Anti-drug war advert

[Berzerker]

Drake -

Define "actual crime".

Some people claim an "actual crime" means violating a law. But this puts these people in the position of defending the behavior of Nazis by claiming their intraGermanic behavior was not criminal as well as defending legal slavery. Others (like me) claim an "actual crime" requires a victim (or intended victim). I've never heard anyone show a logical fallacy to this second definition.

Of course. Unless you believe in terrorism. If a company is known to use shady practices, like having 5 year old kids work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop to creat huge profits, and you don't believe with this practice, and yet you still buy from them, you are a hypocrite.

Does this mean you don't buy any products made with petroleum or does it mean you are a hypocrite?

But in buying drugs, the line is a little clearer. The buyer knows the dealer is a criminal right off the bat. They know that they have a disregard for the law. The chances of an oil provider being linked to terrorism are probably not as good as the chances that a drug dealer are.

The Saudis sell oil. The Saudis gave money to the Taliban and OBL was a fundraiser for the Taliban who got money from Saudis. Why is it now impossible to know if the oil you bought from the Saudis was used to fund the Taliban? If I bought opium, I have about as much knowledge as you about your oil purchases as to where the money ended up.

MacTBone -

I would like to point out that drugs *gasp* have harmful effects. I know, I know, you just can't believe it, but it's true. As such the government tries to protect it's citizens.

The US government doesn't have the authority to protect us from ourselves. Your logic would have "government" deciding on our diets, exercise routines, careers, and everything else in life. Would you want this? If not, don't start picking and choosing when government (you) can protect me from myself.

Who then will take responsibility for the actions of those who are high? The ones that become violent when high?

The ones who become violent. Or are you suggesting you should be put in prison if I become violent?

Personally, I think that alcohol should be regulated.

It is. But your logic concerning other drugs requires you to support banning alcohol, not regulate it.

WRT to tobaccoo, I have never heard of a person harming another person while smoking. Not that I'm gleeful about it, but I figure smoker's are just killing themselves (I know about second hand smoke, but believe me when I say that nowadays the only reason you are near a smoker is because you have a good reason).

You obviously did not grow up with a parent who smoked.

Yes, harming someone is illegal. So shouldn't we prevent it? If you take drugs, the probability that you will harm someone is multiplied many times over.

Can you prove this? I've used a wide variety of drugs and never hurt others. Your argument is unsupported and immoral! You are saying that if you determine someone is more likely to hurt others then we can hurt them before they hurt anyone. That turns "innocent till proven guilty" on it's head.

What if prices dropped dramatically for what are now illegal drugs? Right now, maybe I can buy a pound of heroine or whatever, but then the price drops. Now, I can buy 17 pounds or whatever for the same amount of money. So, what does that mean? Well, it'll be that much easier to OD. Instead of making one pound last a week, or however long, I have 17 pounds for a week. Yeah, if I never became addicted, I probably wouldn't OD, but the nature of drugs, is that you become addicted.

You need more than a pound of heroin to OD? If the heroin was legal and sold by a legitimate business, the user would have information about the quality/purity of the heroin making an OD less likely. If you use heroin and don't know the purity from one batch to the next, the chance of OD increases. And dealers often "cut" the heroin with impurities that are more harmful than the heroin just as alcohol dealers did during prohibition.


Dissident -

whether it is legal or illegal in the U.S. doesn't change the fact that opium is a major resource of Afghanistant.

And what would happen if the price supports for opium, price supports caused by prohibition, fell thru the floor? Other crops would become competitive. Banning opium makes it much more profitable and pushes it's production into the hands of people outside of the law.

So terrorists will profit from it if it is legal or illegal in the U.S. Just not as much.

We have been giving millions to the Taliban to fight our drug war. When a government stops protecting drug producers and starts attacking them, the producers have to seek out other non-governmental organizations for protection which they pay for. If government was protecting the producers instead of attacking them, they wouldn't need to associate with terrorists. It isn't terrorists who grow the drugs...

The same can be said for Columbia. The fact that it is illegal doesn't change the fact that these countries have ideal environmental conditions for producing these drugs.

But the fact drugs are illegal means producers need protection from the very government that should be protecting them.

So the way to correct that would be to fix Columbia's and Afghanistan's goverments. The drug would have to be legal to produce in those countries. And corruption that spill money to terrorists would have to be virtually eliminated.

And just why do you think Colombia has been fighting our drug war? Because the US has threatened them with boycotts, blockades, CIA attempts at subterfuge and corruption (assassinations?). Colombia can not only avoid all this and more, but we give them lots of money to wage our drug war.

Ramo -

Indeed. There're half a million non-violent drug offenders are locked up in the US prison system, and people like you don't seem to give a damn.

I don't understand John T's reaction either. Would he really have no one making a fuss about this situation? Someone takes a stand against this immorality and he gets mad, not at the immorality, but at the people taking the stand!

JohnT -

I like how you misread my post. Can you PM me your secrets? Thanks!

(In case you missed it, my post was about the LP, not the drug war. Go back and reread it and tell me where I talked about the drug war.)

Let's see:

Once again the LP aggressively campaigns on a non-winning issue. Why don't they do this for things that matter to people other than the young - like Social Security reform/privatization, tax reform, hell, even zoning law reform would get them more votes. But no, they waste time, effort, and press to try to convince America's parents that it is ok for little Johnny and Jane to legally buy heroin.

Gah! It's enough to make me retch!

You didn't mention the drug war? What "non-winning issue" were you talking about? And what about parents and little Johnny? Ramo is right...

[JohnT]

Berzerker, even a cursory reading of my post makes it clear that I'm pissed about the LP once again making political waves on an issue that WILL NOT AND NEVER WILL garner them anywhere near enough votes to make them an effective and viable third party.

Yes, drug legalization (or "decriminalization") is ideologically pure, but I hate to tell you:

Parents vote. And they aren't going to vote for somebody who wants to make hard drugs legal.

You know something? It doesn't matter if the Libertarians actually want to make heroin available to minors - it is the perception that matters, not the reality.

You see, here is how it will play out in the debates:

LP Candidate: My plan to reform and privatize Social Security... (s/he then lays out a brilliant plan that will ensure that every American can retire with a 7 figure asset base).

Demopub Candidate: Sounds good, but can you really trust somebody who wants your children to pick up their LSD fix at the convenience store on their way to school?

BOOM! GAME OVER, BOYS!!!!

Politics is about winning and as long as the LP can get labelled as "the wackos who want to legalize cocaine," well, they ain't goint to win. And this ad, while making a bunch of LPers feel all ideologically sound and righteous, is also killing them in the polls - as their national election results show.

*JohnT waits for the list (or maybe just a tally) of local LPers who've won elections.*

Oh, and before you ask, I was a big Libertarian back in my college days - even voted for Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord back in '92 and Harry back in '96, not to mention all the LP candidates that happened to make the ticket. But their focus on this drug issue irritates me for the above reason, so I can't really support them now. When they actually decide to get serious about winning nationally, then I'll be glad to give them my $1,000. Until then, no.

[mactbone]

Why hasn't anyone responded to the post I made about "if drugs were legal, what do we regulate, etc."?

Oh, BTW, the US government already protects us in many ways, include the FDA. Are you suggesting that since we have an established body, that covers all drug issues, and safety concerns, that they don't know what they're talking about when they ban the drugs that are considered illegal? So, every single drug should be legal, no matter what? That's obviously not what you want, unless you're willing to buy 80 different drugs that claim to cure you of whatever ails you, and have none of them produce the desired result, or have severe side effects.

[Ramo]

Know what John? **** ideological purity. I couldn't care less about it.

Drug legalization is about justice, not some inconsequential philosophical nit-picking.

The public doesn't like it? So what? That's why the LP is putting so much energy into the pro-legalization campaign. Hopefully these campaigns are changing minds.

The moment that the LP forsakes its committment to political liberty for the sake of votes and campaign contributions is the moment that the LP loses all the support it has from me.

[Ramo]

Why hasn't anyone responded to the post I made about "if drugs were legal, what do we regulate, etc."?

I believe Boshko answered your post.

I agree with him, more or less. I'd also say that the FDA, for the most part, should take on an advisory role; not total elimination or total control.

[JohnT]

Fat lot of good your support is doing them now, Ramo! They're still losing in case you haven't noticed. Hell, any half-baked third party (Reform, Green) gets far more notice than the "true" third party, and that is just a fact.

How about this: Place ads on an issue that will actually gather you support from any non dope-smoking adult over the age of 25. Why, the very idea makes me

Puh-leeze. When you and the LP are ready to join the world of adults, just let us know. We're ready to vote for you, but you've got to give us a better reason why.

And I know why you think this is an injustice... the very reason that I thought it was an injustice back in '91 - you are/I was scared of getting busted. So lay off your "I'm just trying to right a horrible wrong" line, admit that you're just concerned with covering your ass, and look at the big picture.

[DinoDoc]

Maybe Bayer could start selling heroin again?

Has anyone asked about how we'd prevent another round of annoying tobacco lawsuits? Would we have to grant the companies that produce them immunity from such suits?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by JohnT
And I know why you think this is an injustice... the very reason that I thought it was an injustice back in '91 - you are/I was scared of getting busted. So lay off your "I'm just trying to right a horrible wrong" line, admit that you're just concerned with covering your ass, and look at the big picture.

John... I, too, find this an unacceptable injustice. However, I am by no stretch of the imagination a Libertarian, and neither am I scared of being busted--I have never, and will never use any illegal drug, nor alcohol, nor tobacco. Imprisoning people for putting something into their own bodies is simply abhorrent, and contradictory to the supposed principles of our nation.

[mactbone]

So, what? You want the FDA to be like the SGs warning on a pack of cigarettes? "If you ingest this drug you run the risk of losing all your hair"
I guess I don't understand how the FDA could help keep drugs safe to use, if we took all their power away. Every pharmaceutical company in the world would have a field day.

Someone also said that if drugs were legal they would be more pure. Well, if they were more pure, you're right that they wouldn't have a very good chance of having harmful materials (although you have to wonder whether people would just stop diluting the product because it's legal...). You have also have an easier chance of becoming addicted, and ODing.

BTW, I would like you to look at these stats http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm#to

Some highlights -
Among probationers, 49% of the mentally ill and 46% of others reported alcohol or drug use at the time of the offense.

Source: BJS, Mental Health and Treatment and Inmates and Probationers, NCJ 174463, July 1999.

About 60% of mentally ill and 51% of other inmates in State prison were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of their current offense.

Source: BJS, Mental Health and Treatment and Inmates and Probationers, NCJ 174463, July 1999.

In 1996, those jail inmates convicted of drug trafficking (60%), drug possession (57%), fraud (45%), or robbery (44%) were most likely to have reported to be using drugs at the time of the offense.

Source: BJS, Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996, NCJ 164620, April 1998.

Drug use at arrest
In 1999 the Arrestees Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program collected data from more than 30,000 adult male arrestees in 34 sites and from more than 10,000 adult female arrestees in 32 sites. Data were collected from more than 2,500 juvenile male detainees in 9 sites, and more than 400 juvenile females detainees in 6 sites.

In most sites, about two-thirds of the adult arrestees and more than half of the juvenile arrestees tested positive for at least one drug.

For adult males --

Marijuana was the drug most frequently detected in 24 of the 34 reporting sites.

Cocaine was the drug most likely to be detected in the remaining 10 sites.
For adult females --

Cocaine was the drug most frequently detected in 25 of 32 sites.

Marijuana was the most frequently detected in 4 of the remaining sites.

Methamphetamine was the most frequently detected in the 3 remaining sites.
For juveniles --

Drug test positive rates for juveniles were essentially stable in 1999 compared to 1997 across all 9 sites.


Juvenile arrestees who currently attended school were less likely to test positive for at least one drug than those juveniles who were not in school. This also held true when drug-positive results were compared for each drug individually.


Marijuana was the most commonly used drug for both juvenile males and females, with cocaine use a distant second. On average more than half of the juvenile males tested positive for marijuana.

[Ramo]

And I know why you think this is an injustice... the very reason that I thought it was an injustice back in '91 - you are/I was scared of getting busted. So lay off your "I'm just trying to right a horrible wrong" line and look at the big picture.

Gee, you seem to know a whole lot about me! Tell me, omniscient one, which drugs am I scared of getting busted with?

Just because your politics are based on self-interest doesn't mean mine are.

Puh-leeze. When you and the LP are ready to join the world of adults, just let us know. We're ready to vote for you, but you've got to give us a better reason why.

I'd expect that the suffering of hundreds of thousands people in the US and millions more in other nations is reason enough. But now I see that because it doesn't contribute to your bank account, it's not worth fighting for.

[JohnT]

Fine and true, Guynamer. Thats all good but the Libertarians aren't exactly doing anything about it, now are they? And they won't as long as they do all they can to remain out of power.

And let me place a disclaimer: philosophically and ideologically, I agree with the decriminalization crowd. But, in the real world, the issue is a loser and I am left with the growing belief that the Libertarian Party really doesn't want to win and, subconsciously or not, pushes this issue to help ensure that they won't win.

[JohnT]

Hmmm. I seem to remember that you don't have an aversion to pot. If I'm wrong, Ramo, then my most heartfelt apologies.

If not, then you're ideology is as rooted in self-interest as mine is. Who'da thunk it - ideologies based upon self-interest?

Win first, do the drug debate later. That's all I want.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I know why you think this is an injustice... the very reason that I thought it was an injustice back in '91 - you are/I was scared of getting busted. So lay off your "I'm just trying to right a horrible wrong" line, admit that you're just concerned with covering your ass, and look at the big picture.

Jon, usally I respect you... but thanks for making up lies to discredit your enemies.

I've smoked pot once, and have no intention of doing it again. I will never do heroin, ecstacy, cocaine, but I want them ALL legalized. This is ideology not self-preservation (or, for drake's sake, self-interest ).

Btw, the Libertarians are more in power than the Greens or Reform or any other 3rd party, which, by their nature won't win much in this system.

And Mac, studies also show that blacks get convicted of most crimes, does that mean racial profiling is good?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by JohnT
And let me place a disclaimer: philosophically and ideologically, I agree with the decriminalization crowd. But, in the real world, the issue is a loser and I am left with the growing belief that the Libertarian Party really doesn't want to win and, subconsciously or not, pushes this issue to help ensure that they won't win.

I'm not so sure it will always be a loser, though. I wouldn't know where to begin to look for them, but recent polls have indicated growing sympathy for legalization/decriminalization. I don't know if now is the time to let up on the issue; we may be gaining momentum.

[JohnT]

Imran, wasn't it you who said that the LP didn't place any ads?

Regardless, I apologized to Ramo, never mentioned you at all, and am befuddled as to why you have to defend yourself against an accusation never made.