The best way to reduce gun violence is to end the Drug War

[ZombieApocolypse]

As I said. I'm ok with legalization but I don't want my tax dollars supporting the additional drug addicts legalization will create. Nice try throwing the "morality" red herring out there.

It's funny that, and noting the libertarian responses above, libertarians won't go for that though. It's legalization full speed ahead, we couldn't care less about the social burden.

The claim I've made all along, and your responses prove, is that libertarians only pay lip service to personal responsibility, but they want "freedom" no matter the cost to their fellow citizens.

Freedom without responsibility - the libertarian motto.

Most drugs are out of your system in a couple days. You could test drug users that have only been clean for less than a week, and they could pass the test. So i ask you, what will testing these people accomplish besides wasting more money?


Im still waiting

 

[steveh_131]

Right. I'll answer you and mrj at the same time.

I understand libertarians will call for the end of the welfare state. That however isn't my proposal.

My proposal is to include, in the legalization law, the welfare testing and exclusions in my earlier post.

You'd think that would be a win-win for libertarians. They get legalization, AND the ability to make the welfare state smaller at the same time by excluding drug users.

So, any libertarians want to agree to that? I'm still waiting.

You sound like a broken record with this crap.

I don't get to write the laws and neither do you. If a law is proposed to legalize drugs, I will support it. If a law is proposed to end the welfare state, I will support it. I vote for politicians who support both of these things as well. I support both, in no particular order.

Your 'remove the safety net first, then we'll have freedom' argument can be used for literally every freedom that we enjoy here in America.

Gun rights? First get rid of medicare, can't have people accidentally shooting themselves then asking me to pay the bills, right?

Federal regulations for safe and clean homes? Absolutely. Can't let people be free as long as I'm paying for their medical care.

Forced government preschool? Heck yeah. Those kids will be on welfare if they don't get an education. You can't be trusted to raise your own kids.

And let's not forget that your argument falls flat on its face when we start looking at the history of prohibition. Crime rates rose during prohibition, as did incarceration levels (your tax dollars).

Prohibition = Violence - Reason.com

In 1900, between 2 percent and 5 percent of the entire adult population of the United States were addicted to drugs. The average drug user was a rural middle-aged white woman who used morphine-based patent medicines. The murder rate in 1900 was 1.2 per 100,000 people. But that all changed as America went through one of its periodic bouts of Puritanism.

In 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Narcotic Act that essentially banned the non-medical sale of opiates and cocaine derivatives. The murder rate the year after was 5.9 per 100,000. Then came the 18th Amendment in 1920, outlawing the sale of all alcoholic beverages. In 1921, the murder rate in America jumped to 8.1 per 100,000. Of course, the 1920s were the era of gangsters and bootleggers.

There is no need to speculate about what happens during prohibition of drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, etc. Crime, incarcerations, and murders all increase. And so does your tax burden.

 

[lucky4034]

There are a million better ways to handle welfare... trying to get them to stop using their money for weed or cigarettes probably isn't the most cost effective way to fix welfare.

You could magically remove all drugs from the world and people would still abuse welfare under our system. Unemployment and school grants and everything else people are getting money for nothing too.... Income tax system is flawed... all kinds of problems.

Marijuana/drugs only contribute on a small scale to these problems and by no means are a key to solving them.

 

[lucky4034]

You sound like a broken record with this crap.

I don't get to write the laws and neither do you. If a law is proposed to legalize drugs, I will support it. If a law is proposed to end the welfare state, I will support it. I vote for politicians who support both of these things as well. I support both, in no particular order.

Your 'remove the safety net first, then we'll have freedom' argument can be used for literally every freedom that we enjoy here in America.

Gun rights? First get rid of medicare, can't have people accidentally shooting themselves then asking me to pay the bills, right?

Federal regulations for safe and clean homes? Absolutely. Can't let people be free as long as I'm paying for their medical care.

Forced government preschool? Heck yeah. Those kids will be on welfare if they don't get an education. You can't be trusted to raise your own kids.

And let's not forget that your argument falls flat on its face when we start looking at the history of prohibition. Crime rates rose during prohibition, as did incarceration levels (your tax dollars).

