Subject:
|
Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Dec 1999 14:29:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1047 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 03:48:20 GMT, "John DiRienzo"
<ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38728079.753103163@lugnet.com>...
>
> > I wouldn't mind too much, personally, if there were at least legal
> > ways to get the stuff under medical prescription. AT least that would
> > be a step in the right direction?
>
> Well, there are legal ways, and it seems like a step in the wrong
> direction to me, but I am not entirely sure about it. The drug is still
> regulated by the government, and the black market still exists - neither of
> which will change unless it is fully legalized. I don't think your
> suggestion does much good. I do think its very contradictory, and the sense
> of irony makes me queezy, that something that is said to be harmful and
> dangerous and unfit for human consumption can be good enough to be
> prescribed.
Opiates and Coca-derivatives _are_ generally harmful for human use,
unless done under guidance. Most humans tend to not be able to provide
that guidance to themselves, as seen in all the addicts.
AFAIK, various opiates are legally available on prescription (though
not heroin, let alone crack (am I mizing the two groups up here?),
IIRC), but coca-derivatives aren't. Let's keep weed out of the
equation for the moment - I think we can all (well, both) agree that
needs to be freely available. As far as hard drugs are concerned, I
would want _some_ sort of control on that. Something like the
methadon/free heroin projects (but more universal, and available from
GPs) for the addicts, so there is no financial incentive for dealers
to get other people addicted, and no incentive for people to use the
services of the dealers.
And I think _everybody_ would agree that getting rid of the dealers
would be a good thing.
I'm not sure that it would necessarily be a good thing to have hard
drugs completely freely available.
> length of time it takes to bring one to justice is a factor. Of course, the
> more expedient the better, but better late than never.
I disagree. After a long time, the harm done to society, in terms of
GNP, is bigger than the good. To use an argument Larry would agree
with.
> If someone did drugs years ago, and is now running for public office, he
> ought to have the balls to say... at the time I thought that particular law
> was stupid, and I still do, and I will do what I can to change it.
Not "At the time I thought that law was stupid, but I changed my
mind"?
> So do I! I have faith that if a system has ways for people to "get away"
> with something, then they will. I have to side with John Neal, that humans
> will do evil things when given the chance - that is the reason why socialism
> has never worked well, and usually very badly. The better system would
> limit those "opportunities."
Removing the time limit on prosecution doesn't help. Not in real life,
and probably not in appearance either.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38728079.753103163@...et.com>... (...) Wish I could say that! Well, I've paid for my previous misteaks, and its a whole new millenium, almost. (...) Me too. (...) Well, there are legal ways, and it seems like a step (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
