Donald Trump

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It would also increase the slaughter that already takes place on our highways....

Why?

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

Noooo Bob it wouldn't.  Being illegal is not a deterrent.  Usage would remain constant.  What it would do is destroy profits.  Usage would actually probably go down as there would be no reason whatsoever for addicts to create more addicts....

[KorbenDallas]

I'm not for legalization of marijuana or hard drugs.  There is a demand out there that isn't being met, including minors.  Legalizing the drug increases the supply and access, so there will be more users, including minors.

[Wolf DeVoon]

32 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I'm not for legalization of marijuana or hard drugs.  There is a demand out there that isn't being met, including minors.  Legalizing the drug increases the supply and access, so there will be more users, including minors.

We should ban self? Prevent everyone from making decisions, force all into non-smoking, non-drinking Mormon chastity?

[KorbenDallas]

11 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

We should ban self? Prevent everyone from making decisions, force all into non-smoking, non-drinking Mormon chastity?

There you go again, Wolf.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

I'm not for legalization of marijuana or hard drugs.  There is a demand out there that isn't being met, including minors.  Legalizing the drug increases the supply and access, so there will be more users, including minors.

"Decriminalization" is the correct word, not "legalization" which is only more law.

Your position isn't individual freedom (and responsibility).

All demand is being met. Shortages are lumpy and get worked out. You may be thinking of an expanding demand consequent to lower prices and greater availability, but the former works against the latter--big time.

If minors, by and large, need protection, note: 1) they aren't being well protected now and 2) the predominant public educational system doesn't teach children how to be responsible, especially through critical thinking. It infantilizes them; many live their whole lives without growing up except physically.

Since this is an Objectivist forum, how do you reconcile your position with Objectivism? Right now it's just a free-floating idea common to any anti-drug warrior.

--Brant

[jts]

About legalizing drugs:  I'm in favor of keeping eating rat poison, drinking insecticide and herbicide, and eating dogshit legal.

If something is legal, that does not mean you need to do it.

I make decisions for me; other people make decisions for themselves. For example I refuse to drink tap water because it has a bad taste and I drink distilled water instead, made by my water distiller. Some people drink piss water, literally. I kid you not. There is a website that advocates drinking urine for health benefit.

 

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

"Decriminalization" is the correct word, not "legalization" which is only more law.

Your position isn't individual freedom (and responsibility).

All demand is being met. Shortages are lumpy and get worked out. You may be thinking of an expanding demand consequent to lower prices and greater availability, but the former works against the latter--big time.

If minors, by and large, need protection, note: 1) they aren't being well protected now and 2) the predominant public educational system doesn't teach children how to be responsible, especially through critical thinking. It infantilizes them; many live their whole lives without growing up except physically.

Since this is an Objectivist forum, how do you reconcile your position with Objectivism? Right now it's just a free-floating idea common to any anti-drug warrior.

--Brant

"All government controls are bad" because they effect choice so legalize everything, right?  But why legalize drugs that are inimical to man's life?

The rational won't likely choose them, the irrational might---many do---and then minors who aren't epistemologically ready for independent decisions.  As I said before, there is demand that isn't being met among adults and minors for marijuana or hard drugs, they want them but can't get their hands on them, so there's not an equilibrium now.  Additionally, if the drugs were legalized it creates new demand, which shifts the demand curve to the right.  Once supply is increased (and suppliers) you have more users---much more of them---including minors because the drugs are easier to obtain.

So I think Objectivism got it wrong here, I think drug laws should have been added to one of the functions of government in Objectivism.  It's a fact that (concretized) drugs are inimical to man's life, the government isn't telling the rational what to do because we're likely not to choose them anyway, but the irrational and minors might, and the drug laws would---and do---help the irrational be less irrational and help the minors stay out of trouble.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump with Mexican President Nieto:

Also, he killed it in a speech later in Arizona. I can't find a video of this yet, but he laid out a 10 point immigration policy.

Man, are the pundits going to be yakking up a storm about this over the next few days.

Michael

[jts]

13 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

"All government controls are bad" because they effect choice so legalize everything, right?  But why legalize drugs that are inimical to man's life?

The rational won't likely choose them, the irrational might---many do---and then minors who aren't epistemologically ready for independent decisions.  As I said before, there is demand that isn't being met among adults and minors for marijuana or hard drugs, they want them but can't get their hands on them, so there's not equilibrium now.  Additionally, if the drugs were legalized it creates new demand, which shifts the demand curve shift to the right.  Once supply is increased (and suppliers) you have more users---much more of them---including minors because the drugs are easier to obtain.

So I think Objectivism got it wrong here, I think drug laws should have been added to one of the functions of government in Objectivism.  It's a fact (concretized) drugs are inimical to man's life, the government isn't telling the rational what to do because we're likely not to choose them anyway, but the irrational and minors might, and the drug laws would---and do---help the irrational be less irrational, and help the minors stay out of trouble.

According to Objectivism, the one and only proper function of government is to protect individual rights. Drug laws go beyond protecting individual rights,

If you want to outlaw everything that is inimical to man's life, then you outlaw religion, poor diet, poor decisions of all kinds. Where does it stop?

 

[KorbenDallas]

31 minutes ago, jts said:

According to Objectivism, the one and only proper function of government is to protect individual rights. Drug laws go beyond protecting individual rights,

That's the principle, but it's normative, and last time I checked reality it's no Gulch.  Removing drug laws leads to more drugs, more irrationality, more minors hooked---just so Objectivism will integrate?  The social impact will increase crime, leading to more taxation, so violating your individual right to keep what you've earned even more.

47 minutes ago, jts said:

If you want to outlaw everything that is inimical to man's life, then you outlaw religion, poor diet, poor decisions of all kinds. Where does it stop?

This is an over generalization, choosing drugs doesn't belong in the same classification with religion and poor diet included.  It starts and stops with drug laws.

[Jules Troy]

Really Korben?  Back before 1905 medical tech was not exactly up to today's standards.  Nostrums and all kinds of over the counter medicines contained rather high amounts of opiates.  In today's dollars morphine was about 20 bucks an ouncccccce.  No drug furled gangs, no cartels, no criminal activity associated with drugs.  Only 2% of the population were opiate addicts.  Now? It's about 100 bucks for a 1 day supply.  +crime.  Guess what? Only 2% of the population are opiate addicts.

How many billions spent on the drug war and how many cops are DEA?

Legalize it.  You now have freed up how many cops to fight real crime? 50000?  How much money freed up to fight real crime and even fund drug rehab centres?  

Btw it would still be illegal to sell to minors just like alcohol...

[BaalChatzaf]

13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Why?

--Brant

Use of dope  often impairs driving. Alcohol (which is legal) is responsible for  tens of thousands of deaths  in driving mishaps. If dope is legal it will be used by some drivers (even though that use is illegal)  and there will be additional deaths.   If all dope were legalized tomorrow,  I predicted the body count would go up the following year.....

Anything that impairs driving or distracts the driver is bad news,  be alcohol,  dope,  lack of sleep, of the distraction of cell phones.

[Peter]

Oh laissez faire, oh laissez faire, can’t you be more clear, my laissez faire?

KorbenDallas wrote: But why legalize drugs that are inimical to man's life? The rational won't likely choose them, the irrational might---many do---and then minors who aren't epistemologically ready for independent decisions. end quote

jts responded: If you want to outlaw everything that is inimical to man's life, then you outlaw religion, poor diet, poor decisions of all kinds. Where does it stop? end quote

With reasonable laws. As with the dilemma of free markets and restricted immigration, immigration laws are difficult to reconcile with the personal freedom to do business with or hire whomever you please. But unrestricted immigration does infringe on the rights of others. Just a few years ago people polluted the air with tobacco smoke but good laws in most states have protected the individual right to breath clean air in public places. Times and social taboos change, and occasionally the laws get more rationally legitimate, though restrictive.    

