Libertarianism

[headcase]

Ok, this thread was originally about drug legalisation, but got sidetracked into a discussion about libertarianism that was too good to halt, so it was moved to the Political section. Therefore, the first few posts (and the bottom part of this) won't make sense but it develops into something good. I'll start another thread about drug legalisation...


Regardless, my basic arguement is that the public cannot be trusted to act sensibly and responsibly if drugs were legalised. I'll expand as the thread develops.

[Esophagus]

From the drinking alone thread.... I understand where your coming from and to a lesser extent I would agree, but what keeps me from agreeing is the fact, that if .jr in your analogy did take up with hard drugs it would be his own fault, just because it's in the store window dosen't mean that we absolutely need to buy it. Jr would be one less dolt in society, no loss really. I kind of see your analogy as a play off of the age old "Marijauna is a gateway drug" statement, but the reality is that sloagen was thought up by the first director of the DEA and the sloagen just plain isn't true.I didn't mean it like that. I know pot isn't a gateway drug. The same thing could happen no matter what he buys. I'm sorr though, I just plain don't believe that the death of everyone who makes a stupid decision is a good thing, and I think it would have a very negative effect on our society.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Regardless, my basic arguement is that the public cannot be trusted to act sensibly and responsibly if drugs were legalised. I'll expand as the thread develops.

Some would say that this is entirely irrelevant, in that whether or not the public acted responsibly, it is not the government's job to regulate what people do to themselves. Of course people are going to fuck themselves up, and of course it will be a large number of people doing so. However, I dont particularly want to stop them from screwing up their lives, and I dont feel the government should step in and stop them either- all this coddling nonsense is turning society into a bunch of pussies. Let people shoot themselves in the foot, thats less competition for me to contend with later on.

[headcase]

It's a government's job to sustain a functioning and progressive society. The reason there isn't a single libertarianist government on the planet is because it doesn't work. It relies on a niave, idealistic view of human nature.

If drugs are available in the local supermarket, everyone will try them. When did you try your first cigarette? Or can of beer? What if it was heroin or crack?

Cigarette's are a good comparison. Every single smoker I know would give up if they could, and that demographic features some heavy drug users (weed, MDMA, ketamine, downers, acid). They're quite contect to continue the drug use, but curse themselves for their smoking habit. My point is, legalise addictive drugs and the general public will get hooked. What's worse is there's no real "bang" off cigarette's. Imagine if they were euphoric. Everyone would smoke, I know I would. What if they were more addictive? Who cares, you're not going to quit anyway. What if they were a little more unhealthy? Who cares, you've started now. Eventually, they're just heroin.

[odin_dax]

It's a government's job to sustain a functioning and progressive society. The reason there isn't a single libertarianist government on the planet is because it doesn't work. It relies on a niave, idealistic view of human nature.

If drugs are available in the local supermarket, everyone will try them. When did you try your first cigarette? Or can of beer? What if it was heroin or crack?

Cigarette's are a good comparison. Every single smoker I know would give up if they could, and that demographic features some heavy drug users (weed, MDMA, ketamine, downers, acid). They're quite contect to continue the drug use, but curse themselves for their smoking habit. My point is, legalise addictive drugs and the general public will get hooked. What's worse is there's no real "bang" off cigarette's. Imagine if they were euphoric. Everyone would smoke, I know I would. What if they were more addictive? Who cares, you're not going to quit anyway. What if they were a little more unhealthy? Who cares, you've started now. Eventually, they're just heroin.

I don't know if it's fair to group weed in with the other drugs, since weed is healthier than cigarettes, it kinda invalidates your point.
Another thing, because something is legal and sold in stores, it doesn't mean everybody tries it. I've never smoked in my life. I have no desire to.
That whole last paragraph seems rather pointless. Leaping from fags to heroin is unbelievable.

[BlinD]

From the drinking alone thread.... I didn't mean it like that. I know pot isn't a gateway drug. The same thing could happen no matter what he buys. I'm sorr though, I just plain don't believe that the death of everyone who makes a stupid decision is a good thing, and I think it would have a very negative effect on our society.

I wasen't implying that you that you were saying it was a gateway drug, I was just saying in general alot of people do buy into that line, when it's false as can be. It's fine to have your own oppinions on whether or not it would destroy society, but there's just no way we are going to agree on this one though it is a good and worthwhile talk we are all having (in my oppinion). My feelings were pretty clearly stated so I don't want to rehash what was said, basically yeah it would kill off some of society if all drugs were legal but still, screw them if they have no self control.

Some would say that this is entirely irrelevant, in that whether or not the public acted responsibly, it is not the government's job to regulate what people do to themselves. Of course people are going to fuck themselves up, and of course it will be a large number of people doing so. However, I dont particularly want to stop them from screwing up their lives, and I dont feel the government should step in and stop them either- all this coddling nonsense is turning society into a bunch of pussies. Let people shoot themselves in the foot, thats less competition for me to contend with later on.

I completely agree with you CN, the coddling has made most people pretty chickenshit, and really who wants that type around anyway?

It's a government's job to sustain a functioning and progressive society. The reason there isn't a single libertarianist government on the planet is because it doesn't work. It relies on a niave, idealistic view of human nature.

I disagree, I think that a libertarian system would work... it isn't niave and the only real ideal it has is individual freedom, which is more than can be said for the governments that DO exist. Speaking of existing governments, they are the the perfect example of niave and that is something their actions prove over and over again.

On a lighter note, it is always hilarious when junkies are worried about smoking to many fag's...

[Esophagus]

Some would say that this is entirely irrelevant, in that whether or not the public acted responsibly, it is not the government's job to regulate what people do to themselves. Of course people are going to fuck themselves up, and of course it will be a large number of people doing so. However, I dont particularly want to stop them from screwing up their lives, and I dont feel the government should step in and stop them either- all this coddling nonsense is turning society into a bunch of pussies. Let people shoot themselves in the foot, thats less competition for me to contend with later on.A completely darwinist society is just to primal for my taste. I see your point, and agree with it to an extent. If I'm at a job interview and the guy ahead of me screws up, no foul, less competition for me. But if a guy O.D.s on drugs he didn't know anything about, or shoots himself in the leg because he thought the safety was on, I think that there should be some compassion. The fact that we actually care what happens to the general society is what keeps a society moving. in the first place.

[headcase]

it isn't niave and the only real ideal it has is individual freedom, which is more than can be said for the governments that DO exist.

The basic principle of libertarianism is that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't impose on anyone else. So you're a junkie dying for a fix, but you don't have any money. What do you do? Nothing! It's a libertarian society, you can't impose on anyone elses freedoms! Yeah right. You do whatever you have to to get your fix.

On top of that, society will probably have crumbled, which you seem to concede. I prefer having to do my drugs illegally then living in a Mad Max scenario.

[BlinD]

A completely darwinist society is just to primal for my taste. I see your point, and agree with it to an extent. If I'm at a job interview and the guy ahead of me screws up, no foul, less competition for me. But if a guy O.D.s on drugs he didn't know anything about, or shoots himself in the leg because he thought the safety was on, I think that there should be some compassion. The fact that we actually care what happens to the general society is what keeps a society moving. in the first place.

I think you raise a good point about the person who "didn't know anything about" the drugs in question. But we are split on this one because not knowing is a case of ignorance on his part, you know? Tough break, but oh well. I know you see it with more compassion and I understand why but... if the hypothetical dope user O.D.'s it just jumps back to my original point of one less dolt in the world.

The basic principle of libertarianism is that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't impose on anyone else. So you're a junkie dying for a fix, but you don't have any money. What do you do? Nothing! It's a libertarian society, you can't impose on anyone elses freedoms! Yeah right. You do whatever you have to to get your fix.

