Give Libertarians a chance

  • Follow Letters

Both liberals and conservatives get it wrong half the time when it comes to talking about how government should function. Both focus more on lofty ideologies than actual, practical functionality. Both also are inconsistent with the ideas of freedom and liberty. Obviously we need the government to make laws to keep a civil society, but we make way too many laws that prohibit freedom.

The liberals/Democrats support a ton of government regulations over anything and everything. They cheer on unions while they singlehandedly destroy our education system. They support heavy gun control without any foresight of the potential implications of such a decision, etc.

Then you have the conservatives/Republicans. They go on about fiscal responsibility, and keeping the government small, and out of our business, but that is obviously hypocritical rhetoric. We haven’t had a balanced budget in quite some time, despite the fact we’ve had a number of Republican conservatives in office, and they’ve all overspent.

Then you’ve got issues such as the war on drugs, which is a total failure. Twenty-five percent of all incarcerations in this country are for nonviolent drug offenses. Do we really need to spend our tax money locking up these people? Alcohol-related crimes dropped drastically after we legalized it. Why not try something similar with other drugs? I’m not saying we should sell heroin at Wal-Mart, but our current strategy is clearly ineffective. Why can’t people recognize this fact?

And why should the government be able to dictate as an individual what I can/can’t put in my body? Right-wingers freak out when some liberal wants to mandate how much soda one can drink, or how many fries someone can order, but it’s the same mentality. It’s allowing the government to have a say in what I ingest.

Then there’s the gay marriage debate, which further divides the left and right. I have a solution: Keep the government out of our personal commitments. Government doesn’t need to recognize marriage. Marriage is a personal, and sometimes religious, commitment between two people. Why my personal relationships need to be a federal matter, I have no idea.

Libertarians form the only party that truly supports freedom and liberty along with practical government functionality. Why don’t we give more Libertarians a shot? What do we have to lose at this point? I couldn’t imagine it being any worse than the mess Republicans and Democrats create.

Comments (29) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 04/26/13 - 06:26 am
7
5
"Why not try something

"Why not try something similar with other drugs? I’m not saying we should sell heroin at Wal-Mart, but our current strategy is clearly ineffective. Why can’t people recognize this fact?"

Because we don't want to live in a lawless/godless society without morals and structure. No matter how much we fail, the legalization of hard narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, meth, PCP, ect; should NEVER happen. Now, if you're talking marijuana; you have this deputies VOTE every day of the week. Not because I would want to consume it; I wouldn't because I don't like any mind altering substance. BUT, because I think it's basically harmless.

It doesn't do any more damage to the body than alcohol. It doesn't make people act like idiots; most of the time the exact opposite, it calms them down. In 16 years of law enforcement, I can honestly say I've NEVER had to fight a suspect because they were high on marijuana. I only WISH I could say the same about alcohol because I've had to fight MANY because of drunkeness and suffered many injury due to said fights.

But, like I said; hard narcotics should NEVER be viewed as legal or morally acceptable to a Country, any country. When you see women selling their bodies on the street for 5 dollars, just to get high on crack; you should feel the same. When you see people actually selling their children to get heroin, you should feel the same. When you see children in homes whose diaper hasn't been changed in days, because their mother is completely "Cracked out"; you should feel the same.

When you see men robbing stores and killing the clerk because they need that money to buy crack, heroin or meth; you should feel the same. These are just a few examples, where if I wasn't tired, I could think of more, probably dramatic examples. I've never seen nor heard of ANY situation where a person did these sort of incidents because they needed or wanted marijuana.

"And why should the government be able to dictate as an individual what I can/can’t put in my body?"

When what you ingest has a direct effect on the community, the people you live around and society in general; you darn right the government should help to stop it. I'm not a big government fan as commentors on here should know; but this is a classic example of something government should do to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Who wants to live beside a heroin addict??? If you do, you're living beside a ticking time bomb. Who knows when they are going to get high and kill your kids while they are playing in the yard.

