John Stossel: End The Drug War

[techboy]

But I don't think you can say that any action which adds to society's health costs in any way automatically loses the protection of personal rights, because if that were the case, we wouldn't have the right to do, well, just about about anything.

Oh, look. Another argument I didn't make.

You're right, but the point is that we can no longer simply take the position "It's my body and I can poison it if I want to". We're forced to weigh any adverse potential consequences on larger society, just as many rights have to be weighed in balance with others.

Why's that?

Because I'm not in favor of outright legalization (of hard drugs, at least), and that would preclude open sales and taxes.

I think perhaps the ideal approach might be Portugal's, and I'd suggest that it's telling that even the most liberal countries (not Portugal, by the way), don't outright legalize everything, so it's not really a case of American prudishness, at least not completely.

[techboy]

Apparently, I'm just too nuanced for my own good.

Screw you guys, I'm going to watch Prison Break (season 1) with my wife.

[DCsportsfan53]

Oh, look. Another argument I didn't make.

Because I'm not in favor of outright legalization (of hard drugs, at least), and that would preclude open sales and taxes.

I think perhaps the ideal approach might be Portugal's, and I'd suggest that it's telling that even the most liberal countries (not Portugal, by the way), don't outright legalize everything, so it's not really a case of American prudishness, at least not completely.

Out of curiosity and so that I don't misrepresent you, in said scenario how would you approach the problem of organized crime, unknown potency and the associated "mishaps" if it still can't be legally produced and sold? How do you deal with steady demand if supply is illegal?

[NavyDave]

You're paying their bills already, the only difference is you would save money treating addicts who need it than you do on law enforcement and imprisonment now and you'd gain the tax revenue from it's regulated sale.

I know that why I said people want to refuse to have their money wasted on treating these losers who knowingly put themselves in this position and if it means the entitlements are gone and either they pay for their own treatment or die in the alley, it would be a great deterrent or a great way to purge the nation of the useless.

Believe it or not there are people who just want the experience of taking E with his girl while on vacation at a secluded beach and aren't running from anything. The perception is that person does not exist, anyone who chooses to use is weak, a loser and trying to escape reality. As with all things in life, the truth is in the middle, it's not that cut and dry. Some do some don't.

And as I said if some idiot wants to willing use an illegal dangerous substance and they have a violent reaction and dies without hurting anyone else I'm ok with that.

This old school romanticizing of cocaine and other drug by the selfish and the irresponsible is sad but not unexpected. Addiction to illegal narcotics is not a disease or a sickness, its a weakness. When a person knowingly ingest something that is going to eventually mess that person up and turns that person into a burden for society since we are expected to take care of that person, then that person is weak, selfish and a useless member of Society.

[Mooka]

Trying to imagine society if all recreational drugs were legalized. Imagine the growing industry that would follow! Talk about floodgates.

I stand willing to be corrected, however, as to any possible misimpressions.

Cocaine is considered "hard" more so for its addictive qualities and how dangerous it is. Kind of like discussing "smoking" you're talking about the dangers of habitual use rather then the effects of a single cigarette.

Many people in the late 70s and 80s used it socially. (as do today) It makes you upbeat and talkative. (stimulant) Like having a drink to lighten up.

Classification its difficult though, were talking about the same thing as crack which no one uses like above.

[DCsportsfan53]

Again, some people do, some people don't, why are the ones who don't criminals?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Again, some people do, some people don't, why are the ones who don't criminals?

Convenience, mostly.

[Skin'Em84]

techboy's point isn't that you get off. His point is the fact that you won't get off doesn't act as deterent.

To pretend like adicts aren't going to do things that are dangerous to others because they can go to jail is dumb.

Okay, I agree with this.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Heroin should remain banned

It is dangerous, it destroys you, it turns you in a liar and you become completely reliant on it to function.

Its one of the lines in the sand I have

[Hubbs]

Trying to imagine society if all recreational drugs were legalized. Imagine the growing industry that would follow! Talk about floodgates.

The truly shocking thing here is that you seem to believe that there isn't already an enormous recreational drug industry. An industry that pays no taxes. An industry that is subject to no laws. An industry that competes for market share with guns. An industry that can lace its products with whatever it wants. An industry that kills cops. An industry that fills prisons. An industry that has only grown larger and more powerful with every passing year of the "war" against it.

