Drugs should probably be legalized
safesatisf...@rock.com
In no particular order, three things may be considered in regards to
illicit drug legalization:
1. What is best for society - a degenerative drug war, or a
degenerative use of legal illicit drugs.
2. Is it wrong to put people in jail or prison for drugs.
3. Do people have a fundamental right to use drugs.
If drugs are legal
1. They will not be pedaled to minors.
2. They will be pure and not laced with other drugs, and users will be
able to know the exact dosage they're taking.
3. They will carry extensive warning labels advising users of the
dangers of use.
4. They may be taxed, providing the government with revenue it is not
currently receiving from drugs sold on the black market.
5. There will be no gang crime as a result of drugs.
6. There will be no drug pushers in your neighborhood.
7. We will not have to pay the huge cost of the drug war - $20 billion
directly, and $500 billion annually spent on law enforcement, possibly
from related crimes.
There should be no advertising of addictive substances for commercial
purposes allowed on billboards, television, magazines, or internet
websites not devoted to the subject of the advertisement today.
If drugs are legal their sale will soon be taken over by
corporations. There will likely be no small time drug dealers, though
at first there may be small businesses.
II
Some consider making illicit drugs legal like alcohol. When one
considers legalizing all prescription drugs as well, one considers if
people should be educated before you may sell to them.
So perhaps all drugs should be legalized, but store front sale of
drugs for recreational use may be banned in most cities. The drugs
may be sold out in the County or in some cities that allow them.
Perhaps you shall have to take a drug education class much like
traffic school before they will be allowed to sell them to you. You
can drive out to the other city if you want to buy the drugs. They're
legal to buy, and legal to possess, because you have an unalienable
right to possess anything, anytime, anywhere, concealed or
unconcealed, except on private property (which is only trespassing if
you refuse to leave)*, they're legal to use, because you have an
unalienable right to prescribe for yourself, but they may not be legal
to sell to someone unless that person has taken a drug education class
- like a several hour traffic school class - it could be online. You
may have to repeat this course periodically, perhaps every 6 months.
They're legal to give, but not if you run a drug business. Small time
private transactions between friends not for profit should not be
prohibited by law.
Laws should be based on right and wrong, and should otherwise be for
corporations. Commerce is inherently exploitative, and thus should be
regulated, so that "buyer beware" may become "buy be less ware."
Unregulated commerce is like stealing.
I say you have an unalienable right to possess and buy, but that
selling may be regulated. Purchase and possession are never a crime.
If something is for sale, we must be able to assume it is legal to
buy!
Complete prohibition however, is not regulation, and is entirely
illegitimate. It is a failure of the government in its
responsibility.
Prohibition is illegal. It is not legitimately covered under
regulation of commerce. Consumer demand must be acknowledged and
provided for**. If there is consumer demand a product may be
legitimately sold**. A market for illicit drugs exists and the
government is failing in its duty to regulate it. Drugs may be unfit
for human consumption, and drug addiction may steal freedom, but a
market exists nonetheless.
Prohibition of recreational drugs is no different from prohibition of
alcohol. Like prohibition of alcohol it is a failure for the same
reasons. Prohibition has a tremendously degenerative effect on our
society. Just as with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, drug
prohibition has led to organized crime - gangs and increased criminal
activity. This likely creates a vicious circle, as drug dealing may
be a gateway crime to other criminal activities, and as drug dealers
may not be able to rely on law enforcement they may have to rely on
self protection and take the law into their own hands. Thus more
violence may increase.
Drug dealing may be a gateway crime. As some people see an obvious
lack of immorality, they may break the law. After so breaking the law
they may turn to commit other crimes.
Thus unrighteous laws, delegitimize righteous laws, reflecting badly
on the law as a whole. The government murders, and the individual
murders. Murder 1 becomes the norm. Error is taught and our country
is put in sin.
The simple fact is that your unalienable rights have been violated,
and this is an injustice. In addition to increased victims of crime,
the drug war has led to the imprisonment of over 1,000,000 people for
drug crimes, and likely over 3,500,000 on probation or parole for drug
crimes. This is a tremendous cost for taxpayers and has created
tremendous injustice and unhappiness for convicts, their families,
friends, normal citizens who witness this unrighteousness go on. We
have tyranny to blame for this. What goes around comes around.
Wherever freedom has been violated, destruction and death will reign
and likewise come to those who commit injustice. That includes the
taxpayers, in terms of dollars and in terms of clogged court systems.
Not to mention cops and prison guards who die, and prison guards who
actually spend their lives in prison but go home at night.
We want to create a zero crime and punishment society and the drug war
is step in the absolute wrong direction. Holistic solutions must be
found, and it is every citizen's responsibility as well as every
elected representative's responsibility to find them. The other
greatest reason for crime is obviously poverty. As people become
richer there will be less theft. But there are also other
possibilities.
-------------------------
* You do not have a right to violate or endanger people, so for
instance, you don't have a right to carry a dangerous bomb or
particularly toxic substance around people - bombs and such drugs must
be safely transported. Most rights are not owed to you. But perhaps
the rich do you owe you health insurance at a reasonable price and a
job at a reasonable wage. Rights may not be taken from you except by
murderers in the wrong. One should keep in mind that all unalienable
rights include their opposite. For instance, freedom of speech
includes freedom to not speak. Freedom of possession includes freedom
to not posses.
**However wanting to buy a product unregulated at a lower price does
not qualify as consumer demand. For instance the government required
all new cars to be sold with airbags and this increased the price of
new cars. By doing this, airbag technology was improved and the cost
of airbags eventually decreased. If they had not done this, the cars
with airbags may have cost more than the cars without airbags and
would have outsold those with airbags, and thus airbags would still
today not be standard on most cars, while instead actually they today
are standard and affordable. If someone had in the past wanted to buy
a car without an airbag because it was cheaper that would not be
legitimate; however if they wanted to buy a car without an airbag
because they didn't want an airbag in their car, then the government
should provide for this, but the car without an airbag should still
cost just as much as the car with an airbag. An easy way to do this
is to have an airbag on/off switch in the car.
III
There are two ways of looking at the law;
1) as if we have no rights, and start with freedom from everything,
and that everything is illegal unless the law gives us a right. In
this case, what people want makes a whole big difference.
2) as if we have all rights, and have freedom to everything, and that
everything is legal, and the law may only take rights away when it is
JUSTIFIED to do so. In this case what people want makes no
difference, for they have all freedoms inherent in themselves.
The second way is in my opinion, the correct way of thinking. You
have an unalienable right to freedom, and all other rights come from,
and are included in, that right. Including the right to be free to
live.
Rights are not given to anybody by anybody. They may merely be
recognized. Privileges are given. Rights and freedom exist inherent
in the people. Without rights, there is no wrong. Freedom FROM
abridges Freedom TO.
Thus a government does not give the people rights. It may merely
recognize the people's rights.
Further, all the rights that the government has are inherent in, and
come from the people. Thus if it is justified for the government to
attack somebody, it is justified for an individual to do so as well.
[If the death penalty is justified it is no more than justified murder
- as opposed to unjustified murder, which may create a justification
for murder.]
Power makes no point and changes no opinions, it is merely one's only
last resort when reason has failed to change unreasonable madmen.
The First Amendment thus exists in spite of itself. You have a right
to freedom of speech, and this right exists regardless of its
recognition in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You do not
have the right to endanger people by yelling "fire" in a crowded movie
theatre and causing a stampede. But the crime is not use of free
speech, but of endangering others, and violating their right to
freedom from danger. You do not have the right to slander, but the
crime is not use of free speech, but slander.
Likewise you have a right to possession, but not a right to endanger
others such as by carrying a dangerous bomb around.
I say possession, purchase, and use of alcohol is not a privilege, it
is a right. Without rights, there is no wrong.
Alcohol has been drunk for centuries, since before the time of
Christ. Jesus drank alcohol in the bible. Does this historical
precedent matter? No, reason should guide us, and perhaps the courts
should establish a new precedent of not following precedent, but of
following reason. For if the reasons for the opinions which existed
in the past still exist today, the same opinions should be reached.
When the court has ruled in the past with you, you want to say it
can't change its mind, and that precedent matters. When the court has
ruled against you, you want to say precedent doesn't matter.
But the point is that purchase, possession, and use of alcohol is a
right, today, in our society, and everywhere, and not a privilege.
----------------
A few more thoughts...
I would suggest that commerce should be regulated by no more than
fines except when someone has actually suffered, but for the fact that
it might take many years for negative effects to be seen.
I would say that distribution for non-commercial purposes is not a
crime. But I would note that if you're giving somebody something
without telling them about the possible dangers and they suffer
because of this they could sue or it could be crime.
You have an unalienable right to prescribe for yourself:
Recreational use of some drugs without abuse is possible for people.
Just as many people today use alcohol. The effects of some drugs may
even be beneficial. Instead of going on Prozac some people might just
need a night of partying. You have an unalienable right to prescribe
for yourself. But users should be educated of the risks.
