Democrats Start Positioning Themselves For Prohibition End

[Skipjack]

I hate the ideologic argumentation that some people are bringing. "It is bad because the left want it". "It is bad because the right want it". "It is bad because X said that and X is bad".
That is now how the world works.

[hanelyp]

When the substances are legalized (or decriminalized) use declines.

Again, I call B.S.

[TDPerk]

I hate the sleazy, intellectually lazy cop out that because there is an ideological aspect to something, the truth or best policy must between or sideways of the two parties.

Sometimes it's between them, sometimes its nothing either proposes.

But usually the left and the Democrats want something derogatory of human rights in favor of pretend rights they dole out to special interest groups.

Like cheap housing loans to people who should rent.
Like endlessly extended unemployment benefits.
Like rampant fraud in disability benefits.
Like union "fair wage" laws.
Like unions being given precedence over institutional preferred stockholders.
Like pretend rights the disarm the people.
Like pretend rights the retirement payments that can't be paid for.
Like pretend rights to murder babies.
Like pretend rights to free contraceptives.
Like pretend rights to free healthcare.
Like...

...You should get the point.

There is not one thing differentiating the left from the right in this country, which is to the left's credit.

[williatw]

When the substances are legalized (or decriminalized) use declines.

Again, I call B.S.

Merely legalizing (or decriminalizing) doesn't reduce usage...however the inevitable regulations, education against use, and treating drug addiction as a medical disease may. Furthermore treatments for drug abuse/addiction are cheaper and less corrupting than prohibition and jail.

[williatw]

Nature's rebuttal is going to be epic.

Indeed.

The leftist sense of entitlement, and unwillingness to recognize evil, invites "zombie" riots and War.
Making the successful the enemy will bring Famine.
License in sex and drugs breeds Pestilence.

You should be able to fill in the rest.

And yet the quality of life by every measurable parameter continues to improve; per capita wealth, standard of living, life expectancy, crime rate, mortality by violence etc., continues to improve. Peak oil somehow becomes we maybe the worlds biggest oil producer by the 2020's or so for instance. The Doomsters have managed to be wrong about everything so far. People citing the nuclear arms race in the 50's, 60's and 70's as proof that nuclear holocaust was inevitable. Dr Paul Ehrlich predicting in the 1960's that the battle to feed humanity is over, writing off China if not the entire human race. The same China that is now on track to being the richest country on earth in a couple of decades.

[MSimon]

williatw makes a very valid point. Once prohibition enforcement ceases minds and resources are freed up to treat drug users. And that treatment is what reduces use.

Well except for the case of pot in the Netherlands. There they did nothing about pot "addicts" and use still declined.

Drug use is a medical problem. If police can solve that have you considered putting them on cancer? Maybe policing cancer causing foods and substances.

And what about guns? We ought to start rounding up gun users the way we do drug users. That will fix our gun problem. For sure.

Bigger government is the answer for all problems. We do in fact have a one party state. That party? The big government party. Clever division of labor too. The Democrats handle economics. The Republicans handle social issues. And neither repeals the work of the other. That is the clue.

[hanelyp]

And yet the quality of life by every measurable parameter continues to improve;

More leftist BS.

http://news.investors.com/092512-626958 ... obama.aspx

[MSimon]

And yet the quality of life by every measurable parameter continues to improve;

More leftist BS.

http://news.investors.com/092512-626958 ... obama.aspx

Income is not the relevant measure. Life expectancy is a better measure.

[MSimon]

And still. No one on the right is dealing with the coming end of prohibition.

All I see is more digging in of heels. I'm going to repost something I left here viewtopic.php?p=95156#95156

Funny enough re:my DW stuff. None of my opponents seem to check out my evidence. Something they would never do on any other technical topic. Emotionalism seems to get in the way.

I think it has a lot to do with old folks (anyone over 25) rarely being able to learn new things. But that observation is not new with me:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

I think Prohibitionists face a similar problem: "a new generation grows up that is familiar with it". Since the late 60s people have grown up with widespread violations of the laws easily visible and they don't see what all the fuss is about.

My worry is that this sea change will poison them against the rest of the program on the right which is mostly sound. Certainly sounder than most of the program on the left.

But the left has been pulling this trick for ages. They will find a defect on the right and then go on to say, "well if they can't get something this obvious right what does it say about the rest of their program?" And the right plays right along by digging in and doubling down.

The right is stupid enough to try and hold every piece of ground instead of only the important pieces. And that holding causes them to lie (the Needle Parks in Switzerland are long gone - why? - legalization) further hurting their position. I'm not against propaganda. I do it myself. But I'm totally against lying. It is counterproductive.

The only important piece of ground the right should be holding these days is economics. Instead they get caught up in peripheral issues. Like Prohibition etc. Forgetting that if we don't get economics right none of the rest matters. Ah. Well. We ARE getting the government we deserve.

BTW it is my contention that if the right stuck strictly to economics they couldn't lose elections. That tent is a VERY big one. But every other issue added on loses some votes. Enough of those other issues and you lose elections. You win elections by addition NOT by subtraction.

[TDPerk]

@ Skipjack

I'll try to be as direct as possible.

I hate the ideologic argumentation that some people are bringing. "It is bad because the left want it". "It is bad because the right want it". "It is bad because X said that and X is bad".
That is now how the world works.

I hate the sleazy, intellectually lazy cop out that because there is an ideological aspect to something, the truth or best policy must between or sideways of the two parties.

Sometimes it's between them, sometimes its nothing either proposes.

But usually the left and the Democrats want something derogatory of human rights in favor of pretend rights they dole out to special interest groups.

[williatw]

And yet the quality of life by every measurable parameter continues to improve;

More leftist BS.

http://news.investors.com/092512-626958 ... obama.aspx

Perhaps I should have said by most measurable parameters the quality of life steadily improves long term. Doubt if you would disagree it hasn’t improved over 50 or a hundred years ago. I didn't intend it as some political statement endorsing leftist or rightest ideologies, more of an observation. I am more of a libertarian who believes in technological progress generally being a positive benefit to humanity.

[MSimon]

And yet the quality of life by every measurable parameter continues to improve;

More leftist BS.

http://news.investors.com/092512-626958 ... obama.aspx

Perhaps I should have said by most measurable parameters the quality of life steadily improves long term. Doubt if you would disagree it hasn’t improved over 50 or a hundred years ago. I didn't intend it as some political statement endorsing leftist or rightest ideologies, more of an observation. I am more of a libertarian who believes in technological progress generally being a positive benefit to humanity.

Ah. An Accelerationist. Look up Zelazny - "Lord of Light" to find out more about Accelerationism. "Lord of Light" is a very good read.

[Skipjack]

@ Skipjack

Sometimes it's between them, sometimes its nothing either proposes.

But usually the left and the Democrats want something derogatory of human rights in favor of pretend rights they dole out to special interest groups.

And the republicans are usually all good and completely unselfish? Oh please!!!
They all serve some lobbies, just slightly different ones. Both side have good ideas at times, dismissing an idea, because it came from the other side is counterproductive and not in the best interest of the people.

[Diogenes]

Ah. An Accelerationist. Look up Zelazny - "Lord of Light" to find out more about Accelerationism. "Lord of Light" is a very good read.

Everything Zelazny wrote is a pretty good read. I liked his Amber series quite a lot.

[TDPerk]

"And the republicans are usually all good and completely unselfish? Oh please!!! "

The Democrats choose evil means for generally evil goals.

Out that list, what part do you think is invented instead of real?