Why Is It That When People Don't Like Something, They Try To Ban It?

Inconsistent hypocrisy at its finest. You want to ban things you don't like but as soon as someone uses the exact same justification to ban something you have no problem with, well, then it's different somehow.

How are you incapable of seeing the absurdity of your position? How are you incapable of seeing the immorality of banning acts that are not inherently harmful towards others? If everyone thought like you, we'd be living in a totalitarian police state. Your ideology is despotic and intellectually bankrupt. You have no right to call yourself a "liberal". It's shameful.

And I have a question for you, if you saw someone eating junk food or smoking cigarettes, would you personally intervene to stop them? I highly doubt you would, which, to me, would make you a coward because you lack the sincerity of your convictions. A good rule of thumb: If you wouldn't stop someone from doing something, then it's probably wrong for you to have the government do it on your behalf.

 

Why would I bag on libertarians? I am one. I believe that we should have the maximum amount of freedom with the minimum amount of cohersion and that we should exercise those freedoms with restraint and responsibility.

The problem comes when your right to be you doesn't include my right to be free from you. People getting high on drugs will have an impact on the rest of society and those who don't believe this are living in a dream world. Therefore all drug laws should be abolished and states in their wisdom should decide for themselves what their drug laws should be.

Take Colorado for instance. They legalized medical marijuana. But the influx of potheads and the trouble they bring has caused several Colorado counties to enact local bans. I want states to be able to decriminalize various drugs so they can see for themselves what a disaster it is without it impacting me in my red, drugfree state.

That's a true, libertarian position.

 

And most libertarians believe this, that's why they're always harping about the Tenth Amendment. The people you're attacking are a subsect of libertarians called anarchocapitalists.

 

I know the type. They believe even the Constitution is unlibertarian but won't say so out loud. The founders didn't believe they could banish tyranny everywhere, but they made sure to restrict it at the federal level. They were undisturbed by the notion that individual states could enact draconian laws and burdensome taxes because they also knew that people had the right to vote with their feet, taking their families, businesses, and tax revenues to a state that treats them better.

Federalism is the belief that states ought to be forced to compete with each other. Boeing doesn't like how they're treated in Washington, so they make plans to open a plant in South Carolina where the business environment is better. This is how it shoud work.

But these whacktards who call themselves libertarians put certain principles above the Constitution so that even within our individual states we are told that we don't love freedom unless we allow gay marriage, unrestricted drug use, and.....slot machines in our grocery stores. This is absurd and makes me suspect they just want to get high, have gay sex in the streets, and gamble where my children are forced to watch. It IS anarchy and it isn't my brand of libertarianism.

 

You are mistaken. The anarchocapitalists on this forum say the Constitution is not a libertarian document all the time.

I am not an anarchocapitalist, but I think you are oversimplifying their philosophy.

 

I assume you meant to say "coercion". Of course education does. If one does not impress the teacher there are consequences. If one dares to challenge the political educator, one suffers.

 

I completely agree with you here on the second part. However, I think that any drugs should be legalized inside ones private property at home and that laws of extreme punishment should be layed out if broken.

If we legalize some common, but illegal drugs, and put really high taxes on them, it can lead to some tremendous government revenue.

Secondly, if something happens like you mention, where a "high" person drives and kills somebody, there should be a website by the government or announcement that clearly says if something like that happens, the punishment will be life in prison or the death penalty so people get scared out of thier minds to do a crime of any sort that involves these drugs.

 

This opinion is so often expressed and so incredibly NAIVE. As I stated in my thread http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...uana-should-not-decriminalized-right-now.html the Left won't be satisfied with simple decriminalization, they will want to make it a RIGHT. They aren't libertarians, they are statists who make up rights as they go along.

Why are we looking for more excuses for government to tax us?

I understand that people can get drugs whether they're legal or not. The problem with legalization is that more people would use drugs that otherwise wouldn't. Making something legal increases its use. So instead of having a small percentage of people who are a menace to society, we double or even triple their numbers by giving it the blessings of government acquiescence. Your opinion is again borne of naivette. People on drugs don't think about the consequences of their actions.

