Posted on 12/21/2011 6:31:32 PM PST by SteelTrap
Blacks are ~14% of the US population. Blacks are 56% of inmates convicted for drug violations, most are non-violent crimes.
Making that comparison is cooking the books - a valid comparison would be between Everclear (the most concentrated form of alcohol) and crack (the most concentrated form of cocaine).
Anybody smoking crack is getting high as a kite
Do you doubt the same is true about anyone drinking Everclear?
Because I say so.
:-D
And I will not engage with you because you are a nasty little thing.
[...] I will not engage with you because you are a nasty little thing.
Running away and namecalling - yup, it's a Drug Warrior.
Thanks for the easy win.
Many thousands of people smoke crack. Most (that's right, the vast majority, just as with alcohol) don't commit crimes.
When anybody commits an actual crime, either to support their bad habit, or as a result of engaging in their bad habit, then they are liable under the law.
Millions more people drink alcohol than smoke crack. In my experience, when you consider the abuse, murder, drunk driving, vehicular homicide, and violent crime which directly result from the use of the legal drug alcohol, it dwarfs the negative effects of all illegal drugs combined.
Neither crack users, heroin addicts, nor alcoholics deserve imprisonment simply for possessing or using a certain substance.
Contraband law is inherently Tyrannical, and always will be. The War on Drugs has nothing to do with justice. It's a hysterical overreaction, based largely on authoritarian propaganda, which does nothing to solve any of the underlying problems.
Prohibition does not work, with alcohol, guns, or anything else...
In only 16 states. So do you support an end to federal drug laws?
People are more likely to get drunk on cheap liquor than fine wines, of course.
And the former is the right comparison to crack.
Most people who has consumed hard alcohol at some time in their lives are good citizens and taxpayers. Can you say the same for people who have smoked crack at some tIme in their life?
I doubt it's the case that nobody who once smoked crack is a good citizen and taxpayer (unless you define "good citizen" to exclude anyone who ever broke a law). And what of it? Should it be illegal to not be a good citizen and taxpayer?
It's neither moral nor ficsally prudent to say we'll imprison ALL crack users because SOME of them have addictions they can't finance.
It's fine to say that people will be liable under the law, but what happens when the harm caused by addicts is irrepairable, such as when they commit murder while under the influence?
what happens when the harm caused by alcohol addicts is irreparable?
Certain things do need to be banned. Do you want your neighbor to own a tank or an antiaircraft gun or a nuclear missle?
Those can directly harm many other people at a stroke; crack directly harms only the user.
Are you saying the 10th Amendment reserves to the states the authority to legislate on "soft" drugs but not "hard" drugs? Where in the language of the Constitution do you find that?
Libertarianism relies on the assumption that people will be highly responsible.
No, it simply advocates that government not shield the irresponsible from the natural consequences of their irresponsibility.
The problem is that libertarian policies lead to societal degradation and degraded societies cannot support libertarian governments. After one generation of liberal drug policies, this country would be run by communists. So many people would be so reliant on the government
You assume that a large number of people would not only use drugs but use them to the point of inability to support themselves. Why should anyone believe that? Are there that many people who are deterred from drug use by its illegality, but who would not be deterred by the risk of addiction and degradation? Is illegality YOUR sole reason for not using drugs?
Moral prudence is a matter of philosophy and theology. I can say that it would be incredibly fiscally imprudent to legalize crack. Legalization is tolerance and tolerance leads to acceptance.
It's legal to insult your wife, and to get blind drunk in your own home. Are those acts "accepted"?
Drug use would increase and that will get expensive very quickly. In the end, you will pay sky high taxes to subsidize the drug addicts just the same way you currently subsidize millions of unwed mothers. Societal degradation is very expedite and definitely not worth a high.
You assume that a large number of people would not only use drugs but use them to the point of inability to support themselves. Why should anyone believe that? Are there that many people who are deterred from drug use by its illegality, but who would not be deterred by the risk of addiction and degradation? Is illegality YOUR sole reason for not using drugs?
Alchohol and crack are completely different animals. Members of society collectively determine which freedoms are worth their negative externalities. Our country came to the conclusion that the right to drink is work the inherent risks. We haven't concluded that crack is worth the risks.
What are the "negative externalities" of crack use that we haven't collectively determined to impose on ourselves? We have collectively determined to impose,for example, welfare costs on ourselves just as surely as we have collectively determined to ban crack.
[a tank or an antiaircraft gun or a nuclear missle] can directly harm many other people at a stroke; crack directly harms only the user.
An antiaircraft missle doesn't necessarily hurt anyone. Hey, maybe it's just for shooting empty oil barrels on his property.
That possibility doesn't negate the distinction I pointed out.
OK, that seems likely at least in the short to medium term.
Libertarianism relies on the assumption that people will be highly responsible.
No, it simply advocates that government not shield the irresponsible from the natural consequences of their irresponsibility.
Libertarian policies fail not only to shield individuals from the ill effects of their policies,
It's not government's place to shield individuals from the ill effects of their own actions.
they fail to protect others from those ill effects.
It's drug warriors who fail to protect others from the ill effects of the drug war- such as addicts stealing to pay drug-war-inflated prices, and criminals wielding weapons paid for with drug-war-inflated profits.
You assume that a large number of people would not only use drugs but use them to the point of inability to support themselves. Why should anyone believe that? Are there that many people who are deterred from drug use by its illegality, but who would not be deterred by the risk of addiction and degradation? Is illegality YOUR sole reason for not using drugs?
Yes, people are deterred by a drug’s illegality.
That's not what I asked. Read the whole question: "Are there that many people who are deterred from drug use by its illegality, but who would not be deterred by the risk of addiction and degradation?"
An antiaircraft missle doesn't necessarily hurt anyone. Hey, maybe it's just for shooting empty oil barrels on his property.
That possibility doesn't negate the distinction I pointed out.
Antiaircraft guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
A tank or an antiaircraft gun or a nuclear missle can be used to directly harm many other people at a stroke; crack can be used to directly harm only the user.
You mean you DIDN’T write post #13? Odd that your name’s attached to it...
I said they were advocated by the same kind of people.
Got a flash for you two: it’s NOT illegal (under federal and numerous state laws) to own either of the first two. Nukes should not be available to anyone, INCLUDING (or especially) governments.
And high on my wishlist is a fully functional battlewagon, such as ex-USS Iowa. Not to mention the tanks and artillery I want. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT caliber-limited.
Which is STILL a bald-faced lie... AND conflating advocation of restoring the Constitution with child molestation...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.