On top of that, society will probably have crumbled, which you seem to concede. I prefer having to do my drugs illegally then living in a Mad Max scenario.

If it were a libertarian society then no one would try to stop the junkie from getting his fix, in our current society the junkie either gets busted and thrown in jail or gets away with his crime depending on how smart or lucky the fuzz is. So in a libertarian society the junkie could just go to the store, and mabye if he was low on cash somone would help him out, hospital or what have you.

Woulden't you agree that our society is pretty much crumbling as it is, headcase? So since it's already pretty much broken, you would still be against going this different route (if you had a say in governmental affairs)?

Mad Max would be the tops and you know it! Hehe, you can't tell me you woulden't want to be a wanderer in an old muscle car with a sawed off 12 ga.

[headcase]

First of all, I don't really include marijuana in any of my arguements. While I'm not sure I'm for legalisation of weed either, it's for different reasons.

But we are split on this one because not knowing is a case of ignorance on his part, you know? Tough break, but oh well.

This would be great if the general public were just a little bit smarter. In that case, maybe we could rely on them to understand the real nature of drugs like heroin and crack. But I don't think we can. Again, look at the cigarette arguement. If they are stupid enough to start an unhealthy, addictive and socially frowned upon habit that isn't fantastically enjoyable, they'll jump right into heroin. And if the majority of the general public are dope fiends, then society will crumble.

Also, if they were both over-the-counter, then heroin and tobacco arn't entirely different. Smoked heroin is just more fun, and more addictive. It's only in the long term that heroin becomes seriously harmful, but no one intends on smoking it long term, like all my friends "just like a fag when they're drinking".

So in a libertarian society the junkie could just go to the store, and mabye if he was low on cash somone would help him out, hospital or what have you.

Presuming society is still functioning, it's not like the junkie is just waiting on his next paycheck. If someone buys him a fix then he'll take it and be back again in an hour. On top of that, there will no doubt be hundreds of junkie's. I don't imagine philanthropy will be a prominent trait in a society where you are your own governor.
And hospitals are struggling to survive financially already. Paying for junkie's fix isn't high on the list of prioritys, especially if the productive section of society keeps being robbed by broke junkies.

Woulden't you agree that our society is pretty much crumbling as it is, headcase? So since it's already pretty much broken, you would still be against going this different route (if you had a say in governmental affairs)?

What makes you say that?

Mad Max would be the tops and you know it! Hehe, you can't tell me you woulden't want to be a wanderer in an old muscle car with a sawed off 12 ga.

Conceded.

[Esophagus]

I think you raise a good point about the person who "didn't know anything about" the drugs in question. But we are split on this one because not knowing is a case of ignorance on his part, you know? Tough break, but oh well. I know you see it with more compassion and I understand why but... if the hypothetical dope user O.D.'s it just jumps back to my original point of one less dolt in the world.

Yeah, it would be stupid of him not to understand what it was he was taking, but does that mean he deserves to die? If this is the case, should we not kill every handicap child born, and all of the handicapped people that already exist?

If it were a libertarian society then no one would try to stop the junkie from getting his fix, in our current society the junkie either gets busted and thrown in jail or gets away with his crime depending on how smart or lucky the fuzz is. So in a libertarian society the junkie could just go to the store, and mabye if he was low on cash somone would help him out, hospital or what have you.You aren't accounting for the fact that in a libertarian society there would be very few businesses open. Serving other people is something that makes very few people happy, and its basically going to be an everyman for himself situation. Once prexisting man-made resources run out (im sure there would be a great deal of looting) then its going to be back to a hunter/gather scenario. Many junkies will be forced to make there own drugs, and could profit of of selling/giving them to other junkies. But its a libertarian society, so money is of little use. If a junkie isn't going to be profitting off of giving out his drugs, then I highly doubt he will be willing to part.

Woulden't you agree that our society is pretty much crumbling as it is, headcase? So since it's already pretty much broken, you would still be against going this different route (if you had a say in governmental affairs)?Society is not broken. Although government is definitely flawed, I'd say were on the right track. There has to be a medium between laws and freedoms for things to work out in favor for the majority.

[BlinD]

To headcase:

I didn't think you were including marijuana, but good of you to clarify either way. It would be great if the public were smarter, but that just jumps back to my point of accountability regarding this subject. You are right, we cannot rely on them... but I still don't think that soceity would crumble, you may be surprised... plus more elbow room with less dolts. Long term effects of any hard drug take their toll, but to quell the problem of public ignorance, information could just be made more available... don't you think that would take care of it?

Hospitals, ha... they are a joke as is, all they care about is money... how many people have you heard about who died waiting in the emergency room?

What makes me say it's crumbling? All you need to do is look around, it's really just falling to peices and the proof is everywhere, at the rate we are going it woulden't hurt to make a series of changes.

To Esophagus:

It doesn?t necessarily mean that he deserves to die, but I don?t think he deserves to have his hand held because he?s to stupid to think about his actions, you know what I mean? I disagree about the businesses, people would still need goods and services but from what I gather regarding both yours and headcases perception of a libertarian society is basically that, they are a bunch of selfish bastards. If that?s the case then I would have to disagree, that idea of a society seems more to be about accountability and that (I think we can all agree)is a good thing. Self reliance and all?

I don?t think you can equate murdering the handicapped (Hitler reference noted) to making people be responsible for their own actions, the handicapped didn?t choose to be born that way so I have to say that I don?t see the correlation of your analogy. Don?t you think that once natural resources run out there is going to be a fair share of chaos anyway?

Libertarianism isn?t as communistic as your suggesting, and even if one day the world decided to switch political ideologies, we can both agree that there would always be a use for currency. How is society not broken? Do you personally think that government will ever stop being flawed? I?d have to peg you as an optimist if so, which isn?t a bad thing but related to this subject I think that it would be wishful thinking.

Would you say that government as it is works in favor of the majority?

[headcase]

I don't think there is a flawless form of government. Libertarianism may be closer then the mark in an ideal world, but the world is far from ideal. As it stands, I'm certain that our capitalist democracy is the best of the bunch. Communism doesn't work, as has been proved on every occasion. Anarchy won't work to anyone who has a grasp of human nature. Libertarianism, well I guess that stumbling block here is how society will fare. I can't prove it will collapse and you can't prove it won't. Part of my problem also might be that I understand very little of it apart from the basic principle. Time to scan through some Wikipedia articles.

And yeah, I would say the governemnt works in favour of the majority.

[Stone]

Reading about political stuff on wikipedia can sometimes not be the best solution. Alot if it is biased.

[Esophagus]

It doesn?t necessarily mean that he deserves to die, but I don?t think he deserves to have his hand held because he?s to stupid to think about his actions, you know what I mean? I disagree about the businesses, people would still need goods and services but from what I gather regarding both yours and headcases perception of a libertarian society is basically that, they are a bunch of selfish bastards. If that?s the case then I would have to disagree, that idea of a society seems more to be about accountability and that (I think we can all agree)is a good thing. Self reliance and all?My idea of a libertarian society is not that they are selfish bastards. Nor is it of accountability. Its about freedom. A good thing, yes, but a vast change. I think I'm right in saying that people who have been governed there entire lives would go crazy if given the opportunity to have free reign over their own lives. If a small country flourished as a libertarian society, with minimal outside contact, they may be able to grow up intelligent enough to be able to draw their own lines in the sand. Most of us, on the other hand, could not. This entire forum is a perfect example of that. I don't mean because of drugs and scams, but a lot of peoples opinions on what to do if a dangerous situation arises. I don't think killing is the answer, but a lot of people here sure do. And if given free reign they would probably be right.