Prohibition = Violence - Reason.com



There is no need to speculate about what happens during prohibition of drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, etc. Crime, incarcerations, and murders all increase. And so does your tax burden.

Glad I'm not the only person who sees through Mr. "Straw man"

 

[Stschil]

These are the same tired arguments prohibitionists used nearly a hundred years ago.

Same old song and dance, new day.

I'm not arguing against legalization, just the 'reasons' for it. I've said over and over that I don't care if someone wants to shoot, snort, or toke their life away, just as long as the general public isn't stuck paying for it.

The European Model for it is one of intense Govt regulation, intrusion, and taxation. That is the "rest of the story" when Amsterdam and other 'success' stories are used. That is the reality of what will happen here.

 

[kiddchaos]

More prison systems = more money.
Repeat offender capital punishment for felonies are needed.

 

[cobber]

That's why I don't support "sin taxes." Marijuana should be treated like any other garden vegetable.

Wait and see what Colorado and Washington do, once they realize all that lucre is escaping their grasp.

 

[rambone]

This is all well and good on paper. There is a sub-culture in this country that will never, ever be productive members of society. If you remove the drug black market they will just move on to another area or create another tax free illegal enterprise. It is what they know. The gangs are here to stay as long as we keep breeding future members.

What are you suggesting that they would move onto? Nothing has the type of demand and lucrativeness that drugs do. Anything they "move on to" would be a weak substitute. The violence would absolutely drop.

No Black Market for drugs is all you'll get, IF the Federal Govt doesn't tax the living crap out of it, which they will.

"Sin" Taxes are a problem too. That's a part of my argument.

Someone will have to pay for the rehab, the Office of Dope Management, the IRS tax collection arm, the FDA studies, the CDC reports, the USDA inspection/certification, I could go on too.

That's a red herring. Prohibition laws are not protecting taxpayers from the IRS, FDA, CDC, or USDA. The War on Drugs is itself a gigantic bureaucracy.

You are never going to stop crime by legalizing drugs.

Not "stop" crime, reduce crime by eliminating black markets.

You won't stop organized crime either.

Not "stop" organized crime, reduce it by eliminating black markets.

The repeal of Prohibition didn't stop Moonshiners from brewing and selling their Untaxed Liquor, nor will Legalization of MJ stop people from 'stickin to da tax man' and selling weed just like the do now.

I'm advocating a FREE market here. I have no issue with untaxed plants and untaxed beverages. I don't support failed government policies that drive people underground to do business.

The problem IS NOT DRUGS, its money. Money for the criminal, money for the Gubbmint.

You sound like you are starting to agree with me. The problem is the black market.

 

[steveh_131]

 

[Stschil]

What are you suggesting that they would move onto? Nothing has the type of demand and lucrativeness that drugs do. Anything they "move on to" would be a weak substitute. The violence would absolutely drop.
They won't move on. Presently the violence consist main of robbery, theft, assault, murder mostly to get items that can be sold to get money and traded for drugs. Drugs are a small portion of the whole. These people turn to selling drugs because of the money, take away the money involved, and they will continue to commit the same crimes. It is their lifestyle, it is what they were raised in, it's what they know. The social safety net has done nothing but perpetuate it. IMHO take the ability to sell drugs away, and it will make matters worse.

"Sin" Taxes are a problem too. That's a part of my argument.


That's a red herring. Prohibition laws are not protecting taxpayers from the IRS, FDA, CDC, or USDA. The War on Drugs is itself a gigantic bureaucracy. I never said prohibition protected anyone from the bureaucracy. I'm saying that it is bound to create an even bigger one.



Not "stop" crime, reduce crime by eliminating black markets.


Not "stop" organized crime, reduce it by eliminating black markets.


I'm advocating a FREE market here. I have no issue with untaxed plants and untaxed beverages. I don't support failed government policies that drive people underground to do business.


You sound like you are starting to agree with me. The problem is the black market.

The problem is the reality that Govt will NEVER let a cash cow stray to someone else's pasture. This there will always be a black market and there will always be crime attached to it.

I understand what you are advocating, but its not going to happen as long as the government exists in its present form.

 

[Liberty1911]

I'm interested to know why.

A black market can only exist when something is illegal. No ban (or sin tax) -> no black market.


It would lead to less violence. Follow the logic.

