Should Methamphetamine be Legalized?

[saturneptune]

You are slow, you failed to read the last post. Please respond to posts in order. You talk in many of your posts about others being dishonest. You seem to harp on the subject for some reason.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
You said they should be left to rot, and did not specify the government, just left to rot, "you made your bed now lie in it" mindset.

That is a lie. Period.

That puts us at the opposite ends on that issue.

Indeed it does. I find no reason to be dishonest or deceptive.

And it seems to me, as opposed as you are to the government helping these people,

"Help?" I don't think so. Pushing someone toward hell while pretending to rescue them from an "illness" isn't help.

you sure seem to not mind spending billions and billions of dollars to free 25 million Iraqis from a dictator

No. My bottom line on Iraq is that Saddam was someone who represented what we legitimately thought was a genuine threat to our nation. If the intel had been right and we had left him alone. I am perfectly satisfied with saying that he would have supplied terrorists with WMD's. If we had left him in power and ceased inspections, he would have supplied them. If he had died and left his sons in charge... they would have supplied them.

Freeing those people while a nice side effect isn't a justification I accept. They are responsible to fight for their own freedom all other things being equal.

when we have more than that enslaved to drugs in this country.

Enslaved by whose decision? They have every right to be wrong, stupid, and self-destructive. We have every right and responsibility to try to convince them they are wrong and rescue them.

We don't have a right to make their moral choices for them or to tell them they can't destroy themselves if that is what they are determined to do.

It also seems to me that you praise the government for being over there so much, and fail to in post after post criticize the number one function of the US Government,

What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is a function of protecting our borders.

which is to protect our borders and keep us a soverign nation,

Let 10 dirty nukes go off in our 10 largest cities... and we will cease to be a sovereign nation... at least one that you'd recognize.

which this administration has so miserably failed to do,

I don't comment on that alot. I think we should allow more "legal" aliens in from Mexico. I have worked with them. They're good, hard-working, honest people. They have the kind of drive that Americans used to have. They go the extra mile and show through actions that they appreciate having a job. Most Americans are concerned with doing the least they can for the most pay.

and you seem quite quick to criticize democrats on various policies when this president (small p) and this congress spend like drunken sailors,

I have been critical of that... FTR, I oppose Bush on education... not because his conclusion is wrong but because his premise is wrong. There shouldn't be national standards for education because the Feds shouldn't have anything to do with education... in fact, if you read my posts thoroughly you will find that I believe all education should be private or very strictly a local affair.

I think they went in the wrong direction on medicare. I think they should have went back to the 94 Contract and finished it off when Bush became President to include term limits... although term limits are a vastly inferior idea to increasing the number of Representatives so the people in a district have more direct contact and influence with them.

If I took the time, I could probably give you several more things that Bush and this Congress have done wrong. But he isn't the devil incarnate as far as we know. I do think he is someone acting on principle... even when I disagree with him. I don't think he did the wrong thing given the information at hand when we invaded Iraq. I do think that we live in a world where a completely defensive defensive posture is untenable.

I am more or less resigned to the notion that the Dems will probably regain the House if not the Senate within the next two election cycles. My hope is that it will either destroy the GOP as we they have become and it will be resurrected a genuinely conservative/libertarian party or else that it will be replaced by two or 3 parties that give people real choices.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
You are slow, you failed to read the last post. Please respond to posts in order. You talk in many of your posts about others being dishonest. You seem to harp on the subject for some reason.

I was probably writing while you posted. If it takes awhile to write a response, sometimes the responses get out of order.... it can't be helped some times.

 

[KenH]

Thanks for your posts on this issue, Scott. I am glad that you believe in personal liberty, personal responsibility, and limited, constitutional government.

It can be rather lonely in political discussions nowadays as most folks who call themselves liberals or conservatives want bigger government and more government control over our citizens - they just generally want it on different issues.

The libertarian and statist positions are the only consistent political ideologies and, unfortunately, it appears that most folks who call themselves liberals or conservatives are moving ever closer to becoming statists.

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

If it wasn't for prohibition there would be no threat of having a meth lab next door.

If you legalize them they don't go away, they just become legal. Except your solution is to make it both cheap and legal. Yeah, there's a way to keep people from selling it and taking it.

The government shouldn't (rescue addicts). It is a violation of the constitution when it does so, and it is a violation of personal responsibility when it does so.

I don't know enough about rehab of meth users to know if it works but it is certainly not against the U.S. Constitution if states decide to enact such policies. Certainly you know better than that, Ken.


Scott J,

I firmly believe that our country was more moral and better governed when we were self-governing rather than looking to gov't to tell us right from wrong.

When were we ever self-governing? Have you never heard of sumptuary laws?

I think we should allow more "legal" aliens in from Mexico. I have worked with them. They're good, hard-working, honest people. They have the kind of drive that Americans used to have. They go the extra mile and show through actions that they appreciate having a job. Most Americans are concerned with doing the least they can for the most pay.

I don't mean to derail the thread but we're completely agreed. I worked in San Antonio for a summer 25 years ago and the legal immigrants were wonderful people to know.


SN,

You are slow, you failed to read the last post. Please respond to posts in order.

You and I are agreed on this issue of legalizing meth, but SJ was right in his response, sometimes it's hard to stay in step. Ken and I were talking past each other in our first several posts here because we were both on line at the same time. Sometimes it just can't be helped.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
If you legalize them they don't go away

Didn't say they would. But there would be no reason to hide them in someone's basement in your neighborhood. How many of your neighbors are manufacturing cigarettes or twinkies?

 

[James Flagg]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fromtheright:
If you legalize them they don't go away

Didn't say they would. But there would be no reason to hide them in someone's basement in your neighborhood. How many of your neighbors are manufacturing cigarettes or twinkies? </font>[/QUOTE]I understand your point, KenH, but I just am not convinced that these things are analgous. If my neighbor smoked MJ on his back porch once in a while, I wouldn't think much of it. If I knew he had a meth lab I would "drop a dime" on him in a heartbeat. Meth is just too dangerous to be legalized; this would be worse than legalized OTC sale of injectable-grade morphine. If meth is legalized, then surely giant sized bottles of Valium in the cold & flu aisle would be no big deal.

Besides, ethanol is perfectly legal but there's never been a shortage of "homemade 'shine" or backyard distilleries down here.

 

[macitruth]

How can you possibly equate cigarettes and twinkies with CM? What about the children of people who use these legal drugs, KenH? Do you also think that it is none of the governments business whether they are brought up in homes where mom and dad are using drugs?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by macitruth:
Do you also think that it is none of the governments business whether they are brought up in homes where mom and dad are using drugs?

No, it isn't. You can't show me in the constitution where it is.

I am opposed to Big Mother and Big Daddy Government policies. All true conservatives/libertarians are. Most of the people who call themselves conservatives or liberals nowadays are to varying degrees actually statists - they just want government controlling people's lives in different areas.

 

[macitruth]

I'm not gonna go dig through the constitution to support my position. You started this thread and saw fit to title it "Should methamphetamine be legalized" I am telling you as a parent and as someone who has been directly impacted by another persons meth use that I am glad it is illegal and if it were not I would have no way of protecting my child. Do you have children?

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

But there would be no reason to hide them in someone's basement in your neighborhood. How many of your neighbors are manufacturing cigarettes or twinkies?

You just said there wouldn't be a meth lab next door. For a drug with the effects this one has (which you don't seem to have acknowledged, perhaps I missed it), why do you think that demand would dry up, that there would not be meth labs? Your cigarettes/twinkies comparison has been addressed by others but you have either missed it or ignored it as far as I can tell.

 

[KenH]

All of my children have four paws. If I did have human children, it would not have any effect on my political position. I do not want, nor does the U.S. constitution authorize, Big Mother or Big Daddy Government. Why should you be able to enlist the government to enforce your standards on others. If someone wants to use the governement to enforce their standards on you, for example, to ban you from reading the Bible, I guess you would go right along with it? Once you start wanting to use the government for your purposes then you open the door for anyone else to use the government for his/her purposes - even for purposes that you don't like.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by macitruth:
I'm not gonna go dig through the constitution to support my position.

The U.S. consitutition isn't very long. But of course you won't because it doesn't.

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

No, it isn't. You can't show me in the constitution where it is.

do not want, nor does the U.S. constitution authorize, Big Mother or Big Daddy Government.

You seem to make a habit of ignoring posts. Others and myself have responded to this "argument"--state and local governments can respond to this problem without infringing on the U.S. Constitution. Aren't you going to even acknowledge this response to your "constitutional" argument?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
1)For a drug with the effects this one has

2) why do you think that demand would dry up, that there would not be meth labs?

1) The effects of a substance are irrelevant to the debate of whether one supports either a) That government is best that governs most, or b)That government is best that governs least.

I support number b).

2) I didn't say they would. The substance would be manufactured in much the same places as other manufacturing takes place. I doubt that you see a brewery or a twinkie factory next door to your house.

Again, the debate in this thread is about the role of government in our nation. The article on legalizing meth was simply a way to introduce the subject.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Aren't you going to even acknowledge this response to your "constitutional" argument?

I am discussing the role of the federal government in this thread.

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

1) The effects of a substance are irrelevant to the debate of whether one supports either a) That government is best that governs most, or b)That government is best that governs least.

Does that extend to state and local governments as well? And do state and local governments have the power under the U.S. Constitution to outlaw such filth?

2) I didn't say they would. The substance would be manufactured in much the same places as other manufacturing takes place. I doubt that you see a brewery or a twinkie factory next door to your house.

Why in the world do you believe that production of such a nasty substance would be done in an industrial park? I asked why you think meth labs next door would go away. Your response is that you didn't say they would, followed up by the statement that you don't see twinkie factories next door. The meth lab would not go away. Do you agree with that or not? Why is giving a straight answer so difficult?

Again, the debate in this thread is about the role of government in our nation. The article on legalizing meth was simply a way to introduce the subject.

I am discussing the role of the federal government in this thread.

Is this discussion about the role of government or the federal government because your answers, as so often in this thread, aren't very clear? Also, I thought you wanted to discuss the article you linked to, did you not? The article only tangentially discusses the federal government's role, while arguing for legalizing meth, period. In our earlier discussion in this thread on legalization and your "so, do you want to criminalize teenage fornication" "argument" had nothing to do with the federal government. What level of government prohibition you're discussing seems to be whatever will allow you to duck a question or muddy up the debate. So, if you can give a straight answer on this, do you have any objection to state/local governments responding to this by criminalizing these drugs? If so, why? You certainly have no basis in the U.S. Constitution with that position. If not, how do you square that with your libertarian position on such laws?

 

[macitruth]

All of my children have four paws.

Children and pets are the same... twinkies, cigarettes, and meth are the same.

If I did have human children, it would not have any effect on my political position.

the term human children is disgusting to those of us who have been blessed with children. When and if you do have children LOTS of your views WILL change! So don't even start saying such things.

I do not want, nor does the U.S. constitution authorize, Big Mother or Big Daddy Government.

Oh how clever... well call it what you want but I want my government to have the power to protect me and my children.

should you be able to enlist the government to enforce your standards on others. If someone wants to use the governement to enforce their standards on you, for example, to ban you from reading the Bible, I guess you would go right along with it? Once you start wanting to use the government for your purposes then you open the door for anyone else to use the government for his/her purposes - even for purposes that you don't like.

If thats not a loaded statement, there is no such thing. Our government is one that promotes liberty and justice for all. That means that we have liberty and can do as we see fit as long as it doesn't hurt someone else because that would not be justice. Thats what the government is trying to do. Liberty and justice for all.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
1) And do state and local governments have the power under the U.S. Constitution to outlaw such filth?

2) Why in the world do you believe that production of such a nasty substance would be done in an industrial park.

1) If a state's constitution gives that power to that state's government - yes.

2) During alcohol prohibition, alcohol was brewed next door in bathtubs. Do you see that still going on in your neighbor's bathtub?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by macitruth:
When and if you do have children LOTS of your views WILL change! So don't even start saying such things.

I will never have human children. And I'll say what I want. Maybe you want your Big Daddy/Big Mother government to take away my right to free speech?