RickyP,
To answer your question, I will say that I am all for a person being able to use drugs if they choose to as long as they follow the law. This is the Libertarian in me. However, since it is a crime, the Justice inside of me says that it is a law, and until it is repealed it should be followed.

So to summarize:
Follow the law
If it is not a law, do as you wish as long as it does not affect others
If government assistance is needed due to poor life choices, that would not be allowed as it affects others via a tax burden

There are costs to prosecute EVERY crime. Should we not prosecute hate crimes? How about murder and rape? This is a false argument.

Fate

Do you propose giving people drugs? If not, how will they get them without crime?

In Switzerland heroin addicts are prescribed their drugs.
They inject at a doctors office.
What has this accomplished?
1) Crimes of robbery and burglary are way down.
2) Dealers are out of business.
3) Drug rate use is down. It was dealers trying to get new clients that really pushes drug use. When they are forced out, and drugs are provided through the health care system .... new users are greatly reduced.
4) Drug over doses are zero when used by patients.
5) HIV, and other needle related disease has been greatly reduced.
6) overall cost of health care goes down.

Fate

Even though people know they risk prison, they do drugs. What happens when the disincentives are removed?

So this is an admission that prison doesn't seem to work effectively as a disincentive.
And in Switzerland prescribing heroin has actually reduced use and the other ill affects.

Fate

3. Do you really mean to propose legalizing heroin, cocaine, PCP, meth, and whatever new drugs roll down the pike? Please do tell us how having more zombies on welfare will help

Legalizing? Decriminalizing is a better choice for most. And regulating and even prescribing some of the drugs probably makes sense if the experiences in Switzerland and Portugal are a guide.
After all, alcohol abuse and Alcoholism does more damage than any ofthe above drugs...
https://alcoholicsvictorious.org/faq/impact

Based on your reasoning we should bring back prohibition. Which helped create criminal organizations in the 20's and 30s. And didn't work.
This is a cost benefit equation.
You want to make every ones moral choices for them, approving and allowing some recreational drug use (nicotine and alcohol) , and disapproving of others.
I say that's expensive and ineffective.

bbauska

There are costs to prosecute EVERY crime.

When the costs in having the law, outweigh the benefits ...you need to rethink the law.

If you were a libertarian you would answer, in a non-conflicted manner, recreational drug use should be decriminalized.
You have an authoritarian streak in you that conflicts with that view.
Libertarians don't support upholding laws that damage individuals or society. Only laws that protect people and society.
Drug criminalization has been a bust.

rickyp wrote:And Denmark isn't really socialist either.

You didn't say you were talking about Denmark. I would only have known that by looking at your link--and Demos is socialist.

If the US was intent on having as much of an imprint on the geopolitical world as Denmark does, we could have a major surplus. In your dreams, you must imagine the US withdrawing from all its military responsibilities and peace breaking out.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Do you propose giving people drugs? If not, how will they get them without crime?

In Switzerland heroin addicts are prescribed their drugs.
They inject at a doctors office.
What has this accomplished?
1) Crimes of robbery and burglary are way down.
2) Dealers are out of business.
3) Drug rate use is down. It was dealers trying to get new clients that really pushes drug use. When they are forced out, and drugs are provided through the health care system .... new users are greatly reduced.
4) Drug over doses are zero when used by patients.
5) HIV, and other needle related disease has been greatly reduced.
6) overall cost of health care goes down.

This is so dumb. There may be some things we can borrow from Switzerland's heroin program. However, what about the other drugs? Meth? PCP? LSD?

Furthermore, supposing addicts don't comply with the schedule of the clinics?

If you think there is an easy solution to the drug problem, you're not paying attention.

Fate

Even though people know they risk prison, they do drugs. What happens when the disincentives are removed?

So this is an admission that prison doesn't seem to work effectively as a disincentive.

It's not sufficient to stop ALL idiots. It probably dissuades some.

And in Switzerland prescribing heroin has actually reduced use and the other ill affects.

So, it's a cure-all? Is that your position? (Think before you answer)

Fate

3. Do you really mean to propose legalizing heroin, cocaine, PCP, meth, and whatever new drugs roll down the pike? Please do tell us how having more zombies on welfare will help

Legalizing? Decriminalizing is a better choice for most. And regulating and even prescribing some of the drugs probably makes sense if the experiences in Switzerland and Portugal are a guide.
After all, alcohol abuse and Alcoholism does more damage than any ofthe above drugs...
https://alcoholicsvictorious.org/faq/impact

Why not just give alcohol away for free and change all bars to "clinics?" That should solve our alcohol problems!

