A policy idea for discussion

[IronWing]

Another vote for supporting the use of drugs (not driving), in effect.

That's a loaded statement. Decriminalizing is not at all the same thing as "supporting" a behavior. I don't support people going to church but I also don't see a need for such behavior to be criminal (or regulated in any way). Now people who preach while driving...

 

[momeNt]

Another vote in favor of the use of drugs, in effect.

I strongly oppose drug use actually. But i'm not an authoritarian with an iron fist, so I'll let others decide for themselves.

 

[momeNt]

That's a loaded statement. Decriminalizing is not at all the same thing as "supporting" a behavior. I don't support people going to church but I also don't see a need for such behavior to be criminal. Now people who preach while driving...

Of course its a loaded statement, he's making a straw man out of support for personal freedom to marginalize the opposition.

 

[bfdd]

How is a vote for the legalization of all drugs, a vote for drug use? It's more like it's a waste of money and who the fuck really cares what another does with their own body? Educate and legalize. Create industry and wealth, stop stifling it.

I do not like cocaine, I actively avoid it I think it sucks(as do most uppers), if it was legalized I will not run out and buy an 8ball just to get high. I'll just keep smoking my cannabis.

 

[Craig234]

WTF craig! If you want to have a useful and thoughtful discussion, the idea isn't to be inflammatory towards those that might oppose it, you are inviting a useless argument with statements like that, and if you seek to exclude them from the discussion, you want a circle jerk without any debate or discussion.

The discussion isn't about Libertarians though, it's a side comment. I think it stands up to 'useful discussion' if need be.

It is my opinion to repeat, that Libertarians are notorious for dismissing the consequences of the policies they advocate. If millions lose their lives - no problem.

Admittedly, their first response isn't usually to say 'who cares', it's to blithely deny the consequences. Their suggestions are often so 'out there' that there's little empirical 'proof' to offer them they'll accept; there are no other societies that have implemented their policies, for good reason; so they'll just say 'that won't happen'.

But if you do insist on discussing the point, they'll defend almost any level of impact as 'freedom'. If we return to elder poverty, lack of medical care, widespread drug abuse, high crime rates, whatever drastic consequences, they're some of the most rabid ideologues and will excuse it all under the mantra of 'freedom, their choice'.

For example, Libertarians often answer questions about injustices by the 'big guys' against the 'little guys' with a simplistic 'they can sue'. The courts become the magical answer to all sorts of societal injustices - completely naive about the impracticality of the courts serving that function - or the corruption of the law.

If we could give Libertarians a country of their own, it wouldn't take long to badly crash and burn; we could say 'I told you so'. Not worth doing it with our country.

As for it harming the discussion with Libertarians, I think that harm comes from their making outrageous ideological claims and refusing any rebuttal. 'Give them e free choice to use drugs, and that liberty is all that matters, the consequences don't matter at all, and if you point out severe consequences you are being unfair and we can't discuss it.' How much useful discussion happens with that?

For me, Libertarians are the equivalent of a troll distraction to discussing the issues, like someone who pops in and dominates the topic with claims 'the claims about the harms of drug abuse are all lies'. I can spend all day arguing with that person, and it won't be 'useful', it'll just derail the issue. That's how I feel about Libertarians, as offended as they are by that reaction.

Feel free to offer the useful discussion response if you disagree, though this isn't about Libertarians primarily.

 

[Craig234]

Of course its a loaded statement, he's making a straw man out of support for personal freedom to marginalize the opposition.

No, I'm pointing out the actual consequence of your position instead of allowing you to sweep it under the rug.

For example, let's say 'I want to remove all anti-pollution laws, and leave it up to the morals of the people running companies. If they do wrong, we can publicize their bad choices, and consumers can not buy from them and put them out of business, that's a lot better than government intervention. I don't support pollution - just legalization.'

I could respond to that by pointing out that it's incredibly impractical and naive, and the result will be massive pollution and the mythical accountability won't happen.

I think I'm right, but it's not easy to 'prove' to an ideologue who chants 'liberty'.

My position is that the net result of that policy would be a massive increase in pollution, and I'd say that position is 'supporting pollution, in effect', because it's supporting a policy which will cause that effect, despite the fact the person advocating doesn't understand that or agree.

