Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 38 of 38
  1. #1
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983

    Libertarian Party Website.

    With the upcoming election many of you may have the feeling that you are politicly homeless, that neither of the platforms or personalities running suit your beliefs.

    I would really like it if some of you Americans would spend some time reviewing this platform. I see it as the "true" Republican Party, how it was before the Conservative Movement and Ronald Reagan decided to begin dictating morality and removing us of our liberties. How Thomas Jefferson and the true Republicans intended for this country to function.

    I would also be more than happy to discuss the LP with anyone on the board.


    Badnarik '04


    http://www.lp.org/
    Last edited by inheritmylife; 09-21-2004 at 11:52 AM.

  2. #2
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    I'm with you. Don't like the open immigration stance because of the national security implications, and everyone having a gun is not going to stop a suicide bomber. Otherwise, it's Libertarian for me.

    chance

  3. #3
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    I'm with you. Don't like the open immigration stance because of the national security implications, and everyone having a gun is not going to stop a suicide bomber. Otherwise, it's Libertarian for me.

    chance

    I have issues with the immigration as well as the privatization of schools. The national security issue wouldnt be so important if the rest of the party platform is adhered to.

    I have always had a pretty socialist perspective when it comes to public education. Of course, I don't know everything, and if someone could present me with information that proves privatization benefits the majority, I would jump on board.

    The gun thing is the 2nd Amendment, I don't need any more reason to support it. Although, I could burry anyone who apposes it in study after study proving its benefit.

  4. #4
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Don't get me wrong, I wholely support the 2nd amendment and believe that anyone has the right to have and carry a weapon. I'm just saying that even if there were 20 people standing around and all had a gun, it wouldn't make much difference against a suicide bomber because they blend in until it's too late. That's all.

    One of the basic tenents of Libertarianism is that all services should be privatized, including education. Right now Higher education is privatized basically. But I think you're right about education as well. LP's privatized education includes absolutely no government subsidies. They, the schools are supposed to rely on charities and public donations. Granted the dollar for dollar tax credit for charitiable donation would help raise the amount of money that is donated, I can't see how this will benefit or help education.

    You're right about the national security problem since the LP will discontinue ALL foreign aide to everyone. That may make us have a lot less enemies, but what about those that depend on the aide? are they going to come after us now?

    Still, the Libertarian party aligns a lot more closely to my outlook than any other party.

  5. #5
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    I'm a libertarian, ideology wise.....and I don't see how anyone with an at least partionally functional brain can not be......But I'm a registered independant. That will change at some point though.....


    I think that if the media wasn't so slanted to the left you would see a lot more libertarians out there. It could actually become a three party system, only the Repub would be hurt as the Libertarians would be taking their vote.

  6. #6
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Repub would be hurt as the Libertarians would be taking their vote.

    This is exactly my intention in being a Libertarian. The Republican party will see that it is losing favor, and drop all the moral dictatorship, religious wacko nonsense. It will once again be the Republican Party, instead of the Conservative Movement.

    So, it is far from "throwing away" your vote. I vote LP on any level where someone is running. Things can change, but all you disgruntled, disenchanted Republicans and Independents just need to get out and VOTE!

    Even democrats may be enlightened by this platform if they put down their copy of the Manifesto and checked out the website.

    It's either tax-and-spend with Kerry, or borrow-and-spend with Bush. I don't like those options. I like the Laissez-Faire option better.

  7. #7
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    Don't get me wrong, I wholely support the 2nd amendment and believe that anyone has the right to have and carry a weapon. I'm just saying that even if there were 20 people standing around and all had a gun, it wouldn't make much difference against a suicide bomber because they blend in until it's too late. That's all.

    One of the basic tenents of Libertarianism is that all services should be privatized, including education. Right now Higher education is privatized basically. But I think you're right about education as well. LP's privatized education includes absolutely no government subsidies. They, the schools are supposed to rely on charities and public donations. Granted the dollar for dollar tax credit for charitiable donation would help raise the amount of money that is donated, I can't see how this will benefit or help education.

    You're right about the national security problem since the LP will discontinue ALL foreign aide to everyone. That may make us have a lot less enemies, but what about those that depend on the aide? are they going to come after us now?

    Still, the Libertarian party aligns a lot more closely to my outlook than any other party.

    People would buy the education that their children attend. Obviously private schools outperform public education, even though much of the tuition is spent on things besides the actual education. It could work. Its obvious that the current state of affairs in public education is pathetic, and THE ONLY way to even things out in the current system is to redistribute the wealth that people work their asses off to aquire. I don't consider that to be positive reform, it further punishes an already beaten-up middle class, which is exactly who this party should appeal to.

    I would like to hear more on the privatized education issue. Maybe I'll ask Badnarik when I go to see him on Thursday.
    He's speaking at The Ohio State University from 7-9PM.

    With foreign aid, no one really benefits from it anyway. It's the same issue as socialism, on a global scale. Let it be. Many more people would be happy with us for it than would be angry, mainly the individual taxpayer who could care less about how many tanks some other countries military has.
    Last edited by inheritmylife; 09-21-2004 at 02:07 PM.

  8. #8
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    Thank you, I have been spouting about LP for some time. I think Americans are so slow to change that it will be a long time, maybe never, that the average Yankee can entertain the possibility of more than 2 choices on a broad scale. LP has the best platform by far. It's like Republican minus the biblethumping and crappy foreign policy.

  9. #9
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by chicamahomico
    Thank you, I have been spouting about LP for some time. I think Americans are so slow to change that it will be a long time, maybe never, that the average Yankee can entertain the possibility of more than 2 choices on a broad scale. LP has the best platform by far. It's like Republican minus the biblethumping and crappy foreign policy.

    The thing Americans don't realize, is the LP IS the Republican Party. The GOP ceased to exist with Ronald Reagan and the Conservative Movement.

    These are the disciples of Jefferson, the true Republicans. Most of the current members of the Republican and Democratic parties remind me more of Catiline.

    Does the LP play a role in Canada?

  10. #10
    EastCoaster's Avatar
    EastCoaster is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,798

    This is what you get in a free country....

    Cool, Check out my post.


    EC
    Last edited by EastCoaster; 09-21-2004 at 10:10 PM.

  11. #11
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    Unfortunately a party with a LP philosophy would go absolutely nowhere in Canada. The majority of the population in the east is a rather Liberal bunch. Like decades upon decades of Liberal rule here....

    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    Does the LP play a role in Canada?

  12. #12
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    Encourage everyone to vote for the libertarians, that only takes votes away from Kerry. I like alot of ideas that libertarians have but dont see how alot of them would work.

    Privatizing education would be a mistake. That would force parents to be responsible and save money for their kids education. In the inner city these parents dont care about anything but drugs they would let their kids starve and be homeless without goverment assistance. Ive even heard of crack head moms trading their kids food stamps for crack!!!! These kids would have no future if it wasnt for goverment assistance. They barely have one now.

    I am responsible enough to handle my own problems. But many people are not. Without the goverment assistance there would only be more crime. We would be having to shoot people left and right. Allthough I think there is nothing that will make a person have some respect for themselves like not eating for a couple weeks.

    I think one day the libertarians will have a voice, but untill then encourage all the people you can to vote for the libertarians. I like Bush for right now.

  13. #13
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    Encourage everyone to vote for the libertarians, that only takes votes away from Kerry.
    ???

    I think you meant it would take votes away from Bush. If not you should realize that most Libertarians are as Drew Carey put it "Conservatives that still like to get high".

  14. #14
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    JEJEJEJEJEEJEJE anyways thats how you laugh in spanish.

    Isnt Ralph Nader a libertarian in disguise???

  15. #15
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    Encourage everyone to vote for the libertarians, that only takes votes away from Kerry. I like alot of ideas that libertarians have but dont see how alot of them would work.

    Privatizing education would be a mistake. That would force parents to be responsible and save money for their kids education. In the inner city these parents dont care about anything but drugs they would let their kids starve and be homeless without goverment assistance. Ive even heard of crack head moms trading their kids food stamps for crack!!!! These kids would have no future if it wasnt for goverment assistance. They barely have one now.

    I am responsible enough to handle my own problems. But many people are not. Without the goverment assistance there would only be more crime. We would be having to shoot people left and right. Allthough I think there is nothing that will make a person have some respect for themselves like not eating for a couple weeks.