No bans -> No black market

No black market -> Reduce profitability of gang life -> Less gang members

No black market -> Clean, "safe" drugs manufactured in the USA -> Jobs, Income

No black market -> No reason to buy drugs on the streets -> Less gang turf war

No black market -> No risk of imprisonment for doing business -> No reason to shoot at cops

I could go on...

Yeah, there's no black market for cigarettes. It doesn't exist because they're legal.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yeah, there's no black market for cigarettes. It doesn't exist because they're legal.

I've smoked off and on for several years and I've never touched an illegal drug. I'll guarantee you I can find an illegal drug dealer before I find a black market cigarette dealer. I've certainly never met a black market cigarette dealer.

 

[steveh_131]

Yeah, there's no black market for cigarettes. It doesn't exist because they're legal.

Tsk, tsk. You didn't read the whole post. Important part bolded:

A black market can only exist when something is illegal. No ban (or sin tax) -> no black market.

 

[Liberty1911]

Tsk, tsk. You didn't read the whole post. Important part bolded:

But wait, libertarians try to sell legalization by telling us all the tax revenue that will flow into the coffers. I'm confused now.

 

[Liberty1911]

Most drugs are out of your system in a couple days. You could test drug users that have only been clean for less than a week, and they could pass the test. So i ask you, what will testing these people accomplish besides wasting more money?

Im still waiting

I'm pretty sure the people we kick off the system will more than pay for the drug testing. Besides, if we end the war on drugs, we will save "a trillion dollars". Plus all the tax revenue we're promised by legalization proponents, it sounds like we'll be swimming in cash. I wouldn't worry about the costs of a few tests.

 

[RockofStrength]

But wait, libertarians try to sell legalization by telling us all the tax revenue that will flow into the coffers. I'm confused now.

You do realize that you would still pay taxes on it, yes? Sales tax and such? And as an addictive substance people are likely to buy a ton of it?

 

[steveh_131]

But wait, libertarians try to sell legalization by telling us all the tax revenue that will flow into the coffers. I'm confused now.

I don't think it ought to be taxed above standard sales tax. Never said otherwise. Don't know any libertarians who have, either.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't think it ought to be taxed above standard sales tax. Never said otherwise. Don't know any libertarians who have, either.

But nevertheless, you know it will be, just like tobacco and alcohol.

You can't have it both ways. On one hand you say, "oh well, the welfare state exists, we can't get rid of it, so just live with it." On the other hand you say "we'll just tax drugs at the sales tax rate, so black markets will never ever exist."

Whatever. Not an intellectually honest position to take, and just further proof of my assertion that libertarians are about legalization only, the consequences be damned, with no concern for responsibility.

Anyway, I think I'm done here. We keep rehashing the same arguments, and no one is going to change their mind. Have a nice day.

 

[DragonGunner]

there would be no fear of prosecution more people would become users and then they would become addicts.They would more than likely loose/quit there jobs,crime rates would rise due to theft to support their habits.more lives would be destroyed from the drugs themselves..

Yup....thieves would still need to steal to pay for what they want.....I know...lets legalize theft.....that would solve everything.

In grade school they taught us that drugs were bad.....today we have people who say drugs are good, we need to legalize it. My kids are grown and alive and don't do drugs, they have 6 friends who are now dead, all from over dose of drugs. What ever happend to saying "NO" to dope. Thats what people who do it, or don't but want it legal....dopes....Light is on but no one home.

 

[steveh_131]

But nevertheless, you know it will be, just like tobacco and alcohol.

You can't have it both ways. On one hand you say, "oh well, the welfare state exists, we can't get rid of it, so just live with it." On the other hand you say "we'll just tax drugs at the sales tax rate, so black markets will never ever exist."

Whatever. Not an intellectually honest position to take, and just further proof of my assertion that libertarians are about legalization only, the consequences be damned, with no concern for responsibility.

Anyway, I think I'm done here. We keep rehashing the same arguments, and no one is going to change their mind. Have a nice day.

One last question for you, then, since you didn't bother responding to any of the long post I wrote earlier.

Alcohol has consequences very similar to drugs, with respect to the welfare state.

So if alcohol was prohibited today, you would vote that we continue to keep it illegal until the welfare state is removed. Right?