It seems to me that you do not "get it" that nobody has ever said Libertarians and Objectivists are the same. My experience has been that Objectivist Cultists don't get it and I don't know why. Read what I said. Libertarian is not a philosophy, it is simply the political expression of an Objectivist principle: nobody has the right to initiate the use force. That's it. Nothing more. You do not grasp the criminal issue. And, your anecdotal examples are not relevant to the discussion. Sorry.

Libertarians and Objectivists are not one and the same in belief. Stossel has often expressed views that were short of Objectivist. Our daughter has a Masters in criminology and is also an officer with the Libertarian Party in her area. She does not agree with your concept, and has talked with law enforcement which call our area of the state the "heroin capital" of the state. She sees that as a problem.
As to motive of a crime, if the perp admits he was doing it for drug money, and even police said B&Es are up because of drug users seeking money for drugs, what are you disagreeing with?. Legal or illegal, the crime is the same, only the Sheriff wants to differentiate guilt based on motive. A Federal Marshall said that making the use of hard drugs legal, would not stop the crimes, as the price usually does not drop that much, as the end profit just shifts from one segment of society to another. I agree completely with you on prohibition, it did not stop alcohol consumption. Do you then think DUIs should not exist though?. I do not ask that drugs be banned, the drug companies already hook people legally. However, I do not think that a person should be given a pass on harming or endangering others in pursuit of his drug habit. If they commit a crime which steps on the rights of others, it is a crime, regardless of motive. Drugs as a motive should not be a route to a free pass to infringe on the rights of others or cause them loss or harm. Prohibition of the Mafia, by the way, gave us even more corrupt politicians. My goal is not stopping drug use, my goal is keeping myself and those I care about safe, and most of our local crime is drug related, like it or not. Stopping drug use, is a whole other issue which requires personal responsibility, which is an Objectivist goal. I am not talking medical issues, I am talking recreational, the loss of workers for industry, the rise in welfare costs, and a host of other costs which come with irresponsible use of drugs. Can you suggest a way drugs would be available, without the need for B&Es? Can you suggest a way to reduce the number of fatal accidents we have had this year where people were killed by DUI drivers? We cannot roll over and say, oh well, they are doing their thing, because it becomes our thing. Suggest a solution, because the Marshall I talked to said legalizing will not make them cheap enough. Do you want a drunken surgeon, doing his thing? A friend had to wait for a second surgeon when the first one came in drunk.I worked with two employees who did drugs on the job, and on more than one occasion, we nearly missed deadline because they were too high to function. Like it or not, such irresponsibility can stop the motor of the country, there has to be an answer. It is not just about one person's freedom, it is about one person's lack of responsible actions. These people should have been smart enough to choose a safe time and place, but were willing to ignore their responsibility, or were too out of control.

You're right -- it's a juggling act.

I think you miss the point. The sheriff arresting somebody for breaking into your house is fine. The motive of the criminal is not relevant for the point under discussion. The crime is breaking and entering, not breaking and entering with intent to grab money for something you don't like.

Even if you are right, which I do not grant, you idea of illegality does not work. Hard drug use is the same today as it was when hard drugs were legal.

Prohibition of alcohol gave us the mafia. Prohibition of drugs gave us drugs. Strictly from the standpoint of accomplishing what you want, as I understand what you want, you do not stop drug use.

I don't understand what you mean by Stossel is a Libertarian and often not in line with Objectivism.

Libertarian is simply political party in which one must sign a declaration saying you do not agree with the initiation of force. It is not a philosophy. As to the Libertarian concept of the use of force, it is directly in line with Objectivism.

You, however, seem to take the position that your view should be enforced by government upon those who do not agree with you regarding (in this case) drugs. That violates both the Libertarian principle and the Objectivist principle of the non-initiation of force.

The Atlas Society article said it, a crime involves the violation of the rights of someone else. Smoking pop in your own house rarely falls in this category. However, when a sheriff says that someone breaking into a house for heroin money should not be arrested, that is because too many fat cats in the community are taking a piece of the drug pie. They should all be held accountable. When a crack house is set up next to a hard working family, they pose a danger to anyone nearby. When they house their own children in such a house as well, they are infringing on the personal rights of the children to expect not be be blown up. When someone is drug from a car and purse taken for heron, that is an infringement on the owner's rights.
Personally, I don't care if they OD to their hearts content, in private and without taking others with them. Do you by your first paragraph, then support an ISIS member who straps explosives onto his own body, willing to die for his belief, but likely to blow up those nearby, as not a crime? Do the wives and children, their safety and financial security being endangered by an addict, not also have rights? I do not care what these people do, as long as they do not cost me money or endanger those I care about. When they do, I want them locked up, you bet I do, or better yet, allowed to OD. We have laws about burning, lest someone burn down a whole neighborhood during dry season. We are licensed to drive, lest someone who cannot pass the skill test be on the roads. I can see the girl's beef in the video, but marijuana is not the threat, hard drugs are. I can say first hand, I grew up with an alcoholic mother from the time I was 3. I know. she was passed out, and at four, I was carrying her burning ash tray to the kitchen sink lest she burn the house down while dad was at work. By high school, I walked in on drug deals when I came home from school. She would throw heavy glass objects at my head, not recognizing me while under the influence. Where were my rights then?She died when I was just 16.I am not an isolated case, kids walk in to these situations all over the country every day. I used to sit on the domestic abuse panel as a reporter, and I heard the stories of people they were trying to help get out of family drug situations. Some wives had been violently battered. I am sure, were Rand in today's culture, she would have much to say, but it is not as simple as you make it seem.
You bet I consider myself an Objectivist, None of this would be an issue if everyone acted in line with Objectivism, being responsible and acting with reason. Stossel, by the way, is Libertarian, he often is not in line with Objectivisim.

