents, I am completely in favour of the prohibition of drugs for the general population.
Drugs should be regulated in such a way as to exclude 95% of the human population. Plain, simple-minded working-class folk are too likely to abuse drugs and in any case are not likely to get anything enlightening out of them anyway, even if they don't cause any physical harm.
The use of psychedelics and disassociatives in particular should be restricted to an intellectual elite consisting of artists, philosophers, scientists, mystics, literary men, etc.
And who exactly gets to decide what constitutes that "intellectual elite?" This kind of sentiment honestly terrifies me.
-
Although I am a regular user of amphetamines and psychedelic agents, I am completely in favour of the prohibition of drugs for the general population.
Drugs should be regulated in such a way as to exclude 95% of the human population. Plain, simple-minded working-class folk are too likely to abuse drugs and in any case are not likely to get anything enlightening out of them anyway, even if they don't cause any physical harm.
The use of psychedelics and disassociatives in particular should be restricted to an intellectual elite consisting of artists, philosophers, scientists, mystics, literary men, etc.
Oh Really! Well I'm one of the simple minded working class people your taking about:) Blue blood true and through. Its the working class that need the drugs the most! And how do you think those people became artists, philosophers, mystics, ect ect......Are you for the drug war too! throwing away people to fund prisons? Your post reeks of elitism.......Bah!
Is it wrong to forbid your children from drinking alcohol, whilst indulging in it yourself? I think people need to be protected. What can be beneficial to an intelligent, responsible minority can be a dangerous poison to plain working-class folk who can hardly be expected to understand what they are doing to themselves. There is a definite risk of brain damage, psychosis, addiction, depression, and social maladjustment from a lot of drugs. Moreover, the average drug user in my experience has no interest in philosophical enlightenment or in the enhancement of his creative and cognitive powers but only in inducing a state of artificial euphoria ("getting high"). Even if he does no harm to himself, he doesn't really get anything out of drugs, nor should he be expected to do so.
-
A - who will want to "control" these food std boards for drugs -government.
what usually happens to a raw drug product, its "refined" by the men in white coats who redefine what it is they say we shall take that replaces the drug
we already prefer to consume, ie do you listen to the shaman with knowledge handed down for hundreds or a couple thousand years over a gov funded
lab who operate for other reasons?!
{i dont have specific examples but isn't this in their nature and what pretty much is their attitude.?!}
-and cures for diseases and ailments
"we have researched this and decided we don't want you to get high and identified the active ingredients that we want you to have to cure X and Y"
{how about you take your 1/10 strength XYZ that costs 50% than before that actually doesn't work ....and f**k off }
B - isn't the point of agorism to open up a market for everyone so nobody "controls" it and its our choice regulated by common sense?!
- whilst its not my intention to put anyone purposefully out of business won't its still be possible to make some sort of a living in a pro-legalisation situation?!
- when theres a quicker and more efficient method of producing something, doesn't this mean you move and everyone moves on to something better?!
why spend a week (or whatever) in a make-shift lab to produce your own mdma, then to package it up and sell when pro-legalisation would handle most of
the steps for you?!
- isn't wanting to make a killing out of a resource based on preventing everyone from having equal access to it sort of how the world works at the moment?!
- i don't really care whether its labelled grey or pro, as long as a banker nor gov have anything to do with it.
??
-
Although I am a regular user of amphetamines and psychedelic agents, I am completely in favour of the prohibition of drugs for the general population.
Drugs should be regulated in such a way as to exclude 95% of the human population. Plain, simple-minded working-class folk are too likely to abuse drugs and in any case are not likely to get anything enlightening out of them anyway, even if they don't cause any physical harm.
The use of psychedelics and disassociatives in particular should be restricted to an intellectual elite consisting of artists, philosophers, scientists, mystics, literary men, etc.
Oh Really! Well I'm one of the simple minded working class people your taking about:) Blue blood true and through. Its the working class that need the drugs the most! And how do you think those people became artists, philosophers, mystics, ect ect......Are you for the drug war too! throwing away people to fund prisons? Your post reeks of elitism.......Bah!