That's not 'marginalizing' the position any more than any criticism saying 'your policy has a bad effect' is. We might disagree; that's my opinion. It's not unfair.

Bottom line: de-criminalization will result in far higher drug abuse rates than eliminating the behavior. Your personal opinion about abuse doesn't matter; the law affects the issue, not your opinion. So, choosing a policy with far higher rates is supporting the effect of that policy. You seem confused about taking responsibility for the consequences of the policy you advocate. Yes, it's 'their choice'. And yes, it's your choice which policy to support, with varying effects.

'I'm for removing the speed limit, and my opinion is everyone should choose to continue to drive safe speeds' isn't all that different in effect than 'I support unsafe speeds'. Both result in unsafe speeds.

That's my point. By advocating legalization, it's choosing for there to be high drug abuse people choose, over choosing a policy with far lower drug abuse. And that is, in effect, supporting drug abuse.

Your strong objection in my opinion is not because I'm making an unfair point, but because I'm making a fair one that points out an error. Until you recognize the error ou are making, you will object to it being pointed out.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Because that doesn't accomplish the same benefits.

Another vote for supporting the use of drugs (not driving), in effect.

Only in the sense that I advocate giving consenting adults the right to decide for themselves whether to drink, smoke (tobacco or pot), snort, shoot up.

Also to choose their religion or non-belief, act on their sexual preferences as long as they involve either similarly minded consenting adults or non-living objects, buy guns, eat chocolate and watch reality television.

If someone is eating a chocolate bar or having sex while driving, I'd still lock them up for driving while impaired (or enpaired) and endangering others.

I guess I'm a libertarian in this area. Personal rights with personal responsibility.

 

[bfdd]

Craig, how would they lose their lives? Are drugs going to come out of the dark alleys and kill them? no, people will CHOOSE to do things which kill them. And hey guess what, they were going to die eventually anyways, they just chose a different path to that outcome than you did. You're such a pussy Craig, are you afraid if drugs are legal you're going to go overdose? Just don't do them then. Are you afraid other people you know are going to go overdose? Maybe you should help educate them or stop being friends with such fucking morons.

You, Craig, have some weird obsession with controlling aspects of peoples lives. Why? What is so bad about life that you feel the need to control everyone elses?

PS Craig, who the fuck is anyone to say what "medical" advantages certain drugs have. If doing PCP makes me happy and helps me cope with life, then by all means I'll do as much PCP as I fucking can because it helps my ailment. Spiritual, psychological, physical, what's the difference? None.

 

[momeNt]

Well we have plenty of examples around us that show that authoritarian governments crash and burn, if not by their own citizens then by the USA.

Even a minor authoritarian policy like drug enforcement has caused destruction, the USA apparently is able to mildly control the drug PRODUCTION in this country but isn't able to control drug CONSUMPTION, so now Mexico is overridden by drug cartels. Perhaps the answer is just better or more authoritarianism, perhaps it is more freedom and leaving people alone when it is proven that we cannot control them.

 

[DaveSimmons]

No, I'm pointing out the actual consequence of your position instead of allowing you to sweep it under the rug.

For example, let's say 'I want to remove all anti-pollution laws, and leave it up to the morals of the people running companies. If they do wrong, we can publicize their bad choices, and consumers can not buy from them and put them out of business, that's a lot better than government intervention. I don't support pollution - just legalization.'

I could respond to that by pointing out that it's incredibly impractical and naive, and the result will be massive pollution and the mythical accountability won't happen.

I think I'm right, but it's not easy to 'prove' to an ideologue who chants 'liberty'.

My position is that the net result of that policy would be a massive increase in pollution, and I'd say that position is 'supporting pollution, in effect', because it's supporting a policy which will cause that effect, despite the fact the person advocating doesn't understand that or agree.

That's not 'marginalizing' the position any more than any criticism saying 'your policy has a bad effect' is. We might disagree; that's my opinion. It's not unfair.

That's a straw man. I wasn't taking this puppies and rainbows approach to personal choice.

Using your analogy, what I was saying is that if you chose to pollute, your company would be fined heavily (more than enough for the cleanup) and its officers sent to prison.

