When the authoritarians came for the dopers, I remained silent; I was not a doper.

The USA has the very highest incarceration rate on the freakin' planet.

That means that "the land of the free" locks a higher percentage of its citizens in cages than Iran, Syria or any other nation on Earth.

What was the definition of "police state" again?

Throw in mandatory minimums and prison labor programs and the money just rolls in.

what i hold to be right or wrong.

I guess you are against assisted suicide and a woman's right to choose to legally terminate an unwanted pregnancy also?

our legal system has been uneven since it's inception.

there has to be a revolution in handing out even justice.
that takes rules and regulation -- to get from A to B.
although it would be administered to a class that you wouldn't mind seeing more ruled and regulated.

all that has happened is that you are pointing an historic problem.

freedom of your body -- or my body has nothing to do with this.

beyond that -- i am as against libertarianism as i am conservatism -- they are the same thing to me.
they are unreasoned, primitive cries by people who want to be able to do as they feel -- when they feel like it.

that's not how i define a good society.

for instance... marijuana (which is as much of a drug as nutmeg is, actually) is illegal NOT because of its hazards to health but b/c of its hazards to drug. co profits. tell me, do you think it's okay for people to take an SSRI for depression? or hundreds of other drugs that are copyrighted or manufactured by drug cos?

do you know these drugs have horrific side effects in many cases? therefore, should no one have access to them? what about alcohol? what about cigarettes? why should you be able to determine if someone can reasonably drink alcohol?

the drug war is a waste of money and it unfairly sends the poor to prison. Dan Burton's son (R-asshole) was dealing drugs across interstate lines and he got a nothing for a sentence. If Burton Jr. was a black man, do you think he would have walked? If so, you're deluded.

a Nixon-era task force looked into marijuana and recommended it be decriminalized. nothing happened. Liberal Supreme Court Judge Stevens, iirc, said that criminalization of marijuana was like the prohibition era. wonder how many people died needlessly because someone wanted to deny the right to drink a glass of wine to someone else.

Kentucy farmers want to be able to grow hemp but can't b/c its parent plant is canabis. Hemp is really needed right now to stop deforestation and it can replace oil for many products. Why shouldn't they be able to grow hemp? The founders told everyone to grow hemp... it is and was used for paper, masts, ropes... it powered early American life. In WWII farmers were encouraged to grow hemp for the war effort.

but marijuana was asso. with hispanics and (black) musicians and so it had to be controlled, just like they needed to be "controlled." there is too much drug hysteria in the U.S. --except it's full of hypocrisy because many of these same people would be incensed if you tried to deny them their xanax or martini.

at it's roots.

what i disagree with is that there is some sort of cuddly relationship between socialist liberals and libertarians because of the war on drugs.

and i believe in decriminalizing some drugs , prohibiting others -- all of it depending on a public health response and science -- and not irrational whining about ''it's my body'' -- ''i can do heroin if i want'' . no -- quite simply no.

there will never be agreement at the ballot box from me on that.

please note that in my initial response i note that historically some laws -- notably drug laws have been unevenly weilded.

that has to be corrected -- you simply note what i already said was true.

but the solution to that problem isn't the absence of laws or rules and regs -- but the implimentation of new ones based on fact.

But pure, unadulterated heroin is a safer drug to use than alcohol.

Think of the situation during alcohol prohibition, people were dying left and right from drinking illicit alcohol that was cut with all kinds of crap.

It's the same way with illicit drugs today, prohibition makes drugs more dangerous because there are no regulations or controls on purity or potency.

Some Leftists get.... "for the Common Good" of course. :sarcasm:

And Public Health Response and Science should NOT be the sole criteria for making laws. By those standards, alcohol would be illegal. And we all know how well that worked, the first time around. :grr:

I'm sicked and fucking tired of Prohibitionists of all stripes.... of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, guns, porn WTF-ever. I don't give a fuck where they fall in the political spectrum. I don't give a shit whether it's for the "Common Good" of "For the Children" or whatever excuses you make up.

There were people on there saying *anything* which made their child a tiny bit safer was fine with them.

as far as i'm concerned -- from healthcare to private property -- they are simply nuts.

