Coming To A State Near You

My goal is primarily crime reduction
It will certainly help that resources to fight actual crime will no longer be re-allocated to enforce a ban.
which is why i favir giving it away (perhaps just the hard stuff as a compromise).
If you think that's a good idea, then you should be willing to voluntarily donate to that. You shouldn't support, or pass, laws that force taxpayers to contribute to such a thing though.
 
Werbung:
It will certainly help that resources to fight actual crime will no longer be re-allocated to enforce a ban.
The goal is to remove the lifeblood of gangs.

If you think that's a good idea, then you should be willing to voluntarily donate to that. You shouldn't support, or pass, laws that force taxpayers to contribute to such a thing though.
We're spending a lot of money at every level if government in a failed war on drugs. I see a boon to the general welfare in applying some of the savings in this way.
 
I interpret your position to be ... 'they're going to do it anyway, so we should make it legal so that we can control it.'

That's not really what you meant, is it?
As individuals, each of us has an inalienable right to self defense. The creation of government didn't bring that right into existence, and the existence of government doesn't transform that right we have as individuals into a "super" right of any majority to initiate force against others. Banning a drug because you don't think people should have the choice to use it, ignores the reality that they do have a choice, and that choice manifests itself in the form of a Black Market. On a Free Market, buyers and sellers have laws that are actively enforced to protect them from force and fraud. On a black market no such protection exists.
After all, no matter what the law says, people are going to drive 100 mph ...
Drugs are a commodity, speeding is not. Like drugs, speeding is another choice made by the individual. Choices some people think they can make for others by passing laws claiming to have done so. Because I, as an individual, realize that I have the Right to free will, the Right to pursue my own happiness, I accept that others have the exact same right. No matter how much I may disagree with their decisions, unless they use force or fraud against me, I have no right to interfere with their lives. If they do use force or fraud against me, or any other individuals, then we, as individuals, have the right of self defense.

The police are the agents of our rights to self defense as expressed through a government body. That is how they should act, as bodyguards to our rights, not as the enforcement wing of government laws that violate our rights. No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against you or anyone else, yet we continually support and allow laws that do just that.

We have a responsibility to establish appropriate societal mores and limits, and to enforce them accordingly.
We all have the right to defend ourselves. That is the right by which our police, military, and courts must exist, in order to protect all our others rights. Government must exist within the strict confines of that one specific right if it is to be trusted with having a monopoly on the legal use of force. What none of us has is a right to initiate force against others, so none of has the right to allow government to do so. To allow government to use its power to legally violate the rights of others, negates the purpose of government's existence.
 
As individuals, each of us has an inalienable right to self defense. The creation of government didn't bring that right into existence, and the existence of government doesn't transform that right we have as individuals into a "super" right of any majority to initiate force against others. Banning a drug because you don't think people should have the choice to use it, ignores the reality that they do have a choice, and that choice manifests itself in the form of a Black Market. On a Free Market, buyers and sellers have laws that are actively enforced to protect them from force and fraud. On a black market no such protection exists.

Drugs are a commodity, speeding is not. Like drugs, speeding is another choice made by the individual. Choices some people think they can make for others by passing laws claiming to have done so. Because I, as an individual, realize that I have the Right to free will, the Right to pursue my own happiness, I accept that others have the exact same right. No matter how much I may disagree with their decisions, unless they use force or fraud against me, I have no right to interfere with their lives. If they do use force or fraud against me, or any other individuals, then we, as individuals, have the right of self defense.

The police are the agents of our rights to self defense as expressed through a government body. That is how they should act, as bodyguards to our rights, not as the enforcement wing of government laws that violate our rights. No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against you or anyone else, yet we continually support and allow laws that do just that.


We all have the right to defend ourselves. That is the right by which our police, military, and courts must exist, in order to protect all our others rights. Government must exist within the strict confines of that one specific right if it is to be trusted with having a monopoly on the legal use of force. What none of us has is a right to initiate force against others, so none of has the right to allow government to do so. To allow government to use its power to legally violate the rights of others, negates the purpose of government's existence.


You have intentionally completely misinterpreted, and misrepresented, my position ... please read the post before that.
 
Obviously you are trying to provoke a "collective rights vs. individual rights" discussion, rather than a discussion about the pitfalls of legalized marijuana. So, I'll give you your wish ...
It's not a separate discussion, it's at the heart of it. When the government bans books, or censors material or writers, everyone immediately recognizes the authors freedom of speech is being violated. What gets lost is the fact that the consumer's free will, his right to choose, is being violated too. It's not individual rights vs. Collective rights, it's me pointing out the fact that we do not have equal rights as individuals within our collectivist society.

No one disputes your individual rights ... AND no one takes them away
Our rights are inalienable, but they do get violated and ignored at the whim of the collective. Smoking bans... Good example. Perhaps you believe that interferes with your box to have smokers in public places. So you use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to violate the rights of business owners into becoming non smoking buildings. You also violate the right to choose of every consumer and patron, wherever they choose to go will automatically be non smoking. You made that choice for them.

My point being, your box is much smaller than you seem to think it is. Rights can only be violated by physical force, or fraud. Someone choosing to take drugs is not violating the rights of others by that choice. Now, choosing to steal from you in order to buy those drugs would be a violation of your rights. You seem to lump these two things together, one that isn't a violation and one that is, and use the real violation of your rights as justification to pre-emptively violate the right of free will.

