JesseCuster
Registered Member
I know there are many people who think they are libertarians (they say they hate the government in their lives) but they're really only economic libertarians. I, on the other hand, am a social libertarian (on the other hand, I believe the government should play a referee-type role for certain economic matters) - my rights to swing my arms ends at your nose, otherwise I can swing them until they fall off.
With that in mind, I'd like to propose a resolution for which I will be pro (anyone else can be pro, of course) and I'd like to read some arguments for why one would be con:
Resolved: The United States federal government should completely decriminalize all drug-related crimes. I.e. manufacturing, trafficking, distribution, selling, purchasing and using any drug should be legal.
Reasoning: This latest bit of prohibition has worked about as disastrously as the previous one in the 20's:
What I'm not defending:
Rule of thumb to apply: If someone on the pro side hasn't advocated it, ask them if they would advocate it before accusing and criticizing them for doing so. Pro side people will do the same, I hope.
With that in mind, I'd like to propose a resolution for which I will be pro (anyone else can be pro, of course) and I'd like to read some arguments for why one would be con:
Resolved: The United States federal government should completely decriminalize all drug-related crimes. I.e. manufacturing, trafficking, distribution, selling, purchasing and using any drug should be legal.
Reasoning: This latest bit of prohibition has worked about as disastrously as the previous one in the 20's:
- It makes certain criminals rich.
- It creates tons of violence, over territory, that wouldn't exist otherwise.
- It prevents many people from getting help because of the possible, legal repercussions that might arise when they admit to having a problem.
- Availability to minors of these substances is high - higher than the legal stuff (ask a 10-year old to buy some pot and they may succeed, ask them to get you a six-pack of beer and you'll likely be out of luck).
- Incarcerating non-violent offenders for possessing substances that only hurt themselves, is expensive. On top of the expense of housing and guarding them, there's the double-whammy of the wasted economic activity they might have generated and the inevitable taxes that would have been collected.
- Any government that has laws on the books that make nearly a tenth of their population criminals, sows disrespect for the law in general.
What I'm not defending:
- Allow people to sell drugs to anyone. As with alcohol, selling it to kids should remain a no-no.
- People should be free to shoot-up at their day job/in schools/while driving. Again, as with alcohol but with even more restrictions (sort of like the open container laws but actually enforced - brown paper bags shouldn't get you out of hot water). And laws that punish people for putting others in danger by being under the influence while operating machinery should stay on the books.
- People should be free to shoot-up while taking care of their children. These should be prosecuted in the same way we do for people who get loaded on whiskey and do the same. Perhaps a hit of weed isn't as serious as a hit of crack but that's a detail that will be worked out by people who know the subject better than I.
- People can just hurt/kill someone and escape prosecution because they can say the LSD made them do it. As with alcohol, people can and do get prosecuted for crimes even if they were under the influence and they should continue to be.
Rule of thumb to apply: If someone on the pro side hasn't advocated it, ask them if they would advocate it before accusing and criticizing them for doing so. Pro side people will do the same, I hope.