I don?t think you can equate murdering the handicapped (Hitler reference noted) to making people be responsible for their own actions, the handicapped didn?t choose to be born that way so I have to say that I don?t see the correlation of your analogy. Don?t you think that once natural resources run out there is going to be a fair share of chaos anyway?The correlation is that if you think we shouldn't be holding anyones hands through a scenario they didn't realize is wrong, why should we hold anyones hand, period? If a man shoots himself in the leg, ends up completely paralyzed, we just leave him to deal with that? No. You're right, we sohuldn't coddle him, he made a syupid mistake, but he deserves sympathy. It would be hard to make it through life without it, at times, even with nothing wrong.

Libertarianism isn?t as communistic as your suggesting, and even if one day the world decided to switch political ideologies, we can both agree that there would always be a use for currency.Would you say that government as it is works in favor of the majority?[/QUOTE]I'm actually not saying that libertarianism is communistic. I'm saying just the opposite. It works in each mans favor. Everyone is in complete control of their own life. Who, if given the opportunity to do whatever they want with their life, would run a gas station? No one.

As for currency, it would be completely pointless in a libertarian society. If each man is in complete control of their own lives, their is absolutely no use for something that sets such limits. A man wants a house, he'll have a house. Money isn't going to stop that.

How is society not broken? Do you personally think that government will ever stop being flawed? I?d have to peg you as an optimist if so, which isn?t a bad thing but related to this subject I think that it would be wishful thinking. The government is not broken. It may be, we'll say... Fractured? Yes. But I think we are far from being a full blown broken society. We are run by a stupid man, but it was us who got to put him there (sort of), and all of our problems areo f our own doing, and despite laws being a pain in the ass, we can feel a sense of comfort in our own homes. There are many countires, more broken than ours, that don't have even these things to stand for.

[BlinD]

I don't think there is a flawless form of government. Libertarianism may be closer then the mark in an ideal world, but the world is far from ideal. As it stands, I'm certain that our capitalist democracy is the best of the bunch. Communism doesn't work, as has been proved on every occasion. Anarchy won't work to anyone who has a grasp of human nature. Libertarianism, well I guess that stumbling block here is how society will fare. I can't prove it will collapse and you can't prove it won't. Part of my problem also might be that I understand very little of it apart from the basic principle. Time to scan through some Wikipedia articles.

And yeah, I would say the governemnt works in favour of the majority.

Libertarianism probably would be closer then the mark, and yes the world is far from ideal? but that?s why it would seem to be a better way, the people who couldn?t handle it would just? well, you know where that point is headed. The capitalist system is ok, but far from perfect and communism? we all saw how that one worked out. Anarchy won?t work? I do believe that Abbie Hoffman may beg to differ, hehe. Can you elaborate on the stumbling block? I think it?s an interesting point and would like to hear more. You?re right, we can?t prove it either way, but you would have to at least agree that libertarianism would be just about as functional (give or take) as the current system? even communism was functional for quite awhile, far from perfect but no one can argue that the Soviet?s had a lot of power.

I think that?s a big problem with libertarianism actually, the fact that many people don?t really know what it?s about, or have a deep understanding of it? even libertarians split on what it actually is sometimes. How would you say that society still works for the majority aside from what you've already said regarding compassion and so forth?

Reading about political stuff on wikipedia can sometimes not be the best solution. Alot if it is biased.

It's true some of the things on wiki are questionable, but alot of it is informative and a fair amount is accurate... you just have to watch out and make sure you don't step in any shit. Wiki dose have a button to flag articles that may be biased, and also a button to flag articles without references.

To Esophagus:

I agree with you, there would be a lot of people who would have trouble adjusting to a libertarian society, but I don?t think the majority would go crazy. Interesting idea about the small country, I agree with you on that one, but unfortunately if such a country were to exist? it would probably be invaded by a bigger country and crushed. If society broke down as you were suggesting, regarding constant killing that is unmerited then you would have to factor in justice, be it vigilante or otherwise. If people went crazy and started killing, other people would come after them, either the law or a posse.

I see your correlation now, but I think it reinforces my point that we shouldn?t hold anyone?s hand, all it dose is make them soft. If a man shot himself in the leg and became a cripple then it would be much like it is now, I see men in wheelchairs on their own all the time, most can handle it? and I?m sure you can agree that most people don?t show sympathy for cripples as it is. A lot of people don?t have sympathy in their lives as it is, and they are still alive and kicking.

I?m glad your saying the opposite, but from what you and headcase were saying it sounded like you thought libertarianism to be somewhat communistic regarding economics and a few other positions. I disagree that their would be no one around to run shops, people still need goods and services regardless of what the system is, and people who provide those services would still get compensated, so I don?t see the connection your trying to make.

If a man wants a house, he would still need help building it unless it was an old school cabin? and even then it would be a tall order for one person. Even if currency weren?t as important people would still be bartering and trading, that kind of thing would never stop in my opinion.

I wasn?t saying society was completely broken, fractured is a good word to describe the situation. Even though laws exist in every country, many people choose to disobey them. So, regarding a sense of comfort? it?s questionable at best, you know what I mean?

[Esophagus]

To Esophagus:

I agree with you, there would be a lot of people who would have trouble adjusting to a libertarian society, but I don?t think the majority would go crazy. Interesting idea about the small country, I agree with you on that one, but unfortunately if such a country were to exist? it would probably be invaded by a bigger country and crushed. If society broke down as you were suggesting, regarding constant killing that is unmerited then you would have to factor in justice, be it vigilante or otherwise. If people went crazy and started killing, other people would come after them, either the law or a posse. The point I was making about killing was strictly related to this forums opinions. I don't think people would just start killing at random. That wasn't quite what I meant. As for society going crazy, I'm not sure you understand what I meant by that. I mean people would run off looting and whatnot, not quite murdering everyone.

I see your correlation now, but I think it reinforces my point that we shouldn?t hold anyone?s hand, all it dose is make them soft. If a man shot himself in the leg and became a cripple then it would be much like it is now, I see men in wheelchairs on their own all the time, most can handle it? and I?m sure you can agree that most people don?t show sympathy for cripples as it is. A lot of people don?t have sympathy in their lives as it is, and they are still alive and kicking.People do help those people you see functioning well on their own. I'm not saying we should do everything for them. If a man dies, I feel a loss. He probably had his own good qualities. If a man in a wheelchair asks for help getting something up high, I do it for him the same I would help any regular person. Leaving a person to his own because of a bad mistake is just plain immoral.

I?m glad your saying the opposite, but from what you and headcase were saying it sounded like you thought libertarianism to be somewhat communistic regarding economics and a few other positions. I disagree that their would be no one around to run shops, people still need goods and services regardless of what the system is, and people who provide those services would still get compensated, so I don?t see the connection your trying to make.Do you know what libertarianism is? I think its a pretty obvious connection. If a man can have whatever he wants, and people can't stand in the way of that, where is the use for money? With no profits, whats the use of running a business? Hospitals, schools, theatres, things like that, would probably still exist on a smaller scale. I'm just sayign we owuld lose a lot of the smaller things, like convenience stores.

I wasn?t saying society was completely broken, fractured is a good word to describe the situation. Even though laws exist in every country, many people choose to disobey them. So, regarding a sense of comfort? it?s questionable at best, you know what I mean?I know what you meant, I was just kind of pointing that out. As for comfort, I know bad things happen, but not on the scale they could in, say, Nazi Germany. Thats an extreme example, but you get it.

[headcase]

I think part of the confusion is arising from the term Libertarian, which (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)) can mean a number of very different things. I'll quote a few important statements:

Anarchist libertarians favor no governmental constraints at all, based on the assumption that rulers and laws are unnecessary because in the absence of government individuals will naturally form self-governing social bonds, rules, customs, codes, and contracts.

... while minarchist libertarians consider government necessary for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the people. This includes protecting people and their property from the criminal acts of others, as well as providing for national defense.

