It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the Republican-Democrat-Libertarian Pros and cons

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
As for drugs, if they were truely a victimless crime, I would agree with you. But as a father, I am loath to think of another parent doing heroine, crack, or coke with kids around. This is NOT victimless.


Corrupting minors or whatever the crime is is still a crime. What libertarians feel is right is that so long as you are not hurting anyone, psychologically or physically, you should not be punished. Doing drugsor leaving needles around kids or looking the other way while your child does drugs would still be considered a crime.

The whole libertarian spiel is emphasis on personal responsibility. If you were found to be irresponsible in that way, you would constitute a crime according to libertarians.

*EDIT: KJ, I was unaware you were a father. I'll remember that the next time I think youre being a prude or "social morality warrior." I admire your concern man, hope I'm like that when I'm a dad.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by insite]




posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   


As for drugs, if they were truely a victimless crime, I would agree with you. But as a father, I am loath to think of another parent doing heroine, crack, or coke with kids around. This is NOT victimless.



I am a father too, four kids, and the drug laws are not what keeps me from doing drugs with my kids, being a responsable parent is.

As far a legalizing drugs go, I think we should start with pot and then slowly phase in the rest that way we could study the impact on society as a whole and could stop or reverse if needed. In the past you could buy opium, pot, morphine, coke, etc in ANY drug store and the world did not come to an end or everyone become an addict. There is a certain amount of people that will destroy themselves whither its legal or not, maybe if they were not faced with automatic prison sentences they might be more likely to seek treatment or have their familes turn them in for treatment. If one of your kids were an addict wouldnt you be more likely to turn him in to a treatment center if you knew he would not be sent to prison?

One thing I believe for certain the so called drug war is a total failure. Almost anything has to be better than this.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   


Prostitution is one of these alleged victimless crimes. What makes (or made) America great, is the family or basic unit, which was the thing that curtailed more social problems than it created.


Throughout most of American history prostitution has been legal or at worst they just ignored it, so I really do not see the conection.

And as with addicts the way to keep the diseases down is to legalize it and control it, the way they do in Nevada and a lot of countries around the world.

Child prostiution would still be against the law the same as being for gay marriages does not equal child molestion.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Believe me guys, I am the biggest advocate for personal responcibility there is.

But let's be honest, if personal respocibility was on the top of everyones list, we wouldn't even be discussing this at all.

Are the police going to be personal responcibility monitors then?

Who is going to regulate who is using it properly and who is not.

It's like this. Driving is something that is a personal responcibility, yet for safety, cops monitor to try to eliminate potential threats.

Now transpose that into someones house. The number of raids would increase, and hearsay would become a functioning factor in obtaining a search warrent. We would need to increase survalence (sp) and the likes.

it's just a big mess either way you slice it.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   


Now transpose that into someones house. The number of raids would increase, and hearsay would become a functioning factor in obtaining a search warrent. We would need to increase survalence (sp) and the likes.



There wouldnot be raids because there would not be search warrents or survalence. Are there raids and survalence on alcholics? MOST drinkers do not need it for those that dont , if drunk in public they are arrested and otherwise they are put into treatment centers by themselves or there family.

Or they are left to rot. Which is there choice. As long as they are not abusing someone else in the process.

As for who makes sure you are using it properly.....why you of course. If you are running around in public high you will be arrested just like public drunk.

It is not the governments responsabilty to babysit anyone.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   


But let's be honest, if personal respocibility was on the top of everyones list, we wouldn't even be discussing this at all.


Answer me this question

What law changes this? What law makes those irresponsable suddenly change to responsable?

And why should those of us who are be punished for those who are not?

Should ALL cars be banned because some people drive recklessly? Should all guns be banned because some use them in crimes?

Its all the same.

Its up to the person.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The things you mentioned (namely cars and guns) are useful tools to do something productive, i.e. get somewhere, hunt, defend yourself.

What is productive about drugs? Nothing. (I am not including pot).

What is productive about hookers? Again, nothing.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
What is productive about booze? smokes? or pot either for that matter? How about pro sports? Music? Art? Should we outlaw them too?

Its not about productivity. Some people enjoy them and is there not something about the prosuit of happiness?

And you did not answer the first question about responsablity.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
No law makes someone responcible.

I see it like this. A lock is not security, it only keeps an honest man honest.

Same thing here. Should we allow this, drug use will skyrocket in this instant gratification country.

We will be trading one problem with another.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   


Should we allow this, drug use will skyrocket in this instant gratification country


I doubt this if for no other reason than ANYONE that wants drugs can find them in about 5 minutes anyway. They have legalized in other countries and decriminalized it in some states and they havent had a problem.

I think the smart way to go on this is to start with pot, see how it turns out and go from there.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I think we can all agree that pot i vastly different than coke or the big H.

Legalizing pot, which will probably happen, will not be a good social indicator of how more serious drug will fair on the open market.

Sure, nicotine is addictive, but it has not been known to affect ones perceptions etc.

Red or White opiates on the other hand, are quite readily addictive, as is most of the hardcore drugs.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   


Sure, nicotine is addictive, but it has not been known to affect ones perceptions etc.


But it has killed more than all the rest put togather

I guess to me the bottom line is its your life to do with as you please as long as you are not DIRECTLY harming someone else its just not anyone elses business.

I fear the loss of freedom more than I do the loss of a few junkies.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



Sure, nicotine is addictive, but it has not been known to affect ones perceptions etc.


But it has killed more than all the rest put togather

I guess to me the bottom line is its your life to do with as you please as long as you are not DIRECTLY harming someone else its just not anyone elses business.

I fear the loss of freedom more than I do the loss of a few junkies.



Ok, look at the drunk driving situation in this country. Alcohol is the only legal substance that impairs your perception (for the basis of this arguement).

Now why are we going to allow other dangerous, addictive, reality altering substances on the open market.

I agree with you in theory, but this could never happen. The results would be horrible.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
how could you not consider alcohol a hard drug? it's probably worse than a lot of illegal drugs with both short and long-term use. you can't justify making one legal and outlawing the rest...and your reasoning about making them legal would lead to a growth in abuse is speculation at best...as others have pointed out all the current evidence disagrees with that theory.


Ok, look at the drunk driving situation in this country. Alcohol is the only legal substance that impairs your perception (for the basis of this arguement).

Now why are we going to allow other dangerous, addictive, reality altering substances on the open market.


i don't know if you know many heroine junkies or lsd users but they don't drive around a lot while they're high. i know a few potheads who drive high occasionally and their biggest problem is usually driving too slow...not that i condone or advocate driving high.

regardless, i don't believe making drugs legal and regulating their distribution would be a bad thing or turn the country into a bunch of raving crackheads. people that smoke crack now would continue to smoke it while people like you and me wouldn't run out to the nearest legal crackhouse to hit the pipe...i know its hard but have some faith in your fellow man.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The reason nicotine has killed more people than other drugs is cause A) It has been around longer (in one form or another) and B) It is legal and easily accessible. Heavier drugs don't kill as many people because they are illegal, therefore harder to get. I really disagree with the "people will do it anyways so we should legalize it argument." I mean, people will always murder people, should we legalize it? There will always be thieves, should we legalize it? The list goes on. As for prostitution, not only does it add to moral decay but it also proliferates numerous venareal diseases including AIDS. Not to mention, try explaing to your kids why your government legalized selling your body for money, or heavy body destroying drugs... This is where I really digress from libertarians.

I will agree, the more and more one looks at the Republican party, the less and less they seem truly conservative on government. However, I don't think the answer is to just abandon the party, but rather to attempt to re-inject the party with those small government values we all know and love. I mean it was Jefferson who said "the government who governs best, governs least." We need to organize the government then cut out everything which is unnecesarry or can be viably privatized. This would create more jobs (privatization), balance the budget, and boost the economy. Unfortuenently, the answer to everything these days seems to be "lets create a new, bloated government agency to do it." Until that mentality is out the window we will be fighting a losing battle.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I do not consider alcohol a hard core drug, because is very easy to use and not get hooked. Being an alcoholic is more of a predisposition due to those who came before you (which is an addictive personality), and because it is after all, a beverage.

I don't know where you live, but most of the harder of drugs are harder to get.

Pot is easy for people who know where to get it. I can walk up to a lot of people on the street and they would have no idea where to even look for weed, and if they did, they would not get it if they wanted it for fear of getting caught.

But to say that because a system is broken, that is not a recipe for scraping it. The education system is broken. The Social Security system is broken. Hell, in some places the police are broken.

There is no way that hard core drugs is only a victimless crime.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   


There is no way that hard core drugs is only a victimless crime.


On this we will just have to agree to disagree.....LOL

As far a harder drugs being hard to find I am over 50 and live in the VERY rural south and could get you ANY drug you want in a matter of minutes. Hell I could have it delivered to your house like a freaking pizza as far as that goes.

I havent done drugs except for the birthday joint or so in a long, long time but the stuff is cheaper and easier to get now than it was 20 years ago. I cannot see anthing to justify the so-called drug war except to give the government another thumb to put us under.

As for the person that compared it to murder let me put it like this......
murder is harming someone else.
stealing is harming someone else.

Doing drugs is harming yourself......

Just like smoking, overeating, not exersizing, setting staring at the TV till your brains melt, etc.

Should all these things be outlawed too?

After all they are harming you and you could even argue that they are harming those around you too.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Yes, we will have to disagree on that.

But overeating does not impair your perceptions

Not excersizing does not take money and time away from your kids for the hours you are high.

I understand where you are coming from, but you can not use other countries as an example, because if you have ever been to Amsterdam or the likes, the culture there is very different than it is here.

My whole point is, is that while I agree that personal responcibility is a must, we can not count on that with things like mind altering drugs (which are more addictive and mind altering than alcohol).

It would create a social decay unlike anything we have seen thusfar.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Do you think the war on drugs has had ANY impact on the amount and ease of finding drugs?

Like I said in my other post they are all over the place here and I live in the woods I bet they are just as easy to find everywhere else.

I do not think that legalizing drugs would lead to more drug use it hasnt ANYWHERE they have tried it. But that is whay I said to interduce them slowly so we could judge the effects. And saying every other country can do it but we're different is not a real strong arguement people are people.

One thing I think we can ALL agree on is what we are doing now is not only not working but is causing more harm than good and we need to have a new game plan, whatever it is.

I have pretty much said all I have to say on this subject and we are kinda just repeating ourselves at this point but its been fun as always

So unless there is something new
Later



[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Heres an idea. The fed's could stop the war on drugs, then let the states decide what they want to do. The people of each state could vote on it. At least you don't have this overbearing, oppressive federal government breathing down the states necks and putting the different ideologies of different states on a lesser level.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join