It’s my understanding that possession of small quantities is not a criminal offense, but selling any quantity is. How does one legally acquire those legal small quantities?
Does the opium fairy leave some smack in my shoes overnight if I put cookies in there? Why should anyone sell to you when you can rat them out without legal consequences? This is one of those laws just made for “unintended consequences.”
(I voted for marijuana legalization in Colorado because it removed the state penalties for the sale and distribution, not just possession.)
Raoul, can you please put me in touch with this opium fairy? She sounds like fun.
I don’t think anyone governing Oregon can make hard choices and Lefties live for chaos.
So, it seems like just more chaos and mayhem. And a stream judges throwing the bones to discern the future.
A relative lives in Springfield, OR, just east of Eugene. Homeless druggies and used needles are everywhere, and that was before the law passed. Now they will have the lib’s unanticipated consequence (because libs are brainlets). Homeless druggies will flock to Oregon in hoards.
National Review has made itself irrelevant, and I immediately discard any links to it. I don’t give a damn what any of their contributors writes any more, they have nothing worthwhile to contribute on any level whatsoever.
In the last four years I think the only thing I’ve read there are articles by Victor Davis Hanson. He was like the token rational conservative who just ignored whatever else they published, just as they ignored his wisdom and depth while trying to eliminate their last paying customer.
Other analysts, prudently, are determined to force our eyes wide open. AEI’s Naomi Schaefer Riley and Hudson’s John Walters (the latter was President George W. Bush’s drug czar) published a Wall Street Journal essay last week, outlining in remorseless detail the wages of parental drug abuse on the lives of young children.
We need to keep in mind that those analysts are protecting a huge revenue stream for US law enforcement. Parental drug abuse will continue to harm children, but it’ll be less harmful in the absence of a militarized law enforcement industry that can jail their parents instantly (and in many cases, profitably), and seize property without due process.
Sorry, harm to children doesn’t justify so much harm done to adults.
As the Tenth Amendment says, “Parents may not smoke opium lest they forsake their children. Everyone else may get high as Ben’s kite.”
Will it really be less harmful? It probably depends on the drugs in question. People doing shrooms isn’t all that damaging in terms of addiction and the problems that come with it. So, kids with parents who get busted with shrooms will probably be better off with legal shrooms. Meth and other drugs are very harmful and legalizing them could make it harder for parents and kids to get help.
Absent a way to deal with addiction, the problems we see today will get worse. We already see calls to get rid of police and replace them with grievance studies councilors, which is sure to fix a lot of problems, and we are likely to see more efforts to combat addiction that don’t solve the problem while making a lot of people rich in the process.
There is something to be said for letting people make their own stupid decisions but a lot of these drugs remove free will from the equation. Why is it that people begin using these drugs in the first place? Because the best way to stop is never to stop. I think a lot of the societal reasons that lead to abusing these drugs will not be addressed because the groups pushing legalization are trying to destroy society, either knowingly or unknowingly. Also, little progress will be made on addiction because kicking addiction means fixing problems on an individual level that people don’t want solved on a societal level.
It is hard to have didactic action where we better both society and the individual while also approve of and enable the degradation of both.
What will law enforcement look like? Possession is just one crime. Driving stolen vehicles, theft, assault, rape, driving without a license, and all the other crimes drug addicts get busted for aren’t going to disappear. Do Libertarians have any solutions to these problems?
Tried a lengthy reply earlier and it probably triggered the spam filter.
The question is not whether the drugs are bad, it whether the laws make a bad problem into a horrible one. The drugs will be there, the difference is whether the dealer is law abiding and tax paying or criminal.
It’s my understanding that possession of small quantities is not a criminal offense, but selling any quantity is. How does one legally acquire those legal small quantities?
Does the opium fairy leave some smack in my shoes overnight if I put cookies in there? Why should anyone sell to you when you can rat them out without legal consequences? This is one of those laws just made for “unintended consequences.”
(I voted for marijuana legalization in Colorado because it removed the state penalties for the sale and distribution, not just possession.)
Raoul, can you please put me in touch with this opium fairy? She sounds like fun.
I don’t think anyone governing Oregon can make hard choices and Lefties live for chaos.
So, it seems like just more chaos and mayhem. And a stream judges throwing the bones to discern the future.
A relative lives in Springfield, OR, just east of Eugene. Homeless druggies and used needles are everywhere, and that was before the law passed. Now they will have the lib’s unanticipated consequence (because libs are brainlets). Homeless druggies will flock to Oregon in hoards.
National Review has made itself irrelevant, and I immediately discard any links to it. I don’t give a damn what any of their contributors writes any more, they have nothing worthwhile to contribute on any level whatsoever.
In the last four years I think the only thing I’ve read there are articles by Victor Davis Hanson. He was like the token rational conservative who just ignored whatever else they published, just as they ignored his wisdom and depth while trying to eliminate their last paying customer.
Other analysts, prudently, are determined to force our eyes wide open. AEI’s Naomi Schaefer Riley and Hudson’s John Walters (the latter was President George W. Bush’s drug czar) published a Wall Street Journal essay last week, outlining in remorseless detail the wages of parental drug abuse on the lives of young children.
We need to keep in mind that those analysts are protecting a huge revenue stream for US law enforcement. Parental drug abuse will continue to harm children, but it’ll be less harmful in the absence of a militarized law enforcement industry that can jail their parents instantly (and in many cases, profitably), and seize property without due process.
Sorry, harm to children doesn’t justify so much harm done to adults.
As the Tenth Amendment says, “Parents may not smoke opium lest they forsake their children. Everyone else may get high as Ben’s kite.”
Will it really be less harmful? It probably depends on the drugs in question. People doing shrooms isn’t all that damaging in terms of addiction and the problems that come with it. So, kids with parents who get busted with shrooms will probably be better off with legal shrooms. Meth and other drugs are very harmful and legalizing them could make it harder for parents and kids to get help.
Absent a way to deal with addiction, the problems we see today will get worse. We already see calls to get rid of police and replace them with grievance studies councilors, which is sure to fix a lot of problems, and we are likely to see more efforts to combat addiction that don’t solve the problem while making a lot of people rich in the process.
There is something to be said for letting people make their own stupid decisions but a lot of these drugs remove free will from the equation. Why is it that people begin using these drugs in the first place? Because the best way to stop is never to stop. I think a lot of the societal reasons that lead to abusing these drugs will not be addressed because the groups pushing legalization are trying to destroy society, either knowingly or unknowingly. Also, little progress will be made on addiction because kicking addiction means fixing problems on an individual level that people don’t want solved on a societal level.
It is hard to have didactic action where we better both society and the individual while also approve of and enable the degradation of both.
What will law enforcement look like? Possession is just one crime. Driving stolen vehicles, theft, assault, rape, driving without a license, and all the other crimes drug addicts get busted for aren’t going to disappear. Do Libertarians have any solutions to these problems?
Tried a lengthy reply earlier and it probably triggered the spam filter.
The question is not whether the drugs are bad, it whether the laws make a bad problem into a horrible one. The drugs will be there, the difference is whether the dealer is law abiding and tax paying or criminal.