Yes, I realize people live beside heroin addicts every day; BUT I'll be darned if We The People should say it's morally acceptable and legal to do so. THAT is the difference!! I agree with many things libertarians believe, but some of what they believe is ludacris; such as the drug issue.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 04/26/13 - 06:47 am
5
5
"Right-wingers freak out when

"Right-wingers freak out when some liberal wants to mandate how much soda one can drink, or how many fries someone can order, but it’s the same mentality. It’s allowing the government to have a say in what I ingest."

Tell me something; when is the last time you heard of something consuming to much soda and THAT causing them to kill their mother, father and stab their sister NUMEROUS times?

When have you heard of someone getting a "Bad dose" of soda and it causing them to eat their own skin?

When is the last time you heard of someone consuming to much soda and having hallucinations of mythical characters like Freddie Kruger in their yard; then killing their neighbors entire family?

Well, I personally experienced the first one; where the young man was high on meth and killed his mother, father and mamed his sister.

The other case examples were factual as well. All three of the examples involving METH alone, not to mention heroin, crack or PCP.

The fact is; common citizens actually don't know 5% of what happens all around them. They read about it in the paper; but they didn't read about the little incident where their neighbor's called 911 claiming there are aliens outside and we find them hiding behind the toilet with a gun. They get transported to serenity for their addiction. Why? Because that isn't news worthy; there are too many more important stories to cover. BUT, it happens daily because of narcotics.

Common citizens don't think to link the OVERWHELMING majority of property crimes such as burglaries to narcotic addiction. But its TRUTH. Everyday in the CSRA there are approximately 30 to 40 burglaries commited and almost every one the suspects are drug addicts. Why? Because drug addicts have a hard time keeping jobs because they can't show up on time, can't pass drug screens, etc. Therefore they must be self employed; showing up when they choose and not being required to take drug screens. What better way to be self employed, with no rules and regulations than to make your own schedule when you will break into peoples homes? Mostly while those people are at work making a honorable living. So they have to come home after a hard days work and get rewarded with heartbreak, because some drug addict stole all their belongings. Precious jewelery that had been passed down for 4 generations, antiques and other keep sakes. So, please forgive me if I'm not overcome with sympathy for those 25% of people incarcertated for "non-violent" drug offenses.

THIS type of thinking is exactly what will keep libertarians out of the mainstream; because they are DANGEROUS!! They have wonderful ideas, true enough; but they would endanger all our lives with this type of ridiculous non-sense. Plus, they don't believe we should get involved in ANY foreign conflicts. So Hitler, Mousilini, Mao, and the rest would have been able to just run rampant. The entire world would be ONE communist Country; then you would have the lonely ol USA sitting here as the last free Country.

You dont' think they would come after us after they got that strong?? Seriously?? So we should just not worry about what goes on around the world huh?

karradur
2871
Points
karradur 04/26/13 - 07:25 am
3
7
I have an idea.

Libertarians should build their own city. Maybe somewhere underwater, between Greenland and Iceland. Privately owned and operated, with no intervention by any government or religion.

What could possibly go wrong?

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 09:15 am
5
2
I think the notion of "if

I think the notion of "if hard drugs were legal then so many more people would do them, and society would break down in chaos" is a bit of a misconception. Portugal had a big problem with drugs in many ways and they decriminalized it and it seems to be a success all things considered. People aren't rioting in the streets so there seems to be some stigmatization to the problem. No one is saying doing drugs is a good thing, and decriminalizing it won't make it a better decision. Most of the people who really wanna do heroin or whatever are already doing it. And if you can't already figure out that shooting heroin is a bad idea then you're dumb enough to get what's coming to you. And crime rates related to alcohol plummeted after it was legal. I can only assume a similar situation would incur if other drugs were legal. We could at least experiment with the concept to see what might happen? Everyone I know who has wanted to do hard drugs has done them, and gotten their hands on them pretty easily. Most everyone else is smart enough to not try them at all no matter what the legalities are. Whatever the best solution is, we clearly haven't found it. And btw morally acceptable and legal are two separate issues. And btw I'm not saying we shouldn't get involved in any foreign conflicts, but we definitely could reduce our presence in other countries in alot of ways and maybe get involved in fewer conflicts. War costs alot of money. Money we don't have. Maybe we could cut back on that at least a little bit. All I'm trying to say is that we should maybe try out some more libertarian esque ideas. There are flaws in every system and way of thinking. I don't think hard lined conservatives or liberals do this country justice. and there would be flaws with libertarians too but maybe the answer is coming together a little more and really trying to see what works best in a way that preserves freedom and liberty and protects our country. I'm not a single minded thinker so I guarantee we could draw from all political ideologies from issue to issue in order have a better functioning government. However if someone put a gun to my head and said "pick a political association?" I would choose libertarian over republican or democrat any day of the week!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 04/26/13 - 08:41 am
8
0
Another good LTE.

Both LTE's are good ones, today. This LTE is full of truth. I say that I am a liberal Democrat, but both parties are causing this terrible grid-lock. Democrats, EVEN WITH A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, had grid-lock during Obama's first two years. Both parties are hypocrits and refuse to work together for the good of the people !

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 08:46 am
5
1
Also I might add that we

Also I might add that we don't technically know what decriminalizing all drugs will do so you can't necessarily assume its gonna make for a much worse society. We should start off in small markets, trying some new approaches on this failed "war on drugs" issue. If what we're dong now is absolutely the best approach then thats what we should keep doing, but it seems to be an ineffective and costly approach from what I can gather. We'll never know any better methods if we don't try some other ones out. Heck America in general was one big experimentation when it started. Maybe try some other policies in single states and see what happens?

deestafford
28721
Points
deestafford 04/26/13 - 08:52 am
4
4
Myfather15 hit the nail on the head.

Very few people have the first hand knowledge he does when it comes to the destruction caused by drugs. There are many "pie in the sky" unicorn theories and out of context examples used by the folks who want legalization of drugs but people like him are the ones who are eyball to eyeball with the situation. I will take his opinion on it anyday.

Libertarianism seems to me to lack some of the moral character upon which a society can function. There are some great thoughts in the libertarian philosophy but the parts about drugs, gay marriage, and foreign policy are some that I find detrimental to the ideals of our country. That being said, it's a good idea to have an open and reasonable discussion of its tenents.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 09:01 am
4
4
I really don't understand why

I really don't understand why people keep saying things like "gay marriage is detrimental to society." How exactly? Granted I can understand that you have a moral objection to the concept but that is a different issue.

Gay marriage hurts strait marriage about as much as the WNBA hurts the NBA. lol

RMSHEFF
16680
Points
RMSHEFF 04/26/13 - 09:09 am
4
4
California should legalize

California should legalize all drugs and make them available at no cost to the users. This would act as a "magnet" for the criminal element and all of those that are the least productive in our society. As soon as they migrate to California we should build a tall fence or wall around California and we could live happily ever after.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 09:21 am
4
4
Also while I appreciate

Also while I appreciate MyFather15's first hand accounts with drug related issues. One thing we can all agree he has no experience with is, the absolute affects of legalization or decriminalization. No one in America does. I don't claim to either. The only thing I say is, what we're doing now is ineffective and we should possibly experiment with other ideas. The best idea will reign supreme in the end, but so far we've only tried a few limited ideas. That's like test driving a car and saying its the best car out there when you've never actually driven any other cars. jk

Gary Ross
3346
Points
Gary Ross 04/26/13 - 09:18 am
6
2
Practical government functionality?

"What do we have to lose at this point?" Liberals are obviously clueless and unconcerned when it comes to wild spending for pet projects like welfare programs. Have you noticed what the national debt is lately? Unstatainable! Any 8 year old can tell you that.

By the way, I shouldn't use the term "National Debt". This debt belongs to the politicians, lobbyists, and big business who keep spending beyond their means. This debt does NOT belong to the people. I vote against it at every turn, but the liberals are too liberal.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 09:24 am
0
2
I agree with your comments

I agree with your comments Gary Ross. So what is it exactly that you oppose? Why the question marks?

Little Lamb
46981
Points
Little Lamb 04/26/13 - 09:39 am
7
2
Liberty

We haven't tried liberty since FDR took office. It would be refreshing to try liberty again.

RMSHEFF
16680
Points
RMSHEFF 04/26/13 - 09:44 am
3
5
If we would legalize armed

If we would legalize armed robbery then we would have less people breaking the law, less people taking up space in prison, less would be spent on law enforcement...after all if you look at the actual dollar value of what is taken in armed robberies it is less that we spend trying to prevent, apprehend, prosecute and incarcerating the perpetrator. What kind of "rationalization" is this? We should be able to agree that some activity is destructive to not only the individual but to society in general and when we legalize this activity this give it "our stamp of approval" as to what is acceptable behavior. Drug use is clearly undesirable behavior.

Little Lamb
46981
Points
Little Lamb 04/26/13 - 09:44 am
4
1
State-regulated Marriage

Mr. Duff says something I have posted on here for some time. We should get government out of the marriage regulation sphere. All tax structures should be set up individually. There should be absolutely no distinctions on whether you consider yourself to be single or married when it comes to tax status or tax rates.

There should be no government protections for married folks, nor any special penalties for married folks. Government documents, laws, fees, penalties, etc. should not include the words married, marriage, or marital anywhere in them.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 04/26/13 - 10:03 am
4
3
It's practically impossible

It's practically impossible to factually show how many lives the illegalization of drugs has saved. Why? For the same reason we can't prove how many lives police officers have actually saved; because there is no way of calculating what COULD have happened. If I stop a person and arrest them for driving under the influence of alcohol; we will never know if they would have wrecked and killed someone or themselves this night, because they are in jail. They certainly could have made it home safe and sound; OR they could have killed a family of four, which has happened thousands of times. There is no way to calculate this.

The same reasoning goes for incarcerating HARD narcotic users. After they've been arrested and jailed, it's hard to say what they might have done if they were still on the streets using. I recently worked a murder where the addicts set up the dealer. They didn't have any money but wanted their meth. They called the dealer and set up a meeting on a rural road to purchase drugs from him. Instead they robbed him and shot him 3 times.

Now, if these subjects had been incarcerated for narcotics a few days earlier; would the murder have still happened? Good question, right? No, laws will not prevent ALL criminal acts; common sense tells us that. But I would say over the years; millions of crimes have been prevented because drug addicts were incarcerated.

No, I don't expect riots in the streets if narcotics are legalized. I don't expect there to be an influx of drug addicts because they are legalized; and I do agree that those that are going to do drugs, do them anyway. People like myself and millions of others won't start using drugs just because they are legal, thats very true. BUT, I do think we would have MUCH more property crimes such as burglaries, robberies, etc.

Can I show you the statistics to back this up? NO, I can't; but I can tell you personal experience. For example; we once had a very bad string of residential and business burglaries going on. We couldn't PROVE who was doing it, enough to make a charge. We DID however have a group of persons we highly suspected. We also had information this group was living in a house together and had several "One pot" meth labs going. We got an informant to make a buy from them and did a search warrant and found 3 seperate "One pot" labs. After arresting them on these charges, the BURGLARIES completely stopped!! Coincidence???

My point is; you can't calculate exactly how many crimes, including violent crimes have been prevented because people are incarcerated for drug charges. Peoples lives are saved every single day because of this incarceration. Do we really want to take this away? As a civilized society, of people who want to live peaceably; without fear of being harmed by drug addicts; do we want to legalize hard narcotics?

Now, I'm quite sure some legalization advocates will hit me with some statistics that shows countries who have legalized drugs, didn't have a massive increase in crimes. Just remember; stats don't lie but liars use stats. They can twist and turn statistics to slant them any way they want.

For example; they could say the crime rate went down when drugs were legalized. But that statistic could be only using a certain demograhic and NOT the overall crime rate. Would they be lying? No, not if their talking about that demographic; they would just be CHOOSING the stats to pad their point of view. Be careful.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 04/26/13 - 10:18 am
4
3
Ever heard the saying "If you

Ever heard the saying "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." It's a factual saying; proven again and again in history. If you don't have set guidelines, standards and structure; society will fail.

I also want to add that if these people don't have enough discipline to control themselves and their addictions; and they're going around stealing and robbing others; you darn right they should be in jail. When their addiction becomes dangerous to the general public and citizens who DO control themselves; they belong in jail. Yes, I've heard the argument "Charge them for the robbery" not the drug addiction and they will still be in jail. BUT, what if they COULD have been locked up for drugs, two weeks before the robbery or murder?? Hard drug addicts (not marijuana) commit MANY other crimes the majority of the time. These people DO NOT need to be part of society and thank God, one day they won't be. Again, if you think I'm including marijuana; read my first post. Prescription narcotics and alcohol are FAR worse than marijuana in THIS persons experience.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 11:07 am
4
3
If the rate of drug users

If the rate of drug users probably won't go up that much then how come burglaries would skyrocket as an affect? And part of the hypocrisy of this issue too is there are lots of people who abuse alcohol and prescription drugs and do bad things but they are legal, so they can't get any trumped up charges on top of what they are doing. Plus alcohol abuse is way more rampant and I would imagine causes far more instances of traffic deaths, domestic violence, etc...Why is this so much more legally acceptable? Why should I get a slap on the wrist if I beat my wife drunk but get hard time for doing it on Meth? I don't see the consistency of the argument? And if the government is gonna be allowed to tell us what we can put in our own bodies, does that open the door the let them say how many calories a meal can be or send out the exercise police? This would be for the good of the people as a whole. why is this not acceptable if it helps the overall good of society? After all, obesity does kills way more people every year than heroin does.

RMSHEFF
16680
Points
RMSHEFF 04/26/13 - 01:55 pm
3
0
Some things are BAD and we as

Some things are BAD and we as a people should be able to agree that drug use is bad and not give it our approval by legalization. Our leaders should set the bar high with regards to destructive behavior.

The problem with our societal ill is that everything has become "relative". There is no longer absolute truth. In the first 80 years of this century there was a disagreement over what was true and what was not true, what was bad and what was good. That search ended and we are now in a period of time called "Postmodernism" which states that truth is relative or different for every person. For you, truth is whatever you decide it is. It is absolutely wrong or bad to be addicted to drugs......would you not agree?

Darby
26945
Points
Darby 04/26/13 - 11:47 am
4
2
"Why don’t we give more

Libertarians a shot?"

.
Maybe because they need to earn that "shot"! If Libertarians views were less kooky (They are more or less the right wing's counterpart to the left's Greenies) then they would be winning elections left and right.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 04/26/13 - 01:58 pm
2
2
@duffstuff

"If the rate of drug users probably won't go up that much then how come burglaries would skyrocket as an affect?"

First of all, I didn't say the rate of users wouldn't go up; I said I don't believe we would have an influx, which means MASSIVE numbers of users going up. Yes, I believe there would be quite a few that would TRY it because it's legal and then become addicted, adding to societies problems. BUT, people like myself who don't take ANY form of mind altering substance; no I don't think we will try narcotics just because they are legal, at least I KNOW I wouldn't.

But, to answer your question; there are thousands of drug users on the streets right now as we type. Many of them are committing other crimes; such as theft, assault's, batteries, robberies, burglaries, etc. There are ALSO thousands of drug addicts in jail facing drug charges as we type. If you drop all those drug charges and they are immediately released, you IMMEDIATELY increase the rate of criminals on the street. Got it? It's pretty simple.

As for the rest of your liberal rhetoric; if you can't distinguish the difference in calories (Non-mind altering substance) and hard narcotics (Extreme mind altering substance); I can't help you and there is no need for a response. The day my consumption of a Big Mac, ENDANGERS the public; I might listen to a little more of your argument. The day you PROVE people are burglarizing houses regularly, so they can go to Burger King and "Have it your way": maybe you've got a point. Obesity kills ME, not YOU partner. So the old saying would be "Mind your business, not mine." Drugs are an epidemic that effects EVERYONE in society, whether they realize it or not. I'm not on the public dime for my health care, so don't worry about what I'm eating and my health care costs.

The difference in alcohol and say Meth, Crack and heroin is the total consumption. Where it is POSSIBLE that I can have a couple beers at my house while mowing the grass; and NOT be intoxicated at all. You can't just smoke a little crack and NOT get high. The single purpose for smoking crack and meth is the HIGH itself. If you smoke it, you ARE going to get high. Alcohol still has the possibility of not producing intoxication if consumed at low levels.

As far as prescription medication such as pain killers. IF used properly and as prescribed, they are a great benefit to society. My mother is 72 years old, over weight and her knees absolutely KILL her everyday. She would tell you she couldn't live without taking her pain medication. She takes two pills per day, AS PRESCRIBED. In case you didn't notice, special attention should be paid to AS PRESCRIBED!!

