3 ms·

I like how you conveniently ignored the parent's comments about cartels. Also I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian" here? Drug usage is a personal

I like how you conveniently ignored the parent's comments about cartels. Also I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian" here? Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. That is the very definition of libertarianism. It has nothing to do with Silk Road but since you brought it up, legalising drug usage is for the greater good. You see the real danger does not originate from violent confrontations but the circles the the usage drags you in. If it was legally available, there wouldn't be need for an individual to get involved for their recreational needs. On a medical perspective, it is common not to help out a friend having adverse reactions to a drug used simply because it is incriminating if you call the hospital and then stay with him/her. And as if this wasn't enough, people just don't seem to get that the war on drugs has been lost in every continent. It will just go on and on and on. You can make it safer, peaceful and prevent it to be a source of revenue for actual crimes, or just don't give a crap and be irresponsible.

coffeemug 12y ago
> Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. Not unless the drug has been empirically found to have a high probability of harming the individual and a high probability of spreading through communities. Then it's very much state's business because it becomes a matter of social preservation. > I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian". "Pseudo-libertarian" is the kind of libertarian that doesn't account of empirical evidence in their arguments.
- woah 12y ago
  Yea we get it. Drug are bad mmmkay. The fact is that the drug war has done nothing to reduce their use, and it provides a huge source of revenue for actual violent criminals.
geographomics 12y ago
> Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. I agree with this up to the point where drug use becomes drug addiction. Of course this doesn't happen to everyone who uses drugs recreationally, but if it does, then it's not so much a decision but a relentless compulsion that thoroughly decimates one's freedom to choose. Whether it's the state's business or not, I suppose that depends on whether one feels the state has some responsibility towards the mental and physical health of its citizens. I'm very much in favour of harm reduction programmes for drug addicts, rather than the prevailing trend of terribly harsh punishment. Some may feel that this sort of thing is too paternalistic and interfering but it's certainly better than imprisonment.

coffeemug 12y ago

> Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. Not unless the drug has been empirically found to have a high probability of harming the individual and a high probability of spreading through communities. Then it's very much state's business because it becomes a matter of social preservation. > I don't understand the use of "pseudo-libertarian". "Pseudo-libertarian" is the kind of libertarian that doesn't account of empirical evidence in their arguments.

woah 12y ago
Yea we get it. Drug are bad mmmkay. The fact is that the drug war has done nothing to reduce their use, and it provides a huge source of revenue for actual violent criminals.

geographomics 12y ago

> Drug usage is a personal decision and it's none of state's business. I agree with this up to the point where drug use becomes drug addiction. Of course this doesn't happen to everyone who uses drugs recreationally, but if it does, then it's not so much a decision but a relentless compulsion that thoroughly decimates one's freedom to choose. Whether it's the state's business or not, I suppose that depends on whether one feels the state has some responsibility towards the mental and physical health of its citizens. I'm very much in favour of harm reduction programmes for drug addicts, rather than the prevailing trend of terribly harsh punishment. Some may feel that this sort of thing is too paternalistic and interfering but it's certainly better than imprisonment.