Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Drugs in the FSP  (Read 45998 times)

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #105 on: November 15, 2003, 03:47:48 am »

wow radacer!
yes indeed that was harsh!  and I say too harsh!  look at the forum this thread is in 'Prospective Members' - where else could people begin their journey of knowledge in libertarianism or of how a free society might REALISTICALLY work?  that is all she was doing, why take the condemning tone?

ProteusLizz:
I apologize for the welcome you received here, some have answered your questions 'by the book' by may not have answered your 'how would it really work?' underlying question.

So, drugs are legalized, prices fall etc etc.  Addicts (or anyone) that has a difficult time maintaining their life (paying rent, buying food, etc) will indeed fall upon very hard times.  If they do not have friends, family, relatives that are willing to reach out a helping hand, there will be other organizations (private) that will be available: churches, Moms Against Drugs, etc.  They main difference between a private group and 'the government' is that the 'help' given will be more closely monitored, it will be clear to the individual receiving aid EXACTLY who's money it is they are receiving and what the conditions and expectations are in the deal.  There will be a definite 'If you continue to use drugs, you will not get any more aid from me' type of condition AND if the person violates the 'rules' he will be out on his arse.  I imagine that if a person continues to destroy themselves and never makes any improvement along the lines of restricting/abolishing their own drug use, then there will probably be an Organization which provides free one-way bus tickets across country to California with a hearty slap on the back and a 'Have fun!' as they get on the bus.  Yes, shipping 'societies' problems away is not a solution, BUT, the person has failed to take any aid so what can be done with them?  Put them in jail?  kill them?  the only other thing to do is let them die in the snow, but, we couldn't stand for that either...

In regard to your statements:
Quote
I am speaking of our responsibility to each other.  

it is pretty fundamental in libertarian beliefs that you have a responsibility to yourself - you cannot be responsible for others (children not included).  Next, you have family, then neighbors, then town, etc   But, it is morally wrong to force someone to take responsibility for themselves or others... it is morally correct to let someone suffer from the conseqences of their own actions tho.  Lets make an example:  the Free state is located in New Hampshire (or IS NH).  NH has some pretty cold winters.  It is legal for people to go outside in the dead of winter without a coat or appropriate clothing.  Most people know better.  Those that do not know better are usually informed of the possible risks by their friends and family.  those that choose to disregard all this evidence and still run out into the snow naked will suffer the consequences; frost bite, extreme pain, possibly death.  If they do survive, they will probably not continue the practice and all is better.  If they do not survive then it is not 'societies' fault, their families fault, or anyones fault AND it is not right for people to start wringing their hands about this grand problem of naked people dying in the snow and so we (as in 'society') must do something about it.  let me rephrase, it is fine for people to care about others and possible gather like minded individuals together, form an organization that helps naked snow people - BUT, it is not right for that organization to petition government and take money from others to fund their programs.

I do hope you take radracers advice and read up on Libertarianism - you will find the answers to many of these questions dealt with in a format more easily understood.  It is what I did when discovering about liberty and freedom.  I also recommend 'Machinery of Freedom' by David friedman (gives alot of situational examples).

feel free to email any questions you have in the meantime: leopardpm@yahoo.com

Quote
I just get tired of people thinking they can create a perfect world for themselves ONLY.

once you understand the principles of liberty and the basic workings of an unhindered free Market, you will come to find that it really is only thru SELF-INTEREST that the 'perfect' world can actually come about - it is not about being consumed with vanity or greed, but with taking responsibility for yourself and your needs/wants/desires.

michael
Logged
nothing to say...

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #106 on: November 19, 2003, 11:09:19 am »

RhythmStar said: Also, I see no reason not to tack extra penalties on when crimes are committed while under the influence.

That's typical of government punitive behavior but not libertarian practice. We believe in punishing ONLY for a crime committed not for the reason it may have happened, e.g. we don't believe in hate crimes.