Also, you will get no lighter sentence whether you are drunk or high, if you beat your wife. Again, just non-sense and using such examples to confuse people.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 02:05 pm
4
1
And the Republicans and

And the Republicans and Democrats are clearly doing a good job and nothing should change with either ideology. (sarcasm)

Maybe the fact that Republicans and Democrats are more well organized and have all the money and political control. Maybe that has at least something to do with it? Our government is a joke and something needs to change.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 04/26/13 - 02:20 pm
2
3
Does the public realize this??

The vast majority of murders you hear about on the news are in some way related to drugs. Either it's drug dealers shooting each other over territorial disputes, drug addicts shooting drug dealers, drug addicts shooting each other. Some of them are gang initiations, etc. A large percentage of the domestic disputes that end up in murder, during the investigation it's found there was a illegal substance abuse involved with the suspect or both suspect and victim. We are paying billions of dollars to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate these people every year.

Now, I've heard liberals say THIS is exactly why we shouldn't be pursuing drug charges; because it isn't worth the cost. Ok, lets say we release them all and they are back on the streets doing their drugs. There are many of these people who are on government assistance, have government phones, EBT and the flood the health care system, especially ER's (Because ER's are the personal doctors). They are also back on the street burglarizing innocent peoples homes, stealing their vehicles, four wheelers, golf carts, and many more expensive items people have worked hard for.

In 2010 a burglary occured every 14.6 seconds in the US. Costing approximately 4.6 Billion to the citizens and insurance. There are over 3 million homes burglarized every year. If it weren't for all these burglars, how much would we be paying for our insurance??? Good question, right? So, you want to put all the people in jail for drugs, back on the streets and probably double these numbers??

So drug addicts are costing us in taxes, home and car insurance premiums, personal damage to our homes which aren't insured, investigation into property crime costs, prosecution for property crime costs, incarceration for property crime costs, price of health care because they won't pay their bills; making ours go up. The list could go on and on with how drug addicts effect EVERY citizen; and liberals and libertarians want to make it legal; WOW!! They confuse the issue by saying it's all about what THEY want to put in their bodies; but that is far from the truth. It has a lot to do with their behavior because of their choice to do hard narcotics. Neither system will work flawlessly, so lets keep hard narcotics illegal; until that perfect system comes, and It's coming.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 02:27 pm
4
1
Liberal rhetoric? I'm not a

Liberal rhetoric? I'm not a liberal fyi. I thought I've also been very clear in saying I'm open to ideas from both sides of the isle and perhaps a few libertarian ones wouldn't hurt?

So you can't get charged with use of an illegal substance along with the domestic violence charge? You'd certainly get major charges if you had the drug in possession. (in large quantities in particular)

Btw if you're not looking to get even a bit tipsy then alcohol serves no other purpose to be injested. Drink juice then. lol Does alcohol not cause alot of problems and is it not considered an intoxicant? And of course prescription medication serves a purpose but only for those who need it for a specific ailment. Some prescription meds are the equivalent of synthetic heroin. If you're not using them to medicate a doctor recommended problem then you're abusing them in the exact same way and can have the exact same result. People will steal these meds and will get high on them and they can overdose on them so I guess what junkies should learn from that is get high on legal drugs that are on the market because they can't prosecute you for having them. (unless they can prove you stole them of course but thats a theft charge not a drug charge)

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 04/26/13 - 02:37 pm
2
2
Btw you're jumping to

Btw you're jumping to conclusions that can't possibly be known without actually putting it into practice. Burglaries will go up, Insurance rates will go up...Thats speculation until you actually try out a new system. When alcohol was legalized related crime went way down. You don't think its possible drug related crimes could go down? What are your thoughts on Portugal btw? They decriminalized drugs, which is slightly different from legalizing it but it's been considered a success. Even some of the initial critics are now saying its a successful policy change. You don't think we should even experiment with other ideas starting with single states? How are we suppose to find the best system if we aren't allowed to experiment with new ideas?