Mull over that for a while. Anyway, this is the first intelligent debate I've had in a while and I don't want to ruin it by posting something stupid at 1:45am. I'll reply properly tomorrow.

[Esophagus]

This could be a part of the confusion, altohugh from the sounds of it, we're alll talking about anarchist libertarianisn. Again, converting a democracy to any form of anarchist society wouldn't go over well. Starting form scratch, or easig into it over decades, centuries even, is the only possibility I can see.

[odin_dax]

Laws should be to protect us from each other but not from ourselves. Drunk driving should be a crime but driving without a seatbelt should not. Let society run its course... if people want to be bums, then they should be bums. I don't want to force my view of how society should be on others. That is my definition of freedom.

Sorry, no. Bums and people who don't wear seat belts cost the public millions of dollars a year.

And you should force your view. Why not? What are you advocating, being passive? Anarchy? Did the Founding Fathers not force their views? Why is wrong for a society to guide by laws, govern by laws, the people in such a manner that respects the culture? Get some balls.

The issue of abortion in this country is heated. There is no middle ground here, in all honesty, but whose view should trump? One side had it for awhile, now the other side. Maybe down the road, the one side will win again. Society has its views, influenced sometimes by a minority, sometimes by a majority, but to not argue a view, contribute to society as a whole, is cowardly, passive, and stupid.

[headcase]

This could be a part of the confusion, altohugh from the sounds of it, we're alll talking about anarchist libertarianisn. Again, converting a democracy to any form of anarchist society wouldn't go over well. Starting form scratch, or easig into it over decades, centuries even, is the only possibility I can see.

Anarchic Libertarianism basically anarchy. I don't think anyone is argueng that. If so, we should probably move this to "Political Showdown" (I think Libertarianism is pretty relevant to the topic because legalising drugs would be a very Libertarian move).

[BlinD]

The point I was making about killing was strictly related to this forums opinions. I don't think people would just start killing at random. That wasn't quite what I meant. As for society going crazy, I'm not sure you understand what I meant by that. I mean people would run off looting and whatnot, not quite murdering everyone.

From what you were saying, you were using the forum as an example, but you were relating it to society in general, you made it pretty clear that if people had their way (in your opinion) then they would start going on kill frenzies. I know exactly what you meant, based off what you originally said but now your shifting opinions which is fine as long as you acknowledge that you changed your mind, but you didn?t. Double check some of your previous posts if you don?t believe me.

I?m not talking about leaving a cripple on his own, your making the assumption that based off a libertarian society people would. It looks like you didn?t understand what I was saying, basically what I said was that people are pretty selfish as is, and I rarely see anyone helping someone else who needs it.

Yes, I do know what libertarianism is? do you? By the way you talk about it, it doesn?t look like you do, your overall view based off what you?ve written previously describes a group of people that are basically assholes who don?t care about anyone or anything and will just start taking things. Your confusing a libertarian society with a society of anarchy when they just plain aren?t the same thing.

Nazi Germany is way to extreme for an analogy of this sort.

I think part of the confusion is arising from the term Libertarian, which (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)) can mean a number of very different things. I'll quote a few important statements

headcase has raised a good point, there are many different kinds of libertarianism. I'm not talking about anarchy at all, I'm talking about something that is more towards minarchist which can plainly be seen through what I've posted so far, it's pretty obvious that I don't mean an anarchy. The Abbie Hoffman thing, was just a joke... if anyone took it seriously, re read it... it was in jest.

Mull over that for a while. Anyway, this is the first intelligent debate I've had in a while and I don't want to ruin it by posting something stupid at 1:45am. I'll reply properly tomorrow.

I was also thinking that this has turned out to be a pretty good debate, and funny note to end your post on to.

This could be a part of the confusion, altohugh from the sounds of it, we're alll talking about anarchist libertarianisn. Again, converting a democracy to any form of anarchist society wouldn't go over well. Starting form scratch, or easig into it over decades, centuries even, is the only possibility I can see.

I love you like a son, Esophagus... but we aren't talking about anarchist libertarianism. At least in the debate between you and I... my points haven't been made in favor or towards anrachy, I've been touching base on some points regarding regular libertarianism in my past posts, which is evident by such things as the need for money still, and justice. You've been treating it as though what I was talking about was anarchy, it wasen't... re read some of my posts if you've forgotten or missed any points I've made.

Anarchic Libertarianism basically anarchy. I don't think anyone is argueng that. If so, we should probably move this to "Political Showdown" (I think Libertarianism is pretty relevant to the topic because legalising drugs would be a very Libertarian move).

I agree on those points, no one's argued in favor of anarchy. Yes, libertarianism is definitely relevant to drug legislation... and that isn't anarchy, at least I wouldn?t agree it is, would anyone?

[Esophagus]

From what you were saying, you were using the forum as an example, but you were relating it to society in general, you made it pretty clear that if people had their way (in your opinion) then they would start going on kill frenzies. I know exactly what you meant, based off what you originally said but now your shifting opinions which is fine as long as you acknowledge that you changed your mind, but you didn?t. Double check some of your previous posts if you don?t believe me.
This entire forum is a perfect example of that. I don't mean because of drugs and scams, but a lot of peoples opinions on what to do if a dangerous situation arises. I don't think killing is the answer, but a lot of people here sure do. And if given free reign they would probably be right.I was strictly talking about this forum from the beginning. I didn't change my opinion.

As for the cripple and nazi germany examples, I think you are taking them out of context, so I'm going to drop them where they have landed.

I love you like a son, Esophagus... but we aren't talking about anarchist libertarianism. At least in the debate between you and I... my points haven't been made in favor or towards anrachy, I've been touching base on some points regarding regular libertarianism in my past posts, which is evident by such things as the need for money still, and justice. You've been treating it as though what I was talking about was anarchy, it wasen't... re read some of my posts if you've forgotten or missed any points I've made.First off, my father, too, loves me like a son. That is irrelevant to discussion. And it would seem we have been talking about a libertarian society leaning towards anarchy. Show me a post you have made that tells me you wanted any government control, and I will admit a flaw in my argument.

[Stone]

Moved to Political Showdown.

Good thread, some really interesting points made.

Personally, I believe that true anarchy and libertarianism is what others would know as a Utopian society. But the world is not ready for such system. The human race, despite all our wonderous achievements, are still primitive beasts. Greed, anger, envy, etc, drive not just people but also societies and ideologies. People wage war, steal, rape and pillage, against fellow men and women.

I know that we will never see such a 'utopian' society in my lifetime. Nor will my children or their children or their children. It could be thousands of years, or it may never happen at all.

[BlinD]

I was strictly talking about this forum from the beginning. I didn't change my opinion.

As for the cripple and nazi germany examples, I think you are taking them out of context, so I'm going to drop them where they have landed.

First off, my father, too, loves me like a son. That is irrelevant to discussion. And it would seem we have been talking about a libertarian society leaning towards anarchy. Show me a post you have made that tells me you wanted any government control, and I will admit a flaw in my argument.

You were using this forum as an example for society to strengthen your argument.

From the ?out of context? remark you made, it would appear that you don?t know the definition of the word context, because I didn?t take the cripple statement out of context, I kept it in context, and built on it to further strengthen my point that most people treat cripples badly as it is. Meaning that the cripple hypothetical situation doesn?t apply to the argument, at least not in your favor.

I certainly didn?t take the Hitler statement out of context either, I barley touched on it and said it was to extreme (which you also alluded that it may be). Actually since you brought up out of context, your taking current society and saying it?s not as bad as Nazi Germany takes the discussion out of context, was it pertaining to our society or the possibility of a libertarian society? You didn?t specify, and you should if your going to an extreme. How dose saying ?our society isn?t as bad as Nazi Germany? pertain to the discussion at hand? Nazi Germany doesn?t have anything to do with either of our arguments.

