Hello Frank, On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:42:25 -0800, Frank Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Good evening Ed! > >Ed Fischang aka shadow wrote to Conster... > >Conster wrote in part: >> I don't mean going in there with guns blazing, but if that is >> C> the only means available to get these chemical brewing freaks out of the >> C> neighborhood, so be it. I wouldn't think it bad if a little vigilantism >> C> was involved. No one wants a Meth lab in their neighborhood. > >To which you replied: >> In a Libertarian world, your neighbors wouldn't be making meth next door - >> Eli Lilly and Company would, in a proper chemical plant, and its products >> would be available at 7-11 and Circle K, cheaper and cleaner than your >> neighbors could make. > >Thanks Ed. That's part of the argument I didn't get into last >night; maybe I should have, but didn't want to suggest for some >who might be thinking about that, that the Libertarian Party >supports usage and mainstream production of dangerous killer >drugs. Well, I must admit Frank, you really surprised me with your response. I don't know this other person, but have been reading your posts for many years and figured something different from you. Not that it's a bad thing, just that I disagree almost to the extreme. >You are correct, and history collaborates that this would >ultimately become reality, vis-a-vis the lifting of prohibition >virtually ended the crime wave surrounding the production and >distribution of bootleg whiskey and other alcoholic beverages. I >am certainly not trying to place alcoholic beverages in the same >category as Meth either, only pointing out that if prohibitions >against drugs were lifted, then mainstream corporate interests >would step in and drive the current crime ridden underground >network out of business practically overnight. Prices for such >substances would also plummet making illicit manufacturing less >attractive. I didn't know bootleg whiskey was still an issue since Prohibition was done away with. Alcohol is now and always will be a problem, Libertarian or no Libertarian Euphoria. Some dumb jerk will always get behind the wheel when he's only "had one or two" (Kegs) and kill himself (which is acceptable) however in doing so, he might also take out some mom coming home with her 3 kids after a PTA meeting. Meth is shockingly cheap. If anything having the general market take over making Meth it would be no less legal, but it would definitely be a whole lot more expensive. I have visions of "Buy your Crystal Meth here.. On Sale this week only." "Buy it by the gram or by the ounce, either way get high on us!" >If there would be any positive side to this, it would certainly >be a vast reduction in overall capital crime rates, safer >streets, and less emphasis upon recruitment and sales to young >people. I am not so sure that this would either raise or lower >overall consumption rates, however. It wouldn't happen. What are you and shadow saying. I'm hearing less government interaction in one hand, but more corporate interaction in the other. They are one in the same when it comes to controlling our lives and telling us what is good and bad for us... i.e. side air-bags. Cars aren't even fun to crash anymore more. Hell, my stupid mini van is an old 1993 Chev. Lumina APV... which means it's made out of plastic. My magnetic yellow and my red, white and blue ribbons literally can't stick to it, so they are stuck on my refrigerator. If you are talking freedom of living as you would, then you can't have it both ways. You can't have absolute freedom and not expect that the criminal element won't take advantage of the situation. In most lawless places, you will find eventually a dictatorship of sorts come through. It happened in the old west, it happened in New York when the Irish got P.O.'ed, the later the Italians strong-armed every one out and their criminal element owned more politicians and people than the honest working stiff. I just can't see how realistically you can dismiss the criminal element being around just waiting for freedom to do as they can without justice through the system. >But as I pointed out last night, it would provide an opportunity >for ordinary people to step in and make a difference is sales and >consumption of very dangerous drugs. Ordinary criminals. An ordinary person wouldn't want to make or use Meth. It's a killer to take, it would cost someone hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run, unless we are lucky and they drop dead of an over dose, because the medical bills for their crystallized lung tissue, their short term memory loss, their crank bugs, their mental illnesses that can't be controlled by modern day mental illness drugs and counseling, because it's not a brain that's gone array due to a natural chemical mishap, but from a self inflicted one. And what of those little crank babies??? Should we make it illegal for pregnant women to be able to use this drug or a vast majority of other drugs that leave babies suffering through withdrawal, very prone to severe learning disabilities. You