So you'd have no problem if drugs were legalized, with exception to females during pregnancy?
Does anyone still support the drug war?
- Thread starter mattlock25
- Start date
So you'd have no problem if drugs were legalized, with exception to females during pregnancy?
Drugs affect sperm as well.
There could potentially be an exemption for those who consent surgically to never having children.
But that doesn't address the impairment concerns or the studies which have shown increased possibilities of psychosis, which could cause you to use force against someone else.
The impairment concern could be addressed through relinquishing your drivers license.
The psychosis concern is one that could never be cleanly addressed, because even if you relinquished your guns, you could just as easily murder someone with a cutting knife.
If drugs caused someone to use force against another person, I'm sure you agree that substance should be banned.
You wouldn't want to violate your philosophy of voluntaryism, now would you?
What drug exists that causes a person to act violently during every use? That drug doesn't exist.
Caffeine has induced psychosis, by this logic we should ban caffeine. I guess we should also ban religion, since it has been known to cause people to use force against others.
But drugs don't cause someone to use force, so that argument is invalid. Just flat out admit it, you want to legislate your version of morality.
Violence is a possible byproduct of psychosis.
Psychosis is a possible byproduct of longterm drug use.
We're talking increased likelihoods and increased probabilities.
And what about the junkie who feels compelled to use force to get his next fix because he's blown all his cash? Or the drug addict who has grown psychotic through longterm use and finally snaps?
If you're truly pro-liberty and anti-force, I'm sure you agree that we should ban such a substance.
Isn't it immoral to allow children to be born with birth defects? Or to encourage the use of drugs which could lead to violent force against innocents because of induced impairment or psychosis?
There's many respected medical professionals who agree with you:
What if I promise not to operate a motor vehicle until after the effects of my drugs have warn off? I take the same oath with regards to alcohol and prescription meds all of the time, so that's gotta be reasonable.
That addresses 2 of the 3 concerns. But consider this scenario:
zdmyn A lives 40 years drug free with no incidents.
zdmyn B does drugs for 40 years. The longterm use induces mild psychosis. Because of that psychosis, zdmyn B reacts differently to a particularly traumatic event than zdmyn A and strikes out with force against an individual, killing or maiming him.
If we are truly anti-force, how could we be true to our philosophy and not ban such a substance?
If it were only as easy as saying "Hey here's a law, you can't do this now!"
It should be obvious that those who are under the mindset to take hardcore drugs aren't going to follow laws. Just as a murderer isn't going to follow "gun free zone" signs. All drug laws do is kill and imprison people on the tax payer dime.
If we really want to stop people from doing drugs, or make better health decisions, we need to do so through voluntary means. And those that we can't get through to, let's leave them the fuck alone, until they actually do something that hurts someone.
Okay, I can't speak as part of the "pro-drug movement" (really?) but let's look at your case so far...
Yeah, first used by Nixon, then every president sense, until Obama, who's administration has taken the stance that "the war on drugs" is counter-productive. It's blatant propaganda and judging from your posts it works.
According to US Justice Department records, one bank alone laundered $378.3 billion dollars between May 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007. Every major bank in the US has served as an active financial partner of the murderous drug cartels….
...That couldn't possibly be part of the reason, right?
And what about substances that aren't banned?
-MDPV: Until recently this was widely available in all 50 states. Also known as the primary ingredient in "bath salts", which I've read can be more powerful than PCP, meth and LSD.
-DOC: A drug extremely similar to LSD. It's longer lasting, just as psychoactive and you can buy it legally in the US.
-Salvia: Ask someone who's smoked pot and salvia which one messes you up more. People have been known to jump out of windows and run into traffic on it. You can buy it in any smoke shop in Cali, and many other states.
-DXM: A cough suppressant. Also a powerful hallucinogen. Any kid can go buy a bottle of cough syrup and experience a drug very similar to LSD.
-Kratom: Very similar to opiates.
The list goes on forever. The point is that if people want to get high, they can, legally and easily.
You really think drug laws are for the "greater good" and not for profit? Then why does every bank and politician in the country have their hand in the cookie jar?
I know plenty of smart adults who's parents smoked weed or did other drugs and turned out fine.
If my father was a fanatic conservative and constantly bitched about the country falling into the hands of communists while simultaneously supporting draconian and invasive laws that give the government unprecedented and overreaching power and control over the people I'd have to deal with it.
What if I said the same thing about you going to Church? I think it's a cult. I think it brainwashes people. I think that religion is infinitely more dangerous and deadly than people being allowed to smoke a joint.
I'm not religious, but I don't think you should be castrated, stripped of your rights or imprisoned because you choose to be.
I don't do drugs. But it's none of my business if someone else does, and I certainly don't have the right to kick his door in and destroy his family for lighting up a joint.
The last 3 presidents are on record for using pot and coke. How the hell can you not put 2+2 together here?
Prohibition of drugs = tremendous profit for banks and politicians, MASSIVE increases in governments intruding on privacy, for profit prisons filled with non-violent criminals and an overreaching police state that would have made Hitler proud.
