TomAiello 26 #26 April 23, 2004 QuoteWhere as alcohol was a 'homegrown' business in the 30s (most of it made here, purchased here, consumed here), its not the case with drug trafficing. Hmmm. The huge percentage of the Marijuana consumed in the US is "homegrown" (i.e. produced within our borders). The same is true for much of the LSD and a good portion of the Psilocybin, as well as most of the Methamphetamine. QuoteIts an international business. Libertarian governement has open borders and open trade - for the initial period we would be inundated with drugs causing a large drop in price, causing more experimenting and casualty. Ok, I see where you are coming from. The worry is that the initial shock would be huge, with a year or more of massive experimentation, where pretty much everyone would be on drugs, and society would creak and groan (perhaps to a standstill). Or am I reading that wrong? I'm guessing that the majority of people wouldn't experiment any more heavily than the experimenters among us do now. They'd be reasonable, responsible folks with jobs and families and mortgages, and they'd keep their experimentation to the times and places that they now keep their consumption of alcohol. A couple ideas for gradual re-introduction of prohibited recreational substances: 1) Start with "coffee shops". People have to go to (reasonably healthy, clean) establishments that serve various substances, and consume them there. Then proceed, later, to a system where people can purchase things there and take them home. Only much later proceed to allowing sale in other establishments, or public intoxication. 2) Start with only some (probably the home grown ones) substances. So start with Marijuana (you live in California, don't you?), then after a few years add LSD, or Psilocybin, and progress gradually through other "harder" substances. 3) Start with fairly strict regulation of the substances themselves. Require strict FDA inspections of production and distribution, as well as purity. You'd probably want to keep this for a longish time, at least until the market had a chance to establish branding, and the other methods we currently use for guiding us to our personal preferences in other areas. At a guess, I'd say this would be a 20-30 year process, beginning immediately, and progressing quickly (5 years or so) through most of the "soft stuff", but with government regulation of quality and distribution continuing (much as we have now for alcohol or tobacco) for the long term, and introduction of harder and foreign substances (like Heroine, Cocaine or Opium) delayed and staggered to allow time to analyze the effects and deal with the adjustment shocks.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 April 23, 2004 QuoteWhat do you do with the DEA and the rest of the drug war infrastructure? I'd re-task them, probably as part of the FDA, to supervise purity of product and distribution chains. It's a massive culural shift for them, but at least some of the folks there with great expertise in these areas would be very useful for quality control. You would probably also maintain some of the DEA's functions as part of customs, to regulate the flow of foreign-produced pharmaceuticals into the country. In general, though, I'm not opposed to just wholesale disbanding government agencies. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 April 23, 2004 good strategy, but I'd insert a beginning step. How about decriminalization? Stop locking people up for posession and use. That alone would save billions for taxpayers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #29 April 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhere as alcohol was a 'homegrown' business in the 30s Actually, rum-running (and beer-running, etc) was a decent-sized industry, and many mobsters and others (including, reportedly, Joseph Kennedy) got their start by importing and/or controlling the flow of alcohol. Yes, but they often had legal foreign sources to provide them with supply. Here, we have a problem where the foreign sources are illegal in their country of origin, and increasing import demand might destabilize other governments historically friendly to the US. I'd think that in the long term, managed carefully, the transition would be just as good at cutting the legs out from criminal syndicates in other countries as it would here at home.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #30 April 23, 2004 QuoteHow about decriminalization? Stop locking people up for posession and use. That alone would save billions for taxpayers. Heck yeah. What an incredible waste of taxpayers money and time. Still, decriminalization also probably ought to start in targeted areas (say, Marijuana for starters), then proceed to others, only eventually ending at the drugs that tend to scare people. But in general, I'm for decriminalization all the way.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #31 April 23, 2004 QuoteHere, we have a problem where the foreign sources are illegal in their country of origin, Mostly because of pressure and threats or implementation of sanctions by the US. I'm sure most of the major drug producing countries would happily include it as a legal export. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #32 April 23, 2004 Again, I agree. The problem would be that we would be "abandoning" people who had only started their own "drug wars" at our insistence. My major concern would be not penalizing people who were only trying to be friends to us. Handled carefully, I don't think it would be much of an issue. We also need to consider the fact that much of the drug production industry is currently in the hands of ruthless criminals, so there will be some major cultural shifts needed there to transform them into legitimate businesses. I'd expect that once things got rolling legally, their would be a leadership change in the industry, as law abiding businessmen got into the act and made things more efficient. Still, while the foreign hurdles are generally larger than those in the US, I don't think they are insurmountable by any means.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 April 23, 2004 QuoteI'd expect that once things got rolling legally, their would be a leadership change in the industry, as law abiding businessmen got into the act and made things more efficient. Exactly, the warlords and cartels would atrophy. Success in that industry would no longer be determined by who is the most ruthless, but rather who is the best business person. Look at Vegas....who started all the casinos? Who owns them now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mailin 0 #34 April 23, 2004 QuoteOk, I see where you are coming from. The worry is that the initial shock would be huge, with a year or more of massive experimentation, where pretty much everyone would be on drugs, and society would creak and groan (perhaps to a standstill). Or am I reading that wrong? Nope, not reading it wrong - not my exact intent however, but not reading it wrong. QuoteI'm guessing that the majority of people wouldn't experiment any more heavily than the experimenters among us do now. They'd be reasonable, responsible folks with jobs and families and mortgages, and they'd keep their experimentation to the times and places that they now keep their consumption of alcohol. I agree. QuoteA couple ideas for gradual re-introduction of prohibited recreational substances: 1) Start with "coffee shops". People have to go to (reasonably healthy, clean) establishments that serve various substances, and consume them there. Then proceed, later, to a system where people can purchase things there and take them home. Only much later proceed to allowing sale in other establishments, or public intoxication. 2) Start with only some (probably the home grown ones) substances. So start with Marijuana (you live in California, don't you?), then after a few years add LSD, or Psilocybin, and progress gradually through other "harder" substances. 3) Start with fairly strict regulation of the substances themselves. Require strict FDA inspections of production and distribution, as well as purity. You'd probably want to keep this for a longish time, at least until the market had a chance to establish branding, and the other methods we currently use for guiding us to our personal preferences in other areas. At a guess, I'd say this would be a 20-30 year process, beginning immediately, and progressing quickly (5 years or so) through most of the "soft stuff", but with government regulation of quality and distribution continuing (much as we have now for alcohol or tobacco) for the long term, and introduction of harder and foreign substances (like Heroine, Cocaine or Opium) delayed and staggered to allow time to analyze the effects and deal with the adjustment shocks. This I agree with completely! It needs to be gradual, a sudden stop in all drug laws would be more chaotic leading to stricter laws then those currently in place. And yes, 20 - 30 year process to implement all the libertarian ideas, with this one being the one I see the most 'interesting' to do. Jennifer PS. I'm from Rhode Island, I think we have the smallest group of libertairans in the US, which is sad.Arianna Frances Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #35 April 23, 2004 They belive that you must return the books on time or pay a fine.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #36 April 24, 2004 What is it, 6 out of every ten federal inmates are in prison based on non violent drug charges? And something like for every three drug convicts thrown in prison, one violent offender is let loose? How many billions wasted, and how many repeat offenders (Index One offenses) released early?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #37 April 24, 2004 Now THAT'S funny! witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #38 April 24, 2004 QuoteQuote What issues do you see with the execution? What do you do with the DEA and the rest of the drug war infrastructure? Most of the barriers towards legalization come from them, and certainly they'll continue to act in their own self interest. I suppose we could just redirect their efforts to our new external threat. At the very least let's decriminalize pot to the standard of tobacco. CA is running out of smokers to tax; it needs a new revenue source. You're thinking along the right lines when you say we could redirect that resource in some other way. Who says that people who now work for the DEA etc. have to always work for the DEA etc. in perpetuity? If we legalized drugs, and put the DEA workers out of business, then they could... build houses for the homeless sell life insurance haul nets on fishing boats teach math in high school be police officers be firemen design airplanes perform music in a band Let's not pretend that if someone's job dries up, he has to just stand there looking stupid and being useless. Just because someone currently is in a given job does not mean that he must always do THAT work, or that there's a big tragedy in one having to switch, get retrained, and start at something different. Yes, there would be a period of adjustment. What do you think happened to the guys who used to shovel horse shit in NYC, after the automobile took hold?-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #39 April 18, 2006 life, liberty,and property do not exist because man made laws, man made laws because of life,liberty and property. Frederic Bastiat , "the Law"we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #40 April 18, 2006 Hey, how's that 'war on drugs' going? In the 25 years since the war started, what has been accomplished? NOTHING. It is a total failure, and the whole thing needs to just stop. We have people in jail for YEARS for pot, clogging the lagal system and costing taxpayers THOUSANDS for no damn good reason. It pure madness. And no, I do not use illegal drugs. But if someone wants to do drugs in their home, I could care less. It's called 'liberty', look into it. Zipp0 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 April 18, 2006 QuoteYour underlying premise, which is unstated, is that drugs are illegal. In a Libertarian system, the acquisition of recreational substances would be no more difficult than the acquisition of beer is now. So there wouldn't be any need to hurt, rob, or kill anyone to get them. This premise is slightly flawed. Even beer is illegal to many in the US. There will always be a black market for these substances. The question would be how much violence would be attached to it. I am assuming that since you equated it to alcohol, you would restrict the sale of recreational drugs to anybody over 21? What do you think an 18 year old addicted to meth will do to get access to that drug? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #42 April 18, 2006 I'm wondering what Libertarians think of the Establishment Clause. Everything makes sense...up until the point where we start giving tax credits when people give to charitable organizations...which tend to be religiously affiliated. Wouldn't the government essentially be subsidizing donations to religious organizations that way? I looked on the website, and I can't find anything about it. For me, the libertarian stance on affirmative action is problematic, but the foreign policy ideas make sense. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #43 April 18, 2006 Get a friend to buy it for them, the same way they get friends over 21 to buy them beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #44 April 18, 2006 I guess I would characterize myself as "moderate libertarian." I agree with a lot of their ideas, but I think they should be tempered with a bit of regulation. ie. the Board of Health, etc. I figure that since it is possible to be more centrist or more extreme as a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal, it should also be possible to be either more moderate or more extreme as a libertarian too. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #45 April 18, 2006 This is a very interesting thread. I had no idea there was a party like that out there. What are the previous presidential candidates that belong to this party?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #46 April 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteIMO the libertarian view wouldn't be bad except for "You own yourself". THis opens the door for anyone and everyone to do WHAT EVER THEY WANT. That's kind of the idea. People ought to be allowed to whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. QuoteAnd, IMO this is very bad for society and it inturn creates a group of people who feel that they do not need to take resposability for their actions. I disagree. Libertarianism is fundamentally centered around taking responsibility for your own actions. You must, individually, take responsibility for yourself, rather than letting the government (or whoever else) take responsibility for you. The key to this is the idea that you _can_ do whatever you want, up until the point that it hurts someone else (i.e. infringes their rights to do the whatever _they_ want). Have you read the Declaration of the Rights of Man? It's a pretty good summary. QuoteYou sex life affects people! Presumably, your sex life only affects consenting adults who have _chosen_ to be effected by it. QuoteThe drugs you do affect people! I disagree. The actions you take while under the influence may effect other people. If they do, I believe you should be held responsible for those effects. What influences you had chosen to allow on yourself at the time you took the actions is irrelevant--and should not be considered (good or bad) in determining the consequences you face. QuoteLike it or not it is the truth. Those things work to destabilize society. I completely disagree. Personal responsibility and individual rights act as stabilizing influences on society. It is when people feel that they as individuals are unimportant that society begins to decay. edit: how's that C? You won't get an argument from me on anything regarding Liberatarianism except in its favor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #47 April 18, 2006 QuoteWhere as alcohol was a 'homegrown' business in the 30s (most of it made here, purchased here, consumed here), its not the case with drug trafficing. Its an international business. Libertarian governement has open borders and open trade - for the initial period we would be inundated with drugs causing a large drop in price, causing more experimenting and casualty. It can be rectified in time, but is that initial period worth it? Their drug platform is the only part I think needs more regulation then they say, at least initially. Our social structure is not set up for it. Jennifer I don't entirely agree almost any recreational drug that is currently imported could easily be grown here in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #48 April 18, 2006 QuoteI'm wondering what Libertarians think of the Establishment Clause. Everything makes sense...up until the point where we start giving tax credits when people give to charitable organizations...which tend to be religiously affiliated. Wouldn't the government essentially be subsidizing donations to religious organizations that way? I looked on the website, and I can't find anything about it. For me, the libertarian stance on affirmative action is problematic, but the foreign policy ideas make sense. Brie Affirmative action shoudl be illegal it makes one person more valuable than another...same thing with hate crimes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #49 April 18, 2006 QuoteThis is a very interesting thread. I had no idea there was a party like that out there. What are the previous presidential candidates that belong to this party? Darius you would love the liberatarian party I admit to having voted for republicans and a few dems in the past, and that was a result of concern over the result of the other candidate winning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #50 April 18, 2006 Quote It is a total failure, and the whole thing needs to just stop. We have people in jail for YEARS for pot, clogging the lagal system and costing taxpayers THOUSANDS for no damn good reason. It pure madness. Thousands? I'd guess the cost would be somewhere in the 100 billion+ range... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