The floodgates aren't closed. They never have been.

Oh, look. Another argument I didn't make.

You're right, but the point is that we can no longer simply take the position "It's my body and I can poison it if I want to". We're forced to weigh any adverse potential consequences on larger society, just as many rights have to be weighed in balance with others.

Well, when you say that "the argument no longer works," if you're not saying that it's invalid, what exactly are you saying?

[Mooka]

The truly shocking thing here is that you seem to believe that there isn't already an enormous recreational drug industry.

Err... I'm very aware. I was envisioning a legal recreational drug industry.

Imagine how many synthetic recreational drugs would be created. How they would market them. Hell, the names companies would come up with. It would be hilarious.

[Sticksboi05]

I got a 95% on my 11th grade AP English paper on why marijuana should be decriminalized in small amounts.

[Sticksboi05]

Hard drugs should remain illegal however, you cannot have people on PCP and heroin or ketamine etc. running around.

[DCsportsfan53]

Heroin should remain banned

It is dangerous, it destroys you, it turns you in a liar and you become completely reliant on it to function.

Its one of the lines in the sand I have

It does for SOME but not all. I personally know several people who tried it a few times, loved it and left it at that, never did it again. I always know some who've wound up in rehab. I understand you've experienced and seen some very ugly things regarding heroin and I appreciate that but this again is what I'm talking about that the reasons for prohibition are largely emotional or morals based. Again, how can you punish those that don't go too far with it and harm themselves or others? Are you really arguing that it doesn't ever happen that way?

Hard drugs should remain illegal however, you cannot have people on PCP and heroin or ketamine etc. running around.

They already are, the only difference they won't be criminals until they do something, well, criminal.

[Larry]

It's pretty easy to explain, and I will do so with an example that is less complicated: seat belt laws.

Pure libertarian philosophy argues (persuasively in my mind) that if I choose not to wear my seat belt, that is my personal choice, and although it is dangerous to my health, I am not harming anybody else, and so I should be free to do so.

The problem arises that in a society with, for example, socialized health care (like Canada), if I do something stupid and put myself in a coma, you end up paying for it.

The libertarian solution to that, of course, is to not have socialized health care. If I pay for my own health expenses, I again assume the total mantle of risk.

If we do not change the law about socialized health care, though, the argument that I am only harming myself no longer works.

OT, but here in Florida, we have mandatory seat belt laws, but motorcycle riders aren't required to wear helmets. (Maybe they have a better lobby, or something.)

I've always imagined a law saying that motorcycle riders are allowed to ride without helmets, if the bike has a special permit on the license plate, which basically says "Owner carries $1M medical insurance"

[Larry]

If we do not change the law about socialized health care, though, the argument that I am only harming myself no longer works.

Pointing out, however, that the same reasoning can be used to allow the government to mandate haircuts for all citizens. (Since, if they walk around looking like 60's hippies, then they might get fired, and if they get fired, then the taxpayers might have to pay for their unemployment.)

[Bliz]

It's pretty easy to explain, and I will do so with an example that is less complicated: seat belt laws.

Pure libertarian philosophy argues (persuasively in my mind) that if I choose not to wear my seat belt, that is my personal choice, and although it is dangerous to my health, I am not harming anybody else, and so I should be free to do so.

The problem arises that in a society with, for example, socialized health care (like Canada), if I do something stupid and put myself in a coma, you end up paying for it.

The libertarian solution to that, of course, is to not have socialized health care. If I pay for my own health expenses, I again assume the total mantle of risk.

If we do not change the law about socialized health care, though, the argument that I am only harming myself no longer works.

The argument that you are only harming yourself NEVER worked.

Not to go too far off-topic, but in our society, it has long been the case, prior to any health care reform, that your non-seat belt wearing idiocy could very well cause me to end up paying for it. Because if you're in a severe accident, and you don't have health insurance, the hospital will treat you anyway. You can't pay your bill. Guess who does?

That's one problem with the anti-health care reform argument, that it seems to view people who don't have health care as freedom fighters and independent Americans making decisions that only effect themselves. Not the case. Above all else, they are freeloaders, and major burdens on the taxpayers, who fund their repeated unpaid trips to the emergency room.

**EDIT** whoops. just read your post before that one. Seems you already acknowledged that point (at least as it pertains to seat belts). My bad. Carry on...