Replies

Libertarians would say - government can not and should not control people, so let them take drugs - but let them suffer the consequences too without taxpayers getting involved or creating a nanny state to deal with it. Before long, society (and the family) will take over, as it should (and as it once did) to shun drug use, to stigmatize it, to penalize it, and to let civil society (churches, etc...) deal with those who do.

Got it, how does this sound:

Libertarians would say - government can not and should not control people, so let them ~~take drugs~~ rape children - but let them suffer the consequences too without taxpayers getting involved or creating a nanny state to deal with it. Before long, society (and the family) will take over, as it should (and as it once did) to shun ~~drug use~~ child rape, to stigmatize it, to penalize it [HOW WITHOUT GOVERNMENT'S INVOLVEMENT?], and to let civil society (churches, etc...) deal with those who do.

There were few controls on Marijuana in the 1920's - why did our parents and grandparents know no one who ever smoked it then?

Libertarians LOVE to use fact that marijuana was legal in the early 20th century as a "gotcha." They overlook (perhaps purposely) the fact that laudanum, morphine and other opiates were also legally available without a prescription and abuse/addiction of these drugs was rampant. Funny how libertarians always seem to focus just on marijuana or Prohibition and ignore this.

Nice straw man you got there. (C) sure LOVE to equate (L) with NO gov’t, out of control drug use, etc. I’m still waiting for the Nazi flag to be hoisted.

I’ve NEVER seen any (L) espousing/endorsing NAMBLA type of actions. I suspect, as in any group, there are fringe elements and/or hoisting the banner in name only.

But, let’s take your example (child rape). Again, not that I’ve read/seen any (L) ‘allowing’ [as to their ‘too young to consent’ as one point], but in the age before the leviathan of the Nanny State, those in town took care of/disappeared their own problems. They also ran the anti-Const. pols out of town on a rail. Course, in these these ‘good ol’ days of yore’ these same people did some looking-down/actions upon those of mixed-couples, the Irish, the negro, the..., etc. It all was still considered ‘taking care of their own’, and didn’t require any gov’t to administer...when correct/proper.

Lastly, RE: morphine/etc. You mean, life went on ALL THOSE YEARS w/out the strong arm, and shoulder, of Uncle Sugar to make the ‘bad things’ disappear? Oh, wait, those things haven’t gone away? AND, the good those products did have been removed from the everyday use they used to enjoy? Instead of the Responsibility that Liberty/Freedom brought, We the People now must ask permission from the licensees (the Fed ‘approves’ drug XYZ, the licensed ‘doctor’ can Rx, and the licensed Rx can dispense) to ‘cure’ a headache, use for a toothache, temper pain from a wound (just a few examples of the uses of the ‘bad’ things from the recent past).

The reference to Prohibition is the classic example; as is the current WoD...because it’s STILL valid to show the problem with gov’t ‘solutions’. Boy, if you can’t see that distinction...

“They overlook (perhaps purposely) the fact that laudanum, morphine and other opiates were also legally available without a prescription and abuse/addiction of these drugs was rampant. Funny how libertarians always seem to focus just on marijuana or Prohibition and ignore this. “

Well, most opiates that are legally available with a prescription today are still rampantly abused. So, what has prohibition done to change that?