Well, I've been saying since at least 2014 that surely the opioid (and related heroin) problem in the US is an indication that the libertarian idea of drug legalisation is fanciful and misguided, at best. (I could use stronger words, but I'm feeling generous today.)
I see that one German Lopez at Vox has explained at length why he would now agree with me, in his article entitled:
I used to support legalizing all drugs. Then the opioid epidemic happened.
Maybe in 10 years time he'll change his mind about marijuana legalisation, too.
17 comments:
No-one in a rational mind would take the drug or any other. It destroys the libertarian argument.
When they eventually meet a drug addict maybe they wil repent.
I can't quite get the image of Jason repenting at your feet to play in my head, Homer...
libertarianism is merely the polar opposite of communism. Churchill once said something like If you were not a communist at 18 you did not have a heart and if you were still a communist at 30 you did not have a brain.
It is the same about being a libertarian except maybe up the age to say 21 and not 18.
It is why a lot of 'libertarians' act very like old style 1960s communists
never met a drug addict Homer but I've met plenty of drug users, many more functional than yourself
well someday when you grow up and understand life you will grow out of libertarianism. Until then...
your sentence shows you have yet to meet up with reality
The ironic thing is that Paxton should be on some anti-hallucinate and he's advocating drug policy. incredible.
Stepford, you dildo.
I can't be bothered reading that linked piece because it would be a variation of the same crap that's been peddled forever by prohibitionists. "Drugs are bad for you"... well no shit sherlock.
Ask yourself this though. The piece starts off by describing an opioid epidemic. How effective is the US war on drugs which I would bet costs close to $150 billion a year if we're now talking about an epidemic with a new family of drugs. It doesn't work!
No one in the world has refrained from drug use or stopped using them because they are illegal.
I suggest you read a book written by a decent leftwinger with a good heart.
It's called, A fugitive Life, by Alice Hoffamn. It goes into the utter destruction of the American inner cities by the drug war. The road to hell is paved with good intentions... never forget that.
JC another person who has yet to grow up. no strange they are both Trumpkins.
Trump never grew up either
"No one in the world has refrained from drug use or stopped using them because they are illegal."
A ridiculous exaggeration.
The "success" of a law is not judged solely by the number of times it is broken, anyway. It can be judged by the comparison of how society would be without the law.
The problems with drug laws are not minor, especially if there is inadequate preparedness to deal with it as a health issue as well as a law enforcement issue. I think there is a good case to be made that America has gone too far in one direction; Australia and Europe have probably always handled it better.
No one actually handles it as libertarians suggest, not even Portugal, and there is good reason for that.
"No one in the world has refrained from drug use or stopped using them because they are illegal."
A ridiculous exaggeration.
You're right, it's stopped around .0001578% of people with a curiosity for drugs.
The "success" of a law is not judged solely by the number of times it is broken, anyway. It can be judged by the comparison of how society would be without the law.
Around 80% of incarceration in the US is due to drug related crime.
The problems with drug laws are not minor, especially if there is inadequate preparedness to deal with it as a health issue as well as a law enforcement issue. I think there is a good case to be made that America has gone too far in one direction; Australia and Europe have probably always handled it better.
Drug use and drug dependence is about the same.
No one actually handles it as libertarians suggest, not even Portugal, and there is good reason for that.
Prohibition doesn't work and never has.
Shut up Paxton, you imbecile.
"You're right, it's stopped around .0001578% of people with a curiosity for drugs."
Yes, I suppose it has nothing to do with the miniscule illicit drug use in Japan, Singapore and Sweden.
"According to the 2008 World Drug Report by the United Nations office on drugs and crime 8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore it is 0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates – such as heroin, opium and morphine – 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore."
Yes - culture plays a role in countries which have next to no illicit drug problem, but your argument that strict laws play no role in those societies is a stupid libertarian bit of denial.
Okay, so you want to introduce the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for drug use like some Asian countries do. How useful. How liberal.
So the conclusion here is continue with the drug war which feeds terrorism and organised crime.
...No-one in a rational mind would take the drug or any other.
Like Paul Erdos, the legendary mathematician who used amphetamines for the last 20 years of his life. When a friend said he was addicted Erdos proved him wrong by going cold turkey for a month. After that he said, "you are delayed the progress of mathematics by one month". Interesting, reminds me of the anecdote that if you go to a Maths conference you'll see mathematicians huddled around the coffee machines(there is a neurotransmitter correlation there). Erdos was no fool, dopamine levels fall with age and it plays a vital role in sustaining focus and motivation.
Or how about Crick who while discovering the DNA structure was using LSD.
Or Shockley who once stated that on LSD trips he could visualise the electron dynamics that that helped him design the transistor.
Or Carl Sagan the pothead.
There are many others.
Or how about all those people using L deprenyl as a neuroprotective agent(Parkinson's). A metabolite is methamphetamine.
Or the repeated finding that the higher the intelligence the greater the probability of drug experimentation.
So all these people are not of rational mind? I hate the very concept of "rational mind" because too often is just moralising and it is a devilishly difficult thing to define.
Include alcohol: alcohol is a carcinogen. Go on, have a drink.
... Drug use and drug dependence is about the same.
Not really. Addiction is another terrible idea. On the available evidence addiction says more about a person's developmental environment and\or present circumstances than it does about a drug. Anyone who has used a variety of drugs knows that some drugs will increase the risk of addiction, others next to nothing.
We don't understand addiction, stop pretending we do.
The problem, John, is that governments make laws for society, not just individuals.
Listing people who have successfully (so to speak) taken illicit drugs without referencing the bigger picture of people who have developed an addiction to them or suffered health issues from casual use is a bit like the pro gun advocates who love to point to a media report that one shopkeeper somewhere in the US has thwarted a robbery by pulling out a gun, while ignoring the fact that the same day 3 kids across the country accidentally shot their friend or themselves.
As for how countries get to a low level of illicit drug use: of course I am not suggesting (as JC would have it) that capital punishment is an appropriate response. It is a complicated issue, and I had already indicated that the American approach with conservative inspired high rates of incarceration for relatively low level drgu crime has never seemed to me to be a good idea.
and I had already indicated that the American approach with conservative inspired high rates of incarceration for relatively low level drgu crime has never seemed to me to be a good idea.
You moron.
The penalty for possessing/ dealing in cocaine or crack varies enormously. The reason is that the leadership in the black community convinced Clinton to impose much higher penalties for crack because of the widespread use in the black community. The end result is blacks receiving longer convictions than whites (who use cocaine).
Crack would not exist unless cocaine were illegal!
JC; I read that the 3 strikes laws phenom in the US had the full support of Clinton and Democrats who wanted to find a way to stop Republicans from painting Dems as soft on crime. I still say that it's a conservative idea, and expect that any push for reform of it comes from the left wing, not conservative, ideology.
Post a Comment