Not all of us supporting personal choice leave out the personal responsibility side. And supporting personal choice also does not mean the false dilemma of removing all government enforcement of all drug laws including DUI.

PS - not that it matters, but the only drugs (legal or otherwise) I use are caffeine and chocolate. And rarely ibuprofen for something like an abcessed tooth, though usually the bottle expires before I use it up.

 

[momeNt]

Craig's an authoritarian ideologue, he feels that everybody should be able to surrender openly to government. Who is the government though and why should we surrender control to it though?

 

[Craig234]

Well we have plenty of examples around us that show that authoritarian governments crash and burn, if not by their own citizens then by the USA.

Even a minor authoritarian policy like drug enforcement has caused destruction, the USA apparently is able to mildly control the drug PRODUCTION in this country but isn't able to control drug CONSUMPTION, so now Mexico is overridden by drug cartels. Perhaps the answer is just better or more authoritarianism, perhaps it is more freedom and leaving people alone when it is proven that we cannot control them.

You are equating requiring a drug test (with drug use being a crime, or presumably even a lesser consequence) with the oppressive governments of Mubarak and Qadafi. That's asinine. You then claim the attempts at controlling drug consumption without this measure 'prove' that these measures won't work. But you don't prove that point at all. You need to show why these measures won't work.

Is it your claim that people will choose drug use over a driver's license, and people will choose to remain in jail over being released without drug use?

You can argue that. Or another point.

You're giving up on the consumption side - but that may or may not be correct.

 

[Craig234]

Craig's an authoritarian ideologue, he feels that everybody should be able to surrender openly to government. Who is the government though and why should we surrender control to it though?

Except you're calling every American who has supported laws against crack cocaine an 'authoritarian ideologue'. Guess who that makes the real radical and ideologue?

In answer to your question, when democracy is working, the government is 'the majority of the people'.

I'm the first to say that that majority itself can be tyrannical and protection of minority and individual rights is needed from that majority, such as the Bill of Rights.

But I don't consider the use of Meth to be one of those individual rights deserving of protection against the majority.

You need to stop confusing the merits of the right to use meth, with enforcability issues, as if you WOULD support the ban except that it can't be enforced well.

It's one or the other, though you might treat them as the same thing.

 

[momeNt]

You are equating requiring a drug test (with drug use being a crime, or presumably even a lesser consequence) with the oppressive governments of Mubarak and Qadafi. That's asinine. You then claim the attempts at controlling drug consumption without this measure 'prove' that these measures won't work. But you don't prove that point at all. You need to show why these measures won't work.

Is it your claim that people will choose drug use over a driver's license, and people will choose to remain in jail over being released without drug use?

You can argue that. Or another point.

You're giving up on the consumption side - but that may or may not be correct.

You were just equating freedom to use drugs to lord of the flies libertarianism, that's asinine.

People choose drug use over the most important thing in their life, their life. If people are choosing drug use with the knowledge that it will endanger their life, what difference is a drivers license to them?

People now get thrown in jail for drug use, so clearly they made that choice as well.

I do feel that there is nothing that can be done to stop people from buying and using drugs. Many states have the death penalty and that doesn't stop people from committing murder, people will do what they want to do. I haven't tried heroine because I think its dangerous, not because it is illegal (full disclosure: i have done other illicit drugs). Nor have I killed anybody because I haven't needed to in self defense, and in any other instance there isn't any reason to take away somebody's life short of self defense, not because it is illegal.

 

[Craig234]

That's a straw man. I wasn't taking this puppies and rainbows approach to personal choice.

Using your analogy, what I was saying is that if you chose to pollute, your company would be fined heavily (more than enough for the cleanup) and its officers sent to prison.

Except you weren't. Your sanctions are specific to driving. They leave all the other costs and problems of drug abuse in place.

Continuing with my analogy, that's like saying there are sanctions if the polluting companies pollute within 1000 yards of a school. Well, ok, but it's just one issue.

Not all of us supporting personal choice leave out the personal responsibility side. And supporting personal choice also does not mean the false dilemma of removing all government enforcement of all drug laws including DUI.

PS - not that it matters, but the only drugs (legal or otherwise) I use are caffeine and chocolate. And rarely ibuprofen for something like an abcessed tooth, though usually the bottle expires before I use it up.

