5 ms·

Taxes and drug prohibition are two very different things, with completely different reasoning behind them. Equating the two is like saying, "Cars should have se

Taxes and drug prohibition are two very different things, with completely different reasoning behind them. Equating the two is like saying, "Cars should have seat belts, and white people should own black people as slaves." One idea has practical, well thought out reasons behind it that help improve people's lives, the other doesn't. Drug prohibition causes far more damage to society than a society where all drugs are legalized. It's also an affront to what seems like a basic human right: choosing what you put in your body. The concept of prohibition certainly doesn't have a single well thought out reason to support it. Every single argument in favor of it has been shown to be either false, or the worse of two evils, and finally, drug prohibition has been a total failure, a conclusion that's agreed to even by those who support it. It hasn't achieved any of its goals and will not achieve them. I can sense that you probably want specifics, so I'll list just a few, and if you want more... JFGI. - AP: failure to meet any goals http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-trillion-war-drugs-failed-meet-goals/ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-tril... - History of marijuana laws and reasons that were given for them: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm - Portugal's success with total decriminalization of all drugs (not as good as legalization, but it's a step forward): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-d... http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-af... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug... - Simple observations of hypocrisy (just one example: Marijuana does not fit the definition of a Schedule I substance yet is classified as such, while cigarettes do fit the definition and are legal). The concept of "taxes", or collecting a pool of resources to be used for society at large, does have some well reasoned arguments to support it. It is an idea that does actually help society. Certainly there is a lot of debate about how those funds should be used, and whether they are used inappropriately, but the basic idea of pooling the collective resources of a society for the common good at least has a leg to stand on.

mindslight 14y ago
Heh, both of your juxtapositions are a lot closer than you seem to think. Drug prohibition is actually based on tax laws. The bulk of federal drug deillegalization will not even take an act of congress - they'll just start issuing tax stamps. Seat belt laws are based on the idea that government/society has a financial interest in the productivity of your well functioning body. This analysis essentially treats us all as mild slaves. The conditions are certainly better than the racial slavery of yesteryear (although I'm just repeating the groupthinkline here; I don't have a time machine), but the ideology is not. Pooling money for common purposes and avoiding free riders has a moral leg to stand on. However, the current system has massively outgrown this philosophical justification, using the sheer majority of revenue collected for maladaptive antifeatures.
- IgorPartola 14y ago
  I have no problem with you driving without a seatbelt on, so long as you sign a waiver that says that if you do not have enough money in the bank and your insurances will not cover you, theother emergencny room staff must turn you down before providing you treatment at my expense. So long as I am effectively buying you implicit insurance I sure as hell want you to be careful. Feel free to buy your way out of that. That is a strawman for decriminalizing drugs. When you don't wear a seatbelt, you risk others' financial harm. We deal with that largely without loss of other people's lives. When you mug people for cash at knife point to buy heroin, peole get physically hurt. You cannot possibly sign a waiver saying that you will not mug, steal, break-in, etc. if you decide to try heroin. Mind you I am not arguing against decriminalization or legalization of drugs. Just saying that your argument is bogus.
  - mindslight 14y ago
    Eh? First, I made no argument connecting seat belts and drugs. Perhaps you're just skipping around my comment, reassembling sentence fragments in an arbitrary order? Second, given that most people have insurance, and that the ones who don't are free riding on emergency care for any injury, but yet you're saying that you would support deillegalization of non-seatbelt wearing if one were to sign a specific waiver (which the cartel of insurance companies would then prohibit you from signing anyway, no doubt), I don't believe your argument to be sincere. I can only infer that your real viewpoint is that universal mandatory seatbelt usage is a good thing, and you're just making yet another specious justification for dictating individuals' behavior. FWIW, I've held up starting to drive for people who weren't putting a seat belt on, and I think it's pretty ridiculous to not wear one. I just don't think the government has any business mandating such behavior.

mindslight 14y ago

Heh, both of your juxtapositions are a lot closer than you seem to think. Drug prohibition is actually based on tax laws. The bulk of federal drug deillegalization will not even take an act of congress - they'll just start issuing tax stamps. Seat belt laws are based on the idea that government/society has a financial interest in the productivity of your well functioning body. This analysis essentially treats us all as mild slaves. The conditions are certainly better than the racial slavery of yesteryear (although I'm just repeating the groupthinkline here; I don't have a time machine), but the ideology is not. Pooling money for common purposes and avoiding free riders has a moral leg to stand on. However, the current system has massively outgrown this philosophical justification, using the sheer majority of revenue collected for maladaptive antifeatures.

IgorPartola 14y ago
I have no problem with you driving without a seatbelt on, so long as you sign a waiver that says that if you do not have enough money in the bank and your insurances will not cover you, theother emergencny room staff must turn you down before providing you treatment at my expense. So long as I am effectively buying you implicit insurance I sure as hell want you to be careful. Feel free to buy your way out of that. That is a strawman for decriminalizing drugs. When you don't wear a seatbelt, you risk others' financial harm. We deal with that largely without loss of other people's lives. When you mug people for cash at knife point to buy heroin, peole get physically hurt. You cannot possibly sign a waiver saying that you will not mug, steal, break-in, etc. if you decide to try heroin. Mind you I am not arguing against decriminalization or legalization of drugs. Just saying that your argument is bogus.
- mindslight 14y ago
  Eh? First, I made no argument connecting seat belts and drugs. Perhaps you're just skipping around my comment, reassembling sentence fragments in an arbitrary order? Second, given that most people have insurance, and that the ones who don't are free riding on emergency care for any injury, but yet you're saying that you would support deillegalization of non-seatbelt wearing if one were to sign a specific waiver (which the cartel of insurance companies would then prohibit you from signing anyway, no doubt), I don't believe your argument to be sincere. I can only infer that your real viewpoint is that universal mandatory seatbelt usage is a good thing, and you're just making yet another specious justification for dictating individuals' behavior. FWIW, I've held up starting to drive for people who weren't putting a seat belt on, and I think it's pretty ridiculous to not wear one. I just don't think the government has any business mandating such behavior.