Based on your reasoning we should bring back prohibition. Which helped create criminal organizations in the 20's and 30s. And didn't work.

Has legalizing it worked? You complain about guns all the time. Which kills more people--guns or alcohol?

This is a cost benefit equation.
You want to make every ones moral choices for them, approving and allowing some recreational drug use (nicotine and alcohol) , and disapproving of others.
I say that's expensive and ineffective.

I say you fail to understand human beings--and criminals.

Why don't you propose making heroin legal in the US? Go ahead. Take your show to cities in the northeast where people are dropping dead every day from heroin and tell them how making it easier to get will save lives.

Try it.

I have both a Libertarian streak and an Authoritarian streak. Both noted by me. I think people should have all the freedoms they want. However, if there is a law, it should be followed.

Do you think they the law should be followed? Regardless of your opinion on the law, should it be followed if a law is in place until repeal? Do you think conservatives should not follow the ACA because they don't agree with it?

If you say it should not be followed then you are opening yourself up to anarchy of anyone following whatever laws they choose to follow or not follow. If you say it should be followed, then you need to explain why the laws not being followed by criminals should not be prosecuted.

I know you want decriminalization of drugs to be the norm, but facing reality in the US as it is today, should laws be enforced?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Coal jobs. Have you ever watched someone die from emphysema?

I watched someone die from cancer of the esophagus. He also happened to have emphysema.

Pretty similar to what I saw. I also know an ex-miner who saw his father go that way

So, it's better to have them on the permanent dole and leave the coal in the ground? [/quote]No. It is better to look at other job creation. Encourage other industries to move to coal areas, or help people to move where the jobs are and get the skills they may need.

That's a perspective. Research and development might provide a solution.

https://arlweb.msha.gov/REGS/Comments/2 ... OMM-56.pdf

Yes, let's see more effective regulation on the coal industry increase to reduce the risks. It won't reduce them to zero, but why not try. A shame, then, that the trend now is to increase the extent to which coal industry can pollute, so I wonder if the current Administration would be minded to go that way

bbauska wrote:I have both a Libertarian streak and an Authoritarian streak. Both noted by me. I think people should have all the freedoms they want. However, if there is a law, it should be followed.

Do you think they the law should be followed? Regardless of your opinion on the law, should it be followed if a law is in place until repeal? Do you think conservatives should not follow the ACA because they don't agree with it?

If you say it should not be followed then you are opening yourself up to anarchy of anyone following whatever laws they choose to follow or not follow. If you say it should be followed, then you need to explain why the laws not being followed by criminals should not be prosecuted.

I know you want decriminalization of drugs to be the norm, but facing reality in the US as it is today, should laws be enforced?

Btw, they have decriminalized most drugs in CA. Watch what is happening. Hint: it's not the utopia some believe.

danivon wrote:Yes, let's see more effective regulation on the coal industry increase to reduce the risks. It won't reduce them to zero, but why not try. A shame, then, that the trend now is to increase the extent to which coal industry can pollute, so I wonder if the current Administration would be minded to go that way

When one goes from the sheer zero-tolerance of the Obama Administration for coal, anything is going to be an "increase (in) the extent to which the coal industry can pollute."

This is the former head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, as she's packing up to leave DC. Yes, the "art" says "Coal sucks." She was very open-minded on the matter.

Am I the only one laughing at Ricky's position?
He has a well known position where he hates guns, wants them all banned, etc. His reasons are because they do no societal good, they only harm people and so on.
Yet when you change the topic to drugs, while the harms are the same, his position changes.

Drugs do us no good, they harm and kill people every day (more than guns do). So why is he for legalizing drugs and against guns.
I have no problem with his gun position, I have no problem with his drug position, but I do have a problem with him making no sense. Either hate the both or like the both,

GMTom wrote:I have no problem with his gun position, I have no problem with his drug position, but I do have a problem with him making no sense. Either hate the both or like the both,

I will declare my own dissonance with verve! I am against drugs. While I philosophically want to be a libertarian on the matter, I can't, I've seen too much of what they do to too many people. Legalizing them will "legitimize" them. Further, there are too many drugs that are not safe under any circumstances.

*Excursus: why do people take PCP? I have no idea. LSD? Nope, don't get it. But, any society that legalizes them would do better to help people kill themselves because no one else will be physically harmed.*

Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment. I know the 4th Circuit made up some cockamamie standard the other day, but I'm hopeful that will get the treatment it deserves at the Supreme Court level.