I'm starting to think that you may be the most talented troll the internet has ever seen. You seriously believe that all of this is a good thing?
Yeah, first used by Nixon, then every president sense, until Obama, who's administration has taken the stance that "the war on drugs" is counter-productive. It's blatant propaganda and judging from your posts it works.
According to US Justice Department records, one bank alone laundered $378.3 billion dollars between May 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007. Every major bank in the US has served as an active financial partner of the murderous drug cartels….
...That couldn't possibly be part of the reason, right?
And what about substances that aren't banned?
-MDPV: Until recently this was widely available in all 50 states. Also known as the primary ingredient in "bath salts", which I've read can be more powerful than PCP, meth and LSD.
-DOC: A drug extremely similar to LSD. It's longer lasting, just as psychoactive and you can buy it legally in the US.
-Salvia: Ask someone who's smoked pot and salvia which one messes you up more. People have been known to jump out of windows and run into traffic on it. You can buy it in any smoke shop in Cali, and many other states.
-DXM: A cough suppressant. Also a powerful hallucinogen. Any kid can go buy a bottle of cough syrup and experience a drug very similar to LSD.
-Kratom: Very similar to opiates.
The list goes on forever. The point is that if people want to get high, they can, legally and easily.
You really think drug laws are for the "greater good" and not for profit? Then why does every bank and politician in the country have their hand in the cookie jar?
I know plenty of smart adults who's parents smoked weed or did other drugs and turned out fine.
If my father was a fanatic conservative and constantly bitched about the country falling into the hands of communists while simultaneously supporting draconian and invasive laws that give the government unprecedented and overreaching power and control over the people I'd have to deal with it.
What if I said the same thing about you going to Church? I think it's a cult. I think it brainwashes people. I think that religion is infinitely more dangerous and deadly than people being allowed to smoke a joint.
I'm not religious, but I don't think you should be castrated, stripped of your rights or imprisoned because you choose to be.
I don't do drugs. But it's none of my business if someone else does, and I certainly don't have the right to kick his door in and destroy his family for lighting up a joint.
The last 3 presidents are on record for using pot and coke. How the hell can you not put 2+2 together here?
Prohibition of drugs = tremendous profit for banks and politicians, MASSIVE increases in governments intruding on privacy, for profit prisons filled with non-violent criminals and an overreaching police state that would have made Hitler proud.
I'm starting to think that you may be the most talented troll the internet has ever seen. You seriously believe that all of this is a good thing?
We're back to the original flawed arguments. And we were doing so well.
a) It doesn't work.
b) It's expensive.
Would that be like a policeman asking really, really nicely for the criminal to put down the gun?
We already know their actions will hurt someone. We just discussed it.
It's like your mental process derailed and you just looped around to the same three arguments again.
a) It doesn't work.
b) It's expensive.
Would that be like a policeman asking really, really nicely for the criminal to put down the gun?
We already know their actions will hurt someone. We just discussed it.
It's like your mental process derailed and you just looped around to the same three arguments again.
Would you ban guns if they were involved in a murder?
How can I be a Voluntarist if I ban people from performing non-violent acts with their own bodies?
To be honest, I don't even know why I am talking to someone who is clearly a psychopath when I have so much work to do right now, but like a moth, I am drawn to your flame of whacka-doodle-brand crazy.
Religion and ideologies could cause someone to use force against another person should we ban religion? They effect the mind as much as a drug does.
This guy is a hardcore, jackboot state apologist.
You can damn well bet he would like to ban religions other than his own.
He'd probably like to control and shape everyones lives with violence.
There are two problems with that.
1. We're punishing one person for the actions of another.
2. There are all sorts of things that can make someone hurt someone else. Do we ban these things too?
I just don't see your line of reasoning.
I'm assuming you don't do drugs (neither do I) but it is possible to be personally morally opposed to something and yet respectful of other people's freedom to live their own lives at the same time.
Which is why I wrote:
And what party does Obama belong to? Huh...that's a weird coincidence.
You're arguing that drug laws shouldn't exist because they are misused, not because they are morally wrong.
Would you be fine with drugs if 30% of hardcore users became violent criminals? 20%? 10%?
What's the number of victims you're willing to accept?
Start a "ban religion" thread then. It's a completely different topic.
I'm proposing new legislation based on your arguments:
1. Nuke Canada. They're a threat, they could start a land war at anytime. They have a standing army who may use force against us.
2. Immediately castrate and imprison all members of (insert religion here). They have extremists who are proven to incite violence.
3. Ban gun ownership for all veterans. They're a higher risk of suicide and may hurt others in the process.
4. Ban gun ownership for all athletes. This week has proven to us what happens when athletes own guns, we can't let that happen again.
5. Revoke all drivers licenses from women. I mean, come on, have you ever rode in a car with one? That's a risk we can't afford.
That's your logic, not mine.
OR...
We could just leave people the hell alone, take the personal responsibility of defending yourself from those who may initiate violence, and only deal with violent offenders after they've committed or attempted to commit violence.
Does a gun chemically alter your mental state?
Because you're afraid of people listening to me.