Libertarians and Drugs

[BillyBob]

The issue that seems to creep up about libertarians which appears to make them seem liberal is the illegality of recreational drugs. I find this topic interesting. While drugs could never be legal again in this overtly litigational society, the fact remains that prohibition is not an aspect of liberty.

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry what it can and cannot ingest. That goes for 32 ounce soft drinks, Cheetos, trans-fats and heroin. It's no business of the government what a free citizenry decides to place in their bodies.

[BillyBob]

This thread better belongs in the 'US Political Discussion' forum.

My bad.

If there are mods here [I hope there are not] please consider moving it.

k, thanks

[BillyBob]

How about you, Taft? You seem to have an opinion about this.

[taft2012]

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry what it can and cannot ingest. .

Any society that has laws passed by democratically elected legislatures has the right to revoke these laws, or leave them in place, at the will of the electorate.

Anyone who calls himself conservative, patriotic, American, or what have you, respects the laws of the land. Anyone who violates those laws is a crimianal.

Anyone who claims to be an advocate of small government, yet advocates something that will swell the welfare ranks with new dependants is a phoney liberal masquerading behind one issue: legalized drugs.

Disassemble the welfare state and then come back and we can talk about legalized drugs.

[Robert A Whit]

The issue that seems to creep up about libertarians which appears to make them seem liberal is the illegality of recreational drugs. I find this topic interesting. While drugs could never be legal again in this overtly litigational society, the fact remains that prohibition is not an aspect of liberty.

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry what it can and cannot ingest. That goes for 32 ounce soft drinks, Cheetos, trans-fats and heroin. It's no business of the government what a free citizenry decides to place in their bodies.

Personally, as a Libertarian, my belief about drugs is that they impact a persons body. The impact is not good. I do not defend a right to drugs so much as a right of freedom.

Freedom was fought for and it has to be treated sacred. Not all freedoms produce outstanding results but they must not be infringed.

I agree that others must never order any of us to either ingest or outlaw such things as man may ingest. If any drug or food item has risks, the government ought to explain those risks with no controls on us.

[BillyBob]

Any society that has laws passed by democratically elected legislatures has the right to revoke these laws, or leave them in place, at the will of the electorate.

Anti-Constitutional laws are passed regularly. Any US citizen who willingly and blindly abides by them simply because they are 'laws' deserves the fascist government he supports.




Anyone who calls himself conservative, patriotic, American, or what have you, respects the laws of the land. Anyone who violates those laws is a crimianal.

That's funny!




Anyone who claims to be an advocate of small government, yet advocates something that will swell the welfare ranks with new dependants is a phoney liberal masquerading behind one issue: legalized drugs.

Disassemble the welfare state and then come back and we can talk about legalized drugs.

Nice straw man argument. I never said anything in favor of welfare. In fact, I haven't said anything in favor of legalizing drugs, either. You're not very good at this.

[taft2012]

Anti-Constitutional laws are passed regularly. Any US citizen who willingly and blindly abides by them simply because they are 'laws' deserves the fascist government he supports.


So there's a Constitutional right to get high now, is there? :laugh:

[BillyBob]

So there's a Constitutional right to get high now, is there? :laugh:


Nice deflection [not really, it was stupid]. Try again.

[taft2012]

Nice straw man argument. I never said anything in favor of welfare. In fact, I haven't said anything in favor of legalizing drugs, either. You're not very good at this.


Not a strawman argument at all. The legalization of drugs will result in a massive explosion of the welfare population. It will mean more liberals and more Democrats. It will mean more taxes. It will require more Medicaid. A veritable leftist dream if you will.

Your theories do not exist in a vacuum. They have real life implications which you see fit to ignore.

[taft2012]

Nice deflection [not really, it was stupid]. Try again.

What deflection? We talking about laws against drugs, and you said "Anti-Consitutional laws are passed regularly."

What was the supposed to mean in the context of the discussion? Some brilliant bohemian non-sequitur?

[BillyBob]

Not a strawman argument at all. The legalization of drugs will result in a massive explosion of the welfare population. It will mean more liberals and more Democrats. It will mean more taxes. It will require more Medicaid. A veritable leftist dream if you will.

Your theories do not exist in a vacuum. They have real life implications which you see fit to ignore.

Well there ya go, an actual point of conversation. I'm proud of you.

First of all, I do not agree that there should be any 'welfare system. I do believe that people should be responsible for their own actions. If they wanna get high all day, who am I to tell them they can't? More importantly, who is the government to tell them they can't?

Disclaimer: I do not use drugs nor do I support their use. This discussion is about freedom and liberty verses a tyrannical government extinguishing those rights.

[BillyBob]

What deflection? We talking about laws against drugs, and you said "Anti-Consitutional laws are passed regularly."

2 entirely different conversations, go back and reread our discourse.


What was the supposed to mean in the context of the discussion? Some brilliant bohemian non-sequitur?

Now don't make me go back, spell it out and make you look stupid. You're doing a good enough job of that on your own.

[taft2012]

First of all, I do not agree that there should be any 'welfare system. .

And yet you advocate for a policy that will cause the exisiting system to overload and the government to grow exponentially.

I'm not fooled. You're either a half-assed theoretician or a liberal.

I suspect the latter.

[BillyBob]

And yet you advocate for a policy that will cause the exisiting system to overload and the government to grow exponentially.

Making drugs illegal has made the government grow exponentially. Go read some history and get back to me.



I'm not fooled.

Yeah....sure you're not! You've been fooled into WILLINGLY allowing the government to kick down your door, for godsakes!



You're either a half-assed theoretician or a liberal.

I suspect the latter.


You're batting zero so far, why break the trend now?

[taft2012]

Making drugs illegal has made the government grow exponentially. Go read some history and get back to me.

So logically you're concluding that legalizing them will actually shrink the government? :laugh2:



Yeah....sure you're not! You've been fooled into WILLINGLY allowing the government to kick down your door, for godsakes!

They wouldn't have to kick my door down. I'd let them in because I'm not beating my wife or children.




You're batting zero so far, why break the trend now?

You're getting creamed Lebowski :laugh:

[BillyBob]

So logically you're concluding that legalizing them will actually shrink the government? :laugh2:

Depends on Congress. But that wasn't the point. Why are you so bad at following a simple discussion, especially when all you have to do is go back and reread every post in case you lose track?





They wouldn't have to kick my door down. I'd let them in because I'm not beating my wife or children.

Ah, see, you are just like the liberal media in my sig.





You're getting creamed Lebowski :laugh:

If you say so, but there is a record of this discussion for all to see. I reckon they'll form their own opinions.

[Abbey Marie]

This thread better belongs in the 'US Political Discussion' forum.

My bad.

If there are mods here [I hope there are not] please consider moving it.

k, thanks

Thread moved by an Admin you wish wasn't here.

[logroller]

Not a strawman argument at all. The legalization of drugs will result in a massive explosion of the welfare population. It will mean more liberals and more Democrats. It will mean more taxes. It will require more Medicaid. A veritable leftist dream if you will.



Lol. so you back up your strawman with conjecture and more strawman arguments.



Your theories do not exist in a vacuum. They have real life implications which you see fit to ignore. nor do your theories; What real-life evidence do have to support your theory that marijuana legalization will lead to a swelling of the welfare roles? Has 7 decades of marijuana prohibition led to a reduction in welfare enrollment?

[taft2012]

Lol. so you back up your strawman with conjecture and more strawman arguments.


nor do your theories; What real-life evidence do have to support your theory that marijuana legalization will lead to a swelling of the welfare roles? Has 7 decades of marijuana prohibition led to a reduction in welfare enrollment?

Yeah, of course the prohibition of narcotics has kept the welfare population down. And it would keep it down even further if you liberals allowed us to drug test welfare recipients to be eligible for benefits.

But a lower welfare population is not what you want then, is it?

[logroller]

Yeah, of course the prohibition of narcotics has kept the welfare population down. And it would keep it down even further if you liberals allowed us to drug test welfare recipients to be eligible for benefits.

But a lower welfare population is not what you want then, is it?
Of course you say, then prove it. And then show me that prohibition saves taxpayer money.
As for drug tests, it's been tried:
What was that you said about ignoring real-life implications?

By the numbersIn 2011, the Florida Legislature passed a law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants. It didn’t turn out quite as planned:


People who took the test: 4086


Number who failed: 108


Amount Florida lost on the program after “savings” accrued from people losing benefits: $45,780

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130326-editorial-no-drug-tests-for-welfare-texas-should-heed-floridas-lesson.ece
brilliant plan: spend more, provide less. Thanks but no. I'd prefer to revamp welfare in a way that saves money. So too am I partial to allowing individuals the right to use drugs at their own expense rather than prohibiting their use at my expense. I'm conservative like that.

I'd bet pennies to pounds you'll double down.

Why not test executives of companies that get state tax credits? What about members of the state Legislature who draw nice salaries from the state? Clearly we don’t want our tax dollars subsidizing illegal drug use by those people, either. Am I right?
http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2013/04/23/drug-testing-welfare-applicants/

[taft2012]

Duh, of course usage went down when the tests were implemented. People don't want to lose their benefits.

And $45K saved by removing 108 people? Utter BS. That comes out to $416 per person annually? :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if done correctly.... 108 failures would represent several hundred recipients if dependents were also removed.

But I bet dollars to dogshit you'll double on this now. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Duh, of course usage went down when the tests were implemented. People don't want to lose their benefits.

And $45K saved by removing 108 people? Utter BS. That comes out to $416 per person annually? :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if done correctly.... 108 failures would represent several hundred recipients if dependents were also removed.

