Latest drug addict loons.

[williatw]

Nonsense. Speakeasies functioned quite well that way.

You mean they "functioned well" aside from the violence/police corruption endemic in the prohibition era....I suppose you mean they didn't have too many shootouts in the speakeasy itself.

And note, you're here arguing for what you're often telling us you won't argue for--full legalization. You've often said it's the WoD that is the trouble but now you're saying more. So which is it? Is decriminalization enough or is it not?

Arguing for ending the WOD and replacing it with a system of legalized licensed subject to taxes/regulation etc. as needed (like in Colorado) is what I am arguing for. Don't know what you mean by "full legalization" the experience in Zurich didn't qualify....it wasn't legalized they (the gov) just through their hands up and allowed the illegal sellers to do whatever they wanted. They didn't allow Al Capone and the other bootleggers to continue to sell hooch after prohibition was repealed; you had to have legal liquor license which most criminals couldn't get

[Diogenes]

So they didn't legalize and regulate the narcotics trafficking they merely turned a blind eye to the illegal trade use in this park. That is quite different from Colorado's legalization with regulation. They (the Swiss) merely allowed the drug dealers/users to do what they wanted to completely unregulated. Users weren't buying legal product from licensed providers, they were simply allowed to do whatever they wished; by definition unregulated. No lawful business drugs or otherwise would function well that way.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/11/world ... dicts.html

I think you are behind the curve. Libertarian principles argue that people have a right to take any drug they want and in any quantity. You argue a position that is inconsistent with this; That the government ought to have the power to regulate it.



A dichotomy occurs to me. If you grant the premise that the government has the authority to regulate, then you thereby grant the premise that it has the authority to ban.


Neither is consistent with the fundamental Libertarian principles being discussed.

[williatw]

I think you are behind the curve. Libertarian principles argue that people have a right to take any drug they want and in any quantity. You argue a position that is inconsistent with this; That the government ought to have the power to regulate it.

There is no inconsistency...I never said gov had no authority to regulate commerce it does; through the commerce clause of the Constitution. Gov can regulate the buying, selling, possession, distribution, transport etc.; of pretty much anything drugs included. That some Libertarians may argue that you have a theoretical right to ingest whatever you want as far as I am concerned is neither here nor there. Even if you did have a "right" to ingest whatever you want that wouldn't allow you carte blanche as far as buying, selling, possession, distribution, transport etc.; that would still be subject to gov regulation.

A dichotomy occurs to me. If you grant the premise that the government has the authority to regulate, then you thereby grant the premise that it has the authority to ban

Didn't say it didn't have the authority to ban merely that drug prohibition (ban) doesn't/hasn't worked; that the government that governs least is the one that governs best. Saying it can in theory doesn't mean that it (prohibition) works in practice. Don't think the gov should ban tobacco or alcohol either; doesn't mean I think it (gov) doesn't have the authority do to so.

Neither is consistent with the fundamental Libertarian principles being discussed.

Being discussed by whom Diogenes? Who here has advocated completely totally unregulated drug trafficking?

[MSimon]

williatw,

The Commerce Clause was never interpreted in such an expansive way until the Socialist Regime of FDR. Look up Wickard jurisprudence.

Now of course we have "conservatives" endorsing the socialist interpretation.

Under the original scheme only the States had the power to regulate commerce in such an expansive way.

====================

OK. You don't have the right to make and sell what you want. Only the government can allow you the privilege. Other than the ownership of the means of production how is that different from the USSR? The Germans had a similar system. They allowed private ownership but had government control. It was going to be a new era of socialism. They were called fascists.

It is too bad no one studies political history any more.

So how are sellers who do harm to be handled? Tort law is quite adequate.

==================

BTW with the Maker movement gaining ground and indoor gardens quite popular a LOT of policing will be required to keep things under "control". Both the USSR and Fascist Germany had a police problem.

[GIThruster]

How grass became legal: http://www.newsmax.com/Manage/Videos/Vi ... ain-Heist/

[williatw]

williatw,

The Commerce Clause was never interpreted in such an expansive way until the Socialist Regime of FDR. Look up Wickard jurisprudence.

Now of course we have "conservatives" endorsing the socialist interpretation.

Under the original scheme only the States had the power to regulate commerce in such an expansive way.

Then you would simply have the states doing what the Fed are doing (as far as expansive regulation via the commerce clause). Well that would be actually better...most state judges are elected not appointed for life; that helps allot to reign in judicial activism. That is what is ending the WOD, the states are thank God taking the initiative. Look for the Feds to reschedule Pot sometime after the 2014 elections. It is annoying to me to hear Holder say his greatest "failure" was not getting more gun control done; like that is the job of the Attorney General any way passing laws. He should have been trying to get pot rescheduled from the get go; not merely making some kind of remarks about it on the way out. When/if they do the it will give a shot in the arm to further State initiatives as far as legalizing pot.

OK. You don't have the right to make and sell what you want. Only the government can allow you the privilege. Other than the ownership of the means of production how is that different from the USSR? The Germans had a similar system. They allowed private ownership but had government control. It was going to be a new era of socialism. They were called fascists.

Yes showing just how far the WOD and other things like the war on terror have done to expand the power and scope of the Federal Government's reach far beyond what the founders intended. Unlike European democracies we have our sovereign states they are our best hope of pushing the federal gov back. The WOD is going to be ended one step at a time; we don't want to over-reach. Insisting on something as impractical (legally) as a totally hypothetical "right to ingest" would do more harm than good.

[GIThruster]

I think you need to read back in this thread about 10 pages and find the link posted about what the WoD really is. You seem to think it is just incarceration and we've been though this before. Users were being incarcerated in almost the same numbers before the WoD. The difference is, the funds had not been released for things like rehabilitation, and the laws were changed as regards punishment for SALES.