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal about how they did a
study with mushrooms. Some people reported the most spiritual
experience of their entire lives. They just lay down with their eyes
closed and listened to classical music. You may want to try this,
rather than the normal partying many people do while on mushrooms.
Drug legalization may also lower the price of drugs so much that drug
addicts will no longer have to steal to support their addictions -
even if we tax the drugs highly.
--
Jeff Strickland
<safesatisf...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:f2ad315b-b68f-4688...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I
>
> In no particular order, three things may be considered in regards to
> illicit drug legalization:
>
> 1. What is best for society - a degenerative drug war, or a
> degenerative use of legal illicit drugs.
> 2. Is it wrong to put people in jail or prison for drugs.
> 3. Do people have a fundamental right to use drugs.
>
> If drugs are legal
>
> 1. They will not be pedaled to minors.
Why not?
> 2. They will be pure and not laced with other drugs, and users will be
> able to know the exact dosage they're taking.
This is probably true. But if drugs are cut somewhere along the supply line,
then the drug would get weaker not stronger, so the user would get a weaker
dose than expected, not a stronger one.
> 3. They will carry extensive warning labels advising users of the
> dangers of use.
Cigarettes carry warnings that nobody reads. Why would we suddenly start
reading warnings on drugs?
> 4. They may be taxed, providing the government with revenue it is not
> currently receiving from drugs sold on the black market.
This is true.
> 5. There will be no gang crime as a result of drugs.
Really?
> 6. There will be no drug pushers in your neighborhood.
Really?
CB
"Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gq8qfe$bj6$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> <safesatisf...@rock.com> wrote in message
> news:f2ad315b-b68f-4688...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> I
>>
>> In no particular order, three things may be considered in regards to
>> illicit drug legalization:
>>
>> 1. What is best for society - a degenerative drug war, or a
>> degenerative use of legal illicit drugs.
>> 2. Is it wrong to put people in jail or prison for drugs.
>> 3. Do people have a fundamental right to use drugs.
Amsterdam has ended its social suicide because of increased crime and
disease. The opium dens have closed, loser. San Fran Freako is rabidly
becoming Amsterdam but stupid people like you haven't a clue and the city
tries to keep it quite.
And the band played on
>>
>> If drugs are legal
>>
>> 1. They will not be pedaled to minors.
>
> Why not?
Because he said so
>
>
>
>> 2. They will be pure and not laced with other drugs, and users will be
>> able to know the exact dosage they're taking.
>
> This is probably true. But if drugs are cut somewhere along the supply
> line, then the drug would get weaker not stronger, so the user would get a
> weaker dose than expected, not a stronger one.
There will always be an underground supply of drugs. Just as one can most
likely purchase drugs online, with forged prescriptions from
http://www.cheapRX.com.
>
>
>> 3. They will carry extensive warning labels advising users of the
>> dangers of use.
>
> Cigarettes carry warnings that nobody reads. Why would we suddenly start
> reading warnings on drugs?
>
>
>> 4. They may be taxed, providing the government with revenue it is not
>> currently receiving from drugs sold on the black market.
>
> This is true.
That'll give moral legitimacy
--
CB
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=37&source=2&seq=i.24.13.24
Spare the rod, spoil the child
(listen to the end 2:26)
ZerkonXXXX
> Just as with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, drug prohibition has led
> to organized crime - gangs and increased criminal activity.
Just to point out here and to support your point... this 'war on drugs'
can not really be compared to Prohibition of the 20's.
Here are some reasons why.
Prohibition was centered on 'a' thing, alcohol. The war on drugs centers
upon a whole litany of things, all treated as the same. So marijuana,
heroin, methamphetamine are all treated the same.
The money involved has become too different. It is safe to say that many
times more dollars are sitting in the illegal drug distribution pipeline
at this moment than all the Mobsters combined made in a year under
Prohibition.
In the 20's there was a broad social recognition of how Government became
corrupted by Prohibition, or at least this is how it is seen in
hindsight. Today, drug money and government is made out to be some 'way
out' fringe issue. It defies logic that the vast amounts of hard cash
floating inside the illegal drug trade does not touch the core banking
and political systems. Afghanistan is the most recent illustration of all
this, as was and is Columbia/Central America and the 'golden triangle'
during the Vietnam days. Miami, Florida.
There was never a 'war' on alcohol. Using the term 'war on drugs', as all
wars on whatever, turns war into a cheap metaphor. In the post WWI era,
the word 'war' was not thought of as something so easy to throw around.
ZerkonXXXX
> Amsterdam has ended its social suicide
.. which was the reason for it's horrible economy and standard of living
over the years?