    I think one day the libertarians will have a voice, but untill then encourage all the people you can to vote for the libertarians. I like Bush for right now.
    Government assistance. Unfortunately, it is neither the Federal governments job, nor within its scope of power to take care of people that will not take care of themselves. A huge part of the reason you have minorities living in disproportionately large numbers in poverty are racist drug policies, a failed welfare system, and poor economic policy. People will once again need to learn to rely on family, the Church, friends, and the sheer strength of the human will to get themselves out of a corner. There will always be winners and losers, that is a fact of life. However, taking personal responsibility out of peoples hands and giving it to a government that can barely manage the tasks that are granted it by the Constitution is poor policy indeed.

  16. #16
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC78
    ???

    I think you meant it would take votes away from Bush. If not you should realize that most Libertarians are as Drew Carey put it "Conservatives that still like to get high".

    Yes, this is true. The majority of third parties take votes from the GOP, especially the LP. There are also the Socialist and Communist Parties, but only wackos with no concept of history or America vote for them.

  17. #17
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    Isnt Ralph Nader a libertarian in disguise???
    No way! Nader is just this side of Socialist. He's as VERY liberal and about as far left as you can get. All of his standing up for the consumer rhetoric is just thinly vieled government control of trade, manufacturing, and the economy. Anytime you look at a candidate and they want the government to do anything for you, they are typically NOT a Libertarian, and probably a Liberal.

    Libertarians don't want the government involved in your life at all.
    Republicans want the government to enforce right and wrong in your life.
    Democrats want the government to fix "social injustice".
    Liberals want the government to make things the same for everyone by redistributing everyone elses wealth.

    chance

  18. #18
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    People use this exact same argument in Canada when it comes to public run medicare. Privitization of education is an idea which is growing in popularity because of the results it has the potential to produce. I think most of the inner city population does have a future given a half decent education which they might be able to afford if the system were privatized to some extent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    Privatizing education would be a mistake. That would force parents to be responsible and save money for their kids education. In the inner city these parents dont care about anything but drugs they would let their kids starve and be homeless without goverment assistance. Ive even heard of crack head moms trading their kids food stamps for crack!!!! These kids would have no future if it wasnt for goverment assistance. They barely have one now.

    I am responsible enough to handle my own problems. But many people are not. Without the goverment assistance there would only be more crime. We would be having to shoot people left and right. Allthough I think there is nothing that will make a person have some respect for themselves like not eating for a couple weeks.

  19. #19
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    I am responsible enough to handle my own problems. But many people are not. Without the goverment assistance there would only be more crime. We would be having to shoot people left and right. Allthough I think there is nothing that will make a person have some respect for themselves like not eating for a couple weeks.
    This is the argument of the Left. People can't take care of themselves so we'll take care of them with your money. The problem is once they're being taken care of, what motivation do they have to go to work and support themselves? Other than personal pride. Actually, the Left would like to see us all on welfare. We'd all work and our paycheck would go to the government, who would then redistribute the funds as they saw fit, giving us a small stipend to live on. I'm sorry, I already have a Mom and Dad, and they haven't supported me for several decades.

    The Liberatarian Party wants to put "welfare" in the hands of community charities. There are already places for people to go for help. The LP also want to give a dollar for dollar tax credit for charitable contributions to encourage giving to these charities. Libertarians are all about individual responsibility and community support with minimal government intervention. Jefferson is attributed with saying, "That government is best which governs least." There is already a support infrastructure in place, but current tax laws inhibit giving at the middle class level because the return in tax credit is minimal. People aren't just cut loose to fend for themselves completely, but they are required to take responsibility for themselves and contribute to their community. How can that be bad?

    chance
    Last edited by chances; 09-22-2004 at 09:47 AM.

