Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 1 month ago
    In an Objectivist society, the responsiblilty of government is to protect citizens from initiation of force. Selling and consuming drugs do not constitute an initiation of force. Therefore, government has no right to prohibit the sale and use of drugs. However, a person is morally and legally responsible for all actions he or she performs while under the influence of drugs, the same as when under the influence of alcohol.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment deleted.
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 1 month ago
        I agree, but the proposal might encourage some people (including officials of various governments) to consider the arguments for decriminalization, who would otherwise not have done so. It's a step in the right direction.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
    Three times as many people die from drug overdose than from firearms, yet we're encouraged to decriminalize drugs, making them more available, and criminalize gun ownership. Of course most of the firearm deaths are a result of drug gang conflict.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 2 years, 1 month ago
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
        Again with the comparisons with small countries. The Netherlands population is less than one twentieth of the U.S., and they don't have a narco-terrorist state (Mexico) on their border. The cartels are thriving in Colorado, underpricing the legal marijuana, and are beginning to buy out the licensed dealers (taking a note from the Mafia to become "legit").
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 1 month ago
          The "narco-terrorist state" exists courtesy of our anti-drug laws, just as home-grown gangsterism thrived in the 1920s thanks to Prohibition. Virtually all drugs were legal in the 19th century, and Mexico was not a "narco-terrorist state" at the time. Prohibition spawns crime.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
            Alcohol is regulated, yet we still have moonshiners. Admittedly, that is a small black market, and we're able to keep it that way. The drug market is different, and needs to be "decriminalized" in a different manner. Drug use needs to be addressed as a health problem, with OTC purchases requiring a prescription. Will there be a black market? Undoubtedly, just as there still is in Colorado and Washington state, since the cartels can beat the heavily taxed legal supply prices. Some drugs (LSD, PCP, etc.) still need to be outlawed.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 1 month ago
              Government's purpose is to protect us from initiation of force, not to regulate our behavior, decide which drugs are suitable for our use, and make our health decisions for us. If drug use needs to be addressed as a health problem, what about sugar use? Or lack of exercise? Or violence in movies or on television? Should alcohol use require a prescription? A free society is not compatible with a government that controls our behavior based on what it decides is good for us.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
                If you choose to bail out of organized society (which is pretty difficult, short of leaving the planet, as has been discussed in other forums here) you can ignore other members of that society. It's pretty tough to do so when drunks, junkies, and criminals cross your life in the real world.

                In an Objectivist society, drug use would be an open choice, with those choosing a self destructive path taking themselves to an early grave without interference. We aren't yet participants in such a society, so I try address these things in the real world for the time being.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 1 month ago
                  There's a difference between an ultimate goal and a transitional policy that moves us in the direction of that goal. It was not clear to me that your previous post was advocating a transitional policy. If this is the case, I agree that it would be an improvement over the current situation.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
                    I think we agree. Transition to a rational society takes time, just as the current attempt to "nudge" people to accept a completely Authoritarian society has. Hopefully we can reverse the direction.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  richrobinson 2 years, 1 month ago
    I have been waiting for more States to legalize marijuana and possibly prostitution. I know in Pennsylvania the State pension fund is a mess. The politicos are running out of legitimate businesses to tax so I expect them to start seeing it as a revenue stream at some point.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment deleted.
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 years, 1 month ago
        I'm sorry, I simply an't see any justification for telling people what substances they can and can't put into their own body.