Relax, don?t get your panties in a bunch, the son comment was a joke? just because it?s a serious debate doesn?t mean you have to act as if you don?t have a sense of humor. Tell me this, since you brought up irrelevance, how is a cripple analogy relevant to a discussion about legalizing drugs? It would seem we have? How? That?s the thing, it only seems we are talking about anarchy libertarianism to you, that?s what I?ve been saying to you for a few posts. Did you go back and re read anything I said, if you had you would have seen that I never once said I wanted an anarchistic society, and I also said in my last post that I was talking about libertarian government, not anarchy? which my posts from the start of this thread have shown. Why aren?t you getting that? I?m holding you to that by the way? it?s time to admit the flaw. The post is the last one I made, bottom.

By the way, think up more content to type next time... that was hardly enough for the length and amount of time we have both put into this debate thus far.

Moved to Political Showdown.

Good thread, some really interesting points made.

Personally, I believe that true anarchy and libertarianism is what others would know as a Utopian society. But the world is not ready for such system. The human race, despite all our wonderous achievements, are still primitive beasts. Greed, anger, envy, etc, drive not just people but also societies and ideologies. People wage war, steal, rape and pillage, against fellow men and women.

I know that we will never see such a 'utopian' society in my lifetime. Nor will my children or their children or their children. It could be thousands of years, or it may never happen at all.

You definitely make some good points, Stone. There?s pretty much no way in hell we are ever going to see libertarianism, be it anarchy or otherwise.

To headcase:

Where the hell are you man? Jump back in to your thread, we need to continue the three way... debate, hehe.

[headcase]

Ugh, I just deleted a virtual essay claiming that chaos would be inevitable on the implementation of Libertariansim because the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea (of Libertarianism, not chaos).

My basic problem is that, although there are not many cannabis users amoung the Dutch population, surely virtually everyone must have tried it. And that's fine. I tried cannabis and didn't like it, so I stopped smoking it. That option isn't as clear-cut with heroin or crack, or crystal meth. Partly because if the addiction potential, but also because the "buzz" from these drugs is way better then that of cannabis. It's easy to have a casual joint with your friends and go about your day. People will devote their lives to hard drugs after that first rush. And people will try these drugs, and at a young age. There is a chance that, over time, it will level out and no longer be that much of an issue, but by then the damage to society could be irreversible.

[devonian]

Perhaps it's not my place to butt in, here, but I'd thought I'd contribute a couple of points:

As far as I'm aware, the philosophy of John Stuart Mill is the philosophy that we try to live by, at least in the UK ? that is, the individual is sovereign. Freedom is generally considered the greatest goal to aspire to, which I suppose is on the way to Libertarianism.

Ugh, I just deleted a virtual essay claiming that chaos would be inevitable on the implementation of Libertariansim because the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea (of Libertarianism, not chaos).

My basic problem is that, although there are not many cannabis users amoung the Dutch population, surely virtually everyone must have tried it. And that's fine. I tried cannabis and didn't like it, so I stopped smoking it. That option isn't as clear-cut with heroin or crack, or crystal meth. Partly because if the addiction potential, but also because the "buzz" from these drugs is way better then that of cannabis. It's easy to have a casual joint with your friends and go about your day. People will devote their lives to hard drugs after that first rush. And people will try these drugs, and at a young age. There is a chance that, over time, it will level out and no longer be that much of an issue, but by then the damage to society could be irreversible.

I'm not quite sure how true that is ? it would be interesting to see how many people in the Netherlands had tried cannabis, but I'd be surprised if it was higher than elsewhere in the world. Similarly, people generally aren't addicted to hard drugs after trying them once, although I agree it could be risky. Bear in mind, though, that access to such drugs might not necessarily be over the counter at a newsagent or the like, it may well be much more restrictive and drugs would certainly be heavily taxed.

Even so, if we assume that the individual is sovereign, then it would seem that allowing people to do what they want to their bodies is the only acceptable way forward. We would, of course, heavily tax drugs to pay for better rehabilitation programmes for those who need them, and for education programmes to ensure the populace is educated about drugs and drug use.

Someone was saying that a tobacco addiction is much less serious than an addiction to hard drugs ? as an example, many studies have found that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine (and even heroin in some cases). Nicotine also causes, with heavy use, permanent structural alteration to the brain, not unlike cocaine. And it's widely known that abuse of legal drugs costs far, far more to the health service than abuse of illegal drugs.

Referring to the various talk about sympathy and compassion ? I think that we should strive to be compassionate, as a society, and that largely we are. In terms of legalising drugs, this doesn't mean that we suddenly let people destroy themselves with drugs and do nothing to stop it; quite the opposite: while we give people the right to do whatever they wish, by taxing drugs we can offset any costs to society, and with proper education we can reduce the uptake of the very hardest drugs. I'm sure that, were drugs legal, the stigma of seeking help for a drug addiction would be mostly removed and more people would be willing to get help. This would have a knock-on effect on other people, such as the children and family members of addicts who may have been suffering as a result of their addiction.

I'm sure there's also something to be said for making a distinction between heroin/cocaine/meth and mostly everything else. Perhaps, if drugs were legal, those really very dangerous drugs would, say, only be available on prescription, or on a quota basis, or something like that.

[devonian]

The other thing to add here?and I know I've said this in the other legalisation thread here?is that the vast majority of drug use is essentially harmless to the individual and to society, and all the harm done to the self and to society is done by a very small number of drug users. This has been stated by the UK Government's drugs committee, as well as the Science Select Committee and by an independent study done by the Royal Society of Arts.

What this says to me is that we're fighting the wrong battle: we're wasting money and resources putting all drug users under the sun behind bars, when in reality they're mostly harmless and it's only a handful that do all the damage and it's those we should be targeting with support.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

I think it's bullshit to have to have two threads in two different sections of the RORTA boards on virtually the same topic, with the same name and emphasis on drugs.


...WITH THE SAME NAME!!!!
can NOTHING BE DONE?:boggled:

It's a bit confusing.

I made a post in the other thread.

[Stone]

This one started off as about Libertarianism. I'll change the name.

[headcase]

Sorry for the confusion. This thread was about Legalisation but got side-tracked into Libertarianism so it was moved. I though I changed the name to Libertairanism but evidentily I did not. It was also dead. I think I was the only one arguing for Libertarianism and BlinD made me question my stance. Any further comments on Legalisation should go into that thread in the Drugs section.

[icharianchem]

ok
hows this for a thought
if there are no laws and crack is availabel in the supermarkets and shit, what would happen

people would take it correct?

and die
great we lost another fucking moron
how am i gonna sleep at night

i live as if there were no laws anyways

people dotn need to be controled the reason we are soirresponsible today is specifically becuase we are to used to people telling us right and wrong (or at least legal and illegal)
and we are no longer even aware of how take resposiblity for our actions

and if there were no laws i doubt sincerely that there would even be supermarkets anymore

[crisisweasel]

Look, this is long, so if you're the kind of person who can easily skip a post but takes the time to complain about its length anyway, I'm strongly suggesting you just scroll down to the next post.

---

First of all, libertarianism - if we mean the American variant of it as in the Libertarian Party (it is used by the Left in much of the rest of the world), is the pursuit of a society wherein no individual can initiate force against another individual. This is cribbed from Rand but from this single principle you can extrapolate the rest of the libertarian party platform. '

(Note: I used to be a dues paying, card carrying, active member of the Libertarian Party - this used to be my rap)

Libertarians do not consider capitalism to be a form of force; for them, capitalism is "a system whereby people interact with each other as traders, rather than thieves or expropriators."

There is a radical form of libertarianism called anarcho-capitalism, which is, basically, no government, all capitalism and private property (vs. the minarchists, which believe in a very small, weak government, which is what most self-described libertarians are).