  20. #20
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    The Liberatarian Party wants to put "welfare" in the hands of community charities. There are already places for people to go for help. The LP also want to give a dollar for dollar tax credit for charitable contributions to encourage giving to these charities. Libertarians are all about individual responsibility and community support with minimal government intervention. Jefferson is attributed with saying, "That government is best which governs least." There is already a support infrastructure in place, but current tax laws inhibit giving at the middle class level because the return in tax credit is minimal. People aren't just cut loose to fend for themselves completely, but they are required to take responsibility for themselves and contribute to their community. How can that be bad?

    chance
    I'm a big fan of this idea. What we have today just is not working, if I recall the homeless and poverty level is the same or worse than it was back when we starting implememting all these socialistic programs way back......so the only thing that has happened is a lot fo $ down the drain. Ditto with the war on drugs. Its time people starting using their heads instead of their Bibles or .....well, I have never really known what liberals use to think.......but either way its time for people to start using their head when it comes to politics. The LP understands what motivates people, and that is why I think they would be so successful.

  21. #21
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    Government assistance. Unfortunately, it is neither the Federal governments job, nor within its scope of power to take care of people that will not take care of themselves. A huge part of the reason you have minorities living in disproportionately large numbers in poverty are racist drug policies, a failed welfare system, and poor economic policy. People will once again need to learn to rely on family, the Church, friends, and the sheer strength of the human will to get themselves out of a corner. There will always be winners and losers, that is a fact of life. However, taking personal responsibility out of peoples hands and giving it to a government that can barely manage the tasks that are granted it by the Constitution is poor policy indeed.

    You cant really think that the minorities in the inner city cant do anything with their lives because of Racist White America,, Come on they are not doing anything all that different than where they originated from. It will take the Goverment to change these people. They not oppressed, They oppress themselves. If you go through their community you will notice that there is not very many buisness going on around there except drugs. Everything has bullet proof glass. Nothing but Gas stations and fast food restraunts with help wanted signs in the windows. They cant even get enough people to work the jobs they have there. ANd if you are talking about Crack having a heavier sentance than powder cocain, Bill Clinton did away with that.

  22. #22
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    You cant really think that the minorities in the inner city cant do anything with their lives because of Racist White America,, Come on they are not doing anything all that different than where they originated from. It will take the Goverment to change these people. They not oppressed, They oppress themselves. If you go through their community you will notice that there is not very many buisness going on around there except drugs. Everything has bullet proof glass. Nothing but Gas stations and fast food restraunts with help wanted signs in the windows. They cant even get enough people to work the jobs they have there. ANd if you are talking about Crack having a heavier sentance than powder cocain, Bill Clinton did away with that.

    No, that's not what I am saying at all. No drug was prohibited in the US until 1913. This was due to paranoia associated with Chinese using Opium and Black Americans using marijana. Mind you, they were not abusing it. certainly not to the extent that Alcohol, a far more dangerous substance than cocaine, is abused today. "They" used it, the establishment didn't, so the establishment illegalized it.

    A few years later the Gov't enacted prohibition of alcohol, and some of the most infamous "criminals" in the history of our country were born. A period of "crime" ensued that rivals anything in US history. Later it was repealed, and now you can buy it at the grociery store.

    Well, they never repealed the drug prohibition, and 6 of 10 people in prison are there for drug crimes. Coincidentaly, 1 in 3 black males will be charged with a felony in his lifetime, and you guessed it, it will likely be for a drug related offence.

    So make drugs legal, and excessive police presence ends because there are no drug crimes taking place. If there is no black market for drugs, it ceases to be profitable for the 16 year old black kid sitting on the corner.

    In reaction, he gets a real job because businesses decide maybe the ghetto isn't the worse place in the world to set up shop. Mr. buisness owner thinks that it is a better place now because the violence associated with illegal drug trade is no-more.

    People from the community decide to start spending money in these businesses because they have money now. They have money because the government has no need to tax for the purpose of continuing the drug war.

    The government also can now tear down 60% of its prisons, or better yet, sell them because 60% of the prisoners don't need to be there.

    People in the "ghetto" also have more money because people who have money don't need welfare and are perfectly capable of saving for their own retirements. So the government can do away with Federal Welfare and Social Security.

    White people can cease their "white flight" into the burbs and move back into the city because they have no reason to fear the violence. Black people can move into the burbs if they want because they can afford to.

    And guess what happens next? We begin to interact, to see each other as equals. We get along because we aren't seperated by city limits and schools and zoning.

    Black people have no beef with disproportionate education anymore because their very children recieve the same education as their white neighbors children. Black kids start getting a real learning expierience, and the playing field is level.

