Though it ought to be clear from the above that prohibition is ineffective (drug use tends to go up, not down, due to the forbidden fruit effect), it's interesting you mention heroin. Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including heroin, reallocated the resources that had previous been used in their war on drugs into clinics and rehabilitation centers, and effectively halved drug use among teens and addiction, including to heroin. Pretty amazing, if you ask me.
RE: Classical Liberalism 101: Is Prohibition a Benefit or a Bane to Society?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Classical Liberalism 101: Is Prohibition a Benefit or a Bane to Society?
I just mentioned the worst offender. Generally I'm for decriminalizing drugs... but some are just too much. I dunno, I don't really have a definitive solution...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, I get you. By my standards, none of us do have the wherewithal to solve all the problems in the world. That's why I like decentralization -- giving the power back to the people, to make their own decisions, and to reap the consequences.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sure, but I don't think eliminating all regulation is good either. I think a balance is needed. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Libertarians don't necessarily believe in having no regulations, but do they have to be governmental?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, if it is a regulation, it cannot be just societal pressure. For most drugs, I agree it should be just frowned upon. I don't know where exactly the line should be drawn, but there should be a line.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm sorry for perhaps sounding too extreme, but it sounds like the question in your mind is where to draw the line between using arguments, and using aggression.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's not extreme at all. There is a line. I'm fully aware that my position might seem extreme as well, I'm all for debating and all, but there is a point the it's either submission, or violence.
I'm 100% for debate, but when that fails, violence might sometimes be called for. For example border protection, or property protection. You can be nice to the intruder and all, bu t there is a point where that is not enough and you have to protect what is yours.
Societal pressure is nice and all, but there will always be those that will not conform to common sense, and, as evil as it might sound, violence, or at leas the threat of violence, is needed...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The question,then, as I see it in this frame, is when is it ok to initiate violence upon the peaceful?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit