PDA

View Full Version : Paying With Our Sins: Legalize It.



Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 05:22 PM
Paying With Our Sins
Now is the time to legalize (and tax) drugs, prostitution, and gambling
Nick Gillespie | May 20, 2009

The Obama administration's drug czar made news recently by saying he wanted to end all loose talk about a "war on drugs." "We're not at war with people in this country," said the czar, Gil Kerlikowske, who favors forcing people into treatment programs rather than jail cells.

Here's a better idea—and one that will help the federal and state governments fill their coffers: Legalize drugs and then tax sales of them. And while we're at it, welcome all forms of gambling (rather than just the few currently and arbitrarily allowed) and let prostitution go legit too. All of these vices, involving billions of dollars and consenting adults, already take place. They just take place beyond the taxman's reach.

Legalizing the world's oldest profession probably wasn't what Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, meant when he said that we should never allow a crisis to go to waste. But turning America into a Sin City on a Hill could help President Obama pay for his ambitious plans to overhaul health care, invest in green energy, and create gee-whiz trains that whisk "through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour." More taxed vices would certainly lead to significant new revenue streams at every level. That's one of the reasons 52 percent of voters in a recent Zogby poll said they support legalizing, taxing and regulating the growth and sale of marijuana. Similar cases could be made for prostitution and all forms of gambling.

In terms of economic stimulation and growth, legalization would end black markets that generate huge amounts of what economists call "deadweight losses," or activity that doesn't contribute to increased productivity. Rather than spending precious time and resources avoiding the law (or, same thing, paying the law off), producers and consumers could more easily get on with business and the huge benefits of working and playing in plain sight.

These ideas are getting a lot of traction right now.

Reason (http://reason.com/news/show/133598.html)

patriot45
05-21-2009, 05:49 PM
If they are wanting to legalize pot, I guess that isn't any worse than booze. But if they want to legalize the "harder drugs like crack, heroin and the like, then they need to section off an area of the country and not let those dopers near us! Just make all the large cities drug sanctuaries!

When you say treatment is cheaper then fighting against drugs that leads me to believe its the hard drugs that would be available.I don't know that you need treatment for pot addiction. This would be terrible. I would have to carry 2 guns!

I'm ok with the gambling tho, but I'm not a big gambler.

hazlnut
05-21-2009, 09:22 PM
In terms of economic stimulation and growth, legalization would end black markets that generate huge amounts of what economists call "deadweight losses," or activity that doesn't contribute to increased productivity. Rather than spending precious time and resources avoiding the law (or, same thing, paying the law off), producers and consumers could more easily get on with business and the huge benefits of working and playing in plain sight

I understand that concept of 'deadweight losses' -- and the supply/ demand econ behind this legalization movement.

However, besides pot, I just don't see how this would work in our society. We would have to go through a long period of allowing the states to figure out how to properly regulate and control. Drugs would still be controlled substances, and like prescription meds and alcohol, government is going to have to make sure the public is safe.

Opiates are highly addictive drugs--I don't see how they could ever be legalized. Are they legal anywhere in the world? Do they still have opium dens?

Here's a question for an economist/sociologist--would legalizing pot, take some of the allure out of the other drugs?

Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 09:48 PM
Here's a question for an economist/sociologist--would legalizing pot, take some of the allure out of the other drugs?

I'm a chemist but I don't see why it wouldn't. Most people go through a predictable set of behaviors around drugs. In high school and college they score off their friends (or foafs) for weed or whatever. Those contacts gradually evaporate after graduation so anybody interested in buying weed has to deal (literally) with professional dealers. These guys have a vested interest in expanding their customers' knowledge of their product line. This provides an education that the customer may not want but accepts to maintain an image.

Two years later it's crack whore city.

Legalizing pot would cut the dealer and his other merchandise out of the experience. I think it would make it more difficult for minors to get, too. Most kids readily acknowledge that it's easier now to buy weed than booze.

BadCat
05-21-2009, 09:52 PM
I wouldn't care if they legalize drugs, if they would guarantee that they wouldn't put a taxpayer funded "safety net" in place for those that ruin their lives with them.

But that won't happen.

Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 09:58 PM
I wouldn't care if they legalize drugs, if they would guarantee that they wouldn't put a taxpayer funded "safety net" in place for those that ruin their lives with them.

But that won't happen.

We might as well legalize it because we're paying for all that crack whore rehab anyway.

BadCat
05-21-2009, 10:07 PM
We might as well legalize it because we're paying for all that crack whore rehab anyway.

On the plus side, about 3/4 of DU will be too stoned to post (or vote).

Water Closet
05-21-2009, 10:12 PM
These ideas are getting a lot of traction right now.

Reason (http://reason.com/news/show/133598.html)

Ending the ban on federal funding on Embryonic Stem Cell research, revoking the Mexico City agreement, and now legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution. The perfect libertarian agenda; certainly not Socialist. And you wonder why so many libertarian conservatives dont have significant problems with this administration? Now, if we can focus on those taxes...

hazlnut
05-21-2009, 10:15 PM
I'm a chemist but I don't see why it wouldn't. Most people go through a predictable set of behaviors around drugs. In high school and college they score off their friends (or foafs) for weed or whatever. Those contacts gradually evaporate after graduation so anybody interested in buying weed has to deal (literally) with professional dealers. These guys have a vested interest in expanding their customers' knowledge of their product line. This provides an education that the customer may not want but accepts to maintain an image.

Two years later it's crack whore city.

Legalizing pot would cut the dealer and his other merchandise out of the experience. I think it would make it more difficult for minors to get, too. Most kids readily acknowledge that it's easier now to buy weed than booze.

That's interesting. So if they were to legalize pot -- using whichever model Ca, Amsterdam, etc -- then would they make regs stricter on other drugs? Stop public funding of rehabs? Truly demonize not just the sale but the personal use of 'recreational' cocaine?

What I keep thinking about are the numbers. The volume of people we're talking about here in the states compared to that of some of these other countries that have tried this. I mean where do you even start?

--define who can legally sell, and what specifically can the sell
--what amount can be purchased and carried around for personal use
--where can a person use take place, cannabis clubs, coffee houses
--if you purchase in a county or state where its legal, can you use it in your county/state

It would be interesting to look at the history of alcohol sale and use after prohibition. Do 'dry' counties still exist?

wilbur
05-21-2009, 10:15 PM
Opiates are highly addictive drugs--I don't see how they could ever be legalized. Are they legal anywhere in the world? Do they still have opium dens?

Here's a question for an economist/sociologist--would legalizing pot, take some of the allure out of the other drugs?

As for pot, I don't think anyone can possibly mount a reasonable argument to maintain the status quo... full legalization is the only sensible choice.

As for the harder stuff, I'd be up for states rights on the issue... let the states experiment with drug policy, till we find the optimum.. and it may be different for different communities. Lets let people deal with them as they will.

Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 10:15 PM
And you wonder why so many libertarian conservatives dont have significant problems with this administration? Now, if we can focus on those taxes...

I'm a conservative Libertarian. I'll put on my cheerleader uniform when we suspend the welfare state. ;)

wilbur
05-21-2009, 10:16 PM
It would be interesting to look at the history of alcohol sale and use after prohibition. Do 'dry' counties still exist?

Oh yea. There's actually a casino in a dry county, not to far from here... if you can imagine that.... on an indian reservation no less.

Water Closet
05-21-2009, 10:18 PM
As for pot, I don't think anyone can possibly mount a reasonable argument to maintain the status quo... full legalization is the only sensible choice.

As for the harder stuff, I'd be up for states rights on the issue... let the states experiment with drug policy, till we find the optimum.. and it may be different for different communities. Lets let people deal with them as they will.