But I bet dollars to dogshit you'll double on this now. :laugh2:

They didn't save $45K, it cost them an extra $45K even after deducting the 108 users from the roles. Testing is EXPENSIVE and the testing expenses were more than they were worth I think is the moral of the story. And while I am definitely of the opinion that users shouldn't be getting high on my tax dollars, the problem is the welfare system that puts cash into the pockets of these people instead of providing a rent-free(or subsidized) apartment and basic commodities.

[BillyBob]

Yeah, of course the prohibition of narcotics has kept the welfare population down.

Of course. We all know welfare recipients don't use drugs. People too lazy to work and support themselves are certainly far too responsible to use drugs.




And it would keep it down even further if you liberals allowed us to drug test welfare recipients to be eligible for benefits.

I'll do you one better than that, eliminate welfare completely. And why do you find it necessary to link one topic with another that are independent of each other? It's not even helping you make your case.




But a lower welfare population is not what you want then, is it?

You just make this shit up as you go. How's that workin' out for ya?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The issue that seems to creep up about libertarians which appears to make them seem liberal is the illegality of recreational drugs. I find this topic interesting. While drugs could never be legal again in this overtly litigational society, the fact remains that prohibition is not an aspect of liberty.

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry what it can and cannot ingest. That goes for 32 ounce soft drinks, Cheetos, trans-fats and heroin. It's no business of the government what a free citizenry decides to place in their bodies.

Sorry, that premise suggests that --TOTAL- unfettered freedom is a desirable and just state to strive for. Reality says otherwise , as does the evidence found in researching mankind's history. Total freedom is chaos. It is worse than Old West (which never was as bad as portrayed in movies) savagery ..Civilization requires limits on man's greed, excesses and basic evil nature.

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry that it cannot ingest 32 ounce soft drinks, Cheetos, trans-fats, candy bars, salt, coffee, tea, beer or hard liquor . Exception to how much beer and liquor can be allowed because they effect the safety of other citizens by way of impairing the safe driving abilities of the person using them.

[BillyBob]

Sorry, that premise suggests that --TOTAL- unfettered freedom is a desirable and just state to strive for. Reality says otherwise , as does the evidence found in researching mankind's history. Total freedom is chaos. It is worse than Old West (which never was as bad as portrayed in movies) savagery ..Civilization requires limits on man's greed, excesses and basic evil nature.

The guideline to determine when your freedom ends is usually when your freedom interferes with the freedom of another. Drugs do not do that. And I never suggested anarchy.






Exception to how much beer and liquor can be allowed because they effect the safety of other citizens by way of impairing the safe driving abilities of the person using them.

We already have safe driving laws.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The guideline to determine when your freedom ends is usually when your freedom interferes with the freedom of another. Drugs do not do that.

They do when they cause the user to drive into my car due to being totally ffkked up...



And I never suggested anarchy.

Never said you did but wanted to point out the limits that freedom must have in order for civilization to exist and do so with a bebeficial effect ..







We already have safe driving laws.

Sure and those safe driving laws prohibit driving under the influence of liquor or drugs. Thus disproving your contention that "drugs do not do that" .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am all for greater freedom not less(like you are) but some limits must be in effect. Anarchy and chaos prevail otherwise..-Tyr

[BillyBob]

Drugs don't interfere with your freedom anymore than alcohol does. You wanna go back to prohibition?

Like I said, we already have laws against driving impaired.

[Abbey Marie]

The issue that seems to creep up about libertarians which appears to make them seem liberal is the illegality of recreational drugs. I find this topic interesting. While drugs could never be legal again in this overtly litigational society, the fact remains that prohibition is not an aspect of liberty.

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry what it can and cannot ingest. That goes for 32 ounce soft drinks, Cheetos, trans-fats and heroin. It's no business of the government what a free citizenry decides to place in their bodies.

Interesting proposition- outlaw marijuana and Cheetos at the same time. Oh, the suffering! :laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

The issue that seems to creep up about libertarians which appears to make them seem liberal is the illegality of recreational drugs. I find this topic interesting. While drugs could never be legal again in this overtly litigational society, the fact remains that prohibition is not an aspect of liberty.

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry what it can and cannot ingest. That goes for 32 ounce soft drinks, Cheetos, trans-fats and heroin. It's no business of the government what a free citizenry decides to place in their bodies.

The thing is, drug use should not be criminalized, and truthfully, our current system is very broken. This "War on Drugs" has failed, succeeding only in bringing drug use more into the light than it used to be.

The thing is that using drugs alone hurts no one but the user, and when the government begins to encroach on what you put into your own body in and of itself, it will in general expand to less harmful and more intrusive things, like, say.... Hm, what's a good one off the top of my head.... Sure, soda, that seems like a random thing the government would NEVER try to ban... oh wait.

Now, that said, DUI is something that needs to be cracked down on, and yes, the penalties should be severe. It isn't a matter of protecting your liberty at that point, it's about protecting the lives and liberty of the people you have chosen to endanger.

[Abbey Marie]

The thing is, drug use should not be criminalized, and truthfully, our current system is very broken. This "War on Drugs" has failed, succeeding only in bringing drug use more into the light than it used to be.

The thing is that using drugs alone hurts no one but the user, and when the government begins to encroach on what you put into your own body in and of itself, it will in general expand to less harmful and more intrusive things, like, say.... Hm, what's a good one off the top of my head.... Sure, soda, that seems like a random thing the government would NEVER try to ban... oh wait.

Now, that said, DUI is something that needs to be cracked down on, and yes, the penalties should be severe. It isn't a matter of protecting your liberty at that point, it's about protecting the lives and liberty of the people you have chosen to endanger.

Certain druges (i.e., PCP) are known to cause some users to become extremely violent. Should those drugs be illegal? ("It isn't a matter of protecting your liberty at that point, it's about protecting the lives and liberty of the people you have chosen to endanger").

Also, what if a mother or father becomes addicted to a now-legal drug, and is no longer able to parent effectively? Is it still all good? Do we take away the kids? If drugs are admittedly harmful to one's-self, and to those around us, does society really have no compelling interest in trying to reduce their usage? Or do you think criminality is absolutely no deterrent?

[Anton Chigurh]

The issue that seems to creep up about libertarians which appears to make them seem liberal is the illegality of recreational drugs. I find this topic interesting. While drugs could never be legal again in this overtly litigational society, the fact remains that prohibition is not an aspect of liberty.

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry what it can and cannot ingest. That goes for 32 ounce soft drinks, Cheetos, trans-fats and heroin. It's no business of the government what a free citizenry decides to place in their bodies.Every actual Libertarian I know wants ALL drugs legal, not just the "recreational" variety.

The problem has become, most people we see out there claiming to be a "Libertarian" and using that label for themselves, are mostly hard core lefties who detest Obama for whatever reason, (actually, racism - his skin color is offensive) so they cloak themselves in the "Libertarian" label. Those are easy to spot, "Moar Gubmint" is still their pat answer to most everything - exactly the opposite of a true Libertarian.

So, don't get the two confused and start broad brushing like you appear to be doing here.

[Thunderknuckles]

Every actual Libertarian I know wants ALL drugs legal, not just the "recreational" variety.

The problem has become, most people we see out there claiming to be a "Libertarian" and using that label for themselves, are mostly hard core lefties who detest Obama for whatever reason, (actually, racism - his skin color is offensive) so they cloak themselves in the "Libertarian" label. Those are easy to spot, "Moar Gubmint" is still their pat answer to most everything - exactly the opposite of a true Libertarian.

So, don't get the two confused and start broad brushing like you appear to be doing here.
Aren't you doing the very same broad brushing by claiming most Libertarians are, in fact, crypto-leftists?

[BillyBob]

Every actual Libertarian I know wants ALL drugs legal, not just the "recreational" variety.

I used the term 'recreational' so taft wouldn't say something stupid like, 'Aspirin is already legal'.



The problem has become, most people we see out there claiming to be a "Libertarian" and using that label for themselves, are mostly hard core lefties who detest Obama for whatever reason, (actually, racism - his skin color is offensive) so they cloak themselves in the "Libertarian" label. Those are easy to spot, "Moar Gubmint" is still their pat answer to most everything - exactly the opposite of a true Libertarian.

So, don't get the two confused and start broad brushing like you appear to be doing here.


I didn't broad brush anything. I simply made a point about libertarians, drugs and the oppressive government.

[BillyBob]

Certain druges (i.e., PCP) are known to cause some users to become extremely violent. Should those drugs be illegal? ("It isn't a matter of protecting your liberty at that point, it's about protecting the lives and liberty of the people you have chosen to endanger").

We already have laws against violence. If somebody tries to get violent with me or my family, I will shoot him. That is a much better solution than making drugs illegal.


Also, what if a mother or father becomes addicted to a now-legal drug, and is no longer able to parent effectively? Is it still all good? Do we take away the kids? If drugs are admittedly harmful to one's-self, and to those around us, does society really have no compelling interest in trying to reduce their usage? Or do you think criminality is absolutely no deterrent?

It is not the duty of the government to solve everyone's problems with litigation. Lots of people are horrible parents. Oh well, that's their business.

[Abbey Marie]

We already have laws against violence. If somebody tries to get violent with me or my family, I will shoot him. That is a much better solution than making drugs illegal.



It is not the duty of the government to solve everyone's problems with litigation. Lots of people are horrible parents. Oh well, that's their business.

Full steam ahead, and who cares what the consequences are. Gotcha.