The appropriation of the term anarchist for the anarcho-capitalist position drives traditional Anarchists batshit insane, or tends to irritate the shit out of them. I only came to understand why later when I started understanding their side of things. Libertarians like to steal terminology - the term libertarian, for one, and second, anarchism/anarchy. I don't think this is a malicious thing but it makes discussing these ideas confusing sometimes.

Without commenting on what I think of the whole of the Libertarian political philosophy, I really find the idea that the legalization of drugs, or guns, or anything, will destroy civilization absurd for a single reason - all of these things are widely and easily available already. In my entire life since I've been noticing, I don't think 5 minutes have passed where I was not able to obtain marijuana, for example, within a 24 hour period (Last month I had a guy, a total stranger, shove drugs at me in line at a convenience store in California's central valley).

The government merely punishes people for these crimes while having zero deterrent effect. And I do mean zero. And while most people will concede this about drugs, many people will say that the same is not true for guns. I submit that that's just because they haven't really looked. In many states (such as my own), for years, gun sales between individuals could legally proceed without any kind of government involvement, checks, or paperwork. At bare minimum, for years, now, you could simply answer a "for sale" ad in your local newspaper, and buy a gun, which is now, for all practical purposes, "laundered" especially if it has passed through several hands. Responsible gun sellers will demand contact information for their own records when they sell a gun, but this is not required, and there are (a) privacy reasons not to do this, and (b) some are just unscrupulous. The net effect is there are millions of basically unaccounted-for guns in circulation. Tens of millions, at least. Those who are concerned about bearing weapons for possible future use against the State like it this way. Many people think that people who think this way are completely fucking nuts.

But I have to say:

I am amused at, for example, liberals (meaning the center-Left in the US), who are opposed to abortion laws because "people will just have back alley abortions" and, in many cases drug laws, because "people can get them anyway, without any difficulty" but support gun control because "then there won't be violence because people won't have guns."

Libertarianism's position is that it isn't the possession or use of drugs, or the possession of guns that is the problem. It's the stealing, and violence that comes from heavy drug use (caused largely by the insanely inflated prices of these substances because they are illegal), or the use of guns to initiate (which does not include self-defense) force for the furtherance of a crime. Libertarians have no problem with severe criminal sanctions for those who commit violence. What they object to is the punishment, or prior restraint, of responsible people who simply possess a weapon or substance, but otherwise would use the weapon or substance responsibly. For them, it would be like banning all males between the ages of 18-25 from driving, because some of them drive really stupidly.

Overall, in my opinion, this is a reasonable position. The alternative position assumes that the government can, in fact, stop drug use or lessen the availability of drugs, or wipe the guns out of society via legislation. I can't speak for any other country on earth, but that is a ludicrous assumption in the United States. There are over 300 *million*+ guns in circulation in the United States, most of which are completely unaccounted for. In the US, the Brady Bill mandates an instant background check when you go to buy a weapon. This includes a form with all of your personal info. It is then dialed into some FBI-sanctioned clearinghouse which does a search for a criminal history. Provided you have none, are not a fugitive, and meet the age and residency requirements, you can then buy a gun.

This is the way the vast majority of law abiding citizens purchase their weapons. This is *not* the way the gangs of Los Angeles, presumably the kind of people we are worried about, buy theirs.

Once the check is confirmed, the record of your purchase is (supposed to be, by law) expunged. It is expunged specifically so the government does not have a list of guns. The reason for this is that the right to bear arms in the United States is rooted in, among other concept, the idea that guns may be used to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical US government. This very concept is alien to most other countries, and alarms many people here in the United States. In the end, for most people, it depends on who you trust more and which you believe is more sovereign - the government, or the people, or by extension, the individual. Moreover, it also rests upon who you believe is ultimately the bigger threat - the NRA member next door, or the US government. I have never seen any statistics, but if I had to put money down, I'd bet that NRA members probably have, on average, a significantly lower record of criminal activity than the general population. Most of them are Christian conservatives, with families, homes, and jobs. People like to hate the NRA, but the individuals who make it up don't tend to be criminals, however you feel about the rest of their political views, or their hobbies.

Libertarianism certainly sides with the people, the citizens, the individual. And it is true by any measure with guns or drugs, that it is not the judicious, politically aware types who misuse these things - it is gangs, organized crime, etc. - none of which drug or gun laws have any effect on. Organized crime thrives almost exclusively on things that are banned, and often worth their weight in precious metals.

Libertarianism posits the interesting question of which is more sovereign - the individual - who may protect himself against, among other things, the government. Or, whether or not the individual owns his own body and may therefore smoke, snort, or shoot what he wishes. Or, alternately, whether the government ultimately has sovereignty over, and in some fashion governs or owns, an individual's body. The right of self defense is often derived, in libertarian arguments, from the same source - the right to one's own life, or the right to defend one's person.

Critiques of this tend to ignore the next step in reasoning, which is that, going on a shooting spree or meth-crazed crime spree is still illegal, and ought to be punished, because as equally as libertarianism stands against the initiation of force by the government against the individual, so, too, it stands against the initiation of force by one individual or mob against another. The crime, libertarians would say, is not doing a lot of, let's say meth since it's the drug panic du jour, but going out and robbing someone to pay for your habit (something that might not even be necessary if drugs were legal and therefore cheap, most libertarians would add).

The alternative - at least in these two matters, is to surrender your sovereignty, your rights, your personhood, in place of empowering the state to have dominion over these aspects of your life. This raises three questions:

(1) While the state clearly has the power to abridge these rights, does it have the moral authority - or right - to do so? Do we then become subjects, rather than citizens, and is this better than people doing drugs and having guns? If you ever take Political Science in college, one of the first thinkers they're likely to introduce to you as a freshman is Rousseau, who, in his groundbreaking work "The Social Contract," starts:

"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." This is an auspicious beginning for a libertarian, but Rousseau kills it (for libertarians) with the sentences that follow:

"One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer."

And this is where libertarians get off the bus, make a cutting remark about the French, and wander off into the woods with their guns, pony kegs, and copies of Atlas Shrugged.

(2) Does government have the competency and effectiveness to do so?

(3) While a slippery slope argument is not accepted as a logical retort - you can't prove one restriction leads to another, do not such restrictions *tend* to lead to others? A libertarian would probably point out the way civil liberties have been eroded by the government in recent years.

My only point in laying this all out is most of the objections I've seen here have been answered by libertarians, often in tediously lengthy treatises (the length of this post is indicative of my pedigree). My own personal viewpoint is pretty obvious; on these two issues, I am in agreement with the libertarian party.

Non-US residents who are critics of the US government and its growing meddling in foreign affairs, its arrogance, profligacy, waste, and authoritarianism, ought to think twice whether it is better for them as a whole if US citizens do not own weapons. No one wants gang members to own weapons. No one wants murderers, schoolyard shooters, or drunkards to own weapons. Any decent person despises violence and seeks to avoid it, and no one ever is dismissive of a stupid and cruel misuse of guns.

But as guns kill children in accidents, innocent bystanders in drug-related shootouts, the carjacked, the home invaded, guns, too, kill fascists, dictators, rapists, and potential murderers. They are neutral objects. Those who own guns tend to think of them as tools, and, possibly, as pieces of art, rather than instruments of mayhem, unless the vicious and indiscriminate murder of tin cans, paper targets, and, sometimes, watermelons (you know who you are) count.