I'm not saying all supporters of 'personal choice' do leave out the consequences; I was referring to the ideological Libertarians who in my opinion generally do.

You may well not - but then show me, by acknowledging and defending them. If your argument is nothing more than 'whatever the consequences, the liberty issue justifies them', then that's the same position I've already described above, nothing new there.

I also did not say that legalization includes removing DUI laws; it doesn't and I don't know any supporter of legalization who supports removing DUI laws.

Your raising of that issue as a 'straw man' is correct, but it's not my straw man.

And you're right, that your personal drug use doesn't matter. You are free to argue any side of the issue without your personal choices affecting your argument.

 

[bfdd]

Dave, you're right people like Craig are constantly associating freedom with freedom of responsibility because that's how they view the world. If you're free, you don't have responsibility right? only an idiot thinks that. You cannot have freedom without responsibility. If you take the responsibility away, you're no longer a free man.

 

[momeNt]

It will probably be easier if we just keep the discussion to drug control, discussing libertarian and authoritarian ideologies isn't really useful when it quickly becomes discussions like which is better, polluting rivers by schools or Hitler.

So my statement still stands, I feel that the policy you presented is too intrusive for my tastes, and I advocate ending the war on drugs because I find it wasteful and destructive, trying to control drugs only creates a black market for drugs.

 

[Craig234]

You were just equating freedom to use drugs to lord of the flies libertarianism, that's asinine.

People choose drug use over the most important thing in their life, their life. If people are choosing drug use with the knowledge that it will endanger their life, what difference is a drivers license to them?

People now get thrown in jail for drug use, so clearly they made that choice as well.

I do feel that there is nothing that can be done to stop people from buying and using drugs. Many states have the death penalty and that doesn't stop people from committing murder, people will do what they want to do. I haven't tried heroine because I think its dangerous, not because it is illegal (full disclosure: i have done other illicit drugs). Nor have I killed anybody because I haven't needed to in self defense, and in any other instance there isn't any reason to take away somebody's life short of self defense, not because it is illegal.

There are different kinds of drug addicts, some more functional than others.

The point I was trying to get across with this theoretical policy - if everyone could be practically monitored for drug use, they would be. Imagine a satellite were invented that detected illegal drugs in a person and reports them to police. They can't, and there's the constitution in the way of even the simplest, easiest, least instrusive testing - so the policy here is instead, 'any interaction with the government where it could legally be required'.

But that's just the details of the issue, not the larger issue of weighing an effective consumption bad, versus the status quo (or other plausible policies).

So I partly want to answer the details of driver's licenses, and partly don't want it to interfere with the main topic.

The driver's license policy would push some people to give up drugs to keep a license. Others, it wouldn't but they'd be at risk for arrest any time they drive. And they'd also face whatever other situations that could require testing. So it'd at least be a large decrease in abuse, IMO.

 

[Craig234]

It will probably be easier if we just keep the discussion to drug control, discussing libertarian and authoritarian ideologies isn't really useful when it quickly becomes discussions like which is better, polluting rivers by schools or Hitler.

So my statement still stands, I feel that the policy you presented is too intrusive for my tastes, and I advocate ending the war on drugs because I find it wasteful and destructive, trying to control drugs only creates a black market for drugs.

I understand - so I'd file your position under the 'it just feels too un-American, it's too invasive' argument from the OP.

But I'd ask you to defend why a reduction in drug abuse and all the benefits is less beneficial than a society with what I allege is a permanent drug abuse problem.

Right now, there's a stagnant war between 'ineffectively illegal' and 'legalize'.

 

[bfdd]

Craig, if they ever tried to track my drug use, I'd go live in the mountains or fight them when they came after me. You really think people, especially in the USA, would stand for that kind of intrusion? This isn't England.

Craig, if we had the technology and could track everyones drug usage, would you fight for that cause? Yes or no, I don't want some elaborate bullshit answer.

 

[Darwin333]

Another vote in favor of the use of drugs, in effect.

That is akin to saying that legalizing male homosexual sex (or sodomy) is a vote in favor of the further spread of HIV.

Of course rational people understand that the risks of those risky activities can be greatly mitigated by those that choose so and at the end of the day people should be free to accept those risks or not.


Or to use a recent post of yours, anyone that is in favor of allowing food stamps to be used for fast food is voting for obesity, in effect. Hell, anyone that thinks fast food should remain legal is another vote for obesity, in effect.

 

[bfdd]

Darwin333, people don't appreciate liberty. It's sad.

 

[momeNt]

There are different kinds of drug addicts, some more functional than others.

The point I was trying to get across with this theoretical policy - if everyone could be practically monitored for drug use, they would be. Imagine a satellite were invented that detected illegal drugs in a person and reports them to police. They can't, and there's the constitution in the way of even the simplest, easiest, least instrusive testing - so the policy here is instead, 'any interaction with the government where it could legally be required'.

But that's just the details of the issue, not the larger issue of weighing an effective consumption bad, versus the status quo (or other plausible policies).

So I partly want to answer the details of driver's licenses, and partly don't want it to interfere with the main topic.

The driver's license policy would push some people to give up drugs to keep a license. Others, it wouldn't but they'd be at risk for arrest any time they drive. And they'd also face whatever other situations that could require testing. So it'd at least be a large decrease in abuse, IMO.

A larger decrease in abuse would be something like a parenting license. When the age of sexual consent is reached, drug tests are given every six months, if you are found to have drugs in your system, your parenting license is revoked and your child is given for adoption to those that have licenses.

This effectively would stop everybody from drugs because the state could remove your right to have sex and furthermore, your right to have children.

I know we only currently license drivers, so that is the only place you could feasibly slip this requirement in, but you could also just create a parenting license to add this requirement in. One could argue that the damages of parenting and having sex while on drugs is far worse than those of driving while under the influence of drugs.

I'm not trying to be asinine either, I'm just trying to find a reasonable avenue for forcing people to take this test.

 

[momeNt]

I understand - so I'd file your position under the 'it just feels too un-American, it's too invasive' argument from the OP.

But I'd ask you to defend why a reduction in drug abuse and all the benefits is less beneficial than a society with what I allege is a permanent drug abuse problem.

Right now, there's a stagnant war between 'ineffectively illegal' and 'legalize'.

It may not reduce drug abuse, many drug users do not have to use cars or they just use public transportation, so you are begging the question in asking me to defend a policy that reduces drug abuse, because that is an assumption that I don't think the policy proposition has earned.

Hopefully you respond to my question about something like a parenting license, I'd like to gauge what you find acceptable levels of government involvement in our lives to be.

 

[Craig234]

That is akin to saying that legalizing male homosexual sex (or sodomy) is a vote in favor of the further spread of HIV.

Actually, if you assume that a vote for criminalizing sodomy would reduce the rate of it occurring and the spread of AIDS - and I'm not - you're right.

And I would make that case. I'd argue in favor of my vote for supporting the spread of AIDS, on the grounds that the issues of freedom involved outweigh the harm.

And that's the proper basis for that vote - not denying that my vote would have that effect, if it would.

Of course rational people understand that the risks of those risky activities can be greatly mitigated by those that choose so and at the end of the day people should be free to accept those risks or not.

And there's that Libertarian ideology that 'disaster is ok if the people didn't make a good choice'. Who cares about the FACT that sex drives people to make bad choices? We can just blame the victim and say 'doesn't matter, their fault'. I strongly disagree with that morality.

Or to use a recent post of yours, anyone that is in favor of allowing food stamps to be used for fast food is voting for obesity, in effect. Hell, anyone that thinks fast food should remain legal is another vote for obesity, in effect.

Yes, correct again, it's not JUST saying 'legalize it, but I can not eat there', it's understanding the practical impact, and choosing which you prefer.

Again, there is a case to be made for 'freedom of choice outweighing the benefits of not having the effects of having it for sale' - but it's that, not 'who cares'.

That's why my OP started out with the point that as a society, unlike a consensus about jailing gays over spreading AIDS, or over getting rid of fast food, society has spoken pretty loudly for a long time as a consensus against drug abuse. So the issues aren't comparable for that reason, but that is the question, and you do need to defend the effects of whichever policy.

And let's face one thing, by the way, in your example, the laws against sodomy had nothing to do with AIDS, passed long before AIDS existed, just as a reminder.

But I'm ok discussing the issue with the AIDS tradeoff, now that it is an issue.