    Well, so much for equal oppertunity, and racial selectivity in college admisions. No need for that anymore.



    It really is this simple. I have a confidence this would work I can only liken to a devout religious person's faith in a God they have no proof exists. It has never happened, BUT IT CAN! It won't happen in a year, or even a decade, but I believe that if we were to start tommorow anew, my children would witness it.

    That's good enough for me.

    IML

  23. #23
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    While I'm in favor of legalizing drugs, I think there are too many problems with it.......that sounds Kerry-ish, and it kind of is the way phrased it. While I very much like the notion of legalizing drugs, it just doesn't seem feasable to me. While there are a lot of problems that would be solved, there would be a lot of problems created, and there would still be many of the same problems that we had before to go along with it. This is one of the areas where I disagree with the LP on.

    http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidru...ent/myths.html

  24. #24
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    While I'm in favor of legalizing drugs, I think there are too many problems with it.......that sounds Kerry-ish, and it kind of is the way phrased it. While I very much like the notion of legalizing drugs, it just doesn't seem feasable to me. While there are a lot of problems that would be solved, there would be a lot of problems created, and there would still be many of the same problems that we had before to go along with it. This is one of the areas where I disagree with the LP on.

    http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidru...ent/myths.html

    I understand your concern, but the assertations in that article are, in most part, unsupportable by research when held in contrast to the opposing veiwpoint. There is simply far more research contradicting everything stated in that 'opinion piece' than there is to support its claims.

    Once more, the article is written by an active member of the Family Research Council. In case you are not familiar with this lobbying group, it is an extremely radical child of the Conservative Movement. These are the people that have shown time and time again, they are incapable of secular thought. In short, they are religious wackos.

    I'm not attacking you bro, but I have no love for the FRC. They are not a good place to be finding "facts".

  25. #25
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    Im split on legalizing Drugs. I did drugs when I was a kid and I can you from personal experiance that some drugs like Meth or Cocaine will make you think evil thoughts. For the rest I never had that problem. When I was a kid I have seen the most horrible things in druggy parents homes. The way the kids where treated I have never seen any where else.

    You cant hold a job or take care of your family when you use Heroin, Cocaine, or Meth.

    I know it would lower the crime rate , But you realize that in alot of states they keep building prison after prison because its a good way to make money off the federal goverment.

  26. #26
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    I understand your concern, but the assertations in that article are, in most part, unsupportable by research when held in contrast to the opposing veiwpoint. There is simply far more research contradicting everything stated in that 'opinion piece' than there is to support its claims.

    Once more, the article is written by an active member of the Family Research Council. In case you are not familiar with this lobbying group, it is an extremely radical child of the Conservative Movement. These are the people that have shown time and time again, they are incapable of secular thought. In short, they are religious wackos.

    I'm not attacking you bro, but I have no love for the FRC. They are not a good place to be finding "facts".

    Biased, yes, they may be, but its hard to just ignore what they are saying. Keep in mind that many of the places that support "legalizing it" are biased too......

    The FRC have numerous historical, statistical and expert data in there. The best indicator of future performance is history, as those who do not learn from it are doomed to repeat it.......A lof the talk of legalization is based on things that go against one of the biggest reasons why I like the LP in the first place: Human nature. If it hasn't worked in the past, why would it work now? Thats like saying we can make communism work.......


    Anhydro78: The only crime rate it would lower is those going to jail for selling, possessing, distrubuting drugs, etc, things along those lines. But when the punk who is "dusted up" on PCP decides he is pissed and goes for a walk, be prepared to see some violent crime......we are taking away one type of crime and replacing it with another.
    Last edited by UrbanLegend; 09-22-2004 at 09:25 PM.

  27. #27
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Anhydro78: The only crime rate it would lower is those going to jail for selling, possessing, distrubuting drugs, etc, things along those lines. But when the punk who is "dusted up" on PCP decides he is pissed and goes for a walk, be prepared to see some violent crime......we are taking away one type of crime and replacing it with another.
    It will also lessen the peripheral crimes associated with drugs such as gang and organized crime crimes. Also those that are associated with trying to obtain drugs such as burglary, breaking and entering, those sorts of crimes. Notice I didn't say end them, but some will be curbed, others will just look for different ways to get their ill gotten gains.

