Who disagrees with Darrell Castle?

[euphemia]

But he's also better on drugs, calling for legalization rather than mere decriminalization.

Legalization of some things while keeping other things illegal or restricted is not a better position. I can't buy OTC allergy drugs without a lot of regulatory red tape. I should be able to have a decongestant when I need it, which is almost every day. If husband and I both need one, we are out of luck.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Legalization of some things while keeping other things illegal or restricted is not a better position.

That's absurd.

Every time a bad law is repealed, that's a gain for liberty - even if there remain other bad laws on the books.

...this should not require explanation.

I can't buy OTC allergy drugs without a lot of regulatory red tape. I should be able to have a decongestant when I need it, which is almost every day. If husband and I both need one, we are out of luck.

Is Castle talking about eliminating that red tape?

If not, then what's your point? How is this relevant to a comparison of Johnson and Castle?

 

[euphemia]

Decriminalizing might not ease restrictions on OTC meds used as components, but it might help. I just feel like you are being a little short sighted. If the govenrment officially legalizes a substance, it opens the door to regulation. It seems to me that decriminalization is the less government route.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Decriminalizing might not ease restrictions on OTC meds used as components, but it might help. I just feel like you are being a little short sighted. If the govenrment officially legalizes a substance, it opens the door to regulation. It seems to me that decriminalization is the less government route.

If a substance is decriminalized, it is regulated - so much so that it's still illegal to produce, sell, or posses it (the penalties have just been reduced). The regulation following legalization is going to be much less onerous - it will be legal to produce, sell, or possess it, provided one has the license, pays the tax, etc, etc (as with alcohol or tobacco). It's pretty clear which is better from a libertarian point of view.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Castle is a good guy, much more palatable than Johnson. If it weren't for Trump, he'd be getting my vote. I was glad to pick Baldwin in 2008 for the GE.

 

[euphemia]

r3v, I think we are not so far apart on this. We are approaching the same issue from two different sides. I don't think legalization will stay ahead of crimes associated with drugs. This is my concern.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

r3v, I think we are not so far apart on this. We are approaching the same issue from two different sides. I don't think legalization will stay ahead of crimes associated with drugs. This is my concern.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[euphemia]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Crimes associated with drugs: gang activity, robbery, murder. Those things will still happen as long as people are enslaved by drugs. People become addicted to legal, controlled substances and commit horrible crimes. These things pose a risk to me. I am just not willing to take another step toward more of that. I can go to decriminalization of personal use and possession, but that's about all. I see what some people feel is a restriction of personal liberty on my part, but I can live with that. The medical industrial complex and the insurance industrial complex have taken away a lot of personal liberty for people to own and use particular drugs for their own health maintenance. With insurance, I have an asthma inhaler that is $80 a pop. If I have to give up a day's pay every month because everyone's liberty has been restricted, then I am not about to agree to legalize recreational drugs when the market for production and distribution is basically a black market.

It's like taxes. I would not vote for a national sales tax until the income tax is repealed for all time. Government cannot be trusted, and unless the medical drug market deregulated, then I will not be for the recreational market to be legal. I am never going to use a recreational drug stronger than a glass of wine, so legalizing recreational drugs does not extend liberty to me. I need a deregulated medical market so I can afford the meds I need to breathe.

I hope that makes some sense to you. Liberty is for all, not for some, and not just for fun.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Crimes associated with drugs: gang activity, robbery, murder. Those things will still happen as long as people are enslaved by drugs.

Most of that is caused by the prohibition of drugs, in the same way that alcohol prohibition brought us Al Capone.

Some is caused by drug use itself, it's true, but prohibition doesn't solve that problem.

People become addicted to legal, controlled substances and commit horrible crimes. These things pose a risk to me. I am just not willing to take another step toward more of that.

Legalization isn't a step toward more of that. It's a step toward less of it.

I am not about to agree to legalize recreational drugs when the market for production and distribution is basically a black market.

It's a black market because of prohibition.

The black market for alcohol shut down the day after the repeal of the 18th Amendment.

I am never going to use a recreational drug stronger than a glass of wine, so legalizing recreational drugs does not extend liberty to me. I need a deregulated medical market so I can afford the meds I need to breathe.

I appreciate your frustration, but refusing to support efforts to extend liberty to others doesn't help you increase your own.

 

[Origanalist]

If a substance is decriminalized, it is regulated - so much so that it's still illegal to produce, sell, or posses it (the penalties have just been reduced). The regulation following legalization is going to be much less onerous - it will be legal to produce, sell, or possess it, provided one has the license, pays the tax, etc, etc (as with alcohol or tobacco). It's pretty clear which is better from a libertarian point of view.

What you just wrote makes no sense at all. If it's still illegal to produce, sell or possess it then how is it "decriminalized"?

 

[Origanalist]

Crimes associated with drugs: gang activity, robbery, murder. Those things will still happen as long as people are enslaved by drugs. People become addicted to legal, controlled substances and commit horrible crimes. These things pose a risk to me. I am just not willing to take another step toward more of that. I can go to decriminalization of personal use and possession, but that's about all. I see what some people feel is a restriction of personal liberty on my part, but I can live with that. The medical industrial complex and the insurance industrial complex have taken away a lot of personal liberty for people to own and use particular drugs for their own health maintenance. With insurance, I have an asthma inhaler that is $80 a pop. If I have to give up a day's pay every month because everyone's liberty has been restricted, then I am not about to agree to legalize recreational drugs when the market for production and distribution is basically a black market.

It's like taxes. I would not vote for a national sales tax until the income tax is repealed for all time. Government cannot be trusted, and unless the medical drug market deregulated, then I will not be for the recreational market to be legal. I am never going to use a recreational drug stronger than a glass of wine, so legalizing recreational drugs does not extend liberty to me. I need a deregulated medical market so I can afford the meds I need to breathe.

I hope that makes some sense to you. Liberty is for all, not for some, and not just for fun.

No, it makes no sense at all. Do you not realize the gang activity, robbery and murder are caused in the majority because prohibition creates a black market?

 

[euphemia]

I disagree with you. Legalization will change none of that..

I will never be for legalization of recreational drugs until the market for real medicine is deregulated.

 

[Origanalist]

All this fear about the Constitution Party baffles me. We have a liberty candidate heading the ticket that is head and shoulders above the the guy leading the so called Liberty Party despite all the Johnsonsplainin. The republicans were atrocious as a party when Ron was running but most here supported him anyway.

 

[Origanalist]

I disagree with you. Legalization will change none of that..

I will never be for legalization of recreational drugs until the market for real medicine is deregulated.

Can't you be for both? That would seem to be the logical thing. And bs on your statement that legalization will change none of that. It would literally be impossible for it not to.

 

[euphemia]

No, I can't be for both. Until the medical market has been deregulated and chemo doesn't cost a $20K a month, then I am not about to support legalization of *recreational* drugs. Happy for people not to go to jail for personal use, but as long as sick people are deprived of their necessary drugs thanks to the government's manipulation of the insurance industry and medical markets, then I think the priorities should be on deregulation of the medical market.

 

[Origanalist]

No, I can't be for both. Until the medical market has been deregulated and chemo doesn't cost a $20K a month, then I am not about to support legalization of *recreational* drugs. Happy for people not to go to jail for personal use, but as long as sick people are deprived of their necessary drugs thanks to the government's manipulation of the insurance industry and medical markets, then I think the priorities should be on deregulation of the medical market.

Well get on with your bad self then. There is no civil answer I can give to such a position so I will just let your post speak for itself.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What you just wrote makes no sense at all. If it's still illegal to produce, sell or possess it then how is it "decriminalized"?

Ask the guy who coined the term.

When people talk about decriminalization, they're usually talking about reducing (not eliminating) the penalties (and usually just for possession).

...hence the contrast with legalization (which would mean eliminating the penalties altogether, and for production and sale as well).

Top result for "marijuana decriminalization" in Google News:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...inalization-small-amounts-marijuana/88536326/

A legislative push has mounted in Nashville that seeks to reduce the penalty for individuals who are found possessing or casually exchanging small amounts of marijuana to allow them to avoid a criminal record. A newly filed ordinance sponsored by three Metro Council members would lessen the penalty for people who knowingly possess or exchange a half-ounce of marijuana (14.175 grams) or less to a $50 civil penalty. A court also could choose to suspend the civil penalty and instead mandate 10 hours of community service.

 

[Origanalist]

Ask the guy who coined the term.

When people talk about decriminalization, they're usually talking about reducing (not eliminating) the penalties (and usually just for possession).

...hence the contrast with legalization (which would mean eliminating the penalties altogether, and for production and sale as well).

Top result for "marijuana decriminalization" in Google News:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...inalization-small-amounts-marijuana/88536326/

Thanks, it was a long day and my mind was in basic English mode.

 

[Krugminator2]

I disagree with you. Legalization will change none of that..

I will never be for legalization of recreational drugs until the market for real medicine is deregulated.

Moral case: Your body is private property. You should be able to with your property as you please.

Economic reasoning: If you restrict supply by making drugs illegal, price goes up. Higher prices create an outsized profit opportunity. In this case the entrepreneurs capitalizing on the opportunity are people, like El Chapo, who build elaborate distribution systems and the the gangs who sell the drugs El Chapo. Gangs and distributors operate outside the law and settle disputes with violence.

Higher priced drugs also mean it is more difficult for addicts to get their fix so they often get involved in crime. Addicts steal. Addicts also become drug dealers. They create new addicts by recruiting people to do drugs to pay for their own habit.

 

[fisharmor]

I mean for crying out loud... they oppose How can a party oppose surrogacy, sperm donation, or other assisted pregnancy? My sister had several health issues that prevented pregnancy and thru medical technology, my nephew is well on his way to being born...

So nobody else addressed this?
In vitro fertilization creates several embryos and tries to implant them all.
If that is what your sister did, then your nephew is on his way at the expense of a half dozen destroyed lives.
If we allow for wanton creation and destruction of embryos, there is no logical reason to prevent any abortion, outside of SCOTUS' idiotic, illogical, and novel timeframe rulings.

Regarding the CP in general... they wish to be judged by their Christian chops, and not by any abstract governance.
So I don't say this because I want to, but because THEY want me to....

They are heretics. They are splinters of splinters of true Christianity. They belong to groups which cannot be shown to have existed for more than a couple hundred years.

More to the governance point... if they are perfectly comfortable simply making shit up wrt their faith, then they have no standing to decry those who make shit up wrt abortion.