Oregonians support ending drug decriminalization

[PAF]

I wouldn't write any bills.

I'd just abolish the ones that have already been written.

We could definitely use you and [MENTION=33245]TheTexan[/MENTION] around here Every time I speak such vulgar language, I'm reminded what an extreme extremist I am lol.

 

[Snowball]

Of course it was a harmful and stupid idea.

Regardless, the Demonrats who run Oregon will decide if it continues. Both the lesbian governor and SoS are Demonrats.

Their handlers will decide and that will be the result.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Leave it to the government to fuck up freedom (not just in the taking, but also in the giving).

Culture matters. It matters a lot. It has consequences - and liberty requires a culture of responsibility, not indulgence.

Our current culture is one of atomized "if it feels good, do it" hedonism - facilitated by the State's usurpation of formerly private locuses for the mitigation for public ills. Once it arrogated to and subsumed into itself the roles of nanny caregiver and stern schoolmarm - roles in which, by its nature, it is entirely unfit to serve - our culture's doom was effectively sealed.

Precisely.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. no other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom, and happiness. - Thomas Jefferson

We are no longer a moral, knowledgeable or religious people.

We are, in fact, fat, stupid, petty, bellicose and narcissitic.

Well suited to being oppressed and tyrannized.

 

[PAF]

We are no longer a moral, knowledgeable or religious people.

We are, in fact, fat, stupid, petty, bellicose and narcissitic.

Well suited to being oppressed and tyrannized.

STOP using we ya commie. Don't you know it's them? ;-)

 

[Dr.3D]

Just need to treat all 'drugs' as we treat aspirin.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's look at this from a different angle. Let's talk about convenience. First of all, this is very convenient for those who want to criminalize drugs. OMG, decriminalization doesn't work! We need controls in place.

Additionally, criminalized drugs are very convenient for Police and DAs in today's just-us system. Want to put someone in jail? Do they have any drugs on them? No need to investigate them or prove any other crimes. Put them in jail for the drugs instead. Convenient and arbitrary, just the way they like it.

"I don't think Oregonians want to restart the drug war," Olson added. "I think we didn't realize that what we were signing up for was the deterioration of civilized norms and the public spaces being ceded to people in late-stage drug addiction and engaged in all sorts of criminal activity to keep that addiction going."

The biggest charade here is to talk about drugs when the real problem is other crimes. Why accept their premise that this is about drugs? Does anyone care if someone overdoses on drugs in their own home? No. It's about all of the other crime, like camping on the sidewalk, shoplifting, assaults, robberies, murders, etc. Those are the real crimes, but it is so much easier to just put them in jail for drugs.

Let's zoom out further. We should always keep in mind the agenda at the top. George Soros and the WEF are not out to create a world of freedom where you can use any drugs you want. Quite the opposite. They want full control, and will dictate to you which pharmaceutical products they will require you to take. Homegrown, alternative, cheap, or illegal drugs are competition that must be eliminated.

Allowing blatant and outrageous crime in the streets and cities is part of their plan. It will wear down the public to accept their police state controls. Making drugs illegal again is a step in that direction. Their plan is working.

Never forget, they don't want a free world. They want full control and all of the power. They do not want competition for their global crony corporatist, socialist, plutocracy.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Leave it to the government to fuck up freedom (not just in the taking, but also in the giving). ...

Absolutely right. Via incompetence or by design, they are doing everything they can to make freedom unpopular.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Oregon Problem | Mark Thornton
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/the-oregon-problem-mark-thornton:c
{Mises Media | 09 December 2023}

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the ballot initiative to decriminalize all drugs in the state of Oregon is failing, and that efforts are underway to recriminalize hard drugs. Mark points out that decriminalizing drug possession does nothing to improve black market production of drugs, which makes drugs much more dangerous to consume. More importantly, it is Oregon's socialist ideology that coddles homelessness and open hard drug use that is the real problem for the good citizens of the state—and is not helping the drug addicts either. The solution is for society—the nexus of private property owners—to reassert its will.

See also "Welcome to Needle Park" by Mark Thornton: https://Mises.org/Minor48_A

Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

Get your free copy of Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State at https://Mises.org/IssuesFree

But what about production and "distribution"?

"Mark points out that decriminalizing drug possession does nothing to improve black market production of drugs [...]"

Our current culture is one of atomized "if it feels good, do it" hedonism - facilitated by the State's usurpation of formerly private locuses for the mitigation of public ills. Once it arrogated to and subsumed into itself the roles of nanny caregiver and stern schoolmarm - roles in which, by its nature, it is entirely unfit to serve - our culture's doom was effectively sealed.

There are, for example, many good reasons for the separation of Church and State, and not just the most-often cited one (namely, the protection of people from the forcible imposition of some particular religious doctrine). Another vital reason is the protection of the Church and the efficacy of its function as one of those private locuses for the mitigation of public ills. Through competition for the support of those who genuinely care about their effectiveness, private [organizations] are subject to accountability for their abject failures - but the church-scold State is not.

"[...] it is Oregon's socialist ideology that coddles homelessness and open hard drug use that is the real problem for the good citizens of the state—and is not helping the drug addicts either. The solution is for society—the nexus of private property owners—to reassert its will."

 

[Occam's Banana]

The following quote is from the "Javier Milei" thread.

I've moved all the subsequent replies (starting with this one) to this thread, as it is a better fit for the topic:

Regarding any war on drugs, it's not a simple and easy issue and it's not just a matter of personal choice. If Reason supports a hands off approach, then it should look at Mexico for how that works out.

I hate all the War on Drugs bullshit, but South America (and Central America, and Mexico) is a god-forsaken basket-case of drug-cartel corruption and violence, so I'm not going to complain (too much) about whatever Bukele, Milei, et al. decide they have to do to mitigate it.

The best thing that could be done for South America (and Central America, and Mexico) is for the rest of the world (especially the United States) to put an end to War on Drugs and legalize (or decriminalize, or whatever) it all. That would do far more to impoverish the cartels and drive them out of business than all the laws in the world. (So, of course, that's the one thing that won't happen - the CIA would never stand for it, among other reasons.)

 

[susano]

I hate all the War on Drugs bull$#@!, but South America (and Central America, and Mexico) is a god-forsaken basket-case of drug-cartel corruption and violence, so I'm not going to complain (too much) about whatever Bukele, Milei, et al. decide they have to do to mitigate it.

The best thing that could be done for South America (and Central America, and Mexico) is for the rest of the world (especially the United States) to put an end to War on Drugs and legalize (or decriminalize, or whatever) it all. That would do far more to impoverish the cartels and drive them out of business than all the laws in the world. (So, of course, that's the one thing that won't happen - the CIA would never stand for it, among other reasons.)

For reasons I don't understand, Latin America is violent and that's a big factor in the drug trade.

I don't really know what I think about about all of this legalization idea. They did it in Portland and Vancouver British Columbia and the results have been disastrous. Even with just weed, California where it's legal, has a huge problem with illegal grows by organized crime. If the licensing aspect were also removed, I don't think it would make any difference.

 

[acptulsa]

For reasons I don't understand, Latin America is violent...

Here's a fun piece of trivia: Look up la guerra del fútbol.

 

[PAF]

Regarding any war on drugs, it's not a simple and easy issue and it's not just a matter of personal choice. If Reason supports a hands off approach, then it should look at Mexico for how that works out.

I can't speak for all areas or countries, but from what I observe in Mexico and a few other countries (setting aside the personal choice do drugs or not), most of the violence occurs between the drug lord factions, not civilians and tourists.

My position is similar to Occam's Banana in Post #753.

 

[susano]

Here's a fun piece of trivia: Look up la guerra del fútbol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

Wow. Never heard of this. It was about a lot more than football, though, I guess. That just solidifies my own opinion that organized sports serve to keep the masses stupid and in the team mentality for when the real SHTF. It's interesting that the violence part wasn't a thing in north America. Maybe that's an indication of higher IQ or something. It's not just a white thing because the Brits act like morons over "footie", though not as violent as someplace like Brazil which isn't very white. What do you make of it? Sounds like a good topic for a grant proposal for a few million in research welfare.

 

[ClaytonB]

I don't really know what I think about about all of this legalization idea. They did it in Portland and Vancouver British Columbia and the results have been disastrous. Even with just weed, California where it's legal, has a huge problem with illegal grows by organized crime. If the licensing aspect were also removed, I don't think it would make any difference.

