Re: Drugs, using Libertarian ideals against Libertarians
I got pulled in on facebook to argue about drugs with a man acting to stradle the fence between Libertarianism and Conservarism. I decided to use a new approach.
__________________________
I have long been anti-drug. But my experience, training, and education have reinforced my belief structure.
Allow me a moment to explain my qualifications: I carry no P.H.D. but a technical degree as a Corrections Officer where a two credit part of the class was drugs, their effects, slangs, and the likes. In the course of my life I have been a Secured Medical Transport Officer (Drug Addicts, people who attempted suicide, and others who have lost custody of themselves to the State.)
Further I have grown up as a kid knowing a grow operation, know people who have gotten addicted, those in recovery, lived with some, and even was responsible for monitoring men piss for drug tests. Finally I have also done security at a number of Housing Authority of Portland projects and helped clean up Hollywood East.
There are my above average but below doctorate qualifications so I do not need to cover them later.
Oh one final important note. I am an amateur math scientist in the field of statistics with one white paper for an algorithm no one else could create.
Now I contend directly, and foremost that drugs do not affect everyone the same. There are social users of Marijuana and then there are those who get addicted to it like my biological father was (he finally cleaned up and became a drug rehab treatment nurse).
This is also true of harder drugs including morphine, cocaine, meth, and the likes. In fact morphine is a medicine that was stocked in medical kits for a while, meth is issued to pilots in the Air Force for emergency wake up kits, and there are plenty of people who used cocaine and never stood out.
A Libertarian will now think I have conceded the argument, instead I am preparing the argument. It is my contention, again, that some have no ill effects but also some have extreme issues.
A common Libertarian refrain is "Your rights end where my face starts". This is important for our discussion. You see some drug addicts start to lose control and cannot differentiate right and wrong. They only see need.
Allow me to demonstrate need. There has been a number of portable meth lab explosions recently... in stores. The addict is so desperate they cannot wait to leave the store, they start manufactoring inside the store!
Then there is danger. A drug not currently listed as a hazardous drug (will be soon I am sure) is Bath Salts. Bath Salts have made numerous headlines recently for murder and cannibalism. In one case a man chocked his own dog and started eating it. A woman started beating her child and when stopped bit and ate the ear of a family member.
Now most drugs do not induce that level of loss of self control, but there is a cost associated with drug use.
The most common drug sought for legalization therefore will now be my next argument. Reefer, grass, mary jane, marijunana, and other names are commonly used. Lets call it Pot however today.
Pot is used to create a small high. Side effects include minor hallucigens, an increase in the value of taste, and slowed reactions.
There is proof Pot is used first and leads to higher drugs (ask people in rehab about this if you doubt) and there is proof pot can addict (aka like my dad and two roommates I have briefly had. Also statistics show evidence of this).
So then how to use Libertarian ideals against Pot? I shall use an analogy.
You watch as a nation invades another. Their success is entire. They then start moving the whole military torwards you. Their airwaves start talking about you in bad ways... spies and dual citizens both start warning you they have factual plans to invade. You even manage to hack their presidents computer and find the entire war plans (excuse that spies and hacking are not Libertarian ideals for some libertarians) for invading your nation.
You have no clue who will actually die, or how much freedoms will be violated and lost in an unopposed invasion, nor in the defense against the invasion. Yet it is clear either way both such will happen. Or more clearly you can see that there will be freedom violations since you know what they do when they invade.
Now me... if I am leader... I feel I have an obligation to protect my people from those who seek to violate their rights even if the enemy has not yet actually crossed the line. Perhaps they would have stopped with a phone call, or a firm showing of a line of defense... I cannot take that chance... the lives and freedoms of my people are paramount.
Now to put it another way. You can become a danger to me when under the influence. There is no guarantee of this, there is no certainty, but somewhere someone is in danger because of someone using drugs. Their freedoms, their rights are violated.
Worse are the young ladies addicted on purpose and made to prostitute. Now a typical Libertarian says "slavery is already against the law". Yes... yes it is. So is kidnapping, sexual battery, and assault. You are correct in all of that. However legalization would facilitate legal means to addict a person to gain similar results. Using peer pressure methods, sales tactics, charm, corecion, and otherwise these pimps would merely change their legality.
So when confronted that some rights would be effectually lost the next bastion is that the minority is very small and this impedes the rights of the majority. Now let me point at the intent of the constitution that no minority suffer for the majority.
Now to shut the final door. I shall use statistics. Not some lying ones with taiinted information, but generalized views. You see we can all say some have almost no effects with pot, some smoke it a bit much, some are for sure addicts, some drive while influenced, some steal to get pot, some become those super freaky "the man is out to get me, and my copier machine can scan the whole sky" kind of people.
Next problem is usually a comparison to alcohol. There is no proof alcohol drinking leads to meth use, pcp addiction, herion dependency, cannibalism or the likes. It can lead to violence and danger to others.
There is one other aspect to worry about as well. For at least 4,000 years alcohol has been consumed by major portions of the population. It also has religious use in some Churches and historical use by major religious figures as well. Marijuana has not been in major public usage ever (or if it was then less than a decade), is not historically in religion, is not used by any religion and fails this comparison test.
Now I do not drink (except maybe socially or upon major positive events such as the death of Osama Bin Ladin {White Wine with a salmon dinner}) because I acknowledge drinking can be addictive. An abusive drunk of a step father showed me that. However removal of alcohol is a far harder and complicated issue than removing Pot.
This is how the comparison test fails.
Now the final argument is the cost of the war on drugs. I merely point at our idiot politicians and show how they inflate all costs; wars, Obamacare, Medicare, and more...
We could effectively end the war on drugs if we make real border control a reality, if we actually chose to do things to fight the production in manners that make people scared to produce, and if we wanted to move effectively instead of in a manner designed to grow Government and dependence upon the Government.
And there is the final argument. Legalization empowers the Government because people will be in less control of their facilities and when wanting to quit they will be willing to rely upon the Government if the Government says "we can help but we need this power and these taxes before we can start helping".
The "grass" on the otherside of the (legalization) fence is not greener.
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)
