The War on Drugs is a War on Innocent People

I'm not a drug expert, but if there were clinical professionals working with addicts as part of the requirements for clean drugs and other services I'm sure those issues would be addressed.

All this is of course hypothetical, but the point is moving in these directions I believe would be more effective fiscally and ethically.

 

You are in favour of destroying my community and that makes me angry, if you want to debate race pride and whether or not its a good thing please do it in the right forum and thread.
Never said there was attacks on ME, please re read what i have posted.

 

You don't have to care. You just can't advocate sending blue-costumed men with guns to his house to throw him in a cage (an act which would seem to demonstrate that you very much care, BTW).

As for the "medical costs" excuse, if medical care and medical insurance were fully privatized, that wouldn't matter because each person would be fully responsible for the risks of his own actions. They socialize the medical industry and then use that as an excuse to further statist aggression with social engineering.

I'm sure there are "risky" things you do that you don't want banned. I don't want you thrown in a cage over them and in a free market you'd be responsible for the cost of the risk.

 

Advocating capital punishment does not mean one is violent. Please try a bit harder.

 

You shouldn't care just like you shouldn't care if someone wants to pump junk into their veins. Yet you do care, to the point where you want to see them die while having medical care withheld from them since you disagree with their actions. I can't understand such reasoning.

 

Legalizing drugs increases their availability. And since people tend to consume something a lot more when they can access it in bulk the over dose rates will in fact sky rocket. You know how some people end up in the hospital because they were dumb enough to drink a whole 24 pack in ten minutes? Imagine that, but on a constant basis. Remember, alcohol takes a couple bottles before it hospitalizes. PCP takes only a few pills. Therefor people will end up in the hospital simply for actually using the stuff regardless of abusing or not.

 

Wrong, the costs of private insurance would go up to cover the junkies..so again we would have to pay.

 

Actually, yes it does.

Violence, N. : Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

You advocate killing people, therefore you are violent.

 

Oh come on. If there was such a huge disparity in the health care costs of drug users versus teetotalers, then in a free market they would be charged more.

 

silly and petty...and terribly misguided.

 

I think your logic is flawed.
I don't see legalizing it increasing demand.
Demand is already there, those who do drugs will continue.
Making them legal won't make them financially more accessible.

 

Google something called meth mouth..then come back and talk about costs...

 

Yes, you are silly, petty and horribly misguided also.
Pretty big of you to admit it so readily, I'm impressed.

 

So, why don't you think drug users will be charged more?

 

Right there in your own words you just shot down your own "treatment" proposal..

 

It's a fact that swimming pools kill. It's your business whether you want to accept that risk.

Swimming pools, sugar, stairs, cars kill and destroy families and all would also empower organized crime were they illegal.

No, it is an act of invasive harassment to "protect" someone who doesn't want or request your protection and also rather creepy. Especially when the protection involves threatening them with a gun and a cage if they don't comply. How about I "protect" you from drowning by throwing you in a cage if you try to enter a swimming pool?

Mandatory seat belt laws are wrong too. New Hampshire doesn't have them and has no more accidents than anywhere else. In fact, they put pedestrians at greater risk by making drivers less careful.

The government can legitimately pursue reckless drivers that put OTHER people at risk, though I don't think "magic number" speed limits are a particularly good or fair way of doing that. The autobahns don't have them and have no more accidents than anywhere else. Some European towns have even gotten rid of traffic signs and saw their number of accidents go down because drivers became more careful.

I don't know what you're talking about. My rights are, simply put, my right of ownership over my own person and property, no more or less. The laws you're talking about constitute an unjust invasion of my personal sovereignty and that of millions of others.

 

I don't see how?
Would you care to elaborate?

I never stated I had a goal of ending drug use.
I think I previously stated humanity has been seeking mind altering substances as far back as we have been able to study them.

My emphasis is on treatment and education.

 

Not what i said...I said we have to pay..we as in the ones NOT using drugs. Health care costs would go up and therefore the premiums would too. Or do you think health care insurers should cover those increases in there costs??

 

Yes, by charging more.

 

Of course it does. Most especially capital punishment for victimless crimes, which is just another way of saying "legal murder."

Insurance companies in a free market charge higher premiums for riskier and costlier individuals or even refuse to take them on if they are especially risky to cover just that issue. You would only pay however much your own risks costs

 

WOW.. You really think that we, as in we the law abiding taxpayers, should CONTINUALLY foot the bill for care and "treatment" with no end...
Now i know you are on the drugs bud.

 

I am arguing with so many selfish and illogical people I can't even remember which one said what anymore. I see people who don't care that their neighbours are going to be hooked up on life support because "that was their choice and nobody elses right to interfere". There are people who think we all have the right to act like fools, free from government and even community sponsored regulation.

Normally I can't stand people with a white power emblem in their avatar box thingy. But based on the words spoken by said individuals here they are very community focused people (ironically something libertarians claim to be). But well I must say, life surrounded by community conscious white supremecists is a billion times better than life surrounded by objectivists who don't care at all about their closest friends.

I have just one last thing to say about the drug legalization debate here, and it applies to the arguments being made and not the argument itself... Every single pro-legalization argument focused on letting people live their own life regardless of the negative social, community, or species wide consequences of their decisions it can cause. The anti-legalization arguments want to impose violent and/or tough actions by the police with the intention of keeping society clean and healthy.

Anybody with a brain stem can tell which is going to cause the most good.

 

Actually no, I don't do drugs.
. . . and while I don't like to turn down friendship, I doubt we are buds

I do think legalizing drugs would be less expensive than the failed War on Drugs though.

I think that treating addicts is cheaper than the current process clogging our judiciary system and incarceration facilities.

 

Why should i have to pay more for it ... More to the point why WOULD I.

 

I don't see how you can be illogical and selfish at the same time, but thank you for the selfish part.

"If only I had a brain..."

Yup, clearly I don't care about my friends because I don't want to see violence used against them.

I wonder what that says about you.