How should a society deal with drugs?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
If nearly "all" drugs were legalized, what kind of effect would that have on our economy? It seems like it could have a crippling effect on some entertainment industries, such as bars, restaurants, clubs, and any industry that relies on alcohol sales.

Obviously the minority of the population does "illegal" drugs, with the majority of them doing marijuana, but I doubt I and many others would go out nearly as often if there was a limitless supply of green.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a shift in demand from alcohol to other drugs, it just means that bars and liquor stores will need to adjust their purchasing and inventory accordingly, assuming there are no legal impediments to doing so. Manufacturers may have to make some investment in capacity to produce other products. I really don't see a problem here, although certainly there are a lot of businessmen who seem to think it's the government's job to protect them from competition.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's more than that. It's a sloppy shortcut that masks *important* details. It hides the fact that there is coercive interaction going on. Saying something like "Bob doesn't like drugs" is one thing - bob has his own opinion. Saying "society doesn't like drugs" is another - some people in that society may LIKE drugs, even if they are a minority. The serious problem comes in when "society" then DOES THINGS using "society's opinion" as a motivation, or worse, as a justification. The fact that "society likes blue and hates red" doesn't mean people who happen to disagree with the hivemind lose their right to enjoy red.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. In our system, where majority consent dictates the laws, "society's opinion" is very much important.

[ QUOTE ]
False. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I force you to accept a Picasso, do I suddenly have a right to dictate to you how you display it, what security arrangements you must make, etc? It's costing me a lot of money to do this for you!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to give you the benifet of the doubt and assume the failure to communicate is on my end.

If I'm paying for you, I have a say in what you do, it makes sense. That said, I want neither a welfare state nor a ban on drugs, because, as you said, two wrongs rarely make a right.

However, if we have a welfare state, then what I said stands, anyone putting into "the system" has a say in what comes out.

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If nearly "all" drugs were legalized, what kind of effect would that have on our economy? It seems like it could have a crippling effect on some entertainment industries, such as bars, restaurants, clubs, and any industry that relies on alcohol sales.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's go back in time....

If easy-to-use elevators and automated toll booths are lealized, what kind of effect would that have on our economy? It would have a crippling effect on elevator operators and toll-takers.

If the automobile is legalized, what kind of effect would that have on our economy? It would have a crippling effect on buggy whip makers, and blacksmiths, and barn builders.

Etc. You can think of your own examples. Radio displacing vaudville, live musicians (those exact arguments were used!); movies on TV destroying theaters (cf "Bridge on the River Kwai), on and on.

Why does any established business have any entitlement to legal protection for its postion from threats of competitors?

Hint: it doesnt!

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it's more than that. It's a sloppy shortcut that masks *important* details. It hides the fact that there is coercive interaction going on. Saying something like "Bob doesn't like drugs" is one thing - bob has his own opinion. Saying "society doesn't like drugs" is another - some people in that society may LIKE drugs, even if they are a minority. The serious problem comes in when "society" then DOES THINGS using "society's opinion" as a motivation, or worse, as a justification. The fact that "society likes blue and hates red" doesn't mean people who happen to disagree with the hivemind lose their right to enjoy red.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. In our system, where majority consent dictates the laws, "society's opinion" is very much important.

[ QUOTE ]
False. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I force you to accept a Picasso, do I suddenly have a right to dictate to you how you display it, what security arrangements you must make, etc? It's costing me a lot of money to do this for you!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to give you the benifet of the doubt and assume the failure to communicate is on my end.

If I'm paying for you, I have a say in what you do, it makes sense. That said, I want neither a welfare state nor a ban on drugs, because, as you said, two wrongs rarely make a right.

However, if we have a welfare state, then what I said stands, anyone putting into "the system" has a say in what comes out.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

So does the govt have you so bamboozeled that you fuss about what to do about drugs rather than focusing on the insanity of both the welfare state and the drug war?

You sound to me like your on the side of government.

It's not left vs. right, it's the government vs YOU!

[Rotterdaum]

Just replying to the OP.. I haven't read the responses. I just talked to a friend yesterday, and he suggested that drugs be made legal and people addicted to drugs be treated as sick individuals, rather than criminals, and provided care for. That way, both the health care sector can be expanded, and the government and businesses can profit a fuckload off producing and distributing drugs. Hard to say what kind of societal repercussions this could have

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Just replying to the OP.. I haven't read the responses. I just talked to a friend yesterday, and he suggested that drugs be made legal and people addicted to drugs be treated as sick individuals, rather than criminals, and provided care for. That way, both the health care sector can be expanded, and the government and businesses can profit a fuckload off producing and distributing drugs. Hard to say what kind of societal repercussions this could have

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, who's going to be "providing" this care for addicts?

And what the [censored], government involvment in producing and distributing drugs?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
So does the govt have you so bamboozeled that you fuss about what to do about drugs rather than focusing on the insanity of both the welfare state and the drug war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Que? Part of the issue is plausability, and it's unlikely I can stop paying my taxes and using public services tomorrow, so I'm probably not going to bring down the state. By the same token, I can't directly effect change in public policy, but it's easier to go that route.

That said you're comment confuses me:

[ QUOTE ]
rather than focusing on the insanity of both the welfare state and the drug war?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet I've said I don't favor either a welfare state or the drug war, so I'm not sure what your beef is.

Cody

[Rotterdaum]

The bottom line is that there are a lot of people out there who won't let even the most hardcore of drugs control their lives. People who become dependent on drugs are truly weak and sick, and society should instead evolve towards understanding that mentality and ridding itself of it, as opposed to ignoring it and stomping on it. This balance could work.

[wtfsvi]

ACists: Do you think selling drugs to children should be legal?

Would it be the parents' responsibility to keep the children off drugs? Children often don't listen to their parents, esepcially if they have seen the latest cocaine commercial on TV and it looked really cool + they know the older kids have tried it and they say it's awesome. Suddenly it's irresponsible parenting to ever let your kid outside the house with money in his pocket. Maybe ACland wouldn't be so free for the poor kids.

The best case scenario in ACland seems to be that lynch mobs are formed to deal with people/organizations who sell drugs to children. If that is the best case scenario, just keeping it illegal and having these "lynch mobs" organized in the form of laws, police and courts seems like the better option to me.

edit: meh. I guess you think the market will work it out in some way. Like people will donate a lot to an organization who aims to stop drug dealing to children.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
ACists: Do you think selling drugs to children should be legal?

Would it be the parents' responsibility to keep the children off drugs? Children often don't listen to their parents, esepcially if they have seen the latest cocaine commercial on TV and it looked really cool + they know the older kids have tried it and they say it's awesome. Suddenly it's irresponsible parenting to ever let your kid outside the house with money in his pocket. Maybe ACland wouldn't be so free for the poor kids.

The best case scenario in ACland seems to be that lynch mobs are formed to deal with people/organizations who sell drugs to children. If that is the best case scenario, just keeping it illegal and having these "lynch mobs" organized in the form of laws, police and courts seems like the better option to me.

edit: meh. I guess you think the market will work it out in some way. Like people will donate a lot to an organization who aims to stop drug dealing to children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you shop somewhere that served people who dealt drugs to kids? Would you apply to an insurance company that insured them? Would you deal with a defence or security firm who offered defence to these people? I wouldn't.