you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Drewski 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Alcohol is indeed dangerous when used in excess. However, alcohol prohibition was an abject failure the same way drug prohibition is a failure today. It creates crime syndicates, drives problem behavior underground, and keeps addicts from getting help.

Instead of criminalizing alcohol, we should decriminalize all drugs and allow addicts to get help rather than being thrown in jail and stigmatized by society.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Alcohol is indeed dangerous when used in excess.

Alcohol is always dangerous, no matter how much you use.

However, alcohol prohibition was an abject failure the same way drug prohibition is a failure today.

Murder is illegal, but people still do it, so we should legalize that, right?

It creates crime syndicates

Only because they were legal syndicates before and after prohibition. Guess who opened all the bars when the twenty-first was passed? Organized crime has existed for hundreds of years and will continue to for hundreds more, regardless of our laws on drugs.

And crime syndicates do a lot of illegal things to get away with murder, like bribing politicians, so I guess that's another reason murder should be legal?

drives problem behavior underground, and keeps addicts from getting help.

Only if it's criminalized.

Instead of criminalizing alcohol, we should decriminalize all drugs and allow addicts to get help rather than being thrown in jail and stigmatized by society.

There's a huge difference between decriminalization and legalization. If so'm is decriminalized: you don't go to prison for it, but it's still illegal; if so'm is legal: you don't even get charged even with a misdemeanor or forced to do rehab.

I want to decriminalize all drugs, but I also want them to be illegal. People should be forced to go to rehab (for free) and get better — except drug dealers, they're murderers and should get the death penalty. (Exceptions for people who sell drugs that don't kill people.)

You seem to support legalization, not decriminalization.

No one even enforced Prohibition anyways, so you can't say it failed when it wasn't actually tried. Two out of three Presidents tasked with enforcing it were against it — which is why they sabotaged it — and the only one who did, Harding, was only half-ass for it.

Meanwhile, everyone's taking bribes and the few prohibition agents we had were too busy poisoning people to actually do their job. Furthermore, there were a lot of loop-holes, like for medical and religious purposes — and drinking wasn't actually a crime, just "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" (at least federally).

[–]Drewski 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, I support legalization (but also decriminalization as a stepping stone). Ultimately, the government has no business telling me what I can or cannot put into my own body even if it is something harmful like alcohol or drugs. Murder is different than selling drugs because you are violently taking someone's life against their will, rather than voluntarily selling them a product that could cause them harm. I agree that you could make a strong case for the state's involvement in alcohol distribution being a crime syndicate, I would much rather abolish the ATF / local ABC stores and have things return to the free market.

If you want to live in a authoritarian state where people are given the death penalty for selling drugs to willing buyers, there's always Singapore. I personally couldn't stand to live in a place like that. Government should only exist to protect people's rights, not to be their parents and project their desired morals and beliefs. That's the job of families and local communities.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ultimately, the government has no business telling me what I can or cannot put into my own body even if it is something harmful like alcohol or drugs.

I believe it does, since drug addicts commit crime and are less productive, thus hurting the economy. If yall want to move to some third world country and shoot up meth: fine by me, but don't do it here (or illegally immigrate back when things go wrong).

The purpose of a government is to protect the citizenry, not to sit idly by while the entire county burns to the ground.

Murder is different than selling drugs because you are violently taking someone's life against their will, rather than voluntarily selling them a product that could cause them harm.

I don't care about whether or not it was voluntary; I care that the outcome is death — it makes no difference what caused the death, simply that it occurred. It matters not to you that someone died, your only concern is whether or not they chose to die — as if liberty is more important than morality!

That's the difference between Libertarianism and Authoritarianism: the former seeks to destroy morality in the name of unchecked liberty, while the later seeks to maintain morality at all costs. The single greatest threat to the Nation is unchecked liberty — for society collapses without a moral foundation to stand upon.

Furthermore, these "voluntary" transactions are exploitative, with wealthy Capitalists profiting off the suffering and death of working-class men and women, who were tricked into believing poison will solve their problems — they even say moderate drinking is healthy, despite evidence to the contrary!

Eventually, they get you dumbed down and addicted, to the point where the decision is not yours to make, but rather the drug's — there can be no voluntary transaction in such cases.

I would much rather abolish the ATF / local ABC stores and have things return to the free market.

The ATF is unconstitutional anyways, in violation of the second and tenth amendments.

The free market is the number one cause of moral decay; the ultra-rich profit from abortion, alcohol, pornography, and pedophilia — immortality is as inherent to Capitalism as it is to Communism! If we serve money over our Nation: we no longer have a Nation — both metaphorically and literally, as outsourcing and open borders are inherent to the free market.

If you want to live in a authoritarian state where people are given the death penalty for selling drugs to willing buyers, there's always Singapore.

They're too capitalist, too undemocratic, and not socially conservative enough. They play into the same globalist system the United States does.

Government should only exist to protect people's rights, not to be their parents and project their desired morals and beliefs.

I disagree, obviously. I believe that if the government can do good: it should do good, for to stand idly by while murder is committed is no better than committing the murder yourself!

Sorry for the rant, I should really be in bed right now... nothing personal.