All the laws and prisons in the world have not stopped drug use. All it has done is make us less free and more broke.
Also tell that, 100 years ago all those drugs that will now land you in jail for the rest of your life, were all legal.
And the country didn't fall apart, in fact, it was more free and prosperous then than now.
Tell her it's called Coca Cola for a reason.
Exactly, thank you. Thats a good example I didnt think of.
At first glance sometimes the parentals dont hear your argument because all theyre hearing is "my God.. my sons wants to do drugs" which isnt really the point.
One day when my dad and I were talking he suddenly got it and he said, "Oh, I get it now... You dont want govt telling people they cant smoke pot because theyre the same people who say you cant buy raw milk or cant buy certain health supplements...."
and I said, "bingo."
I can make my own decisions.
I think that is a problem with my parents, they aren't really thinking about my side of the argument. They are convinced they are right because it sounds like supporting drugs, when really it isn't. Thanks for the reply.
If you wanna go the Christian route, remind your parents of Ron's open faith, including his commitment to family values. Alternatively, I would argue that full legalization is the only TRUE Christian position. After all, our Creator bestowed upon us the greatest ability of all: free-will and the right to make our own decisions. Now those decisions may have consequences, mind you, but the choices we make are just those: OUR choices. In the NT, Christ frequently lectures the Isrealites on the merits of charity. He encourages generosity; He doesn't threaten them with imprisonment and/or death if they fail to help the poor. Morality cannot be spread through the barrel of a gun; using violence to FORCE one's personal opinions on another is not only an afront to our fellow man, but an afront to God.
I hope this helps.
Right, I completely agree that we can't go around imposing our beliefs on others. Its not a free society if we do.
I agree, it should be the job of churches and other VOLUNTARY organizations to help people with drug problems, not the government stealing money from people without these problems to fund sending people with drug problems to jail.
Also along those lines, it could be useful to bring up the Bible passage in which Jesus prevents that crowd from stoning the adulteress. She had committed a blatantly immoral act -- something that most Christians would consider far more sinful than drug use -- and yet Jesus told the crowd that the one among them who had never sinned should be the first one to throw a stone. This has clear implications for Christians who think that drug users should be put in prison because "it's immoral." Ask:
"Do you think Jesus would approve of your judgment of this person?"
Beyond that, there are some general points that are often made in this debate...
Drug abuse should be seen as a
medical issue, just like overeating or not getting enough exercise. Suggest that drug abusers should be compassionately encouraged to seek medical treatment, not thrown into dungeons. After all, it's
their body they're potentially harming, not the body of anyone else.
As for keeping the sale of drugs illegal, that merely keeps the price elevated by reducing the supply. When drugs are expensive to buy, they are profitable to sell. So drug laws actually
encourage dealers to sell illegal drugs. They also encourage dealers to use violence against rival dealers, deadbeats, etc., to defend their huge profits. Point to the failure of alcohol prohibition, since the "War on Drugs" is really nothing more than
Prohibition Part II: America Never Learns.
I personally don't have a problem with laws against providing drugs to minors, and perhaps you feel the same way. If so, you might want to emphasize that you only believe drugs should be legal to buy and sell for adult use.
Well, that's my advice. Good luck!
Thats a good point. We don't put people in prison because we don't agree with what they are doing, we should only put them in prison for harming others. What they do to their own bodies is their choice.
Okay, but wouldn't the lower price of drugs give more people access to them? And allow more people to get hooked? I agree that it would take out the profits of drug dealers, but my mom is convinced that if you lower the price then EVERYONE is going to go out and buy drugs because they are so cheap and easy to get.
Fucking damnit. I typed up a long response and before I could hit post, Windows powered down on me to install some stupid update. I really can't type the whole thing again, just too pissed to do so.
So long story short there are a number of economic reasons why the black market drug industry is so correlated with crime, and all of those reasons germinate in the banning of the drugs. So it is their prohibition that causes the correlation with crime. Drugs have adverse effects for sure, but they don't have some specific go-out-and-commit-crime effect on the brain like some people just seem to assume. I'd typed up quite a few explanations for this, but I'm sure you can find them elaborated upon in great detail at mises.org or on some article at lewrockwell.com if you do some searching. And if you want to be cool like me, go buy the book The Economics of Prohibition by Mark Thornton, after reading it you will be able to pwn anyone in an argument over the subject.
Also if you want to put your parents on the defensive, ask them why they don't think alcohol should be made illegal. After-all, some people do commit crime under the influence of alcohol. Most people obviously don't however, and alcohol is safely sold in stores by law-abiding and respectable businesses. That wasn't always the case however, in the 20s and 30s alcohol was illegal, and it was sold by the fucking mafia.
Al Capone and his gang loved alcohol prohibition, it was the cornerstone of their criminal syndicate and of their profit. Alcohol then was strictly correlated with crime and violence. Banning it didn't eliminate the demand for it, or people's wish to make a buck selling it, it just dirtied the market up a whole lot. That is one clear cut lesson from history, that applies to the drugs banned today and the modern gangs that sell them.
