A new Prohibition Era?

[kojikun]

I have come to a possible solution to the tax dillema. The problem is that people would want to have government without the responsibility of funding it. When, the purpose of government is to protect your rights, so if you do not fund government, your rights cannot be protected by it. Thats not to say the solution is to not have police come if you're broken into, etc, tho ideally it would be. The solution would be that if you want the right to vote, you have to support the government as best as you can, to be determined by Congress. The current income tax rate would be the yearly "poll tax", you could say. Something would, ofcourse, have to be done in order to give jobs to the unemployed, etc. I must, however, get to bed. I will give careful consideration to this, as to prevent as much injustic as possible. Until tomorrow, Graeme.

[Axis Kast]

Quite the contrary. Family and friends who value this person as a friend would be willing to help. If he is not valued by anyone enough to be able to be supported VOLUNTARILLY, then he's screwed. But thems the breaks, cause if noones willing to foot the bill for him, noones gonna be willing to have welfare to support him in the first place.

His dependants become the responsibility of the state. Period.

You may not invest in these "arguements" but they are facts of life. You cannot reason anything to make it wrong, without including other forced things. It is not the result of people exercising their freedoms that is bad, it is the exact opposite. It always has been. And it is not the states responsibility to keep anyone happy and shit. There is no right to TV or anything like that, we are guaranteed few rights, none are the right to happiness or comfort, only the unimpeeded ability to seek it.

Suicide is illegal. It’s a moral declaration on the part of the majority of the citizens of this country.

When your personal pursuit of freedoms erodes those of others, that pursuit is necessarily ended. Dealing with hard drugs exposes somebody to risks they should not be permitted to take, in the interests of both public safety and the general financial welfare.

Automobiles are not a necessity, they are a convenience. You can work locally and walk, or ride a bike, or the government can fund massive train networks. But we like having cars instead. That does not make them necessary. They are like drugs, they give us something in live we wouldn't have otherwise. The global economy, ofcourse, is not relevant, since we're talking necessity, and we don't need global economies to live. But we like having the global economy, etc, because it makes us happier to have these things, just as drugs. Ofcourse, none of this is important, because a persons right to do with his body as he sees fit must not be infringed upon. It is immoral to do.

I told you not to try this. Are you honestly of the opinion that outlawing all automobiles everywhere would be economically feasible without mass financial loss? Hard drugs and private transportation are on radically different levels.

I don’t care if it’s immoral to infringe upon your right to do drugs; by ingesting foreign substances, you put everybody at risk.

So you are against personal freedoms, because you don't like it. Perhaps when you come up with a reason, then we can consider prohibition as being valid.

I am against them because they kill people. They corrode life.

This is true, but completely irrelevant because it does not show why the drugs themselves are inherently harmful. Show how a person getting high causes someone else to be harmed against their will.

The dangers of somebody’s becoming high and doing something stupid are too great.

We arrest people for carrying concealed weapons without a license – whether or not they use them. Why? The risk is too great. Same with drugs.

Prove that lack of prohibition results in higher consumption. As far as I know, the opposite is true.

I meant “legal.”

Let's take a sample population of 100 drug abusers. Under prohibition, let's assume that 50 go to rehab and 50 go to prison. Without prohibition, all 100 go to rehab. Assuming rehab is less expensive than prison, what the hell is your point here?

The point is that these people deserve punishment in some form – even if we must tailor it to be less taxing on our system as a whole.

Proof that prohibition decreases the rate of drug-related deaths? Again, logic dictates the opposite. (Lack of quality control, etc.)

How do you plan to control the quality of crack cocaine, PCP, and acid?

Fuck you, fascist.

Oh, bullshit. You take drugs, you put me at risk for having to deal with the crap that becomes of it. You can’t do whatever you want. That’s the end of story; it’s impossible to do that and live in a stable community.

Proof?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 123513.DTL

What does the DEA analysis show? In 1974, the average THC content of marijuana was less than 1 percent. But by 1999, potency averaged 7 percent. Further, unlike the old "ditchweed" and bulk marijuana of the past, there are now far more powerful products to entice youth. The THC of today's sinsemilla averages 14 percent and ranges as high as 30 percent.

Even stronger stuff is on the way. The point is that the potency of available marijuana has not merely "doubled," but increased as much as 30 times.

Some advocates argued that this increased potency is actually good news, because kids will simply use less. But the data don't support that interpretation. The number of tons of marijuana sold in America is increasing, not decreasing. The number of people seeking medical treatment for marijuana abuse is increasing rapidly, not decreasing. In fact, the number of adolescent marijuana admissions increased 260 percent between 1992 and 1999.

e're locking up more people than Stalin, without putting a dent in actual drug use. What DOES constitute defeat in your book?

Your turn to prove it.

They use it at a party, sleep it off, and go back to their lives. Or do you think every single drug user dies in a gutter somewhere?

But not all of them. People abuse drugs. These are substances designed to alter human perception; they are essentially made to kill you.

Why on earth would they go through the trouble?

All you have here is baseless bullshit, the fallacy that prohibition decreases consumption, and a form of fascism where your tax bill outweighs life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They do it now, don’t they?

I didn’t say prohibition decreases consumption – but I did say it sets standards and establishes legal barriers against excessive use. In the case of marijuana, I admit we may be beyond practical victory – but not with hard drugs.

A form of “fascism”? No. Prohibiting somebody from endangering me and mine is perfectly in accordance with your, “Pursuit to a limit” ideology.

Oh, one quick thing to Axis Kast: In the US, our ancestors fought and died for their freedoms. I shall quote Patrick Henry while addressing the Virginia legislature, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

The Founding Fathers? The same people who wanted to let me keep forever minorities as slaves out back?

Not all drugs are the same. Heroin is physically addictive, LSD is not. Cocaine is physically addictive, marijuana is not. Learn the difference between the drugs before you spout off your ignorant mouth about them.

Yet people have difficulty going without marijuana; they develop psychological addictions to LSD.

Furthermore, how big a burden on society is alcohol and cigarettes? What about those that become addicted to prescription drugs?

Prescription drugs are a necessary item. Alcohol and cigarettes are no longer practical targets of control; the same may be true of marijuana. Again, it is not necessarily true of “hard drugs”.

[/quote] Strawman. Nobody is arguing in favor of cocaine or PCP. If you weren't closing your eyes and plugging your ears, you might've seen that.[/quote]

Bullshit. You’ve got Kojikun here arguing that anybody can do anything as long as it’s only to themselves.

Bull and fucking shit. Learn a thing or two before making claims.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_225.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030516.html
http://www.allsands.com/Health/Alternat ... xho_gn.htm
http://www.drugsinfofile.com/cannabis.html

The only thing that's been "unknown" about marijuana has been the long-term effects... which has recently been put to rest by a recent study by the University of San Diego, which found no significant long-term effects.

Didja hear that? That was the sound of your incorrect beliefs beind blasted out of the water.

Actually, you’ve just exposed marijuana users as more frequent abusers of other drugs – including amphetamines.

Aspirin? Penicillin? Salvia? Morphine? Alcohol? Nicotine?

Do you really believe that "all drugs" should remain illegal, or are you simply mindlessly parroting the established dictation that "drugs is bad" with no evidence whatsoever?

You know what I mean. Stop this crap with semantics.

Cite, please.

I made an argument. This is my opinion. You have yours. In fact, your little study proved that marijuana users more often abused other drugs.

So we see that your desire to keep drugs illegal is actually costing MORE money than decriminalization would.

Only marijuana. Again – explain to me how you plan to “regulate” cocaine and PCP.

... And nobody has ever died from a marijuana overdose. Kinda defeats your argument, doesn't it?

For so-called “hard drugs”. I already said I’d consider decriminalization of marijuana – assuming stiff taxes and potentially significant reduction of potency.

No, you wouldn't. However, your delusional "moral terms" have no basis in fact, which is why your argument holds no water.

People who overdose leave behind dependants in many situations. Those who have contact with drug dealers often have contact with larger criminal networks by default.

Ever hear the term "innocent until proven guilty"?

Ever hear of the term “potential danger”? It’s the same reason we don’t let people carry around guns wherever they like.

What is your definition of a "hard drug"?

Cocaine, PCP, Acid, and similar substances. I’m sure you already have a good idea of it.

[kojikun]

His dependants become the responsibility of the state. Period.

By your view, which states that personal freedoms are worthless.

Suicide is illegal. It?s a moral declaration on the part of the majority of the citizens of this country.

Ah, so majority rules, huh? See, the majority also wanted slavery, but slavery was wrong. We don't do things that are immoral just because the majority wants it, that is mere mob rule. That is why we have the enumerated rights that are unchangeale except by super majority after an extensive process.

When your personal pursuit of freedoms erodes those of others, that pursuit is necessarily ended. Dealing with hard drugs exposes somebody to risks they should not be permitted to take, in the interests of both public safety and the general financial welfare.

Ah, so my freedom to my stuff is less important than benefitting someone for making a mistake? Their actions erode my freedoms, so their actions must be ended, and so they would be, in terminating their life. The issue of public safety is an entirely different matter. Taking a drug does not make a person cause harm, and when they do then, and only then, should they be punished. Not before.

I told you not to try this. Are you honestly of the opinion that outlawing all automobiles everywhere would be economically feasible without mass financial loss? Hard drugs and private transportation are on radically different levels.

Well I tried it anyway. And my point remains, we do not need cars to live, we want them to live happilly. It is in the interest of common good to get rid of cars so that everyone may live healthier lives, regardless of their happiness, because social benefits are more important. Or atleast that is how your philosophy plays out.

I don?t care if it?s immoral to infringe upon your right to do drugs; by ingesting foreign substances, you put everybody at risk.

And you put me in risk but having a fist with which to punch. Until you punch me, however, you have done nothing. Actions should not be punished before they occur, because until then, nothing wrong has happened.

I am against them because they kill people. They corrode life.

And when someone kills someone else because of doing something, you can punish them for doing that. But you CANNOT punish someone for POSSIBLY being able to kill someone. We are all capable of killing, yet we do not imprison people just for being capable. We imprison them for doing it.

The dangers of somebody?s becoming high and doing something stupid are too great.

Religion causes more harm. Outlaw religion first. Then outlaw cars because they too cause more harm than good, according to your philosophy where happiness matters less than comfort.

We arrest people for carrying concealed weapons without a license ? whether or not they use them. Why? The risk is too great. Same with drugs.

However, noone is preventing them from carrying it, they choose to not get a license. That is their responsibility to do.

[Axis Kast]

By your view, which states that personal freedoms are worthless.

By any view. Or are you not familiar with the workings of our welfare system? If a man dies without direct relatives or suggested caretakers, his underage children are turned over to state care.

Ah, so majority rules, huh? See, the majority also wanted slavery, but slavery was wrong. We don't do things that are immoral just because the majority wants it, that is mere mob rule. That is why we have the enumerated rights that are unchangeale except by super majority after an extensive process.

You’ve said it yourself: extensive process or not, majority rules – or at least those the majority puts into positions of power to legislate on their behalf.

Ah, so my freedom to my stuff is less important than benefitting someone for making a mistake? Their actions erode my freedoms, so their actions must be ended, and so they would be, in terminating their life. The issue of public safety is an entirely different matter. Taking a drug does not make a person cause harm, and when they do then, and only then, should they be punished. Not before.

Buying an illegal gun doesn’t make a person cause harm, either. We still arrest them.

Well I tried it anyway. And my point remains, we do not need cars to live, we want them to live happilly. It is in the interest of common good to get rid of cars so that everyone may live healthier lives, regardless of their happiness, because social benefits are more important. Or atleast that is how your philosophy plays out.

We need cars to live as profitably as we do. We don’t need recreational drugs to do anything. We have alcohol, cigarettes, and so-called “dietary drugs” such as caffeine; we shouldn’t be opening the door to others on which so little is known and by the use of which so many people have died.

And you put me in risk but having a fist with which to punch. Until you punch me, however, you have done nothing. Actions should not be punished before they occur, because until then, nothing wrong has happened.

Go back to the illegal gun argument. You still can’t carry a gun. I also remind you that there are age limits. Would you have us abolish the carrying age? If so, why?

Religion causes more harm. Outlaw religion first. Then outlaw cars because they too cause more harm than good, according to your philosophy where happiness matters less than comfort.

Religion does far more good than drugs, your radical views on the topic aside.

Your arguments don't work, because people don't kill themselves in a productive society. Most people don't want to die. If there are those that do, they need help, not more freedoms to go unchecked. Explain to me what ill results continuing to outlaw PCP or acid or cocaine will have outside perhaps giving us financial benefit because we'll save in the enforcement. If the argument isn't practical, it doesn't even hold in the first place.