Legalize Drugs. Then What?Libertarians have always been for ending the drug war and just legalizing everything. Many of the best thinkers who advocate this are not drug users themselves; it's a matter of libertarian principle.
Many democrats, on the other hand, are probably already users and just don't want the fear of getting caught hanging over their heads. Being drug-addled would explain their irrational behaviors like believing we can control the temperature of their anthropomorphized Mother Earth, but that there is no God. Believing Judeo-Christian morals are suspect and should never be imposed on anyone; but a handsome, well spoken man should be worshiped and obeyed.
The Price of Cocaine
Anyway, Larry sent me an Economist link that maps the price of cocaine. An economist would not be surprised to learn that it's cheaper closer to the source. Down Colombia way and in Central America, a gram costs a mere $2. That same gram costs over $300 in the beautiful, remote island nation of New Zealand.
So if we legalize it, how would that work? Would government control production? Or would we merely cease criminal pursuit of the fabrication and distribution networks and instead bog them down with the tax and regulation administrivia we foist on every other business?
Libertarianism will usher in more liberalism
Either way, the lower the price, the more people will use it. So government will want to tax it heavily to discourage use (think cigarettes). This will in turn cause illegal production and distribution. Back to square one. Also, are we as a nation willing to stand aside and do nothing as lives, families and communities are destroyed by rampant drug use? The answer is no. No politician with your money in his pocket will refrain from costly remedies.
Although I agree with the libertarian position on many things, I can see some flaws. We should not be passing libertarian laws if we cannot accept the libertarian consequences. The ultimate result would be more liberalism to "solve" the problems caused by government's benign neglect. Early 1900's redux...
Economist - Cocaine Map
6 comments:
Either way, the lower the price, the more people will use it. So government will want to tax it heavily to discourage use (think cigarettes). This will in turn cause illegal production and distribution. Back to square one. Also, are we as a nation willing to stand aside and do nothing as lives, families and communities are destroyed by rampant drug use? The answer is no. No politician with your money in his pocket will refrain from costly remedies.
==============================
You're right, and you're wrong. The basic issue is not whether people should be "using" tobacco or alcohol or other drugs, the basic issue is whether government has any legitimate role in promoting "public health."
So long as the attitude of the overwhelming majority of the voting public of a nation is that promotion of health is a legitimate role of government, use of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs - as well as insufficient exercise and too much critical thinking [resulting in unnecessary stress] will eventually become the subject of some sort of government regulation or ban.
Of course, the alternative is "unthinkable" today. Obviously everyone but the person speaking are basically stupid and child like and need a parent government to oversee their choices about their health and set them straight. ["That's right, son, eat your chicken soup like a good boy."]
And here we are.....
Enjoy. After all, a fusion of "morals" and government under the parentage of a king is what conservatives have always favored, isn't it?
OK, Craig, get off your high horse. I'm with you on this one, but you miss the point. I don't care if my neighbor blows his brains out dropping acid, but at least 50% of my peers do, so they will continue to vote for socialism. See my point.
Your point is quite valid in the current context. The problem is that you can't go half hog... i.e socialist libertarianism. Me, I'm not a big fan of victimless crimes as they imply that big daddy government knows better than I, what is in my own self interest. Legal, illegal, I'm not going to be using it anyway. Might sound harsh, but big government interference is why we have all these people stupid enough to blow dry their hair in the shower while balancing a cup of scalding hot coffee on the soap dish and making toast. What was it Scrooge said? "if they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population?
We reward sloth, stupidity, and all around undesireable traits while punishing the fittest.
Bah Humbug (slightly tongue in cheek)
"We reward sloth, stupidity, and all around undesireable traits while punishing the fittest."
Amen. And because or this we get more stupidity and sloth...
Yah, I see your point, Silverfiddle.
If 50%+ of the American population became convinced that regular sprinkling of arsenic on their food was a great idea, you'd join in to convince them that you're one of the boys - not some crazy anti-arsenic extremist.
Then maybe they'd listen to you about the horrors of smoking tobacco and use of refined sugar. Maybe you could even sneak in an arsenic reduction program on the thesis that we shouldn't indulge in too much of a good thing. However, it would never be politically practical to explain to them that arsenic was poison.
Actually, I've heard this "reasoning" from conservatives and purported libertarians for about 45 years now - and just look at the gains made in "taking over" the world for liberty during that period!! Very crafty of you. You let me know when you've outsmarted them there socialists and taken over, won't you?
You know what, Craig? You are so hyper-sensitive to criticism that you apparently are not capable of reading and analyzing something.
I am in no way advocating this nanny state stuff you keep bringing up. You, Obama, and the straw man...
I am lamenting the fact that over half of this population wants to be taken by the hand and coddled by Uncle Sugar. I have sadly arrived at the conclusion that implementing libertarian laws would lead to more socialism. It takes more than law to change people's hearts and minds.
Please refute my premise instead of attacking me and falsely throwing me in with the lumpen proletariat.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.