For a while I've been a firm believer that if you want to ingest something in your body, as long as it does not directly hinder the liberty or freedom of another, then why the hell should I care. Recent debates in a classroom setting do have me a bit turned upside down on that attitude now. Example: Cracky McMeth head uses drugs. For a while its great, but after a while he is resorting to things like burglary, shoplifting, and so forth as a means to fund his drug habit. Also his home where he lives is becoming blighted due to lack of maintenance. He also has had a few medical issues hes had to go to the ER or Doctor for due to his drug habit. He has no insurance and since he steals for pay for drugs, having cash is pretty much out of the question. Good news though, after some years of this he finally decides he wants to straighten up, but now he has a serious addiction problem and once again needs medical help / rehabilitation, which he has no money for, to kick the habit. We all know who pays this bill at the end of the day. So in some circumstances we could argue that other individuals were actually effected by this drug user and in all the others the cost is to society as a whole. The flip side of this coin is there are a bunch of coke heads in the world who do have jobs and manage to not break the law (outside of the consumption of the drugs themselves) to fund those habits. Hell there are quite a few millionaires that are druggies, we all know that. Generally if they need rehab they have insurance or deep pockets anyhow for personal care. So in one example we clearly have a drug user who is in fact a burden on the individual (theft) AND society, and another example where they are not. I'm just not so clear cut in my thinking on the subject anymore. What do you think?
I think that the drug use was not the problem that affected others. That came with the burglary, theft, etc. How would that be any different than someone who has a gambling (legal) problem who resorts to those illegal acts to pay for their habit/ addiction? Or someone who chooses to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (in SC or FL where legal) who is injured and requires medical care? If said motorcyclist has only minimum liability insurance, they may not have any money to cover their own care either. Then there is smoking, which is legal, but through secondhand smoke, can directly affect others and lead to health issues for which the others may incur expense due to the actions of someone else. I think there are already many activities that are legal, but have the potential to indirectly negatively affect others.
Have you ever seen a DOA from a car accident caused by an addict? How about a head injury sustained by a crack addict with zero judgement that now makes them a permanent dependent on society? How about the addicts that run their health down so far that they catch diseases that we thought we had eradicated and now are vectors into the rest of society for those illnesses? The libertarian perspective is pretty focused on short-term and immediate cause-and-effect issues and not so much on long-term impact on others. Asbestos is useful and cheap in the short-term, but we've outlawed it because of its long-term negative consequences. Part of why its been outlawed is the hidden nature of exposure - the same can be said for the instances I rattled off above.
I don't think drugs are quite that simple, some of them literally reprogram your brain. What we need is some sort of report that shows us a comparison of drug addicts users who rob people and gambling addicts that rob people. I think that would help clarify if the two are comparable. Someone could be addicted to collecting guns and they could rob people to get more money for guns, but the question becomes, what is the frequency? And these you have a point. I would even venture to say people whom are obese and over eat could fall into this societal type of harm. Agree 100%
And don't misunderstand me though, I'm not arguing that drugs should be all legal. I have known some addicts that had gotten reprogrammed and took years to undo. I was just thinking of some instances of otherwise legal activities that could have the potential to negatively affect others.
Me thinks that is a bit of a false equivalency in regards to the context of the subject at hand... Well with this I'd love to have a report comparing the two in regards to crime. I don't disagree, as the last thing we need is another prohibition era.
Have you ever seen a DOA from a car accident caused by an alcoholic? Ever seen a family torn apart by alcoholism? Why is one more ok to be legal and not the other? Your argument holds no weight.
Titan: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson There will always be someone trying to steal someone else' property. You don't have to be down in the hole with a drug habit to be that kind of criminal. Take the same preparedness to protect your family and property the same as if you were preparing for the criminal that is stone cold sober. ETA: And we are dealing with drugs the completely wrong way. Legal and (I hate to say it) taxed legal drugs should be funding treatment programs instead of jail/community service programs funded by junkies.
The STATEMENT was "reprogram your brain" with what seemed like an implication that doing so was bad. Sometimes it's a good thing. "Reprogramming" happens throughout one's lifetime naturally to one degree or another. I was not equating. The "fear" isn't the "reprogramming". It's the destruction, or the steady de-construction.
And thus we have the razor edge of what gives me pause. We do indeed endorse alchohol, which if we are going to argue from a realistic standpoint provides no true benefit to society and many harms. So who are we to make drugs illegal? Its a tough ****ing call, fall in the trap known as prohibition, or avoid it, but take the full brunt of long term harm to society? It is a mind fudger for sure.
But I thought we agreed peoples liberties stop when it infringes upon other's liberties? That statement makes sense, I get it, but it also seems like a gross oversimplification at the same time.
Outside of some small niche areas like cooking, medical, etc etc, if alchohol suddenly vanished I fail to see how anything would be lost on society. I mean I guess we can count it creates jobs and makes the economy money, but that seems more like a means to an end sort of thing. Maybe poor wording on my part. I don't see any societal benefit to people consuming alchohol as a beverage.
I think Lincoln's perspective on it was about right. In a nutshell, he said it's not the govt's place to legislate morality and vice. The focus needs to rightly be confined merely to behavior (which covers quite a frickin' lot). If you go out drinking and burglarize a warehouse to buy/get more booze, the problem/crime is the burglary, not your motivation for doing it.
They do stop when infringing on others, but with freedom does not come freedom from crime. Nowhere are you alleviated from protecting yourself and your stuff. It's the law of nature.
I agree. Titan, if you think drugs and alcohol have no purpose and have served no benefit, its time to take every record, cassette, cd, mp3, and any other music you have ever listened to and burn it. And that's nothing, do you know how many people exist today because of alcohol alone?
This is definitely a false equivalency in regards to the subject matter. We are talking about drugs (and booze) in regards to their link with crime and societal harm.