FWIW, my statement had nothing to do with "hate crimes".  Rather, it stems from a belief that with freedom comes responsibility.  Freedom to legally indulge in any mind-altering substance you wish comes with the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not put the lives and property of others at risk.  To do otherwise is at the very least a case of criminal negligence.   This is a fair trade -- freedom to use in return for accountability for the consequences of irresponsible use.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

rdeacon

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1874
  • Six Years Into a Ten Year Sojourn
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #107 on: November 19, 2003, 02:20:42 pm »

If Libertarianism was not best for society, I would have my doubts about being a libertarian.  Look at what drug legalization does:

- Frees up billions of dollars annually between ending drug war funding and reallocating resources at the state and local level
- Frees up thousands of security, police, and military officers
- Gets us out of many south american nations
- Frees up space in prison so we aren't letting rapists and murderers go free to make room for addicts and dealers
- Legitimizes and makes safer recreational drug use
- Lowers costs so addicts aren't going to the poor house to fund a habit
- etc, etc, etc
Logged

Kyle

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 328
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #108 on: November 19, 2003, 07:18:17 pm »

RhythmStar said: Also, I see no reason not to tack extra penalties on when crimes are committed while under the influence.

That's typical of government punitive behavior but not libertarian practice. We believe in punishing ONLY for a crime committed not for the reason it may have happened, e.g. we don't believe in hate crimes.

FWIW, my statement had nothing to do with "hate crimes".  Rather, it stems from a belief that with freedom comes responsibility.  Freedom to legally indulge in any mind-altering substance you wish comes with the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not put the lives and property of others at risk.  To do otherwise is at the very least a case of criminal negligence.   This is a fair trade -- freedom to use in return for accountability for the consequences of irresponsible use.

RS

Why should the reason matter?  If someone careens his car into me, I want him punished.  Whether the reason was drug use or the fact that he was digging around for loose change is irrelevant.
Logged

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #109 on: November 20, 2003, 04:51:20 pm »

RhythmStar said: Also, I see no reason not to tack extra penalties on when crimes are committed while under the influence.

That's typical of government punitive behavior but not libertarian practice. We believe in punishing ONLY for a crime committed not for the reason it may have happened, e.g. we don't believe in hate crimes.

FWIW, my statement had nothing to do with "hate crimes".  Rather, it stems from a belief that with freedom comes responsibility.  Freedom to legally indulge in any mind-altering substance you wish comes with the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not put the lives and property of others at risk.  To do otherwise is at the very least a case of criminal negligence.   This is a fair trade -- freedom to use in return for accountability for the consequences of irresponsible use.

RS

Why should the reason matter?  

Because the reason speaks to intent and intent is a well-established component of gauging the seriousness of criminal acts.   Killing someone might be an accident (no crime), or an act of negligence (as in negligent homicide), or an unintentional result of a some act of force (involuntary manslaughter), or actual manslaughter, but you don't actually have murder in the first degree unless you have malice aforethought, and you don't have an automatic death penalty in CA without special circumstances, such as 'lying in wait'.  Driving a car is not necessarily a crime, but driving in a reckless manner puts the life and property of others at unreasonable risk, and that force against others is (and should be) actionable.  In concept, this is no different than discharging a firearm in a densely-populated residential area -- you might not have shot anyone that time, but keep it up and you will.   Folks have no moral obligation to wait for the corpse before protecting themselves.

Quote
If someone careens his car into me, I want him punished.  Whether the reason was drug use or the fact that he was digging around for loose change is irrelevant.

That seems to me to be a rather unreasonable, even vindictive position.  What if the mishap were no fault of the driver's?  Perhaps a mechanical failure as a result of sabotage, or a manufacturer's defect?  A sneeze?  By your own words, you want to hold the driver accountable for irresponsible and/or reckless behavior.  What is the objection to taking that to its logical end and specifying different punishments for differing levels of willful recklessness?   Isn't speeding through a school zone while nearly comatose on barbiturates a more serious case of willful recklessness than digging for toll change while approaching a toll booth?