 

It IS a right. A "right" is simply an exercise of "liberty", which, as defined by Thomas Jefferson, is "unobstructed action according to our own will, but drawn within the equal rights of others". Essentially, any act that does not infringe on the rights of another person is itself a right. Since ingesting drugs is not inherently harmful to other people, it is, by definition, an exercise of liberty, which makes it a right. Someone who insists on recognizing and upholding the rights of the people is not a statist - that is just backwards logic - the person insisting that the government, whether Federal, State, or local, persecute people who engage in peaceful activities is the statist.

What do you mean "us"? You don't even do drugs. And as long as the government isn't persecuting me for engaging in peaceful activities, I'm more than willing to pay a sales tax on the commerce I'm engaged in.

Assuming this is true, what difference does it make? As long as they are remaining peaceful, it's really none of your business.

Did alcohol use double or triple after prohibition was repealed? Did society descend into an alcohol-induced frenzy? Did Portugal's drug use increase two- and three-fold when they decriminalized the use and possession of ALL drugs?

All the evidence says you're wrong, yet you call us the naive ones.

 

If it isn't against the law...then it basically is a right...nobody can really stop you from doing something. Just, because it isn't written on the bill of rights, does not mean that it isn't you're right. Your freedom to buy any kind of TV you want isn't protected in the bill of rights...but it kind of is a right.

Rights would be different from laws if they couldn't be changed...but seeing how the government theoretically can change the constitution...rights and laws can become synonomous.

Here is where your opinion is Naive. Thousands if not millions do drugs...whether they are legal or illegal...there will always be a black market for it and people will be able to aquire it anyway. So instead of spending (wasting) billions every year of our tax money on busting drug dealers who are going to exist no matter what you do, why not just legalize the drugs and place huge taxes on them. Instead of spending, you would be collecting money...and perhaps and working americans would see tax-cuts if the revenue takes care of itself.

Same issue with gun control...legal or not...criminals will always have guns...so making laws to take guns from law-abiding citizens is useless, cruel, and wrong.

I'm looking how to increase revenue and reduce taxes...I'm not sure what you are looking for.

Using or not using drugs in your home is your right. Its a free country...if you are a right-winger like me and believe in freedom, stick with your principles.

You are right, people on drugs don't think about their consequencies...but severly punish a few that fail to understand...and the rest of the people on drugs will think about the consequencies BEFORE doing drugs. If captured drug-addicts are put to death or get life in prison...and properly publized...it will scare the rest of them, because the sentences they get now...a couple years or probation is nothing. Life in prison and death penalty is what scares people.

 

In case you haven't noticed the Left defines rights differently then Jefferson. Being a right would mean that they could not be discriminated against by employers, landlords, etc. Employers wouldn't be able to drug test anymore because the pot heads would complain that what they do in their private time cannot be sanctioned. Never mind that because THC remains in fat cells for up to a month, potheads are at all times under varying degrees of influence of the drug. If you're an employer and you don't want potheads working for you, TOO DAM BAD, 'CAUSE IT'S MY RIGHT!

But injesting drugs is harmful to ther people unless you're a hermit living in the middle of nowhere. It harms families and society at large when people are under the influence of narcotics. It's the height of naivette to pretend this isn't so.

I also don't smoke, but I oppose taxes on cigarettes. I don't ride a motorcycle, but I oppose mandatory helmet laws. I don't subscribe to the self centered viewpoint you propose here.

Then why don't we give guns to felons. Until they commit a crime with it, it's none of my business, according to your logic. Because people on drugs tend to be wreckless, inattentive, and even outright dangerous is good enough reason to keep it illegal just as felons tend to commit crimes with firearms.

At least the prohibition era was initiated by the correct legal process. The federal laws on every drug should be rescinded ASAP because there is nothing in the 18 enumerated powers of the Constitution that puts drug control within the purview of the federal government.

Of course, if this happened, it would change nothing in Idaho.

 

And in case you haven't noticed, the American left has no real interest in legalizing drugs. It's something they only occasionally pay lip service to in order to maintain the illusion that they are liberals. If you want to discuss drug legalization, then it is best to discuss it within the libertarian paradigm, as they are the only ones who are truly serious about legalizing it and upholding the rights of the individuals.

