1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Is illicit drug use a victimless crime and should drug use be legalized?

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by Whiskey_Clear, Sep 6, 2018.

  1. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    No. First if all, making a comparison based on something from 1,000 years ago is just silly. Second, your statement implies Christians just ran around killing people - it doesn’t have any context to it, like the fact it was pushback against a long period of Muslim invasions in the first place. I could go on and on.
     
  2. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    973
    No its not silly, that simply shows they have a long history of murder and hate. That continues to this day. You disagree based on your personal beliefs.
     
  3. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,284
    I think the crux of the argument is the "cost to society" question.

    Marxist utopians ask only what serves the state.

    Anti-Marxist Libertarian utopians ask only what serves the individual.

    The real world does not support utopian dreams. The US Constitution and its classic approach to government of the state was to maximize individual liberty in the real world while protecting individual rights.

    The question here is whether the social costs resulting from the individual liberty for drug users affects the individual rights of others.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  4. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,143
    So what is the cost to society of the billions of dollars that have been spent on anti-drug policing policies? What is the cost to society for the 20-25% of prisoners who are in prison for drug offenses? I haven't looked at studies on the matter, and I don't have the expertise to identify and study all of the factors myself. However, I think that we spend an incredible amount of money on drug policing, prosecution, and incarceration. I don't think that relaxing drug laws would raise the overall monetary costs that society pays.

    As to affecting individual rights of others: If a man drinks one shot of Johnny Walker every night in his living room, does that affect the individual rights of anyone else? If that man smokes one joint every night instead of drinking Johnny Walker, does that affect the individual rights of anyone else? I say no to both. If that man either smokes several joints or drinks several shots and then drives his car down the street it definitely does affect the rights of others. The alcohol or marijuana doesn't matter, it is the action of driving while impaired.

    As to costs for a person using drugs; injury, loss of work, loss of money, etc. My libertarian views extend to monetary matters as well as social matters. With freedom comes responsibility. If a person gets himself into money trouble doing stupid things, that is a result of his freedom to do what he wants. He shouldn't have any right to my money to correct his mistakes. There are limits, such as society shouldn't allow children to starve, or for orphans to just whither and die.

    It seems to me that liberals want to allow great social freedom while limiting financial freedom, while conservatives want to allow great financial freedom while limiting social freedom. Both sides use vague and hard to describe arguments about why social or financial freedoms should be limited. In general, I believe that people should have freedom to do what they want as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. People also should have the responsibility to suffer whatever consequences they suffer from bad decisions. There will have to be limits and safety nets both for social and financial situations. However, the limits should be much much less than they are now and the safety nets should be much lower than they are now.
     
  5. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    What social freedom limits are you accusing conservatives of?
     
  6. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,284
    I didn't take sides or make an argument. I tried to frame the argument.

    I agree that the social costs of criminalization are part of the equation.

    I think that the social costs of drug use even if legal are also part of the equation. I don't pretend to know the numbers.

    Are you of the opinion that the so-called opioid crisis should not be discussed as such?
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  7. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,143
    No, I am not of that opinion. However, instead of being illegal and having people worried about jail, people should have information about family, financial, and social consequences of use. People should have information about prescription narcotics and be well aware of the dangers before using them for medical reasons. In my opinion, people in the USA have too many limitations on what they can do and they have too many safety nets to pay attention to consequences.
     
  8. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,143
    • Drugs should be an obvious one: It seems to me that it is a moral issue for conservatives, yet they push for it to be a legal issue.
    • LGBT: I agree with the baker in Colorado not being forced to make a custom cake that he disagrees with. However, I think a lot of conservatives have been supporting him, not from support for his artistic freedom, but from a dislike of the LGBT community. It was mainly conservatives who were against LGBT marriages. (My opinion on that is that marriage is a civil or religious contract/agreement and that the government shouldn't be involved at all.)
    There are others, I am just typing in what comes to mind first. My general impressions are: Liberals believe that people with money are evil and that the government should be forced by the government to give large portions of their money for the greater good. Conservatives believe that people who do things they don't morally agree with should be forced by the government to act in a way the conservatives agree with. Even though: Some of the liberal leaders are extremely wealthy and don't act a philanthropic as some wealthy conservatives. Some conservative leaders have morally repugnant histories or habits and conservatives tend to overlook those as long as the conservative leader supports their issues.
     
    BuzzStone likes this.
  9. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    I don’t care about drug use except for all the damage it does to everyone else. I don’t know that I’d frame it as a social freedom to be able to obliterate yourself into nothingness. A large percentage of people in prison are from crime related to drugs (to get money etc). As far as LGBT issues, I don’t care about that either - but you can’t force other people to participate with you. Not seeing any social freedom limits yet.
     
  10. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,143
    I didn't expect that you would.
     
  11. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    If you disagree on any issue, I’d love to hear how. LGBT, abortion, etc - I’m all ears.
     
  12. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,284
    So, would you say then that it is comparable to America's obesity crisis or is there a categorical difference?
     
  13. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,192
    What info should be provided to the 3 year old child of a junkie?
     
    AE 87 likes this.
  14. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,143
    What info should be provided to the 3 year old child of an alcoholic?
    What info should be provided to the 3 year old child of an addicted gambler?

    The gambler makes life miserable and finances a real concern. The alcoholic is exactly like the junkie. They are incoherent and dangerous while under the influence. They put their kids at risk in the house, in the car, and financially. If your argument actually is that drugs should be illegal because they can cause a parent to be abusive, neglectful, and dangerous then alcohol should be illegal for the exact same reasons.
     
  15. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    I like to have a little heroin at dinner after a long days work.
     
    Milwaukee likes this.
  16. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,143
    Is it less dangerous for a 3 year old to be in the care of a father with a blood alcohol level of .2 than it is to be in the care of a father high on heroin? In both cases the three year old will be in danger and will be neglected.

    I was responding to whiskey's question. Your snippy remark didn't address that question or that issue. In my opinion such "arguments" are the problem with biggest problem with politics at the moment. People believe that 140 character chippy statements and a "BOOYA" win a debate. The truth is that most of those comments are somewhat related to the overall discussion but absolutely miss the details and points of the discussion. It turns discussions of real and important topics into a schoolyard argument among first graders.
     
  17. Squints

    Squints Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,082
    I mean that did happen. You could argue that's what the 4th crusade turned into as well considering Constantinople was sacked and most of those crusaders never even made it to the holy land. I don't know why you get so defensive over this stuff. Christians did indeed do some ****ed up **** back in the day. And they weren't alone in doing it. But those guys have been dead for almost 1000 years. Just own it man.

    Just fyi this is a pretty big oversimplification.
     
  18. Squints

    Squints Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,082
    I realize it's more nuanced than this but playing devil's advocate here what info should be given to the 3 year old child of an alcoholic? How about a child with fetal alcohol syndrome? What info would you provide to them?
     
  19. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    What is the point of stating that Christians should be banned because they run around killing people, and your backup data to justify doing that is over 1,000 years old. Does that really make any sense to you?
     
  20. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    973
    If they were banned during that time like you are suggesting then you wouldn't even know what being a christian was.
     

Share This Page