All you guys want to talk about from this article is the effin' boring drugs! :eek: Next, you'll probably want to talk about the gambling! :D

Rockntractor
05-21-2009, 10:18 PM
Ending the ban on federal funding on Embryonic Stem Cell research, revoking the Mexico City agreement, and now legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution. The perfect libertarian agenda; certainly not Socialist. And you wonder why so many libertarian conservatives dont have significant problems with this administration? Now, if we can focus on those taxes...
Nationalizing the banks, auto industry,medicine,insurance companies. Cap and trade. I am one conservative libertarian that has significant problems with this administration.

hazlnut
05-21-2009, 10:22 PM
As for pot, I don't think anyone can possibly mount a reasonable argument to maintain the status quo... full legalization is the only sensible choice.

As for the harder stuff, I'd be up for states rights on the issue... let the states experiment with drug policy, till we find the optimum.. and it may be different for different communities. Lets let people deal with them as they will.

It's that experimentation period that makes me nervous. We got transit drivers who can't refrain from texting while on the job.

The company sponsored rehab business would skyrocket. The way it works with longshormen, they operate machinery and are tested regularly. If you test positive, you can't get back on the clock until you do a 28-day outpatient deal.

Is there a breathalyzer-type test for pot?

Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 10:27 PM
It would be interesting to look at the history of alcohol sale and use after prohibition. Do 'dry' counties still exist?

That's the model you would have to use - not the Amsterdam model. They are in the process of dismantling their red light districts and 'coffee houses'. The centralization of drug use just meant that the other drug dealers knew where to find their new customers and they brought the problems of violence and urban decay with them.

Sell it like liquor and spread it out like liquor. Legalize home grown weed within a certain production level (like we do with home brewing or winemaking).

Lars1701a
05-21-2009, 10:28 PM
It's that experimentation period that makes me nervous. We got transit drivers who can't refrain from texting while on the job.

The company sponsored rehab business would skyrocket. The way it works with longshormen, they operate machinery and are tested regularly. If you test positive, you can't get back on the clock until you do a 28-day outpatient deal.

Is there a breathalyzer-type test for pot?


Wait if there are many problems with drinking alcohol and smoking, why oh why are we going to throw another substance into the mix? wont that just add to the problems we have with our health care system?

Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 11:02 PM
Wait if there are many problems with drinking alcohol and smoking, why oh why are we going to throw another substance into the mix? wont that just add to the problems we have with our health care system?

I'm not really convinced that these vices represent the biggest chunk of the health care bite. Smokers generally have no major impacts from their vice (or none distinguishable from the non-smoking population) and those that do generally pop off from a massive coronary (no health care dollars spent) or they receive pretty conservative treatment for cancer for about 9 months before dying. They aren't eligible for transplants.

Drinkers rack up health care money if they go to an ER for alcohol poisoning or alcohol-caused injuries but most of them seem to avoid docs until it's too late anyway. They aren't eligible for transplants either.

It's the so-called 'role models' who are probably going to drive costs way up. These teetotal, non-smoking fitness buffs will live long enough to require a knee replacement or two, some hip surgery, decades long disease management for high blood pressure or macular degeneration or whatever, aggressive cancer treatments, and then home health aides for 5 years or so until hospice care.

I don't think pot smokers will add to that calculus much. Now, it's not going to help with the obesity epidemic. That's for sure. :D

BadCat
05-21-2009, 11:04 PM
I'm not really convinced that these vices represent the biggest chunk of the health care bite. Smokers generally have no major impacts from their vice (or none distinguishable from the non-smoking population) and those that do generally pop off from a massive coronary (no health care dollars spent) or they receive pretty conservative treatment for cancer for about 9 months before dying. They aren't eligible for transplants.

Drinkers rack up health care money if they go to an ER for alcohol poisoning or alcohol-caused injuries but most of them seem to avoid docs until it's too late anyway. They aren't eligible for transplants either.

It's the so-called 'role models' who are probably going to drive costs way up. These teetotal, non-smoking fitness buffs will live long enough to require a knee replacement or two, some hip surgery, decades long disease management for high blood pressure or macular degeneration or whatever, aggressive cancer treatments, and then home health aides for 5 years or so until hospice care.

I don't think pot smokers will add to that calculus much. Now, it's not going to help with the obesity epidemic. That's for sure. :D

Yeah, but think what will happen if you own stock in Hostess or Frito Lay.

Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 11:24 PM
Yeah, but think what will happen if you own stock in Hostess or Frito Lay.

I do own stock in Frito-Lay. Those Cheetos aren't going to make themselves, you know. :D

lacarnut
05-21-2009, 11:38 PM
Wait if there are many problems with drinking alcohol and smoking, why oh why are we going to throw another substance into the mix? wont that just add to the problems we have with our health care system?

Don't try to rationalize with the dopers that want to legalize pot. They don't believe that pot is not a gateway drug to stronger drugs. Many people that got hooked on coke or H started out on weed. They don't believe that kids that see their elders/parents will be influenced by their behavior. Kinda like parents that drink excessively and then are horrified when their 12 year old gets drunk. Oh, no, do as I say, not as I do. Kids learn from their parents and from their peers. Making it legal would greatly increase the number of kids and adults smoking grass.

I thought libertarians were against taxation and larger government. Legalization would surely create thousands of new government employees. The politicians would go on a spending spree just like they have always done whenever a new source of revenue has been found. You don't actually believe that taxing dope would decrease the debt of states like CA. They would just spend the shit out of it like they have in the past. Fiscal responsibility is not in the cards. Arnuld has been a disaster for the state. He is a damn hypocrite if you ask me.

Another thing I don't get is that if smoking is bad for you why would the government that sued the shit out of the tobacco companies and sucked out hundreds of millions of dollars from them for health care cost want to get in the business of promoting the legalization of pot . Don't tell me this shit that they smoke will not give them cancer. Dopers do inhale.

Rockntractor
05-21-2009, 11:40 PM
I do own stock in Frito-Lay. Those Cheetos aren't going to make themselves, you know. :D
I really like your new jalapeno cheetos But 20% more in the bag. Come on you raised the price 25%.

Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 11:51 PM
Another thing I don't get is that if smoking is bad for you why would the government that sued the shit out of the tobacco companies and sucked out hundreds of millions of dollars from them for health care cost want to get in the business of promoting the legalization of pot?

For the same reason the government builds it's various welfare programs on the backs of people who smoke: they can't stop it but they can profit from it. Imagine what would happen if every smoker was instantly cured tomorrow morning. There would no money at all to fund the huge number of programs that rely on tobacco revenue. I'm not talking about the few programs that target smokers, I'm talking about the hundreds of programs that do everything from insure children to funding landscaping.

Ditto drinkers, gamblers, hunters/fishing people, gun owners, and coming soon - fat people.

As a Libertarian I would be happy as a clam if there no taxes other than those specified in the Constitution but as a practical person, I'd rather see a consumption tax than an income tax, if I could.

Gingersnap
05-21-2009, 11:53 PM
I really like your new jalapeno cheetos But 20% more in the bag. Come on you raised the price 25%.

Yeah, but we had to in order to make those really cool commercials. Eat more. :D

lacarnut
05-22-2009, 12:34 AM
For the same reason the government builds it's various welfare programs on the backs of people who smoke: they can't stop it but they can profit from it. Imagine what would happen if every smoker was instantly cured tomorrow morning. There would no money at all to fund the huge number of programs that rely on tobacco revenue. I'm not talking about the few programs that target smokers, I'm talking about the hundreds of programs that do everything from insure children to funding landscaping.



I would be okay with that. The government would just have to lay off thousands of people. Billions of dollars that would have been spent on cigs would now be available to the ex smokers to buy other goods and services. It would not be like the money evaporated. Rather than buying cigs, they might go buy a TV or a computer and the government would wind up collecting additional revenues in the form of sales taxes. The same analogy can be used in gambling. Let's say your take home pay is a whole pie. How you spend whether it be food, drugs, gambling or other goods and service is not going to make the pie any bigger. I conclude that legalization of gambling, drugs, prostitution or whatever does not increase the size of the pie, it just shifts it around.

Rockntractor
05-22-2009, 12:42 AM
I would be okay with that. The government would just have to lay off thousands of people. Billions of dollars that would have been spent on cigs would now be available to the ex smokers to buy other goods and services. It would not be like the money evaporated. Rather than buying cigs, they might go buy a TV or a computer and the government would wind up collecting additional revenues in the form of sales taxes. The same analogy can be used in gambling. Let's say your take home pay is a whole pie. How you spend whether it be food, drugs, gambling or other goods and service is not going to make the pie any bigger. I conclude that legalization of gambling, drugs, prostitution or whatever does not increase the size of the pie, it just shifts it around.
A lot of that pie is going south of the border now And a lot of money is being wasted on the DEA.

lacarnut
05-22-2009, 01:17 AM
A lot of that pie is going south of the border now And a lot of money is being wasted on the DEA.

Legalization of pot will not stop that. Drug wars and killings across the border are fueled by the hard stuff not pot.

I don't feel that money is being wasted on the DEA or the War on Drugs. You could say the same thing about the the war on crime. Trying to control it is a noble cause cause I don't want criminals nor drug dealers on every corner of my neighborhood.

Rockntractor
05-22-2009, 01:30 AM
Legalization of pot will not stop that. Drug wars and killings across the border are fueled by the hard stuff not pot.

I don't feel that money is being wasted on the DEA or the War on Drugs. You could say the same thing about the the war on crime. Trying to control it is a noble cause cause I don't want criminals nor drug dealers on every corner of my neighborhood.
Let the fbi and state and local law enforcement take care of it. Every time we turn around another federal government agency is put into place. Right now there are more people working for the government than in factorys in this country. Don't you think there is something wrong with that?

lacarnut
05-22-2009, 01:47 AM
Let the fbi and state and local law enforcement take care of it. Every time we turn around another federal government agency is put into place. Right now there are more people working for the government than in factorys in this country. Don't you think there is something wrong with that?

Sounds good to me; however, the feds will muck up the deal. I am for ranchers taking a part in stopping drugs from coming across the border. The sorry pricks in DC will not let a Border Agent fire back at a drug dealer shooting at them. What kind of stupidity is that. Start shooting those on sight that are hauling drugs into this country would work for me. No arrest, no trial and just haul the body back and dump it on their side of the border. That kind of policy would stop a great deal of drug traffic.

AlmostThere
05-22-2009, 04:17 AM
That's the model you would have to use - not the Amsterdam model. They are in the process of dismantling their red light districts and 'coffee houses'. The centralization of drug use just meant that the other drug dealers knew where to find their new customers and they brought the problems of violence and urban decay with them.

Sell it like liquor and spread it out like liquor. Legalize home grown weed within a certain production level (like we do with home brewing or winemaking).

My wife travels to Amsterdam quite often for business. I was going with her in early June but I'd heard about this and figured why bother. Anne Frank's house was interesting and the museums are great but that is one long ass flight if they're shutting down the whore houses and coffee shops. :rolleyes:

Water Closet
05-22-2009, 08:19 AM
...

I thought libertarians were against taxation and larger government. Legalization would surely create thousands of new government employees. The politicians would go on a spending spree just like they have always done whenever a new source of revenue has been found. You don't actually believe that taxing dope would decrease the debt of states like CA. They would just spend the shit out of it like they have in the past. Fiscal responsibility is not in the cards. Arnuld has been a disaster for the state. He is a damn hypocrite if you ask me.
...

As you must know, this is a specious argument. Libertarians are against laws regulating private behaviour on the principle of individual freedom and freedom of choice. The fact that by legalizing such an activity the government may or may not make additional revenues in taxes is irrelevant. If so, let's make all those activities wherein the government makes lots of money from individual taxpayers illegal, including smoking, drinking, and even driving.

noonwitch
05-22-2009, 08:48 AM
I'm for legalizing pot, and for having limited, legal gambling. Casinos in Detroit have a lot of negatives associated, in that they haven't supplied as high of profits and revenue as hoped for, but they do bring people downtown to the restaurants and bars on nights when there isn't a baseball or hockey game.

On the other hand, conditions at most indian reservations have improved because of the gambling money raised. The housing and schools at the two I've seen in Michigan are much better than they were 20 years ago. On top of that, old, lame bands from the 70s have a venue for concerts in Mt. Pleasant.

So I have mixed feelings about gambling, and I think it should be zoned and watched closely by the IRS and law enforcement.

Hard drugs like cocaine and heroin are a scourge on society and should never be legalized. Possession of small amounts should be decriminalized, but any time a major dealer or supplier is caught, they should face tough sentences. I would argue about babies being born with those drugs in their systems, but alcohol damages far more babies in much more severe ways than cocaine or heroin and it's legal.

Lars1701a
05-22-2009, 08:51 AM
As you must know, this is a specious argument. Libertarians are against laws regulating private behaviour on the principle of individual freedom and freedom of choice. The fact that by legalizing such an activity the government may or may not make additional revenues in taxes is irrelevant. If so, let's make all those activities wherein the government makes lots of money from individual taxpayers illegal, including smoking, drinking, and even driving.

Well when your "choice" costs more in taxes for health care i.e. cancer treatment, drug treatment or any number of accidents going to be caused by drugged out losers in cars. When you and you alone will be charged for your health care and not the tax payer then you can have your choice.

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 09:04 AM
Ending the ban on federal funding on Embryonic Stem Cell research, revoking the Mexico City agreement, and now legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution. The perfect libertarian agenda; certainly not Socialist. And you wonder why so many libertarian conservatives dont have significant problems with this administration? Now, if we can focus on those taxes...

Prostitues are already legal, well at least in my city. The illegal ones call themselves housewives. :D

wilbur
05-22-2009, 10:22 AM
Well when your "choice" costs more in taxes for health care i.e. cancer treatment, drug treatment or any number of accidents going to be caused by drugged out losers in cars. When you and you alone will be charged for your health care and not the tax payer then you can have your choice.

You are paying for all these things now. Youre making the assumption that consumption will drastically increase as a result of legalization, which is very debatable.

As it is... I don't think most avoid hard drugs simply because of their legal status.

Lager
05-22-2009, 12:44 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how ending the ban on federal funding on Embryonic Stem Cell research is a libertarian position.

Lars1701a
05-22-2009, 12:51 PM
You are paying for all these things now. Youre making the assumption that consumption will drastically increase as a result of legalization, which is very debatable.

As it is... I don't think most avoid hard drugs simply because of their legal status.

Well logic suggests that making something legal will increase its use, just like making contraception more available didnt lower pregnancy rates.

Conversely banning something usually lowers it use. Even though Prohibition was wrong it did have the effect of lowering alcohol use.

wilbur
05-22-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how ending the ban on federal funding on Embryonic Stem Cell research is a libertarian position.

Federal funding for basic sciences, in general, is not an especially libertarian position... but pure libertarians would be wrong on this point... such a stand on principle is woefully inadequate in the modern world, where good science is the most important factor (or nearly so) in the success and well being of a nation.

The libertarian must put aside the dogma in this instance, and recognize that the private sector performs much much worse than the government when it comes to funding and performing necessary basic scientific research, where investment risk is too high and ROI is too far into the future... but such basic science is vital to maintain our position on the world stage.

In the case of esc... not only was the legislation done in a draconian way, such that labs would lose all funding even if they simply shared equipment, space, or any resources at all that touched esc's... but the absurd superstition that drives the opposition to such vital research should not have even been entertained for a second.

wilbur
05-22-2009, 01:14 PM
Well logic suggests that making something legal will increase its use, just like making contraception more available didnt lower pregnancy rates.


The interesting thing is though, even in the Netherlands, their use of cannabis per capita has been LESS than ours.. consistently.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

As for contraception, yea it has:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061201180530.htm



Conversely banning something usually lowers it use. Even though Prohibition was wrong it did have the effect of lowering alcohol use.

Do you have some information there, I'd honestly like to look at it.

Lager
05-22-2009, 01:31 PM
I don't agree that "good science" is necessarily a precursor to a successful or healthy nation. I can think of modern day China, the USSR and Nazi Germany as countries where the state invested heavily into science and I wouldn't exactly define them as successful. As for private entities not being as effective at performing scientific research, how do you explain drugs developed by Merck, Pfizer and other private drug companies?

My main argument comes from your statement that it is "absurd superstition" that drives opposition to ethically questionable research. Whenever scientific advances move quickly beyond a certain point, there's going to be ethical and moral issues that arise and lines that are blurred and redefined. Do you believe the oppositon to cloning humans or geneticallly altered crops is fueled by absurd superstition? I think it's a sign of health that a society has that debate, no matter what side of the issue you come down on.

RobJohnson
05-22-2009, 01:33 PM
A little meth might help the UAW's productivity, it might save jobs!

lacarnut
05-22-2009, 01:42 PM
As you must know, this is a specious argument. Libertarians are against laws regulating private behaviour on the principle of individual freedom and freedom of choice. The fact that by legalizing such an activity the government may or may not make additional revenues in taxes is irrelevant. If so, let's make all those activities wherein the government makes lots of money from individual taxpayers illegal, including smoking, drinking, and even driving.

You overlooked the fact that legalizing drugs would greatly increase the number of local, state and federal employees to regulate and collect taxes which I assume libertarians are against. Consequently, your specious argument is specious. The only reason why government officials want to legalize it is for the revenues it would create because it sure as shooting is not for the good of the community.

noonwitch
05-22-2009, 01:44 PM
A little meth might help the UAW's productivity, it might save jobs!


The last thing we Detroit social workers need right now is a meth epidemic. We count our lucky stars that the drug addicts in the area continue to prefer crack.

wilbur
05-22-2009, 01:57 PM
I don't agree that "good science" is necessarily a precursor to a successful or healthy nation. I can think of modern day China, the USSR and Nazi Germany as countries where the state invested heavily into science and I wouldn't exactly define them as successful. As for private entities not being as effective at performing scientific research, how do you explain drugs developed by Merck, Pfizer and other private drug companies?


Regardless of how you feel about the ethical treatment of the people in those countries by the government, they are/were world powers... to be fair, I did qualify science simply as one of the necessary components for their well being of their people... I would rank it equally as important as the method of governance.

But in the end, we still are in a might-makes-right world when it comes to geopolitics. Science is our most important means to achieve that might... which provides the means for our governments to protect our own interests.



My main argument comes from your statement that it is "absurd superstition" that drives opposition to ethically questionable research. Whenever scientific advances move quickly beyond a certain point, there's going to be ethical and moral issues that arise and lines that are blurred and redefined. Do you believe the oppositon to cloning humans or geneticallly altered crops is fueled by absurd superstition? I think it's a sign of health that a society has that debate, no matter what side of the issue you come down on.

The opposition to genetically engineered crops IS based on superstition and pop-culture instilled fear... not unlike the whole organic craze.

As for cloning... any type of research that would have consequences for a sentient being would require some ethical considerations... in the case of stem cell research, the only sentient beings involved are the researchers, and the potential future beneficiaries of that research, so really... ethical debate is unnecessary at this point.... if there is one to be had, its should be to call into question the ethics of those who want to discourage such research.

