Regulation of Drugs


howardahood

Recommended Posts

Howard Hood, by what right do you restrict someone from making and selling drugs?

Shayne, suppose I make a batch a recreational drugs in my basement and sell them to the public and they all die? Isn't that a case of manslaughter? What if they merely become scarred for life and unable to support themselves? Do I not have some responsibility for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Only by making drug production fully legal can we rid society of the crack dealing (crack is basically cheap cocaine, in a free market cocaine will be so cheap crack will be rendered obsolete.

Not if you mean legal as in you can go into Wal-mart and buy them, only legal in the sense of administered in treatment centres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only by making drug production fully legal can we rid society of the crack dealing (crack is basically cheap cocaine, in a free market cocaine will be so cheap crack will be rendered obsolete.

Not if you mean legal as in you can go into Wal-mart and buy them, only legal in the sense of administered in treatment centres.

I advise you read Milton Friedman on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drugs such as these certainly are not acting in one's rational self-interest

Drugs such as what? HH never named the drugs he wants to ban.

And exactly _which_ drugs if taken constitute not acting in one's rational self-interest? Marijuana? Hey how about nicotine? Alcohol? Morphine? Wait, in what situations?

And even if it is something considered by the majority of soccer moms to be really really nasty, well even then, is it not up to each individual to analyze and decide what is their own self-interest?

What right do you have to tell others what their self-interest is or is not - and at the barrel of a gun?

and I can't imagine Ayn Rand promoting the use and sale of dangerous substances.

She promoted smoking, which is a 10-cent name for nicotine habit.

HH we hardly knew ye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard Hood, by what right do you restrict someone from making and selling drugs?

Shayne, suppose I make a batch a recreational drugs in my basement and sell them to the public and they all die? Isn't that a case of manslaughter? What if they merely become scarred for life and unable to support themselves? Do I not have some responsibility for this?

Suppose I make a batch of aspirin and they contain cyanide and everyone dies?

Suppose I make a batch of cars and they have a fatal gas tank flaw and everyone blows up and dies?

Were these cases of manslaughter? (Tylenol and GM, respectively IIRC)

The difference here is that Johnson and Johnson and GM are legal enterprises so if I am a victim, be it of willful negligence or not, I can take legal action against them.

How am I going to take legal action against a criminal mafia? I can't - because it is illegal. So as a consumer I would have fewer channels of recourse precisely because the operation is illegal.

Make it legal and you reduce the violence associated with it. Maybe brands for the products will come out. This means producers will be interested in quality. And they'll be able to focus on quality because they won't lose 1/2 or more of the product trying to get it across the border.

Of course this is a wholly pragmatic analysis. The most important is the moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drugs such as what? HH never named the drugs he wants to ban.

George,

Of course he did. Please reread his opening post.

Michael

Thanks. So just cocaine, heroin, and meth?

My point still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I make a batch of aspirin and they contain cyanide and everyone dies?

Suppose I make a batch of cars and they have a fatal gas tank flaw and everyone blows up and dies?

Were these cases of manslaughter? (Tylenol and GM, respectively IIRC)

The difference here is that Johnson and Johnson and GM are legal enterprises so if I am a victim, be it of willful negligence or not, I can take legal action against them.

How am I going to take legal action against a criminal mafia? I can't - because it is illegal. So as a consumer I would have fewer channels of recourse precisely because the operation is illegal.

Make it legal and you reduce the violence associated with it. Maybe brands for the products will come out. This means producers will be interested in quality. And they'll be able to focus on quality because they won't lose 1/2 or more of the product trying to get it across the border.

Of course this is a wholly pragmatic analysis. The most important is the moral.

I see, so you are suggesting that it should be legal for a drug company to manufacture and sell Crystal Meth, for example, to the public? I just can't get my head around that. I just can't imagine what life would be like in that kind of society. We have seen tobacco companies being sued for marketing nicotine so what company would want to sell Crystal Meth?? I think this is an example of what happens when you become too idealistic with a philosophy. Of course the moral/principle is important but you have to be realistic. Rules and regulations have evolved over thousands of years for a reason and we can't just abandon them to conform to some individualistic philosophy. I agree that governments have become too invasive and have screwed many things up royally but I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with George.

I see, so you are suggesting that it should be legal for a drug company to manufacture and sell Crystal Meth, for example, to the public? I just can't get my head around that.

Perhaps you've been watching too much government propaganda on TV.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, so you are suggesting that it should be legal for a drug company to manufacture and sell Crystal Meth, for example, to the public? I just can't get my head around that.

I would rather Crystal Meth made in a clean laboratory rather than some mouldy bathtub.

Also, if Big Pharma made Speed (they already do, its called Dexedrine), it would be so cheap that no one would need Crystal Meth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather Crystal Meth made in a clean laboratory rather than some mouldy bathtub.

Also, if Big Pharma made Speed (they already do, its called Dexedrine), it would be so cheap that no one would need Crystal Meth.

I don't dispute that the drugs would be high quality and cheap but what about all the social problems that come with drug use, who will pay to clean up that mess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, so you are suggesting that it should be legal for a drug company to manufacture and sell Crystal Meth, for example, to the public? I just can't get my head around that. I just can't imagine what life would be like in that kind of society.

Um you're living in it bud. That it's legal or not is a mere formality. The fact is that this drug is widely available.

We have seen tobacco companies being sued for marketing nicotine so what company would want to sell Crystal Meth??

Your sentence makes no sense. It is dead obvious that tobacco is a hugely lucrative business. So is narcotics. Not that this is relevant.

I think this is an example of what happens when you become too idealistic with a philosophy.

Moderation then is what we should be shooting for? Just enough liberty? Just enough evil? Please. That line of debate is so silly and poorly supported I won't pursue it further.

Of course the moral/principle is important but you have to be realistic. Rules and regulations have evolved over thousands of years for a reason and we can't just abandon them to conform to some individualistic philosophy.

Who ARE you? Jim Taggart? Orren Boyle? These statements are straight out of the mouth of the looters in AS.

but what about all the social problems that come with drug use, who will pay to clean up that mess?

Who will pay to clean up the mess that comes with alcohol addiction? nicotine? guns? violent videogames? teen pregnancy?

Each person must pay the price of their own actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, so you are suggesting that it should be legal for a drug company to manufacture and sell Crystal Meth, for example, to the public? I just can't get my head around that. I just can't imagine what life would be like in that kind of society. We have seen tobacco companies being sued for marketing nicotine so what company would want to sell Crystal Meth?? I think this is an example of what happens when you become too idealistic with a philosophy. Of course the moral/principle is important but you have to be realistic. Rules and regulations have evolved over thousands of years for a reason and we can't just abandon them to conform to some individualistic philosophy. I agree that governments have become too invasive and have screwed many things up royally but I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The assumption is that meth is not now widely available and used--that there is some basic virtue in "the war on drugs" that needs to be honored and respected. While this is being read someone somewhere is cooking up a batch of this crap in their kitchen while a baby crawls across the floor. The war on drugs is what happens when some people become too idealistic about what government can and should do.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if you sell a product and you don't know it's dangerous then you may be excused but when you do know then the situation is different. This is what is happening to the tobacco companies and, who knows, it may happen to the soft drink and fast food companies if enough evidence supports the dangers of this diet. Just because someone you sell to doesn't know any better doesn't let you off the hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, so you are suggesting that it should be legal for a drug company to manufacture and sell Crystal Meth, for example, to the public? I just can't get my head around that. I just can't imagine what life would be like in that kind of society. We have seen tobacco companies being sued for marketing nicotine so what company would want to sell Crystal Meth?? I think this is an example of what happens when you become too idealistic with a philosophy. Of course the moral/principle is important but you have to be realistic. Rules and regulations have evolved over thousands of years for a reason and we can't just abandon them to conform to some individualistic philosophy. I agree that governments have become too invasive and have screwed many things up royally but I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The assumption is that meth is not now widely available and used--that there is some basic virtue in "the war on drugs" that needs to be honored and respected. While this is being read someone somewhere is cooking up a batch of this crap in their kitchen while a baby crawls across the floor. The war on drugs is what happens when some people become too idealistic about what government can and should do.

--Brant

I don't know why you are quoting me Brant - this is certainly not MY assumption. I already said how I would handle these extremely dangerous drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if you sell a product and you don't know it's dangerous then you may be excused but when you do know then the situation is different. This is what is happening to the tobacco companies and, who knows, it may happen to the soft drink and fast food companies if enough evidence supports the dangers of this diet. Just because someone you sell to doesn't know any better doesn't let you off the hook.

Automobiles are dangerous. The liability should come in selling a defective, not a dangerous, product. Don't drink the anti-freeze.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if you sell a product and you don't know it's dangerous then you may be excused but when you do know then the situation is different.

Right. Let's make a list of all dangerous products and see how we can get some legislation passed to ban them.

I'll get us started:

  1. Cars
  2. Guns
  3. Airplanes
  4. Marshmellows [choking hazard]
  5. Coffee [ too much caffeine could make you do crazy things]
  6. Soap-on-a-Rope [could be used to asphyxiate someone]

Well that's just a start, come on, you chip in some too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The liability should come in selling a defective, not a dangerous, product. Don't drink the anti-freeze.

Good point. As food, it turns out Big Mac's are defective so they could be sued. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The liability should come in selling a defective, not a dangerous, product. Don't drink the anti-freeze.

Good point. As food, it turns out Big Mac's are defective so they could be sued. :)

I buy the double hamburger for a dollar. Not dangerous to the contents of my wallet.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vehemently oppose the idea of government restricting the rights of people to make, sell or use drugs, but, having been repeatedly berated recently for "pouncing" on Rand's view that government should be able to tell people what they will or won't do with the particular atoms in their possession, and having been scolded that I should instead try to calmly "reconcile with reality" the ideas of people who would ask government to point a gun to my head and order me around in regard to which pictures I may or may not display on my property, I've decided to entertain the idea that drugs may be a "health hazard" to unconsenting people who live near those who make, sell and use them recreationally.

First of all, innocent children might suffer devastating "negative psychological effects" from witnessing the horrific physical and mental damages that drugs can do to addicts in their neighborhood. We can't have that. Secondly, during the manufacturing process, harmful traces of drugs, drug-making chemicals and by-products are very likely to leak onto others' properties and into their air spaces. That's initiation of force! And, finally, and most importantly, there may be many potential biologically "life-harming" aspects of drug production and consumption that lowly morons might not yet be able to imagine or comprehend, such as, perhaps, bothersome drug waves which might be very similar to porn waves which are known to keep unconsenting victims awake at night.

So let's try a little harder to reconcile Howard's views with reality before flying off the handle.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I buy the double hamburger for a dollar. Not dangerous to the contents of my wallet.

Oh it sure is. The payments are just deferred. And the payments don't always come out of your wallet. The ill health effects of McDonald's food has been well demonstrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, innocent children might suffer devastating "negative psychological effects" from witnessing the horrific physical and mental damages that drugs can do to addicts in their neighborhood. ... Secondly, during the manufacturing process, harmful traces of drugs, drug-making chemicals and by-products are very likely to leak onto others' properties and into their air spaces.

(1) Don't they already? And what about the devastating effects of alcoholism, nicotine addiction and the like? Shall we ban alcohol and nicotine too? What about videogames? Those have killed!

(2) Doesn't that happen already? And wouldn't it be reduced if the enterprise was legal and could be held accountable in a court of law? And I won't even get into all the other activities that cause matter to bleed over into other people's property but have so far failed to bring the sky crashing down on our heads.

Let's try a little harder to think this through before spouting off nonsense, shall we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I buy the double hamburger for a dollar. Not dangerous to the contents of my wallet.

Oh it sure is. The payments are just deferred. And the payments don't always come out of your wallet. The ill health effects of McDonald's food has been well demonstrated.

As opposed to--Wendy's? Burger King? Carls? Dairy Queen? Sonics?

Betcha didn't know eating Hamburgers protects you from stomch cancer! Betcha you didn't know that every ten years it is "discovered" that what had been thought bad for you was actually good and what was good was bad!

Just stop eating! (Or at least cut back on the calories.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.