And the By Prescription Only drug plan? What if no one is harmed but the user? Drinking is legal with age restrictions and public impairment restrictions, so what will happen if *intoxicating* drugs are legal? Would there be an increase in public intoxication? Car crashes? Overdoses? Maybe, like several have said, in a utilitarian way. Here's a odd thought. Next to the Advil and Aleve is a section of opioids, checked by the FDA for purity.

Is it reducible to a formula? Start with a Constitution to protect individual rights then subtract any freedoms of action that may impact others . . .even if it simply a possibility . . . and in the future? A public debate is legalizing medicinal marijuana now, AND a rational analyses could show that restrictive drug laws are harmful to society on average, but especially harmful to the more lawless districts like the inner cities, or the white boonies.     

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, he killed it in a speech later in Arizona. I can't find a video of this yet, but he laid out a 10 point immigration policy.

Man, are the pundits going to be yakking up a storm about this over the next few days.

Here's the Arizona speech:

What a show!

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

3 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Really Korben?  Back before 1905 medical tech was not exactly up to today's standards.  Nostrums and all kinds of over the counter medicines contained rather high amounts of opiates.  In today's dollars morphine was about 20 bucks an ouncccccce.  No drug furled gangs, no cartels, no criminal activity associated with drugs.  Only 2% of the population were opiate addicts.  Now? It's about 100 bucks for a 1 day supply.  +crime.  Guess what? Only 2% of the population are opiate addicts.

How many billions spent on the drug war and how many cops are DEA?

Legalize it.  You now have freed up how many cops to fight real crime? 50000?  How much money freed up to fight real crime and even fund drug rehab centres?  

Btw it would still be illegal to sell to minors just like alcohol...

Really Jules?  You got mad hatters using stats to compare conditions from 1905 to 2016? 

Sure it would still be illegal to sell to minors.  A couple weeks ago I looked out my window and saw the neighbors 13-15 year old kids do a drug deal with the parent's supplier.  When I was around 12-13 I had a dealer approach and ask me in a public park if I wanted some free dope to try---this park was right across the street from the local PD.  I said no, I instantly knew what to do because of the D.A.R.E. program.  Keep the laws in place, and many of these programs work.  I want less kids being able to get their hands on them, not more.

 

[Peter]

I went to the Trump site and instead of a lot of writing under the topic of immigration it just has a bunch of Trump videos which I did not listen to. That may be due to the fluidity of lying Donald’s position. Or maybe it is because he is evolving in a good way. Hey big spenders! I decided to donate a modest amount. In my neck of the woods there are zero Hillary signs, and oddly, there used to be a dozen Trump signs but now I only routinely see one. Were they stolen, did they wear out, or did people change their minds? I try to not bring up the subject of politics with my neighbors.

Now my dentist is a real conservative. I was in for a tooth cleaning and he poked his head in to castigate people who won’t stand up for the National Anthem.

Donald, do something about the weather, because we may get clipped by a hurricane on Saturday.

Peter

An email from Trump: PETER, Thank you for your generous donation of $35. Your support matters now more than ever because the stakes are so high. We must stop Crooked Hillary from ruining our country. We must thwart the slew of bias and lies the mainstream media is feeding America. We MUST win BIG in November and Make America Great Again! Your donation will help us accomplish this -- and more.

Together, our voices are becoming louder and clearer, representing a bright new future for our great nation full of more opportunities for everyone, not just a select few. If you have any questions about your donation, please email contribute@donaldtrump.com. We thank you for your continuous support, Team TRUMP

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Is it reducible to a formula?

Peter, what's your drug policy amongst the employees you employ?

[Jules Troy]

Exactly Korben!  Why did that dealer offer free dope?  In the hopes of creating a new addictttt.

If drugs were legal there is nooooo reason for him to do so.  Legalizing drugs would destroy the drug trade.  The only way to win the war on drugs is to remove the profits from it.  As it stands now even if they brought in the death penalty for both drug dealers as well as even simple possession all that would do is drive profits up and increase all the violence...

[KorbenDallas]

40 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

Exactly Korben!  Why did that dealer offer free dope?  In the hopes of creating a new addictttt.

