Posted on 06/27/2006 9:56:42 AM PDT by dead
That is a good point. A better analysis would be to say that you support making drunk driving illegal - and we are already there. Alcohol is something that has negligible effects on a human's ability to reason in small amounts. As for other drugs... we can have that discussion but I am glad you agree with my premise and support making a victim-less crime like drunk driving illegal.
Other banned substances are not as greatly desired. It remains the case that by raising the price you increase users' motivation to commit crime.
Those two sentences contradict each other. The substance is greatly desired so that the motivation to comit a crime to get the drugs is equal regardless of the price - so long as the price is out of reach. And the ability to earn a living while addicted to these drugs is zero. So legalization would not be enough - you would have to make the drugs FREE at taxpayer expense to prevent the crime associated with them.
Then there are crimes - particularly those against children - that are commited by those on the drugs regardless of their ability to afford them and that are not associated with getting money to pay for them.
Maybe take a lesson from the countries that are actually strict on drug users and notice how the problem and crimes related to them are non-existent.
Take your tired, broken 'drug war is lost' arguments to somewhere that people's reasoning is as shallow as the addicts you seek to assuage.
The same is true of other drugs.
we can have that discussion but I am glad you agree with my premise and support making a victim-less crime like drunk driving illegal.
I support laws against clear and present endangerment of others' rights. Drug use is not such an act.
Other banned substances are not as greatly desired. It remains the case that by raising the price you increase users' motivation to commit crime.
Those two sentences contradict each other. The substance is greatly desired so that the motivation to comit a crime to get the drugs is equal regardless of the price - so long as the price is out of reach.
No, not equal ... the lower the price, the less the user needs to steal to pay it.
Then there are crimes - particularly those against children - that are commited by those on the drugs regardless of their ability to afford them and that are not associated with getting money to pay for them.
These crimes are never committed by those under the influence of alcohol? Or do you just not care about those victims?
Maybe take a lesson from the countries that are actually strict on drug users and notice how the problem and crimes related to them are non-existent.
Even China and Iran have drug problems; there's no chance we can end ours and remain a free society.
EXCELLENT!!!! Those who deal hard drugs need a noose around their neck. Or a firing squad. I finally like something about the ChiComs
Even China and Iran have drug problems; there's no chance we can end ours and remain a free society.
You sound like a rino talking about immigration. It's a war of attrition. Raise the prices through strict enforcement of rules brings the drugs out of reach. Allow for crop irradication in Columbia via air planes will destroy 80% of the coke coming into this country.
I support laws against clear and present endangerment of others' rights. Drug use is not such an act.
Yeah, yeah it is.
It is simply impractical at this point to outlaw alcohol. It is not impractical dramatically reduce the availability of drugs. I'd be cool with outlawing both, but you gotta do what you can.
No, not equal ... the lower the price, the less the user needs to steal to pay it.
Again - silly. The lower the price, the more available it is and the less ABILITY to pay for it. It would have to be given away for free. AIDS isn't enough to scare people into buying needles. The gov'ment must give them away for free. Same for the drug.
AND most crimes committed by drug abusers are not done to buy the drug. That is an idiotic 'Libertarian Party' argument that has no science or evidence behind it.
See this recent example. 11 year old dead trying to save her younger brother from someone high on what you want to make as prevelant as cigarettes. Maybe if it were your kid you'd think differently.
You sound like a rino talking about immigration.
Nonsense ... China and Iran don't have immigration problems.
I support laws against clear and present endangerment of others' rights. Drug use is not such an act.
Yeah, yeah it is.
No, no it's not.
It is simply impractical at this point to outlaw alcohol. It is not impractical dramatically reduce the availability of drugs.
Nonsense; the drug war is proving to be every bit the failure that Prohibition was.
I'd be cool with outlawing both
At least you're honest about your contempt for liberty.
No, not equal ... the lower the price, the less the user needs to steal to pay it.
Again - silly. The lower the price, the more available it is and the less ABILITY to pay for it.
You're babbling.
AND most crimes committed by drug abusers are not done to buy the drug. [...] See this recent example.
A single example (or even several) don't prove a general claim like yours. Do you have any actual proof?
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.