    Taking PCP and getting violent is causing harm to another and thus illegal. Remember it should be legal as long as it does not harm another individual. If it is found that PCP cannot be taken the majority of the time without harming someone else, it will be made illegal.

    The idea is to keep government from telling you what you can and can't do, or how ot live your life, but sometimes it will have to step in for the good of the community, not for the good of the individual.

    chance

  28. #28
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    I can see how legalizing drugs would lessen the violence assocaited with the selling of it, and the addicts trying to get it.....But would legalization necessarily reduce other drug-induced crime? Presumably legalization would reduce the cost of drugs and thus addicts might commit fewer crimes to pay for their habits. But less expensive drugs might also feed their habit better, and more drugs means more side effects like paranoia, irritability and violence. Free drugs or legalizing bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens. Dr. Mitchell S. Rosenthal, expert on drugs and adolescents and president of Phoenix House, a resident treatment center in New York, said, "If you give somebody free drugs you don't turn him into a responsible employee, husband, or father." 70 percent of current inmates were on illegal drugs when arrested and, if drugs become cheaper, violent crime could reasonably be expected to increase.

    California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles. Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use. Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem. Read some more of the article I posted if you don't believe me......the numbers are there. What I posted was just some choice experts.

    Legalizing drugs will only make things better for addicts, and worse for the rest of us.

    Steroids do not fall into this category, however, as they don't hurt people......or else everyone on this board would be in jail or in a hospital with caner, etc......

  29. #29
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    Urban legend that is what im saying. A mask of reduced crime rate will occur but the Guy who gets high and screws his kids will still be there. The crack head moms that prostitute their kids will still be there. And diassociated parenting will still occur. Not everyone that does drugs does evil things. But they make you not even care about your self or anyone around you. I dont see how making them to appear not wrong will help society. I dont know about the statitics of drug use right now but I can see with my own eyes where drugs wasnt looked down upon when I went to school but my Little brother and sister and their freinds think drug users are nuts. I think legalizing them will only send the wrong message to our youth.

    The only way a libertarian society would work would be either you put violent predatory criminals to death or let them rot in prison for the rest of their life.

  30. #30
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Maybe it's a Darwinian thing. Let those with the inability to deal with addiction remove themselves from the gene pool. The thing that no study can show is if responsibility is given to the individual but enforced by the community, what effect does that have on use? The individual responsibility part doesn't play any role in these studies because we don't require it in our society, and the communities are not required to enforce any sort of responsibility, individual or otherwise. These may be the factors that are missing from the equation.

    chance

  31. #31
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    I can see how legalizing drugs would lessen the violence assocaited with the selling of it, and the addicts trying to get it.....But would legalization necessarily reduce other drug-induced crime?
    Maybe not, but it won't add more. By drug induced, I assume you mean behavior such as driving under the inluence? That's an easy fix, take their liscense away if they DUI. Just like alcohol. If that isnt what you meant, I assume you can only mean when the drugs make you "flip out " and kill whole towns right? I would say that steroids have a much worse reputation for increasing male aggression than any other substance besides alcohol, and we're all for legalizing AAS right? On second thought, maybe we should just keep all AAS including prohormones banned just because a few people are incapable of controling their temper.



    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Presumably legalization would reduce the cost of drugs and thus addicts might commit fewer crimes to pay for their habits. But less expensive drugs might also feed their habit better, and more drugs means more side effects like paranoia, irritability and violence.

    People that are going to use drugs will use them whether they are illegal or not. Legalization doesn't neccesarily mean a drop in price, the market will supply at the level of demand. Demand will stay about where it is now. Very few substances result in paranoia, irritability and violence. Alcohol is notorious for violence. However, the government acknowledges our freedom to use it responsibly.


    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Free drugs or legalizing bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens. Dr. Mitchell S. Rosenthal, expert on drugs and adolescents and president of Phoenix House, a resident treatment center in New York, said, "If you give somebody free drugs you don't turn him into a responsible employee, husband, or father." 70 percent of current inmates were on illegal drugs when arrested and, if drugs become cheaper, violent crime could reasonably be expected to increase.

