The Moralist Are Creating The Very Forces They Fear

[Diogenes]

Most of the responses above demonstrate that Libertarians simply cannot comprehend that what they regard as the personal business of individuals, simply is not. Some behaviors affect everyone around them detrimentally.

Nobody moralizes about "painting" because it doesn't normally wreck a person's life. There is a REASON why people object to some behaviors, it's because those behaviors have a track record of destruction not limited to just the individual engaging in them.

[ScottL]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/vi ... loosen.hln

16 states....the issue is apparently very real.

[ScottL]

Most of the responses above demonstrate that Libertarians simply cannot comprehend that what they regard as the personal business of individuals, simply is not. Some behaviors affect everyone around them detrimentally.

Nobody moralizes about "painting" because it doesn't normally wreck a person's life. There is a REASON why people object to some behaviors, it's because those behaviors have a track record of destruction not limited to just the individual engaging in them.

You realize the deep flaw in your logic here and the hypocrisy right? If you want to continue the prohibition on substances that an individual can use which may or may not lead to adverse effects on another, you'll have to remove ...everything....guns, knives, coal burning plants, pesticides, alcohol...etc.

Furthermore, by federally or even locally enforcing said prohibition, you've removed individual responsibility. I note conservatives are fine with pointing out an individual's fiscal failings as their own regardless of those failings effect on people of their family, children, friends, society in general, but all of a sudden they can't have the responsibility of action when they chose to take a state-altering drug? So which is it?

[ladajo]

I would say the WoD helped her in the sense that it has limited her access to the hard stuff.

Are you sure about it? It does not sound like that.

The only thing that would've been different was the sourcing of the drugs. In any event, even if it was "legal" and "controlled" like cigarettes and alcohol, folks that are seeking the "fix" will still resort to whatever means they need to get it.

You know, you can reverse this claim:

In any event, even if it is "illegal", folks that are seeking the "fix" will still resort to whatever means they need to get it.

So, do you think that it would really made any difference it it was "legal"?

The biggest thing that I see the WoD doing is that it is drawing out those with criminal intent.

If it would not be for collateral damage, I might agree with this. But it seems like this collateral damage also creates criminal intent...

As far as access goes, She herself has complained that it is harder now to find drugs than before. I'll take her word for her perspective.

As far as perspective on legal/illegal, that was my point. It can be argued either way, and that is why I point out that those that want with criminal tendancy, will probably use criminal means to pursue what they want. If you completely de-regulate it, make it free, and have it in bins on every street corner, what then will be the end result? A larger federal and state budget for "entitlement" programs as probably the first thing that comes to my mind. The next thing that pops in for me is the question of impact that those who reach into the bins and make use of the stuff will have on those around them at home and work.

I agree that the collateral damge issue is something to think about. I also submit that the collateral damage caused by addicts should also be thought about. Which is worse? The sensationalists would submit that the "police state" activities are worse and more rampant an issue. I would submit that there are way more addicts than police, and thus they have a much larger impact on the populace as a whole. I would add that the police can be behaviorally adjusted by our society and laws. Addicts, especially those with criminal tendancies, it is much harder.
A small town I loved in in NH established a rule for the police that they could not pursue someone in a chase over 60 Mph on town roads because the department had expereinced two cruiser crashes in the past year at the time. The word immediately spread to the folks that did not have much care for society and rule, and they immediately used it to their advantage. The rule lasted about 6 months, and the citizens demanded it be gotten rid of, as they were tired of idiots racing around at 70mph+ with relative impunity.

[KitemanSA]

He was not abused or beaten by my father. None of us were. He was not cast out and ignored. None of us were. He did seek help. It did not work. His time in the army cemented his lessor prior habit of pot, into a hard habit of a highly addictive set of chemicals. Had he not had easy access to these, via his "buddies" he would not have gotten physically hooked. His efforts at rehab failed. He could not hold a job as he re-cycled any money he was able to earn between re-lapses into funding quickly and determinedly the relapses, and forewent taking care of his basic needs such as decent clothes, place to live, food etc.

My questions include: if the drugs had been legal and regulated, rather than banned and therefore unregulated, would his "buddies" have had any impulse to get him hooked? And once hooked, whouldn't a legal source of clean, low cost drugs have allowed him to maintain a better life? Why is the "treatment" option ALWAYS "rehab"?

My younger sister almost went the same path. A former Olympic level gymnast, and straight "A" Advanced Placement Student in High School. She started with pot, and then went to George Washington in DC. At GW she was introduced to hard drugs by her "friends" there. Once they had her hooked, she became a regular buyer, as her "friends" were actually college dealers, selling to other students. How did they get customers? Samples.

So what you are saying here is that the drug war done her in? Would she have become hooked on her own? Seems it took a PUSHER with a profit motive, said profit motive existing ONLY because of the drug WAR. Another victim of WAR.

[Betruger]

He never specifies her friends as profit motivated pushers. I've seen plenty of friends fall into drugs by their own self destructive efforts.

[KitemanSA]

He never specifies her friends as profit motivated pushers. I've seen plenty of friends fall into drugs by their own self destructive efforts.

I would venture to guess that the first addict in the group of "friends" got pushed. Folks generally don't seek out something like this on their own. JMHO(BOE).

[ScottL]

He never specifies her friends as profit motivated pushers. I've seen plenty of friends fall into drugs by their own self destructive efforts.

She was given "samples," why give samples unless you have a motive. I'm pretty sure the motive wasn't a "let's do this for shits and giggles."

[Betruger]

Yeah cause that's no common trait of youngsters! And coincidentally, the draw of orgasmic, cosmic highs probably qualify as "shits and giggles".

[ladajo]

I think there may have been a profit side to it. But I can not be sure. I only met them once, and they quickly got the idea that I did not approve of them as human beings. In fact, now that I think of it, I think early on they were trading drugs for sex as I recall. There may have been a money part, but I think it was more getting girls hooked for sex.

Would they and her do drugs if they were in street corner bins. I think so. And I think it would have had the same impacts on her ability to function normally. Lets see, hmmm, deal with the stressor, or get high and ignore it until it goes away...

Drugs are just like any other escape mechanism. Unhealthy to the actual issue. It is IMO just another form of resistance. I can do homework, or I can get high. Easy choice for some, why do the harder thing when you can do the fun thing. It is all about self responsibility and rejecting it.
I see the same theme in so many of the folks I have known and know that are drug users. They are all about things not being their own fault. They insist that "others" and "the system" work against them. They do not seem to ever grasp that if they try, they will do. They also miss the point entirely that by doing, they contribute not just to themselves, but the larger context. Simply put, they are the most selfish people I know. It is all about their own personal pleasure.

[Betruger]

I do both. Clear the stress one way or another, for a cooler head to deal with problem. I'm self indulgent that way. Cake and eating.

[ScottL]

Yeah cause that's no common trait of youngsters! And coincidentally, the draw of orgasmic, cosmic highs probably qualify as "shits and giggles".

They don't when it came at a cost to them (purchase of said drug.) As ladajo says, he believes it was for sex, which acts as a currency or incentive. Take away the profitability and these individuals at least buy a cleaner source and still act out the same, but at a profit in tax to the local or state level.

[Diogenes]

Most of the responses above demonstrate that Libertarians simply cannot comprehend that what they regard as the personal business of individuals, simply is not. Some behaviors affect everyone around them detrimentally.

Nobody moralizes about "painting" because it doesn't normally wreck a person's life. There is a REASON why people object to some behaviors, it's because those behaviors have a track record of destruction not limited to just the individual engaging in them.

You realize the deep flaw in your logic here and the hypocrisy right? If you want to continue the prohibition on substances that an individual can use which may or may not lead to adverse effects on another, you'll have to remove ...everything....guns, knives, coal burning plants, pesticides, alcohol...etc..

You realize the deep flaw in your logic here? All of those things you mentioned have real life applications for which they are useful. The good is by far the dominant usage, and the bad is a very small component of the whole, and what bad there is is usually the result of an idiot or an @sshole misusing them.

Furthermore, by federally or even locally enforcing said prohibition, you've removed individual responsibility..

Assist me in understanding you more clearly. Israel wants to keep rockets and other weapons out of Gaza. This is a prohibition. Are you against all forms of prohibition, or do you have some standard by which to judge those forms of prohibition you are for and those for which you are against?

In other words, are you against the concept of prohibition, or just certain prohibitions?

I note conservatives are fine with pointing out an individual's fiscal failings as their own regardless of those failings effect on people of their family, children, friends, society in general, but all of a sudden they can't have the responsibility of action when they chose to take a state-altering drug? So which is it?

Perhaps you can rephrase that. I don't understand what you are trying to say. I believe people's fiscal responsibilities are something that always needs to be in order. I regard it as a crime to allow other people to pay bills for someone else's foolishness.

As for the rest of your comment, I don't really care so much that certain individuals want to play with mind altering substances. What concerns me is that so many of them are not independently wealthy enough to afford it. Invariably, the loss of work and the cost of addiction ends up leaving a burden of some sort on everybody else.

You may not be aware of this, but I have suggested a drug licensing program. People want to consume the stuff? Make them have a means certified test for doing so. They screw up, they lose their license.

Seems like it would solve problems all the way around.

[Betruger]

Yeah cause that's no common trait of youngsters! And coincidentally, the draw of orgasmic, cosmic highs probably qualify as "shits and giggles".

They don't when it came at a cost to them (purchase of said drug.) As ladajo says, he believes it was for sex, which acts as a currency or incentive. Take away the profitability and these individuals at least buy a cleaner source and still act out the same, but at a profit in tax to the local or state level.

Not just any cost. IE there exists "cheap enough" price range.

[Diogenes]

I think there may have been a profit side to it. But I can not be sure. I only met them once, and they quickly got the idea that I did not approve of them as human beings. In fact, now that I think of it, I think early on they were trading drugs for sex as I recall. There may have been a money part, but I think it was more getting girls hooked for sex.

They call it "jack balling" (At least around here.) and that is exactly how it is done. I had a friend that used to be a pimp/drug dealer. (Originally from Detroit) He had the gift of gab, and he would find girls walking down the street and sweet talk them into hanging around with him, and then he would push a little beer, or weed, and eventually crack. Once he got them on the crack they were "sprung." He then rented out his little hoes to get money and drugs for himself, 0h, and free sex too.

He was a trip. When he was on a successful bing (plenty of money girls and crack) he would rent a motel room, get two or three crack whores in with promises of dope, give them all little pieces, smoke his big piece, and lecture them all about how the Lord God was looking down on them and that they ought to mend their sinful ways! He would even fill his sermon with Halleluiahs and Amens! Apparently God had put him on the street just to tempt the wicked.

While he was sermonizing them, he would usually make them take off their clothes and indulge whatever fantasy he had. They didn't like it, but they didn't dare leave, because he MIGHT give them another piece of dope.

Yeah, they're sprung.