Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: budweeder who wrote (3850)	7/12/2000 10:59:53 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

"I certainly agree that street drugs have caused enormous social costs over the last 40 or so years." I don't agree with you. There is no coherent argument that the great majority of the social costs are anything but a direct result of prohibition. " I am trying to imagine what the streets would look like if there were no legal implications to either drug sales or use. " So, why does it have to be all or none? Why do you suppose that legalization equals free reign? "The drug lords would quickly move into competitive positions to supply these shops" Perhaps, but then they'd be in a legal business, and subject to reasonable regulation. There used to be alcohol 'lords' while the 18th amendment was in force. They disappeared upon repeal. When was the last time you heard of a shoot out over alcohol distribution rights? "Surely, without government interference, anyone of any age who had the price of the drug could purchase it." Why would regulations on currently illegal drugs be less stringent than those on alcohol? The reality is that prohibition is insanity. Regards, Barb

To: budweeder who wrote (3850)	7/12/2000 12:22:45 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Respond to of 13056

Bud - [...The drug lords would quickly move into competitive positions to supply these shops...] You only find white-collar criminals in the low margin, legal businesses. To undertake the risk in, and to support the violent lifestyle of street level crime, there must be huge rewards to fill the niches that require the ability and willingness to employ violence as opposed to intelligence or diligence. This usually means the black market, always the result of prohibition, taxes, regulation, or other government action, or government subsidy such as for labor unions and political corruption. The drug user or supplier would still face prosecution for the corruption of minors, full penalties/restitution for any harm to persons or property for which he was responsible and would hopefully face the legal ability of any potential or actual employer to appropriately (to be defined) discriminate (a perfectly good positive word)against him as an individual. Regards, Don

To: budweeder who wrote (3850)	7/12/2000 10:43:53 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Does this seem like a better society?? Yes. It seems like a society where individuals are once again responsible for the decisions they make, where adults are entitled to decide what they want to do in the privacy of their homes as long as they don't hurt anybody else. It seems like a society where nobody is trying to get my 13 year old hooked on drugs in order to support a huge criminal enterprise. Bayer isn't pushing aspirin to my kids and wouldn't push marijuana to them, either. It seems like a society where teen gangs no longer have easy access to hundreds of thousands of dollars by committing crimes and killing to protect their economic turf. The President of Rite-Aid doesn't shoot the President of Bartel's Drug over store sites, and wouldn't even if they were allowed to add marijuana sales to their inventory. Yes, this seems like a much better society.