Water Closet
05-22-2009, 06:30 PM
A little meth might help the UAW's productivity, it might save jobs!

Maybe Levi's mother can supply some.

Gingersnap
05-22-2009, 08:25 PM
You overlooked the fact that legalizing drugs would greatly increase the number of local, state and federal employees to regulate and collect taxes which I assume libertarians are against. Consequently, your specious argument is specious. The only reason why government officials want to legalize it is for the revenues it would create because it sure as shooting is not for the good of the community.

As far as I know, nobody gets to see their entire political agenda played out perfectly and Libertarians are no different. Pragmatically, there is a balancing act of costs and benefits. While we'd generally oppose most taxes, we're less infuriated with consumption taxes than income taxes. In terms of bureaucratic bloating, I think it would be a wash: the extra War On Drugs people could just move into the Tax On Dope arena.

As was already pointed out, most adults aren't too interested in drug abuse. Most kids do grow out of any fascination with it. After all, I'll bet a majority of people on this board inhaled at some point but I bet few still do it or would even want to much.

lacarnut
05-22-2009, 09:29 PM
As far as I know, nobody gets to see their entire political agenda played out perfectly and Libertarians are no different. Pragmatically, there is a balancing act of costs and benefits. While we'd generally oppose most taxes, we're less infuriated with consumption taxes than income taxes. In terms of bureaucratic bloating, I think it would be a wash: the extra War On Drugs people could just move into the Tax On Dope arena.

As was already pointed out, most adults aren't too interested in drug abuse. Most kids do grow out of any fascination with it. After all, I'll bet a majority of people on this board inhaled at some point but I bet few still do it or would even want to much.

Most people do not want to see drug use escalate. Legalization would certainly increase the number users, increase crime and not be a benefit to the community. Those that are not too interested in drug abuse have never had a member of their family either die from an overdose or become an addict. You see the shoe is on the other foot when that personal experience comes home to roost.

Most kids grow out that fascination with drugs but how about the ones that don't. Many people will say that they are just stupid because they became addicted whether it be drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. Not so. They tried it and it became a monkey on their back. I do have empathy for my fellow man and legalization of drugs is not my idea of being my brother's keeper.

Water Closet
05-22-2009, 10:05 PM
Most people do not want to see drug use escalate. Legalization would certainly increase the number users, increase crime and not be a benefit to the community. Those that are not too interested in drug abuse have never had a member of their family either die from an overdose or become an addict. You see the shoe is on the other foot when that personal experience comes home to roost.

Most kids grow out that fascination with drugs but how about the ones that don't. Many people will say that they are just stupid because they became addicted whether it be drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. Not so. They tried it and it became a monkey on their back. I do have empathy for my fellow man and legalization of drugs is not my idea of being my brother's keeper.

No one wants you to be your brother's keeper except you. Most people would rather that you mind your own business.

Gingersnap
05-22-2009, 10:20 PM
Those that are not too interested in drug abuse have never had a member of their family either die from an overdose or become an addict. You see the shoe is on the other foot when that personal experience comes home to roost.

I can speak from that personal experience. My personal experience with the horrors of addiction don't change my mind at all. On the contrary, had my family member been able to satisfy his curiosity and decadence with a trip to the drug store or the local 7-11, I seriously doubt that that he would have fallen into such bad company and been introduced to harder drugs.

At worst, today he would be shiftless a pot head instead of a semi-violent felonious addict.

lacarnut
05-23-2009, 12:50 AM
No one wants you to be your brother's keeper except you. Most people would rather that you mind your own business.

I would expect that from a self centered piece of shit like you. However, you really need to get someone to mind your business so that you don't get your ass kicked by a couple of muzzies again.

RobJohnson
05-23-2009, 01:58 AM
Amphetamines, narcotics & others are already legal if you have a prescription.