You speak of 'common defense', and things like law enforcement, traffic control, etc. as an impingement on your individual rights.
Then you need to read it again. Individuals have the right of self defense. That is the right by which individuals utilize government to express that right on a larger scale, by the creation of police, military, and courts. It is not the existence of these institutions that violates our rights, it is the way their purpose has been flipped on it's head and their power abused that violates our rights. These institution need to be reformed to restore them to their original purpose, the defense of individual rights, and limited to their original power - self defense. That means, just as each individual is barred from doing so, government cannot be allowed to legally initiate the use of force against others.

There is no such thing as 'collective rights' - only the collection of individual responsibility in order to more efficiently perform that action. (You will note that 'responsibilities' are all active voice, while 'rights' are all passive.)
You're right, collective rights do not exist yet that is what people scream for... rights for their group. Gay rights, women, men, senior citizens, it's the rights of the collective groups they belong to that individuals concern themselves with, not the equal rights of all individuals.

Responsibility - the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management.

Each of us is responsible for our own volitional actions. Our actions require free will, the freedom to choose, before we can be said to be responsible for those actions. Legislating away free will is an attempt to program human beings like robots, and turn us into mindless slaves. Many of the decisions made by voters long since dead have eliminated my free will on a variety of subjects. I do not consider myself responsible for the actions of others. Holding me financially responsible for choices I did not make, and actions I did not take, is a violation of my rights.

it is the interference of other individuals that create the impingement on your individual rights.
Yes it is. But if there's something that violates my rights you agree with, you may see it as my responsibility to accept the violation. You may only notice the responsibilities you disagree with as being wrong. Forced responsibility requires the abolition of volitional consent, and that is slavery.

As the original post clearly illustrates, the legalization of marijuana here in Colorado has significantly interfered with MY box ... and you can expect the same when it comes to your town, as it most assuredly will.
Again, I think you're lumping separate actions together. Some pothead getting high isn't a violation of your rights. He's not using force or fraud against you while H.R. Puffin Stuff. If he steals from you to pay for his pot, then it's his act of theft that is the violation of your rights, not the act of smoking pot. Whether legal or not, the drugs would still be available. It's going to take time for all those resources that were being used to enforce the ban, be re allocated to protecting your rights, because the wheels of government move slow, and now have to play catch up.

It's interesting to note that, based on that limited exposure, there is not a single intelligent person in Colorado who smokes marijuana. There are some real idiots - there are some socially disconnected - there are some mentally defective - but not a single person I would hire to cut my lawn - much less my grass. Apparently, the real requirement here is that you must be 21, have poor personal hygiene, not be able to put together three words to make a sentence, and totally incapable of coherent thought)
Sounds like the spotlight fallacy. Makes the news more interesting but isn't a good reflection of reality.
 
The answer to crime reduction is not to make more objectionable actions legal ...
Actually, it is. There are only two actions that can violate rights, force and fraud. I find a great many more actions objectionable. Having the police stop people from making choices I find objectionable would necessarily distract them from their real job, stopping people from using force or fraud against me.
 
There are no regulations, no laws, no enforcement in a Black Market... Which is what you create when you BAN something people want to have.
You seem to be the one who thinks that's a good thing, that there should be no regulations, no laws, no enforcement when it comes to the sale of certain drugs.
So black markets are bad therefore we should have open markets?

I do not understand your thoughts on this.
 
So black markets are bad therefore we should have open markets?

I do not understand your thoughts on this.
Sounds like you do... Black markets are bad, free markets are good. I think people who shoot heroin are idiots, but I have no right to make that choice for them. Banning heroin is an attempt to do just that, its a violation of rights to try and make that decision for others. The fact that they can still find it on the black market is proof that individuals will make their own choices. I'm all for punishing those who use force and fraud against others, and our best chance of doing that is if all the participants are allowed to operate out in the open, equally protected from force and fraud.

If Dog want's to shoot heroin, it's not a violation of my rights. If government bans heroin, that is. If Dog wants government to provide free heroin, that is also a violation of my rights. The big things here are the right to pursue happiness (free will), and the use of force and fraud. No individual has the right to use force or fraud against you, period. If you believe an individual is using force or fraud against you, then you have the police and courts to settle the dispute. When it's the government itself violating your rights, then all our rights as individuals are being violated.

Heroin is bad, right? People shouldn't do it, right? Having government force that decision on others by banning heroin is wrong, but it is the most popular conclusion people draw. We are better off with alcohol being legal than we were during prohibition. The same is true of all drugs, and other behavior we may disagree with, like prostitution and gambling. Bans do not protect our rights, they violate them. Worse yet, bans ensure that participants have no legal protections from force or fraud. As a result, physical violence, rather than police and courts, is how disputes are ultimately resolved. Organized crime always thrives in such an environment.
 
Werbung:
I interpret your position to be ... 'they're going to do it anyway, so we should make it legal so that we can control it.'

That's not really what you meant, is it?

After all, no matter what the law says, people are going to drive 100 mph ... so we should make that legal? Murder - no matter what, somebody is going to do it.

We have a responsibility to establish appropriate societal mores and limits, and to enforce them accordingly.
No im saying it cannot be stopped and as its illegal, crime impacting everyone ensues. I have no intetest in controlling dope (thsts what CO wants specifically tax revenue). I want to eliminate gangs whose activities threaten everyone. It may be that its mainly criminals catcjing most of the ammo but not entirly and the petty crime used to buy dope harns us all directly (mugging etc) or indirectly (inventory shrinkage makes us pay more).
Speeding puts non speeders at risk of harm where some junkie shooting up does not. Wrll maybe if i trip over him or he starts a fire accidentially. It is reasonable to post safe rates of speed as a reasonable person can use this in decision making with that accelerator peddle.
 
Back
Top