AAFitz wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote: AAFitz wrote:
You must not justify the unintended consequences in order to disagree. It is not the ban on drugs that is the problem, but the ineffective ban on them.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, that may be okay, but your position is only wishful thinking when it's applied to nearly everyone else. With me, I prefer the benefits and costs of living in a freer society, which would enable people to discovery their own solutions through trial-and-error. We have to acknowledge that the good intentions of public officials has caused an unnecessary, international war against black market buyers and sellers, imposed great costs on individuals by imprisoning so many people and by wasting their prime years, has induced an impetus toward more crime, and has forced those in the black market to enforce contracts through needless violence and death.
Given the consequences of the Prohibition Era, the ongoing repercussions of current prohibitions, and the inherent constraints of imperfect government, we must end prohibition and seek other solutions. That's the more practical and beneficial stance for society.
(If anyone disagrees, then they must justify all the unintended consequences. Good luck.)
What you would justify is many, many more lives destroyed by drugs that have no business existing in the first place. The fact that you are too shortsighted to see that it very much could be controlled better, does not justify your position, its just a cop out, and a ridiculously naive one at that.
Ramp up the effectiveness of the ban, and the consequences become more dire and/or the society becomes imposed under a more authoritarian government.
Acknowledging the limits of human behavior yet superimposing wishful thinking on it (e.g. better prohibition from angelic public officials) fails to alleviate the consequences--it only exacerbates them.
Regarding what I would allegedly justify: I've already dealt with this in detail from pages 1-3 or so.Most importantly, I'm assuming we want to live in a free, democratic society. I imagine that Saudi Arabia is more effective in prohibiting certain drugs, so would you like Americans to live within a Saudi-esque United States? (Of course not, but you don't seem to realize the constraints of our givens, nor do you seem to realize the implications of accepting a more authoritarian government).
All I'm saying is that after we acknowledge the limits of liberal democracy, the continued susceptibility of some individuals to irresponsibly use drugs, and the consequences of prohibition, then we must stop with the excuses, stop supporting the prohibition, and use more efficient substitutes (legalization, decriminalization, government regulation--but not prohibition).
So the government would be adequate and efficient at regulating heroin, but not banning it. Its a ridiculous notion.
Either the government sucks or it doesnt. Youre saying it does, so it could never regulate something so volatile easily...
Your response belongs in the Accidental Strawmen
thread. I'm not going to repeat myself, so if you're really interested in understanding my position, then you'll have to scroll down, drag your pointer to the bottom right, and peruse the previous pages.
Recognizing the limits of liberal democracy does not mean sub-optimal---yet better--substitutes by government should not be used (e.g. regulation).
AAFitz wrote:As far as living like an American vs Saudi-esque, its again ridiculous, because I dont get anywhere near drugs, so I would have nothing to fear about laws governing them.
In other words, you don't care about the consequences that government imposes on your fellow citizens, which is a morally reprehensible position. You're also insincere. Whenever you make any argument favoring government intervention to "help" people, I'll remember this quote of yours.
And it's not like steps toward a more authoritarian government would be magically contained within one sector (drug prohibition), so you should be concerned.
AAFitz wrote:I fully agree the current approach doesnt work, but legalizing them is not a valid approach, simply because the current one doesnt work.
I've addressed this in previous pages.
Also, if X doesn't work, I would suggest using substitutes. You would suggest more X. "It is not the ban on drugs that is the problem, but the ineffective ban on them."
How can you not realize that if something is illegal, one cannot seek redress through the courts regarding contract violations? Do you understand why drug dealers seek substitutes by shooting each other? "The problem is not the ban on drugs." Clearly, it is because the prohibition prevents buyers and sellers on that market from seeking legal redress; therefore, they will seek substitutes.
AAFitz wrote:If we wanted them gone, they would be gone. The main problem is, people dont care about drugs or their affects on people, unless its happening to their own kids...and then its too late.
Opa!, more wishful thinking! Already dealt with that, so direct your attention to my first post, and you'll find yourself in the wrong.
"People don't care about drugs or their affects on people."
No, AAFitz, you
don't care about that. Don't mistake yourself for "people" or the presumed "majority." Even if your guess is the primary problem, which it isn't, then you still have yet to recognize the constraints (which have already been mentioned), the fundamental causes (state-mandated prohibition), the consequences, and the failure of "more X" in alleviating the costs. It is not the ban on drugs that is the problem, but the ineffective ban on them.
This excuse has been used for decades, and the costs of unintended consequences have only become exacerbated. Recall Reagan's War on Drugs.