    Thedrugs would not be free, or even cheap for that matter. 6 of 10 inmates are serving time for drug crimes, it wouldn't surprise me that they were on drugs when they were arrested. How does this relate to violence?



    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles. Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use. Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem. Read some more of the article I posted if you don't believe me......the numbers are there. What I posted was just some choice experts.
    DUI is a legitimate problem that will need to be dealt with. deal with it the same way we do with alcohol, take their liscense away.
    Use of marijana isn't a crime if it isn't illegal, so why would it matter if use doubled?
    This study doesn't mention that alcohol is included as a drug.


    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Legalizing drugs will only make things better for addicts, and worse for the rest of us.

    It will make being a drug addict a matter of personal responsibility instead of illegal. It will make things considerably better for the rest of us.

  32. #32
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    The only way a libertarian society would work would be either you put violent predatory criminals to death or let them rot in prison for the rest of their life.

    We'd have plenty of extra room for the unreformable. People that abuse their freedoms should be punished, but to take away everyone's liberties for the misconduct of a few is assinine.

  33. #33
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    Use of marijana isn't a crime if it isn't illegal, so why would it matter if use doubled?
    This study doesn't mention that alcohol is included as a drug.
    This just prompted a question that wasn't answered. Use of marijuana doubled when it was legalized in Alaska. How did that use compare to numbers of people who used alcohol? Was it the same, less, double? I tried to find the original story from the Miami Herald and the only hit I could find was on the page UrbanLegend linked to. I'd be interested in seeing comparisons to alchol use when talking about increased use of legalized marijuana.

    Let me just state for the record. I hate marijuana, and most illicite drugs. I see no use for them and think they are bad for you. I feel the same about alcohol and tobacco. I just think it is not the governments place to legislate my right to choose what to put into my body, unless said use effects another individual.

    chance

  34. #34
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    Maybe not, but it won't add more. By drug induced, I assume you mean behavior such as driving under the inluence? That's an easy fix, take their liscense away if they DUI. Just like alcohol. If that isnt what you meant, I assume you can only mean when the drugs make you "flip out " and kill whole towns right? I would say that steroids have a much worse reputation for increasing male aggression than any other substance besides alcohol, and we're all for legalizing AAS right? On second thought, maybe we should just keep all AAS including prohormones banned just because a few people are incapable of controling their temper. .
    Drug induced crime is any crime that was induced by drug ussage. Now hows that for circular reasoning......DUI is just one of many. What I meant more specifically was a crime that was commited because someone's judgement was impared by toxins. For example, if someone were to kill someone else while experiencing cocaine induced paranoia, that would be a drug induced crime.

    AAS is a poor example because there aren't any credible references about the negative side effects that warented their illegalization. Such is not the case for many other drugs.....



    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    People that are going to use drugs will use them whether they are illegal or not. Legalization doesn't neccesarily mean a drop in price, the market will supply at the level of demand. Demand will stay about where it is now. Very few substances result in paranoia, irritability and violence. Alcohol is notorious for violence. However, the government acknowledges our freedom to use it responsibly. .
    Most of what you are saying is true. But the studies in that article state that drug usage (and even alcohol usage) are less when it was illegal. Usage increased with legalization. That doesn't mean we are all going to turn into addicts, but lets not ignore history.

    If the price of drugs remains steady, at its marked up 10x state it is now, then we will have a black market deliema, and still be fighting the war on drugs. These dealers will just sell it cheaper. Isn't the point in legalizing this stuff mostly about getting rid of the black market?

    .....but at the same time, if we lower the prices, it more readily feeds the addiction, and thus we end up with more guys "high on coke with a banna clip." First rap lyric I heard on the radio this morning.....



    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    Thedrugs would not be free, or even cheap for that matter. 6 of 10 inmates are serving time for drug crimes, it wouldn't surprise me that they were on drugs when they were arrested. How does this relate to violence?.

    Well, drugs can induce violence and impait judgment, which is probalby why a lot of these guys committed the crimes that they did. The drugs these people sell (and the most likely were selling, personal users get a snap on the wrist and are sent to rehab) ruin lives through this process.