We're talking about illegal activity. You don't seem to keep it in mind, that when someone decides to do drugs, they decide to become a criminal. They choose to lie and sneak and cheat as a normal part of life, and honestly as one who came out of that subculture, I don't think you understand just how different a part of life it is, from those who don't choose to become criminals. While I would never make a blanket statement that most people don't lie and sneak and cheat the way those in the drug culture do, there is certainly an enormous difference in kind between those who choose to do illegal drugs and those who do not. People who use drugs are always more comfortable with lying, sneaking and cheating. That's just one result of choosing to do illegal drugs. Given that the vast and overwhelming majority of other crime that takes place in this country is done by dopers, there's a significant issue here you keep skirting. These people are CRIMINALS, and its not just their drug use. I would wager if you looked at the percentage of those in jail and prison, there is a fantastical majority who use grass despite less than 9% of the general populous uses.

Why do you find it so necessary to ignore these facts?

[williatw]

We're talking about illegal activity. You don't seem to keep it in mind, that when someone decides to do drugs, they decide to become a criminal. They choose to lie and sneak and cheat as a normal part of life, and honestly as one who came out of that subculture, I don't think you understand just how different a part of life it is, from those who don't choose to become criminals.

Maybe if we stopped criminalizing the issue of drug use/abuse they would stop lying cheating & stealing; after all we decide that smoking/buying/using pot is a crime; society decided to criminalize that behavior. We force the users into the criminal behavior by societies stubborn insistence on treating their (the potheads) substance abuse as a matter for the criminal justice system while turning a blind eye to the boozers and smokers. People addicted to Tobacco or booze don't lie steal etc. nearly as much because we don't make their addiction to those harmful substances crimes.

While I would never make a blanket statement that most people don't lie and sneak and cheat the way those in the drug culture do, there is certainly an enormous difference in kind between those who choose to do illegal drugs and those who do not. People who use drugs are always more comfortable with lying, sneaking and cheating. That's just one result of choosing to do illegal drugs. Given that the vast and overwhelming majority of other crime that takes place in this country is done by dopers, there's a significant issue here you keep skirting. These people are CRIMINALS, and its not just their drug use. I would wager if you looked at the percentage of those in jail and prison, there is a fantastical majority who use grass despite less than 9% of the general populous uses.
Why do you find it so necessary to ignore these facts?

The dopers are arrested/convicted/jailed because using the "dope" (mostly pot) is a CRIME; society made it such; you don't want them lying, cheating, stealing to get illlegal drugs than legalize and regulate it. Treat drug abuse/addiction like the medical conditions they are...the "facts" are that you lot chose to make the problem a law enforcement issue because you chose to make having/using/buying/selling pot a crime. The alkys and the cigarette smokers are just as addicted; they don't steal/lie/cheat/ etc. in anywhere near the number you say the "druggies" do because their addiction is tacitly sanctioned by society. They (the alkys & tobacco heads) are allowed to work at their jobs, stay out of jail & avoid the employment opportunity killing criminal records and be productive members of society in spite of their addiction. If the dopers are responsible because they choose to smoke dope; than those who chose to criminalize their behavior own the result just as much.

[Diogenes]

Apparently all that crap we've been told about how successful Portugal's drug program was was exactly what we thought; Propaganda.





Portugal decriminalised drugs. Results? Use by teens doubled in a decade with nearly a fifth of 15 and 16-year-olds using drugs

Liberal Democrats held up Portugal as shining example on 'drugs war'
But since legalisation the number of children users has more than doubled
In 1995 8% of teenagers had tried drugs but after new law it rose to 19%
More children under 13 have also tried cannabis since laws were relaxed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... drugs.html

[Teahive]

Quite revealing language, turning "have tried" into "using drugs".

I'm not convinced of the practical relevance of "have tried" figures. Drug abuse is an issue. Having tried drugs, not so much. They're not the same thing at all.

[ladajo]

Fair enough, but there is an established direct correllation for "tried" to "addiction". These percentages are well studied, an show a positive relationship. More "tries" equals more "addicts".
I can't be bothered to look up the current studies on addiction rates, but if you did, it is a simple math application to count the bodies involved. And in case you were wondering, I chose my words carefully, as there are studied death rates for addiction, thus the logic chain is valid; more "triers" equals more "users" equals more "addicts" equals more "dead by drugs".
Of note that this argument only addresses the direct causal construct, not the indirect effects and costs.

[mvanwink5]

Socialism kills humans, drug abuse is a palliative consequence. That is one significant part of my hypothesis, the other is that there is also an underlying chronic microbiota basis for palliative drugs. I see it as cruel to blame the drugs on the victims of chronic bacteria infection, politicians, bureaucrats, cronies, and socialist utopians.

[paperburn1]

Of course maybe Portugal has a right. Let them have all the drugs they want and due to the nature of the beast the herd gets thinned of those they don't want to be part of society. Social care costs go down over the long-term. A very morbid win-win. Has been in my limited experience that those social programs are not in place one of two things happen. People die from drug use or people stop abusing drugs.

[Teahive]

Fair enough, but there is an established direct correllation for "tried" to "addiction". These percentages are well studied, an show a positive relationship. More "tries" equals more "addicts".

I don't doubt there's a correlation, but there are other factors in play, too, so unless you guarantee "all else being equal" you can't take one figure directly for the other.

[Diogenes]

Quite revealing language, turning "have tried" into "using drugs".

I'm not convinced of the practical relevance of "have tried" figures. Drug abuse is an issue. Having tried drugs, not so much. They're not the same thing at all.

The details aren't the significant point here. The significant point here is



‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’