Marijuana and every other drug.

[Ozymandyus]

I was talking about the word we were using which is prohibition. If you had said Prohibitionism earlier, then perhaps there would have been no confusion. But we didn't. Not only are you trying to pretend that you used words you didn't, you are cutting out the important parts of what I am saying which have the answers to your own statements IN them. Purely dishonest and useless argumentation style.

I'm not using the word loosely, the definition of prohibition is the act of prohibiting or a law or decree that forbids. That includes murder as a kind of prohibition. It is used with a Capital letter if talking about the period of alcohol prohibition. With your meaning it calls on some crazy idea of 'inherent criminality' that is completely undefinable.

 

[shanedk]

For about the fiftieth time, LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT ANARCHISM!!!

But you HAVE to believe it is, don't you? You just HAVE to--because that's the only way you can strawman your way into making fun of it and support your own delusional dogma.

 

[shanedk]

No, Ozymandyus, prohibiting is prohibiting; prohibition is a word made FOR ONE PURPOSE AND ONE PURPOSE ONLY. And I cited my source. Can you find ONE SINGLE LEGAL TEXT that refers to "the prohibition of murder"? Can you?

 

[Ozymandyus]

Prohibition of Murder
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That one there
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibition
http://www.answers.com/topic/prohibition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prohibition
http://www.yourdictionary.com/prohibition
http://dictionary.babylon.com/Prohibition
or any dictionary of your choice.
It is not 'a word made for one purpose'. It's derived from latin, and has been co-opted to have an additional meaning which is the one you are using. Its by no means the original meaning or the true meaning.

It honestly doesn't matter very much, it was an honest misunderstanding and thats all it should have been. But instead you have to stick to your guns on something as simple as a defined word. How could I ever expect to agree with you on a complex issue like this if you are trying to change the meaning and origin of words in the english language by using a wikipedia definition of a word we are not even using. And that's a source?

I'll leave you alone then.

 

[shanedk]

The phrase appears NOWHERE in ANY of those links, LIAR. They ALL, on the other hand, mention prohibition of things like alcohol and drugs.

Face it: You LIED and you were CAUGHT.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I was talking about the word we were using which is prohibition. If you had said Prohibitionism earlier, then perhaps there would have been no confusion. But we didn't. Not only are you trying to pretend that you used words you didn't, you are cutting out the important parts of what I am saying which have the answers to your own statements IN them. Purely dishonest and useless argumentation style.

I'm not using the word loosely, the definition of prohibition is the act of prohibiting or a law or decree that forbids. That includes murder as a kind of prohibition. It is used with a Capital letter if talking about the period of alcohol prohibition. With your meaning it calls on some crazy idea of 'inherent criminality' that is completely undefinable.

That's a bizarre place to make a stand... "prohibition" doesn't apply solely to alcohol, or the period when alcohol was banned in the U.S., and that's a simple and obvious fact.

Why is there a discussion of this?

 

[shanedk]

I just did a Google search for "prohibition of murder." The ONLY context the results showed it in was a religious prohibition in the Ten Commandments, where it's lumped in with other acts such as adultery and coveting.

Face it: you just DO NOT see the word "prohibition" used in conjunction with common law offenses. You made a DESPERATE attempt to discredit me, and you FAILED. Time to man up and admit it. It's the only way to save face now.

 

[Ozymandyus]

The phrase appears NOWHERE in ANY of those links, LIAR. They ALL, on the other hand, mention prohibition of things like alcohol and drugs.

Face it: You LIED and you were CAUGHT.

Did you even click the very first link? Can you not understand definitions that clearly apply to more than your prohibitionism definition?

Here's a whole list:
here
here
here
here

There are the first four of 11,400 results.

 

[shanedk]

Did you even click the very first link?
Jesus christ are you a moron? Learn to read.

You FUCKING LIAR!! Here's EVERYTHING from the first link:

Main Entry:
pro,·hi,·bi,·tion Listen to the pronunciation of prohibition Listen to the pronunciation of prohibition
Pronunciation:
\ˌprō-ə-ˈbi-shən also ˌprō-hə-\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1: the act of prohibiting by authority
2: an order to restrain or stop
3often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes

Where does it say "murder," liar?

 

[Ozymandyus]

You FUCKING LIAR!! Here's EVERYTHING from the first link:

Where does it say "murder," liar?

The first quote is the one in bright yellow at the very top of the post that I conveniently set apart and highlighted for you linked to the words Prohibition of Murder. I just added some arrows for your convenience.

It conveniently takes you directly to the page of a book where the title heading is about international law prohibiting the murder of prisoners.

The section of the book is quite conveniently titled: The Prohibition of Murder By Government

 

[ahdkaw]

It's selfish to hold people responsible for the consequences of their actions? It's selfish to not want to be harmed because other people are being irresponsible???

No, it's selfish to disallow healthcare services to someone regardless of their circumstances. Why would I care of their social standing? Or why they are there in the first place. So, if I went fell-walking and fell into a ravine, should my body be left to rot because someone says I am rich? I just find it quite ridiculous.

