Constitutional Question 18 Ammendment

a reply to: intrepid

As long as you leave others out of it no prob. No sweat off of my..., err, nose. Your friends and family may disagree though.

And this right here is where the libertarian argument usually fails, and as much as I lean libertarian, that's where my own hangups with it are.

So much as you can say, I'm not hurting anyone but myself. You very often are. Your addiction spills over onto friends and family and others like them who love you in spite of yourself.

a reply to: intrepid

High end, yes. Cocaine is expensive. Crack isn't and it's much more prevalent. Same with meth. That one is challenging crack for the "use title".

no offense but your desire to be correct is clouding your judgment

drugs by the gram of all kinds are extremely over priced

if a crack rock cost what it is worth then crime rates would drop dramatically

same with all drugs legal and illegal

it is part of their plan to make the users into thieves

we could create much intervention programs with all the funds we spend on crimes

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: notsure1

No, addiction leads to crimes like theft, armed robbery, rape, murder, kidnapping... Those would make someone a criminal.

No, unconstitutional laws lead to subversion of a free society

The war on drugs has negative effects on freedom

Ummm...so basically your saying...legalize all drugs...just make them free...

Therefore no theft...or vandalization...or murder...cause...FREEDOM...just OD's to the left of me...OD's to the right...


That will put the dealers out of work...AND...have the added benefit of keeping them from in front of the firing squad...

Another...Win...Win...

YouSir

That is not what i am saying at all

I am saying that we were givin the power to regulate and we should kick the power back to the states where it belongs.

There are constitutional ways to do things.

If we are to ever have future freedom then we have to follow the document.

Tyranny is rearing it's head.

First off it is our right as a nation to regulate the incoming drugs into our country.

It is also within the power of the gov. to regulate interstate commerce.

It is within the power of the state to allow me to grow poppy or mj or to not allow such.

The war on drugs was designed by the nwo to subvert our freedoms and make believe it was the only way.

Ummm...now that you have defined your position fully...I don't have an issue with anything you just stated...these would follow my beliefs as a constitutional Libertarian as well...

I also agree that the war on drugs hasn't worked...and never will...it is however working just as it was designed to...

Thank you





YouSir

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: intrepid

High end, yes. Cocaine is expensive. Crack isn't and it's much more prevalent. Same with meth. That one is challenging crack for the "use title".

no offense but your desire to be correct is clouding your judgment

drugs by the gram of all kinds are extremely over priced

if a crack rock cost what it is worth then crime rates would drop dramatically

same with all drugs legal and illegal

it is part of their plan to make the users into thieves

we could create much intervention programs with all the funds we spend on crimes

Intervention and treatment only work when the addict is deadly serious about it. That's the addictive nature of the beast. You can't force recovery except by locking someone away from the substance permanently, and even then, they aren't really recovered are they?

a reply to: ketsuko

yeppers

we currently offer the equivalent of a turd sandwich in relation to addiction programs and treatment while throwing much monies at arming the peace officers

what if today you woke up and said damn i want to talk to a professional about problems in my life but i have no monies.

there is no one to hear you

if you check into a state run place they are not allowed to talk to you and are only allowed to ask specific questions to choose what type of gov. sponsored pill to advise you to take. and if you act funny while they are judging you then they will ward your ass quickly

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: intrepid

High end, yes. Cocaine is expensive. Crack isn't and it's much more prevalent. Same with meth. That one is challenging crack for the "use title".

no offense but your desire to be correct is clouding your judgment

drugs by the gram of all kinds are extremely over priced

if a crack rock cost what it is worth then crime rates would drop dramatically

same with all drugs legal and illegal

it is part of their plan to make the users into thieves

we could create much intervention programs with all the funds we spend on crimes

Intervention and treatment only work when the addict is deadly serious about it. That's the addictive nature of the beast. You can't force recovery except by locking someone away from the substance permanently, and even then, they aren't really recovered are they?

lolers
not true
i have the knowledge and powers to remove addiction from anyone even if they do not want me too.

it is however illegal for me to force my will onto others

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrepid

As long as you leave others out of it no prob. No sweat off of my..., err, nose. Your friends and family may disagree though.

And this right here is where the libertarian argument usually fails, and as much as I lean libertarian, that's where my own hangups with it are.

So much as you can say, I'm not hurting anyone but myself. You very often are. Your addiction spills over onto friends and family and others like them who love you in spite of yourself.

Ummm...actually...if one is true to libertarianism...one would weigh their responsibility for family and friends against self indulgence...and realize that self indulgence fell short of responsibility...

That right there is why Libertarianism is such a hard path...Do no harm...coupled with responsibility leaves one practicing a strict...everything in moderation...





Yousir

a reply to: YouSir

Then, I cannot advocate for drug legalization because addiction is not victimless no matter how you slice it.

There are always family and friends who get caught in the net. My brother-in-law's brother is an addict, and even though they maintain a very, very careful distance, I see the impact it has on my sister and her family.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: YouSir

Then, I cannot advocate for drug legalization because addiction is not victimless no matter how you slice it.

There are always family and friends who get caught in the net. My brother-in-law's brother is an addict, and even though they maintain a very, very careful distance, I see the impact it has on my sister and her family.

Its victimless.

I get what you are saying, and have dealt with addicted family myself. It drags you through the mud. But i never once blamed the dealer. I blamed the behavior. I was victimized by my loved one, not a drug dealer. And I could have stopped it simply by refusing to interact...but that isn't what we do for people we love.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I am not talking about the dealers.

I am talking about those who use and abuse. Often the libertarian position on a vice is that they're the only ones who get hurt by their use. That isn't true unless they have absolutely no one in the world who cares about them at all.

In this case, every relative or friend gets hurt by the addict's habit. That's where I have a problem with the legalization argument. Selfishly, yes, who cares what one person does to him or herself, but realistically, it opens up a whole lotta pain for a bunch of people because love doesn't just quit because your loved one does bad things.

a reply to: watchitburn

They don't jail addicts for being addicts. Addicts get jailed because their addiction generally leads to crime, which would make them criminals.

Those people need treatment not jail.

While it would undoubtedly be more effective to go after the root of the problem. There is logic in outlawing substances that invariably lead to crime and suffering.

Yes, there's logic in it, but it isn't working, and if there were such a thing as the war on drugs, then the drugs most certainly won.

I think the war on drugs is a colossal failure. But it's tricky to find right way of going about tackling the problem.

I agree here. But it should be noted that if we stopped criminalizing the possession of drugs, most drug addicts wouldn't go to jail. Most go to jail for simple possession.

That should be a sign that the person requires treatment and not jail.

That said, in order for this to work we need to seriously overhaul both our drug policy and our healthcare system.

a reply to: ketsuko

I get what you are saying, and you are right. But from the legal position, you (as the family member) do not have standing for a claim of damages.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Even if drugs were completely legal we still would have ways to regulate them coming into our country and ethics violations for anyone who helps ruin lives and kill people.

I meant to say "kill" drug dealers. Which is just asinine.

Sure, jail those who are unethical and hurt people. I get the point of laws. What I don't get is why we punish addicts. And yes, we DO punish addicts for being addicts, even if the letter of the law doesn't say it, in practice it is what's happening.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I am not talking about the dealers.

I am talking about those who use and abuse. Often the libertarian position on a vice is that they're the only ones who get hurt by their use. That isn't true unless they have absolutely no one in the world who cares about them at all.

In this case, every relative or friend gets hurt by the addict's habit. That's where I have a problem with the legalization argument. Selfishly, yes, who cares what one person does to him or herself, but realistically, it opens up a whole lotta pain for a bunch of people because love doesn't just quit because your loved one does bad things.

I would add that typically, the "hurt" caused by drug addiction has more to do with the war on drugs. Were drug users not marginlized legally in society, they'd be more likely to have jobs, not steal, etc.

While none of us may want our kids to have a life of surviving on a crap job just to pay for dope...its better than them being in prison not getting any help.

originally posted by: projectvxn
What I don't get is why we punish addicts. And yes, we DO punish addicts for being addicts, even if the letter of the law doesn't say it, in practice it is what's happening.

The mentally ill as well. And there's a crossover there.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: howtonhawky

Even if drugs were completely legal we still would have ways to regulate them coming into our country and ethics violations for anyone who helps ruin lives and kill people.

I meant to say "kill" drug dealers. Which is just asinine.

Sure, jail those who are unethical and hurt people. I get the point of laws. What I don't get is why we punish addicts. And yes, we DO punish addicts for being addicts, even if the letter of the law doesn't say it, in practice it is what's happening.

How do you not punish an addict? If the person is unreliable and unsafe in the commission of a job, then they are unsuited to the work. Do you keep them on just to avoid punishing them for their habit?

If you know they are on a substance that would make them unsafe and unreliable, do you hire them?

If something happens and others are hurt and it later comes out that the person who caused the incident was the person on the substance and you knew and hired them, who is liable - you or them?

And I used the word punish because that's the one you use.

a reply to: ketsuko

punishing an addict is beside the point if it were legal they would not have to steel to get hi.

drug test are perfectly legal and so is discrimination based on use.

a reply to: ketsuko

Because:

Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences...

en.wikipedia.org...

Would you lock up an epileptic for being one?

How many other unconstutional laws will we continue to live under.

We the People have a hidden power we can activate.

a reply to: intrepid

No, but you don't let them drive either.

When we talk about "punishing" addicts, I assume we are talking about the full range of negative consequences that addiction brings, not just the incarceration.

I am pointing out that there are some very good reasons for some of those negative stigmas.

There is more room for a recently released felon to have his or her chance to fully repatriate back into society with a clean slate than there is for a drug addict for precisely the reason you point out -- addiction is something that becomes ingrained making a person potentially more of a risk to employ.

The other issue is that with some people who are addictive in nature, it will only take one or two hits to trigger that addiction. How do you try to keep people from trying a thing in the first place if it's readily available everywhere because that really is the only reliable way to keep an addict from becoming an addict.