[BillyBob]

Full steam ahead, and who cares what the consequences are. Gotcha.


You wanna legislate against the consequences of poor choices and human nature? I sure don't.

[Abbey Marie]

You wanna legislate against the consequences of poor choices and human nature? I sure don't.

Not generally, but when those choices hurt innocent others, then I do.

[jimnyc]

Every actual Libertarian I know wants ALL drugs legal, not just the "recreational" variety.

I remember awhile back having a discussion on here about this. With so many opinions it is hard for many to determine what should or shouldn't be legal. I think anyone that supports the free use and legalization of heroin, PCP, meth and the 'real hardcore' drugs are nuts. I can support MJ, but definitely not the rough stuff. I think the debate was stemmed from Ron Paul running for prez, and he was a supporter of all the hardcore crap being legalized.

[BillyBob]

Not generally, but when those choices hurt innocent others, then I do.


OK, there's a good starting point.

If a woman has children out of wedlock it often hurts 'innocent others' [primarily her children], how do we force her to only have children if she is married. How do we force the man to marry the woman? How do we force them to stay together and raise the children properly?

[BillyBob]

I remember awhile back having a discussion on here about this. With so many opinions it is hard for many to determine what should or shouldn't be legal. I think anyone that supports the free use and legalization of heroin, PCP, meth and the 'real hardcore' drugs are nuts. I can support MJ, but definitely not the rough stuff. I think the debate was stemmed from Ron Paul running for prez, and he was a supporter of all the hardcore crap being legalized.


All drugs were legal in the US a century or so ago. So the norm for the Founders was no laws against drug use. It was only later that drugs became illegal. So we have a clear trend from liberty to fascism.

[jimnyc]

All drugs were legal in the US a century or so ago. So the norm for the Founders was no laws against drug use. It was only later that drugs became illegal. So we have a clear trend from liberty to fascism.

I doubt heroin (in todays form), cocaine in todays form, meth, ecstasy, and all the others were very prominent in the streets a century ago. I don't think laws can "never" be created or changed with the change in times. Someone each year will come up with some killer drug, and they need to be kept out of the hands of our society. Look up "crocodile tears" or maybe "krocodile tears", which is a new drug hitting Russia and other places. It would be ludicrous to say that they couldn't outlaw this killer and extremely addictive drug, because it wasn't banned a century ago. A lot of drugs that do more killing today than it does getting people high - didn't even exist back then.

[BillyBob]

I doubt heroin (in todays form), cocaine in todays form, meth, ecstasy, and all the others were very prominent in the streets a century ago.

You are incorrect, those heroin and cocaine were quite available and often times pharmaceutical grade. Even Sherlock Holmes was shooting up cocaine. Meth was used by Hitler and his soldiers and I'm not sure when X was invented but that's an easy search.





I don't think laws can "never" be created or changed with the change in times. Someone each year will come up with some killer drug, and they need to be kept out of the hands of our society. Look up "crocodile tears" or maybe "krocodile tears", which is a new drug hitting Russia and other places. It would be ludicrous to say that they couldn't outlaw this killer and extremely addictive drug, because it wasn't banned a century ago. A lot of drugs that do more killing today than it does getting people high - didn't even exist back then.

Lots of drugs are hundreds and thousands of years old, yet the Founders choose to make none of them illegal.

Like I said, the trend is usually from liberty to fascism. [an exception would be when they repealed Prohibition]

[BillyBob]

Ah, here we go. X was invented 100 years ago.

History of Ecstasy (MDMA)Early ecstasyMDMA was patented in 1913 (patent #274.350) by the German chemical company Merck supposedly to be sold as a diet pill (the patent does not mention any intended use), the company decided against marketing the drug and had nothing more to do with it.




It was legal until 1985.





http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/ecstasy-history.html

[jimnyc]

Ah, here we go. X was invented 100 years ago.

History of Ecstasy (MDMA)

Early ecstasy

MDMA was patented in 1913 (patent #274.350) by the German chemical company Merck supposedly to be sold as a diet pill (the patent does not mention any intended use), the company decided against marketing the drug and had nothing more to do with it.




It was legal until 1985.





http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/ecstasy-history.html

Like I said before, the level we see on the streets is different these days. People weren't selling ecstasy on the level they do now. If you condone heroin, meth, PCP, and worse drugs, bing free and available in society, and to our children, so be it.

[BillyBob]

Like I said before, the level we see on the streets is different these days. People weren't selling ecstasy on the level they do now.

What does that have to do with anything?



If you condone heroin, meth, PCP, and worse drugs, bing free and available in society, and to our children, so be it.

I don't condone drugs to children any more than I condone free use of alcohol to minors. Why would you even say that?

[Abbey Marie]

OK, there's a good starting point.

If a woman has children out of wedlock it often hurts 'innocent others' [primarily her children], how do we force her to only have children if she is married. How do we force the man to marry the woman? How do we force them to stay together and raise the children properly?

If you are going to make an all or nothing argument, I'm not biting.

[BillyBob]

If you are going to make an all or nothing argument, I'm not biting.

I was simply applying your crteria to the matter at hand. Why would one set of standards for legislation not be universal?

[jimnyc]

What does that have to do with anything?

If its barely on the streets and barely being abused and killing people, WHY would they have banned it years and years ago as you point out? NOW they ban these things, or make them unlawful, as they're being used and abused more and people die from them. When that starts happening, it might make sense to keep the deadly drugs off the streets.


I don't condone drugs to children any more than I condone free use of alcohol to minors. Why would you even say that?

And yet kids drink and do drugs all the time. Can you imagine if it were legalized, and 500% the amount now being available? Its reasonable to assume that more of it will filter to the kids.

If you don't have an issue with widespread drug use that kills people, that's your view. I'd rather rid the streets of the drugs that do no more than kill and ruin families and lives.

[jimnyc]

I was simply applying your crteria to the matter at hand. Why would one set of standards for legislation not be universal?

Taking ones criteria and changing the subject to make a point, when they are really apples and oranges, having nothing to do with one another, is simply a cheap way of making a point. But in the interest of fairness, you DO then support children having equal access to drugs and alcohol. That's an equal set of standards, no? Or is what I am saying different, apples and oranges?

[Missileman]

If its barely on the streets and barely being abused and killing people, WHY would they have banned it years and years ago as you point out? NOW they ban these things, or make them unlawful, as they're being used and abused more and people die from them. When that starts happening, it might make sense to keep the deadly drugs off the streets.


That sounds eerily similar to the super-sized soda ban justification.

[BillyBob]

If its barely on the streets and barely being abused and killing people, WHY would they have banned it years and years ago as you point out?

They didn't ban a lot of these substances 'years and years ago'. But it's not like widespread drug addiction is a new phenomenon. It's part of human nature and has been since the beginning of time.




NOW they ban these things, or make them unlawful, as they're being used and abused more and people die from them. When that starts happening, it might make sense to keep the deadly drugs off the streets.

If I read what you just wrote correctly, you are saying that more people abuse and die from drugs once they are banned. Is that what you are saying? Because the converse of that would be that fewer people would abuse and die from drugs if they were legal.




And yet kids drink and do drugs all the time. Can you imagine if it were legalized, and 500% the amount now being available? Its reasonable to assume that more of it will filter to the kids.

Who says that legalizing drugs would suddenly make them more available? It's not like they aren't readily available now. So obviously the laws aren't preventing children or anyone from obtaining drugs. I still don't get your point about kids. What say we keep this discussion limited to consenting adults, just like alcohol.



If you don't have an issue with widespread drug use that kills people, that's your view.

Shouldn't free citizens have the right to kill themselves using drugs if they choose? And if death is now the new determiner of what should be legal and what shouldn't, you better start banning cars.



I'd rather rid the streets of the drugs that do no more than kill and ruin families and lives.

Getting high and ruining their own families is their choice. And if ruined lives are now the new determiner of legislation [that seems to change with every sentence], better ban alcohol, cigarettes, gay sex, skiing, cars, pornography,divorce, swimming pools, horseback riding, fires, births out of wedlock, muslims and pretty much anything that can kill you.

One other thing that drugs do, they get you high [and often get you laid]. So there's that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If you are going to make an all or nothing argument, I'm not biting.

All or nothing is demanding that one extreme or the other be accepted. There are cases where that applies but this is not one IMHO..

[BillyBob]

That sounds eerily similar to the super-sized soda ban justification.


Nice.

[jimnyc]

That sounds eerily similar to the super-sized soda ban justification.

Comparing soda with hardcore drugs? LOL So, I know you don't want the soda banned - so on that very same basis you believe any and all drugs should be legal, under the same argument? A stupid attempt at a law and drugs that all told kill and or killed millions. I don't see them similar as you. I wouldn't mind my son drinking a large soda, even if it were illegal, but I can't say the same for the drugs.

[jimnyc]

They didn't ban a lot of these substances 'years and years ago'. But it's not like widespread drug addiction is a new phenomenon. It's part of human nature and has been since the beginning of time.





If I read what you just wrote correctly, you are saying that more people abuse and die from drugs once they are banned. Is that what you are saying? Because the converse of that would be that fewer people would abuse and die from drugs if they were legal.





Who says that legalizing drugs would suddenly make them more available? It's not like they aren't readily available now. So obviously the laws aren't preventing children or anyone from obtaining drugs. I still don't get your point about kids. What say we keep this discussion limited to consenting adults, just like alcohol.




Shouldn't free citizens have the right to kill themselves using drugs if they choose? And if death is now the new determiner of what should be legal and what shouldn't, you better start banning cars.