Taking drugs in private is a peaceful act that ought to be as well-protected as any individual right.  Taking incapacitating drugs and then operating dangerous machinery in public places is an act of aggression and willful disregard for the lives and property of your fellow citizens.   It helps not to confuse the two.  :)

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Kyle

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 328
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #110 on: November 20, 2003, 05:41:47 pm »

Except you didn't say that drugs should be used to determine intent.  You specifically said that extra penalties should be "tacked on" for using drugs during a crime.  That is entirely different, and akin to hate crimes.
Logged

BlueLu

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
  • MMMMMMM! Monadnock
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #111 on: November 20, 2003, 06:50:24 pm »

There was a discussion of this in the youth section several weeks ago.  One poster was arguing that if you kill someone while drinking and driving, it should aggravate the crime to the status of murder.  I disagreed, and said it should not be murder, because murder is always intentional killing.  But I do agree that the charge of manslaughter should be aggravated by the perpetrator's engaging in action that (s)he knows (or should know) might impare their ability to drive safely.

In other words, a drunk driver (or impared by other drugs) who is at fault in a traffic accident, where someone dies as a result, should be punished more harshly than someone who was sober, but misjudged a speed or distance, or something.  A narcoleptic who chose to drive should be liable to the same sort of increased punishment, if (s)he had any reason to believe his/her condition might not be under control when they chose to drive.  But I would think that the class of punishment for these vehicular-manslaughter-while-reaction-impared crimes would still be less than that for an intentional murder.

On the other hand, legal penalties for just being drug-impared when you do not have any responsibilties to be alert, are not justifiable.  Otherwise, it could be punishable if you did not check your stove 4 times before leaving your house.
Logged

rdeacon

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1874
  • Six Years Into a Ten Year Sojourn
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #112 on: November 20, 2003, 07:39:56 pm »

Agreed.  Penalties should be harsher if the vehicular manslaughter is committed by a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Misjudging distance is an honest mistake, but getting into the driver's seat under the influence is a dangerous, intentional action that spits in the face of personal responsibility.  
Logged

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #113 on: November 22, 2003, 07:30:10 am »

Agreed.  Penalties should be harsher if the vehicular manslaughter is committed by a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Misjudging distance is an honest mistake, but getting into the driver's seat under the influence is a dangerous, intentional action that spits in the face of personal responsibility.  
so hard to determine if the 'misjudging distance' was due to the alcohol or would have happened anyway.... a nice big gray loophole that lawyers love to drive their trucks thru...

I say penalties should be the same - Effect based penalties - If someone dies due to being hit by another who lost control of their vehicle, it matters not if it was because of their radio being too loud, or alcohol, or the baby crying in the back seat - the only truth is that they lost control and THAT was the offense - it is not illegal to be distracted or under the influence - tis a seperate issue.

a hard stance to defend, I admit...
michael
Logged
nothing to say...

rdeacon

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1874
  • Six Years Into a Ten Year Sojourn
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #114 on: November 22, 2003, 11:32:49 am »

I don't see a loophole.  If you hit somebody and you are under the influence of a drug or alcohol, it doesn't matter what you claim caused the accident, your being under the influence aggrevates your charge.  I'm also in favor of increased penalties for crimes commited with a firearm.  

so hard to determine if the 'misjudging distance' was due to the alcohol or would have happened anyway.... a nice big gray loophole that lawyers love to drive their trucks thru...

I say penalties should be the same - Effect based penalties - If someone dies due to being hit by another who lost control of their vehicle, it matters not if it was because of their radio being too loud, or alcohol, or the baby crying in the back seat - the only truth is that they lost control and THAT was the offense - it is not illegal to be distracted or under the influence - tis a seperate issue.

a hard stance to defend, I admit...
michael
Logged

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #115 on: November 22, 2003, 02:25:03 pm »

rdeacon,
let me restate the problem - sometimes I am not very good at making the point that I am trying...

you say that basically 'being impaired' increases or aggravates the risk of harm to others.  This is not an 'absolute' determination - can you state what level of risk increase should be the dividing line?  For instance, if alcohol increases the risk of causing an accident by 3% (from lets say 1% normally to 4% impaired), and we agree to say that "anything that a person chooses to do that increases the risk of harm to others by 3% or more shall be illegal.  We should by universal in our application of law right?  Not haphazardly choosing whatever pet fad is popular at the time or else the 'law' will be used as a method for perks and varying degrees af law being manipulated by money and politics.  So, to be universal and say 3% increase is illegal - that might also include applying make-up or talking on a cell phone or eating/drinking/smoking while driving - might even be used to convict people of 'driving while under the stress to go pee' as I am sure there are plenty of accidents aggravated by peoples desire to get to a restroom also.  See how it doesn't exactly jive?