THIS is why libertarians use the phrase "cult of the omnipotent state"--because of THIS VERY REACTION.

It's not a reaction, it's just about "doing the right thing" for the race as a whole. Sure, everythings shit, but no point perpetuating it.

As regards to this stupid 'murder' thing, I'm completely on your side with this one, the point raised was intentionally provoking I feel.

Murder has nothing to do with drugs. Hey I wonder if murders will stop if I ban aspirin? Of course it wouldn't, they are entirely unrelated. However, the laws surrounding drugs do cause the potential for murder (turf wars, dealer wars, etc, etc).

 

[shanedk]

No, it's selfish to disallow healthcare services to someone regardless of their circumstances.

I NEVER said disallow them health care service! Just send them the bill afterwards.

I'm up to my EARS in debt from being hit by a drunk driver, WHICH WASN'T EVEN MY FAULT! And you say it's selfish of me to not want to pay to fix the injuries of some BASE jumper???

It's not a reaction, it's just about "doing the right thing" for the race as a whole.

Doing the right thing includes--even NECESSITATES--people being responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

 

[ahdkaw]

I didn't say you said that. I'm saying what I'm saying, and you're saying what you're saying.

You are taking this the wrong way, if you are injured in an accident not of your fault, you would be treated, as would the person who was in an accident which you don't think is an accident, because both of you would have paid the equal (or propotionate) taxes each already.

Which, I would like to note, is now entirely off topic.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I didn't say you said that. I'm saying what I'm saying, and you're saying what you're saying.

You are taking this the wrong way, if you are injured in an accident not of your fault, you would be treated, as would the person who was in an accident which you don't think is an accident, because both of you would have paid the equal (or propotionate) taxes each already.

Which, I would like to note, is now entirely off topic.

Actually, no. It is DIRECTLY on topic, if you want to discuss "personal freedom" as a reason to legalize drugs. One of the truths about living in a society is that a surrender of certain personal freedoms creates a society with greater overall freedom. Take the taxation example you gave: everyone surrenders a little bit of money(proportionately) towards taxes, and in return everyone is free from being bankrupted by medical bills. Yes, people with more money might pay a little more, but their freedom is not more adversely compromised by paying a progressive tax.

To take a more "neutral" example, look at the traffic laws. Having to follow the speed limit and traffic signs and signals restricts your personal freedom. On the other hand, by allowing the government to control the flow of traffic, that loss of personal freedom to do whatever you want is way more than offset by the freedom from being slowed down by the consequences of the accidents caused by people NOT following those rules. Take away those traffic lights, and traffic will come to a near-complete halt. In this instance, the surrender of absolute personal freedom actually creates greater freedom for everyone.

The reason this works is because we are all of us interconnected. Pure self-interest without thinking about other people just doesn't work in a healthy and successful society. Everything you do affects everyone else, and everyone else eventually affects you. Hell, the reason the laws exist now is because the old way just didn't work. Without government regulations and the benefits of government, life was hard, brutal, and very short for most people. Do we want to return to child labor, indentured servitude not much different from slavery, and a world that only works for the very wealthy and no one else? Do we want the world to be a terrible place, in the name of "personal freedom"?

No? Then why would we want a world where there's no restriction on the drugs you put in your body? "Personal freedom" sounds nice, but because no one lives in the magical, mythical Libertarian vacuum, actions have consequences on other people. Drug use doesn't just hurt the user, it hurts their family, their job performance, safety on the roadways... and their exercise of absolute personal freedom puts them in position to negatively impact the freedom of everyone around them.

 

[You]

Drug use doesn't just hurt the user, it hurts their family, their job performance, safety on the roadways... and their exercise of absolute personal freedom puts them in position to negatively impact the freedom of everyone around them.

Lots of points wrapped up in this little section here. Saying "drug use" in that context is not nearly specific enough. Some guy who smokes a joint after work is no more hurting his family than the guy who drinks a beer after work. It's really *abuse* that you're talking about, and there are plenty of legal drugs that also fit that statement in that case. Also, there are plenty on non-drug activities that you could drop into that statement: sex addiction, extra-marital affairs, over-eating, the list goes on.

Nonetheless, the issue is not whether or not drugs are hazardous; I agree that they are. The issue is whether prohibition is an effective way to mitigate said hazard, and the evidence shows that prohibition not only is ineffective at deterring drug use, but in fact creates a great deal more hazard to boot.

Full disclosure: I don't do (illegal) drugs. I can't. My employer implements random drug screening, a right that I fully support. I also have three young children. If I thought that drug decriminalization would pose a (greater) threat to their well-being, I sure as hell wouldn't be an advocate.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Nonetheless, the issue is not whether or not drugs are hazardous; I agree that they are. The issue is whether prohibition is an effective way to mitigate said hazard, and the evidence shows that prohibition not only is ineffective at deterring drug use, but in fact creates a great deal more hazard to boot..

Actually, that isn't the issue either, at least not when we started. The thread at least started with legalization... and if we have these problems of addiction with illegal drugs, there's no reason to suspect that the addiction issue will disappear in a poof of magic is you make drugs legal.