Getting high and ruining their own families is their choice. And if ruined lives are now the new determiner of legislation [that seems to change with every sentence], better ban alcohol, cigarettes, gay sex, skiing, cars, pornography,divorce, swimming pools, horseback riding, fires, births out of wedlock, muslims and pretty much anything that can kill you.

One other thing that drugs do, they get you high [and often get you laid]. So there's that.

I'm not playing the sentence by sentence game. I like paragraphs, I can handle it all at once, I promise! But I'm not quoting line after line after line. Please just use full paragraphs if you expect a reply from me. Thx!

[BillyBob]

Taking ones criteria and changing the subject to make a point, when they are really apples and oranges, having nothing to do with one another, is simply a cheap way of making a point.

Are you saying that her criteria isn't valid? Or are you saying that it's OK to apply a different criteria to each circumstance so we can really screw up the system in a most nonsensical and confusing way. Or are you saying that it's OK to remove liberties based on an uneven, purely partisan format?



But in the interest of fairness, you DO then support children having equal access to drugs and alcohol.

Yes, children should be equally denied drugs and alcohol. In a society based on liberty, that decision would be left to the parents to decide, not the government.



That's an equal set of standards, no? Or is what I am saying different, apples and oranges?

No, I'm talking about adults here, I've mentioned it previously. You keep bringing children into this, not me.

[jimnyc]

No, I'm talking about adults here, I've mentioned it previously. You keep bringing children into this, not me.

And you brought a different set of circumstances towards Abbey. I thought the same standards theory applied, no?

[BillyBob]

I'm not playing the sentence by sentence game.

It's much more explicit, concise and thorough that way.



I like paragraphs, I can handle it all at once, I promise! But I'm not quoting line after line after line. Please just use full paragraphs if you expect a reply from me. Thx!

Suit yourself. The libertarian in me would by no means ever tell you how to post.

[Missileman]

Comparing soda with hardcore drugs? LOL So, I know you don't want the soda banned - so on that very same basis you believe any and all drugs should be legal, under the same argument? A stupid attempt at a law and drugs that all told kill and or killed millions. I don't see them similar as you. I wouldn't mind my son drinking a large soda, even if it were illegal, but I can't say the same for the drugs.

Beer was illegal in the US for a time. MJ is most everywhere, but now it's been legalized in a couple states. Are you going to "mind" your son partaking of either once he's an adult?

[BillyBob]

And you brought a different set of circumstances towards Abbey. I thought the same standards theory applied, no?


No I didn't. She set the standards for legislation and I gave her a glimpse of how that would work when evenly applied across the board, proving that her standards were faulty.

[BillyBob]

Comparing soda with hardcore drugs? LOL So, I know you don't want the soda banned - so on that very same basis you believe any and all drugs should be legal, under the same argument? A stupid attempt at a law and drugs that all told kill and or killed millions.

That is the justification for banning soda, it kills people. Same as drugs.



I don't see them similar as you.

But you guys are missing the point, it's not how YOU see them, it's how the legislators 'see them'.



I wouldn't mind my son drinking a large soda, even if it were illegal, but I can't say the same for the drugs.

That's fine, as a parent I support you raising your child the way you see fit, even if it means breaking the law. Unfortunately, the fascist government doesn't want you to have that choice any more than it wants you to have a choice to eat what you want, smoke what you want, say what you want, drive what you want.. etc. From that perspective, it's all the same. Soda, cheeseburgers, trans fats, school bake sales, alcohol, drugs, crappy 'fuel efficient' cars. All the same.

[taft2012]

That's fine, as a parent I support you raising your child the way you see fit, even if it means breaking the law. Unfortunately, the fascist government doesn't want you to have that choice any more than it wants you to have a choice to eat what you want, smoke what you want, say what you want, drive what you want.. etc. From that perspective, it's all the same. Soda, cheeseburgers, trans fats, school bake sales, alcohol, drugs, crappy 'fuel efficient' cars. All the same.

:tinfoil:

[BillyBob]

Beer was illegal in the US for a time. MJ is most everywhere, but now it's been legalized in a couple states. Are you going to "mind" your son partaking of either once he's an adult?

One of the few examples of trending from fascism to liberty. Mainly because prohibition doesn't work while costing taxpayers a fortune. It didn't hurt that those taxpayers who were paying for it didn't want prohibition.

[BillyBob]

:tinfoil:


Ah, there you are. I was wondering when you were going to show up and dazzle us with your brilliant retorts. Thanks for not letting us down.

[Drummond]

To me, this is simple enough. Laws HAVE to be in place to criminalise drugtaking.

Certainly, this must apply to 'hard' drugs, such as heroin ... drugs where the very taking of them can kill. Anyone seeing this as an 'anti-freedom' or 'anti-liberty' issue needs only to ask if the freedom of the heroin user to live a healthy, happy, worthwhile life is being robbed from them by the drug they're taking.

A drug pusher pushing such a drug is likewise robbing the user of health, happiness, and ultimately, in many cases, life itself.

What about a parent with a young child, that child being dependent on the drug-taking parent for his or her welfare ? What freedoms does the child enjoy ?

What about (as I think Tyr already suggested ?) the case of someone in a car, driving around, high on drugs ... perhaps so addicted that mental equilibrium is nearly impossible for that driver to maintain ? How many people may be deprived of the freedom to LIVE, after being mown down by an addled addict ?

It seems to me that a country's population has the best chance at life, liberty and freedom when the very things which can threaten to DESTROY it, are properly curbed by the proper laws needed to do so.

[BillyBob]

To me, this is simple enough. Laws HAVE to be in place to criminalise drugtaking.

Certainly, this must apply to 'hard' drugs, such as heroin ... drugs where the very taking of them can kill. Anyone seeing this as an 'anti-freedom' or 'anti-liberty' issue needs only to ask if the freedom of the heroin user to live a healthy, happy, worthwhile life is being robbed from them by the drug they're taking.

A drug pusher pushing such a drug is likewise robbing the user of health, happiness, and ultimately, in many cases, life itself.

What about a parent with a young child, that child being dependent on the drug-taking parent for his or her welfare ? What freedoms does the child enjoy ?

What about (as I think Tyr already suggested ?) the case of someone in a car, driving around, high on drugs ... perhaps so addicted that mental equilibrium is nearly impossible for that driver to maintain ? How many people may be deprived of the freedom to LIVE, after being mown down by an addled addict ?

It seems to me that a country's population has the best chance at life, liberty and freedom when the very things which can threaten to DESTROY it, are properly curbed by the proper laws needed to do so.


Thanks for joining our conversation, that was a good post.

Have you read through this entire thread? Because there are counter arguments to each one you just posed.

[Drummond]

Thanks for joining our conversation, that was a good post.

Have you read through this entire thread? Because there are counter arguments to each one you just posed.

Thanks for that reply.

I admit I've only skimmed this thread as a whole .. I'll happily revisit it in greater detail. For now, though, I'm quitting for the night .. remember, I'm in a different timezone to America - a minimum of 5 hours ahead of you. Back tomorrow, I think - cheers.

[BillyBob]

Thanks for that reply.

I admit I've only skimmed this thread as a whole .. I'll happily revisit it in greater detail. For now, though, I'm quitting for the night .. remember, I'm in a different timezone to America - a minimum of 5 hours ahead of you. Back tomorrow, I think - cheers.


Oh yeah, you're a limey. Well have a pint on me and maybe we'll chat tomorrow.

Cheers.

[jimnyc]

It's much more explicit, concise and thorough that way.

For those incapable of using paragraphs, grasping them, and replying in kind. Look, it's not mandatory, I just politely explained that if you wanted a reply that I wouldn't do the sentence by sentence game. That's your choice if you choose to continue doing so anyway, I'm confident others here will reply to you.

[jimnyc]

Beer was illegal in the US for a time. MJ is most everywhere, but now it's been legalized in a couple states. Are you going to "mind" your son partaking of either once he's an adult?

If something is legal, than it's his choice when he is of legal age. But I can definitely state right now, NO WAY IN HELL I want or not "mind" my son taking meth, PCP, heroin or any other hardcore drugs, whether legal or not. ALL they do is ruin lives and kill people. There is little to no reason for the drugs I mention. Sure, if you boil it down to the poppy, I'm sure morphine and other drugs are helpful when used medicinally, but we're talking street level here.

[BillyBob]

For those incapable of using paragraphs, grasping them, and replying in kind. Look, it's not mandatory, I just politely explained that if you wanted a reply that I wouldn't do the sentence by sentence game. That's your choice if you choose to continue doing so anyway, I'm confident others here will reply to you.

I post the way I post. If you do not want to participate in a discussion with me, my feelings won't be hurt. Thanks.

[BillyBob]

If something is legal, than it's his choice when he is of legal age. But I can definitely state right now, NO WAY IN HELL I want or not "mind" my son taking meth, PCP, heroin or any other hardcore drugs, whether legal or not. ALL they do is ruin lives and kill people. There is little to no reason for the drugs I mention.

What reason does booze have?

[jimnyc]

I post the way I post. If you do not want to participate in a discussion with me, my feelings won't be hurt. Thanks.

Peace out then! Just avoid the filth and I won't bother replying to your nonsense.

[jimnyc]

What reason does booze have?

No thanks, I'm not wasting my time with you. I'm sure others will come along though. :)

[BillyBob]

Peace out then!

I'll take that as a win. Thanks.




Just avoid the filth

You know that word in the context of which I posted wasn't filthy at all.

Here's what wiki says and you know fully well that this was the definition I clearly meant:

Pejoratively, a coward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice) or weakling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakness) as an insult in general


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy





and I won't bother replying to your nonsense.

