Loudmouth--Read me!

[LittleWyvern]

This thread:

[yjacket]

Indeed. I am beginning to fear the gap may be unbridgeable. It is at least encouraging that we both recognize a communications problem.

I agree, this is getting pointless.

You have not considered the claim that prohibition is a part of curing the problem, much as fixing the hole in the dike is a part of reclaiming the farmland.

Laws do not exist to cure a problem that is the issue that I am trying to explain.

Laws exist to deprive someone of life, liberty, property. Laws cannot, do not and will not solve all of societies problems. Education, reasoning, and logic solve societal problems.

You believe it is morally just, right, and valid to put someone in jail for smoking a joint!

That logic tells me that you believe if you got 10 people together in a city and 6/10 said we are going to pass a law that everyone must exercise 30 min. a day that it would be fine. There is no underlying fundamental basis on what should or shouldn't be law. That basis of what should or shouldn't be law ends up being whatever the majority decides is right and whatever behavior it deems must be eradicated. And that is an extremely dangerous proposition that leads to tyranny of the majority.

My reasoning is that laws should be based on natural law; i.e. if someone smokes a joint and robs someone to get money to do so they should go to jail, the reason why is to a large degree irrelevant. They robbed someone. One cannot eliminate or create laws to eliminate all the reasons or excuses someone has for robbing someone, one can only write a law punishing the actual act that violated natural law.

Making a thing illegal does not solve the problems that thing causes, but instead introduces a whole new host of new side-problems. Therefore, we ought not to make that thing illegal.

My refutation is to bring up examples, such as rape and murder, that invalidate your logic. No reasonable person will argue that rape and murder ought not to be illegal, even if we concede that making those things illegal will not completely prevent them.

Now, you may argue that drug usage is fundamentally different from rape and murder, or that the black markets created are fundamentally different, or other such things. But that is not what you are arguing. Rather, you are arguing that we should not make a thing illegal because making it illegal causes more side-problems than it solves.

?? I just did say they were and are different. In one case it is an inherently violent act, the other is not an inherently violent act.

No I was trying to refute your argument that if I understand you, we have laws against drugs not because they violate natural rights, but because they represent a behavior that we find reprehensible. I was trying to say that if you want to cure the behavior there are better ways of curing it than having a law. Again comparing drug use to murder or rape is out there. One is a violent act the other is not. I was trying to say that using laws to regulate non-violent behavior can and does lead to a whole host of violent acts.

While I disagree with your characterization of that thinking as "total crap" -- it surely is not, and we have many actual, real-life examples of the effects of lawlessness and the preferability of even a totalitarian regime to anarchy (see, for example, Liberia) -- I actually agree with what I understand to be the thrust of your paragraph above.

I don't know, a lawless regime didn't murder millions of people. I'm way more afraid of the state, like Stalin, Hitler, etc vs. a lawless society.

Agreed. This is one reason I openly acknowledged my non-authority and offered my insights as opinions.

Books you may have read are of no moment. I can list out lots of book titles, too. Doesn't really mean anything.

Then what was your entire point? I never claimed to be an expert, I said I've read a lot and I've researched a lot. I understand the economics of prohibition very well.

Very interesting. Exactly what do you believe I proposed as "my solution"? Because I don't remember proposing any solutions, but maybe I did and just forgot about it.

That prohibition works?? except that it really doesn't . . .

How is this different from saying, "What works is understanding why individuals rape other people and then solving that issue" or "What works is understanding why individuals murder people and then solving that issue"?

Actually yeah, there are a lot of studies and research into rape individuals and understanding why they do what they do.

Are not laws prohibiting such society-destroying behaviors an integral part of said solution?

Difference between acts that violate life, liberty, property and those that don't. Otherwise, we get laws like NYC ban on sugar drinks.

I am saying that it is naive at best to lay the blame for a highly complex situation at the proximal trigger.

?? The powder keg was there, and that was the spark. Yes it was highly complex, but that was the spark that lit it. If that didn't happen does another spark light it, maybe? maybe not? we'll never know.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Larry Correia tells all here about this subject.

Larry Correia refutes the gun controllers once and for all — 1389 Blog - Counterjihad!

The dead horse has been beat to death over this subject.

[yjacket]

Larry Correia tells all here about this subject.