As a virgin does about sex. You are confusing the Libertarian Party with all libertarians. They are NOT the same, and characterizing them all as nuts makes your "argument" worthless, or maybe only useful as fertilizer. Before you shame yourself anymore with your ignorance I suggest some research. Here for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Noam Chomsky considers himself a libertarian socialist. Is he a nut?

but, due to what I can only imagine is some deeply ingrained control-freak wiring, they still relish the opportunity to use the law to finger wag and play government nanny with OTHER people's personal choices. God forbid anyone should point out that everyone ought to be able to make their own damn decisions, and not just a short list of pre-approved groups on pre-approved issues.

Wow. And they say libertarians have an "I got mine, now shove off" attitude! :eyes:

in the sense that i don't think the government should be allowed to spy on american citizens. and that the government has no role in the bedroom. and that every american has a guaranteed right to privacy. and that my body is mine alone and in that sense any medical decisions about it should be left solely up to me - which leads me to be 100% pro choice. i don't believe the government can tell people that they can't get married because they're not the opposite sex - again, the government does not belong in the bedroom. i don't believe that the government should be able to arrest people for possessing plants or other natural substances.

i support an extreme right to privacy and self-determination but realize that it's stupid and dangerous to pretend like we don't all live together in society, sharing a common experience and common fate for the decisions we make.

does this mean i'm nuts?

big-L Libertarians are crazy - they ignore reality. and unless they live in the wilderness and are completely self-sufficient and don't ever use anything that was created by the government they're fools.

"what i disagree with is that there is some sort of cuddly relationship between socialist liberals and libertarians because of the war on drugs.

and i believe in decriminalizing some drugs , prohibiting others -- all of it depending on a public health response and science -- and not irrational whining about ''it's my body'' -- ''i can do heroin if i want'' . no -- quite simply no."

I understand. The state knows what's best for people and should endeavor to save them from themselves. What if the state decides that homosexuality is inimical to a productive society and decides to imprison all gays and give them tortu- I mean, therapy until they change their behavior?

That reminds me, I'd like to see a law passed against people who don't use correct capitalization or grammar.

is to make them legal AND free. No market, no marketing. The problem would all but vanish in a generation.

Not all libertarians are on the right..

I suggest you take the Political Compass quiz and get back to us with your score, you might just be surprised where you stand. It takes about ten minutes and is by far the most accurate determination of political leanings I have seen.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

however, would you call Stevens a libertarian?

how about the Nixon task force? the point is that not everyone who thinks marijuana should be legal is libertarian. Some republicans who would not consider themselves libertarian think marijuana should be legal at least in medical cases...but most of them won't speak out while in office.

so, I rate as liberal libertarian. ...anti-authoritarian and, as I would label myself, a social democrat.

but again that doesn't mean everyone who thinks it's stupid to have mj criminalized are.

beyond that -- i am as against libertarianism as i am conservatism -- they are the same thing to me.
they are unreasoned, primitive cries by people who want to be able to do as they feel -- when they feel like it.

the writer assumes that all who favor decriminalization or legalization are "libertarians." I was saying not all are... the assumption that all are puts this issue into some sort of "box" that precludes discussion, as that poster did.

that's all.

I note that the person you were respond to didn't come back.

on using a label I don't like". :eyes:

I love it when people here wave the "l" word around like it's dog doo on a stick. Yes, I consider myself socially or left-libertarian.

Wait. What was that word?

libertarian.

Noooooooooooooo!!!

What's important is that you remind everyone that you can throw a fit when arguments regarding the right of people to make their own decisions about their own bodies come with a label you don't particularly like.

Our criminal/industrial-controlled government has been looking for ways to replicate it.

perscription drugs.

I know plenty of dopes, but not many of them smoke de' herb.

The dope comes in 55 gallon drums and the joints are forty feet long. :D

A "doper" is not the same thing as a "dope".

And if you consume marijuana, there are a hell of a lot of people who think of you as a "doper".

It's a label I wear with pride.

So if I put alcohol in my body and drive around drunk, that'd be ok with the drug-legalizers out here?
As for those who think heroin, crack, meth should be legalized because people have control over their own bodies, what do you say to the victims who have to live with the consequences of those who decide to control their own bodies by dumping drugs into their system? Libertarians can blather all they want about controlling their own bodies, but when meth-heads go berserk and attack random people on the street, do they say thats ok, because they were "controlling their own bodies"? Really, those who advocate legalizing ALL drugs are just irresponsible. Sure, I guess legalizing pot is ok, because it just makes you lazy and passive, but I don't like the idea of people being able to go your local Walmart to buy a meth-tablet, because that shit makes you violent and attack other people.