There are positive uses for guns--hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. I can't say there are positive uses for PCP, LSD, Meth, or even heroin. Ecstasy and other new drugs are equally dangerous and unpredictable. Any government that legalizes them is, in effect, failing to protect its citizens.

tom

He has a well known position where he hates guns, wants them all banned, etc. His reasons are because they do no societal good, they only harm people and so on

.
Liar. (Do you even know how to quote people ?)
My actual position is that guns should be treated the same way automobiles are. License the owner, require the owner to pass tests, license and register the gun, annually. require insurance. require gun permit transfers to be registered...
Also limit which guns may be owned. (You don't allow racing cars on the roads.)
Guns primary function is to kill.
Drugs have their uses.

tom

Drugs do us no good, they harm and kill people every day

That's a pretty broad statement.
Drugs have a purpose, and many of them used for recreation also have therapeutic uses. Especially prescribed pain killers.
Abuse of these drugs is not good. But the likelihood of over dose death from marijuana?
I've said that criminalizing drug use, is bad. I didn't say that drug use was good.
The effect of criminalizing drugs has just been to put people in prison and promote unsafe behaviours. The attendant problems manifest from forcing drugs underground are also the problem.


Fate

Why don't you propose making heroin legal in the US? Go ahead. Take your show to cities in the northeast where people are dropping dead every day from heroin and tell them how making it easier to get will save lives.

Heroin use is currently illegal. And yet "people are dropping dead every day from heroin", according to a source I just read. So its illegality doesn't seem to contribute to solving the problem of addiction or the attendant problems caused by its criminalization.
If heroin were legally available from a doctor those who wanted it could go to the doctor and
- avoid over dosing
- be certain of the quality of the drug and avoid needle diseases.
- keep their money out of the hands of criminals (dealers)
- if provided free, or very low cost, the drug would eliminate the motivation for these addicts to commit property crimes.
- would eliminate dealer pushing the drugs onto new users...
- lower incarceration costs, enforcement costs and incarceration costs.
- families would have professional support that could help with the addicts problem. perhaps wean them off the drug. And certainly help them function. There is such a thing as a functioning addict.

Fate

If you think there is an easy solution to the drug problem, you're not paying attention.

I hardly think copying the Swiss would be easy.
But it would be a helluva a lot more effective than continuing the status quo, which is definitely not working for anyone, except private prison operators.

fate

You didn't say you were talking about Denmark. I would only have known that by looking at your link

So you aren't curious enough to check out the source of the supporting evidence?
But you can't wait to post a poorly thought out rejoinder?

bbauska

Do you think they the law should be followed? Regardless of your opinion on the law, should it be followed if a law is in place until repeal? Do you think conservatives should not follow the ACA because they don't agree with it?

I sympathize with this thought.
But, and this is the main point to consider, the law isn't being followed. And the continued jailing of drug users hasn't had any positive effect in lowering drug use.
In fact has probably done more to promote the drug culture.

bbauska

If you say it should not be followed then you are opening yourself up to anarchy of anyone following whatever laws they choose to follow or not follow. If you say it should be followed, then you need to explain why the laws not being followed by criminals should not be prosecuted.

Again, I have sympathy for the anarchy argument.

However, some laws should not be followed. Civil disobedience to segregation is a primary example.
Some laws just are not ever being followed, and are seldom enforced because they are difficult and stupid.. (Texas laws against sodomy for instance.)

And then there are unpopular laws that are not generally supported by the citizenry. Prohibition of alcohol sale was ignored by many Americans. And the disregard for what most considered to be a bad law, lead to organized crime and a wave of violent crimes centered around the bootleg industry.
Enough Americans believe that pot should be legal that it should. And its happening despite what conservative governments do...
Enough Americans are hurt by the criminalization of drug use, that those laws also deserve revocation.

I do NOT have sympathy for the anarchy argument. If it is a law, follow it; or make the choice to accept a punishment.

You don't get it both ways.

bbauska

I do NOT have sympathy for the anarchy argument

.
I was expressing sympathy for YOUR argument. That ignoring laws can lead to anarchy. So generally laws should be followed...

However, when the laws are bad. Change them.
Sometimes they aren't changed because certain stake holders benefit in an out size way. Or because the levers of government aren't responsive to the will of the people.
If the law is demonstrably bad, and harming society then civil disobedience might be worth the risk.

But drug laws are just plain ineffective. And represent a net negative to society And especially the poor, and black members of the community.