Larry Correia refutes the gun controllers once and for all — 1389 Blog - Counterjihad!

The dead horse has been beat to death over this subject.

I haven't read that before; thank you. One of the best short pieces I've read on the subject. 2 thumbs up; it is now bookmarked.

[Guest]

That is horrible, however, you are conflating multiple issues. 1st off, since they were married it's a little difficult to fully understand who was stealing what, and I won't presume to understand everything. Of course, I can make an extremely valid case that had cocaine been legal he wouldn't have had to sell off everything because it would have been cheap.

yjacket, my uncle stole from his IN-LAWS to pay for his cocaine addiction. I guess you are not familiar with cocaine addiction? The price of cocaine is completely irrelevant to the uncontrollable desire of the addict. A hit of cocaine can be 10 cents a pop, a cocaine addict will spend his entire fortune 10 cents at a time and once that is depleted, he'll start on other's.

There are shared resources in a marriage. This issue is no different than a spend-thrift wife who blows through thousands of dollars a month. The act of spending the money, the theft is the act which is prosecutable. The act of killing someone can be prosecuted. The act of abusing is violence and is prosecutable. Did the drugs "make" him do it, or was he already a severely damaged individual who needed a lot of help and used drugs as an escape.

The insanity is caused by the drugs. Plain and simple. It is completely the same as the rotted lung of a chain smoker directly caused by his addiction to nicotine. It is different from a spend-thrift spouse in that the psychological imbalance of spend-thriftiness is caused by a person's psychological make-up; not a "thing". If you don't believe me, talk to a cocaine addict.

Natural Laws are extremely relevant because there are a litany of personal behaviors and personal decisions that can cause harmful effects. Natural Law states that you can only prosecute and have laws for those things that actually cause harm. You can't put someone in jail because you think they "might" kill someone, you put them in jail because they killed someone. This goes back to innocent until proven guilty. The basis of our system assumes that guilty people will go free, but it is better than some guilty go free rather than the innocent be prosecuted. The basis is that it is only when a behavior violates someone life, liberty, property should it be prosecuted. We shouldn't put people in jail for what they might do.

If you think people can't be prosecuted for what they MIGHT cause then the government owes me thousands of dollars for my speeding tickets.

I'll relate my own ancedote. I home taught a family who's husband had recently been busted 3rd time for MJ. 3 strikes your out the guy received 5 years in jail. He had early teen children. Wife was completely devastated. Not only was she upset about her husband doing drugs, but she was now a single mom raising 3 kids as they were going through their formative years. Her husband sits in jail with individuals who'd committed violent acts. For the rest of his life, he is labeled a felon and his ability to provide is severely hampered. The moment in my life I realized I'd been very wrong about drugs. The guy needed help not jail time.

There is a ginormous difference between Marijuana and Cocaine. That's my beef with the DEA. The DEA is a non-elected office that has the power to arbitrarily make something legal or illegal without Congress oversight. But this issue is not the problem we are discussing. There are thousands of cases of a non-violent criminal put in the same population as hardcore criminals. This is a different issue altogether.

[LittleWyvern]

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

This is a really sad commentary on American society. I'm not disagreeing with him: the fact that this is true is really sad.

...and I shouldn't have explored that blog. That guy is super anti-Muslim. *barf*

[Still_Small_Voice]

...and I shouldn't have explored that blog. That guy is super anti-Muslim. *barf*

I haven't read his views on Muslims. I just know his piece is one of the most common sense pieces ever written on firearm ownership.

We live in a telestial world and until the LORD comes I want a means to protect myself and loved ones from people who would want to do us harm (and I hope to never have to use it).

I think a lot of people live in denial that someone would actually attempt to do violence to them or the thought rarely crosses their minds.

[yjacket]

yjacket, my uncle stole from his IN-LAWS to pay for his cocaine addiction. I guess you are not familiar with cocaine addiction? The price of cocaine is completely irrelevant to the uncontrollable desire of the addict. A hit of cocaine can be 10 cents a pop, a cocaine addict will spend his entire fortune 10 cents at a time and once that is depleted, he'll start on other's.

And a law against drugs did a lot of good to prevent him from forming a cocaine habit . . . .

Well one could say if he is that addicted to steal, at 10 cents a pop he'll be doing so much of it he'll end up killing himself long before he starts seriously harming other people.

The insanity is caused by the drugs. Plain and simple. It is completely the same as the rotted lung of a chain smoker directly caused by his addiction to nicotine. It is different from a spend-thrift spouse in that the psychological imbalance of spend-thriftiness is caused by a person's psychological make-up; not a "thing". If you don't believe me, talk to a cocaine addict.

?? I take cocaine and I immediately become insane. What you are doing is equating cocaine use to stealing which is not the case. I'm sure you've heard of Wall Street and stories of cocaine. Wall Street Cocaine Stories - Business Insider

If cocaine use = breaking into someone's home there would be a lot of break-ins on Wall Street; but there isn't. Why? Because they have sufficient money to fuel their addiction.

Or basically, if someone uses cocaine = they will steal; when it is really someone who is seriously addicted to cocaine might steal. Yes it is horrible, it is bad, but people do a lot of things that are horrible, bad to themselves.

If you think people can't be prosecuted for what they MIGHT cause then the government owes me thousands of dollars for my speeding tickets.

Again confusing issues. Who own the roads? Do you own them, no, the government owns them. Regardless of my personal ideas on speeding tickets as long as the government owns the roads it can do whatever it pleases with them. Whether the government should own it is another question, but not germane to this discussion.

Do you own your body or does the government own your body? Or more to the point because government is a collection of other human beings, do you own someone else's physical body? Because that is what you are saying with drug laws, we as a society deem that if you put x into your body it is punishable by jail. Ownership of something means you can sell it, you can destroy it, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you don't violate someone else's rights in the process.

And a speeding fine is vastly different than going to jail. I can get as many speeding tickets as I want and as long as I pay the fine I won't go to jail. Eventually my license will get revoked and if I drive without one on government roads I will then go to jail . . . but again government owns the road so they make the rules.

I get stopped with cocaine, I go to jail. Fine != jail.

There is a ginormous difference between Marijuana and Cocaine. That's my beef with the DEA. The DEA is a non-elected office that has the power to arbitrarily make something legal or illegal without Congress oversight. But this issue is not the problem we are discussing. There are thousands of cases of a non-violent criminal put in the same population as hardcore criminals. This is a different issue altogether.

Absolutely, there is a huge difference. However, it is all part of the same problem. Drug Enforcement Administration, what do they do enforce drug laws. When you create drug laws, you have to have an industry build up to enforce the laws and you relinquish any type of real ability for the legislature to dictate how to implement the laws without more laws and then more laws on how to implement the implementation . . .

The underlying current is all this discussion is that if we didn't have laws against drug usage everybody would be doing it (okay not everybody, but it would be out of control). And it is so completely dangerous that one touch will destroy everything. I like that line to tell my kids, but the reality of it is far different and we can't have laws based upon fear upon what might happen.

I served my mission in Northern Argentina, at the time cocaine was completely legal in the northern provinces. Not once in 2 years did I ever hear about or worry about assault or random robbery from some drug crazed person. A few times people stole from their relatives to fuel their addiction, but that is hardly different than what currently happens here with all the manpower, laws, and resources directed at drugs. I met many who chewed coca leaves (it leaves a disgusting green junk all over their lips). They were in need of help. Some people chewed it and did just fine, some were addicted and needed help, but having drugs legal didn't lead to chaos.

I completely disagree, human beings do learn to self-regulate. I don't drink soda, why because it destroys your teeth, not because there is a law against it. Cocaine isn't a new substance:

Cocaine in your brain

Look at the pictures, it was getting sold in the 1880s, I've never read any history about massive drug problems like we have today in the 1880s.

Members of the church don't drink alcohol, not because there is a law, but because we chose not to. Laws are not nor should be designed to prevent human behavior, laws are designed to affix punishment and enact justice.

This whole concept is extremely relevant to gun laws. It is the exact same type of thinking. If we don't have laws against semi-automatic weapons, or against 10-15 more bullets in a clip, mass chaos will result because people will be shooting each other up. If we don't have laws against drug usage, mass chaos will result because little children will use drugs and everyone will be shooting themselves up.

Edited December 19, 2013 by yjacket

[Vort]

It appears I have helped in a thread hijack. I apologize; that was not my intent.

[yjacket]

It appears I have helped in a thread hijack. I apologize; that was not my intent.

It takes 2 to tango. My fault also, my apologies as well.