Now, if you want to talk about decriminalizing drug use (while continuing to make selling drugs illegal), and treating it more as a health issue, I'm all ears. Prohibition by itself isn't enough, the same way warehousing criminals doesn't put a dent in crime statistics.

 

[You]

Actually, that isn't the issue either, at least not when we started. The thread at least started with legalization... and if we have these problems of addiction with illegal drugs, there's no reason to suspect that the addiction issue will disappear in a poof of magic is you make drugs legal.

Now, if you want to talk about decriminalizing drug use (while continuing to make selling drugs illegal), and treating it more as a health issue, I'm all ears. Prohibition by itself isn't enough, the same way warehousing criminals doesn't put a dent in crime statistics.

Well, then, it looks like we agree - GMT (Great Minds Think ). I think it's reasonable to expect that decriminalization *will* have a dampening effect on addiction in the long run because it will allow us to treat more addicts: there will be more money available for treatment (assuming we divert some of the billions currently being spent on enforcement into treatment programs, something I fully support) and more addicts will avail themselves of the treatment because they won't need to fear Johnny Law anymore. Drug addiction is a medical issue, not a criminal one.

As for those who illegally sell drugs, again consider the benefits of resource reallocation. And I can almost guarantee you that what *I'd* want done to the guy that tries to sell drugs to kids is worse than what *you'd* want done.

 

[ahdkaw]

As a personal freedom argument it falls flat on its face, as most do, personal freedom has it's limits and that's fine.

Really decriminalisation is a transitional period used simply because taxation is impossible (due to said decriminalised substance being illegal everywhere else). The Dutch system only just works. The laws state that it is illegal to produce, import, and export cannabis, yet the end user is decriminalised. So how does the cannabis get into the coffeeshops? Illegally. By breaking the law. Every time a coffeeshop owner goes out to get his new supply, s/he is at risk of a jail sentence if caught. Obviously, there has to be a fair few 'look the other way' methods to keep the supply up with demand. Which leads to corruption, as it's not really under control.

So decriminalisation is not as peachy as you might think. I mean, where do you draw the line with personal use? 5 grams? 10? 25?

I am still very much pro-legalisation of all drugs, simply because some control is better than no control.

 

[shanedk]

Actually, that isn't the issue either, at least not when we started. The thread at least started with legalization... and if we have these problems of addiction with illegal drugs, there's no reason to suspect that the addiction issue will disappear in a poof of magic is you make drugs legal.

NO ONE is saying that it will!!! Drug legalization is not, not, NOT a solution to our drug problem! It's a solution to our CRIME AND VIOLENCE problem, which is considerable!

 

[ahdkaw]

NO ONE is saying that it will!!! Drug legalization is not, not, NOT a solution to our drug problem! It's a solution to our CRIME AND VIOLENCE problem, which is considerable!

You are quite correct, shanedk, however there's no need to shout. I think iJoe is just a bit wrapped up in 'the harm that drugs do' and can't seem to get past that. We know that the abuse of drugs is harmful, but we also know that the illegality of these substances actually increases the harm, due to lack of education as well as low-quality product cut with dangerous substances, such as glass, brick-dust, battery-acid, old diesel, plastic, rubber, and anything else you can think of that will increase the weight.

But no, keep it all illegal, because when my child stumbles into this world of drugs, I want them to be taking the shittest, dirtiest, most dangerous substances in the world to get a little high and have a bit of fun.

Damn those druggies, let them die! That's basically what the anti-legalisation position boils down to, disguised as "I care, really I do".

Addendum:

A lot of anti-legalisation folk tend the go with the increase in drug addicts scenario, which seems to win over a lot of people on this argument. But when you really think about it this, will drug usage see an increase upon legalisation? Well, yes, I would assume there would be initial 'surge' in numbers. But in reality these numbers would be mostly made up of people who were already taking the drugs when they were illegal, but were undetected by the system (lack of control can do this), the numbers of "new users" would likely be the same number of general takeup every year. If you have a dim view of the human race however, these numbers will represent everyone turning into junkies, because absolutely no other human has any self-control whatsoever. No the bankers and politicians are not taking cocaine now and again. Neither are the blue collar workers. No, there are no kids out there popping pills and bombing speed.

The key here is you now have a point at which, if necessary, the state can intervene and provide that person with rehabilitation (if that person agrees). This doesn't mean that every single person who took an illegal drug needs help, because they don't. A lot of people have actually got quite strong heads who can handle these sorts of things for their entire lives. There is no reason to rehabilitate people like that.

I just think they should get over it, tough, people take drugs, a lot of people take drugs, why criminalise otherwise law-abiding productive citizens?

"But the Junkie, he steals my stuff and leaves needles everywhere!" Well, that's theft, littering and endangering the public health, an arrestable offence in my "b00k 0v Teh lAw"(TM). Continued law-breaking should lead to further arrests and rehabilitation (again the junkie must agree - otherwise jail).

Regarding rehabilitation and the individuals agreement; the individual must agree because rehabilitation work work any other way.