If drugs were legal there is nooooo reason for him to do so.  Legalizing drugs would destroy the drug trade.  The only way to win the war on drugs is to remove the profits from it.  As it stands now even if they brought in the death penalty for both drug dealers as well as even simple possession all that would do is drive profits up and increase all the violence...

But look at underage drinking statistics and how minors obtain alcohol, legalizing drugs will only lead to more minors having them..

[jts]

3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

But look at underage drinking statistics and how minors obtain alcohol, legalizing drugs will only lead to more minors having them..

Minors getting into alcohol and drugs is evidence of poor parenting.

When I was a kid I had plenty of opportunities to get into alcohol and tobacco. I was totally immune to "peer pressure" and was not the slightest bit tempted and always made the rational decision. Everyone else can do the same.

 

[Jules Troy]

Parenting Korben.  It's called Parenting.  Seriously, you think just because the government makes something illegal that is a deterrent?  The war on drugs is a pitiful failed experiment.  90% of people in prison are for drug related offences.  

Self responsibility, rational critical thinking.. You do know what that is right?

[Wolf DeVoon]

19 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

 I think drug laws should have been added to one of the functions of government in Objectivism.

I'm sure many people would agree in principle that drugs should be regulated, and they are by FDA, NIH, CPSC, USDA, DEA, SEC, DHS, FBI, AMA and teaching hospitals. The latter are private (some of them) but also a much larger community that government perforce follows as expert medical opinion, including psychiatric and cognitive clinical evidence. There's been a great deal of research on the effect of drugs. It's well established that marijuana users are less inclined to work or save for the future. I know, I are one.

As a matter of constitutional law, it's a slam dunk for taxation. That's how prohibition of recreational drugs came about. Case law and Congressional action added pot to a 1917 tax on opium and cocaine. As a regulatory matter, they can prohibit anything and require it to be labeled. States have laws about selling alcohol and cigarettes to minors. I don't know who did it, maybe it was MLB, but baseball players have been prohibited from using chaw. When I visited a Colorado dispensary, I had to provide photo ID to establish that I was over 21. It's illegal in Colorado to drive stoned, smoke pot in a car, blah blah blah blah blah.

But it's a folly to say you can stop anybody from smoking pot. Per capita, pot consumption capital of the U.S. is Northern California, where it's illegal.

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Jules Troy said:

Parenting Korben.  It's called Parenting.  Seriously, you think just because the government makes something illegal that is a deterrent?  The war on drugs is a pitiful failed experiment.  90% of people in prison are for drug related offences.  

Self responsibility, rational critical thinking.. You do know what that is right?

Jules you can fuck off.

[Brant Gaede]

20 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

"All government controls are bad" because they effect choice so legalize everything, right?  But why legalize drugs that are inimical to man's life?

The rational won't likely choose them, the irrational might---many do---and then minors who aren't epistemologically ready for independent decisions.  As I said before, there is demand that isn't being met among adults and minors for marijuana or hard drugs, they want them but can't get their hands on them, so there's not an equilibrium now.  Additionally, if the drugs were legalized it creates new demand, which shifts the demand curve to the right.  Once supply is increased (and suppliers) you have more users---much more of them---including minors because the drugs are easier to obtain.

So I think Objectivism got it wrong here, I think drug laws should have been added to one of the functions of government in Objectivism.  It's a fact that (concretized) drugs are inimical to man's life, the government isn't telling the rational what to do because we're likely not to choose them anyway, but the irrational and minors might, and the drug laws would---and do---help the irrational be less irrational and help the minors stay out of trouble.

That would make Objectivism conservatism. The philosophy is not a bunch of barnacles you can just add your own barnacle onto.

How do you know about this "demand" thing?

How do you know supply will increase?

Again, you don't seem to know the difference between legalization and decriminalization.

Drugs--I assume you mean recreational drugs--"are inimical to man's life"? Are you sure? I think some are, some aren't and some I don't know. In fact, I think the whole subject is up in the air. But who decides for "man"? What man? You the man? You have made your own choices and I have made mine. I do not choose for you. You want to choose for me.

--Brant