I think I should explain WHY I'm a Civil Libertarian

[Steel Not A Player]

I keep getting called "liberal" around here. None of my liberal friends seem to think so.

I am fiercely against the growing American Police State. We have too many laws, the government and police have too much power. For the first time in history, Americans are less free than their parents were. Here is a short list of my objections:

1) The drug war.

2) PRISM

3) The USA PATRIOT Act

4) Gun control

5) Steroid prohibition

6) Anti-marriage legislation (gays/polygamists etc)

7) Behavior taxes (cigarettes, soda, gas, etc)

8) Progressive taxes (should be flat tax, no deductions, all types taxed at same rate)

9) Vice laws (gambling, prostitution)

All of these things (and it's an incomplete list) serve to make us all less free. Most people are conformists, which is to say that they are followers. They get married, have kids, pay their taxes. They obey these onerous laws because they have been conditioned to believe that they make us all "safe". They give up their right to privacy and vice for the supposed greater good of society. In essence, they don't care about being free, and call themselves free because they are happy to obey.

But they are not free. Moreover, it is the freedom of the non-conformists that they are agreeing to subjugate. If you want to abolish something you already hate, that is not a moral value. Morality requires sacrifice. If an Evangelical wants to ban hookers, he's not taking a moral position. Doing this requires no sacrifice on his part, but on the part of others who indulge in such activity. If on the other hand Jay Leno decides to ban V8 engines in favor of the environment, that would be a moral stand. He would have to give up something he loves for something he believes in.

In essence, I believe very deeply in the second stanza of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If I missed a word, it's because that's just off the top of my head. Americans have pissed all over these words. They can't wait to take away SOMEONE ELSE'S freedom. Someone else's pursuit of happiness. In a fair and free society you and I can disagree about whether drugs or steroids or hookers are bad for us. BUT IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S PLACE TO TAKE SIDES IN THAT DEBATE. And that is what these social engineering laws do: they allow the cowed and cowardly majority of conformists to take basic human liberties from the truly free: the non-conformists.

The Constitution was meant to keep our democracy from becoming mob rule. It has failed, largely because the appellate courts have been booby trapped with political operatives and former prosecutors. In fact, the overwhelming majority of superior and supreme court justices at all levels of the judiciary are former prosecutors. Thus, the Constitution is whittled down to nothing, and civil liberties rot and die on the vine.

In short, I believe in the radical notion that people should respect each other's freedom. Your rights end where mine begin. Unfortunately, the real world does not work that way, and America has become a police state. And if you don't believe me, the proof is in the pudding: the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We have more inmates both in raw numbers and per capita than any other nation on the planet. By being the most incarcerated we are, by definition, the least free nation on Earth.

 

[Troglodyte]

What about federal and state funded programs like Medicare and Disability?

The reason I ask is that behavior taxes and laws like cigarette taxes and helmet and seatbelt laws that are anti-libertarian are also justifiable as they serve to deter or limit Federal and State spending on programs like Medicare and Disability.

 

[Steelr4evr]

I can agree with all but 1 and 9. Both of those will destroy your society. I am not talking about pot either. I'd make booze illegal before pot since it does 100 times more damage overall. But crack,meth,heroin-opium,lsd should never be readily available on the streets.
I just can't see how gambling and prostitution improve your society in any way.Our focus should be building the family unit back up. I would get people help on the drug addiction before i'd just throw them in jail for years just for possession. I also am with you on America becoming a police state.I doubt most of us could go an entire day without breaking some damn dumb law. We have way too many armed to the teeth agencies and they're growing. The Patriot Act should be gone along with the DHS. Our current president is an imperial douchebag who should have been removed by impeachment a good 4-6 times now,yet he wields his pen with impunity to ANY law or challenge.The great divider of men he is just as well..The amount of new government regulations this administration has produced is mind blowing.

 

[Stewey]

I keep getting called "liberal" around here. None of my liberal friends seem to think so.

Guilt by association.

 

[Confluence]

1,7, 8, and 9 are all part of the same thing: societal control mechanisms.

You forgot to mention the EPA, FDA and USDA...and of course the DEA/ATF/TSA.

I'd like to hear what a "Civil Libertarian" thinks about borders.

 

[Steel Not A Player]

What about federal and state funded programs like Medicare and Disability?

The reason I ask is that behavior taxes and laws like cigarette taxes and helmet and seatbelt laws that are anti-libertarian are also justifiable as they serve to deter or limit Federal and State spending on programs like Medicare and Disability.