I find it interesting the number of people I run into who hate the government, complain incessantly about the excess of force, bullying, malfeasance, and outright corruption of police, but believe that the same State that brought you these dumb wars, the Patriot Act, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, Tasermania, and so on, ought to be armed to the exclusion of responsible citizens - that, in fact, all citizens ought to be disarmed and ultimately helpless against an armed US government, police departments, and so on. For now, we fight these transgressions - as we should - in court. But we look warily toward an uncertain future. Americans are, and this may surprise observers of US foreign policy of the last few years, keenly aware of the potential for serious excess of governmental power and reach. All of us hope to turn the tide through the civic mechanisms of Democracy. But what happens when those facilities are taken away, corrupted, or ignored? I hope we never get to this moment of reckoning. But I'd rather be prepared for it, than be one of those hapless idiots throughout history who insisted that "it can't happen here." More and more people pose as intellectuals, as the sane and measured ones in the debate, by insisting just that - that it can't happen here. I find this standpoint a very hard one to accept, or respect. I disagree strongly.

I am not under any illusion that we're near the point where we start fighting back, but things, especially of late, seem to be marching in one direction, and that direction is statism, authoritarianism, the erosion of rights, and empire. Perhaps you've noticed.

As for drugs, well, in my life, I've never been victimized by a pot smoker. I've never seen violence from a pot smoker. I've never seen one remotely cogent argument about why marijuana should be illegal. I can't speak about other drugs too much, except to say that the crime that goes with them is largely a result of how expensive they are (how many people gun each other down for cigarettes or beer, which take far, far more lives each year than the use of all illegal drugs combined.)

I'd apologize to those who are well versed in these well-worn, well-publicized arguments but they've probably stopped reading by now anyway.

My main argument, or problem, with libertarians, is the naive way they worship Capitalism. At bare minimum, we have to draw a line between considering your neighborhood pizza guy who is being run out of business by taxation and regulations, vs. say, Halliburton. These are not part of the same economic formula, and libertarians too often talk about them in the same breath. But that is a different subject, so I'll stop here.

[Axxess of Evil]

This is a hard one for me to call. I believe that some drugs such as Cannabis and shrooms need to be decriminalized much like in the Netherlands. But it would be a disaster if hard drugs became legalized to where every jack ass could buy a baggie of meth at 7/11. Nevertheless, the current stance of the "war on drugs" us pure bullshit.

[ComfortablyNumb]

But it would be a disaster if hard drugs became legalized to where every jack ass could buy a baggie of meth at 7/11. Nevertheless, the current stance of the "war on drugs" us pure bullshit.

Any jackass can already buy a bag of meth from some shady guy who lives in a trailer, but if it were available at 7/11 the purity could be regulated and the profits would be taken away from those shady dealers.

[beachea]

Ok, this thread was originally about drug legalisation, but got sidetracked into a discussion about libertarianism that was too good to halt, so it was moved to the Political section. Therefore, the first few posts (and the bottom part of this) won't make sense but it develops into something good. I'll start another thread about drug legalisation...


Regardless, my basic arguement is that the public cannot be trusted to act sensibly and responsibly if drugs were legalised. I'll expand as the thread develops.

It's none of your business what other people choose to do with their bodies. Is that clear enough for you?

[headcase]

Unless you make a valid arguement you just look like an indignant child, and I'm getting bored of babysitting children.

[beachea]

Unless you make a valid arguement you just look like an indignant child, and I'm getting bored of babysitting children.

That is the point. How is it any of your business if I smoke marijuana?

[headcase]

Read the thread.

[Th0r]

Regardless, my basic arguement is that the public cannot be trusted to act sensibly and responsibly if drugs were legalised. I'll expand as the thread develops.

Yea. The public cannot be trusted. Sure if drugs were readily available the price would go down. But it would still be expensive. A large portion of crime in the U.K. is down to people not being able to finance their drug habit. Thus they turn to crimes like burglary and car theft etc. Also more people would be introduced to drugs causing more health problems.
We are only now starting to see the dangers to health of smoking Marijuana. I also think the number of overdoses would increase dramatically. So yea. Legalising drugs wouldnt do us any good whatsoever. If certain types of drug use stay illegalised at least we're keeping it to a minority.
We cant even trust people with large ammounts of alcohol in the UK and 80% of accidents and other incidents where hospital treatment is necessary on a Friday and Saturday night is down to alcohol. ImaginE the increase if we legalised most drugs that are now illegal.

[odin_dax]

What dangers to health from smoking marijuana? That's the first I've heard.

[Th0r]

What dangers to health from smoking marijuana? That's the first I've heard.

In the UK a report was conducted in I think it was 2006. They made a link between mental health problems and smoking of Marijuana. Also in New Zealand a study showed smoking Marijuana increased your change of lung cancer. Burt not as much as smoking.
Im not saying Marijuana has all negative effects, because it doesnt. But it does have negative effects in the long term.

[odin_dax]

Yeah, probably true. Everything in moderation, right?

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out filling your lungs with smoke is good. :hitwithro

But I have several friends who smoke pot, and I can say that it certainly makes them lazy and unambitious.

[Th0r]

Everything in moderation. Drink and drugs [to a lesser extent] is alot better than binging.

[headcase]

I consider marijuana to be a special case. We could debate the health issues all day and never come to a conclusion, but I believe that the "status quo" arguement is the most suited. The fact that it's illegal means most people have no interest in trying it. Those who do, can. And quite easily. Why upset that?

[odin_dax]

I consider marijuana to be a special case. We could debate the health issues all day and never come to a conclusion, but I believe that the "status quo" arguement is the most suited. The fact that it's illegal means most people have no interest in trying it. Those who do, can. And quite easily. Why upset that?

Because people get fined and go to jail for it. In some countries, people die for it. Great status quo.

[headcase]

In some countries, you die for apostasy. You have to think outside the box, Odin. In my experience, the laws on marijuana possession are treated a lot like the age of consent. Loosely. If you can't see that, then you're eyes are closed.

[Stone]

headcase, that's fucking stupid. People do get persecuted under the law for possession of cannabis when there is no real reason why they should except for some old folks running the government think that it's bad. It should be legalised, and your status quo argument holds no weight.

If you don't see people being criminalised for possession of cannabis, then it's your eyes are closed.

[REL0AD]

EDIT: Deleted.

[Th0r]

I think if alcohol was illegalised and cannabis was legalised then the cost to the National Health Service in the UK would drop. When people are drunk they tend to get into alot of fights more easily. But what is effectively Prohibition wont work. Didnt work in the 20s and 30s in the USA and it wont work today. Especially as far more people binge drink.

But if we were to legalise drugs, and you could effectively pick them up at Tescos or your local news agents, we wouldnt have dealers selling dog worming tablets under the pretence of them being ecstacy.

[headcase]

headcase, that's fucking stupid. People do get persecuted under the law for possession of cannabis when there is no real reason why they should except for some old folks running the government think that it's bad. It should be legalised, and your status quo argument holds no weight.

If you don't see people being criminalised for possession of cannabis, then it's your eyes are closed.

I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for possession apart from once from you. Meanwhile, I can think of plenty of instances in which people were caught in possession and not prosecuted. My arguement is fine.

[Stone]

I know people who have been. It's very naive of you to assume that nobody has just because you don't know them.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

Yeah, probably true. Everything in moderation, right?

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out filling your lungs with smoke is good. :hitwithro

But I have several friends who smoke pot, and I can say that it certainly makes them lazy and unambitious.
Perhaps it's because your friends are already lazy and unambitious?
Everyone has the right to do what they want to to their body, but this is the part where responsible use comes in. Everything in its proper time. There's no use in blaming the effects on the drug when you know what going to happen in the first place.

I consider marijuana to be a special case. We could debate the health issues all day and never come to a conclusion, but I believe that the "status quo" arguement is the most suited. The fact that it's illegal means most people have no interest in trying it. Those who do, can. And quite easily. Why upset that?
In my experience, the laws on marijuana possession are treated a lot like the age of consent. Loosely. If you can't see that, then you're eyes are closed.
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for possession apart from once from you. Meanwhile, I can think of plenty of instances in which people were caught in possession and not prosecuted. My arguement is fine.