Is it wrong to forbid your children from drinking alcohol, whilst indulging in it yourself? I think people need to be protected. What can be beneficial to an intelligent, responsible minority can be a dangerous poison to plain working-class folk who can hardly be expected to understand what they are doing to themselves. There is a definite risk of brain damage, psychosis, addiction, depression, and social maladjustment from a lot of drugs. Moreover, the average drug user in my experience has no interest in philosophical enlightenment or in the enhancement of his creative and cognitive powers but only in inducing a state of artificial euphoria ("getting high"). Even if he does no harm to himself, he doesn't really get anything out of drugs, nor should he be expected to do so.
Seriously The only person who shouldn't be using drugs is you? Is this Dick Cheney? Mit Romney? You seem Very out of touch with reality? This is a drug forum! You know that right? I'm not addicted to drugs. I'm a responsible person? I don't need any Big Brother making decisions for me? Who died and made you boss?
There will always be drugs! And there will always be drug seekers. People who go around and think they know whats best for the masses scare the shit out of me. I would rather be an outcast than a robot...
-
I'm pro legalization, simply because I decide what I do with my body and mind. That doesn't mean that groups (government or whatever) can't educate me and steer me away from destroying my body. In the end though, it's up to me to do whatever I want with my body and mind.
This is all very fundamental and definitely has some practical drawbacks. For instance, some people get easily addicted and might have a hard time when drugs are (more) readily available. What you don't know, you can't miss.
On the other hand, if I look at statistics regarding drug use in countries where some drugs are legalized, that assumption isn't true. In the Netherlands the percentage of cannabis users/frequency of use isn't higher than the European average, even though you can buy it at almost every street corner in every city (not just the big cities). Interestingly, in a country like France (where possession (let alone sale) is illegal) the percentage is much higher.
Will this hold true for other drugs? I'm inclined to say yes for many drugs, especially the less harmful and less addictive substances (MDMA, for instance). On the other hand, the risk might increase with the more 'dangerous' (health-wise and addictiveness-wise) drugs (like heroin).
Also keep in mind the stigma that 'drugs' has in the general public: they are always dangerous and trouble. Similar to what many people think of cigarettes (and to some extent alcohol). While the last two substances are freely available, you'll see that the stigma keeps people from over-indulging in it. As long as people stay educated in a similar way regarding the now illegal substances, I don't foresee any real problems.
Legalization probably removes a lot of organized crime (being a legit business makes everything much easier). Money saved because of that could be used for education and healthcare, which might prove to be more cost effective and better for the general welfare in the long run.
Some interesting final remarks (to make this post even longer):
- many countries are already decriminalizing or even legalizing some drugs. Main reason this is happening slow is international pressure. Treaties have been signed to combat international drug trafficking and use, which has made 'drugs' illegal in almost all countries. Small countries with a mind of their own have a hard time to get around those treaties and make a big fuck you to partners in that treaty.
- countries have been producing and are producing drugs that are illegal for recreational use. For instance, until the 1920's the Dutch had the "Dutch Cocaine Factory" ("Nederlandse Cocaïne Fabriek") which produced cocaine for the soldiers in the first world war, but also for personal use (not just for the Dutch, it was mostly exported). And also now, amphetamine (speed) is produced legally and sold as medicine in the US (Adderall).
-
I've never tried a drug that made me think "this needs to be kept from the public!" I just, I don't fucking get it. Why can I go sky diving, go drinking, go hiking, but I can't get high?
-
This is a drug forum!
I think I have made my position very clear. I am not against drugs at all. I think responsible, intelligent people who seek to enhance their creative and cognitive powers through psychoactive agents should be permitted to experiment with a wide variety of drugs. However, such a policy would exclude 95% of the human population, who are neither responsible enough nor intelligent enough to benefit from mind-altering substances. I am in favour of drug prohibition for the general population not because I look down upon average people or wish to punish them, but because I love them and want to protect them -- just as I wouldn't allow a child to consume alcohol, even though I indulge in it myself. Those who are only interested in "getting high", and to whom spiritual enlightenment is a matter of utter indifference, cannot benefit from psychedelic agents anyway.
-
This is a drug forum!
I think I have made my position very clear. I am not against drugs at all. I think responsible, intelligent people who seek to enhance their creative and cognitive powers through psychoactive agents should be permitted to experiment with a wide variety of drugs. However, such a policy would exclude 95% of the human population, who are neither responsible enough nor intelligent enough to benefit from mind-altering substances. I am in favour of drug prohibition for the general population not because I look down upon average people or wish to punish them, but because I love them and want to protect them -- just as I wouldn't allow a child to consume alcohol, even though I indulge in it myself. Those who are only interested in "getting high", and to whom spiritual enlightenment is a matter of utter indifference, cannot benefit from psychedelic agents anyway.
Thats the problem! "You think your intelligent" you don't sound like it?
-
This is a drug forum!
I think I have made my position very clear. I am not against drugs at all. I think responsible, intelligent people who seek to enhance their creative and cognitive powers through psychoactive agents should be permitted to experiment with a wide variety of drugs. However, such a policy would exclude 95% of the human population, who are neither responsible enough nor intelligent enough to benefit from mind-altering substances. I am in favour of drug prohibition for the general population not because I look down upon average people or wish to punish them, but because I love them and want to protect them -- just as I wouldn't allow a child to consume alcohol, even though I indulge in it myself. Those who are only interested in "getting high", and to whom spiritual enlightenment is a matter of utter indifference, cannot benefit from psychedelic agents anyway.
Your anti-human personality type is, unfortunately, why most of western civilization is teetering on the verge of violent bankruptcy that could erupt at any moment. "for their protection" bullshit. Look, if you are trying to make a case that you have to protect people from THEMSELVES, while simultaneously instituting a fuckload of moral hazards that encourage people NOT to take care of themselves (socialized/public medicine, mandatory insurance, many etc's.).... can you see the logical fallacies in that position? Can you see the violation of basic human morality and inalienable rights? Can you at LEAST admit there are huge contradictions in a statement like that?
Your jaw must just hum with all that cognitive dissonance rattling around in your head. fuck.
-
Your anti-human personality type is, unfortunately, why most of western civilization is teetering on the verge of violent bankruptcy that could erupt at any moment. "for their protection" bullshit. Look, if you are trying to make a case that you have to protect people from THEMSELVES, while simultaneously instituting a fuckload of moral hazards that encourage people NOT to take care of themselves (socialized/public medicine, mandatory insurance, many etc's.).... can you see the logical fallacies in that position? Can you see the violation of basic human morality and inalienable rights? Can you at LEAST admit there are huge contradictions in a statement like that?
You're just arguing by assertion. You haven't explained precisely wherein the contradiction consists, nor what specific rights would be violated by the institution of this policy. If you start with the assumption that all humans are equal and entitled to the same rights and privileges, regardless of differences in endowment, ability, merit, desires, temperament, etc., etc., then of course it would be a 'contradiction' to institute a drug policy that would prohibit the use of psychoactive substances to one segment of the population, whilst freely permitting them for a responsible minority. However, if you reject, as I do, the whole notion of human equality as a lifeless abstraction when applied to the world of human activity and reality, there is no contradiction. Humans are not equal, except perhaps in the basic sense that every citizen has an equal right to have his interests safeguarded by the government - but this is rarely what people nowadays mean by equality and is in any event merely a social convention. (A convention I happen to agree with, with the qualification that what people want is not always congenial to their own interests.)
-
Your anti-human personality type is, unfortunately, why most of western civilization is teetering on the verge of violent bankruptcy that could erupt at any moment. "for their protection" bullshit. Look, if you are trying to make a case that you have to protect people from THEMSELVES, while simultaneously instituting a fuckload of moral hazards that encourage people NOT to take care of themselves (socialized/public medicine, mandatory insurance, many etc's.).... can you see the logical fallacies in that position? Can you see the violation of basic human morality and inalienable rights? Can you at LEAST admit there are huge contradictions in a statement like that?
You're just arguing by assertion. You haven't explained precisely wherein the contradiction consists, nor what specific rights would be violated by the institution of this policy. If you start with the assumption that all humans are equal and entitled to the same rights and privileges, regardless of differences in endowment, ability, merit, desires, temperament, etc., etc., then of course it would be a 'contradiction' to institute a drug policy that would prohibit the use of psychoactive substances to one segment of the population, whilst freely permitting them for a responsible minority. However, if you reject, as I do, the whole notion of human equality as a lifeless abstraction when applied to the world of human activity and reality, there is no contradiction. Humans are not equal, except perhaps in the basic sense that every citizen has an equal right to have his interests safeguarded by the government - but this is rarely what people nowadays mean by equality and is in any event merely a social convention. (A convention I happen to agree with, with the qualification that what people want is not always congenial to their own interests.)
I think the natural law overrides most of what you are asserting here. The natural law, and human nature being a constant (which it IS, no matter how hard "progressives" and syndicalists etc. would like to think it can be rewritten at the point of a gun), dictates that you have the right to your body, your property, your labor and the fruits thereof, your expression, and your association. Namely - do whatever the hell you want, so long as you aren't violating anyone else's commensurate rights.
You have the right to free speech. I have the right to free speech. We can both exercise our rights at the exact same time without infringing on each others right (i.e. I can type this at the same time as you type out some rationale for "professionals", "experts" etc. to use violence to stop people from "harming themselves). This is a negative, inalienable right. You possess this by nature of the fact you are human. Same goes for the others. I can transact freely with whom I will so long as I am acknowledging and allowing the other party to my transaction to exercise his own right to his property (or body/labor/service/whatever). i.e. we are both willing parties to whatever form of association we choose to take on.
Your body does not belong to an intangible institution represented by words written on pieces of paper, and whose mandate is enforced at the point of millions of guns. Your business does not belong to them. It does not belong to "society". It belongs to YOU, or whomever you willingly deem it to belong to (as is your right).
The counter-intuitive elements to your position are many. First of all - where the hell do you draw the line? You are talking about taking a completely subjective decision-making criteria, and turning it into a mandate that will get people locked in cages and kidnapped from their families. On what basis do you establish that someone has the right to make their own choice about their own body, whether that be to take a psychoactive drug for medical reasons or for the fun of the trip? How do you determine such a thing? Do you understand the functional elements of human nature? The consequences of attempting to forcibly limit people from peacefully doing what they want to do? Are you willing to acknowledge that you are fine with kidnapping someone and locking them in a cage for making a decision about their own body that doesn't violate the inalienable rights of anyone else on the planet?
It seems to me like you are, like so many (sadly), floating in the postmodern moral fog on your worldview. If your position on personal drug consumption is as such, why in the hell are you even here? We as a community have no means of holding you to your own twisted standards, should you want to partake in what we have. We have no way of verifying if you are ordering products "for the trip", or for medical reasons. Are you going to submit a doctor's note to your vendor proving that you are in fact medicating yourself? What's fair is fair - if you are saying you advocate committing violence against peaceful people, then it certainly stands that we as a community should be able to withhold our products from you without you yourself passing your own smell test.
TL:DR - your moral contradictions abound because you are operating on the same messed up plurality-morality bullshit that most of society has been operating on for a few generations (never a good result - see: history). There are no hard lines in this system of yours. It's all mish-mash. Tell me on what basis you can possibly justify this (please don't do the "it's utilitarian but I'm going to pretend it's moral because utilitarianism in the past has resulted in things like eugenics and genocide). What moral framework exists that is sound enough to clap your hands for violence against truly innocent people.
-
Your anti-human personality type is, unfortunately, why most of western civilization is teetering on the verge of violent bankruptcy that could erupt at any moment. "for their protection" bullshit. Look, if you are trying to make a case that you have to protect people from THEMSELVES, while simultaneously instituting a fuckload of moral hazards that encourage people NOT to take care of themselves (socialized/public medicine, mandatory insurance, many etc's.).... can you see the logical fallacies in that position? Can you see the violation of basic human morality and inalienable rights? Can you at LEAST admit there are huge contradictions in a statement like that?
You're just arguing by assertion. You haven't explained precisely wherein the contradiction consists, nor what specific rights would be violated by the institution of this policy. If you start with the assumption that all humans are equal and entitled to the same rights and privileges, regardless of differences in endowment, ability, merit, desires, temperament, etc., etc., then of course it would be a 'contradiction' to institute a drug policy that would prohibit the use of psychoactive substances to one segment of the population, whilst freely permitting them for a responsible minority. However, if you reject, as I do, the whole notion of human equality as a lifeless abstraction when applied to the world of human activity and reality, there is no contradiction. Humans are not equal, except perhaps in the basic sense that every citizen has an equal right to have his interests safeguarded by the government - but this is rarely what people nowadays mean by equality and is in any event merely a social convention. (A convention I happen to agree with, with the qualification that what people want is not always congenial to their own interests.)
I think the natural law overrides most of what you are asserting here. The natural law, and human nature being a constant (which it IS, no matter how hard "progressives" and syndicalists etc. would like to think it can be rewritten at the point of a gun), dictates that you have the right to your body, your property, your labor and the fruits thereof, your expression, and your association. Namely - do whatever the hell you want, so long as you aren't violating anyone else's commensurate rights.
