Americans Must Free Themselves From a Two Party Death Grip

[KenH]

Originally posted by Curly Fries:
BTW, what do you think about Libertarian position regarding drugs.

I agree with it. Here is some info from the LP platform:

End prohibition.

Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk.

Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition, Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood.


Get Tough on Real Crime.

The Libertarian Party is the party of personal responsibility. We believe that anyone who harms another person should be held responsible for that action. By contrast, the Democrats and Republicans have created a system where criminals can get away with almost anything.

For instance: sentences seldom mean what they say. Fewer than one out of every four violent felons serves more than four years. Libertarians would dramatically reduce the number of these early releases by eliminating their root cause - prison over-crowding.

Since nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses, it's clear that drug prohibition is the primary source of this over-crowding. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts. Early release of violent criminals puts you and your family at risk. It must stop.

- www.lp.org/issues/program/vcd.html

 

[Curly Fries]

Regarding drugs. Currently there are a lot of kids that have to grow up from the very young age in families ruined by drugs. Making drugs legal, would probably ruin more families. What do Libertarians propose to do about that?

What about babies who are born addicted to heroin because their mothers used it when they were pregnant?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Curly Fries:
Regarding drugs. Currently there are a lot of kids that have to grow up from the very young age in families ruined by drugs. Making drugs legal, would probably ruin more families.

You mean like alcohol, the number one drug problem in America. So are you consistent and propose making alcoholic drinks illegal as they once were in the USA?

 

[Curly Fries]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Curly Fries:
Regarding drugs. Currently there are a lot of kids that have to grow up from the very young age in families ruined by drugs. Making drugs legal, would probably ruin more families.

You mean like alcohol, the number one drug problem in America. So are you consistent and propose making alcoholic drinks illegal as they once were in the USA? </font>[/QUOTE]I asked a question, can you please answer it? Or do you simply consider problems with drugs equivalent to problems with alcohol.

I would be OK for making drugs legal, however I still have to hear a satisfactory answer to the questions that I asked.

And BTW alcohol is not the same as drugs. I can have a beer with my friends and my wife will be OK with it. She would certainly be very upset if I went and had a few shots of heroin with friends.

 

[Kiffin]

Why do the third parties always have to aim at the presidential elections? That is a lost cause. Why not start running for senate or congress first?
I would vote for a presidential candidate from a "third party" only if they first have at least 5 senate or congress seats.

Otherwise it is a waste of my vote.

I do not believe any vote is a waste if you vote your convictions but you are correct that third parties such as the Libertarian and Constitution need to focus more on other races first. Tip O'Neill said all politics are local. I believe third parties need to focus on school board, police juror, mayor's races, state races first. That is how to challenge the Big Two parties. The Libertarian and Constitution parties who I believe are the two parties that really take the US Constitution seriously need grass roots focus. I believe one of these parties could become a serious threat in the future to the Big Two parties. Time will tell and both need to moderate a few positions.

Regarding drugs. Currently there are a lot of kids that have to grow up from the very small age in families ruined by drugs. Making drugs legal, would probably ruin more families. What do Libertarians propose to do about that?

What about babies who are born addicted to heroin because their mothers used it when they were pregnant?

The Libertarian party needs to moderate it's stance on drugs. I do not agree with legalization but I am for non violent offenders who are only harming themselves getting help and not jail. They need help to get off these drugs not to be thrown into prison with murderers. Drug dealers need to be punished with Prison. I am uncomfortable with legalization since it does not seem reasonable. If a mother harms her child because of her drug use she needs not only help but needs to be punished by the law because of her irresponsible behavior.

In my small town drugs are a cancer and are everywhere. The Federal Drug War is a failure and something needs to be done to stop the demand. I do agree with the Libertarian position that States, local communities, churches can do a better job in handling the drug problem than the Feds. We must win hearts and minds and as a Christian I believe the Gospel is the solution. There needs to be more serious focus by all the parties on dealing with the Drug problem and I do not see valid solutions coming from any political party.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Curly Fries:
And BTW alcohol is not the same as drugs. I can have a beer with my friends and my wife will be OK with it. She would certainly be very upset if I went and had a few shots of heroin with friends.

And why is that? Because alcohol is an accepted drug. Surely you know that of any drug in the America, that alcohol causes way more damage to people's personal and family lives than any other drug, except nicotine.

Legalizing drugs will cut way down on the violent crimes associated with them as the prices will come way down(of course, the Columbian drug lords won't appreciate that).

Also, a hallmark of libertarianism is personal responsibility. Perhaps we can use some of the billions of dollars being used unwisely in the war on illegal drugs to teach, through private means, prospective mothers about personal responsibility. Here are some facts for you to chew on -

The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that the official 1988 toll of drug-caused
deaths in 27 U.S. cities, the best available measure of the nation's "drug problems" was, for cocaine products, 3,308; for heroin and morphine, 2,480; course, for marijuana, zero.
"Emergency-room mentions" for cocaine in the same cities totaled only 62,141. For comparison, smoking killed 390,000 last year and alcohol killed at least 100,000. Alcohol is responsible for more fetal damage than crack and remains the major menace on our highways. States that approximately 57 million people in this country are addicted to cigarettes, 18 million are addicted to alcohol and 10 million are abusing psychotherapeutic drugs. By comparison, crack, heroin and hallucinogens each accounts for one million addicts. Further, the report states that every day in this country 1,000 people die of smoking-related illnesses, 550 die of alcohol-related accidents and diseases, while 20 die of drug overdoses and drug related homicides.

- www.cyberessays.com/Politics/60.htm

 

[Curly Fries]

I assume that you assume that drug use would not increase after they are made legal.

(Yes alcohol abuse is bad, but it is very easy to drink it in moderation. I drink it just for the taste, not for any intoxicating effect it might have.)

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Curly Fries:
(Yes alcohol abuse is bad, but it is very easy to drink it in moderation. I drink it just for the taste, not for any intoxicating effect it might have.)

Evidently, 18 million of your fellow citizens don't and they kill tens of thousands on the highways each and every year.

What it amounts to is you want your drug of choice to be legal but not another person's drug of choice to legal, even though your drug of choice does much, much more damage to our society than any other drug(including all of the illegal drugs combined) except for nicotine.

Some more info for you to chew on:

When a woman drinks alcohol during pregnancy, she risks giving birth to a child who will pay the price - in mental and physical deficiencies - for the rest of his life. Yet many pregnant women do drink alcohol, and it is estimated that one in every 750 infants is born with full-blown fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) each year in the United States. Another 50,000 children are born with fetal acohol effects (FAE) each year.

- web page

 

[Eric B]

To my fellow Republicans who think the GOP is the still party of Roanald Reagan...WAKE UP! The Reagan revolution ended in 1989 with George Bush Sr. and G.W. Bush has led it farther into the abyss. The party of Reagan is now the party of Pataki, Specter, Schwarzenegger, on the left and neo cons like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft on the right. Hardly the poliitical company I want.

If libertarians are not particularly Right Wing, why do you uphold Reagan so much? Wasn't he particularly Right Wing Conservative?

 

[Kiffin]

If libertarians are not particularly Right Wing, why do you uphold Reagan so much? Wasn't he particularly Right Wing Conservative

Libertarians have a great diversity among them though they are united that the US Constitution should be strictly interpreted, strongly believe in states rights, individual rights, small federal government with limited powers, low taxes and that all Americans under the US Constitution have a right to liberty. That is the bare bones of Libertarianism.


I uphold Reagan because I believe he was a great man and President who had many Libertarian principles. Not all Libertarians will agree with me on that. It would be correct I believe to say that Libertarians and Conservatives have more in common on basic issues because Liberals espouse Big government socialism . Libertarians and Traditional Conservatives reject the Liberal idea of Big Government social programs, affirmative action, gun prohibition. So there are similarities though Libertarians and Conservatives are at odds on Free trade, Patriot Act, military draft and other issues.

Neil Boortz who will be speaking at next year's 2004 Libertarian National Convention wrote showing the similarities between Conservatives and Libertarians and the bankrupt ideas of Liberalism. He wrote,

Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.

That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives (and Libertarians, myself among them I might add) think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.

 

[Eric B]

Well, a focus on individualism can be selfish and sinful-- all about "me", and later for everyone else (not realizing that as you have to live with others, they do matter.
The liberals are to be faulted for pushing these ideals while removing the theological basis of denying self and thinking about others. Yet the Conservatives, including Christians, often go to the opposite extreme of pushing looking out for "self", even though the Bible speaks much against this type of philosophy.
Also, I don't see where "feeling" is worse than "thinking". Both stem from fallen man's perspective, but just different aspects (deceitful heart or sinful mind)

 

[Curly Fries]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Curly Fries:
(Yes alcohol abuse is bad, but it is very easy to drink it in moderation. I drink it just for the taste, not for any intoxicating effect it might have.)

Evidently, 18 million of your fellow citizens don't and they kill tens of thousands on the highways each and every year.
</font>[/QUOTE]Still I hold to my statement that alcohol (and some tabaco) can be consumed/smoked just for the taste and not for their intoxicating effect. That makes them different from heroin for example.

What about my other question? How much do you think the drug use would rise if drugs were legal?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Curly Fries:
How much do you think the drug use would rise if drugs were legal?

A tad.

The fact that alcohol can be consumed moderately does not mitigate in the least the fact that it is the most damaging drug in our society, next to tobacco.

Your inconsistency on the drug issue has been noted.