Should Methamphetamine be Legalized?

[Joseph_Botwinick]

FTR,

You haven't been paying much attention to Ken's posts here lately, have you? All of his ideas are in the articles.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
You got any of your own thoughts on the subject?

Yes, I am totally in favor of doing away with prohibition. It failed with alcohol. It's a failure now. No one can claim that it was a success with alcohol. No one can claim that it is a success now.

Also, I believe that a person should be able to exercise his/her God-given liberty as long as he/she does not interfere with another person exercising his/her God-given liberty.

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

Where is the constitutional amendment in the federal constitution that makes the "war on drugs" a legal activity for the federal government?

You raise a good point, but I, again, believe the "war on drugs" is a misnomer. There's no "war" to it. No, there won't be a dent in drug use as long as dealers get to cut their little deals, and get out on parole, or basically get winked at by the system. The choice is not between the present "war" and legalization. The other choice is to take drugs seriously. When the last appeal is concluded, march these vermin out to the square, put them on a gallows, and hang them. Or put them against a prison wall to face a firing squad. I don't care how rats are exterminated, just get rid of them.

It is anti-the principles of individual liberty on which our nation was founded.

Again, that's just ridiculous and ignorant of our history. I can understand a federalist argument against federal laws. I just don't get an individual "God given" liberty argument to sell drugs to children.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
I just don't get an individual "God given" liberty argument to sell drugs to children.

Nor do I. That is a straw man, ftr, and I think you know it.

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

Just wondering, ftr, if you are consistent and advocate that sexual relations between teenagers should be outlawed and that any transgressors should be executed or at least locked up in prison?

Another ridiculous "argument". Just because I favor a particular law doesn't mean that I favor public laws against every act I may disagree with. It is part of the democratic process to decide what acts should be prohibited. Those who sell drugs to children should be executed. The "logic" of your "point" is that I would agree with executing teenage fornicators. Maybe you need to go back to "from the article".

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

Nor do I. That is a straw man, ftr, and I think you know it.

Maybe you need to go back and read KenH's post:

Originally posted by KenH:

I believe that a person should be able to exercise his/her God-given liberty as long as he/she does not interfere with another person exercising his/her God-given liberty.

It's not my straw man, it's yours. Or do you disavow your own statement? Unless you'd rather clarify and explain that the above statement has nothing to do with a right, God-given or otherwise, to sell drugs.

 

[KenH]

If the government can prohibit individual liberty in this area of personal drug use, then where does it stop in any area of individual liberty?

By the way, I have been in favor of doing away with prohibition for over two decades. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to the issue.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Unless you'd rather clarify

My arguments are concerning those who have reached the age of majority.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Just because I favor a particular law doesn't mean that I favor public laws against every act I may disagree with.

Why not? Why are you inconsistent?

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

If the government can prohibit individual liberty in this area of personal drug use, then where does it stop in any area of individual liberty?

You have either misstated or misunderstood my position. Find the first statement of mine against personal drug use. It's wrong, but I don't believe that users should be executed. Those who sell that crap to children should be. Where does it stop? You make it sound like an inexorable slide. Do you think that just because people have the sense enough to want to execute drug dealers that they'll suddenly decide that wearing hats is wrong and start punishing hat-making and wearing? It's ridiculous.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Any legitimate role of government is confined to protecting rights.

The right to extend your arm ends at my nose.

You don't have the "right" to destroy my life; that's what meth does. People don't care about anything else. (Then, I'm forced to support them for the rest of their lives, but that's another discussion.)

Our freedoms are going away, and it's not for the reasons that most people think: At first, freedom is cherished; then it's worshipped; then it's subverted. And, it's all in the name of "freedom".

A woman has the "freedom" to choose what to do with her own body, but it's at the cost of another's life.

I agree with hanging manufacturers and dealers in the town square.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Ken,

If the government can prohibit individual liberty in this area of personal drug use, then where does it stop in any area of individual liberty?

You have either misstated or misunderstood my position. Find the first statement of mine against personal drug use. It's wrong, but I don't believe that users should be executed. Those who sell that crap to children should be. Where does it stop? You make it sound like an inexorable slide. Do you think that just because people have the sense enough to want to execute drug dealers that they'll suddenly decide that wearing hats is wrong and start punishing hat-making and wearing? It's ridiculous.

FTR,

You really must stop using logic with Ken. That just isn't fair since that is not in the article.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[fromtheright]

Ken,

My arguments are concerning those who have reached the age of majority.

That's clarification? Those who? Dealers? That dealers over the age of majority have an individual right? Again, I don't think you've read a word of my posts. I said execute those who sell drugs to minors.

Why not? Why are you inconsistent?

It's really a simple point. Drug dealers in general are vermin; those who sell to children should be put to death. Teenage fornicators don't cry out for capital punishment. Is that inconsistent? OK, then I'm inconsistent. I think it's just common sense, which those lack who can't see the distinction. Do you really have to have the distinction pointed out to you?

 

[fromtheright]

Hope of Glory,

Our freedoms are going away, and it's not for the reasons that most people think: At first, freedom is cherished; then it's worshipped; then it's subverted.

Wonderfully put. Freedom is wonderful and, yes, to be cherished, but that doesn't mean the "freedom" to do everything. The Founders understood that that is not liberty but license and licentiousness. Contrary to Ken and his article, the Founders did not worship such a perversion.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Those who sell that crap to children should be.

This article is not about making it legal to sell meth to children. If you had read the article then you would have known that. But for some reason you are arguing about something that neither the author nor I advocate.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
You don't have the "right" to destroy my life; that's what meth does.

Only you can destroy your life by taking meth. No one is responsible but you.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Those who?

A person who has reached the age of majority should be allowed to do with his/her body as he/she wishes and be allowed to suffer the benefits/consequences of so doing.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
I said execute those who sell drugs to minors.

The author nor I are advocating that it should be legal to sell drugs to someone who has not reached the age of majority. Therefore, you are arguing over something about which neither the author nor I disagree with you since neither of us is advocating making legal to sell drugs to someone who is short of the age of majority.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
You don't have the "right" to destroy my life; that's what meth does.

Only you can destroy your life by taking meth. No one is responsible but you. </font>[/QUOTE]Then you obviously haven't lived in meth or crack neighborhoods. Although we were in the process of trying to move, the murder in our front yard (that spilled over from the drug house down the street) was the straw that made us move out without anywhere else to go. Having to fire shots to protect my family was a big downer, as well. These were not isolated incidents.

 

[KenH]

And without prohibition, you wouldn't have seen that violence. Do you see that taking place over cigarettes or over twinkies?