No and no. People should pay for health coverage, although for-profit health insurance may be a conflict of interest.

I can agree with all but 1 and 9. Both of those will destroy your society. I am not talking about pot either. I'd make booze illegal before pot since it does 100 times more damage overall. But crack,meth,heroin-opium,lsd should never be readily available on the streets.
I just can't see how gambling and prostitution improve your society in any way.Our focus should be building the family unit back up. I would get people help on the drug addiction before i'd just throw them in jail for years just for possession. I also am with you on America becoming a police state.I doubt most of us could go an entire day without breaking some damn dumb law. We have way too many armed to the teeth agencies and they're growing. The Patriot Act should be gone along with the DHS. Our current president is an imperial douchebag who should have been removed by impeachment a good 4-6 times now,yet he wields his pen with impunity to ANY law or challenge.The great divider of men he is just as well..The amount of new government regulations this administration has produced is mind blowing.

Drugs and hookers may be bad for some people. But it's one thing for you to hold that opinion and anther for you to employ jack booted government agents to enforce your opinion on the subject. You simply do not have the right to tell OTHER PEOPLE how to live THEIR lives. It does not matter if drugs are "bad" for society, that is a personal decision for the individual to make.

More importantly, we have seen the massive levels of crime that is caused by prohibition and the black market it creates. Much more harm is done to society by gang and cartel violence because of drugs than legalization would ever cause. We know that for a fact because countries have legalized drugs.

Your cure is worse than the disease.

 

[Troglodyte]

OK but the reality is seniors don't pay for health insurance and people who gork themselves riding motorcycles without a helmet or not wearing a seatbelt DO qualify for disability.

I consider myself a libertarian but given the fact I pay for the disabilities and healthcare of others, **** them, make them wear a helmet and seatbelt and tax their cigarettes.

 

[Steel Not A Player]

1,7, 8, and 9 are all part of the same thing: societal control mechanisms.

You forgot to mention the EPA, FDA and USDA...and of course the DEA/ATF/TSA.

I'd like to hear what a "Civil Libertarian" thinks about borders.

If you've ever been to Mexico you know the FDA is a necessary evil. I would abolish the DEA and ATF tomorrow if I could, they are superfluous organizations in a free country. I would probably turn the EPA's duties over to the forest rangers just to keep companies from dumping waste into the water system.

Borders are a market issue. Supply and demand. I'm all for people coming here to pursue the dream. I think most people's beef with immigrants is really a beef with the welfare system. Unplug people from the free tit and most of your supposed immigration problems will solve themselves.

OK but the reality is seniors don't pay for health insurance and people who gork themselves riding motorcycles without a helmet or not wearing a seatbelt DO qualify for disability.

I consider myself a libertarian but given the fact I pay for the disabilities and healthcare of others, **** them, make them wear a helmet and seatbelt and tax their cigarettes.

I should have qualified that better: people who can pay should pay for their health care. As for bad habits, I think they should lower your coverage. You smoke, that's a deduction. Drink, deduction. Overweight, deduction. If they die due to a lack of coverage they killed themselves. Not society's fault if your choices kill you. But they MUST BE your choices to make, not the government's.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I should have qualified that better: people who can pay should pay for their health care. As for bad habits, I think they should lower your coverage. You smoke, that's a deduction. Drink, deduction. Overweight, deduction. If they die due to a lack of coverage they killed themselves. Not society's fault if your choices kill you. But they MUST BE your choices to make, not the government's.

When those not insured show up at hospitals in the ERs needing medical treatment, what do you do? What about Illegal Aliens needing medical care? Do they get free coverage, but those that are citizens and have your list of bad habits get less coverage than say an illegal alien? Or do you turn them away?

 

[Confluence]

If you've ever been ****** over because the FDA deems to know better than you or your doctor or scientists, then you know the FDA is an un-necessary evil. I would abolish the DEA and ATF tomorrow if I could, they are superfluous organizations in a free country. I would probably turn the EPA's duties over to the forest rangers just to keep companies from dumping waste into the water system.

Borders are a market issue. Supply and demand. I'm all for people coming here to pursue the dream. I think most people's beef with immigrants is really a beef with the welfare system. Unplug people from the free tit and most of your supposed immigration problems will solve themselves.





I should have qualified that better: people who can pay should pay for their health care. As for bad habits, I think they should lower your coverage. You smoke, that's a deduction. Drink, deduction. Overweight, deduction. If they die due to a lack of coverage they killed themselves. Not society's fault if your choices kill you. But they MUST BE your choices to make, not the government's.

fixed it for ya

 

[Steeltime]

Drugs and hookers may be bad for some people. But it's one thing for you to hold that opinion and anther for you to employ jack booted government agents to enforce your opinion on the subject. You simply do not have the right to tell OTHER PEOPLE how to live THEIR lives. It does not matter if drugs are "bad" for society, that is a personal decision for the individual to make.

Conservatives have for years tried to stop the government from taking money from one group and giving it to another on the theory that the group benefitting from government largesse - be it via AFDC, SNAP, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc. - would then be inspired to vote to increase the giveaways.

That turned out to be 100% true.

But the other part of the giveaway-government theory is that now the government pays for food, and housing, and healthcare, it can control all behavior related to housing, food, and healthcare.

In other words, every aspect of life.

Until the government stops acting as a middleman for income transfers, it will continue to exercise power to control behavior. That is just the way it is. Your objection to government controls over activities that are not the government's business is a concern over a symptom, not the disease.

Further, your post is well-stated. I appreciate your observations, and they put things into perspective for me. However, I must point out that your objections to government control should be directed to a centralized - Federal - control. The 10th amendment specifically provides, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I therefore believe our system is designed to allow California to pass laws on behavior that cannot and should not be passed by the Federal government. The same is true for all 50 states. The theory is that United States citizens will have a vast array of choice in terms of state control of behavior (or lack thereof), and can move to another state, if so desired.

That will lead to experimentation in terms of what controls are enacted, and what effect they have on the citizens of each state. Those states that act against the will of the population, or enforce their laws unequally, or restrict behavior excessively, will lose residents. The marketplace of ideas will force these states to accommodate or perish.

Instead, beginning in the early 20th century, the limitations on Federal power eroded. These changes came about first through Federal control of economic activity - wages, working conditions, etc. The Supreme Court struck down numerous portions of the new deal - the National Recovery Act, the Agriculture act limiting what farmers could or could not grow and prices to be charged, etc. - at which point Roosevelt, after a landslide win in the 1936 election, sought to change the Federal judiciary.

Most now posit that Roosevelt "lost" the confrontation, but I disagree. He bullied the Supreme Court, and not coincidentally, in 1937 the court upheld a minimum wage law for the first time. Shortly thereafter, the Court began to take an expansive view of the commerce clause, thereby giving the Federal government nearly unfettered access to economic control.

Economic control gave rise to "health and safety" power, such as the EPA, ATF, etc. Now, we think of the Federal government as having basically unlimited power over nearly every aspect of our lives - what we eat, how much we get paid, what medication we take, how much medical care costs, etc.

That change is recent, dating back to when my father was 8 years old. Unfortunately, Americans today read very little, have almost no sense of history, know virtually nothing about the workings of our governments, and therefore lack the intellectual wherewithal to understand why the current system - with a monolithic Federal government imposing its will on nearly every aspect of our lives - is a parody of what our country was meant to be.

And to be clear - our country was meant to be much closer to what you propose, though states could of course set a far different course.

 

[IndySteel]

Now explain WHY you're a douchebag.

 

[Steel Not A Player]

When those not insured show up at hospitals in the ERs needing medical treatment, what do you do? What about Illegal Aliens needing medical care? Do they get free coverage, but those that are citizens and have your list of bad habits get less coverage than say an illegal alien? Or do you turn them away?

You're talking about two different things here. Emergency care for a broken leg isn't going to be the result of smoking. Long term medical care for lung cancer would be. So the broken leg is covered but the chemo isn't.

With illegal immigrants it's even more simple: you cast up or stitch up any basic wound or injury because those procedures aren't expensive. If he or she needs major surgery, you contact the embassy of their country of origin just like you would an insurance company. If the country refuses to cover the procedure they die. It's their own country's fault for not covering them, not ours.

If someone dies because they failed to pay full coverage or had bad habits that is not the system's fault. They would have died anyway. It is not society's responsibility to save the weak and irresponsible from their fate. It sucks to be poor, yes. But there's nowhere on earth that's easier to change your economic status than America.

fixed it for ya

Dude, if you don't have food, water and sanitation standards you're a 3rd world country. You really want to go back to typhoid outbreaks? Protecting our food and water supply is an infrastructure issue, like maintaining the roads, it is a necessary expense in a developed country.