I'll take that as another win. Thanks.

[BillyBob]

No thanks, I'm not wasting my time with you.

I'll take that as another win. Thanks.




I'm sure others will come along though. :)

No doubt.

[jimnyc]

I'll take that as a win. Thanks.

You know that word in the context of which I posted wasn't filthy at all.

Here's what wiki says and you know fully well that this was the definition I clearly meant:

Pejoratively, a coward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice) or weakling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakness) as an insult in general


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy


I'll take that as another win. Thanks.


I'll take that as another win. Thanks.


No doubt.

Call it what you like, but it's not up for debate. I asked politely for you not to repeat it and that'll be the end of it. We have ladies posting here and we like to have a little more respect with that in mind.

[cadet]

I saw libertarian, and wanted to put in my two cents worth.

The laws in america were put into place for one reason. If you look at all the beginning ones, they basically had one simple idea behind them.



It's your life and you can do whatever you want with it, your free. Just don't infringe upon others rights to be free.

^^That right there, that's simple, right? If you really really sit down and think about it, that's the basis for America. You are FREE to do as you will. You can live whatever life you want and do whatever you want. If you want to own a company, nothing's going to stop you. If you want to live in a gutter, nothing's going to stop you.

And you'll notice, all the controversial laws conflict with that statement. It's not an AMERICAN law if it's infringing upon your life to do whatever you want. It's against what America stands for! Freedom! Liberty! Justice! Only a tyrannical gov't could tell you what you can and can't put in your body. Only a tyrannical gov't can stop you on the road as part of a "random drunk check." And only a tyrannical gov't would WANT to make you feel like you can't be free.

This idea plays out into all aspects of what I argue about. Guns, so long as I'm not harming others ability to be free, I should be able to own what I want. Planes, why the hell is the gov't telling a company how to run it's business? Welfare, you're harming my rights to be free and do what I want, why should I be punished because of what someone else did? Drinking age, how is it that the gov't has the right to say when you can and cannot drink a liquid? Drugs, it's your own damn body, do what you will with it and don't force others to do the same stupid thing.

By this logic, cigarettes should be outlawed due to second hand smoke. (it's freaking terrible for you and harms others around you) But drugs, they only harm you.

Yeah, your bodies a temple and you should treat it that way. But I'm not you, and I have no right to say what you do with your temple.

[jimnyc]

^^ We can be here for WEEKS talking about laws and regulations for things people do that in no way infringe upon others. While like you, in that I fully agree with total freedom and such, I don't think that means that we should turn a blind eye and allow things like heroin, angel dust, methamphetamines and other killer drugs to pass around our society as if it were harmless and simply up to the individual. The problem with that is that with that freedom to have it roam around, makes it into a plague and the amount of people using then increase. It would be nice, in theory, if everyone and anyone could do literally whatever they want, so long as it doesn't harm others - but that's a pipe dream. Just like seatbelt laws, prostitution laws, age of consent laws..... Sometimes having a free for all society where anything is allowed is detrimental to society as a whole.

[taft2012]

To me, this is simple enough. Laws HAVE to be in place to criminalise drugtaking. .

Well of course. While these clods banter on about our "fascist and tyrannical government," the fact is that there's no government in the world they can flee to and enjoy controlled substances unregulated and recreationally. Well, maybe in Somalia, the libertarian utopia without any functioning government.

They don't care about others, the society, or the country. They care only about their individual desires above all else.

What they want has already existed. China in the 19th and first half of the 20th century was awash in opium. It pretty much decimated their society and left them vulnerable to foreign powers to march in claim huge swaths of territory and demand humiliating concessions.

Like the leftists they are, they despise this country and want to see it dragged down from its prestigious heights. When they attack "big government", it's never liberal darlings like the unnecessary Department of Energy. No, they always go after the most legitimate elements of any government first; national and international defense. Law enforcement and the military. Which (surprise! surprise!) are also coincidentally the only elements of government liberals despise.

The actual numbers of true libertarians who turn out at the polls and vote for their party do *NOT* match the unrealistic percentages of faux libertarians on internet forums, radio talk show callers, etc. This libertarian population explosion is the result of liberal Trojan Horses attempting to play havoc in our ranks. It leaves us fighting a war on two fronts. A very clever tactic by the far left.

[jimnyc]

What they want has already existed.

There are still other places today where it's left unchecked, even if not outright legal (at least the hardcore stuff). Some 3rd world countries like Afghanistan have heroin and such all over the place. Places in Russia you can find certain drugs easier than water. All of these places where it's not really enforced, they are shitholes and ridden with crime. MAYBE the only place I ever heard of was Amsterdam and the marijuana scene, but then again I never really had a problem with MJ and don't consider it one of the hardcore drugs. But even there they have cracked down more and are shutting down the smoke shops and bars.

[cadet]

Well of course. While these clods banter on about our "fascist and tyrannical government," the fact is that there's no government in the world they can flee to and enjoy controlled substances unregulated and recreationally. Well, maybe in Somalia, the libertarian utopia without any functioning government.

They don't care about others, the society, or the country. They care only about their individual desires above all else.

What they want has already existed. China in the 19th and first half of the 20th century was awash in opium. It pretty much decimated their society and left them vulnerable to foreign powers to march in claim huge swaths of territory and demand humiliating concessions.

Like the leftists they are, they despise this country and want to see it dragged down from its prestigious heights. When they attack "big government", it's never liberal darlings like the unnecessary Department of Energy. No, they always go after the most legitimate elements of any government first; national and international defense. Law enforcement and the military. Which (surprise! surprise!) are also coincidentally the only elements of government liberals despise.

The actual numbers of true libertarians who turn out at the polls and vote for their party do *NOT* match the unrealistic percentages of faux libertarians on internet forums, radio talk show callers, etc. This libertarian population explosion is the result of liberal Trojan Horses attempting to play havoc in our ranks. It leaves us fighting a war on two fronts. A very clever tactic by the far left.

You're giving libs too much credit. They're not that smart. :laugh:

The libertarians you have an issue with are the ones that see america going downhill, and in desperate need of fixing. And of course they're going to attack the big parts of gov't. Go big or go home.

[BillyBob]

Well of course. While these clods banter on about our "fascist and tyrannical government," the fact is that there's no government in the world they can flee to and enjoy controlled substances unregulated and recreationally. Well, maybe in Somalia, the libertarian utopia without any functioning government.

They don't care about others, the society, or the country. They care only about their individual desires above all else.

What they want has already existed. China in the 19th and first half of the 20th century was awash in opium. It pretty much decimated their society and left them vulnerable to foreign powers to march in claim huge swaths of territory and demand humiliating concessions.

Like the leftists they are, they despise this country and want to see it dragged down from its prestigious heights. When they attack "big government", it's never liberal darlings like the unnecessary Department of Energy. No, they always go after the most legitimate elements of any government first; national and international defense. Law enforcement and the military. Which (surprise! surprise!) are also coincidentally the only elements of government liberals despise.

The actual numbers of true libertarians who turn out at the polls and vote for their party do *NOT* match the unrealistic percentages of faux libertarians on internet forums, radio talk show callers, etc. This libertarian population explosion is the result of liberal Trojan Horses attempting to play havoc in our ranks. It leaves us fighting a war on two fronts. A very clever tactic by the far left.


I was asked to respond to entire posts instead of dissecting and rebutting each point, so here it goes: Your post is complete and utter bullshit.

[DragonStryk72]

Certain druges (i.e., PCP) are known to cause some users to become extremely violent. Should those drugs be illegal? ("It isn't a matter of protecting your liberty at that point, it's about protecting the lives and liberty of the people you have chosen to endanger").

Also, what if a mother or father becomes addicted to a now-legal drug, and is no longer able to parent effectively? Is it still all good? Do we take away the kids? If drugs are admittedly harmful to one's-self, and to those around us, does society really have no compelling interest in trying to reduce their usage? Or do you think criminality is absolutely no deterrent?

No offense intended here, but who out there is staying away from narcotics right now that would be on them if they were legal? Again, the doing of the drug is not the crime- the violence, and the neglect are, however, and you were in the position to make the choice to act irresponsibly, therefore, you're still on the hook for any crimes you commit, just as if you got going on drinking, which can also make you more prone to violence, or neglectful if addicted. We tried making booze illegal, and the only thing it gave us was the mafia.

Again read what I said previously, drug use alone should not be a crime, meaning that your examples do not hold up, as other crimes are being committed at the time.

[DragonStryk72]

^^ We can be here for WEEKS talking about laws and regulations for things people do that in no way infringe upon others. While like you, in that I fully agree with total freedom and such, I don't think that means that we should turn a blind eye and allow things like heroin, angel dust, methamphetamines and other killer drugs to pass around our society as if it were harmless and simply up to the individual. The problem with that is that with that freedom to have it roam around, makes it into a plague and the amount of people using then increase. It would be nice, in theory, if everyone and anyone could do literally whatever they want, so long as it doesn't harm others - but that's a pipe dream. Just like seatbelt laws, prostitution laws, age of consent laws..... Sometimes having a free for all society where anything is allowed is detrimental to society as a whole.

Oddly enough, I do agree with you, and no, that isn't hypocritical. Stay with me here: Okay, yes, I believe that drug use should not be criminalized, but note that I never mentioned dealing. The dealers are harming others knowingly, knowing that their product will directly harm the people they sell it to.

It's less about total deregulation, and more about having the proper laws to halt the crimes that are occurring. It focuses our resources to better combat the actual threats.

