Drug position

[Corydoras]

I'm starting to get frustrated and need to leave the conversation. Nobody is actually responding to my arguments.

I've read and reread this conversation and I have yet to find anything resembling an argument from you. What I see is a lot of questions that go in all directions. I think this is why you are dissatisfied. Nobody can help you get what you want if you don't say what it is.

I find it a little disconcerting the attitude you folks have because I'm a very libertarian person outside of anarchist internet forums. I hope all Paul supporters aren't this way or we have no hope of getting normal people to feel at home with us.

I find your attitude very peculiar because I am NOT a libertarian or anarchist. Maybe I just don't know how to talk with libertarians like you. I have gone to some lengths to answer what I thought was your concern and am dismayed to find that you don't seem to be interested in it.

Please state an argument in plain assertions devoid of questions, because nobody can address it if you keep it a secret.

 

[AlexAmore]

Richard1984, great post!

"Not to mention the fact that most drug dealers make the vast majority of their money from selling cannabis. If it were legalized there would be far fewer dealers, and far more honest, law-abiding citizens who no longer feel as if they have to live in the shadows because they smoke cannabis."

I want to add that a real life example are all the cannabis stores in California. I saw them on TV and the owners were interviewed and everything. These stores are very bright, cheerful places like a downtown bakery. They are very safe and responsible....unlike a dealer. Unfortunately these stores routinely get raided by the DEA.

Mastiff:

"I take the point about alcohol and cigarettes, but especially in the case of alcohol, I believe that it is a net positive. On balance, people get more enjoyment out of responsible use compared to the health and alcoholism costs. I think there are lots of people who go through their lives enjoying smoking too. Whether cigarettes are on balance a positive or negative, I'm not sure. I'd put pot in the same basic category as cigarettes though."

Pot can be very beneficial to one's health and nobody dies from it, doctor's prescribe it in California. Cigarettes routinely kill.

 

[DJ RP]

For reasons of liberty, for reasons of practicality and to save lives and reduce prison terms I FULLY BELIEVE all drugs from crack to meth to heroin should be freely available from any corner store that wishes to sell them.

Some of the replies here confuse me because you cannot be a 'hardcore libertarian' and think "some" drugs should be prohibited. WTF... who decides? at what point is it HARD enough. At what point is the individual too stupid to make up his own mind and the nanny goverment has to force you to comply? Seriously?

Also anybody who thinks the war on drugs is effective in any way should watch the tv show 'The Wire' for a fuller understanding of the consequences it has brought to the Poor areas of America.

 

[ARealConservative]

certain drugs like meth would of never hit the market if not for the drug war.

Meth came about as a cheap substitute for cocaine. The drug war itself was the driving force behind the marketability for meth.

As for Dr. Paul's position, he considered it a failed policy but will leave it up to the states to decide.

 

[Rich333]

They are not only offering choices, they are encouraging people to do something that is almost without exception damaging.

So? If people choose to destroy themselves, that's their own business. Most drug use isn't damaging though; you only ever hear about the horror stories, but the number of users far exceeds the number of stories you hear. Most drug users function just fine.

The free market ceases to be efficient when people can profit by doing thing that are, on balance, harmful.

The only rational measure of the market's efficiency is its ability to maximize the provision of goods and services demanded by consumers while minimizing the costs of doing so. If drugs are in great demand by consumers - and they are - then it is efficient to provide them at a minimum of cost to consumers. Drug prohibition is what's inefficient, because it just drives up the cost.

If they used Spider-man in TV ads, encouraging children to start using meth, would you not find that the slightest bit morally problematic?

That's a completely unrealistic scenario. A TV station would have to be run by complete idiots to run something like that, because they'd go out of business almost immediately. All their other sponsors would bail, people would boycott both the station and the sponsor of the ad, and then it wouldn't be a problem anymore.

And seriously, what's the end game for you guys? In your ideal world, is there a corner store selling crack, meth, prescription pain killers, ADD meds, anti-depressants, anti-biotics and everything else to all comers, regardless of age?

I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was such a corner store. A century ago anyone, regardless of age, could go into a local store and purchase opiates and coca-based products. We did not have a drug problem.

Somehow I don't find this essential to a free society.

Neither do I, as I don't use drugs and would have no need for such a store, but the freedom to do so is essential to a free society.

To your specific bridge example, yes, if your friends encourage you to jump off a bridge, they are to some extent responsible. You bear the bulk of the responsibility, but they aren't without some blame.

No, they aren't. I am the only one in control of my actions, and so I alone am responsible for them.

 

[Rich333]

certain drugs like meth would of never hit the market if not for the drug war.

Meth came about as a cheap substitute for cocaine. The drug war itself was the driving force behind the marketability for meth.

The exact same thing is true for crack.

 

[andrewss]

good drug policy discussion, worth the read, if only the general public could understand this topic...

 

[BillyDkid]

Walgreens would never sell meth or crack. I doubt any normal storefront would. Frankly, I find the whole idea inconceivable. No state or local government would ever, ever tolerate crack and meth kiosks on Main street selling to 13 year olds.

I stand by my original statement though, regardless of whether the dealer is a street pusher, or Walgreens in conjunction with a TV ad campaign.

I really just want to know Paul's position though.

But why other than because of the demonization of drugs that has gone on for so long. In the early part of the last century you could buy heroine over the counter at any drug store - it is an extremely effective pain killer - and it isn't as though the streets were crawling with people strung out. Many over the counter medications are much more dangerous than some "recreational" drugs. And many prescriptions meds are very dangerous. This drug hysteria is an invented thing. People were just as hysterical over alcohol which is what gave us alcohol prohibition. Yes, some people are alcoholics, but most of us are not. During prohibition not only were there alcoholics, but there was rampant gang crime and the dangers inherent to a black market.