Yes, there are non-looter drug users, but they are not affecting only themselves, no way. They are usually shirking other responsibilities.
People do not break into homes for guns, rather for guns to rob or kill. People do not break into homes for the sheer desire for a neighbors car that is an insatiable need. Heroin addicts are not logical, they do crazy things.
I would be all for a type of farm for addicts who could OD at will, sit there all day, and hurt no one. No family abuse, no stealing, no DUI, just them doing their thing. I do resent when taxpayers have to pay for the meds to treat someone who ODs on heroin three times in one week! Happened her just last week.

It's odd when we note the similarities between Karl Marx and the current infestation of the Oval Office.

Interesting to note: Marx was a moocher! Never worked a day in his life. He may not have lived off the tax payers but he did live off a wealthy friend.

Now you the source of his thoughtlessness.

I put him in the parasitical humanoid category and most likely psychotic as well.

I am not saying that legalizing drugs will erase human stupidity. Ha! Fat chance! But the problems you cite above can be achieved by 'driving whilst tired' or 'driving whilst angry after your relationship blew up in your face' or 'driving whilst crying your eyes out because your mom just died'. Of course you should not drive on drugs, or while IM-ing, or while half-asleep.

But there is a persistent perception that recreational drugs are per se unhealthy and cause such things as hepatitis or that drugs cause violence by their own druggy nature. With the exception of stuff such as PCP, most drugs do not cause health problems - with an important proviso: they cause health problems to a degree similar to overeating, sugar consumption, or alcohol.

You are right, no one should have to scrape a baby off a windshield. But I think that by legalizing recreational drugs, we will not increase irresponsible driving, and we will undermine the infrastructure of organized crime. And we will improve our freedom.

Jan

By that logic, you could also advocate making the possession of guns illegal. And also vehicles, since they are used for transport.

There are many non-looter drug users, including those who grow their own, and are largely outside of the of the import/transport part.

Theft by addicts is made much worse since the supply is limited, price over inflated, etc. Making the use illegal guarantees this, and also introduces the violent criminal element.

The problem with the Republican party is its diversity. Not in ethnicity so much as in philosophical ideology. The Democrats talk of their diversity, but where it really counts they have none. They are very good at moving in lock-step and never stepping outside of their proscribed box. Whereas the Republicans are all over the place. The only time the Republicans have a chance is when the lefties screw up so badly that it finally enters the consciousness of John Q. and they bring in the righties to fix it. Once they reach a level of prosperity, they zip right back to the left.

Consumer Report wrote a book on drug use, back in the 1970's (I think - gave away my copy). They stated in the intro that they were astounded at the conclusions they had come to - the reverse of what they had expected, going into the project. Their conclusion was that the crimes and health problems considered to derive from drug use were attributes of its illegality, not of the drugs themselves. (They made an exception for PCP.)

The long term effects of heroin addiction, for example, is that - you must have heroin. It does not otherwise alter your health nor does it per se cause you to behave in a criminal fashion. So the decriminalization of drugs should result in the reduction of the drugs = looter equation. (It will not erase that equation because of the high percent of non-producers in our society, but it should reduce it from 'causation' to mere 'correlation'.)

Jan

Decriminalize drugs and druggies can fetched cheap at a regular store instead of a street corner. Cartels go away. Violence drops. No one gets mugged because they are carrying a gallon of milk

Then punish the crime of looting, driving under the influence, etc. Without the initiation of force, there is no way one person can stop another from putting something in their body the person wants to put there. Plus, I say individual right to do with one's own body which does not harm anyone but myself trumps your desire to impose at the point of a gun your ideas of what I should do.

Check This explanation by Thomas for a more complete explanation: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...

Check this video by a young lady for the results of your belief: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-v...

Even John Stossel has had excellent segments on the subject.

I am curious, do you consider yourself to be an Objectivist?

If you could make drug use a "non looter" crime, I too would support decriminalizing it. However, to get drugs, the users ends up stealing from those who worked for what they have. They drive recklessly into others possessions, even kill them. Last week, here, a nurse was pulled from her own vehicle, roughed up, and her car taken by a heroin users with a past history of such "crimes" You find a way to make it victimless, and I will support you. I don't like the word victim as a scale, but rather looter vs producer. There is strong suspicion those who support the victimless angles here, are also getting a piece of that pie.

Good one, and so true. Do you remember the story on the young moocher who was on food stamps and mooched off of his friends instead of getting a job? I think that he spent his days surfing. Anyway, a camera man for one of the news channels followed him around one day. (Why he permitted this, I don't know.) At the end of the day, Moocher went into a grocery store to find something to eat for his supper. He didn't like the look of some of the fish, so he bought a package of lobster. After paying for it with food stamps, he turned to the camera and said, "Thanks, tax payers." Well, at least he said thank you. It's more than we usually get.

You inadvertently caused me to think of moochers hooked on welfare.
The only way this day can be special for them is buying outdoor grill food with food stamps.