It's not my fault the leftists fail to understand the nature of private property. As a philosophically consistent libertarian, I maintain the right of an employer to impose preconditions on the use of his or her property, and to dispense of that property in a manner of their choosing, so long as said dispensation is consistent with the mutually voluntary agreements that all parties to an employment contract have consented to. If one simply applies the Jeffersonian standard of liberty, virtually any dispute concerning "competing rights" can be easily resolved.

There is nothing inherently harmful about it. A man smoking pot or even meth in the privacy of his own home is not harming anyone, society or otherwise. He may offend or upset others, but that is not the same as harming them or, more precisely, infringing upon their rights, which is the ultimate criteria to determine the legitimacy of a given act.

So long as a person is not infringing upon the rights of others, he or she should be left in peace. I'm not sure how anyone could argue with that, but they always find a way!

So, you oppose any and all sales taxes?

If they cannot be trusted to own a firearm, then they shouldn't have been let out of prison in the first place. If they've served their time, then their rights ought to be fully restored, which would include owning a firearm. If it's your contention that they are too dangerous to own a firearm, then I would respond by saying they should still be in prison, which is why I'm an advocate for indefinite prison sentences for violent crimes.

For every one person you hear about that does drugs and commits a reckless act, there are thousands who don't. And if you're proposing that we police the possibility of danger as opposed to the imminent threat or actual occurrence of danger, then there is no limit to the amount of activities that we would have to criminalize.

Driving is potentially dangerous, guns are very potentially dangerous, ingesting alcohol is potentially dangerous. According to your logic, we should criminalize all these things.

Of course, your whole argument is predicated upon the unsubstantiated assumption that drug laws actually serve to stop people from doing drugs in the first place, and I've yet to see a shred of evidence to suggest that would be the case.

Which does not address my point in the slightest.

You seem to think that drug use and abuse will increase substantially if legalization efforts come to fruition, but when has this ever been the case? Did alcohol use and abuse double or triple after prohibition was repealed? No. Did drug use and abuse double or triple after Portugal decriminalized the use and possession of ALL drugs? No. In fact, drug use and abuse among teenagers actually decreased.

The idea that drug laws are the only thing standing between society and a drug-fueled descent into chaos is one of the most pervasive and pernicious myths propagated by anti-legalization proponents.

 

Agree totally. Unless people are willing to go to a society model where I don't have to pay for others' bad decisions then you (*)(*)(*)(*) well better believe I'm going to oppose some activities.

 

This thread is about allowing betting outlets in supermarkets. Nothing to do with casinos.

THis is not about "freedom". We have far more "freedom" to gamble than Americans ever will. We have too much "freedom". That is the issue.

 

I think you people are all completely missing the point.

Australia is a gambling nation. We love it. We all do it. And we have far, far more freedom to do it than Americans do. BUT some of us think we probably don't need gambling outlets in supermarkets. Call me crazy - but I agree with that.

THis is not some human rights issue to argue about.

 

I'm perfectly willing to go to a society model where you don't have to pay for others' bad decisions. Do I get a pass from your insistence on using violence to prevent me performing actions that don't harm anyone? Or am I just screwed and have to abide by both the busybodies who support the nanny state and the busybodies who think themselves to be everyone else's nanny?

 

Summary: Thinks drugs are harmless. Thinks felons should have guns.

My conclusion: you're nuts.

 

Welcome to Nanny State Hell. It's always for "Your own Good." The Nazis & Communists told their People the very same thing. The Nanny Staters are clearly over-reaching at this point. Time to give them the boot and reverse course. We need to restore our Freedom & Liberty.

 

Following that to its logical conclusion, alcohol must be outlawed. We know how well THAT worked the first time, of course.

And, of courser, the CROOKEDEST casino still has odds much better than a state lottery!

 

He seems to be a closet fascist masquerading as a libertarian.

 

Summary: replies to intelligent, well-written posts with hit-and-run one-liners and meaningless sound bytes, deliberately misrepresenting said posts in the process.

My conclusion: you're dishonest.

 

I try to ban things because I do not like it and my time on earth is limited. Screw you all.