Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

48. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 03:20 jdreyer
jacobvandy wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 02:38:

Lol, well since you avoid everything else in my post under the pretense of disagreeing with the basic premise of personal liberty laid out in the first sentence, could you at least explain why you think that's so terrible? Or are you just being typically disingenuous like so many others who are so quick to shrug off any notion of legalizing drugs? I don't think the government needs to be in the business of protecting people from themselves. Certainly not if the only goal is to prevent your "large amount of people" (I'd wager less than 1% of the population, are those who are inclined to want to do hard drugs and the only thing stopping them is a law) from harming themselves because they're stupid. It wouldn't be ignorance, either, because you would still have education of the dangers out there, as well as resources for those who need help when they've gotten in over their heads. Just like you do now for tobacco and alcohol, and those aren't even a fraction as harmful. At some point you need to allow common sense to do its work, or else you end up with Idiocracy.

Again, do you really think all of the negative consequences of these drugs being illegal is worth protecting that small subsect of the population from doing something dumb?

The problem with ascribing an ideology to a policy is that problems tend to be too complex to be dealt with via ideology. A libertarian ideology would support marketing heroin laced lollipops to 5 year olds b/c Personal Responsibility! People should be allowed to buy plutonium and weaponized anthrax b/c Personal Responsibility, and if they actually detonate a nuke, should we then apply the law to them. It's ridiculous. I'm picking on libertarianism, but this applies equally to liberal or conservative or religious ideologies.

I think we should apply what works, and avoid what doesn't, regardless of ideology:
- Criminalizing drug use has not worked. Decriminalization has worked in places like Portugal.
- Gun control has worked (see Japan, UK, Australia) in greatly reducing gun deaths, although it would be almost impossible to reduce gun ownership in the USA for a variety of reasons (political, cultural, etc.).
- Vaccinations work, and have not been proven to have side effects worse than the diseases they protect against.
- Criminalizing abortions has not worked. They happen anyway, although in much less sanitary conditions that result in much more death. Keep them legal, but rare with widespread education and contraception availability. Countries with both of these in place have very low rates of both unintended pregnancies and abortions.

And on, and on.
Avatar 22024
Live long, and prosper.
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo