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

[Liberty1911]

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.

I linked an article in another thread where they're doing drug testing for public assistance in Posey County and saved taxpayer money.

The problem is, "evidence" doesn't exist in large part because almost no one has a testing requirement. They just pay the bills without question.

 

[steveh_131]

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.

If the two were combined, then yes. I would see that as an overall net gain of liberty.

Just the drug testing? Probably not. It invites more government intrusion and ultimately would probably solve nothing. Example:

Va. GOP revives drug testing for welfare recipients | WashingtonExaminer.com

The bill he introduced in the last session would have screened all state welfare recipients and then administered drug tests to those suspected of drug use.

The legislation failed, however, after the state estimated it would cost $1.5 million to administer the tests, compared with the estimated $229,000 that would be saved by stripping benefits from those who test positive.

This is all quite irrelevant. I don't get to vote yea or nay on this legislation, even if someone did introduce it. What I can do is vote for people who will abolish the welfare system and the police state. And that is what I do. Do you?

 

[GREEN607]

Criminals are criminals. They may move into a different business but if you think ending the drug war will suddenly make them hard working law abiding citizens, you're living in a fantasy world.

Agreed. Yes, end the war on drugs.... because it is a HUGE waste of time, money and resources.

However, those "full-time" drug dealers, are NOW just going to become home invaders or grand-theft auto freaks. They AIN'T lookin' for work!

The ones who haven't already done so.... wil just move in with their welfare-collecting chick..... sleep half the day, and then go steal or part out some hard-working guy's SUV.

But I seriously doubt any violence would drop significantly.Gang-bangers are gang-bangers.... and are 'violent' at times... BECAUSE they want to be.

 

[Bunnykid68]

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.

I do not see it as being an easy question, how does one prove someone is using drugs? Unless you are only talking about pot. Most of the other drugs seem to metabolize pretty fast and be gone in 24-48 hours.

It is not like drugs test only cost 1-2 bucks.

 

[rambone]

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

And what creates black markets? Government policy.

Chicago doesn't foster a free market, and hence, still suffers from black markets and all the problems that come with them.

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.

That is the definition of the Drug War in a sentence.

Money is stolen from taxpayers and given to prisons, police departments, bureaucracies, foreign governments, and corporations.

But you don't seem to care about the vast immorality there. Typical of the prohibitionist sort. Morality only when its convenient.

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

I grasp you ideas, but they are not compelling.

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.

Where are you getting this? If you want to win people over with your arguments, use some facts. History tells us all we need to know about prohibition.

Prohibition does nothing to prevent addiction and abuse. LOOK AROUND.

Alcohol consumption rose to record levels during alcohol prohibition. Source 1, Source 2

The current Drug War has done absolutely nothing to prevent addiction. Source

Portugal has had overwhelming success decriminalizing drugs in their country. Drug usage rates dropped. HIV infections dropped. Drug treatment patients dropped. And obviously the money spent on law enforcement and bureaucracy dropped. Please read.
Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME

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

Why don't you respond to what I posted on the matter? See Post #46. Your proposal of mass-testing is easily defeated by resourceful abusers of the system, and costs more than it saves. The dollars in question are nowhere near outweighing the costs of the Drug War. Its a feel-good solution, at best.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Your proposal of mass-testing is easily defeated by resourceful abusers of the system, and costs more than it saves. The dollars in question are nowhere near outweighing the costs of the Drug War. Its a feel-good solution, at best.

You can buy bags of urine online for as cheap as $15 and guaranteed to be drug free.

 

[flatlander]

Not only should we learn this point, but we should be using it to defend the 2nd Amendment. A great deal of violence in this country is perpetrated by gangs fighting over drugs and the turf on which they can sell them. All these conflicts disappear when the black market ceases to exist.

How Ending the War on Drugs Could Curb Gun Violence

Great
Crack for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob

 

[Lycurgus]

Rambone-

so now are you saying we should just decriminalize drugs like Portugal? they still are punished...

still not gonna you help you defend the 2nd as you first posted.

 

[Liberty1911]

Just the drug testing? Probably not. It invites more government intrusion and ultimately would probably solve nothing. Example:

If you're begging for my tax dollars, as opposed to minding your own business and taking care of yourself, then I don't have a problem creating stipulations for how my money gets spent, and there's an easy way to avoid the "intrusion", don't demand that I give you money.

 

[bingley]

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.

We either accept the rules of the game or we can move out. A part of the rules of the game is paying taxes. If we don't like some parts of the taxes (or all of the taxes), we can go through the political process to change it, we can practice civil disobedience, or we can immigrate to another country.

If I can just pay the taxes I want to pay, here goes:

- I don't support the corporate bailouts. My money back, please.
- I don't support any of the wars we've been fighting. My money back, please.
- There are some states I don't like. I don't want my money to go to any of them. Please calculate how much my federal taxes went to those states, and send me the refund pro rata.
- There are some individuals I don't like. Even if they never called the cops or the fire department, in theory I've contributed some money towards the public services they could potentially use. Upon receipt of a list of these hated individuals, please send me my money back.
- I am tired of living in Indiana. Too many trees and not enough hot chicks. I don't feel like paying the state taxes.
- While we're at it, I'm willing for a bit more of my money to go to hot chicks. Tell them it's from Bingley.
- No government money should go to religious institutions. I'd like my money back from any government-funded "faith-based initiatives."
- The Village People has persuaded me that the navy is the best service of the branch. I don't want to support the other branches. Top Gun really isn't as good of a movie as people say it is. Please give me back the money that went to the other branches of the armed forces.
- I'm not paying for Obama's vacation in Hawaii when I can go there myself.

It's immoral to make me pay any of this by force.

 

[steveh_131]

If you're begging for my tax dollars, as opposed to minding your own business and taking care of yourself, then I don't have a problem creating stipulations for how my money gets spent, and there's an easy way to avoid the "intrusion", don't demand that I give you money.

Rambone was right. This is nothing more than a 'feel-good measure'.

I don't want more government agencies, employees, and intrusions (even in the lives of food stamp recipients), in exchange for a feel-good measure.

 

[churchmouse]

I do not see it as being an easy question, how does one prove someone is using drugs? Unless you are only talking about pot. Most of the other drugs seem to metabolize pretty fast and be gone in 24-48 hours.

It is not like drugs test only cost 1-2 bucks.

Hair follicle testing. You can not beat it in any way now being used and probably ever.

 

[steveh_131]

The government is not and never will be a good judge of charity recipients. No amount of testing or legislation will ever change this.

Let's focus on getting the government less involved in peoples' lives. Not more.

 

[Destro]

yep...stop all drug enforcement and the Meth issue will work itself out

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

Yes, we should absolutely legalize marijuana. It would stop a lot of the drug trade. No, these criminals wouldn't just start being upright citizens, but it would certainly help. Just because it wouldn't completely eliminate the problem, doesn't mean it isn't a step in the right direction.

Stop this ridiculous and obviously failed "war" on drugs. It has been shown over and over again to be a complete waste of time and money. Legalize and tax Marijuana, and focus on treatment, not incarceration, as your solution to hard drugs. Not only is it more effective, but plenty of models show it to be cost efficient. Just Google it.

 

[Liberty1911]

Rambone was right. This is nothing more than a 'feel-good measure'.

I don't want more government agencies, employees, and intrusions (even in the lives of food stamp recipients), in exchange for a feel-good measure.

Exactly, as I've said all along. Libertarians only pay lip service to personal responsibility. You're just fine with people taking resources by force from others with zero accountability regarding how they use those resources.

It's funny that you think freedom consists of being able to smoke pot or marry your sodomy partner, but when it comes to taking resources by force from one individual to give to another, well, that's just how the system is, nothing we can do about it, I'm so sorry, now can I have my joint back while use my EBT benefits and section 8 housing.

Talk about a "feel good measure".

 

[Destro]

Exactly, as I've said all along. Libertarians only pay lip service to personal responsibility. You're just fine with people taking resources by force from others with zero accountability regarding how they use those resources.

It's funny that you think freedom consists of being able to smoke pot or marry your sodomy partner, but when it comes to taking resources by force from one individual to give to another, well, that's just how the system is, nothing we can do about it, I'm so sorry, now can I have my joint back while use my EBT benefits and section 8 housing.

Talk about a "feel good measure".

But Ron Paul says....

 

[rambone]

Either I'm being ignored, or Liberty1911 is still reading the sources I provided.

 

[Liberty1911]

Either I'm being ignored, or Liberty1911 is still reading the sources I provided.

Probably ignored, for a couple of reasons.

You won't even answer a simple yes or no question. It seems disingenuous to expect others to answer you, when you won't provide the same courtesy.

So, would you support legislation that legalizes drugs but prohibits drug users from obtaining public assistance? That's a pretty simple yes or no question.

Secondly, another reason why you might get ignored is because you, and other legalization proponents, like to drag out the prohibition canard.

It sounds good on the surface, but you must know that prohibition had nothing to do with making the consumption of alcohol illegal.

You do know that right? Either you know that, which means you are purposely being dishonest in your arguments, or you don't know that, which means that you don't really know what you're talking about.

That's actually quite a bit different than today's drug laws isn't it? Yet, legalization proponents such as yourself tirelessly draw parallels to prohibition when the two are fundamentally different, both in their application and in their consequences.

You do know that per capita consumption of alcohol declined sharply when prohibition began, then increased somewhat, but never reached it's pre-prohibition levels?

That's not a prohibition fact that would lend credence to your arguments and disproves your assertion that drug use will not increase when they are legalized. If you're going to swing the prohibition sword, you should realize that it's double edged. So, you might want to put it back in the sheath until you can handle it properly.

You're probably going to continue to be ignored as long as you persist in being intellectually dishonest in your arguments and refusing to answer questions asked of you.

I'm still waiting on your answer to the yes or no question.

 

[Degtyaryov]

It always cracks me up that so many people think that people sell drugs because they're an innate "criminal", and they just like breaking the law. People sell drugs for one reason and one reason alone: because it makes money. Nobody thinks that legalizing drugs will suddenly turn the zetas into pillars of society, but the simple truth is that doesn't matter. Legalizing drugs will eliminate the profit incentive to deal, as well as all of the violence that occurs when people are unable to use the legal system to resolve their disputes and have to take matters into their own hands. 95% of drug related violence is ultimately over money, and when you remove that from the equation there's simply no reason for people to enter that kind of lifestyle.