And another thing. I have to agree with Stone that your argument, headcase, is quite naive. It seems you've turned a blind eye to everything thats happening, claiming that "i don't see nobody, so it's all good" stance. You ain't the only marble in the box. Some people get life sentences for this shit and it's similar now to age of consent? Ha.

And have you never heard of old, sick and dying people being taken to jail for using medical marijuana? Not just recreational. Medical. That's fucking crazy.

Worldwide, most laws regarding cannabis are quite vindictive, and extremely absurd.

Status quo my ass.

[odin_dax]

Yeah, Tal, they probably were that way to begin with, but I still love them!

[headcase]

It seems you've turned a blind eye to everything thats happening, claiming that "i don't see nobody, so it's all good" stance.

I've looked, and I've never met or heard from someone who met, a person jailed for possession. Not one. Meanwhile I can think of.... over 15 occasions where people were caught in possession or marijuana with no action taken. Meanwhile, I can think of... 4 occasions where people were caught in possession of Class A drugs, one of which with definitively for "supply" (in a stricter sense of the word), with no action taken. I don't deny it happens, but with not a single example I've come across, then I can confidently infer that it happens rarely.

You ain't the only marble in the box. Some people get life sentences for this shit and it's similar now to age of consent? Ha.

Exmple? No? Thought not.

And have you never heard of old, sick and dying people being taken to jail for using medical marijuana? Not just recreational. Medical. That's fucking crazy.

Example?

This case (http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/landa_press_conf_070104.shtml) doesn't specify the amount of arijuana she was growing, which makes me suspecious. It also explicitly states she was growing for supply.

This (http://www.weedbay.net/forums/tracker/2646-elderly-couple-arrested-medical-marijuana.html) couple were growing 120 plants.

Those were the first 2 Google hits for "elderly jailed marijuana". The next hit was a misdemeanor.

The next is the "No Jail for Pot" website.

The next person wasn't elderly and was growing 212 plants.

The next was a reference to the second.

I guess it's kinda hard to come by proper examples, isn't it?

Blind eye my fucking ass.


Worldwide, most laws regarding cannabis are quite vindictive, and extremely absurd.

Status quo my ass.

Methinks not.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

I've looked, and I've never met or heard from someone who met, a person jailed for possession. Not one. Meanwhile I can think of.... over 15 occasions where people were caught in possession or marijuana with no action taken. Meanwhile, I can think of... 4 occasions where people were caught in possession of Class A drugs, one of which with definitively for "supply" (in a stricter sense of the word), with no action taken. I don't deny it happens, but with not a single example I've come across, then I can confidently infer that it happens rarely.

The question here is why should it happen in the first place? Should it happen anyway
just because you don't know anyone in particular? Nobody wants to be the short straw.

Tell me headcase, what purpose in particular does the illegality of cannabis do
justice to the people?


I guess it's kinda hard to come by proper examples, isn't it?

Blind eye my fucking ass.
I admit I can't find the particular example I was referring to. Perhaps it was in High
Times or some other publication. Let us forget that particular example.

However, there are many other cases of imprisonment even with medical purposes.

http://www.thelocal.se/9775/20080125/
-Swede with multiple sclerosis

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n792/a01.html?1835
-Canadian medical patient, suffering from fibromyalgia, intestinal illnesses,
and neck and back injuries

Most apalling, however, is

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10798-2004Oct29.html
-quadriplegic, medical recipient, sentenced to prison, dies in prison

Methinks not.

Don't you think that being given a permit to grow and use medical marijuana, then being
jailed for the very thing is absurd? How would you like it if you had multiple sclerosis,
or were a paraplegic, then were given a chance to alleviate your suffering, only to be
hauled off to jail? Not very good, I bet.

Jesus man, it's just a plant.

[headcase]

In the first instance, I agree with you 100%. I suppose it was my mistake not to point out that, while I am undecided on the issue of total legalisation/decriminialisation (and argue for it because it's often the most enlightening position when no one else will), I am a total proponent of the legalisation of medical marijuana. I cannot understand the aw there at all.

But back to the arguement at hand. In that first example, note this paragraph;

Many other countries apply lenient sentences to medical use of cannabis, or turn a blind eye altogether. The UK and Canada have even licensed the drug Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine which alleviates pain caused by MS. But Sweden's zero tolerance approach to narcotics meant that her belief in the healing properties of marijuana was viewed by the courts as an "aggravating circumstance".

These lines completely sum up my arguement. I don't want zero tolerance. And I always said so.

As for the second example, that's Darwin selecting against stupidity. She breached bail conditions while featuring in a newspaper advertising her illegal provision of medical marijuana. She also missed her sign on date. If you're going to spit in the face of law enforcement that blatently, you deserve to go to jail.

As for the third, there are a number of issues;

The system in the US could be said to be zero-tolerance. In places, certainly. This would be one of those cases. I admit that my distinction between zero-tolerance and not is becoming blurred, so I'll just mention it briefly.

His death is not relevant to the arguement. That was a failing on several levels. Primarily, the judge sending him to a jail that did not provide the help he needed. Secondly, why several warnings as to his requirements were ignored. Thirdly, why whoever was responsible for Mr. Magbie normally (family/friends) not make his requirements clear. It was an unfortunate mistake that needs correcting, but not relevant. It was a human failing, not a legal one.

Also, it's the unique nature of the case itself. This was one of those unfortunate cases where a officer with a complex and a judge with serious metal issues came together and resulted in a jail sentence. It's a rare and unfortunate occurance, but it happens, I admit.

As for his disability, it was simply an unfortunate addition to the above point. Technically, his disability shouldn't be taken into consideration in his arrest and imprisonment. I don't agree with it, but that's the law. The fact that the prison didn't accomodate his needs was a human failing, not a legal one.

So yes, this was a freak and unfortunate example. Imprisonment for possesion for one, and the inhuman decision given the circumstance. Whether or not to alter the law to prevent these rare freaks, at the risk of whatever that might entail, is a matter of opinion. I think that such gains are very slight given the possible losses.

Don't you think that being given a permit to grow and use medical marijuana, then being
jailed for the very thing is absurd?

Yes, but that woman was not given a permit as it would have violated her bail. She took it on herself to feature in a newspaper.

How would you like it if you had multiple sclerosis, or were a paraplegic, then were given a chance to alleviate your suffering, only to be hauled off to jail? Not very good, I bet.

No, but I'd understand the risks and take them on myself. I'd campaign and fight tooth and nail for my case. I'd use my imprisonment for my own ends. I'd understand the law.

Jesus man, it's just a plant.

Good point. I haven't made an arguement for my position yet, just against yours. However, my battery will not last, so I'll do so tomorrow.

[Stone]

headcase, I said nothing about being jailed for possession, I said being prosecuted for possession. I have a friend who got a suspended sentence and a fine for being caught with just an ounce of pollen. He now has a criminal record. As does a guy I went to college a few years back for getting caught with an 8th.

As for possession being treated leniently in other countries, ask Ali when you next see him what the punishment is in Kuwait and other Arab countries. 5 years in prison for being caught with a noj.

[icharianchem]

fuck that in PA if you have ne thing over a fucking gram you're prolli lookin at time especially if you have a record (heheh)
fuck this im movin in with headcase where no one cares when i smoke:smileysex

[REL0AD]

Speak.

Do any of you acatucally know what alcohol withdrawl does to you?

It takes a week to 'detox' someone off drink, it takes a YEAR to get someone off diazepam.

You all talk shit man.

[QUOTE]if you have ne thing over a fucking gram you're prolli lookin at time/QUOTE]

Very FAR from the truth.