    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    DUI is a legitimate problem that will need to be dealt with. deal with it the same way we do with alcohol, take their liscense away.
    Use of marijana isn't a crime if it isn't illegal, so why would it matter if use doubled?
    This study doesn't mention that alcohol is included as a drug.
    Well, there is more than one study first of all

    The DUI issue is touching on the base of some of why I think legalizing drugs is just a wet dream for addicts. In Europe, they have the right idea. Let the people drink alcohol, but punish them brutally if they drink and drive. Here in the U.S, we don't seem to care.......thats why there are so many drinking and driving occurances, the penalties are laughable.

    As for the doubling of MJ use, that goes with the idea that it impairs judgment, etc, and thus will lead to more problems if its usage increases.


    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    It will make being a drug addict a matter of personal responsibility instead of illegal. It will make things considerably better for the rest of us.
    It will NOT make being a drug addict a matter of personal responsibility at all. Addicts are not responsible, hence why they got addicted in the first place. Addiction also goes along with lack of responsiblity, where the need for drugs take priority over everything else. I don't see how legalizing drugs could make anything better for anyone but an addict........unlesss.........We could utilize penalties that would keep people in line, but that would never happen in America. A slap on the wrist and jail time taking up $ is what would happen......

    Look at what has happend in other countries where drugs have been legalized: For example, opium was legalized in China earlier this century. That decision resulted in 90 million addicts and it took a half-century to repair the damage.

    Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey. Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy.

    Sweden legalized doctor prescriptions of amphetamines in 1965. During the first year of legalization, the number of intravenous"speed" addicts rose 88.5 percent. A study of men arrested during the legalization period showed a high correlation between intravenous use and a variety of crimes.

    Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well.
    Last edited by UrbanLegend; 09-23-2004 at 08:57 PM.

  35. #35
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    This just prompted a question that wasn't answered. Use of marijuana doubled when it was legalized in Alaska. How did that use compare to numbers of people who used alcohol? Was it the same, less, double?
    chance

    Well, when alcohol was illegalized its usage lessened.....if thats what you meant. Or did you mean how much more so was alcohol used/abused when it was re-legalized?

    "Alcohol use declined by 30 to 50 percent; deaths from cirrhosis of the liver fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7% in 1929; and admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928."

    Mark Moore, Harvard professor of criminal justice, wrote: "The real lesson of prohibition is that society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws.".........I think that it also shows how organized crime can opperate from such, but still, he has a point.


    The sources are #53 and 54, which both came from the Gold 245 source.

  36. #36
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    The funny thing is, I can find droves and droves of studies that completely refute everything in those studies. I won't wax elaborate on how my studies are more impartial, based on empirical data, over longer time periods, and all that stuff

    The point that I want to leave this conversation with is this: it is not the governments business to legislate personal freedoms that don't interfere greatly with other peoples lives. Once more, the benefits of ending prohibition would most certainly outweigh any supposed increase in useage with other favorable results.

    I'll let anyone else have the last word on this one. would anyone like to talk about social security or welfare or some other topic from a classical-liberal(libertarian) perspective?

    J/K I'm off to bed.

  37. #37
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Well, when alcohol was illegalized its usage lessened.....if thats what you meant. Or did you mean how much more so was alcohol used/abused when it was re-legalized?

    "Alcohol use declined by 30 to 50 percent; deaths from cirrhosis of the liver fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7% in 1929; and admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928."

    Mark Moore, Harvard professor of criminal justice, wrote: "The real lesson of prohibition is that society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws.".........I think that it also shows how organized crime can opperate from such, but still, he has a point.


    The sources are #53 and 54, which both came from the Gold 245 source.
    Actually I meant, how did the doubled marijuana use (total users) compare with alcohol use (total users). Were there more people who drank or more people who smoked?

    Sorry for the confusing question. I always hate to see statistics stated as doubled or tripled because there is no real context to it. For example, you could say I have doubled my eating habits, and I haven't gained any weight. All this means is I have taken to eating 6 times a day as opposed to 3. Of course I wouldn't gain any weight, unless I actually ate the same amount at each meal.

    chance

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    taking you down
    Posts
    545
    Just wanted to give this a bump, people need to check this out...especially all you who arn't sure who to vote for, we can make a change....vote vote vote

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •