Libertarians - What do they beleive?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

been there several times and there is a huge difference over the last 25 years

okay well that settles it then. You visited there a couple of times. I guess you also stayed at a Holiday Inn while there?

if this disqualifies my ideas on the subject fine, but in the future, please refrain from speaking on any American Issues ok?

[mnealtx 0]

Ok, they haven't legalized it except for prescription use..but they have all the 'coffee shops' selling it...doesn't that make it de facto legalized?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

[ Yes, OTC meds should be available without a prescription.

This statement is redundant.

Shit....

You know what I meant! Prescription meds should be available OTC.

Zipp0

Couldn't agree less....

And while I tend toward a government that doesn't go overboard protecting us from ourselves, I just can't think that making drugs like meth, coke, heroin legal would be a good thing. I don't think there's much doubt that some things are more addictive than alcohol.

There is the issue of individuals being responsible for themselves, and there's another issue of responsibility for society at large. That, unfortunately, requires governmental interference into our personal lives sometimes. Sometimes we disagree on what constitutes an action that is harmful to another. Drugs fit in there somewhere....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

if this disqualifies my ideas on the subject fine, but in the future, please refrain from speaking on any American Issues ok?

Uhmm, this was a discussion on libertarian views later on specifically towards drugs.

You brought up Amsterdam as an indication of what legalization would do. There is just one problem. No drugs are legal in Holland and there is an ongoing drug problem.

And the condoning of the sale for private use of marijuana really has had no impact on the problems created by heroin and meth addictions for example.

The only thing thatis slightly helping with the criminal aspect of junkies is the government handing out free methadone to junkies. Would you be okay with your tax dollars being used to supply free drugs to junkies to curb criminal activity?

Drugs are not legal in The Netherlands. That would include marijuana. If you think otherwise, I would suggest talking to a police officer on your next trip to Amsterdam.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Ok, they haven't legalized it except for prescription use..but they have all the 'coffee shops' selling it...doesn't that make it de facto legalized?

Nope. And owners of coffee shops do get busted when they buy for resale. They have to get their "product" illegally, to be able to sell it illegally. Except that the second part is condoned. Basically the government has said, we are better of spending your tax dollars on something other than the private use of marijuana.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I just can't think that making drugs like meth, coke, heroin legal would be a good thing. I don't think there's much doubt that some things are more addictive than alcohol.

I just can't agree with that. Alcohol is one of the most addictive drugs around; the fact that it is legal and that many people do not become addicted to it does not negate the fact that it is an extremely addictive and dangerous drug.

[Lindsey 0]

Then aside from the addictive aspect, a person can use alcohol casually without becoming intoxicated. The same can't be said for meth, coke, heroin. If everyone who drank a beer was drunk then I'd probably think differently about that.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You know what I meant! Prescription meds should be available OTC.

you already qualified that by saying that maybe some shouldn't be. Where do you draw the line though?

Should MOA inhibitors be available OTC? Even though taking one with a swiss cheese sandwhich could kill you?

[Lindsey 0]

you already qualified that by saying that maybe some shouldn't be. Where do you draw the line though?

Should MOA inhibitors be available OTC? Even though taking one with a swiss cheese sandwhich could kill you?

No. I don't think MOAIs should be available OTC. Zyrtec probably should. I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn, but I do believe there should be a line.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Then aside from the addictive aspect, a person can use alcohol casually without becoming intoxicated. The same can't be said for meth, coke, heroin. If everyone who drank a beer was drunk then I'd probably think differently about that.

A person can use a small amount of meth without becoming "impaired." The fact is, all drugs are ok in small amounts, but not ok when abused. Anyone who thinks that alcohol is better than these other drugs is - as I've already said - horribly misinformed. Drug abuse is drug abuse - alcohol is a drug - if you abuse alcohol then you are a drug abuser, no different than someone who abuses meth, coke, whatever...

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No. I don't think MOAIs should be available OTC. Zyrtec probably should. I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn, but I do believe there should be a line.

I was asking more the hardcore libertarians who seem to believe that prescription meds should just be available OTC.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Then aside from the addictive aspect, a person can use alcohol casually without becoming intoxicated. The same can't be said for meth, coke, heroin. If everyone who drank a beer was drunk then I'd probably think differently about that.

A person can use a small amount of meth without becoming "impaired." The fact is, all drugs are ok in small amounts, but not ok when abused. Anyone who thinks that alcohol is better than these other drugs is - as I've already said - horribly misinformed. Drug abuse is drug abuse - alcohol is a drug - if you abuse alcohol then you are a drug abuser, no different that someone who abuses meth, coke, whatever...

I just don't agree with that....at all. But we can't all expect to have the same perspective. I think that some drugs are more detrimental to society than others. I can't think that the idea of children sitting around the house with parents on heroin could be good in any way. That's just not comparable to children sitting around the house with parents having a glass of wine. I'm all for people doing whatever they want....as long as it doesn't hurt others. Often it's what constitutes hurting others that we'll disagree about.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I can drink a beer because I enjoy the taste of a cold beer on a hot summer's day. I know quite a few people who enjoy doing the same thing. Just one beer, maybe two over the course of an afternoon. Certainly not in a quantity that any form of impairment is there.

I haven't met anybody who told me they smoked crack only in small amounts so they wouldn't get stoned, just cause they liked the smell of it.

[nanook 1]

Quote

If our current government were suddenly replaced with a libertarian government, would there be massive problems? Oh, hell yes. Why? We are not used to living as free people and would have a tough time adapting at first.

I don't think it's the "new found freedom" that people will have that will make for massive problems. It's the adapting to the anarkist-esque culture brought on by a lot of irresponsible idealisms that have a lot of leaning towards causes, real or imagined, that can be addressed by normal outlets (unless ,ofcourse, majority of the People don't want those causes in the first place.)

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Shotgun 1]

Well I have seen first-hand the destructiveness of alcoholism - so I can say that it's not exactly a pretty thing. I have also seen the destruction caused by other drugs, so if you would like to debate the issue then I am here to talk, but I doubt that you could convince me that any drugs (including alcohol) are not dangerous to society.

Quote

• Quote

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

but I doubt that you could convince me that any drugs (including alcohol) are not dangerous to society.

She nor I were trying to convince you of that. Quite the contrary actually.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

but I doubt that you could convince me that any drugs (including alcohol) are not dangerous to society.

She nor I were trying to convince you of that. Quite the contrary actually.

Ok! Damn you... I just want to have something to bitch about!

[billvon 2,998]

>Then aside from the addictive aspect, a person can use
>alcohol casually without becoming intoxicated.

In addition, humans have been drinking it for so long that we have evolved to metabolize it pretty well. To me, that puts it in a slightly different category than heroin.

[bmcd308 0]

>>we have evolved to metabolize it pretty well<<

Do we metabolize it better now than we did hundreds of years ago?

Posting out of curiosity, not out of disagreement with any position that has been taken by anyone...

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[billvon 2,998]

>Do we metabolize it better now than we did hundreds of years ago?

Not noticeably. But we do metabolize it better than we did 10,000 years ago.

Way back when, contaminated drinking water was the #1 killer in any significant concentration of humans (early towns and cities.) Mead was one of the first alcoholic drinks, since you could make it by basically letting honey and water sit in a pot for a long time. When it fermented, it had two qualities that early people liked:

1) it made you feel all fuzzy.

2) (the important one) it made contaminated water safe to drink. Mead has just enough alcohol to kill most bacteria.

Thus, people able to drink mead (and later wine and beer) tended to die less often than people who didn't. This selected for people who could metabolize alcohol. In some societies, tea-making (i.e. boiling water) was used to sterilize water, and these people often did not evolve common expression of the enzymes for breakdown of alcohol into food. (ADH and ALDH2 mainly.) That's why some asians nowadays have great trouble metabolizing alcohol.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I can drink a beer because I enjoy the taste of a cold beer on a hot summer's day. I know quite a few people who enjoy doing the same thing. Just one beer, maybe two over the course of an afternoon. Certainly not in a quantity that any form of impairment is there.

I haven't met anybody who told me they smoked crack only in small amounts so they wouldn't get stoned, just cause they liked the smell of it.

Since beer is actually a food try substituting grain alcohol for it. Only then would you have a fair comparison.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

This selected for people who could metabolize alcohol.

Woo hoo! Score one for the alcoholics!!!

Oh, wait a miunute...

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

This selected for people who could metabolize alcohol.

Woo hoo! Score one for the alcoholics!!!

Oh, wait a miunute...

hehehe You crack me up when you make sense

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I am assuming that since you equated it to alcohol, you would restrict the sale of recreational drugs to anybody over 21?

Actually, I'd prefer there was one "age of consent" after which you were considered an adult. My head hurts when I consider the spread of ages at which we attach "adult" rights and responsibilities to people

That said, I believe there ought to be some limitations of the rights of children in any society. Ideally, the parents themselves would do that, and would be able to allow their minor children to partake of adult pleasures if, in their judgment, such was a good idea. That pretty much applies to recreational substances. I do think that some rights that have the potential to damage others (the right to drive a car, for example), would still need to be limited in some way, but I tend to think a competency examination a better device for doing so than a blanket prohibition.

On the issue of drugs and alcohol? I'd say make the age 18, and let your parents give it to you if they decide to do so.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

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?

In an ideally Libertarian society, there would be no tax credits for charitable donations, because there would be no taxes to take credit for. Simply abolishing the income tax would obviate the need for tax credits of any kind, for anything.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com