This was the genius of the Founding Fathers. We don't have to "just know" whether drugs should be legal/illegal. Rather, every State in the union has authority from the Constitution to set their own laws in their own State. So, the correct answer to the vast majority of modern "national issues" is not legalization, or illegalization, it is de-federalization. There are a few things that do need to be Federal. You have to have a proper election in your State for the electors, representatives, etc. otherwise, you are potentially allowing a North Korea to be a State in the Union, and that's no good. So, those are the things that ought to be federalized, but SCOTUS treats them as "States' rights". Amazing. On the flip-side, issues like abortion and drug legalization are clearly not within the authority of Congress to regulate, and are issues reserved solely to the discretion of each state under the 9th and 10th amendments. The purpose of the Constitution was to act as a framework or foundation under which the States -- each of which is a government in its own right -- could set local laws according to the views of their own citizens and, through a process of competition between these various legal regimes, the best policies would tend to emerge over time. There are a couple quotes from the Founders to this effect although I've forgotten the citations. This is one of the most misunderstood principles of the founding of the US government, and it's an absolute travesty that American school-children are not taught this in their government indoctrination centers schools.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't really know what I think about about all of this legalization idea. They did it in Portland and Vancouver British Columbia and the results have been disastrous.

Portland's problem isn't the "legalization". Portland's problem is the irresponsible addict-coddling of batshit insanity progressivism.

Leave it to the government to fuck up freedom (not just in the taking, but also in the giving).

[...]

The Oregon Problem | Mark Thornton
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/the-oregon-problem-mark-thornton:c
{Mises Media | 09 December 2023}

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the ballot initiative to decriminalize all drugs in the state of Oregon is failing, and that efforts are underway to recriminalize hard drugs. Mark points out that decriminalizing drug possession does nothing to improve black market production of drugs, which makes drugs much more dangerous to consume. More importantly, it is Oregon's socialist ideology that coddles homelessness and open hard drug use that is the real problem for the good citizens of the state—and is not helping the drug addicts either. The solution is for society—the nexus of private property owners—to reassert its will.

See also "Welcome to Needle Park" by Mark Thornton: https://Mises.org/Minor48_A

[...]



[...]

Even with just weed, California where it's legal, has a huge problem with illegal grows by organized crime.

But if there are "illegal grows", then it isn't really legal, is it?

If the licensing aspect were also removed, I don't think it would make any difference.

Of course it would make a difference. The "licensing aspect" incurs costs which incentivizes the unlicensed (i.e., "illegal") activity.

Prohibition didn't prevent alcohol production or consumption. It just made it much more profitable for (and thus, attractive to) criminals.

 

[susano]

I can't speak for all areas or countries, but from what I observe in Mexico and a few other countries (setting aside the personal choice do drugs or not), most of the violence occurs between the drug lord factions, not civilians and tourists.

My position is similar to Occam's Banana in Post #753.

Well, yeah, but who's in control? The psychopaths are (including federales and military) because there's nothing stopping them. In less violent cultures, like north America (though becoming far violent than in the past), addicts are all over the streets, committing crime and dropping dead on the shit covered sidewalks. Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, Philly, are real life experiments in legalization or lax enforcement of drug laws. We've gone from weed being a harmless and natural plant that anyone should be free to use (I agree) to fentanyl and other who knows what drugs flooding those cities and it's made them shitholes.

This is worth watching if you haven't seen it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT8OU8Yhs_s

 

[Occam's Banana]

Well, yeah, but who's in control? The psychopaths are (including federales and military) because there's nothing stopping them. In less violent cultures, like north America (though becoming far violent than in the past), addicts are all over the streets, committing crime and dropping dead on the shit covered sidewalks. Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, Philly, are real life experiments in legalization or lax enforcement of drug laws. We've gone from weed being a harmless and natural plant that anyone should be free to use (I agree) to fentanyl and other who knows what drugs flooding those cities and it's made them shitholes.

The fentanyl thing is not really much different from the poisonous "bathtub gin" problem that existed during alcohol prohibition. It's a problem that occurs because of prohibition, not because of "legalization".

The problem with all these so-called "legalization" schemes is that they only "legalize" possession and consumption, but not production and distribution (which remain criminal). So the only producers, distributors, and sellers will be criminals who will (1) be prone to violence to protect their turf and profits, and (2) have no incentives to care about the quality or safety of their products.

Notice that, unlike during alcohol prohibition, innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people are not being injured or killed during running gun battles between competing alcohol distributors (such as Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing Co.). Brewers and sellers don't need to peddle their wares on schoolyards, and those who peddle poisonous products can be held civilly and/or criminally liable to their victims. And this was all without having to coddle drunks (unlike what is going on in Portland and elsewhere with respect to drugs & addicts).

 

[susano]

The fentanyl thing is not really much different from the poisonous "bathtub gin" problem that existed during alcohol prohibition. It's a problem that occurs because of prohibition, not because of "legalization".

The problem with all these so-called "legalization" schemes is that they only "legalize" possession and consumption, but not production and distribution (which remain criminal). So the only producers, distributors, and sellers will be criminals who will (1) be prone to violence to protect their turf and profits, and (2) have no incentives to care about the quality or safety of their products.

Notice that, unlike during alcohol prohibition, innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people are not being injured or killed during running gun battles between competing alcohol distributors (such as Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing Co.). Brewers and sellers don't need to peddle their wares on schoolyards, and those who peddle poisonous products can be held civilly and/or criminally liable to their victims. And this was all without having to coddle drunks (unlike what is going on in Portland and elsewhere with respect to drugs & addicts).

Fentanyl production is legal. It's used in hospitals, especially in surgery. It's not so much illegal drug trafficking but trafficking (and manufacturing) in controlled substances. I don't know about comparisons to bathtub gin. You've gotta drink gin to OD on it and fentanyl is so deadly that unintentional exposure has killed or nearly killed people:

Dad reveals horrific details of baby’s reported fentanyl overdose at S.F. playground

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...horities-investigating-whether-a-17621718.php

What possible reason does it make sense to have drugs like that on the streets?

 

[susano]

This was the genius of the Founding Fathers. We don't have to "just know" whether drugs should be legal/illegal. Rather, every State in the union has authority from the Constitution to set their own laws in their own State. So, the correct answer to the vast majority of modern "national issues" is not legalization, or illegalization, it is de-federalization. There are a few things that do need to be Federal. You have to have a proper election in your State for the electors, representatives, etc. otherwise, you are potentially allowing a North Korea to be a State in the Union, and that's no good. So, those are the things that ought to be federalized, but SCOTUS treats them as "States' rights". Amazing. On the flip-side, issues like abortion and drug legalization are clearly not within the authority of Congress to regulate, and are issues reserved solely to the discretion of each state under the 9th and 10th amendments. The purpose of the Constitution was to act as a framework or foundation under which the States -- each of which is a government in its own right -- could set local laws according to the views of their own citizens and, through a process of competition between these various legal regimes, the best policies would tend to emerge over time. There are a couple quotes from the Founders to this effect although I've forgotten the citations. This is one of the most misunderstood principles of the founding of the US government, and it's an absolute travesty that American school-children are not taught this in their government indoctrination centers schools.

I agree with control being local. The experiments in legalization of dangerous man made drugs should serve as a lesson to other locales who are considering the same.

 

[ClaytonB]

What possible reason does it make sense to have drugs like that on the streets?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it just assumes that we have any choice in the matter. Effective enforcement is expensive. Therefore, you can't enforce everything, and you have to choose what is important to enforce, and how many things you are going to enforce (this is economics 101, the principle of alternative uses.) But because of the myth of omnipotent government, the modern West lives in almost total denial of this obvious reality. We are a culture of narcissists trapped in an echo-chamber of our own egotism, enabled by wantonly wasteful government expenditures on trivialities, while ignoring collapsing infrastructure.

To sort through issues like this, States could pass ballot measures to ask "Which issue is more important? Stopping fentanyl distribution on the streets or stopping daylight break-ins of parked vehicles?" Using a computer algorithm, it is not difficult to construct a relatively small sample of questions like this that will allow you to then sort the issues in rank-order of importance, reflecting the "values" of the public, at least, on the issues in the list. Once you have this list, you can then configure public-policy accordingly. The most government expenditures should go to solving the first problem on the list, less expenditures should go to the second problem on the list, even less to the third problem, and so on down the list. While this is still less efficient than market methods, it's at least rational given government control of law, courts, police, etc. What we have now is not rational towards any end which is consistent with the public good, broadly construed. This situation did not come about by accident, either. Our systems of government are being actively sabotaged.