Ok Tommy, I'm gonna run with your argument...
So, I REALLY like Starbuck's mochas. But they're kinda pricey, and I'm not making that much at work. If I steal some cash o get my mochay goodness, then mochas should be banned?
How about the folks who kill over expensive shoes, or other small items? Should those items be banned, as they lead to criminal acts?
Not saying the legalization is going to make the world all rosy. But the prohibition is certainly not working, and is causing problems...
Do mochas cause you to lose spatial coordination and drive your car off the road and kill pedestrians, or run head-on into other cars? Let's keep the argument within sane boundaries.
I know there are people who kill for shoes but we don't associate shoes with destructive behaviour that has deleterious effects on people surrounding the user.
1.)Then what seems to be the problem?
Yes.
2.) "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin.
3.) "I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much liberty than those attending too small degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
4.) Making alcohol illegal seemed to increase the number of criminal acts and legalizing it again seemed to drop it. So what if a few criminals resort to crime to get more? How is illegalizing "drugs" in line with the ideas of personal freedom? Plus if the stigma is gone that "drugs are bad, mmmk" then it will be easier for those with a problem with drugs to seek help.
5.) Anywhere there is increased poverty there is an increase in crime. You don't see rich drug abusers going around breaking into peoples houses do you? If a drug abuser had money then they wouldn't have a need to steal.
1.) The "problem" as I thought I'd made clear is that an increasing crime rate is bad for society.
2.) What "essential liberty" is there in stoning yourself silly with drugs??? That's one of the most assinine things I've heard claimed.
3.) "I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much liberty than those attending too small degree of it." -- true, but if you want me to be exposed to what happens when meth heads get too desperate for drugs then I'd appreciate a much wider latitude in my ability to practice my second amendment rights than I am currently am -- and by that, I mean inside the borders of the entire U.S. of A., NOT just my home state because I happen to live in one with pretty decent CCW laws.
4.) It is true that prohibition gave the Mafia a lot of power through illegal distilleries and rumrunning, but it is also true that per capita use of alcohol by the general population was never lower than during prohibition.
The basic problem was that alcohol was generally accepted by far more people in America than harder drugs and became politically unpopular.
5.) A common belief but not one supported by history. There were some pretty wild and publicized criminal activity through the depression (such as Bonnie & Clyde and a few other gangsters ...usually around Chicago ... for some reason
) but the general crime rate showed no great upheaval.
I don't see how. I distinctly remember grousing around one Saturday afternoon with some buddies back when I was 19 or 20 that we couldn't find anybody to buy us beer. We all commented that we sure could find somebody to sell us pot though.
It's pretty hard to control distribution when everybody from the manufacturers right down to the local dealers all operate illegally.
And your experience proves no one else did?
Right now in California medicinal marijuana is in vogue. You need a scrip from a doctor. All you have to do is tell a doctor you have a chronic problem with headaches and very likely he'll give it to you. The "medical" marijuana has become a joke.
Care to tell me how the War on Drugs is compatible with the 10th and 9th amendments?
It is not, perhaps; maybe it should be a state issue. But as a practical matter, given the current social and political climate we're in, I wish you good luck with this. Oh, and BTW, when you go on the Jihad to re instate the 9th and 10th amendments, keep in mind that when you're doing it in the name of drugs you will turn people off to your movement faster than you can imagine. You're not going to win the fight using that tactic.
If you want to restore the ninth & tenth amendment -- a worthy idea BTW, please please please find some other motivation -- something that the majority of the people can empathize with.
Franklin's admonition about what happens when you give up liberty for security is a wise concept, but the bitter reality is people today want security and generally have a very stilted concept of what "liberty" is.
Given what we tolerate now in airport security ... given that a lot of people seem to want government provided healthcare, that we accept the current tax code despite it's onerous intrusions into our bank accounts, and makes us a slave to the government from each January to May .... I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
We tolerate "necessary evils" today that at
one tenth their intrusions in Ben Franklin's time, caused those people to dress as Indians and throw tea overboard. That was over a 1% tax.
Now we are debating a personal income tax being raised to
39% and our jackwagon politicians whine about the "rich" paying "their fair share" and -- oh joy -- the Republicans are perfectly joyous about promising to keep it at 36% 'cause that'll actually get 'em elected. Wow, I am so friggin'
impressed ![[barf]](http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/Smileys/default/barf_smiley.gif "Barf!")
So ... good luck.
And it isn't because I am on some Great Holy Jihad of my own to keep these drugs criminalized. I'm not.
My faith in humanity is not such that I expect great things from humanity should we keep these drugs banned, or should we legalize them.
I have not seen any good arguments that make me want to join on this bandwagon. Restoring the Constitution would be a great thing. But this is the worst bandwagon I can think of for this purpose.
It's IMHO one of the reasons the Libertarian Party never seems to get anywhere.
You are just not going to accomplish it by trying to convince the American people to be more accepting of a behaviour so many view as
destructive, so, if you wish to effect change, find something
constructive.
Just my two cents ......
