Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Drugz

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:42:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So I just had some wisdom teeth pulled. Happy gas is made of win.

It got me thinking (during the procedure) about what drugs mean existentially. The whole point of drugs is to feel good, whether its uppers or downers, etc. But the whole point of most things is to feel good (eventually).

Our bare physical needs are easily satisfied, and we quickly turn to entertainment, junk food, etc so we can "feel good". If feeling good is so acceptable by these means, then at least some drugs should be acceptable.

Not only that, but if the PURPOSE of entering the economy is to feel good, then it is possible that drugs are the ultimate utopian products. Not for everyone (and certainly not for me), but drugs are potentially the cheapest and easiest way for some people to feel good.

I'm creating this thread because we need to take the offense on drug legalization arguments. Instead of saying "well pot isn't as bad as cigarettes" or "we can tax pot", we need to just say that meth is fantastic. Its amazing mana from heaven. Its not for most people and it has drawbacks, but it can make some people very very happy.

Denying people meth is on the same level as denying people the opportunity to have children or forcefully neutering them. Drug prohibition is completely bankrupt morally. All the arguments about how bad drugs are for your health go down the drain if we simply maintain that using drugs can be an END IN ITSELF.

Also I'm still on lots of drugs from the procedure.

ANARCHY AND STUFF
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:51:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Drugs don't only make you feel good, but they alter your conscious so you experience reality differently which humans have shown a fascination and appreciation for since the dawn of our humanity. Anyone who's ever tripped on acid or mushrooms, for instance, will tell you they perceived the world in an entirely different way (obviously). One of my favorite websites is Erowid.org where you can read people's experiences on various drugs. I've done my fair share of experimentation -- I actually rolled on E last weekend lol -- and I don't mind sharing my stories as well.

Anyway, sometimes this state of altered conscious can be a very positive thing depending on the situation. For instance, Francis Crick attributes his discovery of the DNA helix to his trips on acid! Steve Jobs has said that being dosed on acid pretty much gave him the inspiration for Apple Computers. Of course tons of psychological breakthroughs have been attributed to ecstasy (it was used in divorce counseling and worked wonders, and is still used to treat soliders with PTSD). Like other legal drugs, if used responsible and under the right conditions, most drugs can have positive effects. I am incredibly responsible with my infrequent use and can say that my experimentation has influenced me for the better. Most people I know who have experimented feel the same way. Responsibility is key, though, and most people don't have the common sense to make smart decisions (and ruin it for the rest of us).
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:52:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:47:16 PM, Sieben wrote:
I'm good now :P

You're only 4 minutes later. You've come down in 4 minutes?

Basically, the reasoning is, that although you "feel good," most controled drugs cause harm in the long run. And we naturally don't think that far ahead.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:53:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:52:02 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:47:16 PM, Sieben wrote:
I'm good now :P

You're only 4 minutes later. You've come down in 4 minutes?
I'm gooooooood....
Basically, the reasoning is, that although you "feel good," most controled drugs cause harm in the long run. And we naturally don't think that far ahead.
Harm is subjective.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:58:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:53:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:52:02 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:47:16 PM, Sieben wrote:
I'm good now :P

You're only 4 minutes later. You've come down in 4 minutes?
I'm gooooooood....
Basically, the reasoning is, that although you "feel good," most controled drugs cause harm in the long run. And we naturally don't think that far ahead.
Harm is subjective.

No, degree of harm is subjective. As is degree of benefit. And of course, that leads to the balance of pro vs con as subjective.

Simple example (but certainly not as an end all perfect example) is losing $100 dollars. That is financial harm, now for you it may be, not all that harmful, while for someone else it may be extremely harmfull. However, unless you are in denial (in which all logic is thrown out the window), it is still harm.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:58:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:53:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:52:02 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:47:16 PM, Sieben wrote:
I'm good now :P

You're only 4 minutes later. You've come down in 4 minutes?
I'm gooooooood....
Basically, the reasoning is, that although you "feel good," most controled drugs cause harm in the long run. And we naturally don't think that far ahead.
Harm is subjective.

No, degree of harm is subjective. As is degree of benefit. And of course, that leads to the balance of pro vs con as subjective.
No it is all subjective.
Simple example (but certainly not as an end all perfect example) is losing $100 dollars. That is financial harm, now for you it may be, not all that harmful, while for someone else it may be extremely harmfull. However, unless you are in denial (in which all logic is thrown out the window), it is still harm.
No it is "financial harm", which may or may not be harm in itself.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I took some strong a$$ salvia a couple weeks ago which was my first time consuming a psychedelic drug, and I gotta say, WTF, lol. I thought it only had mental and visual affects, but that sh!t made my body tingle in a discomforting way while simultaneously being consumed by a black whole with techno playing in the background! lol
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:02:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
While I agree, I'm not sure about how effective this argument would be. The type of person that thinks that drug should be illegal will just dismiss it as some druggie wanting to get high (yes, I know, this is a terrible counter-argument, but that's how a lot of people think).

I think the best argument is that we aren't the government's slaves. The government doesn't own our bodies, and it has no right to dictate what we may or may not put in them. Even if drugs destroy my body and my brain, it's MY body, and MY brain. Locking people up in little metal cages because they put a politically incorrect substance in THEIR bodies is sick and wrong.

Utilitarian arguments against drug-prohibition are great and all, because the facts are completely on our side, but most people will just not pay attention, won't be smart enough to understand the facts, or not know whether to believe us or the drug warrior lies they learned in school.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:04:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:01:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:58:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:53:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:52:02 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 3:47:16 PM, Sieben wrote:
I'm good now :P

You're only 4 minutes later. You've come down in 4 minutes?
I'm gooooooood....
Basically, the reasoning is, that although you "feel good," most controled drugs cause harm in the long run. And we naturally don't think that far ahead.
Harm is subjective.

No, degree of harm is subjective. As is degree of benefit. And of course, that leads to the balance of pro vs con as subjective.
No it is all subjective.
Simple example (but certainly not as an end all perfect example) is losing $100 dollars. That is financial harm, now for you it may be, not all that harmful, while for someone else it may be extremely harmfull. However, unless you are in denial (in which all logic is thrown out the window), it is still harm.
No it is "financial harm", which may or may not be harm in itself.

what's the second word of "financial harm"? Again, it is still a form of harm, however to the degree of which it negatively effects your life is subjective, but the fact that it has a negative effect is not. Whether you want to admit it or not, or if you have plenty of other money, you are still out $100 (thus a negative impact).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:04:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 3:42:53 PM, Sieben wrote:
So I just had some wisdom teeth pulled. Happy gas is made of win.

Happy gas doesn't do anything for me.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:12:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:02:50 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
While I agree, I'm not sure about how effective this argument would be. The type of person that thinks that drug should be illegal will just dismiss it as some druggie wanting to get high (yes, I know, this is a terrible counter-argument, but that's how a lot of people think).
Yes. I think there is a great amount of resistance to it, but it has a couple of advantages. First, gets all the circumstantial "pot has medical uses" "no it doesn't" crap off the table. Second, it gives you the moral high ground because you're defending every telos as ends in themselves, and they are forced to come up with some weird moral brightline that tells people how to live their lives.

I agree that if an anti drug person read this they would be unconvinced, but I think in an argument it is a very strong position.

I think the best argument is that we aren't the government's slaves. The government doesn't own our bodies, and it has no right to dictate what we may or may not put in them. Even if drugs destroy my body and my brain, it's MY body, and MY brain. Locking people up in little metal cages because they put a politically incorrect substance in THEIR bodies is sick and wrong.

Utilitarian arguments against drug-prohibition are great and all, because the facts are completely on our side, but most people will just not pay attention, won't be smart enough to understand the facts, or not know whether to believe us or the drug warrior lies they learned in school.
This is not really a utilitarian argument. I know I said "feel good" a lot but it boils down to defending the right of people to pursue whatever ends they want. By firmly identifying drugs as a plausible and even subjectively optimal end, we start taking the offensive instead of waiting to shoot down the crappy arguments usually launched against drug use.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:15:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:04:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
what's the second word of "financial harm"? Again, it is still a form of harm,
OH are you just going to make the semantic argument? Of course I mean existential harm. I know that a person has suffered physical harm when his arm has been blown off. It may not matter much to him.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:32:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:15:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:04:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
what's the second word of "financial harm"? Again, it is still a form of harm,
OH are you just going to make the semantic argument? Of course I mean existential harm. I know that a person has suffered physical harm when his arm has been blown off. It may not matter much to him.

But that's the argument, isn't it. That the drugs cause harm.

Those that do not support legalization believe that the harm outweighs the good. Those that support legalization believe either 1) that the good outweighs the harm, or 2) that it is up to the individual to make that call and no one else should.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:35:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:32:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:15:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:04:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
what's the second word of "financial harm"? Again, it is still a form of harm,
OH are you just going to make the semantic argument? Of course I mean existential harm. I know that a person has suffered physical harm when his arm has been blown off. It may not matter much to him.

But that's the argument, isn't it. That the drugs cause harm.
That we care about. I cause harm to my chair every time i sit in it ("chair harm", if you will), but it is totally irrelevant.
Those that do not support legalization believe that the harm outweighs the good. Those that support legalization believe either 1) that the good outweighs the harm, or 2) that it is up to the individual to make that call and no one else should.
Or that no one else *can*
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:40:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:35:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:32:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:15:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:04:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
what's the second word of "financial harm"? Again, it is still a form of harm,
OH are you just going to make the semantic argument? Of course I mean existential harm. I know that a person has suffered physical harm when his arm has been blown off. It may not matter much to him.

But that's the argument, isn't it. That the drugs cause harm.
That we care about. I cause harm to my chair every time i sit in it ("chair harm", if you will), but it is totally irrelevant.

Not really, that "harm" is the basic wear-and-tear, however you get a benefit out of it through its use, which outweighs that "harm."

Those that do not support legalization believe that the harm outweighs the good. Those that support legalization believe either 1) that the good outweighs the harm, or 2) that it is up to the individual to make that call and no one else should.
Or that no one else *can*

Well, technically they "can" if they can gather enough votes, lol.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:44:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:40:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:35:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:32:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:15:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:04:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
what's the second word of "financial harm"? Again, it is still a form of harm,
OH are you just going to make the semantic argument? Of course I mean existential harm. I know that a person has suffered physical harm when his arm has been blown off. It may not matter much to him.

But that's the argument, isn't it. That the drugs cause harm.
That we care about. I cause harm to my chair every time i sit in it ("chair harm", if you will), but it is totally irrelevant.

Not really, that "harm" is the basic wear-and-tear, however you get a benefit out of it through its use, which outweighs that "harm."
Subjectively to me. Not to chair enthusiasts. Again, it reduces to existential harm/benefit.
Those that do not support legalization believe that the harm outweighs the good. Those that support legalization believe either 1) that the good outweighs the harm, or 2) that it is up to the individual to make that call and no one else should.
Or that no one else *can*

Well, technically they "can" if they can gather enough votes, lol.
They can't any more than they can vote that 2+2=5.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 4:45:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:44:13 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:40:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:35:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:32:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:15:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:04:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
what's the second word of "financial harm"? Again, it is still a form of harm,
OH are you just going to make the semantic argument? Of course I mean existential harm. I know that a person has suffered physical harm when his arm has been blown off. It may not matter much to him.

But that's the argument, isn't it. That the drugs cause harm.
That we care about. I cause harm to my chair every time i sit in it ("chair harm", if you will), but it is totally irrelevant.

Not really, that "harm" is the basic wear-and-tear, however you get a benefit out of it through its use, which outweighs that "harm."
Subjectively to me. Not to chair enthusiasts. Again, it reduces to existential harm/benefit.
Those that do not support legalization believe that the harm outweighs the good. Those that support legalization believe either 1) that the good outweighs the harm, or 2) that it is up to the individual to make that call and no one else should.
Or that no one else *can*

Well, technically they "can" if they can gather enough votes, lol.
They can't any more than they can vote that 2+2=5.

Don't tempt us! lol
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 5:31:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:01:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I took some strong a$$ salvia a couple weeks ago which was my first time consuming a psychedelic drug, and I gotta say, WTF, lol.

Salvia is some crazy sh!t.
President of DDO
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 6:25:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 4:12:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/4/2010 4:02:50 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
While I agree, I'm not sure about how effective this argument would be. The type of person that thinks that drug should be illegal will just dismiss it as some druggie wanting to get high (yes, I know, this is a terrible counter-argument, but that's how a lot of people think).
Yes. I think there is a great amount of resistance to it, but it has a couple of advantages. First, gets all the circumstantial "pot has medical uses" "no it doesn't" crap off the table. Second, it gives you the moral high ground because you're defending every telos as ends in themselves, and they are forced to come up with some weird moral brightline that tells people how to live their lives.

I agree that if an anti drug person read this they would be unconvinced, but I think in an argument it is a very strong position.

I think the best argument is that we aren't the government's slaves. The government doesn't own our bodies, and it has no right to dictate what we may or may not put in them. Even if drugs destroy my body and my brain, it's MY body, and MY brain. Locking people up in little metal cages because they put a politically incorrect substance in THEIR bodies is sick and wrong.

Utilitarian arguments against drug-prohibition are great and all, because the facts are completely on our side, but most people will just not pay attention, won't be smart enough to understand the facts, or not know whether to believe us or the drug warrior lies they learned in school.
This is not really a utilitarian argument. I know I said "feel good" a lot but it boils down to defending the right of people to pursue whatever ends they want. By firmly identifying drugs as a plausible and even subjectively optimal end, we start taking the offensive instead of waiting to shoot down the crappy arguments usually launched against drug use.
Oh no, I didn't mean that your argument was utilitarian, I meant the utilitarian argument as an alternative to your argument and my 2nd paragraph.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:42:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 7:22:15 PM, Sieben wrote:
Ima see how this plays on the mises.org forums. Meth as the utopia product is an aggressive idea.

Wha?
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:47:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The orthodox way to argue against drugs (for libertarians) is to argue that prohibition has bad consequences. I don't think that's a very good approach for reasons mentioned above.

If you have such a disdain for mises.org, maybe you should go on their forums sometime. They're pretty nice if you're not arrogant. There are a couple aggressive posters, but if they give you any crap just tell them to CTFD... they're nice guys (just get exasperated easily).
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:52:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This reminds me of a book I read recently, Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use. It pointed out how all of the drug warrior propaganda is bulls­hit, but it also had a lot of stuff about the positive effects of drug use, even of "hard" drugs.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:54:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't care one way or the other about mises; I just don't know how they can answer what drugs mean existentially. That said I agree that people should take the offense when it comes to legalization, and not rely on arguments like "Oh you can tax it." However the reason people will give you for criminalization is to protect society because mass-use can apparently cripple it (society). It's also to protect the innocent parties who do NOT engage in use but suffer the harms anyway, such as children born to addict parents. Now I'm not saying that this is a great reason for prohibition, but it's the people's obvious response. I don't see why you'd feel the need to ask this question here or especially on mises when their answer is already quite obvious and in agreement with yours. Moar preaching to the choir?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:55:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 7:52:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
This reminds me of a book I read recently, Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use. It pointed out how all of the drug warrior propaganda is bulls­hit, but it also had a lot of stuff about the positive effects of drug use, even of "hard" drugs.

Haha, sounds like something I'd enjoy, though I probably know a lot about it. I've done a whole lot of research on drugs both for personal curiosity and various classes and school protects. Interesting stuff. I was trying to mention some of it earlier in the thread, but meh.
President of DDO
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 7:59:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 7:55:46 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/4/2010 7:52:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
This reminds me of a book I read recently, Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use. It pointed out how all of the drug warrior propaganda is bulls­hit, but it also had a lot of stuff about the positive effects of drug use, even of "hard" drugs.

Haha, sounds like something I'd enjoy, though I probably know a lot about it. I've done a whole lot of research on drugs both for personal curiosity and various classes and school protects. Interesting stuff. I was trying to mention some of it earlier in the thread, but meh.

If you're interested in that sort of thing, I'd also highly recommend The Case for Legalizing Drugs and Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State. Both amazing books. I learned a ton of stuff from each book, even though I read them after I had already thought drugs should be legalized. And after reading the 2nd, I'm now planning on leaving the U.S. as soon as I graduate college.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 8:01:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 7:54:45 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I don't care one way or the other about mises; I just don't know how they can answer what drugs mean existentially. That said I agree that people should take the offense when it comes to legalization, and not rely on arguments like "Oh you can tax it." However the reason people will give you for criminalization is to protect society because mass-use can apparently cripple it (society). It's also to protect the innocent parties who do NOT engage in use but suffer the harms anyway, such as children born to addict parents.

They can't answer what drugs mean existentially. No one can. That's the point. You're right that people will try to throw all these wrenches at you, but there's no point working around them if you don't establish that drug use can be intrinsically good.

Now I'm not saying that this is a great reason for prohibition, but it's the people's obvious response. I don't see why you'd feel the need to ask this question here or especially on mises when their answer is already quite obvious and in agreement with yours. Moar preaching to the choir?

No. Libertarians don't agree on very much by the way. I think you're familiar with the saying that if you can find two libertarians who agree then one of them has sold out. I mean look at Ragnar, he and I probably agree on 99% of issues but I think he's an enormous jackass with major methodological flaws. Same on mises.org... Like I said, they all adopt the anti-prohibition rather than the pro-drug approach.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...