Sure he was…about as much as Stalin (or any of the other monsters on my list) were. sigh
(I’m hoping you asked this tongue in cheek…)
-XT
Sure, they were all ‘Quasi-nanni’, but any relation to modern ‘Liberal’ is strictly accidental.
It’s not really hypocritical to be for legalization of drugs but against tobacco advertisement or public consumption. You could be anti-drug advertisement and public consumption as well. As a matter of fact, I’d lay some money on a bet that those who’d restrict the smoking of cigarettes in restaurants would also support the same restrictions on the smoking of cannabis.
I’m somewhat libertarian as well, with regards to those topics*, but so few liberals or conservatives nowadays fit into the Big-Government-in-all-aspects mode that it’s pretty much a strawman.
*Don’t think there should be advertisement restrictions, restaurants I’m torn about (torn between equal access for those with allergies to smoke and freedom of association.)
I basically support the proposal in the OP, but would prefer to see regulation more like that of tobacco (in CA), or even stricter. I advocate a careful move toward open sale by first allowing cannabis and low-level opiates to be sold without prescription in reasonably small amounts, but they would be kept behind the pharmacy counter and sold only by the pharmacist or pharmacy techs.* It wouldn’t be something displayed on the shelves of grocery stores.
*Actually, wrt the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, this is how Schedule V drugs were meant to be handled. No prescription was supposed to be needed, but you had to sign a register when you bought them. Of course, state governments were free to add the prescription requirement in their own statutes, and most if not all did so. Schedule V includes, IIRC, low-potency preparations of codeine for coughs, Lomotil, and the like.
I agree…thats why it was a joke. It was supposed to be ‘there is a little tyrant in that mild seeming liberal…’, not all liberals are carrying on the Stalin tradition, or liberal=Stalin.
Well, we weren’t really talking about advertising but about some folks who DO oppose the use of tobacco while wanting to legalize some currently illegal drugs. Myself, I DON’T oppose advertising of tabacco (or alchohol) and think its unfair and even stupid…nor would I oppose advertising of drugs if and when they became legal for general public use. But I conceed that THIS attitude wouldn’t be hypocritical…as long as its consistent.
:dubious:
-XT
Please, lets not get into that “smoking” thing, okay? :eek:
'Scuse me, I gotta run and get an 11/32 drill bit.
I don’t know anyone who thinks that. If there are any people like that they must be vanishingly rare.
Okay, rethinking this, revise my statement to read “it is pretty much a strawman to claim that Power-to-the-Government sentiment confines itself to only some aspects of the currently-recognized political spectrum”.
Oh, you can say “sure, there are plenty of pro-government conservatives, I was just trying to say there were some liberal ones too!” But then, your posts such as this
make no sense.
I’m with you on this. In fact, society at large, and most people in it would be better of with minimal substance usage (I do believe some use can be good for most of us). I also don’t believe people need a right to run a drug or tobacco ad, but I’d like to be able to do whatever I can to myself. No contradiction here, we should be reasonable about drugs, not outlaw them, nor let them flow freely.
As a liberal I don’t have a problem with people making decisions and facing consequences, but you’re dreaming if you think the community doesn’t often have to pay for it. Our society doesn’t throw people out of the hospital (at least right away) if they can’t pay, doesn’t throw them out of rehabilitation (ditto), and per this debate, we pay through the nose when we put them in jail. Nor should we refuse treatment when needed, but on the other hand, why the fuck should we allow people to abuse the system without setting up some standards and rules for when their freedoms start infringing on others? Even preventing that instance. And how about preventing the " possible legal consequences if they fuck up and hurt someone else" as you so blithely put it?
If fixing the life of an addictive personality is going be coming out of my pocket, damn right I want some limits on it. I want limits on addicts that can’t avoid it afterwards. If higher insurance costs mean a better life for us all, I’m in but I don’t want the system abused. American insurance doesn’t always pay nearly all the costs for many tobacco related cancer patients when you consider hospice, lost work time by family, etc. Until then, damn straight the community should have a say in it!
Are you inferring that you’ve never made decisions that have hurt others be it by poor judgment or indifference? How do you think many of these poor decisions are made? I find this aspect of libertarianism hypocritical because libertarianism is All About Me despite the fact that everyone does these things more than we like to admit. It’s OK if someone to decide “I don’t give a crap, I’m going down this path” often without regard for others just because they are an “adult”?
Sorry, but in general the path of least resistance rules. That’s why workable civilizations find themselves putting in the occasional obstacle. You like a society without structure, where no one is supposedly lead around by the nose? Move to Iraq, you’ll love it.
When you can find a way for people who abuse their civil privileges without affecting the rest of society I’m all for letting 'em do what they want. But until we can do that without making people separate themselves from the rest of civilization, actions have reactions. This shortsighted libertarian view is nothing more than an impossible cultural wet dream.
And on another general point, I still insist that if we don’t take steps to prevent it, organized crime will once again be in the drug trades over time even if it’s legalized. They’ve gotten a little more sophisticated since prohibition, don’t you think? I’m surprised no one here seems to think it’s an issue. Just legalize it and they’ll go away.
We’ve got to take most of the profit out of it if all these drugs become legal for that reason and to prevent profiteering by other factions that might become pushers if it’s worth it to them.
Actually, on re-reading this, the above is not another point. It has everything to do with the little rant I made about needing some structure even if drugs are legalized.
Is organized crime involved in recreational alchohol? I’ve heard (in movies?) that they were in a small way involved in local distribution. I really don’t know.
By most accounts the abolition of prohibition had an immediate and dramatic effect on crime. The “mobs” eventually moved on to other vices.
And yes, since RICO (thank you, Bobby), organized crime is a ghost of it’s old self.
Corporate greed, for all it’s evil, is somewhat preferable to street crime. No?
Oh, I’m not against decriminalization, but unlike alcohol, there isn’t only one substance that would be legalized. Several back doors could be accessible by Mafia types if we’re not careful. Sure, organized crime has a finger or two in a bunch of stuff, it will be hard to keep it out all together. But how do we prevent it? Dealing with the processing of marijuana, cocaine, meth (should meth or PCP be legal?) or LSD might not be a centralized operation. How should it be scrutinized? Might they use semi-legitimate pharmaceutical connections to sneak in? Organized crime would have a lot of time to figure it out, because if it happens at all it will take at least a decade for it to do so.
Another point for keeping costs low is to see that prices don’t creep up to where street drugs would once again become profitable. Again, let the manufacturers make their money on volume, not on sales competition that knows no bounds or sooner or later it will be exploited. Even if it means all former street drugs, alcohol, tobacco being distributed by a non-profit organization.
In addition, might we have a chance to find a way of distributing these substances from a kind of facility that is associated with health clinics, educational resources, perhaps even entertainment in some instances. I’m just riffing here, trying to think of a new paradigm. Someplace where people are gently reminded not to over do it, but where they might be able to enjoy their high. A place where one can have lots of various health issues addressed including general health, contraception, nutrition as well as keeping an eye out for people going off the rails. A place where those taking more psychoactive drugs might have a chance to use them for educational or spiritual experiences if that floats their boat. A place where a cultural encouragement of moderation could be fostered.
I would be a much more complex situation with perhaps dozen of different substances to contend with. All I’m saying is that we need to be careful to close obvious loopholes early on, and to think of additional ways to make legalization work to the advantage of society.
Keeping drugs illegal in America puts a lot of money into the pockets of Judges, Lawyers and other Judicial people. That’s not even including the revenue it generates for the states.
We will never see drugs legal in America.
I’m for the legalization of all drugs too, but it won’t happen in my lifetime. Too much money is being made. Preaching to the choir, I know…
Eliminating the war on drugs will help clean out the police departments. It is a crime hook that allows the criminal organizations to criminalize police.
Taxing drugs will allow us to offer assistance to those who seek to get off drugs.
It will hurt governments that allow drugs to be be grown.
It will make it safer to be a police officer.
It will take incentive off drug pushers to get new people hooked.
It will make it safer to walk the streets .
It will diminish drug wars.
Come now. Do you really believe that courts will have to close for lack of business if drugs were legal? There’s plenty of rapes, murders and thefts to keep them nice and busy, I should think.
If anything, the War on Drugs costs the state money. They have to pay for all of the expenses involving prosecution and incarceration. There’s no “profit” in it.
I agree with you that we won’t see legalization in our lifetimes, but not because of money. It’s because of politicians. Anything smacking of “soft on crime” is the kiss of death in politics.
I can just hear the opponent of a politician who favors legalization: “Candidate X wants to see crazed junkies rampaging though our neighborhoods with no control over them. He wants your children to think drugs are okay. He wants to see more crack babies in hospitals!”
The corrections system in my state does random drug tests. Those in charge of the program really want to end it because it costs the state a huge sum (IIRC it’s around $500 per test and they have thousands of employees) and the rate of people failing the test is extremely low. However, they know to even suggest it would make the public outraged after the media and anyone seeking re-election got ahold of the story.
The War on Drugs sucks and it’s incredibly expensive, and probably one of the worst ideas any civilized nation ever put in motion. Put the blame where it really lies. It’s not the judicial and corrections systems’ fault; most of the people involved in both fields hate it. It’s the* politicians* who keep this nightmare going. They get immense political capital out of it and damned if they’d be willing to give that up.
Correction: it costs the taxpayer. It profits (some of) the subordinates and agents of the state.
Do you feel the same way about smokers and fat people?
That’s great unless you’re that “someone else.”
Irrelevant. There’s pros and cons to drugs, what’s important is finding the best way to deal with them. And it seems, it’s an even greater chance of being that “someone else” if drugs are illegal, and thus to a large extent, out of control.