        Would more people become addicted if it was legal? Maybe maybe not, but I'm not sure it's our business. It's certainly harder to imagine a worse result than the one we currently live with.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  richrobinson 2 years, 1 month ago
        I have often wondered what would happen if all drugs were legal but regulated. It would eliminate a lot of the violence we see now but would most likely replace it with more addicts walking the streets.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Mamaemma 2 years, 1 month ago
          Would it? I wonder. Do you know any statistics? I am all in for decriminalization, maybe even deregulation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  richrobinson 2 years, 1 month ago
            It's more of a guess. The war on drugs has been a failure in my opinion. We need to try something else and I think the possible tax revenue will lead to legalization.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 1 month ago
              But has anyone statistics on numbers of three strikes prisoners whose third strike was marijuana? The big argument was it would empty the jails and leave room for the real felons. So? how many out and how many felons in? Or were the three striker marijuana prisoners never released or never existed to begin with.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment deleted.
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 1 month ago
              "Can you imagine legal heroin addicts holding down regular jobs?" Well, yes. Thomas Edison and many other productive people used drugs that are illegal today.
              http://www.alternet.org/drugs/10-geni...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 1 month ago
                Did Edison uise Heroin? Name the others that used heroin and were productive. Your post is in two parts and disconnected. Sentence A modified by Sentence B does not equal Sentence C.

                Or you wait until the day is more productive.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 1 month ago
                  “’Cases have been documented of long-term heroin addicts with stable 10- and 20-year work histories’ . . . Heroin is believed to be responsible for substantial lost productivity, however the effects of the drug itself are often confused with the effects of the ‘junkie’ lifestyle . . . During the so-called ‘British System’ set up by the Rolleston commission early in the 20th Century and continuing until the end of the 1960s, many addicts received clean supplies of heroin from their doctors, and continued to function normally in society.”
                  http://www.idmu.co.uk/hemployment.htm
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 1 month ago
                  The list does not mention heroin and the last item marijuana has been argued as not a drug . What does one have to do with the other? Gotta do better in this forum. You are arguing like a Democrat thinking saying is the same as doing.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
                    I agree. The list is limited to LSD, cocaine, amphetamines, and marijuana. I've known long haul truckers that relied on amphetamines, but I don't know if there's been any effort to tie accidents to amphetamine use. One of the worst forms of addiction is methamphetamine use, which exhibits hyperactivity that makes it nearly impossible for the addict to concentrate on a task.

                    There have been articles, as the one cited in the UK study that purport to the conclusion that if you make enough money, you can be a productive, successful addict, even with heroin. However, if we look at the most forgiving segment of our American society, Hollywood, excessive drug use quickly leads to unemployment, due to the unreliability of the addict. Robert Downey Jr. is a prime example, since even his Oscar-winning portrayal of Charlie Chaplin couldn't offset his erratic behavior. Downey rescued himself by kicking the habit and begging for the role of Tony Stark (Ironman).
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Mamaemma 2 years, 1 month ago
              We are feeding addicts habits right now, as they are designated disabled and receive benefits. I say put whatever you want in your body, as WilliamShipley said, but I will not pay for your problems. I'm speaking ideal, of course.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
                If we were speaking purely in the ideal, I'd favor Communism, but we know how that goes. The best approach is to make medical use of drugs legal (you can make a case for cocaine and heroin, surprisingly), requiring a prescription for use to keep the dose manageable. Unlicensed sales, keep illegal. Offer free rehab for users, and stiff jail time for dealers.

                Some drugs should be kept out of the legal market (meth, LSD, PCP, for starters), so a more focused "war on drugs" will still be needed.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Mamaemma 2 years, 1 month ago
                  Are you SERIOUS? You would favor communism! I lost the rest of your comment after that. I consider ideal to be the Gulch. Guess I should've been more clear.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
                    Anarchists, Libertarians, etc. all would like an ideal world (everyone following their ideology), so the Gulchers aren't unique. Opposing views are so bothersome. I picked Communism at random, as all Utopian visions would work, if everyone agreed to live by the rules. Socrates, as documented by his student, Plato, first described the elements of an ideal communal state (nothing like the Communism we've come to know and detest)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 1 month ago
                      The rules invariably in any totalitarian system are at the whim of a ruling class. In other words a modern version of the old aristocracy and neo-feudalism complete with Tzars, Apparatchiks, and Serfs/cannon fodder.

                      We had the best way out of that and it failed. So I opt for whatever class is hiring in whatever system on top for my next go round. This one was a waste of time and effort.

                      Assuming you can afford my rates.

                      Professional Soldiers point of view.

                      No nation has lasted 200 years without getting an elitist ruling class and all the trimmings no matter what the first theory or plan might have been.

                      Invariably the general public gave them the power. ergo sum why not start working for someone at the top? But never forget one is working for oneself.

                      That's an answer that covers all possibilities as long as humans are humans are humans. Humans can't handle the responsibility of freedom.

                      Just to throw some gas on the fire. But as for following an ideology. What I just said comes closer than anything yet proposed.

                      As for following the rules or even working together for a common cause? Maybe for five minutes.




                      .
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Technocracy 2 years, 1 month ago
                      The rub of reality being that groups larger than 1 never agree 100% on everything.

                      Objectivism recognizes that reality, and therefore the target group is always 1. Objectivists are free to group in larger numbers for things they agree on, like everyone else. But always based on 1, not many.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 1 month ago
                        The headache comes when that "group of one" can't avoid interacting with any other one that doesn't share the Gulch philosophy. There was a good reason for the Gulch, as it isolated the individualist Gulchers from outside influence until the outsiders were without hope from the system they'd been subject to, ready for what the Gulch had to offer. The problem with any "pure" ideology, and Objectiviism is no exception, is that they don't work as expected unless a significant majority agree with the principles.

                        Until the United States was formed, the idea of bottom up government, focused first on the individual was non-existent. The idea of a society made up of self reliant individuals should have been the next logical step, but humans are truly amazing in their ability to screw up a good idea.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by cranedragon 2 years, 1 month ago
              There are two different arguments there -- one is, does the government have the right to tell me what I can and can't eat, drink, ingest, smoke, or inject? In a free society the answer should be a resounding "No". Or even, "hell, no". The second argument is, well, if we make all of those addicting substances legal and freely available, the welfare rolls will swell with hordes of wasted or twitching addicts unable to hold down a job and pay their bills. That argument uses today's wrongs -- taxing the productive and frugal to support the wastrels -- to prevent all of us from making our own choices.

              We need to be very clear on our principles, and then do all that we can to shout those principles from the rooftops. Let Freedom Ring. I think that a well-articulated position that it is not the business of government to protect adults from the consequences of their choices would resonate with a lot of people.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Abaco 2 years, 1 month ago
    War on poverty?...More poverty.

    War on drugs?...you know the rest. Frankly, I don't take any drugs - just aspirin. But, more and more, I find myself in favor of this kind of thing. Why? Because if somebody wants to take a drug they'll take a drug. America puts more people in prison, per capita, than anybody and much of that is drug related. I, believe it or not, am not convinced drug use will go up with legalization.

    The only real problem I have is our penchant to take from the producers and give to the moochers. That won't work out really well with this. If we were willing to let the weak blow themselves out while not emptying our wallets to prop them up I see a lot of promise here. I also personally know several people who self-medicate with weed, vs. prescription psych meds...and they are much better off for it. Make no mistake, big pharma absolutely hates that. And THAT is the only reason the Feds (with Stoner O at the helm) are standing fast on this Federal ban.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 1 month ago
      We've had some years of it so see my question above. How many three strikers whose third strike was marijuana were released and how many real felons jailed? Or was that part forgotten? You mean we are holding people in prison for what is legal?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Abaco 2 years, 1 month ago
        No. Too much is illegal.

        I drink wine about every-other night. I don't think what I do is any better than people I know, good family people, who spark up a joint after putting the kids to bed. That's not my thing, at all.

        Too much government...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Mamaemma 2 years, 1 month ago
          At this point just living is illegal.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 1 month ago
            So it didn't do anyone any good then and serious felons are still on the street. Wonderful.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Abaco 2 years, 1 month ago
              You bet. How about all those child molesters that live near schools? The system couldn't care less about the law-abiding people.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 1 month ago
                System? Here's a system.

                Let's see if I can do this from memory.."Well you have to understand they come from a deprived childhood with no self esteem and it's our duty to ....."

                Now this other system is also from memory. "Bang"

                The Third Eye will certainly give the ability to see more clearly - visual acuity is everything. And clear the cells for others. Elegant solution and the tax money can go to other more needy causes. What was your next 'how about?'

                Right now I can't think of a better way to end my time on earth.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo