Quote of the day—evilwhitemalempire

I personally wish the blue states (but only blue states) would legalize all the drugs.

Reason: You can’t straighten any of them out but you MIGHT be able to screw them up badly enough to render them useless as a voting bloc.

November 26, 2014
Comment to The Children’s Wing of the Libertarian Party
[I understand the desire to screw up the voting of the blue states but I don’t think drug legalization would have that effect any more than freely accessible alcohol and tobacco does now.

Yes, many of the drugs are much more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco but I think that in general the people who currently avoid them because of their danger would continue to do so. And the people that don’t recognize the danger will, as they currently do, run those risks.

Yes, I believe there will be some people that will use the drugs that wouldn’t have if they were illegal. But I also believe that some people will be more likely to get help and recover from the consequences of recreational drug abuse.

And more importantly, where do you or the government, with a limited set of powers that you posses, get the authority to make decisions about what sort of recreation others partake in? Society has a legitimate concern about driving while intoxicated, or even carrying a gun in public while intoxicated. But aside from a few cases like that it really should be a matter of freedom of choice.—Joe]


11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—evilwhitemalempire

  1. I’m the guy that, when it’s legal on the fed level, might enjoy a little herb every so often. The same way I enjoy a beer, 1 or maybe 2 tall boys every couple of years. Maybe a shot, or 2, of rye the same way. Turn out the lights, my party days are so over.

  2. Degradation into addictions and distractions is how the blue states got to be blue. More of the same isn’t going to help anyone.

    Government of course, properly has no authority in this matter at all. In fact, these drug laws, that over-reach, those encroachments, are partly responsible for society degrading as far as it has.

    To view the issue as a trade-off is a HUGE mistake. To ban a whole class of substances is to guarantee more crime, corruption, violence, pretense for more government over-reach, and general degradation. So what’s the pay-off? Likewise, to legalize all drugs completely and right now, no strings attached, would mean the immediate fall of the drug gangster and international cartels, the complete end of the “pusher” as a factor in society, the dismantling of the DEA and the excuses for a whole range of government corruption and violence against society. Everything gets better, including the quality of the drugs, so what’s the cost? A few losers will destroy themselves, but that happens now, and you won’t save them with unconstitutional laws. I say there’d be less of it, if the mystique and the allure of “naughtiness” associated with drugs goes away.

    To view this as a trade-off is to assume there are real, net benefits to violating human rights. Don’t even go there. Same goes for the almost universal assumption of the trade-off concept regarding gun laws. There isn’t one. To try to assign “costs” to having a government that’s limited to protecting human rights as opposed to protecting a few here or there while violating the hell out of others on a regular basis, is simply insane.

    What are the “costs” of universal rights protection? The only costs are to the criminals, who no longer get to have their way at our expense.

    That anyone should hesitate to accept the idea of universal rights protection is, well, so outrageous and so insane it can’t be put into words. And yet the majority of people will assign “costs” and quite often, unacceptable “costs”, to rights protection. How fucked up is that?

    The point is that our state of mind is creating all these problems.

  3. The unstated cost to legalization is the loss of bribes for all the corrupt officials who currently benefit from prohibition. I suspect that’s much of the reason (the other is threats of violence) why not more Latin American countries have gone for legalization. The benefits for the USA ending prohibition are clear, as Lyle explained so eloquently. The same, only much more so, applies to countries like Mexico and Colombia.

  4. The approach doesn’t work. I had hoped that with the legalization of pot, we would see the last of Libertarian candidates handing elections to Democrats, but no, they continue to siphon off votes and keep Colorado blue.

      • We had a pretty good bunch of candidates this year. We pulled 55% of the votes for state house seats, and came up with 45% of the seats.

        Can you say Gerrymander? Yes! I knew you could.

        You can’t just be better, you have to be A LOT better. Exceptional arrogance on the part of the Dems helps too but failing to play off of that doesn’t.

    • Place none of your hope in political parties. Forget them for now. Without a noble culture, no party is any good. We’ll just keep electing sociopaths and drunk zombies regardless of party affiliation. We need to feel better about air selves, and so we’ll elect people make us look OK by comparison. Also the insecure among us will need to have a “strong man” to “make things right” for them. That’s now we get tyrants. We beg for them. It’s the same force that attracts so many women to abusive men, over and over, or insecure men to controlling, manipulating women. We’ve all seen it, and probably participated in it. You think a fucking political party can solve that? Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or National Socialist; They’ll all be searching high and low for the most psychopathic candidate they can find, thinking themselves clever for doing so. That’s how you “win” don’t you know, in a culture like this.

  5. I’ve known several serious drug addicts in my travels. Seeing how they handle drugs from Alcohol to Heroin, I have to wonder if there is a genetic component to their behavior.

    They got their drugs any way they could, from buying them on the streets, to shopping for doctors until they found one they could con into the script they wanted. Let’s not forget buying jugs of booze at the corner liquor store….the same way I buy my booze, just the volumes were vastly different.

    I see the anti-freedom view of drugs as the same as their view of guns. They think that if they could just walk into the local hardware store and buy an M60 and a few ammo cans, they’d be out on the street re-creating the final scenes of First Blood by supper.

    Funny I have guns, and I don’t kill people, even with cyber stalkers, and shitty drivers, and the occasional heated argument with my wife.

    Same goes for drugs. They think if they can walk into the local pharmacy and come out with a key of Heroine and a key of coke they’ll be Keith Richards or Jim Belushi before sundown.

    I see it as people are going to get drugs no matter what their legal status. Sure there are people like myself who when it becomes federally legal to buy marijuana I’ll buy some to celebrate. I’m sure there are a few people who will spike some heroine, or smoke some crack the same way. Still I’m less concerned about the safety of those people than the ones who already are so compelled to buy drugs that they’re scoring some RIGHT NOW.

    And the vast majority of people won’t bother, just like how even with my wonderfully stocked liquor cabinet, my wife doesn’t drink.

    And what is the end? Well we aren’t buying from the Mexican Cartels anymore, or the Afghan terrorists. Hell we already PAY farmers NOT TO GROW certain crops, you don’t think many of these farmers wouldn’t quickly switch up to growing Poppies or coca, or cannabis to meet the new legal need?

    And what will become of the Bloods and the Crips? They get their money from the sales of drugs and women (prostitution should be legal too!). What Gang is running the distribution of Tobacco? Alcohol? Yeah.

    • It’s very clear there is a genetic component to addiction. Look at the family patterns on alcoholism, for example
      Remember also that drug prohibition laws, just like victim disarmament laws, are in substantial part racist in origin.
      As for prostitution: the experience of Holland in that respect certainly supports your argument.

      • You could look at family patterns of alcoholism, or anything else, good or bad, and assume there’s a direct genetic connection. You could just as well see something entirely different, like a social/cultural/emotional connection with no terribly significant genetic role whatsoever.

        There is a danger in looking only at the molecules. The addict will likely prefer to see it as a matter of molecules only, because that largely relieves him of responsibility.

        The other side of that coin is that it also removes hope. I can’t ever be normal if I’m a victim of the molecules (DNA this case), which are pre-set and therefore beyond my control. I say the worst part of all, of the prisoner-of-the-molecules model, is that it distracts us from the actual causes, leaving us to see and treat only symptoms.

        Modern medicine is pretty well locked in to this model, and so it will tend to see everything as a chemical war, with chemical causes needing chemical solutions. Thus we’re being turned into zombies, shambling from one pharmacy to the next, while we slowly die in a fog.

    • Weer’d; all very well said and all true, and with all due respect I say it’s all beside the point. We’ve all been brought up to think like Progressives, and I would point out that you’re thinking like a Progressive there. A social engineer, looking at the costs and benefits of a particular engineering project.

      It’s just none of the government’s business, one way or the other. If we look at it in terms of rights protection verses rights violation, it becomes clear and simple. People in government HATE clear and simple, because it too often leaves no role for them whatsoever. Evil hides in uncertainty and complexity.

Comments are closed.