[BillyBob]

Oddly enough, I do agree with you, and no, that isn't hypocritical. Stay with me here: Okay, yes, I believe that drug use should not be criminalized, but note that I never mentioned dealing. The dealers are harming others knowingly, knowing that their product will directly harm the people they sell it to.

The same can be said for the local 7-11 owner who sells cigarettes.

[taft2012]

The same can be said for the local 7-11 owner who sells cigarettes.

And broccoli contains more natural nicotine than second-hand cigarette smoke.

So clearly the corner produce vendor needs to be shut down. :laugh2:

Do you realize the logical parallels you draw make you look mentally retarded?

[BillyBob]

And broccoli contains more natural nicotine than second-hand cigarette smoke.

So clearly the corner produce vendor needs to be shut down. :laugh2:

Do you realize the logical parallels you draw make you look mentally retarded?

Says the moron who smokes broccoli. lol

[BillyBob]

Oddly enough, I do agree with you, and no, that isn't hypocritical. Stay with me here: Okay, yes, I believe that drug use should not be criminalized, but note that I never mentioned dealing. The dealers are harming others knowingly, knowing that their product will directly harm the people they sell it to.






The same can be said for the local 7-11 owner who sells cigarettes.






Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, imposing a terrible toll in health, lives and dollars on families, businesses and government. Tobacco kills more than 400,000 people annually – more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/facts_issues/toll_us/

[DragonStryk72]

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, imposing a terrible toll in health, lives and dollars on families, businesses and government. Tobacco kills more than 400,000 people annually – more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/facts_issues/toll_us/

Actually, it isn't so much the cigs themselves, in so much as the arsenic, tar, salt peter, and other fun ingredients that get added in, so if you get the natural brands, or even switch over to the electrics, you're fine. The other benny to the electrics is that each filter is a full "pack" of cigs, making smoking a bit cheaper.

As well, they use vapor instead of smoke, meaning that you're not harming your lungs, and the lungs of others nearly as much.

As well, the site you're quoting here is seriously suspect. The stats they claim include "secondhand" and other less provable forms of tobacco-caused death. Some people who smoke only lightly still get Emphysema, while others who are smoking a pack a day get nothing. Cancer is one of those scary things that can just hit you out of the blue even if you're otherwise a healthy individual. Sorry, but I've been finding that, in recent years, sites that claim to be there to "protect kids" are run by paranoid nutters who wish to dump their fear on the rest of us, so I generally won't go by stats they post.

Also, we're talking about death over the course of 40+ years of smoking, not "this dose could kill you if we got it wrong."

In the end, though, there is always going to be a line that we have to draw, and there is always going to be something on the other side of that line that someone can nitpick as supposed to be on the other side of that line.

[cadet]

...
As well, the site you're quoting here is seriously suspect. The stats they claim include "secondhand" and other less provable forms of tobacco-caused death....

You don't think second hand smoke is real?

Not sure if you're trolling... or stupid.

[Gaffer]

You don't think second hand smoke is real?

Not sure if you're trolling... or stupid.

It's not real. It's as real as global warming. Just something thrown out to boost their stat numbers.

[jimnyc]

You don't think second hand smoke is real?

Not sure if you're trolling... or stupid.

A bit harsh, no? I think what he meant was, things like second hand smoke related problems are very hard to prove, therefore the statistics not exactly reliable. I highly doubt he was denying the existence of harm from 2nd hand smoke.

[jimnyc]

It's not real. It's as real as global warming. Just something thrown out to boost their stat numbers.

I think there can be harm from continued breathing in of 2nd hand smoke, but the stats I wouldn't count on in the slightest. Claiming 50,000 people die each year (I believe that's what it stated). I would really love to see where and how they get these numbers. I'll peek around a bit now.

[DragonStryk72]

You don't think second hand smoke is real?

Not sure if you're trolling... or stupid.

Wow, way to get insulting in the middle of an otherwise civil discourse.

I said less provable, I believe, and I'll stand by that. These sorts of sites prey on parents who are too paranoid to think through things they see on the internet. Not every case of lung cancer is because of secondhand smoke, but many of these cases get lumped right in, just like the fudged findings of "An Inconvenient Truth".

It isn't that the underlying problem doesn't exist, it's that groups with an agenda have a habit of trying to fudge the numbers to make them scarier.

[tailfins]

Any society that has laws passed by democratically elected legislatures has the right to revoke these laws, or leave them in place, at the will of the electorate.

Anyone who calls himself conservative, patriotic, American, or what have you, respects the laws of the land. Anyone who violates those laws is a crimianal.

Anyone who claims to be an advocate of small government, yet advocates something that will swell the welfare ranks with new dependants is a phoney liberal masquerading behind one issue: legalized drugs.

Disassemble the welfare state and then come back and we can talk about legalized drugs.

The US or any free society with inalienable rights cannot be a democracy. Drug policy should consider what those under their influence do to other people. However, a draconian approach to any undesirable act limits the liberty of the public at large. Consider measures against drunk driving and administrative license suspensions, road blocks and other collateral effects.

[Anton Chigurh]

Aren't you doing the very same broad brushing by claiming most Libertarians are, in fact, crypto-leftists?I never made any such claim. Read.

[Anton Chigurh]

I didn't broad brush anything. I simply made a point about libertarians, drugs and the oppressive government.You didn't make any point, as I illustrated. Libertarians don't care if a substance is considered "recreational" or not. They want the government completely OUT of regulating ALL substances.

What you are CALLING "libertarians" actually, are not. Also as I pointed out. So yes, you were broad brushing.

[Anton Chigurh]

I remember awhile back having a discussion on here about this. With so many opinions it is hard for many to determine what should or shouldn't be legal. I think anyone that supports the free use and legalization of heroin, PCP, meth and the 'real hardcore' drugs are nuts. I can support MJ, but definitely not the rough stuff. I think the debate was stemmed from Ron Paul running for prez, and he was a supporter of all the hardcore crap being legalized.The argument is, the G shouldn't be involved, and shouldn't be our nanny. And shouldn't be interfering with Darwin. THINK for a second Jim - if ALL substances were legal, in one generation we will have weeded the addictive personality out of the human gene pool. Because our massive agricultural might would turn to making the "dope" and selling it to the world, we would also in one fail swoop wipe out Islam, communism, end hunger, save the planet by greatly reducing the human population - all without ever firing a single shot.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Call it what you like, but it's not up for debate. I asked politely for you not to repeat it and that'll be the end of it. We have ladies posting here and we like to have a little more respect with that in mind.

I am by no means a squeamish, overly sensitive guy and that word has never been used here by me . Although I have often thought it about a couple members here in the past in exactly the way BillyBob explained he intended it to be read.

I just chose not to use it out of respect for not only the ladies here(God bless 'em) but also the younger members we have participating here as well. -Tyr

[taft2012]

The argument is, the G shouldn't be involved, and shouldn't be our nanny. And shouldn't be interfering with Darwin. THINK for a second Jim - if ALL substances were legal, in one generation we will have weeded the addictive personality out of the human gene pool. Because our massive agricultural might would turn to making the "dope" and selling it to the world, we would also in one fail swoop wipe out Islam, communism, end hunger, save the planet by greatly reducing the human population - all without ever firing a single shot.

Amen.

And I would add that any woman that has an abortion should also be sterilized. Because any female that would kill its own offspring is clearly genetically defective. As long as abortion is legal we should make maximum use of it and cleanse our gene pool.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The argument is, the G shouldn't be involved, and shouldn't be our nanny. And shouldn't be interfering with Darwin. THINK for a second Jim - if ALL substances were legal, in one generation we will have weeded the addictive personality out of the human gene pool. Because our massive agricultural might would turn to making the "dope" and selling it to the world, we would also in one fail swoop wipe out Islam, communism, end hunger, save the planet by greatly reducing the human population - all without ever firing a single shot.

That is the panacea being promoted by certain groups for our consumption. So far no panacea ever acted upon and strived for has panned out. Man by himself, his laws can not cure our ills or wipe away our inherent evil. Fairytales are nice, I used to read them to my daughter when she was a young child.. She grew up and "magicly" understood what they were. Some people refuse to grow up or else want to present such fairytales in order to legalize their most cherished hobby(addictions) .-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I am by no means a squeamish, overly sensitive guy and that word has never been used here by me . Although I have often thought it about a couple members here in the past in exactly the way BillyBob explained he intended it to be read.

I just chose not to use it out of respect for not only the ladies here(God bless 'em) but also the younger members we have participating here as well. -Tyr

I'm sure if you and I sat for a beer, without the ladies around, we would use a bit of a different vocabulary. And while only the "C" word is literally banned, I think the "P" word is in poor taste, however it was intended to be used. I think it would make most ladies cringe a little or make them feel uncomfortable. I'm certainly not claiming to be above anyone, that's for sure! LOL I think no harm can come from encouraging such words not be used.

[Abbey Marie]

No offense intended here, but who out there is staying away from narcotics right now that would be on them if they were legal? Again, the doing of the drug is not the crime- the violence, and the neglect are, however, and you were in the position to make the choice to act irresponsibly, therefore, you're still on the hook for any crimes you commit, just as if you got going on drinking, which can also make you more prone to violence, or neglectful if addicted. We tried making booze illegal, and the only thing it gave us was the mafia.

Again read what I said previously, drug use alone should not be a crime, meaning that your examples do not hold up, as other crimes are being committed at the time.

And when that drug use leads to crime, as it so often does- i.e., in robberies, you've no problem allocating lots of your taxpayer police dollars and time to addressing it? OR the harm that is done to people during drug deals gone wrong? Or the amount of harm and cost to society when those drug users are parents and their kids' upbringing go to hell? Your distinction to look on the drug use in a harmless vacuum doesn't totally hold up.

[aboutime]

You didn't make any point, as I illustrated. Libertarians don't care if a substance is considered "recreational" or not. They want the government completely OUT of regulating ALL substances.

What you are CALLING "libertarians" actually, are not. Also as I pointed out. So yes, you were broad brushing.


Anton. In this case. Though I often found myself agreeing with the Libertarian idea's, up until the Legalized Drugs across the board part. I now find a dangerously close resemblance of Libertarian, and Socialistic idea's that are now...such a fine line in many respects.
Liberal ideologues and Denial Liberals often share the Libertarian agenda...when it pleases them to do so. And it also explains why the anger against anyone who happens to IDENTIFY such people on that intentional SLIPPERY SLOPE of dung...they deny exists.

[Abbey Marie]

Anton. In this case. Though I often found myself agreeing with the Libertarian idea's, up until the Legalized Drugs across the board part. I now find a dangerously close resemblance of Libertarian, and Socialistic idea's that are now...such a fine line in many respects.
Liberal ideologues and Denial Liberals often share the Libertarian agenda...when it pleases them to do so. And it also explains why the anger against anyone who happens to IDENTIFY such people on that intentional SLIPPERY SLOPE of dung...they deny exists.

And the "pro-choice" stance as well. Talk about someone's liberty harming another.

[DragonStryk72]

And when that drug use leads to crime, as it so often does- i.e., in robberies, you've no problem allocating lots of your taxpayer police dollars and time to addressing it? OR the harm that is done to people during drug deals gone wrong? Or the amount of harm and cost to society when those drug users are parents and their kids' upbringing go to hell? Your distinction to look on the drug use in a harmless vacuum doesn't hold up.

It isn't in a vacuum. I've addressed the dealing of drugs as illegal, as well as the consequences of breaking the law other than drug use. How is prersonal drug use, in and of itself, a crime? You keep spouting the same argument, but by the logic you're using, we shouldn't be allowed to have guns either, because potentially, some people are going to use guns for nefarious ends, no matter how responsible other gun owners might be. We also shouldn't be allowed to determine our own portions sizes, smoke or drink, because some of those give that freedom will abuse it.

[BillyBob]

Actually, it isn't so much the cigs themselves, in so much as the arsenic, tar, salt peter, and other fun ingredients that get added in, so if you get the natural brands, or even switch over to the electrics, you're fine. The other benny to the electrics is that each filter is a full "pack" of cigs, making smoking a bit cheaper.

As well, they use vapor instead of smoke, meaning that you're not harming your lungs, and the lungs of others nearly as much.

As well, the site you're quoting here is seriously suspect. The stats they claim include "secondhand" and other less provable forms of tobacco-caused death. Some people who smoke only lightly still get Emphysema, while others who are smoking a pack a day get nothing. Cancer is one of those scary things that can just hit you out of the blue even if you're otherwise a healthy individual. Sorry, but I've been finding that, in recent years, sites that claim to be there to "protect kids" are run by paranoid nutters who wish to dump their fear on the rest of us, so I generally won't go by stats they post.

Also, we're talking about death over the course of 40+ years of smoking, not "this dose could kill you if we got it wrong."

In the end, though, there is always going to be a line that we have to draw, and there is always going to be something on the other side of that line that someone can nitpick as supposed to be on the other side of that line.


I agree that second hand smoke is not a hazard.

[DragonStryk72]

And the "pro-choice" stance as well. Talk about someone's liberty harming another.

That depends on how you interpret the focus. If you believe that life begins at conception, then as a Libertarian, you are pro-life, because of course, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are core values of Libertarianism.

If you believe that life begins at a later point, then you are pro-choice, but even there, a number of Libertarian draw lines, such as the horrific Born Alive monstrosity that's come up, and partial-birth abortions. A number also believe that there need to be hard limits to the number of abortions a woman can have in her life.

There is absolutely never going to be a choice there that everyone is happy with, and some will always be vehemently unhappy without 100% one way or the other. Now, myself, I'm essentially pro-life, but not to the asinine level that some have taken it to. In cases of rape or incest, yes, in cases where the choice is between your life and the life of the baby, yes.

You slept with a guy without using proper protection? NO. Sorry, but there are FAR too many warnings, PSAs and education on the matter to not understand by the time you're old enough, to not know where babies come from in this country. So yes, willingly choosing to engage in sex without proper protection is assuming the responsibility for what comes after.

People assume that all Libertarian think alike, and I've never understood this. Sure we agree on the core point, that big government=bad, but we're no more in lockstep than the republicans or democrats.

[aboutime]

And the "pro-choice" stance as well. Talk about someone's liberty harming another.


Abbey. The one, and only way anything called 'pro-choice' works for me is. As long as the Fetus, or Unborn Child is the one GIVEN THE CHOICE.

[Abbey Marie]

It isn't in a vacuum. I've addressed the dealing of drugs as illegal, as well as the consequences of breaking the law other than drug use. How is prersonal drug use, in and of itself, a crime? You keep spouting the same argument, but by the logic you're using, we shouldn't be allowed to have guns either, because potentially, some people are going to use guns for nefarious ends, no matter how responsible other gun owners might be. We also shouldn't be allowed to determine our own portions sizes, smoke or drink, because some of those give that freedom will abuse it.

Actually, I rarely discuss this. You would probably be the one that keeps spouting the same argument. Flaw in logic in your comparison above: The owning of a gun does not hurt anybody. The owner chooses to do someting with it, or not. Drugs by their nature aren't kept around "Just in case". They are bought for the express purpose of being used, and despite a couple of innocuous examples, many of them are actually very harmful.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey. The one, and only way anything called 'pro-choice' works for me is. As long as the Fetus, or Unborn Child is the one GIVEN THE CHOICE.

:clap:

[Abbey Marie]

That depends on how you interpret the focus. If you believe that life begins at conception, then as a Libertarian, you are pro-life, because of course, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are core values of Libertarianism.

If you believe that life begins at a later point, then you are pro-choice, but even there, a number of Libertarian draw lines, such as the horrific Born Alive monstrosity that's come up, and partial-birth abortions. A number also believe that there need to be hard limits to the number of abortions a woman can have in her life.

There is absolutely never going to be a choice there that everyone is happy with, and some will always be vehemently unhappy without 100% one way or the other. Now, myself, I'm essentially pro-life, but not to the asinine level that some have taken it to. In cases of rape or incest, yes, in cases where the choice is between your life and the life of the baby, yes.

You slept with a guy without using proper protection? NO. Sorry, but there are FAR too many warnings, PSAs and education on the matter to not understand by the time you're old enough, to not know where babies come from in this country. So yes, willingly choosing to engage in sex without proper protection is assuming the responsibility for what comes after.

People assume that all Libertarian think alike, and I've never understood this. Sure we agree on the core point, that big government=bad, but we're no more in lockstep than the republicans or democrats.

That is good to hear. But during the election, I waited for any of our Libertarians to say they wouldn't be able to vote Libertarian because of the pro-choice stance. Even people whom I know are against abortion, and are appalled by it. I am not saying we must be one-issue voters, but some things are actually life and death issues. And the number of convenience abortions in this country is staggering. It is an inherent weakness in the party platform, I think.

[BillyBob]

A Drugs by their nature aren't kept around "Just in case". They are bought for the express purpose of being used, and despite a couple of innocuous examples, many of them are actually very harmful.

There is no doubt that some drugs can be harmful if abused [Tylenol being one example], but simply getting high doesn't fall into that category.

Is 'being harmful' the reason you think certain things should be illegal?

[aboutime]

:clap:


Thank you Abbey. I use a really good excuse to back up what I said about the Fetus having a choice.

Fortunately. I had the pleasure, and luck to be off duty, and home when both of our son's were born in the hospital.

I was there to watch them being delivered, heard their first cries, and shared the tears of joy with my wife as we
saw our son's being brought into this world.

Anyone who's ever witnessed, or been around to see such wonders of Life take place, shouldn't, or probably can't ever
question that the Birth of a Human child is anything but Miraculous and A Blessing to the Mother, and Father.
I simply cannot imagine, nor would I want to....what the Intentional Termination of a Life...as in Abortion, or Partial birth could be like.

As a Father. When I learned my wife was pregnant. NOT ONCE did I ever question whether another HUMAN BEING was on the way, and never thought of our Unborn son's as....just a bunch of Wasted Cells, bone, flesh, and blood to be thrown away.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And when that drug use leads to crime, as it so often does- i.e., in robberies, you've no problem allocating lots of your taxpayer police dollars and time to addressing it? OR the harm that is done to people during drug deals gone wrong? Or the amount of harm and cost to society when those drug users are parents and their kids' upbringing go to hell? Your distinction to look on the drug use in a harmless vacuum doesn't totally hold up.

Or the lives ruined by babies being born addicted to drugs or mentally retarded/deformed because the mother was a user. The public money(tax money) used to care for such kids is not a trivial amount.-Tyr

[BillyBob]

Or the lives ruined by babies being born addicted to drugs or mentally retarded/deformed because the mother was a user. The public money(tax money) used to care for such kids is not a trivial amount.-Tyr

That is an easy fix. Simply defund that welfare crap.

[taft2012]

That is an easy fix. Simply defund that welfare crap.

Really? It's easy?

Well dang it, why didn't you just say so, Skeezix?

Well listen, you just do me a favor and dismantle that there welfare state, and when it's all gone you just come on back here and then we can have a serious talk about legalizing your smoke.

:laugh2:

[Voted4Reagan]

An open question to BillyBob

What drugs do you support legalizing and with what restrictions?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That is an easy fix. Simply defund that welfare crap.

I am for that but defunding a well established gov. giveaway program has NEVER been easy and rarely been done. The Welfare program has been a Dem vote buying scheme for decades now. The Dem party in the 60's used it to destroy the stable black family that existed in the 50's. Johnson's "War on Poverty" was a vote buying scheme using billions in our tax dollars to buy the black vote ! Now for three generations it not only has bought the vote but has become a way of life for them.

Problem with doing away with the Welfare System now is that obama has actually created the environment where it is truly needed by tens of millions of Americans.
They finally created the "paradise" they promised--.;)--Tyr

[BillyBob]

Really? It's easy?

Well dang it, why didn't you just say so, Skeezix?

Well listen, you just do me a favor and dismantle that there welfare state, and when it's all gone you just come on back here and then we can have a serious talk about legalizing your smoke.

:laugh2:

You obviously need a few rudimentary lesson in civics.

[BillyBob]

An open question to BillyBob

What drugs do you support legalizing and with what restrictions?


As I stated previously, drugs could never be legal again in the US due to its overly-litigious mentality. Even legal drugs provide cases for countless lawsuits, imagine what would happen if heroin were once again legal, you'd have lawyers filing suits every time some doper od's. There isn't a drug company in the world that would take that risk.

But in theory, all drugs should be legal. This thread is really a conversation about liberty more than it is about drugs, despite the number of posters who continue to derail it.

[BillyBob]

Restrictions: They should be similar to those of alcohol. No minors can purchase or use it. Driving while using would still be a crime, of course.

[taft2012]

Anton. In this case. Though I often found myself agreeing with the Libertarian idea's, up until the Legalized Drugs across the board part. I now find a dangerously close resemblance of Libertarian, and Socialistic idea's that are now...such a fine line in many respects.
Liberal ideologues and Denial Liberals often share the Libertarian agenda...when it pleases them to do so. And it also explains why the anger against anyone who happens to IDENTIFY such people on that intentional SLIPPERY SLOPE of dung...they deny exists.

There are reasons that liberals and libertarians seem like kin. One key reason is that they use the same logic and arguments for their positions and completely disregard the obvious and real-life implications of those positions. The purity of their intentions and ideologies, to them, trump reality and results.

Liberal: We want the government to ensure everyone has health insurance.
Conservative: Whoa! Wait a minute. Do you realize what that will do to the health care system in this country?
Liberal: What's wrong with you? You want people to die or go bankrupt when they're sick?

Libertarian: We want the government to legalize narcotic use.
Conservative: Whoa! Wait a minute. Do you realize the implications that can have to society?
Libertarian: What's wrong with you? You love big government and hate liberty or something?

In the political arena, conservatives always have to be the grown up in the room. Libertarians like to fancy themselves as being to our right, but in fact the important position they occupy is at the children's table, and we have to make sure they don't make a mess with the liberals.

[gabosaurus]

Pot should be legal. The physical effects are much less than tobacco. Either make pot legal or make tobacco illegal.
Other hardcore drugs should remain illegal and regulated.

[Robert A Whit]

There are reasons that liberals and libertarians seem like kin. One key reason is that they use the same logic and arguments for their positions and completely disregard the obvious and real-life implications of those positions. The purity of their intentions and ideologies, to them, trump reality and results.

Liberal: We want the government to ensure everyone has health insurance.
Conservative: Whoa! Wait a minute. Do you realize what that will do to the health care system in this country?
Liberal: What's wrong with you? You want people to die or go bankrupt when they're sick?

Libertarian: We want the government to legalize narcotic use.
Conservative: Whoa! Wait a minute. Do you realize the implications that can have to society?
Libertarian: What's wrong with you? You love big government and hate liberty or something?

In the political arena, conservatives always have to be the grown up in the room. Libertarians like to fancy themselves as being to our right, but in fact the important position they occupy is at the children's table, and we have to make sure they don't make a mess with the liberals.

You are confused.

I hate tattoos. Does that mean that I don't support the right of people to tattoo themselves?

I support their right.

Do I support the use of heroin? Absolutely not.

I however do not support laws that stop you from using that poison all you want.

I am not interesting so much in legalizing anything but removing laws making such things illegal.

This nation was based on freedom but now has so many laws designed to control this perron or that person that it may come to pass that this country outlaws tattoos, beer drinking again and so forth.

With freedom comes responsibility.

What makes drugs so expensive and handled by criminals is the very fact it is not legal. We invited crime with those laws.

A lot of people feed off this stuff only because it is not legal. They want what is not legal.

[Missileman]

There are reasons that liberals and libertarians seem like kin. One key reason is that they use the same logic and arguments for their positions and completely disregard the obvious and real-life implications of those positions. The purity of their intentions and ideologies, to them, trump reality and results.

Liberal: We want the government to ensure everyone has health insurance.
Conservative: Whoa! Wait a minute. Do you realize what that will do to the health care system in this country?
Liberal: What's wrong with you? You want people to die or go bankrupt when they're sick?

Libertarian: We want the government to legalize narcotic use.
Conservative: Whoa! Wait a minute. Do you realize the implications that can have to society?
Libertarian: What's wrong with you? You love big government and hate liberty or something?

In the political arena, conservatives always have to be the grown up in the room. Libertarians like to fancy themselves as being to our right, but in fact the important position they occupy is at the children's table, and we have to make sure they don't make a mess with the liberals.

The only reason MJ is illegal is the government can't figure out a way to guarantee a cut from every plant grown. Tobacco and alcohol are addictive, potentially harmful substances that the government has a iron grip on revenue wise.

[gabosaurus]

The only reason MJ is illegal is the government can't figure out a way to guarantee a cut from every plant grown. Tobacco and alcohol are addictive, potentially harmful substances that the government has a iron grip on revenue wise.

Also, the tobacco lobby is very strong and doesn't want to lose any addicts to pot.

[KarlMarx]

The issue that seems to creep up about libertarians which appears to make them seem liberal is the illegality of recreational drugs. I find this topic interesting. While drugs could never be legal again in this overtly litigational society, the fact remains that prohibition is not an aspect of liberty.

Any society based on liberty and freedom would never presume to dictate to it's citizenry what it can and cannot ingest. That goes for 32 ounce soft drinks, Cheetos, trans-fats and heroin. It's no business of the government what a free citizenry decides to place in their bodies.

The problem with this argument is that there is already a problem with LEGAL drugs in our country. Seems like I heard on a nearly daily basis of some street punk being picked up with Vicodin tablets. Legalizing cocaine, heroin, etc. will not solve the drug problem we have in this country, it will just make us a nation of addicts.

[Anton Chigurh]

Amen.

And I would add that any woman that has an abortion should also be sterilized. Because any female that would kill its own offspring is clearly genetically defective. As long as abortion is legal we should make maximum use of it and cleanse our gene pool.My take on that is, I don't care what a woman does with her own body so long as the taxpayer isn't funding it.

However I did "compromise" at one time, telling pro choicers, "Okay, let's say we pay for the first one. Then pay for the second one, but it comes with a bonus- tubal ligation, for free!"

They went absolutely nuts.

[Anton Chigurh]

That is the panacea being promoted by certain groups for our consumption. So far no panacea ever acted upon and strived for has panned out. Man by himself, his laws can not cure our ills or wipe away our inherent evil. Fairytales are nice, I used to read them to my daughter when she was a young child.. She grew up and "magicly" understood what they were. Some people refuse to grow up or else want to present such fairytales in order to legalize their most cherished hobby(addictions) .-TyrWhat a idiotic reply.

First off, what I posted isn't MY views.

Secondly, it's not false - it IS the default position of true Libertarians.

Third, it doesn't matter if the substances are "recreational" or not, so your canard of "legalizing hobbies" goes right out the window too.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anton Chigurh]

Anton. In this case. Though I often found myself agreeing with the Libertarian idea's, up until the Legalized Drugs across the board part. I now find a dangerously close resemblance of Libertarian, and Socialistic idea's that are now...such a fine line in many respects.
Liberal ideologues and Denial Liberals often share the Libertarian agenda...when it pleases them to do so. And it also explains why the anger against anyone who happens to IDENTIFY such people on that intentional SLIPPERY SLOPE of dung...they deny exists.As I was explaining before. They only CALL themselves Libertarians. They are NOT actual Libertarians.

[Missileman]

The problem with this argument is that there is already a problem with LEGAL drugs in our country. Seems like I heard on a nearly daily basis of some street punk being picked up with Vicodin tablets. Legalizing cocaine, heroin, etc. will not solve the drug problem we have in this country, it will just make us a nation of addicts.

Legal alcohol hasn't resulted in a nation of drunks.

[Anton Chigurh]

Pot should be legal. The physical effects are much less than tobacco. Either make pot legal or make tobacco illegal.
Other hardcore drugs should remain illegal and regulated.Nonsense. There are several studies which show the effects of chronic MJ smoking are actually worse. For example, there's ALOT of tar in MJ, and like tobacco, it floods your bloodstream with carbon monoxide.

There are NO healthy plants to smoke. ALL cause you to inhale products of combustion. NONE of the products of combustion are good for you.

Chronic smoking of MJ over long periods WILL clog your arteries, deplete your blood/oxygen level to the point of hypoxemia, and kill your dumb ass as fast if not faster than chronic tobacco smoking.