You have the right to free speech. I have the right to free speech. We can both exercise our rights at the exact same time without infringing on each others right (i.e. I can type this at the same time as you type out some rationale for "professionals", "experts" etc. to use violence to stop people from "harming themselves). This is a negative, inalienable right. You possess this by nature of the fact you are human. Same goes for the others. I can transact freely with whom I will so long as I am acknowledging and allowing the other party to my transaction to exercise his own right to his property (or body/labor/service/whatever). i.e. we are both willing parties to whatever form of association we choose to take on.
Your body does not belong to an intangible institution represented by words written on pieces of paper, and whose mandate is enforced at the point of millions of guns. Your business does not belong to them. It does not belong to "society". It belongs to YOU, or whomever you willingly deem it to belong to (as is your right).
The counter-intuitive elements to your position are many. First of all - where the hell do you draw the line? You are talking about taking a completely subjective decision-making criteria, and turning it into a mandate that will get people locked in cages and kidnapped from their families. On what basis do you establish that someone has the right to make their own choice about their own body, whether that be to take a psychoactive drug for medical reasons or for the fun of the trip? How do you determine such a thing? Do you understand the functional elements of human nature? The consequences of attempting to forcibly limit people from peacefully doing what they want to do? Are you willing to acknowledge that you are fine with kidnapping someone and locking them in a cage for making a decision about their own body that doesn't violate the inalienable rights of anyone else on the planet?
It seems to me like you are, like so many (sadly), floating in the postmodern moral fog on your worldview. If your position on personal drug consumption is as such, why in the hell are you even here? We as a community have no means of holding you to your own twisted standards, should you want to partake in what we have. We have no way of verifying if you are ordering products "for the trip", or for medical reasons. Are you going to submit a doctor's note to your vendor proving that you are in fact medicating yourself? What's fair is fair - if you are saying you advocate committing violence against peaceful people, then it certainly stands that we as a community should be able to withhold our products from you without you yourself passing your own smell test.
TL:DR - your moral contradictions abound because you are operating on the same messed up plurality-morality bullshit that most of society has been operating on for a few generations (never a good result - see: history). There are no hard lines in this system of yours. It's all mish-mash. Tell me on what basis you can possibly justify this (please don't do the "it's utilitarian but I'm going to pretend it's moral because utilitarianism in the past has resulted in things like eugenics and genocide). What moral framework exists that is sound enough to clap your hands for violence against truly innocent people.
What he said!
-
I support legalization but I'm not entirely sure.
Addictions should be medicalized like in heroin clinics.
Phillip Morris Joints.... I'm sure they'd ruin it some how.
Do you really think the anti-drug types will be more up for some sort of grey compromise than just plain legalization?
Legalization means government regulation and more control than exists today, preventing kids from getting access could be one of the strongest arguments with the general populace, plus the whole extra tax thing. Legalize and drugs and you could get a bigger tax rebate this year!
-
drugs always gon' be something some people can't handle, so they eventually die. i think an environment that encourages recovery is important, but ultimately, if a junky is determined to die, so be it. just let em die and quit whining how dangerous and addictive somethings are, and that "we need to save them whaaaa!!!!" shut the fuck up. they know what they're getting into. you live by the sword, you die by the sword. important thing is we focus on violent crime regardless of how much drugs/alcohol are involved. some people are just dicks by nature. poooolese needa keep 'em in check. also, it's important we start castrating the cartel by turning them into just one minor source of drugs out of all the new ones that decriminalization would spawn. then you got your average joe schmo, he likes a little hit and a bump here and there....leave him the fuck alone. just leave him . the fuck. alone.
problem solved
-
They are "big business" everywhere. Prison Guards are paid a hell of a lot more up here, in Canada, than in the US (government union). Whether it's public or private, there are multi-billion dollar industries built around imposing legalism on people and locking them in cages.
- thats the truth alright
I've never tried a drug that made me think "this needs to be kept from the public!" I just, I don't fucking get it. Why can I go sky diving, go drinking, go hiking, but I can't get high?
- because they want to own you, your body & your soul.
- control what you think
- when you are high you are not concerned about them nor what they stand for they practically are non-existant, "they" take this as a challenge to bring you down..
- ideology
- "You are free (america), free to do as we tell you.."
- "i'm better than you, i'll tell you what to do"
{i don't agree with them is just how i see it}