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

[RockofStrength]

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.

Thank you. What would we do without champions to legislate what is best for others

 

[Stschil]

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.

Actually there are fairly large black market cigarette operations operating in Chicago and New York. People truck in smokes from neighboring states and cities where the taxes are much lower. Fake tax stamps and all.

Feds bust black-market cigarette scheme - Southtown Star

Black-market cigarettes costing NY $20M a month - m.NYPOST.com

 

[Liberty1911]

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?

I take the same position for anything, including alcohol, that requires me to support other people's irresponsible behavior.

However, I'm not getting into any of your stupid hypotheticals. I'm not advocating that anything that is already legal, be made illegal, and I wouldn't for drugs either.

I would also support removing alcohol abusers from the welfare system. I'm in favor of doing whatever we can to chip away at the welfare state and exclude as many people as possible.

Again, you'd think that libertarians would consider it a win-win to legalize drugs while at the same time excluding drug users from public assistance.

Libertarian opposition to that just reinforces my point that libertarians don't really care about personal responsibility, they just pay lip service to it. They want freedom without responsibility, they don't care what the cost to their neighbor is.

 

[Lycurgus]

drugs/money are just one of the reasons for gang violence and shootings.

they also fight/kill for respect,revenge,reputation.......

 

[steveh_131]

I take the same position for anything, including alcohol, that requires me to support other people's irresponsible behavior.

So if alcohol were prohibited, you would support keeping it that way. Classic.

What on earth were you thinking when you put the word 'Liberty' in your username?

 

[steveh_131]

Libertarian opposition to that just reinforces my point that libertarians don't really care about personal responsibility, they just pay lip service to it. They want freedom without responsibility, they don't care what the cost to their neighbor is.

False. We want both. Most of us vote for both.

You vote for responsibility without freedom.

 

[kiddchaos]

Libertarian opposition to that just reinforces my point that libertarians don't really care about personal responsibility, they just pay lip service to it. They want freedom without responsibility, they don't care what the cost to their neighbor is.

As a Libertarian:
Don't tread on me.
I won't tread on you.

 

[bingley]

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.

I've seen a black market for cigarettes, but it was in a country with a crippling protectionist policy against better, imported cigarettes. You can't keep people from wanting quality and force your inferior product down their throat, so people started smuggling good quality American cigarettes that were banned over there.

I guess another place where you can find a black market for cigarettes is the prison system right here in US soil.

It's funny that in this thread no one has talked about morality, which is a big reason behind banning alcohol, drugs, prostitution, etc. Instead, people do this "why should I have to pay for the rehab or the medical treatment." This is a moral argument disguised as an economic objection: why can't you be more responsible, why do I have to be responsible for you. Why? Because arguing for morality is no longer accepted by our society. But I find this "disguise" quite hypocritical.

If the crowd objecting to legalizing drugs also advocates legalizing prostitution, then maybe I'll take them more seriously. Drugs, alcohol, and prostitution are three areas in which prohibition has caused more social problems than it has solved.

 

[Liberty1911]

It's funny that in this thread no one has talked about morality, which is a big reason behind banning alcohol, drugs, prostitution, etc. Instead, people do this "why should I have to pay for the rehab or the medical treatment." This is a moral argument disguised as an economic objection: why can't you be more responsible, why do I have to be responsible for you. Why? Because arguing for morality is no longer accepted by our society. But I find this "disguise" quite hypocritical.

The morality argument has been discussed at length in other threads. I will say in this thread that I think it's immoral to take resources by force from one person and give those resources to another. There's nothing "hypocritical" about it.

As to the immorality of the other issues, it's not hypocritical either to consider things immoral without also having to advocate for the use of state force to remove the immorality.

If there's any hypocrisy here, it's people who advocate for freedom to do whatever they want, without also requiring personal responsibility from the individuals exercising that freedom.

 

[Liberty1911]

False. We want both. Most of us vote for both.

You vote for responsibility without freedom.

Ok, so then I guess you support removing public assistance from people who use drugs? Sounds like we finally agree.

 

[DragonGunner]

drugs/money are just one of the reasons for gang violence and shootings.

they also fight/kill for respect,revenge,reputation.......

And this....the real cause...?https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...son_for_the_increase_in_chicago_violence.html

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, so then I guess you support removing public assistance from people who use drugs? Sounds like we finally agree.

Yes, I support removing public assistance.

 

[Lycurgus]

I guess Amsterdam didnt get this message

Portugal has over 10 years of experience that says otherwise.

1. hard drugs are illegal in Holland.

2. hard drugs are still illegal there too. they offer treatment plus other types of punishment instead of jail/prison.


individuals found in possession of small quantities of drugs are issued summons. The drugs are confiscated, and the suspect is interviewed by a “Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction” (Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência – CDT). These commissions are made up of three people: A social worker, a psychiatrist, and an attorney.[9][10] The dissuasion commission have powers comparable to an arbitration committee, but restricted to cases involving drug use or possession of small amounts of drugs. There is one CDT in each of Portugal’s 18 districts.
The committees have a broad range of sanctions available to them when ruling on the drug use offence. These include:
.Fines, ranging from 25 to 150 EURO. These figures are based on the Portuguese minimum wage of about 485 EURO (Banco de Portugal, 2001) and translate into hours of work lost.
.Suspension of the right to practice if the user has a licensed profession (e.g. medical doctor, taxi driver) and may endanger another person or someone's possessions.
.Ban on visiting certain places (e.g. specific discothèques)
.Ban on associating with specific other persons.
.Foreign travel ban.
.Requirement to report periodically to the committee.
.Withdrawal of the right to carry a gun.
.Confiscation of personal possessions.
.Cessation of subsidies or allowances that a person receives from a public agency.
If the person is addicted to drugs, he or she may be admitted to a drug rehabilitation facility or be given community service, if the dissuasion committee finds that this better serves the purpose of keeping the offender out of trouble. The committee cannot mandate compulsory treatment, although its orientation is to induce addicts to enter and remain in treatment. The committee has the explicit power to suspend sanctions conditional upon voluntary entry into treatment. If the offender is not addicted to drugs, or unwilling to submit to treatment or community service, he or she may be given a fine.


what country legally sells hard drugs to their citizens??





