Why Libertarians Are Wrong About Drugs

[neversickanymore]

Why Libertarians Are Wrong About Drugs
By JOHN P. WALTERS
June 16, 2014


ibertarians and social conservatives both resist an intrusive central government, but they differ over exactly what constitutes “intrusive” policy, especially when it comes to private behavior.

Nowhere is this divide more obvious than in the war on drugs. Social conservatives are troubled by drug abuse, especially among the young, and believe that government regulation of certain substances is necessary to curb behavior seen not only as self-destructive but also incompatible with a strong and free community. Libertarians, on the other hand, argue that the heavy-handedness of the nanny state, and the law-enforcement abuses likely to accompany it, present a greater threat to freedom than the prohibited behavior itself. As Milton Friedman put it, “the present system of drug prohibition … does so much more harm than good.”

The libertarian commitment to freedom should absolutely be acknowledged and, in a time of growing state control, defended. But, when it comes to drugs, libertarians have yet to grasp just how much drug abuse undermines individual freedom and erodes the very core of the libertarian ideal.
Many libertarians argue that the state should have no power over adult citizens and their decision to ingest addictive substances—so long as they do no harm to anyone but themselves. Hence, there should be no laws against using drugs, and over time this self-destructive behavior will limit itself.
But this harmless world is not the real world of drug use. There is ample experience that a drug user harms not only himself, but also many others. The association between drug use and social and economic failure, domestic violence, pernicious parenting and criminal acts while under the influence is grounds for prohibition even if we accept no responsibility for what the drug user does to himself. The drug user’s freedom to consume costs his community not only their safety, but also their liberty.


And I’m not just talking about heroin. Over the past decade, as marijuana use has grown, the number of car accident victims testing positive for the drug has tripled, according to a recent study.

Just as troubling as the potential harm done to others are the questions: What is to replace prohibition? And who holds the reins? Here things get sketchy. Everybody wants the cartels out; but who’s in? Whatever entity controls the supply controls the population of addicts.

Management of production and distribution, some envision, could be commercial. What could go wrong? Think Afghan warlord with a lobbying arm and a marketing department. Is drug use a disability? Who pays for the escalating doses? Big Pharma on, well, drugs, with direct-to-consumer advertising?


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...e-wrong-about-drugs-107896.html#ixzz34wU5yJGy

........................................................................................................................................................

Free market that requires strong quality control. Its amazing how people will sate completely untrue statements thinking they are the truth.

can't wait until this party throws the republicans out on their asses. There are many many many clear and substantial differences between the librarians and the the republican party.

http://www.lp.org/

Libertarian Party 2012 Platform

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

among many, many, other things.

 

[Crankinit]

can't wait until this party throws the republicans out on their asses. There are many many many clear and substantial differences between the librarians and the the republican party.

God forbid the Librarian Party takes over :O You guys will be flooded with overdue notices and books will become the basis of your currency.

But seriously, that will never happen in the near future, probably never in our lifetimes. America has been set up as a 2 party government (with the choice being nowhere near a large as they like it to be portrayed) by the business interests, lobbyists wealthy plutocrats who are the real power behind the government for a long, long time now.

 

[S.J.B.]

Libertarians and social conservatives both resist an intrusive central government, but they differ over exactly what constitutes “intrusive” policy, especially when it comes to private behavior.

This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of social conservatives in the United States. They like to bash liberals for supporting large governments and the "nanny state," but refuse to acknowledge that the prohibitionist policies they support fall into the same category.

 

[neversickanymore]

But seriously, that will never happen in the near future, probably never in our lifetimes. America has been set up as a 2 party government (with the choice being nowhere near a large as they like it to be portrayed) by the business interests, lobbyists wealthy plutocrats who are the real power behind the government for a long, long time now.

DId you see who just lost in a primary despite spending huge amounts of money.. Eric Cantor speaker of the house, the second most powerful republican in congress goes down in a primary. Lobby and money aren't everything.. the american people are fed up with this clown show.

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.[1][2] The movement has been called a mix of libertarian,[3] populist[4] and conservative,[5] persons. It has sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009,[6][7][8] and demonstrators at the U.S. Capitol celebrated the movement's five-year anniversary in February 2014. Various polls have found that slightly over 10% of Americans identify as a member.[9]

Also I said kick the republicans out.. I think the tea party and the democrats will make an entertaining mix.. lol.. could work out great.

Patriot act must go.. drug war must go.

 

[Crankinit]

DId you see who just lost in a primary despite spending huge amounts of money.. Eric Cantor speaker of the house, the second most powerful republican in congress goes down in a primary. Lobby and money aren't everything.. the american people are fed up with this clown show.