The rights argument and moral arguments are all well and good, but its amusing those arguments never seem to be good enough for people, on any subject not just drugs. They always get in to utilitarian objections, which just goes to show how concerned people are with morality and other people's rights. Out of ignorance they try and use the state to make the world safer and healthier, but only succeed in creating adverse effects that were the opposite of their intentions. Bitter irony. Its why every libertarian (or libertarian leaning person, if you don't go by that title) should familiarize themselves with the utilitarian arguments for liberty. They are good arguments, might as well learn them. People will ask you for them, they don't want to beat around the bush with the more abstract stuff.
Thats too bad your computer shut down on you, I would have enjoyed reading it
Thanks, I will definitely look into that book. It sounds really interesting!
Here is the problem though, they think that alcohol and tobacco SHOULD be illegal. They believe that since it is a biblical principal not to do drugs that is is OK for the gov to enforce these laws. I think this is an issue that RP will face when trying to get votes from a lot of social conservatives like my parents.
I completely agree with the part I made bold in your quote, it does give drug dealers a profit incentive.
Drugs dealers thriving in the black market it kinda like capitalism... when there is a profit incentive, people will try and sell it to ya!
They can clearly see I am not doing it as I advocate the use of drugs, in fact in my place of business it is drug free and plan for it to remain that way. Drug related issue should be handled either on a local level, or on a contract with employer level IMO. I am sure some will shoot me down for this but that's fine.
I as an employer don't want myself, or staff using any drugs, at home or at work, as I do believe it influences work performance from all factors I have seen. That doesn't mean I want laws against them, I just chose not to hire people that use drugs if that should be the case, just like the office is non smoking. I don't prohibit smokers from being employed, but I think from a minarchist/libertarian standpoint; I as the property owner and employer of staff should have the freedom to require that as a stipulation of employment.
I guess you don't have to 'think back to high school', but when I do, I know much of the thrill of drugs or alcohol was the 'illegality' of it. It was a draw due to being illegal itself. now, I have no doubt there would be many experimenters if drugs were legalized, but at the same time there are many now when it is not legal. Very small percentages of people will do it again or become an addict.
I've seen far more people that are 'addicted' to video gaming in a very destructive manner than drugs to be honest. These people if separated from their game of choice will make themselves virtually detached from reality and life itself.
Do we ban video games to resolve that? Not at all. It is a mental state and mental addiction, just as many drug abuse cases are, and it needs to be treated as such at many levels, but not in jail or through the legal system.
Exactly, people who do drugs aren't going to get jobs, which are required to buy drugs if we stop gov hand out programs, so the problem would fix itself simply by ending social safety nets. Or at least tightening restrictions on what they provide.
Right, and what is to stop the gov from regulating or prohibiting video games if we continue to allow them to tell us what we can and cannot do in every other area of our lives... makes me angry!
In this respect, you could use Ron Paul's (excellent) point in the recent debate. Would you use heroin if it was legal? Would your mom? If she says no, ask her why she thinks significant numbers of other people would.
She thinks that even though she wouldnt, along with other social conservatives wouldnt, people would be using drugs more because it would be easier to get them.
So her concern must be about secondary or "side-effect" crimes - not the "crime" of using drugs per se, but all the other crimes that are (currently) associated with drug use.
Exactly her concern.
These "side-effect" crimes fall into two categories. Those related to distribution (drug dealing) and those related to consumption (drug use).
The distribution "side-effect" crimes are by far the worst & most common ones - all the horrible stuff you hear on the news, all the violence and murder that goes on between rival drug gangs. These would be completely eliminated if distribution was legal. Ask your mom how many times she's heard stories of innocent bystanders being killed in the cross-fire between rival alcohol distributors (such as Anheuser-Bush & Miller) fighting a turf war. That sort of thing happend during Alcohol Prohibition. It stopped after Prohibition ended.
Maybe your mom would agree that the distribution-related crimes would go away if drugs were legalized, but she's primarily concerned about consumption-related crimes. If so, you've won 99% of the battle, since the VAST majority of drug-related crimes are on the distribution end of things.
If it's the drug-user crimes (as opposed to the drug-dealer crimes) she's worried about, then I'm guessing she's concerned that users of (legalized) drugs would steal to support their habits & things like that. As I noted above, it's only an assumption that these sorts of crimes would increase. Since drugs would be cheaper & safer to acquire & use if they were legal, I am skeptical that there would be any significant increase in drug-use related crimes. But even if there were, wouldn't it be worth it, since all the drug-distribution crimes would dissappear? Remember, it's the drug-distribution crimes that are by far the worst, most violent, most murderous and most common. An increase in petty thefts, even if it happened (which I doubt) would be a blessing compared to the nasty, vicious mess that we have now. Also in this regard, you could point out that drug-consumption related crimes don't seem to have been much of a problem during the hundreds of years BEFORE drugs were made illegal.
