Comments on: Drugs Won the War http://cafehayek.com/2009/06/drugs-won-the-war.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Levitra. http://cafehayek.com/2009/06/drugs-won-the-war.html/comment-page-1#comment-55664 Levitra. Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:11:04 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=2208#comment-55664 <strong>Buy levitra cheap levitra online get back to life....</strong> Online pharmacy cost levitra. Levitra online consultation us. Levitra. Levitra..... Buy levitra cheap levitra online get back to life….

Online pharmacy cost levitra. Levitra online consultation us. Levitra. Levitra…..

]]> By: seanooski http://cafehayek.com/2009/06/drugs-won-the-war.html/comment-page-1#comment-50737 seanooski Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:50:00 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=2208#comment-50737 <p>Okay Chris and Gil, I'm being a little facetious, you got me. I just thought it would be useful to point out that that is essentially the solution that the Paul Birch essay was putting forth, and it is extreme and unreasonable. The drug war has eroded the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, has it not? If you are found by the police to be holding a large amount of cash, it is subject to be seized merely for being suspected drug money. You are required to prove otherwise if you are to have any chance of recovering it, and even then recovery is unlikely. If your neighbor is suspected of dealing drugs, but the cops kick in your door by mistake and kill you, as has happened many times, the state is rarely held to account for that misconduct. That is official lawlessness perpetrated by the state and justified by this irrational fear of drug users. The Bill of Rights is essentially null and void if the state decides you are a drug user or dealer, whether you really are or not.</p> <p>I'm not really an anarchist, but I put forth the extreme view of individual liberty because we too often forget that society is made of individuals, and our government was ostensibly created to protect individual rights. Most illegal drug users use marijuana. They are professionals and laborers, doctors, lawyers, construction workers and homemakers. They are productive members of society that are vilified unjustly and persecuted for their preferences. They have a right to be left alone. The harder drugs are used by a much greater minority, and their use should be viewed as a symptom of societal ills, not necessarily a cause. </p> <p>As all this relates to markets, why can't we have some reasonable regulation of the drug market rather than a draconian prohibition that exacerbates the problems of drug use and drains society of resources that could be put to much better use? </p> Okay Chris and Gil, I'm being a little facetious, you got me. I just thought it would be useful to point out that that is essentially the solution that the Paul Birch essay was putting forth, and it is extreme and unreasonable. The drug war has eroded the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, has it not? If you are found by the police to be holding a large amount of cash, it is subject to be seized merely for being suspected drug money. You are required to prove otherwise if you are to have any chance of recovering it, and even then recovery is unlikely. If your neighbor is suspected of dealing drugs, but the cops kick in your door by mistake and kill you, as has happened many times, the state is rarely held to account for that misconduct. That is official lawlessness perpetrated by the state and justified by this irrational fear of drug users. The Bill of Rights is essentially null and void if the state decides you are a drug user or dealer, whether you really are or not.

I'm not really an anarchist, but I put forth the extreme view of individual liberty because we too often forget that society is made of individuals, and our government was ostensibly created to protect individual rights. Most illegal drug users use marijuana. They are professionals and laborers, doctors, lawyers, construction workers and homemakers. They are productive members of society that are vilified unjustly and persecuted for their preferences. They have a right to be left alone. The harder drugs are used by a much greater minority, and their use should be viewed as a symptom of societal ills, not necessarily a cause.

As all this relates to markets, why can't we have some reasonable regulation of the drug market rather than a draconian prohibition that exacerbates the problems of drug use and drains society of resources that could be put to much better use?

]]> By: Sam Grove http://cafehayek.com/2009/06/drugs-won-the-war.html/comment-page-1#comment-50736 Sam Grove Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:35:10 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=2208#comment-50736 <p>The more addictive the drug, the greater the problems resulting from prohibition, because it increases the desperation of the addicted.</p> <p>Maye there could be meth dens were speeders could run in squirrel cages and polish intricate metalwork, etc.</p> The more addictive the drug, the greater the problems resulting from prohibition, because it increases the desperation of the addicted.

Maye there could be meth dens were speeders could run in squirrel cages and polish intricate metalwork, etc.

]]> By: John http://cafehayek.com/2009/06/drugs-won-the-war.html/comment-page-1#comment-50735 John Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:03:16 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=2208#comment-50735 <p><i>It's interesting that many of the pro-drug arguments...</i></p> <p>Who said they were pro-drug?</p> <p>The argument is that prohibition creates more problems than it solves.</p> It's interesting that many of the pro-drug arguments…

Who said they were pro-drug?

The argument is that prohibition creates more problems than it solves.

]]> By: Chris http://cafehayek.com/2009/06/drugs-won-the-war.html/comment-page-1#comment-50734 Chris Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:42:33 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=2208#comment-50734 <p>Seanooski --</p> <p> If I had said "I think murderers should be put to death," would you have said the same thing? Your argument only makes sense if you believe that drug dealing is approximately the moral equivalent of failing to use a turn signal. You may believe that, but I suspect that you would be in the minority.</p> <p>All --</p> <p> It's interesting that many of the pro-drug arguments here are all about marijuana and not about the really serious stuff like Meth, Heroin or PCP. It may be that mj laws are far too strict, but that does not necessarily imply the same for those more serious drugs.</p> Seanooski –

If I had said "I think murderers should be put to death," would you have said the same thing? Your argument only makes sense if you believe that drug dealing is approximately the moral equivalent of failing to use a turn signal. You may believe that, but I suspect that you would be in the minority.

All –

It's interesting that many of the pro-drug arguments here are all about marijuana and not about the really serious stuff like Meth, Heroin or PCP. It may be that mj laws are far too strict, but that does not necessarily imply the same for those more serious drugs.

]]>