"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? " Trump
The American dream is about freedom. Pelosi
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
mdinh1 wrote:What is the argument behind the idea that the state shouldn't be involved in victimless crimes like drug and alcohol addiction? A typical argument I hear is that "we can't just make law based on protecting people, it has to be based on morality, too (and then something along the lines of drug usage is immoral). When we legalize drugs, we're pretty much saying that it's an okay act. Even if someone is just sitting in his house getting drunk or getting high and harming no one else, we are at fault if we do nothing about his problem."
What is the principle behind keeping the government out of victimless crimes (however self destructive they may be)?
Dr House wrote:Since government action is by very definition violent, by permitting this to be done what we are saying is "you have not done violence on others, but because you harmed yourself we give the police permission to inflict violence upon you".
Harmattan wrote:And it is a myth that the prohibition had no effect on alcohol consumption. On the opposite it did significantly reduce it, even if you only consider the latter years. And I suspect the police was more lax and corrupted during those years than they are now, which means that our prohibition would have stronger effects now than their already efficient prohibition.
The trade of the most dangerous drugs cannot be legal since its managers would be prosecuted under penal laws for endangering people's lives, and since the business would likely not be profitable if it had to compensate victims in front of civil courts. The tobacco industry is borderline, the drugs industry would be way over the border. You would have to make it legal to poison people.
And more generally, as much as I admit the libertarian position's merits in other cases, I simply do not want to live in a world where you can willingly enter slavery or a manhunting TV reality show, or sell your body to the cannibal butchery after your death. I do not want to live in multikuti libertarian district #19, I want to live in a country that resembles me, with a large but bounded freedom
Harmattan wrote:I am fine with the decriminalization of consumption (not trade), but with a few important restrictions:
* in public spaces one must not be in a severely altered mental state.
* the police can also arbitrarily detain someone who seems to have taken an illegal drug for 12h and run biological tests.
* someone convicted to be on drugs must tell policemen where, when and to whom he bought the drug, and let them gather evidences (including giving them the right to access recent communications and other electronic fingerprints). Refusing is a penal offense.
* if his health is worrying, policemen can ask for a medical check-up before he is released, and use force interning for his own good if necessary.
* if one committed an infraction where his addiction was thought to be a factor, he must receive an additional sentence, or follow a therapy with a one probative year after that.
DrSteveBrule wrote:Point 3 is somewhat worrying though, as it would be a significant impediment for addicts seeking treatment.
That's counterproductive to an approach operating on the premise that combatting the drug trade by reducing the demand is far more effective than any supply side reduction measures.
Harmattan wrote:This is a good point but a hospital or a center distributing needles would have no cop asking people who their dealer is. It is entirely possible to make sure that cops only conduct such operations in the street and deal zones.
I did not assume such premise and I fail to see why cops should stop hunting for people dealing poison and who rely on lethal violence to control territories. I do believe it is possible to marry a demand-side and supply-side policy, and it is already done to a large extent in Europe.
For me decriminalizing consumption in the terms I mentioned is only motivated by morale reasons.
Three Years On: Still Divided Today marks […]
Lefties hound battered woman out of her home. […]
To be honest with you, I'm still at a loss as to w[…]
The take-away: Experts say that all warming over[…]