Recently , a U4prez candidate who has spent time in all the available parties on U4prez, accused me of being a big government liberal who supports reckless fiscal irresponsibility and government control because I am not quite open to the broad legalization of controlled substances and contraband that he is an ardent advocate of. This is the same card that this candidate uses whenever he encounters a Republican who does not condone the legalization of all drugs. But he then went on to suggest the endless amount of cut and pasted data that he repetitiously posts proves that decriminalizing drugs and their use is the only solution.
A little history here…….
I do not take issue with ones opinion on the issue. I do not deny the legitimate debate regarding legalizing recreational drug use and I do not deny the compelling nature of arguments that exist in support of legalizing drugs. I do not agree with them but I don’t deny the rationale, especially those based on personal freedom. But I do take issue with this candidates exploitation of the issue and insincere use of the topic to prop himself up as a fiscal conservative.
Whenever anyone challenges this candidate’s use of other peoples words to promote the legalization of drugs, like Pavlov’s dog, he spits back a defense that goes on the offense and calls that person a supporter of big government policies.
Conversely, this particularly weak and unoriginal candidate uses his support for the legalization of drugs as a claim to some sort of proof that he has at least a hint of conservative credentials.
In a twisted and convoluted extrapolation of thinking, he tries to explain that, by legalizing drugs, the federal government will be saving money because there will be no need for the enforcement of drug laws . By eliminating the cost of drug law enforcement, he contends, there will be less government employees and less spending. From this, he concludes he is a true fiscal conservative and all others who do not think this way are big government spenders, disloyal to fiscal conservatism.
To try to bolster a conservative façade for himself, he accuses others who oppose the legalization of drugs as proponents of a “nanny state”. And then, in another stretch of the truth, he tries to claim some sense of conservative convictions by asserting that since he wants to legalize drugs he is a true conservative defender of freedom and a supporter of small government that wants to take big brother out of our lives.
The main thrust of his argument here is that the federal government has no right to regulate what one personally consumes and to do so is a violation of our civil liberties, inalienable rights and counters the basic principle of freedom. If this candidate had the ability to explain himself that way, it could be compelling. Could be. However; although individual civil liberties must be considered in our approach to national drug policy, to suggest that the basic premise of curtailing drug use leads to a police state is utterly ridiculous.
There are no inalienable rights that insure one persons right to consume a product if it violates any other person's human rights.
The unreasonable use of drugs for recreational purposes impairs rational and practical judgment to such an extent that there will always be a better chance than not that someone else’s rights will be infringed upon through physically damaging means or events.
That means that recreational usage of drugs needlessly puts others in harms way. Such risks are the main reason for making recreational drug use illegal in the first place.
Now, for those who think they are smart and want to link the above point to the government’s attempts to regulate and impose sin taxes on products containing cholesterol or sugar, which I oppose, there is a difference.
While the consumption of sugar or an excessive consumption of foods with large amounts of cholesterol may help to enhance the size of ones fat ass and turn their heart into a motionless clump of clotted blood, it does not create a functional impairment of rationality and physical responses that could put others in harms way.
So there is a very important distinction here.
While unhealthy foods may be unwise, they do not meet a standard of infringing on others rights or endangering the public. Even the most ardent libertarian wants government to protect them from harm, especially physical harm………..the type of harm that certain drugs have an extensive record of enabling.
As for this particular candidate’s exploitation of the economic ramifications of combating the trade and use of illegal drugs as a way to claim fiscal responsibility, the argument is a ludicrous stretch of the truth and a profile in political pandering and insincerity.
To address this fallacy of the economic benefits behind legalizing drugs, one must consider the fact that monies which would not be spent on enforcement will not be saved or made available. They will simply be transferred to the more expensive costs that would be required for treatment and rehabilitation of ever increasing recreational drug use and users.
But even if you wish to discount that irrefutable reality, the claim that combating drug abuse is too difficult and that enforcing drug laws cost too much money is a demonstration of a lack of conviction that offers an astonishingly alarming degree of weak leadership.
The enforcement of law is among the most basic responsibilities of government. I would contend that, as it pertains to public safety and order, it is among the few legitimate functions of government and one of the few proper costs to government. To maintain that we should not enforce laws because doing so is a daunting task that costs a great deal of money is a surrender to injustice that we can not afford. Would such an argument be used regarding shop lifting? Should we make shoplifting and burglary legal because it would save money?
The answer to these questions is no. We do not determine the morality or legality of our laws because of its enforcement costs. Yet the candidate I speak of, Erock, makes this claim and then he has the audacity to go a step further and maintain that his unwillingness to enforce the law is an example of his commitment to limited government. In regards to drugs this is not a limited government position. It is a case and argument for anarchy. It is also a desperate attempt to align himself with a part of the party that do subscribe to a belief in limited government………a part of the party that Erock is at odds with.
As for where I stand on the issue of the legalization of drugs, I have made clear here why I believe the government has the right to deny legalization but I must admit that our effort to combat the illegal drug trade has clearly not met the level of success that has been hoped for.
For that reason I see a clear need for reevaluating our approach to combating illegal drugs but I am not willing to simply stop combating its illegal trade and usage.
Education has helped to reduce drug use in America. Statistics over the past twenty years demonstrate that. This trend will not be improved by condoning recreational drug use.
Lifting the illegal classification of drugs will not solve any problem.
By making recreational drug use legal, not only will it send the wrong message, it will be opening up a can worms that will lead to a veritable Pandora’s box of other assorted problems.
Making illegal drugs legal will not take the issue off the table. The government will need to regulate this newly sanctioned industry. It will want to insure quality. It will want to tax it and such inevitable factors will ultimately defeat one of the pro-drug lobbies greatest cases for legalization………..putting an end to trafficking and to drug lords and their cartels.
Will the legalization of drugs make cretins like the head of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, Joaquin "El Chapo", an upstanding businessman who will allow his product to go through and pass F.D.A. approvals? Will El Chapo suddenly start issuing invoices and getting tax I.D. numbers and paying taxes? Watches can be sold legally and Rolex produces a particularly popular and expensive watch. Yet despite the ability to legally sell their watches a stroll down Broadway in New York will give you ample opportunity to purchase a bootleg Rolex watch for a significantly lower price. The mere fact that it is legal to sell watches in the world has not prevented illegal production and sale of illegal watches. What would lead one to assume to assume that legalizing drugs will prevent illegal drug dealers from peddling their concoctions at a price lower than the legal distributors?
Simply making drug use legal will not in any way, shape or form curtail the underground drug culture and trade. Cartels will extort legitimate sellers, undercut the prices of legal sellers who will be selling a product that has a higher price because of overhead, government regulation and taxes.
Unlike pro-drug advocates, I do not have a slew of statistical data to support some philosophical approach to the issue. There is no statistical data which demonstrates how many more lives could be saved if we made recreational drug use legal. I would also hazard to guess that just the opposite would be the result of legalizing drugs.
I have no data that demonstrates that there are 15% fewer automobile casualties as a result of legalizing drugs. Such data does not exist and won’t until we make drugs legal and have a significant enough period of time to make such statistical conclusions.
However, I am not comfortable enough to be the one who approves such a trial period. I am not the one who is willing to unleash a torrent of legal recreational drug use on my fellow Americans. I am not the one who is willing to reverse the decrease of drug use that prolonged anti-drug education has so far produced.
You might be ready to wave a white flag and suggest that we can turn defeat into profit by letting the government legalize drugs and place a tax on heroin or cocaine but I am not..
I am also not going to believe that Erock believes in conservative fiscal policies simply because he wants 18 year olds to be able to buy crack nor will I for a minute believe his attempts to
paint those who disagree with his pro-drug policy as big government liberals because they are not willing to stop enforcing the law.
One would have to be on crack to draw such delusional conclusions.
|
|
| |
|
|
"You may seek to call fighting the scourge of drugs as crazy but I consider it a noble effort." wow they called 1920s prohibition a "Noble" effort as well. Drinking and driving? And how many people would suddenly go to a baseball game and do crack or any other type of illegal drugs. One can sit at home as well and smoke pot or do crack with out bothering anyone. And what is funny is that drug cartels will keep right on supplying the drugs the people seek, keep right on making their billions, bribing officials, gangs will fight over turf to sell the stuff. You can change tactics all you want but at the end of the day it is still supporting a failed policy.
My comment would be too long to read sensibly here, so I will just publish it as a blog.
Like I said...
I think it is very commendable of Austin to defend his Vice Chairman and his vice chair’s drug legalization policy. Austin certainly has a right to defend his number two man. That is a very commendable quality, especially in politics. However, as I stated in my declaration of candidacy, we must speak the truth, ”even about those in our own party” and that is what I will continue to do. As for any attempted points that Austin puts forward, aside from simply taking a contrary position to anything that I articulated in this post for the sake of being contrary, he fails to prove to me or convince me two things. First is that drugs are less dangerous than alcohol. Is he suggesting that a glass of wine with dinner produces a result that is more or equal to the dangers of, say, sniffing a line of cocaine with dessert? I can’t lie and try to claim that there does not exist alcohol abuse. It does exist. In 2005, 414 children died in alcohol related automobile accidents. Those children’s human rights were denied to them by individuals who abused alcohol and acted irresponsibly. But those who were not binge drinkers, those who did not drive while under the influence, did not abuse alcohol and acted responsibly. My point being, that one can indulge in alcoholic spirits responsibly. One can drink alcohol without getting drunk. On the other side of the coin though, is Austin suggesting that one can take heroin responsibly. You may be able to have an alcoholic beverage and not get drunk, but can you smoke crack and not get high and severely impair your judgment? Is Austin actually suggesting that a stadium full of baseball fans drinking two cups of beer will be more out of hand than a stadium full of fans on heroin? The other point that is not proven to me is that legalizing drugs will simply do away with the criminal and violent aspects of the underground drug trade. Any and all legal ventures are undermined by those who seek to cut corners and avoid the radar of the law. Drug related crimes will still result from legal drug use, thereby continuing to eat up law enforcement budgets and resources. Furthermore, it is most certainly true that there are no inalienable rights that insure one persons right to consume a product if it violates any other person's human rights or endangers them. If Austin actually believes that not to be true, than he must carry that conclusion out to it’s fullest extent and approve of the unmonitored and unfettered sale and distribution of everything from arsenic to plutonium. If one wants the right to purchase plutonium because they want to ingest it or smoke it, than we must make that sale legal too. As for the attempt to make the if we can’t beat 'em join ’em line of thinking which asks that we stop combating illegal drugs by making them legal, all I can say is that although I wish past expenditures and efforts produced more results than they have, I am not going to deny the successes either. I will not believe that nothing was accomplished and that all the illegal contraband that was kept out of the stream helped. I do suggest that an evolution of strategic tactics can continue to improve success rates. You may seek to call fighting the scourge of drugs as crazy but I consider it a noble effort. I do concede that there is a need to adjust drug laws and that we must find effective, early rehabilative options to the addicted and inflicted among us. But I do not for a minute believe that we should legalize the very thing that we see the need to rehabilitate people from. To condone the use of the very substance that is the source of the problem that what we seek to get rid of is what is truly crazy. In the end, no amount of debate will provide me with the confidence to condone the consumption of dangerous drugs. Despite attempts to compare apples and oranges and despite calls to equate beer to barbiturates, I am not the individual who wants to be responsible for making the call that unleashes a torrent of dangers and societal damage.
Viz, didn't you just tell every conservative their reason for living is in vain? Didn't you just tell every conservative here, your fight against big government is futile, so stop arguing so much and go vatch some Seinfeld?
What I am saying Arjay, is that its pointless to debate a topic of government non-interference in the issue of legalizing hard drugs, when the governement itself has a monopoly on taxing legal drugs to the point where it costs the poor 500% in taxes just to smoke something they can't even smoke at leisure. Why are going for the big kahoona, when you can't even start to fight for smokers rights. Or take on the sin taxes as unconstitutional. If you can't end the illegal and unconstitional taxation of tobacco products by the federal government and the states, then you can't even start to debate the other substances.
I'm never sure vhich vay to take Viz, is he slamming Kempite discarding the conservative values of personal privacy and smaller government, or is he on Erock in a idealist vs. pragmatist tangent?
Kempite is correct. We already have an out of control government now willing to regulate fatty food, put taxes on soda, Tax cigarettes at 500% their cost. And expect some sort of limited government from the legalization of hard drugs, is absurd. Erocks fantasy lives in the 1920's. His debate is useless for todays government. If you can't even smoke in a bar without getting arrested and the bar owner getting fined. What point is there to debate the issue of legalizing the more lethal and damaging hard drugs. Its a waste of time.
bbl
Exactly Austin. And as my blog today shows the gangsters who ran the speak=easises went out after prohibtion ended.
Puting aside the attack on erock that persists throughout this blog. There are issues raised in this blog that I wish to address. First is the claim that the effect of drugs on judgement would be to the extent that it would increase people's infringing on someone elses right. That can be said about anything from beer consumption leading to a rape, gambling leading to addiction that turns a man into a robber in order to get more money to throw away to a man buying a house and geting excited enough that he may have a bonfire on his new backyard and interfere with his neibor's right to "breath clean air". When someone infringes against someone elses right to their life liberty or property, we have the law to put a stop to it. To make pre-emptive law is to limit the healthy aspects of the human experience. That takes me to issue number two. I don't agree that legalizing drugs will cause an ever increasing amout of drug use. In fact I would take it that while the very first year may see some increase from the currently illegal purchases, it would decline steadily from that point on for a variety of reasons and I will run through some of them. Most obvious is the number of people who would finally see close hand how stupid drug use is. With drug users being known under a legalized system, the destructive choices they make will be in full view of those who will see them and cast their judgements on if they should attempt drug use. Rather than trying it and finding out, it is in frount of their eyes and they will see a clean life is a better life. I trust the American people to figure out how to spend money if they are smart enough to make it, I also trust them to make judgements when they have the information. The second is because (and ya this is harsh) the number of druggies who will die off real fast. If they ain't replaced (and they wont be) their passing will decrease the use of drugs by a longshot. Third is that a government not involved with the drug use of its citizenry does not mean that others will not, parents, churches, schools, will still have influence and concern about their members and in a place where government does not do their job for them, they will step up and increase their commitment to keep their people and children safe and drug free. As for the drug cartels, they will go out of business. Organized Crime is made up of crimanals, they cannot be turned into businessmen. But businessmen will be there to take their place in a heartbeat. Costomers will always go to the legitimate business over on ran by those with blood on their hands. If they attempt to extort the legitimate businesses as this blog suggests, the businesses will call the police, you make it sound like drug legalization is the same thing as aboloshing police, that is not the case at all. Fear of short term reactions to plans intended to achive long term solutions is common but foolish when the postive path is easy to see. Furthermore, there is nothing creative or original about continuing the current policy that has not educated the vast majority of young people about the dangers of drugs, has not put violent crimanals out of business, and has not stoped the flow of drugs into the country. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting to get different results is not a solution, it is crazy.
so did u write this after you called me a non-entity?
The unreasonable use of drugs for recreational purposes impairs rational and practical judgment to such an extent that there will always be a better chance than not that someone else’s rights will be infringed upon through physically damaging means or
events.-------------------------------------------
---------------------------------In a court of law I believe that argument would be called 'speculative'. Thats where mm and I had a debate yesterday. The only valid point I have seen put up has been speculation of the actions of others when legalizing drugs. I look to the history of prohibition and what happened after it was repealed. Alcohol was looked at as being just as damaging as hard drugs are now back then. The anarchy and violence didn't happen then either. I look to history to make a decision, not speculative opinion.
I think so. I know lots and lots of people who smoke reefer occasionally, and in fact in preference over alcohol. I myself just cannot
That is at least a reasonable position F&G
There is no reason why the government should legalize destructive and addictive drugs. However, marijuana should be legal (for adults) as it is neither destructive or addictive.
My point, in spades...................... you wont even consider the consiquences, or another opinion. When the law passes and the consiquences are clear violent, and more than you can handle you expect us too. You win. Be careful what you wish for................. you may get it!!! RSobin can coach you on the Idea of Karma............. ying and Yang.......... that whole concept
Waste of time. FACT: War on drusg doesn't work. FACT: Drug use is a personal decision. Nothing defeats that.
Home :: Create Blog Entry :: Your Blog Entries :: View All Blogs
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Legalizing Drugs Is Not A Solution
kempite
Recently , a U4prez candidate who has spent time in all the available parties on U4prez, accused me of being a big government liberal who supports reckless fiscal irresponsibility and government control because I am not quite open to the broad legalization of controlled substances and contraband that he is an ardent advocate of. This is the same card that this candidate uses whenever he encounters a Republican who does not condone the legalization of all drugs. But he then went on to suggest the endless amount of cut and pasted data that he repetitiously posts proves that decriminalizing drugs and their use is the only solution.
A little history here…….
I do not take issue with ones opinion on the issue. I do not deny the legitimate debate regarding legalizing recreational drug use and I do not deny the compelling nature of arguments that exist in support of legalizing drugs. I do not agree with them but I don’t deny the rationale, especially those based on personal freedom. But I do take issue with this candidates exploitation of the issue and insincere use of the topic to prop himself up as a fiscal conservative.
Whenever anyone challenges this candidate’s use of other peoples words to promote the legalization of drugs, like Pavlov’s dog, he spits back a defense that goes on the offense and calls that person a supporter of big government policies.
Conversely, this particularly weak and unoriginal candidate uses his support for the legalization of drugs as a claim to some sort of proof that he has at least a hint of conservative credentials.
In a twisted and convoluted extrapolation of thinking, he tries to explain that, by legalizing drugs, the federal government will be saving money because there will be no need for the enforcement of drug laws . By eliminating the cost of drug law enforcement, he contends, there will be less government employees and less spending. From this, he concludes he is a true fiscal conservative and all others who do not think this way are big government spenders, disloyal to fiscal conservatism.
To try to bolster a conservative façade for himself, he accuses others who oppose the legalization of drugs as proponents of a “nanny state”. And then, in another stretch of the truth, he tries to claim some sense of conservative convictions by asserting that since he wants to legalize drugs he is a true conservative defender of freedom and a supporter of small government that wants to take big brother out of our lives.
The main thrust of his argument here is that the federal government has no right to regulate what one personally consumes and to do so is a violation of our civil liberties, inalienable rights and counters the basic principle of freedom. If this candidate had the ability to explain himself that way, it could be compelling. Could be. However; although individual civil liberties must be considered in our approach to national drug policy, to suggest that the basic premise of curtailing drug use leads to a police state is utterly ridiculous.
There are no inalienable rights that insure one persons right to consume a product if it violates any other person's human rights.
The unreasonable use of drugs for recreational purposes impairs rational and practical judgment to such an extent that there will always be a better chance than not that someone else’s rights will be infringed upon through physically damaging means or events.
That means that recreational usage of drugs needlessly puts others in harms way. Such risks are the main reason for making recreational drug use illegal in the first place.
Now, for those who think they are smart and want to link the above point to the government’s attempts to regulate and impose sin taxes on products containing cholesterol or sugar, which I oppose, there is a difference.
While the consumption of sugar or an excessive consumption of foods with large amounts of cholesterol may help to enhance the size of ones fat ass and turn their heart into a motionless clump of clotted blood, it does not create a functional impairment of rationality and physical responses that could put others in harms way.
So there is a very important distinction here.
While unhealthy foods may be unwise, they do not meet a standard of infringing on others rights or endangering the public. Even the most ardent libertarian wants government to protect them from harm, especially physical harm………..the type of harm that certain drugs have an extensive record of enabling.
As for this particular candidate’s exploitation of the economic ramifications of combating the trade and use of illegal drugs as a way to claim fiscal responsibility, the argument is a ludicrous stretch of the truth and a profile in political pandering and insincerity.
To address this fallacy of the economic benefits behind legalizing drugs, one must consider the fact that monies which would not be spent on enforcement will not be saved or made available. They will simply be transferred to the more expensive costs that would be required for treatment and rehabilitation of ever increasing recreational drug use and users.
But even if you wish to discount that irrefutable reality, the claim that combating drug abuse is too difficult and that enforcing drug laws cost too much money is a demonstration of a lack of conviction that offers an astonishingly alarming degree of weak leadership.
The enforcement of law is among the most basic responsibilities of government. I would contend that, as it pertains to public safety and order, it is among the few legitimate functions of government and one of the few proper costs to government. To maintain that we should not enforce laws because doing so is a daunting task that costs a great deal of money is a surrender to injustice that we can not afford. Would such an argument be used regarding shop lifting? Should we make shoplifting and burglary legal because it would save money?
The answer to these questions is no. We do not determine the morality or legality of our laws because of its enforcement costs. Yet the candidate I speak of, Erock, makes this claim and then he has the audacity to go a step further and maintain that his unwillingness to enforce the law is an example of his commitment to limited government. In regards to drugs this is not a limited government position. It is a case and argument for anarchy. It is also a desperate attempt to align himself with a part of the party that do subscribe to a belief in limited government………a part of the party that Erock is at odds with.
As for where I stand on the issue of the legalization of drugs, I have made clear here why I believe the government has the right to deny legalization but I must admit that our effort to combat the illegal drug trade has clearly not met the level of success that has been hoped for.
For that reason I see a clear need for reevaluating our approach to combating illegal drugs but I am not willing to simply stop combating its illegal trade and usage.
Education has helped to reduce drug use in America. Statistics over the past twenty years demonstrate that. This trend will not be improved by condoning recreational drug use.
Lifting the illegal classification of drugs will not solve any problem.
By making recreational drug use legal, not only will it send the wrong message, it will be opening up a can worms that will lead to a veritable Pandora’s box of other assorted problems.
Making illegal drugs legal will not take the issue off the table. The government will need to regulate this newly sanctioned industry. It will want to insure quality. It will want to tax it and such inevitable factors will ultimately defeat one of the pro-drug lobbies greatest cases for legalization………..putting an end to trafficking and to drug lords and their cartels.
Will the legalization of drugs make cretins like the head of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, Joaquin "El Chapo", an upstanding businessman who will allow his product to go through and pass F.D.A. approvals? Will El Chapo suddenly start issuing invoices and getting tax I.D. numbers and paying taxes? Watches can be sold legally and Rolex produces a particularly popular and expensive watch. Yet despite the ability to legally sell their watches a stroll down Broadway in New York will give you ample opportunity to purchase a bootleg Rolex watch for a significantly lower price. The mere fact that it is legal to sell watches in the world has not prevented illegal production and sale of illegal watches. What would lead one to assume to assume that legalizing drugs will prevent illegal drug dealers from peddling their concoctions at a price lower than the legal distributors?
Simply making drug use legal will not in any way, shape or form curtail the underground drug culture and trade. Cartels will extort legitimate sellers, undercut the prices of legal sellers who will be selling a product that has a higher price because of overhead, government regulation and taxes.
Unlike pro-drug advocates, I do not have a slew of statistical data to support some philosophical approach to the issue. There is no statistical data which demonstrates how many more lives could be saved if we made recreational drug use legal. I would also hazard to guess that just the opposite would be the result of legalizing drugs.
I have no data that demonstrates that there are 15% fewer automobile casualties as a result of legalizing drugs. Such data does not exist and won’t until we make drugs legal and have a significant enough period of time to make such statistical conclusions.
However, I am not comfortable enough to be the one who approves such a trial period. I am not the one who is willing to unleash a torrent of legal recreational drug use on my fellow Americans. I am not the one who is willing to reverse the decrease of drug use that prolonged anti-drug education has so far produced.
You might be ready to wave a white flag and suggest that we can turn defeat into profit by letting the government legalize drugs and place a tax on heroin or cocaine but I am not..
I am also not going to believe that Erock believes in conservative fiscal policies simply because he wants 18 year olds to be able to buy crack nor will I for a minute believe his attempts to
paint those who disagree with his pro-drug policy as big government liberals because they are not willing to stop enforcing the law.
One would have to be on crack to draw such delusional conclusions.
posted by kempite at 1:16 PM
Share
Post Comment:
Comments
I didn't waste tiem reading that
See what I mean?
I didn't waste tiem reading that. There is noa rguement against legalizing drugs. The war on drugs is an utter failure (and if we spend anywhere near that much money on any other government agency, conservatives are up in arms), and drug use is a personal decision that should no be up to the government. That's it plain and simple. There is no arguement against that.
"reasons for NOT legalizing all drugs"
Kempite has given many reasons all valid ........... so have I they just don't agree with your opinions so you don't consider them
both him and music man cant even give a reason why they ended prohibition. There using the same rhetoric used to support that clusterfuck of prohibition
And I bet you can't give a reason why you think he's wrong.
And I bet you can't give a reason why you think he's wrong.
Your wrong Arjay................. flat out.
legalizing drugs IS the answer it would rein in organized crime and would make LOTS of room in our prisons.The drug war doesn't work for the same reason prohibition didn't.
good god its in one ear and out the other with you kemp
And that, my friends, is the difference betveen Libertarians and Republicans. Libertarians have a saying, FREEDOM'S THE ANSVER, VHAT'S THE QUESTION? For Republicans, you're free to do vhat you vant, so long as you have Kempite's seal of approval. And you vonder vhy people are leaving the GOP in droves.
Well than Berni, you are free to apply that rule to the raising of your children. They probably won't live that long under such permissiveness but you're free to believe it. However, I don't quite think that such an anarchistic approach to the governance of a complex civil society can be applied in the simplistic and broad stroke that you suggest. I might be inclined to accept your promotion of illegal drugs tolerable if you could assure me that there would be no risks of you going on some kind of rampage that put those around you at risk after entering the altered state that one would be in after shooting up. I have no problem with a prescribed medicinal use of a controlled substance that has some type of medical justification but I do not condone legalization of dangerous drugs for recreational purpose…“period“.
I believe people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't harming anyone else in the process including gay marriage. For anyone to assume they have the right to control others in any way if they aren't hurting anyone else in the process falls under the realm of control and should not be tolerated..period!!!!
Love the blog Kemp. I agree
|
|
<< Home