The other thing is that this 'increase in risk'  is an arbitrary figure.  Harm is definite and absolute - if you punch me it is universally apparent that you caused me harm.  If you get in a car after drinking 2 beers you are not harming me - only when you actually cause harm by causing an accident.  Not black & white, neat and clean - nice big grey area and open to 'public' interpetation...

Perhaps I am still not getting the point across...

michael
Logged
nothing to say...

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #116 on: November 23, 2003, 12:07:48 pm »

Except you didn't say that drugs should be used to determine intent.  You specifically said that extra penalties should be "tacked on" for using drugs during a crime.  That is entirely different, and akin to hate crimes.

Not at all. You misjudge my intent. :)  

To me, taking mind-altering drugs is something you do intentionally and with reasonable precautions.  Taking ketamine as a precursor to a drive in the park is not reasonable, it is acting in a manner that is criminally negligent.

Furthermore, it is the individual's responsibility to understand their own tolerance for the effects of these substances -- if taking a little methamphetamine is likely to send you into a manic fugue state, wherein you feel the irresistible compulsion to burn down apartment buildings, well, you should abstain.  If you do not, and you are subsequently busted for arson, then the fact that you committed the crime primarily because you chose to take a drug that you couldn't handle is not a justification.  Rather, it is a point towards additional culpability for criminal negligence.   Adding fines and/or jail time for criminal negligence is not "hate crimes", it is a fair accounting of the behavior being addressed (and hopefully deterred).

Keep in mind that I think any adult should be able to walk in and buy any drug they feel like buying, from absinth to Zoloft.   However, for such a freedom to work and endure, those who choose to do so MUST act responsibly, or pay the price.  If they do not, regardless of what libertarians think, then drugs will quickly be recriminalized -- we live in a cause-and-effect universe, and no amount of political theorizing can ever change that.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Kelton Baker

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Freedom is Free, it's tyranny that costs us dearly
    • Kelton Baker
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #117 on: November 23, 2003, 10:10:11 pm »

...

To me, taking mind-altering drugs is something you do intentionally and with reasonable precautions.  Taking ketamine as a precursor to a drive in the park is not reasonable, it is acting in a manner that is criminally negligent.

Furthermore, it is the individual's responsibility to understand their own tolerance for the effects of these substances -- if taking a little methamphetamine is likely to send you into a manic fugue state, wherein you feel the irresistible compulsion to burn down apartment buildings, well, you should abstain.  If you do not, and you are subsequently busted for arson, then the fact that you committed the crime primarily because you chose to take a drug that you couldn't handle is not a justification.  Rather, it is a point towards additional culpability for criminal negligence.   Adding fines and/or jail time for criminal negligence is not "hate crimes", it is a fair accounting of the behavior being addressed (and hopefully deterred).

Keep in mind that I think any adult should be able to walk in and buy any drug they feel like buying, from absinth to Zoloft.   However, for such a freedom to work and endure, those who choose to do so MUST act responsibly, or pay the price.  If they do not, regardless of what libertarians think, then drugs will quickly be recriminalized -- we live in a cause-and-effect universe, and no amount of political theorizing can ever change that.


I'm holding on to this post,  that is some very good insight.  With freedom comes responsibility,  you have persuaded me even more in some of my views on this, I like your way of making it so clear in this post.
Logged
Give me some men who are stout-hearted men Who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men And I'll soon give you ten thousand more...--O. Hammerstein

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #118 on: November 23, 2003, 10:28:59 pm »

Kelton,
Mr. RhythmStar is a very intelligent man with a dash of ethics and insight which is gladly welcomed in any discussion I participate in - look to som of his other posts and you you find that he is rather consistent and very interesting... he has many good ideas, and alot of references/research - a very valuable person to maintain contact with...

psst - Rhythm - so where do I collect my $20 from now?

michael
Logged
nothing to say...

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #119 on: November 24, 2003, 12:11:17 am »

Aw, shucks!   :-[
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 ... 13   Go Up