And then there are all the other benefits of legalizing drugs. Prisons wouldn't be full to overflowing (this has LOTS of associated problems, such as the early-release of violent offenders we so often hear about because of prison overcrowding). Non-violent drug users would no longer be sent to prison, where their conditions & experiences make it much more likely they'll become hardened criminals, just to survive.
Not to mention all the corruption & abuses of power in law enforcement that the our current drug policies foster. Civil asset forfeiture by itself is an area full to brimming with moral hazards, and has been a primary source of abuses & corruption.
So, to close, just turn the question around. How does NOT legalizing drugs lead to better outcomes with respect to crime & corruption?
Wow, you made some really good points. Thanks, I'm going to use some of them next time
I know this has been said, but just look at the tens of thousands of people murdered along the Mexico border these last couple of years. Estimates on CNN and other places range from 15,000-30,000 just in the last 4 years. ALL of it would have been prevented without a federal war on drugs.
Who was murdered and more importantly who has been doing the murdering? Drug addicts? Drug dealers? And could you articulate how legalization would have prevented it? Thanks
Just looking for more information. This is all so interesting to me!
Drugs would be super cheap if they weren't illegal. If heroin addicts were only spending $30-50 per week on their heroin habit, they'd mostly work normal jobs and be more productive members of society.
People would probably do better drugs if they had more choices too. Or drugs that are less harmful to themselves, anyway.
People steal because they are addicted to very expensive substances. Think of it like this. Not many people steal to support their alcohol or tobacco habits.
I disagreed with you until your last point. People don't steal for alcohol or tobacco habits. Wow. Thats a really good point. But arent cocaine and heroine more strong drugs, so they couldnt really "do better drugs" because tobacco isnt as strong as these other ones. Even with drug dealers out of the picture, because there would be no profit in selling these inexpensive drugs, wouldnt lower prices make the drugs available to more people, even if they didnt have to steal to acquire them?
The only reason there is crime and violence associated with people who use drugs, is because drugs are illegal.
I agree. Whats your reasoning though? Im looking for as many ways to support this view as possible because I like winning debates with my parents
And it could be useful down the road in campaigning for RP, when people are shocked that he would legalize drugs.
If they are against the government takeover of health care, remind them that the war on drugs was the beginning of that takeover, and they are attempting now to spread this takeover to all vitamins and nutritional supplements.
They are against the gov takeover of health care, but they are convinced that things like the FDA are necessary. Maybe mismanaged, but necessary. Could you explain how the war on drugs was the beginning of that takeover?
Prisoners have access to illegal drugs.
That alone tells the whole story, really.
I don't doubt that, but my parents wouldn't believe it. Is there any proof of this that is readily accessible?
Drug use does not necessarily involve crime. or criminal behavior.
Legalizing or decriminalizing drugs would immediately reduce crime. First, possession or use would not be a crime. Secondly it would remove the profit incentive that is inherent in a "black market". Turf wars or gang wars would be lessened or perhaps eliminated.
And lastly supporting Drug legalization is not necessarily supporting drug use (or abuse). It only removes it from criminal classification.
This would also free up resources (courts/jails) for real crimes such as murder, rape, theft and fraud. etc.
Thanks, I didnt think of the turf or gang wars argument. Thats a good one. So they would be eliminated because there would be little to no profit incentive in controlling the drug supply in an area, right?
Ask her where all the Al Capones and Baby Faces are. When she replies, there is none, tell her that there is no Prohibition on Alcohol anymore. I suppose people do not remember that the height of these people and their enterprises were during and because of Prohibition on Alcohol. Prohibition of any good or service, substance, or otherwise will always result in black market activity, and all such activity leads to greater violence and criminality because there is no legal remedy for individuals who find themselves conducting commerce in the trade. Once you allow people to seek legal remedy (Market or Government), then the criminal activity is less pronounced, and shrinks to levels which are negligible.
I reckon if NY continues to increase the price of Tobacco to levels far above individual preference and demand that you will see de-facto black markets start to arise. Then you will really see crime start to skyrocket in regards to tobacco in NY. It'll just be the obvious outcome of what happens when the Government intervenes.
PS: Tell your Mom drug use does not lead to crime per se, but the with-holding of legal remedy is the cause of the crime you see in regards to illegal drugs.
Good point. I understood nearly all of that. Two questions though.
1. Could you give me a little history on what Al Capones and Baby Faces are? I know it has to do with Alcohol Prohibition but im not really sure who/what they are. Im only 15
Maybe a little history on Alcohol Prohibition too? That would be fantastic
2. What would you consider legal remedy? Im not following you there. I see how people who use drugs arent likely to be employed, and in absense of gov hand out programs would have no money for drugs, therefore requiring them to quite drugs. Is that what you are talking about?
Again, thanks everyone for your replies. This is making a ton of sense to me!