...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Actually there are fairly large black market cigarette operations operating in Chicago and New York. People truck in smokes from neighboring states and cities where the taxes are much lower. Fake tax stamps and all.

Feds bust black-market cigarette scheme - Southtown Star

Black-market cigarettes costing NY $20M a month - m.NYPOST.com

Yep, I buy all my smokes in Kentucky, screw Indiana and it's high taxes, get my gas while I am down there too

 

[Bunnykid68]

I take the same position for anything, including alcohol, that requires me to support other people's irresponsible behavior.

However, I'm not getting into any of your stupid hypotheticals. I'm not advocating that anything that is already legal, be made illegal, and I wouldn't for drugs either.

I would also support removing alcohol abusers from the welfare system. I'm in favor of doing whatever we can to chip away at the welfare state and exclude as many people as possible.

Again, you'd think that libertarians would consider it a win-win to legalize drugs while at the same time excluding drug users from public assistance.

Libertarian opposition to that just reinforces my point that libertarians don't really care about personal responsibility, they just pay lip service to it. They want freedom without responsibility, they don't care what the cost to their neighbor is.

You keep bringing up personal responsibility, why? You can not make people be responsible, so what does that have to do with welfare and drugs? Other than the fact that people who are on welfare may be using your money for something you do not believe in.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The morality argument has been discussed at length in other threads. I will say in this thread that I think it's immoral to take resources by force from one person and give those resources to another. There's nothing "hypocritical" about it.

As to the immorality of the other issues, it's not hypocritical either to consider things immoral without also having to advocate for the use of state force to remove the immorality.

If there's any hypocrisy here, it's people who advocate for freedom to do whatever they want, without also requiring personal responsibility from the individuals exercising that freedom.

The only responsibility you can require of someone is that they do not trample on another person rights while they are exercising their freedoms.

 

[Liberty1911]

You keep bringing up personal responsibility, why? You can not make people be responsible, so what does that have to do with welfare and drugs? Other than the fact that people who are on welfare may be using your money for something you do not believe in.

I'm just not sure why people are having such a hard time grasping this.

If we make drugs legal, more people will use them, and consequently, more people will abuse them, to the point that many will require state support.

I can absolutely make people responsible for the consequences of their decisions, by removing the safety net.

So, let's legalize drugs and at the same time exclude drug users from public support. For freedom loving people, as so many here claim to be, it's a win-win situation. People have the freedom to abuse drugs, and I have the freedom to not have to pay for irresponsible behavior.

It's quite telling that no "Libertarian" here on INGO will support that.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm just not sure why people are having such a hard time grasping this.

If we make drugs legal, more people will use them, and consequently, more people will abuse them, to the point that many will require state support.

I can absolutely make people responsible for the consequences of their decisions, by removing the safety net.

So, let's legalize drugs and at the same time exclude drug users from public support. For freedom loving people, as so many here claim to be, it's a win-win situation. People have the freedom to abuse drugs, and I have the freedom to not have to pay for irresponsible behavior.

It's quite telling that no "Libertarian" here on INGO will support that.

Every libertarian I know supports that. We support both getting rid of the welfare system and legalizing drugs. Most of us vote accordingly.

If you're waiting for some fantasy piece of legislation to come along that does both of those things at once, then keep dreaming. Even if it did, it's not up to you to pass it. It's up to you to vote.

I vote for people who want to abolish the welfare state and legalize drugs. Liberty and responsibility.

Claiming that 'libertarians' (whatever the heck that means to you) are against personal responsibility is a straw-man at best. Just plain stupid at worst.

 

[steveh_131]

You have also presented no evidence whatsoever that drug legalization would add to your tax burden in any way. Everything presented thus far suggests that crime and incarcerations rates would decrease, which lowers your tax burden drastically.

 

[Liberty1911]

Every libertarian I know supports that. We support both getting rid of the welfare system and legalizing drugs. Most of us vote accordingly.

If you're waiting for some fantasy piece of legislation to come along that does both of those things at once, then keep dreaming. Even if it did, it's not up to you to pass it. It's up to you to vote.

I vote for people who want to abolish the welfare state and legalize drugs. Liberty and responsibility.

Claiming that 'libertarians' (whatever the heck that means to you) are against personal responsibility is a straw-man at best. Just plain stupid at worst.

Straw man? Really? Why then are all the libertarians arguing against tying the two issues together? Whether or not anyone would actually write a bill like that is irrelevant. Libertarians here don't support tying the two together, freedom and responsibility. I have to conclude then that they really don't care much about the responsibility end. They just want the freedom.

So would you support legislation legalizing drugs, but excluding drug users from ANY form of public assistance? That's an easy yes or no question.