When I was a child I was taught to love my neighber, in fact of faith, hope and love the greatest is love. I was also taught that I should question everything. I often think I should curse my parents for instilling that second value, ignorance was in many ways bliss.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Wow, this is great thus far
A report for the Cato institute that I have been anticipating with great excitement - and thus far I have not been dissapointed. After I have read it I will expound further but here is a link to Cato - you can buy it or download it in PDF.
I glanced through the study, but was most interested in their recommendations for solving the problems. I was disappointed that the idea to use resources to educate people on the dangers of illegal drugs was sorely missing from the picture. What's wrong with trying to nip problems in the bud?
I have yet to get that far. But I would imagine that being a libertarian organization that they aren't real interested in allocating resources for much of anything. Personaly I am keen on legalisng iliccit drugs and re-allocating resources currently being pumped into the war on drugs into educating kids and even adults about the dangers of drugs. And utilyzing the taxes on such drugs for substance abuse programs and health care.
Sorry, but history shows that making something legal that can be abused is not a good idea. Keep it illegal AND educate people on its dangers. Screw the taxes you can generate, I would think that the costs would far outweigh the benefits.
I have to agree with Duwayne on this. I'm not for legalizing ALL illicit drugs, but I think that it's worth discussion. I do feel that legalizing lesser drugs like marijuana would help ease the burden on law enforcement. And Duwayne's right about being able to use the money formerly spent on the "war on drugs" could be used on education about the dangers of misuse of the drugs. I have a friend who smokes pot recreationally. I hardly think this person is a hardened criminal, nor do I think that the police should be in any way concerned. Yet, if it got out that she was smoking pot, she could be arrested. It's ludicrous.
For an example of how making a drug illegal DOESN'T work, simply take a look at the Prohibition Era. All that making liquor illegal accomplished was to push the sale and consumption underground, and to cause it to become a major moneymaker for organized crime. Does this sound familiar? Sure--it's what is driving the drug market today!
Actually history shows nothing of the sort. Before they were criminalised in the late fifties, opiates were used by quite a few people who were otherwise productive members of societt. It was taboo but people who did it, including heroin, and were a little sly about it managed to work and produce like anyone else. "Junkies" didn't become the problem they became until it was illigal - then it suddenly had a drastic impact on some segments of society and only then did users turn to crime to feed their habits.
As Kevin mentions, the alchohol prohibition did nothing but fuel organised crime to the point that it became a powerful force in many places - often overwhelming law enforcement to the point it was paralysed - and people still got drunk.
And if you want to criminalise anything that can be abused prepare to criminalise any food, alchohol, medicines, driving - need I go on? Anything can be abused - I have been a music junkie. I have also managed to abuse a variety of substances as well but I made the choice to do that.
For someone who claims to be a conservative you seem awfully keen on government intrusion into our personal lives, expecting it to protect us from ourselves. I am for educating people and letting them make there own decision. This is something I truly do not understand about a lot of "conservatives," the notion that government shouldn't regulate business, shouldn't intrude on our ability to make a living, whether to help or hinder, but you want government to regulate what we do in the privacy of our own homes - it really makes no sense.
I am not saying the government needs to protect us from ourselves, but rather protect the rest of us who would be encountering stoned people on the road. And I do think the government should step in when businesses would do things that cause harm to people as well.
We're a free society but that doesn't mean we should be able to do whatever we damned well feel like, if it is going to infringe on others safety.
I will agree with you both on the point that the war on drugs should not spend a lot of time and money going after the recreational users and focus a lot on education and prevention of mass distribution.
Driving drunk is a crime. Driving while high is a crime. It wouldn't cease to be a crime if drugs were legalized. So the "driving high" thing would seem to be something of a red herring.
I am a single dad, single mom, all rolled into one. I am studying psychology and communication, with a smattering of international studies thrown in the mix, at WMU. I am the mentally ill parent of two beautiful boys, both of whom have their own issues with mental illness. And I frequently use strong language. If you are not comfortably with that, this is probably not the place for you.
11 comments:
I glanced through the study, but was most interested in their recommendations for solving the problems. I was disappointed that the idea to use resources to educate people on the dangers of illegal drugs was sorely missing from the picture. What's wrong with trying to nip problems in the bud?
I have yet to get that far. But I would imagine that being a libertarian organization that they aren't real interested in allocating resources for much of anything. Personaly I am keen on legalisng iliccit drugs and re-allocating resources currently being pumped into the war on drugs into educating kids and even adults about the dangers of drugs. And utilyzing the taxes on such drugs for substance abuse programs and health care.
Sorry, but history shows that making something legal that can be abused is not a good idea. Keep it illegal AND educate people on its dangers. Screw the taxes you can generate, I would think that the costs would far outweigh the benefits.
I have to agree with Duwayne on this. I'm not for legalizing ALL illicit drugs, but I think that it's worth discussion. I do feel that legalizing lesser drugs like marijuana would help ease the burden on law enforcement. And Duwayne's right about being able to use the money formerly spent on the "war on drugs" could be used on education about the dangers of misuse of the drugs. I have a friend who smokes pot recreationally. I hardly think this person is a hardened criminal, nor do I think that the police should be in any way concerned. Yet, if it got out that she was smoking pot, she could be arrested. It's ludicrous.
For an example of how making a drug illegal DOESN'T work, simply take a look at the Prohibition Era. All that making liquor illegal accomplished was to push the sale and consumption underground, and to cause it to become a major moneymaker for organized crime. Does this sound familiar? Sure--it's what is driving the drug market today!
Actually history shows nothing of the sort. Before they were criminalised in the late fifties, opiates were used by quite a few people who were otherwise productive members of societt. It was taboo but people who did it, including heroin, and were a little sly about it managed to work and produce like anyone else. "Junkies" didn't become the problem they became until it was illigal - then it suddenly had a drastic impact on some segments of society and only then did users turn to crime to feed their habits.
As Kevin mentions, the alchohol prohibition did nothing but fuel organised crime to the point that it became a powerful force in many places - often overwhelming law enforcement to the point it was paralysed - and people still got drunk.
And if you want to criminalise anything that can be abused prepare to criminalise any food, alchohol, medicines, driving - need I go on? Anything can be abused - I have been a music junkie. I have also managed to abuse a variety of substances as well but I made the choice to do that.
For someone who claims to be a conservative you seem awfully keen on government intrusion into our personal lives, expecting it to protect us from ourselves. I am for educating people and letting them make there own decision. This is something I truly do not understand about a lot of "conservatives," the notion that government shouldn't regulate business, shouldn't intrude on our ability to make a living, whether to help or hinder, but you want government to regulate what we do in the privacy of our own homes - it really makes no sense.
I am not saying the government needs to protect us from ourselves, but rather protect the rest of us who would be encountering stoned people on the road. And I do think the government should step in when businesses would do things that cause harm to people as well.
We're a free society but that doesn't mean we should be able to do whatever we damned well feel like, if it is going to infringe on others safety.
I will agree with you both on the point that the war on drugs should not spend a lot of time and money going after the recreational users and focus a lot on education and prevention of mass distribution.
I'd like to add that I don't believe that rounding up addicts without concern for helping them overcome their addiction is not helpful either.
Driving drunk is a crime. Driving while high is a crime. It wouldn't cease to be a crime if drugs were legalized. So the "driving high" thing would seem to be something of a red herring.
This is great and very thankful for sharing it to all of us.
Great, You write good content Thanks for the thoughts and ideas.
Thanks to share this article. This article is very nice.
Post a Comment