Conservatives have for years tried to stop the government from taking money from one group and giving it to another on the theory that the group benefitting from government largesse - be it via AFDC, SNAP, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc. - would then be inspired to vote to increase the giveaways.

That turned out to be 100% true.

But the other part of the giveaway-government theory is that now the government pays for food, and housing, and healthcare, it can control all behavior related to housing, food, and healthcare.

In other words, every aspect of life.

Until the government stops acting as a middleman for income transfers, it will continue to exercise power to control behavior. That is just the way it is. Your objection to government controls over activities that are not the government's business is a concern over a symptom, not the disease.

Further, your post is well-stated. I appreciate your observations, and they put things into perspective for me. However, I must point out that your objections to government control should be directed to a centralized - Federal - control. The 10th amendment specifically provides, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I therefore believe our system is designed to allow California to pass laws on behavior that cannot and should not be passed by the Federal government. The same is true for all 50 states. The theory is that United States citizens will have a vast array of choice in terms of state control of behavior (or lack thereof), and can move to another state, if so desired.

That will lead to experimentation in terms of what controls are enacted, and what effect they have on the citizens of each state. Those states that act against the will of the population, or enforce their laws unequally, or restrict behavior excessively, will lose residents. The marketplace of ideas will force these states to accommodate or perish.

Instead, beginning in the early 20th century, the limitations on Federal power eroded. These changes came about first through Federal control of economic activity - wages, working conditions, etc. The Supreme Court struck down numerous portions of the new deal - the National Recovery Act, the Agriculture act limiting what farmers could or could not grow and prices to be charged, etc. - at which point Roosevelt, after a landslide win in the 1936 election, sought to change the Federal judiciary.

Most now posit that Roosevelt "lost" the confrontation, but I disagree. He bullied the Supreme Court, and not coincidentally, in 1937 the court upheld a minimum wage law for the first time. Shortly thereafter, the Court began to take an expansive view of the commerce clause, thereby giving the Federal government nearly unfettered access to economic control.

Economic control gave rise to "health and safety" power, such as the EPA, ATF, etc. Now, we think of the Federal government as having basically unlimited power over nearly every aspect of our lives - what we eat, how much we get paid, what medication we take, how much medical care costs, etc.

That change is recent, dating back to when my father was 8 years old. Unfortunately, Americans today read very little, have almost no sense of history, know virtually nothing about the workings of our governments, and therefore lack the intellectual wherewithal to understand why the current system - with a monolithic Federal government imposing its will on nearly every aspect of our lives - is a parody of what our country was meant to be.

And to be clear - our country was meant to be much closer to what you propose, though states could of course set a far different course.

It sounds good. If only it were true. Conservatism is inherently authoritarian. They love ramming their religion and "family values" down everybody else's throat. It is conservatives that wanted alcohol and later drug prohibition. It is conservatives who creates the vice laws and conservatives who are trying to define what a marriage is for other people. It is an ideology of control. Yes the nanny state liberals have helped them right along by creating a beurocracy to manage every aspect of our lives. But conservatives are at the heart of social crime legislation. The "moral majority" needs to GTFO of everybody's business.

Also, I don't buy into the states rights bullshit either. State laws or local laws designed to regulate personal decisions are just as odious as federal ones. In fact, most drug gun and marriage laws are state and local ordinances. Big intrusive government doesn't suddenly become ok because your state enacted it instead of Congress.

 

[Confluence]

Dude, if you don't have food, water and sanitation standards you're a 3rd world country. You really want to go back to typhoid outbreaks? Protecting our food and water supply is an infrastructure issue, like maintaining the roads, it is a necessary expense in a developed country.

Methinks you mean EPA and not FDA.....pls confirm, on account of FDA not regulating clean water, n'at.

It sounds good. If only it were true. Conservatism is inherently authoritarian. They love ramming their religion and "family values" down everybody else's throat. It is conservatives that wanted alcohol and later drug prohibition. It is conservatives who creates the vice laws and conservatives who are trying to define what a marriage is for other people. It is an ideology of control. Yes the nanny state liberals have helped them right along by creating a beurocracy to manage every aspect of our lives. But conservatives are at the heart of social crime legislation. The "moral majority" needs to GTFO of everybody's business.

You get that religion is the deal, and yet you loop that in with conservatives. Religious folks are liberal too, just far less dogmatic. I am surprised that you are not clearer on this ...

Also, I don't buy into the states rights bullshit either. State laws or local laws designed to regulate personal decisions are just as odious as federal ones. In fact, most drug gun and marriage laws are state and local ordinances. Big intrusive government doesn't suddenly become ok because your state enacted it instead of Congress.

......................................

 

[Steelr4evr]

whatever dude. Rome fell from no morals and so shall we. Your logic is flawed. End of discussion for me. I got your drift.

 

[Steelr4evr]

In fact now that i think of it if they make all drugs legal. I will certainly have to be armed at all times so i can shoot drugged up non functional losers who most certainly will either be trying to steal my **** or seeing evil blue dragons from hell attacking them from my elbow. Screw that type of society. It was not what the founders of this country wanted. It was founded on christian principles where you like it or not. It is our fabric for a decent civilization and when it goes we go. game over.

 

[Confluence]

In fact now that i think of it if they make all drugs legal. I will certainly have to be armed at all times so i can shoot drugged up non functional losers who most certainly will either be trying to steal my **** or seeing evil blue dragons from hell attacking them from my elbow. Screw that type of society. It was not what the founders of this country wanted. It was founded on christian principles where you like it or not. It is our fabric for a decent civilization and when it goes we go. game over.

all drugs have been legal in Portugal for several years. Maybe you could google and list the horrors corroborating your fears?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You're talking about two different things here. Emergency care for a broken leg isn't going to be the result of smoking. Long term medical care for lung cancer would be. So the broken leg is covered but the chemo isn't.

With illegal immigrants it's even more simple: you cast up or stitch up any basic wound or injury because those procedures aren't expensive. If he or she needs major surgery, you contact the embassy of their country of origin just like you would an insurance company. If the country refuses to cover the procedure they die. It's their own country's fault for not covering them, not ours.

If someone dies because they failed to pay full coverage or had bad habits that is not the system's fault. They would have died anyway. It is not society's responsibility to save the weak and irresponsible from their fate. It sucks to be poor, yes. But there's nowhere on earth that's easier to change your economic status than America.

Negative. There's a preponderance of ER use by illegal immigrants for what should be treated in a Doctor's office because they have to be seen in the ER, but a Dr.'s office can turn them away.

Look it up.

 

[Stewey]

I keep getting called "liberal" around here. None of my liberal friends seem to think so.

I am fiercely against the growing American Police State. We have too many laws, the government and police have too much power. For the first time in history, Americans are less free than their parents were. Here is a short list of my objections:

1) The drug war.

2) PRISM

3) The USA PATRIOT Act

4) Gun control

5) Steroid prohibition

6) Anti-marriage legislation (gays/polygamists etc)

7) Behavior taxes (cigarettes, soda, gas, etc)

8) Progressive taxes (should be flat tax, no deductions, all types taxed at same rate)

9) Vice laws (gambling, prostitution)

All of these things (and it's an incomplete list) serve to make us all less free. .

Really?... so you're assuming every one of us are drug and steroid using, cigarette smoking, alcoholic gun owning gay prostitutes.
Hyperbole much?

The rest of your post is utter bullshit as well.

 

[Troglodyte]

Really?... so you're assuming every one of us are drug and steroid using, cigarette smoking, alcoholic gun owning gay prostitutes.
Hyperbole much?

The rest of your post is utter bullshit as well.

WTF? It's an opinion about liberty and laws, not an assumption about people's behavior. How did you think it was?

 

[Steeltime]

It sounds good. If only it were true. Conservatism is inherently authoritarian. They love ramming their religion and "family values" down everybody else's throat. It is conservatives that wanted alcohol and later drug prohibition. It is conservatives who creates the vice laws and conservatives who are trying to define what a marriage is for other people. It is an ideology of control. Yes the nanny state liberals have helped them right along by creating a beurocracy to manage every aspect of our lives. But conservatives are at the heart of social crime legislation. The "moral majority" needs to GTFO of everybody's business.

The most common means of behavior control in the United States over the past 100 years is control of economic activity. That has been the staple method of favoring one group over another, and encouraging or discouraging behavior. The reason that control of economic activity is the preferred method is the fact that the Supreme Court has effectively eliminated limitations on what the government can do to control economic behavior.

Your concerns about the "religious right" or whatever are overstated. That is because the Supreme Court properly rejects religious favoritism, or religious exercise, or religious belief in general as a requirement for activities in the United States, or a basis for rewarding behavior. (There are a few very limited exceptions, such as the fact that a religion can require that one of its pastors actually be a believer in the religion, but the exceptions are so few that they really don't bear discussion.)

Since our Constitution restricts those activities that concern you so much, your fears as to what religious believers can or cannot do are overstated. Further, your reference to behavior like drug use or prostitution being restricted by "conservatives" is simply false. Conservatives, moderates and liberals alike want to prevent such behaviors. Look at most European countries, for example - you would not deem France "conservative" and yet it has a myriad of laws controlling or precluding drug use, prostitution, etc.

Also, the 4th amendment protects privacy and requires probably cause for issuance of a warrant. The combined effect of the 1st amendment (precluding a state-run religion, guaranteeing freedom to exercise religious beliefs, and protecting freedom of speech and assembly), 4th amendment (privacy and probable cause), 5th amendment (guaranteeing due process and protecting property), and 14th amendment (protection of due process) combine to give you protection from "religious zealots" or whatever other fictional characters you believe will kick down your door to insure that you married a woman rather than a man.

You have no such protection against control of your economic behavior - from wages, to taxes, to benefits, to social security, to employees hired, to medical care, to the wages and benefits you pay your employees.

The end result is that government, and more to the point those who use government to control others, now utilize regulation and restriction of economic behavior to control what we do and say. The solution is to limit government involvement and regulation of business activities, to the same extent that we do for social behaviors.

It sounds good. If only it were true. Conservatism is inherently authoritarian. They love ramming their religion and "family values" down everybody else's throat. It is conservatives that wanted alcohol and later drug prohibition. It is conservatives who creates the vice laws and conservatives who are trying to define what a marriage is for other people. It is an ideology of control. Yes the nanny state liberals have helped them right along by creating a beurocracy to manage every aspect of our lives. But conservatives are at the heart of social crime legislation. The "moral majority" needs to GTFO of everybody's business.

Why should Alabama dictate to Californians who can or cannot be married? Please justify that to me.

On the other hand, why should Californians dictate marital rights to Alabama residents? Again, do you have any justification for this?

And whether or not you agree that states are empowered to be independent of each other does not matter, since the Constitution mandates that result. One of my fundamental criticisms of the Supreme Court over the past 75 years is that the court seems to care less and less about what government can do, and more and more about what people think government should do.

 

[RollRedRoll]

In fact now that i think of it if they make all drugs legal. I will certainly have to be armed at all times so i can shoot drugged up non functional losers who most certainly will either be trying to steal my **** or seeing evil blue dragons from hell attacking them from my elbow. Screw that type of society. It was not what the founders of this country wanted. It was founded on christian principles where you like it or not. It is our fabric for a decent civilization and when it goes we go. game over.

Nothing could be further from the truth... In fact, it's the illegality of drugs that make the world much more dangerous than it would be otherwise. If drugs could be legally produced and sold, the black market that currently dictates the price and availability of these drugs would be eradicated also most overnight. The enormous cash flow currently making the criminals controlling the drug trade would be completely cut off. The price of these drugs would be drastically reduced, thus eliminating the need for addicts to rob and steal the way they do now. A $200 a day habit would become a $20 a day habit. The drugs would become much cleaner and the strength much more consistent, making overdoses and other health issues caused by toxic cutting agents and other impurities making its way into the supply. Nobody with half a brain will argue that consuming these drugs is bad for you and should be avoided. But the way we currently handle the drug problem is making it a thousand times worse than it has to be.

 

[Steelr4evr]

You sell that crap to someone else. It's bullshit. I stand by what i said. I don't want a bunch of drugged up losers around me in the open. I know damn well what would go down if we had hardcore drugs legal all over. Don't give that crime bullshit. I see what meth does to people and crack..it's ******* poison and the people who sell it are pond scum.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

You sell that crap to someone else. It's bullshit. I stand by what i said. I don't want a bunch of drugged up losers around me in the open. I know damn well what would go down if we had hardcore drugs legal all over. Don't give that crime bullshit. I see what meth does to people and crack..it's ******* poison and the people who sell it are pond scum.

I just don't see an upswing in usage. Junkies are gonna get that junk. It's not as though there's a huge market thinking "boy, I could go for a needle of smack, but I'm just not comfortable breaking the law". Remove the vendors, tax it. Save $$ on enforcing. The key is to remove socialized medicine IMO. You make your drug choices you pay for the consequences, not the taxpayers.

 

[DBS1970]

As Penn Gillette said "My take on Libertarianism is that I don't know whats best for other people." And like Thomas Jefferson said, "So long as you do not break my leg or pick my pocket what you do is of now consequence to me." Real conservatives want to conserve Liberty and freedom and mind their own affairs.