Drug Policy Reform (1 Viewer)

[Freedom_]

Sure, if you're a deluded Libertarian who can only see things in terms of false dichotomies.

Deluded, NO. The libertarian is eminently realistic because we alone understand the full nature of the State and its thrust for power.

 

[John Galt]

. "When the consequences of the criminalisation of drugs (prices, health, violence) "

i was just wondering why this is the case
why does criminalisation affect users health etc

Read the Nick Davies article linked in the OP.

 

[CountVonChocula]

Meth is fine as long as it's not injected or smoked.

In fact, that's true for almost all drugs.

shafting is my fave safe option

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Deluded, NO. The libertarian is eminently realistic because we alone understand the full nature of the State and its thrust for power.

Of course you do, dear.

 

[Freedom_]

Of course you do, dear.

There is no magic formula for social change, resting as it does on persuasion and conversion, can only be an art rather than an exact science. For the very least, I wish to provide a theoretical discussion of the Libertarians ethos on BOS. Hopefully one day you will wake up and realize that the natural law of human beings and of the real world lies well within the mighty, logical philosophy of the libertarian creed. There is nothing more exiting than pursing the great goal of liberty.

 

[yoddle]

The debate over public healthcare is also relevant here. Once the state is designated as the provider of health services, it is inevitable that it will attempt to regulate goods that are potential health risks in order to keep costs down. This is exactly what we're seeing in Australia now, taxes and regulation on cigarettes and alcohol are frequently justified on the basis that smokers and alcoholics represent a huge cost to the public health system.

This is one of the main reasons why nationalising healthcare in the first place is such a huge mistake.

Yes, but then there's the flipside of that equation. If the market was responsible for healthcare it would be in their best interest to have everyone as unhealthy as possible so they could maximise profits.

But back to drugs.
I was reading an article in The Economist about drug decriminilisation in Portugal. While you can no longer be arrested for being in possession of a drug supply for 10 days or less, you have to go to this tribunal thing that pretty much tells you drugs are bed etc. That's what I got from the article anyway.
What would be the point in that? Why don't they just go the whole hog and legalise them?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

In Portugal, that only really happens for people whose lives are clearly impacted by drug use, not that guy on the street caught with a joint in his pocket.

In Portugal and Spain it's mainly a policy of "don't coerced anybody, don't partake in crime, don't wave it in a policeman's face, and you'll be left alone"

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

There is nothing more exiting than pursing the great goal of liberty.

I completely agree. Unfortunately individuals like you are deluded into thinking that liberty equals the free market.

 

[lolwth]

. "When the consequences of the criminalisation of drugs (prices, health, violence) "

i was just wondering why this is the case
why does criminalisation affect users health etc

yer boi

someone answer

 

[yoddle]

I completely agree. Unfortunately individuals like you are deluded into thinking that liberty equals the free market.

Even though you might be unnerved by my agreement as my opinions are ignorant and unfounded, i also believe that inexplicably linking liberty with the free market is dangerous delusion.

 

[loquasagacious]

How isn't liberty directly linked to a free market???

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Even though you might be unnerved by my agreement as my opinions are ignorant and unfounded, i also believe that inexplicably linking liberty with the free market is dangerous delusion.

I have no major beef with you. I just think you're a cynical douche when it comes to democracy and humanity.

How isn't liberty directly linked to a free market???

Because you can have almost all liberties without a completely free market, and you lose others when you have a completely free market.

 

[yoddle]

Look I'm multi-quoting!

How isn't liberty directly linked to a free market???

Because the liberties with held by the government will then be with held by the corporation. We will be controlled again, but then by the hunt for profit, not power/ideology.

I have no major beef with you. I just think you're a cynical douche when it comes to democracy and humanity.
.

I found out the other day what douche meant. I don't like the word, along with 'fail'. People who use the word 'fail' liberally are often failing themselves.

 

[Uncle]

drug labs have taught people to steal power from the grid by re-wiring cables, using mutual induction, etc.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

drug labs are one of the best sources of practical organic chemistry education. it forces chemists into choices they wouldn't have to make in a usual environment.

 

[Riet]

The debate over public healthcare is also relevant here. Once the state is designated as the provider of health services, it is inevitable that it will attempt to regulate goods that are potential health risks in order to keep costs down. This is exactly what we're seeing in Australia now, taxes and regulation on cigarettes and alcohol are frequently justified on the basis that smokers and alcoholics represent a huge cost to the public health system.

This is one of the main reasons why nationalising healthcare in the first place is such a huge mistake.

Except that the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol pay way more than their fair share of the increased burden on the health system.

 

[loquasagacious]

Except that the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol pay way more than their fair share of the increased burden on the health system.

This doesn't have any bearing though, the main point still stands that in a complete private healthcare system the state really has no business interfering with what people put in their bodies.

Having said this I imagine that insurers would play a major role in a completely private healthcare system, and imo insurers would be completely within their rights to charge higher premiums or refuse coverage based on any criteria they like. Just like an under 25 male pays more for car insurance an overweight 40 year old smoker would likely pay more for health insurance.

 

[sthcross.dude]

This doesn't have any bearing though, the main point still stands that in a complete private healthcare system the state really has no business interfering with what people put in their bodies.

True. However, having a state run health care system does not in any way make criminalization justified. Two wrongs don't make a right.

If we are to insist upon socialized healthcare, which seems inevitable, we can still run the system much more efficiently.

For instance, to remain eligible for medicare participants could be required to submit periodic (possibly random) urine samples. Alternatively, if there is strong medical evidence a disease was caused by drug abuse, medicare could refuse to cover you for treatment.

This would actually cut costs, unlike the drug war which merely increases costs to the taxpayer.

 

[Ubik]

Except that the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol pay way more than their fair share of the increased burden on the health system.

There are arguably wider costs than just the outright health care cost though, do these numbers take into account the increased cost (mainly related to alcohol) of policing, noise pollution, anti-social behavior, violent crime and property damage associated with alcohol use?

What about unmeasurable social costs, changes in individuals, families, communities and environment due to alcohol use? If the availability and use of alcohol substantially reduces an individuals safety and freedom to wander the streets at night, causes family breakdown, changes the aesthetics of society etc... what price can be put on these things?

 

[Ubik]

lol the free market.

Planning laws are barely adequate to compensate and protect private property from excessive noise.

How are you ever going to be adequately compensated and protected for all sorts of bad shit that'll happen when they're trading PCP down the road?

Not just material damage, noise, crime, but even base changes in aesthetics and liveability?