Heck, with all the dopers still running loose maybe you'd like to see it go even higher?

Think about alcohol Prohibition.

Why did the US go from a Constitutional Amendment banning alcohol to a Constitutional Amendment relegalizing it in only thirteen years?

Consider that Constitutional Amendments are very difficult to pass, they were made that way by the Founding Fathers for a reason, they didn't want the people changing the Constitution on a whim.

Essentially, Prohibition made all the problems associated with alcohol consumption *worse* not better and people recognized that because it happened right in front of their faces.

As it was with alcohol, so is it with other drugs, prohibition makes the problems *worse* than they would be in a legalized environment. We just don't recognize the fact since we have all grown up in the environment of some drug prohibition.

Alcohol is just about the worst drug out there for making people violent. "Don't listen to him, it's the alcohol talking" "Barroom brawl" "Drunk and disorderly" "Fighting drunk" "Ten feet tall and bulletproof". There are any number of cliches which show the violence inducing propensities of alcohol.

But we are used to alcohol and its social effects so they largely go unnoticed, just like we are used to the danger of riding in a car, and yet it is by far the most dangerous activity in which Americans engage. About 43,000 Americans a year die in car crashes, a far larger number than the number of drug overdoses each year. There are about 19,000 deaths from accidental poisoning each year, only a fraction of which are due to "drug overdoses". And yet which gets the greater share of publicity?

No? You want to talk about "blather", you can't get through ONE sentence on the subject of "what people do with their own bodies" without dragging in a situation- driving under the influence- that clearly involves endangering OTHERS. Understand? It's not alcohol that is illegal, it's driving under the influence.

You might as well have said: "So, it's all about what you put in your body.. so if I put alcohol in my body and start killing people with an axe, that'd be ok with the drug-legalizers out here?" Same "argument", Jack. I'd suggest you start over.

Beyond that, maybe you should do a little research into where your "drug war" dollars actually GO. The vast majority of drug war expenditures don't go towards fighting meth, they go towards fighting POT. $40 Billion a year. Not to mention the cost of incarcerating millions of non violent pot smokers, including cancer ridden chemo grannies who get dragged out of medical marijuana co-ops by what little hair they have left.

THAT is what the "drug war" is about. I do believe, as a baseline philosophical position, that what a consenting adult does with his or her own body insofar as he or she isn't harming or endangering anyone else ought to be his or her, and not the government's business. I don't know anyone, "Libertarian" or not, who doesn't agree that if someone on drugs "goes berserk and attacks people on the street", they're a criminal and should be treated as such. Drive under the influence? Rob a bank? Neglect your kids? Then you're a criminal. But turning millions of people into criminals solely for what they do with their OWN bodies and bloodstreams is bullshit.

Now, frankly, I lean libertarian on social issues, but I think there is a difference between, say, pot and dangerous drugs like meth (or, frankly, alcohol, which is really the ONLY drug besides maybe PCP which has the documented effect of making many people turn into violent tasmanian devils) .. I think that we should adopt, as the netherlands has, a "harm reduction" approach to harder drugs. Treat them like a public health, and not a law enforcement issue. And meth is undeniably bad shit. I wouldn't want it sold at the 7-11. But I think the best advertisement against meth is meth users themselves. If we spent time giving kids the truth about drugs, and not a bunch of obvious lies, they might listen once in a while. If you tell kids that the minute they smoke a joint their testicles will fall off or they'll get date raped, they're never going to believe ANYTHING you fucking say to them, about ANY drug.

Legalize, regulate, and tax pot. Treat other drugs on a case-by-case basis, and if meth is really the problem that some make it out to be, with all the billions we'd save by not going after potheads, we really ought to be able to make a dent in the meth trade.

But what we're doing right now is NOT working. It's a fucking joke.

It'll never happen of course, politicians are too pant-wettingly terrified of being called "soft on drugs" and too many people stand to lose too much money (not least the painkiller industry).

This country sucks at times.

The War on (some) Drugs is a racket perpetuated by Big Pharma and the prison industry.

There are prescription drugs on the market today that will do far more damage to your body than pot could ever dream of.