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 04/26/13 - 03:52 pm
2
1
Actually, I didn't say YOU

Actually, I didn't say YOU were a liberal; I said something you said was liberal rhetoric. You actually can be an independent or have no affiliation with a political party and still repeat or use their rhetoric.

Second, I'll just let you read it for yourself about Portugal's drug policy. Just as with most topics, it's relative to the person. Some believe it was successful, some don't. BUT, drug use DID go up when they legalized it, with almost every drug and many of them doubling in numbers. Pay attention to the Observations section. Now, as far as marijuana; I personally believe Portugal's system would be perfect here. I believe it should be no more than a citable offense, the same as a speeding ticket. Pay a fine of a couple hundred and thats it. It certainly could be decriminalized, but that is just my opinioin. As I've stated, I've never seen anyone destroy their lives or others lives simply because of marijuana. Marijuana is FAR less destructive than alcohol; again, in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

I read several different articles on it, but could not find any information on whether property or violent related crimes decreased. Several articles talked about drug related overdoses went down from 400 a year to approximately 290 per year. They also talked about how HIV cases related to using dirty needles reduced.

I like very much their unchanged laws about drug dealers, they are still punished severely with prison time; as they should. BUT, drug users possessing small amounts are cited and brought in front of a board/commission. But the primary goal of the drug decriminalization was to reduce the health consequences of drug use; not to simply decriminalize it. In the 90's Portugal was going through an AIDS pandemic for their population. They felt they HAD to do something to reduce this or the Country would be in trouble.

Now, I agree with addicts getting treatment; but I've seen it fail all to often with my own two eyes. Unless that addict WANTS to quit, they won't; no matter how much treatment you force them to attend.

Now, I've been in law enforcement for 16 years. I've been in Court thousands of times. We might not have decrimilized personal use narcotics as Portugal did, but we certainly don't put people in prison for possessing ONE crack rock or less than a gram of meth. I've NEVER seen a person get actual prison time for personal use possession. Yes, its still a felony but they almost always get lengthy probation sentences for personal use. Superior Court Judges know the prisons are over populated and aren't sentencing people to hard time for personal use. It just doesn't happen. So, effectively we have the same policy in place now.

Now, what confuses people is when they end up in prison for probation or parole violations. BUT, they didn't get prison time for the actual drug offense; they received probation for that but they got prison because they were placed on probation and violated that probation over and over.

So, if a person is caught with personal use meth, crack or heroin; given probation by the judge, then violate that probation over and over; should we still not jail them? Kinda tough question to answer huh?

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 04/26/13 - 03:55 pm
2
2
"Thats speculation until you

"Thats speculation until you actually try out a new system"

There comes a point in time when maturity should play a part in decision making. We are given a brain to use for reasoning. When reasoning leads us to believe that something is not a good idea, just because it is speculated does not mean we need to pursue the path because it's only speculated.

We can speculate all day long that if we make certain drugs legal that more individuals will experiment with the drug, when fear of legal reprecussion is not present. Just because it is "a speculation" does not mean that we need to go ahead and pursue the path. We have logical minds that can reason out the outcome, weight the benefits or detrement of the outcome, maybe not with a proof positive, but with a highly likeablity.....it's call intelligence.

I disagree with the attitude, you are only speculating so we need to try it to prove what we think is a bad idea is true. How insane is that?

Bizkit
33022
Points
Bizkit 04/26/13 - 06:03 pm
1
2
So ...let me get this

So ...let me get this straight. We have a society hooked on legal drugs from tobacco, alcohol, depressants, anti-depressants, stimulants, psychoactive, etc, etc. etc. ad infinitum, and you're goin' to discriminate against those "illegal". I have a hypothesis that many abuse illegal drugs basically self-medicating for an underlying mental issue or illness-which is well known in schizophrenics already.

Darby
26945
Points
Darby 04/29/13 - 12:48 am
1
0
"....and nothing should change with

either ideology. (sarcasm)"

.
If your "sarcasm" requires that you point it out, haven't you missed the whole point?

Back to Top

Top headlines

Solar 'farm' for Fort Gordon?

ATLANTA -- Georgia military installations at Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Fort Benning and Kings Bay will one day be housing solar farms that can make them independent of the power grid in ...
Search Augusta jobs