Went down in a Primary.... to a Democrat. Then when people get sick of the democrat, they'll bring back a Republican. Both side are backed by oligarchical plutocrats, wealthy corporations and lobbyists to ensure that their profits are protected (at the expense of your population, your country and your planet), the rest is just a meaningless dog and pony show to keep the masses preoccupied and under the illusion that their input matters.

Granted the rest of the Western world isn't a whole lot better.

 

[slimvictor]

libertarians have yet to grasp just how much drug abuse undermines individual freedom

Just shut up.
This is so stupid.
Individual freedom includes the freedom to use and even abuse drugs. There are in ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Any other policy is an abridgment of freedom. Plain and simple.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I vote for true anarchism. If you don't know what the political concept of that is, don't post about it, cause I guarantee it's not what you think. Will it ever happen in a "civilized" society? Hah, hell no. In a more enlightened society? Perhaps...

 

[bit_pattern]

Obviously the author of this article is a complete fucking 'tard but to be fair libertarians are wrong about pretty much everything due to their ideology being founded on severely flawed assumptions

 

[LogicSoDeveloped]

Obviously the author of this article is a complete fucking 'tard but to be fair Republicans are wrong about pretty much everything due to their ideology being founded on severely flawed assumptions

Obviously the author of this article is a complete fucking 'tard but to be fair Democrats are wrong about pretty much everything due to their ideology being founded on severely flawed assumptions

Obviously the author of this article is a complete fucking 'tard but to be fair Any career politician is wrong about pretty much everything due to their ideology being founded on severely flawed assumptions

Please elaborate further because with what you've said, I can simply interject a different subject and your opinion would be no different than anyone else's. Is it the classic, but where's the money for social programs (economic) argument? Because I need more than that.

@ toothpastedog, I totally agree.

Politics is how the wealthy and powerful help the wealthy and powerful. I love it when people try to argue against libertarianism by saying that they don't trust libertarian politicians, and then when I say that I don't trust liberal politicians, they somehow act like it's a totally different scenario.

Almost nobody understands politics. It is simply a game designed to preoccupy people with an us vs. them/black and white mentality with which they stick because it's easier than complete and utter cynicism for the ability for most people to be worth a damn. People expect others to accept their opinions as fact. More hours than not, more days than not, I feel like I'm surrounded by mindless robotic idiots.

Intellectual people will understand what I'm saying. Most others will just get defensive/personal/angry.

 

[bit_pattern]

Please elaborate further because with what you've said, I can simply interject a different subject and your opinion would be no different than anyone else's. Is it the classic, but where's the money for social programs (economic) argument? Because I need more than that..

I'm too drizunk to offer much but... You'll note I referred to small 'l' libertarianism - i.e. the libertarian ideology that freedom can be predicated on market dynamics and assumes individuals are rational actors that will always act to maximise efficiency - so saying Reublican/Democratic etc doesn't really have much to do with my point.

I think drugs should be "legal" in the sense that markets need to be regulated, under the current paradigm the vast majority of social ills caused by drugs are a result of an unregulated market that is being left to non-governmental entities to control. That is incredible damaging. So in my view the drug market needs to be brought back into the fold - not because of flawed assumptions about individual liberty but rather because the status quo is extremely bad for society. And society is a thing. And that's my problem with small 'l' libertarianism - it comes down to structure and agency. The libertarian ideology weights everything at the agency end of the spectrum, if people are simply given a choice they'll make a rational decision.

That's fucking bunkum of the highest degree.

We are social animals. We need a functioning social structure to thrive and prosper. The last forty years have seen a revolution whereby the powers that profit from promoting individualist bunkum have been in the ascendency - it has led to increasing disparities in wealth and equality and a general decline in the standards of life quality for pretty much everybody but the top 1%.

Social programs are easily funded in a more equal system but over recent decades there has been a comprehensive and systematic carving out of civil, social and economic society - predicated on the notion that market assumptions are the superior way of organising society. But they're not. And for proof positive you only need to look at how the grand social experiment conducted in the United States has absolutely gutted the middle-class and led to extreme social ills in US society while massive amounts of wealth have been distributed to the oligarchic class with almost zero benefit to society in terms of quality of life.

The fucktards in the large 'L' Libertarian Party would seek only to exacerbate this trend while offering trinkets in the form of "freedom" to consume drugs etc. I know a lot of people here use drugs like, for instance, heroin. Now, I think people should have access to a regulated source of heroin - not because of "freedom" but rather because the cost to society of heroin use is great but the cost to society of international crime syndicates that control the market currently is even greater. Heroin abuse is actually very bad for individuals and society at large. We should attempt to minimise the harm that addiction causes - period. It has sweet fuck all to do with liberty.

I dunno if that all makes much sense - as I said I'm pretty fucking drizunk ATM but that is my summary of why I think small 'l' libertarianism is a bunch of disingenuous woo-woo codswallop that needs to be countered at every step.

I hope that helps.

 

[spacejunk]

I vote for true anarchism. If you don't know what the political concept of that is, don't post about it, cause I guarantee it's not what you think. Will it ever happen in a "civilized" society? Hah, hell no. In a more enlightened society? Perhaps...

"True" "anarchism" can exist within (or should that be - without?) any wider society (certain authoritarian regimes notwithstanding) - depending on which of the numerous branches of anarchist thought one considers to be genuine.
(Advanced warning for excessive use of quotation marks in this post...!)

The problem with discussing anarchist politics -like so many other poltical ideologies - is that the language we have to discuss so much of it is limited - and has been so over-simplified, misused and misrepresented.
For example; the classic maligned "bomb throwing, violent provocateur anarchist" - is as over-simplified (and downright false) as so much of the discourse about "libertarianism", "liberalism", the dichotomies of "left and right" - and my current favourite; the absurd pejorative use "socialism" (particularly in post-Tea Party [i guess??] America - I know the fear/distrust of "socialism" has existed across the globe for probably a couple of hundred years - but the particular, contemporary use of "socialist" as a slur - often bizarrely used interchangably with "fascist" - [cos, hitler was a 'national socialist' donchya know?!] seems, to me at least, to have come about in the last decade or thereabouts.

The media is almost as much to blame for this as post-modern deconstruction of terms that (apparently) meant something in "simpler times".

Like labels "conservative" or "feminist" - "libertarian" encompass so many completely different (in many cases, utterly contradictory) ideals, that it's modern day usage is almost useless, it is so open to (mis)interpretation. So many disagreements and factions exist within this one ideological label, that I have an almost unconscious tendency to avoid any mention of it in print or discussion.
"Terrorist" is another classic example of this erosion of linguistic meaning - almost beyond definition and applied on a whim when politically convenient.

The complexity of all of these terms, the subjective political baggage weighing them all down - despite them all being rendered virtually meaningless by television sound-bytes (or thrown around as cheap insults!) in their modern day contexts and the general public's understanding.
Which is a shame - but in other ways...sort of liberating.

I could, for example, use combinations of some of these words in an attempt to articulate my social and political world view - but in doing so, I would only be limiting myself, tying myself up in ideology.
Autonomy is worth more than all of the "isms" combined...in my opinion

As for drugs - the end of prohibition is a another giant conundrum that I suspect we'll be grappling with for decades to come - though kudos to the legislative bodies (and the people that voted for them!) that are eroding this abomination of human culture. Smash the (police) state!

 

[ro4eva]

Everyone must understand, that as long as human beings continue to exist, there will always be a demand for mind-altering substances. And as such, there will always be someone desperate enough to attempt to supply these substances, regardless of the possible consequences including capital punishment.

Whoever you are, you can continue to attempt to stop these substances from being available for purchase, but you will never succeed. And I would hope that after a century of countless politicians and bureaucrats trying to do the exact same thing, others would realize that it is beyond futile to continue.

Therefore, if you cannot stop it from happening, why not take it over and regulate it?

Do you really think it's so wrong for people to sell drugs if they aren't sanctioned by Big Brother? Regardless of how you may feel about this, you should know that drug use is part of what makes us human, which brings me to the following rhetorical question:

What is it about the pursuit of pleasure that compels us to risk our health - our lives even - in order to achieve it?

Well, without these pleasures that come with various activities in life, frankly, most of us would quickly become miserable, unmotivated, and a burden to society - or "dead weight" if you prefer. A pleasure-less life would quickly progress to a life which wouldn't feel like living.

Science tells us that, with any pleasurable activity in life, the brain begins releasing dopamine - even before it's begun - in anticipation of the upcoming experience (which results in a mild high).

Any pleasurable activity will also carry with it a degree of risk. As a result, while the dopamine is being released in anticipation of the experience, the amygdala - the brain's fear panic button - is also being pressed at the same time in response to the risk associated with the activity in question, with the intensity of this panic varying depending on the activity.

As an example, this is why a couple - who hours ago, met at a bar and decided that they want to have sex - will typically be wondering about whether their potential mate has a disease which can be transmitted through sexual intercourse. The fear, the pleasure, the potential risks - all these competing signals get processed into action.

And as each person's dopamine bombards their brain(s), their motivation for pleasure may overwrite their fear of the risks involved. If it was the other way around, the sex would be called off - meaning that the amygdala "pushed the panic button hard and fast enough" that it made them decide the risk wasn't worth the possible pleasures in unprotected fucking.

It is this motivation for pleasure which makes a human being inevitably decide whether to consume a mind-altering substance. And it is this motivation for pleasure which is highly susceptible to influences by feelings of despair, acute or chronic pain, hopelessness, suffering, oppression, racism, bullying, peer pressure, and so forth.

The problem with our pleasures in life is that, as with everything which we perceive as a unique experience, with each repetition, we become desensitized to whatever it is that makes it pleasurable. This desensitization varies in amount depending on the activity and experience.

In other words, when we look at what happens in the brain, we see that on repeated exposures to pleasures - whether it's food, drinks, sex, drugs, etc. - we've observed that the dopamine response gets a little bit less with each repetition.

So, each time we repeat a pleasurable activity, we get a little less "bang for the buck."

This leads thrill seekers to increase the risk in order to chase the high - whatever their thrill seeking may be (e.g. extreme sports, drugs, sex, etc.). This is why for drug users, (in simple terms) they eventually require more and more of the same substance in order to maintain the same level of euphoria or euphoric effects - alcohol included.

As you can see, novelty is a really big jolt for the dopamine system. And it is the fundamental reason why the first time you experience a unique thrill is usually the best time.

And so, when we look at any activity which has a reputation for being a thrilling experience, it really mixes pleasure and risk, and maximizes the pleasure response. And that's what makes it addictive or habit forming.

In other words, by keeping things new and fresh (or different), it keeps the dopamine rush consistently high.

This applies to everything, not just drugs. Experiment for yourself if you disagree. Eventually, you'll find that your favorite type of food now makes you gag if you eat enough of it. Or, the same sex position with your partner (or the same porn) becomes less pleasurable as well.

Sadly, this may also be the reason why drug law enforcement organizations such as the DEA are defying their government's orders to stop going after marijuana in states which have decriminalized its use. They are addicted to the thrill of going after "bad guys" because some may be violent and/or armed. And once they do make a bust, their dopamine system kicks in as well.

A further motivation for their insubordination is most likely due to the law pertaining to seizure of property from such "bad guys" which they may perceive as their (possibly lucrative) plunder.

In any case, scientists believe that humans find danger-seeking pleasurable because it's been necessary to our evolution.

"If humans didn't take risks," they say, "we'd still be living in caves!"

 

[Droppersneck]

This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of social conservatives in the United States. They like to bash liberals for supporting large governments and the "nanny state," but refuse to acknowledge that the prohibitionist policies they support fall into the same category.

Exacty they love their DEA nice and bloated. No different than the libs beefing up the EPA in recent weeks.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Just noticed I did not make note of the point of my earlier post. Although yet, my political identity is largely frames from an anarchist paradigm, my earlier post was just being silly - is the most meaningful way, living in the home of the free and land of the brave nonetheless. Maybe even ironic could be the word...

"I vote for anarchism."

 

[spacejunk]

Took it as a clever bit of irony, m'self

 

[Jabberwocky]

Well, yea, der you're more than intelligent enough and on point to catch something as singularly meaningless/silly as that (or this post...). [/insert tongue in ass]

 

[e1evene1even]

This whole article is "wrong". It takes many of the issues directly caused or exasperated by prohibition and then uses that to argue we need prohibition to protect us from them. Then it continues with the easily debunked canard of addiction, failing to realize the addiction rates for even the hardest drugs are quite low. But then when it starts talking about how addictive cannabis is based on massaged statistics of forced treatment it's clear there will be nothing redeeming in the article and rather than the topic of drugs being taken seriously it's only being used as an excuse to attack libertarianism.

 

[ebola?]

I could, for example, use combinations of some of these words in an attempt to articulate my social and political world view - but in doing so, I would only be limiting myself, tying myself up in ideology.

The notion of engaging in sociopolitical reasoning on some set of an-ideological or a-theoretical grounds is a convenient fiction, leading people to rely instead on some sort of implicit worldview to render an intelligible analysis possible. In many different guises, commitment to working 'without ideology' has come to form a wide array of ideologies.

ebola

 

[Jabberwocky]

duuuuuude ebola you're like the new Slavoj Zizek

 

[bit_pattern]

Exacty they love their DEA nice and bloated. No different than the libs beefing up the EPA in recent weeks.

No. None whatsoever. The EPA is definitely paramilitary force that goes busting into homes and killing children with flash bangs - because that's what Big Gubberment does, y'all 8)