If the Liberdopians were honest they would call for the complete legalization of all drugs even for children.
So because it is illegal no one will smoke it and Annie won’t ever have to pay for the (supposed) consequences. The actual present day expense of the pointless, endless WOD is apparently not an issue for her. I see.
You can’t build a republic with druggies for your citizenry. People who can’t govern themselves will be governed by their fellows.
You can tolerate legalized drug use if the users are a distinct, marginalized minority and if your public morality is sufficiently strong to keep them marginalized.
So, America in the thirties could tolerate legalized marijuana use. America in the 1890s could tolerate legalized cocaine use.
If the moral disapproval was sufficiently strong among average people, we could tolerate some kind of de-criminalization as long as Madison Avenue didn’t get involved. Cocaine? Does too much damage regardless. Meth? Anyone selling meth should get a bullet in the head.
Now, to anyone who points out that the drug war doesn’t “work”, I would tend to agree. The war on murder never stops because human depravity never stops. If we have to fight drug use using police and courts, the horse has already left the barn, the moral rot has already taken hold. And until we address the moral rot we’ll never “win” the war on drugs. And as we see, the republic itself is in danger. You can’t build a free country with citizens unable and unwilling to govern themselves.
Everyone in this thread so far is just insanely wrong about libertarian philosophy, but no way should anyone let that stand in the way of all the semi-literate fulminating. It’s a lot easier to poor-mouth what you don’t understand than to research and read and actually, y’know, understand it.
My drug plan is to legalize every drug, however they government reserves the right to intercept drug shipments and spike them with a deadly neurotoxin until the problem solves itself...
Seriously, there should be a legalization of all non-halucanegenic and non-agression causing drugs.
(I think this would actually keep pot illegal)
I think it would mean cocaine would be legal, but it was in the 1800’s anyways...
What we really need are “drug hotels” where you check in, get high as a kite, then after you sober up they allow you to check out. Then you are no longer endangering others and you can get your high, also they reserve the right to arrest you for any warrants when you check into the drug hotel in case you stole crap to feed your habit.
Even Iceberg Slim complained in his book “Pimp” that marijuana would make his tricks too lazy to go to work.
I think Coulter drastically underestimates the cost incurred by criminalizing drugs. Violence, incarceration, etc. It has been catastrophically expensive in direct and indirect expenditures to maintain a war on drugs through direct enforcement and incarceration as well as indirect costs like rendering thousands of people unemployable for petty possession charges under three strikes laws. It’s no different than the catastrophic consequences seen during the prohibition of alcohol which was rightfully recognized as a giant failure though alcohol is far more dangerous than many of the drugs on the black market today.
I’ll support drug legalization on the condition that no tax payer welfare/healthcare be given to druggies and if they cause harm to another person while on drugs they get long jail/prison sentences and the govt taxes the formerly illegal drugs.
I am curious, do all of the prohibitionists on this thread abstain from alcohol?
Usually, when people have a point, they don’t have to resort to crude insults to get it across.
Now, I have used the "welfare state" argument to counter libertarians' insistence on open immigration. I think it would bankrupt us [faster].
But the drug users' medical bills we would be responsible for would probably be balanced out by reduced court and imprisonment costs.
The fact remains: enforcement can stop illegal immigration; enforcement cannot stop illegal drug use.
As long as we have to live in the world as it exist we must make sacrifices to those realities.
The welfare state exist and it will not be abolished tomorrow or the next day, so we must out law drugs or suffer more disabled people that will swell the welfare rolls.
However the War on Drugs is just as much the War on Civil Liberties.
The War on Drugs has been the excuse for No Knock Raids and the militarization of our police forces. The War on Drugs has been the source of money for the expansion and arming of street gangs and international mafias.
At some point we may have to decide that the combination of the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty have both become more than our economy and our society can bear.
Coulter’s a RINO loving idiot, but at least she’s not a dope smoking crack head libertarian.
Leaving pot out of it for a minute, she is willing to live in the real world (most of the time), and libertarians aren't.
Putting pot back in the discussion, we may well see a relaxation of the drug laws in the not so distant future.
I doubt it would really make society any less "socialist."
Ironically, she was roaring drunk.
I am the world’s only Libertarian Fascist - Live Free or We’ll Kill You.
F-me once, shame on me, Coulter.
Still, Coulter has a point. The US is a socialist welfare state, and she is forced to be responsible for the bad choices of others. She is not wrong to expect good behavior from her wards. Perhaps Coulter has illuminated the key difference between conservatives and libertarians – Coulter is willing to be a member of today’s deeply flawed US socialist family, while libertarians are still willing to fight. As such a famous fighter, Ms. Coulter should try harder and expect a little more.
Ann said if we did not have a welfare state, she could care less about drug legalization. Liberaltarians ought to exit na na nu nu land and think for a change. They are liberals, mile wide, inch deep - full of utopian, mindless slogans which lead right into Marxists’ hands - ruin and dependence.
Every one of us in a myriad of ways suffer the consequences of alcoholics. In almost a century we’ve had a war on drugs. What has it achieved? what is it’s standard of failure?