think the schools suck now. >Let's assume, just for starters, that legalization could be >implemented starting tomorrow morning. What would really >happen? Let's check it out: I guess I would have to follow Alec Baldwin wherever he was going to go if Bush was elected.. And I voted for Bush.. >1. Most courts would no longer be crammed with frivolous drug >possession, sale and distribution cases, and free up space for >real crimes wherein real victims can be identified; I just don't understand this vein of thinking. All I can assume that very few people here have dealt with the type of people we are speaking of. I'm not talking of the old pot-smoking hippies getting down on some Led Zeppelin, I'm talking about people who are so bent on getting more and more of their drugs (I'm talking cocaine and Meth at this point.. ie crack and crank) there comes a point there isn't enough to fill their needs, I don't care how cheap it is, because these people can't hold a job and be a viable contribution to the community chest. Then of course there is heroin, another lovely drug that people take from the time they are young, because after all, I would assume we would want an age time line on drugs and alcohol, but at this point I suppose I can't assume anything. Have any of you had a family member hurt by someone who used these drugs. Has anyone lost someone they know due to these drugs? What do we do? Anarchy? Blow away the annoying asses who come to steal us blind, if we can still see, because of all the crack and crank smoke in the air, not to mention the syringes and needles laying all over the place.. And AIDS would no longer be as big of a sexual disease as it would be a drug induced disease, because sooner or later, smoking and snorting just isn't enough and there will come a time when any user of these drugs, who are using long term will stick a needle in their vein for that very first time and never go back. >2. We would need far less police officers on the streets, and >far less investigators wasting time and taxpayer dollars >prosecuting cases where no victim of a crime could be identified; The only victims would be the people who chose to live a clean, ethical and moral life, free of drugs. Why would they need the cops. We'd always have the some mafia type of organization to take car of us, because in the long run they usually end up controlling large marketing of the drug trade. But you are right, they are cheap, if you stay on out of their way and don't end up with a horse head in bed with you. >3. We could largely empty a large percentage of overcrowded >prisons, and maybe close many of them down instead of spending >billions on constructing new prisons and incarceration >facilities; ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGH...... Unless we are talking about someone who had a MASSIVE AMOUNT of drugs when busted, these bozo's never make it past the local community jail. Prison would be a cake walk. If we took a poll of Walla Walla for instance, the general population that were in there for drug related crimes would be very high, because most murderers, rapists and robbers use drugs. However, those in there for direct drug convictions would be very low. >4. The draconian vehicle and property confiscation process would >end, and normal, law abiding, citizens would no longer lose their >cars, boats, homes and other possessions in confiscations; Who are we calling normal, law abiding, citizens? Do you mean the druggies, because they are no longer getting busted for doing the drugs and keeping them off the streets? So the regular Joe and Jane Doe are driving their clunkers while the druggies are making more money than the hard working citizens, because there will be more drugs available, thus more children will have access at much younger ages and the population will tilt very much to people who are constantly stoned. Supply and demand. Since most dope heads don't eat (as opposed to potheads who like to eat a lot) there wouldn't be need for 7-11's and we could drive all the Iranians out of work and thus there wouldn't be the problem of the bigotry against people of color. Hell, who would be seeing color?? And it would give a whole new meaning to 'rock collecting.' >5. Midnight police gestapo raids on homes, sometimes the wrong >homes, would largely become a thing of the past; Yes, sometimes the wrong homes. Yes, the police are humans, people like you and me who are making money to buy food for their families. Gestapo raids? How rarely compared to honest busts is this happening. I get so sick and tired of people bitching about the cops. Damn straight they are a pain in the ass if you are doing something illegal, but if you are being victimized and don't have the means to protect yourself, most would be praying for a cop to get to them quickly. My brother has been a cop for almost 20 years. He was in on a drug bust where they had been given one number off on a drug raid and raided the wrong home. Yep.. scared the shit out of some little Mexican lady and damned, if she lost her ability to talk (in public) and sewed the city for a massive sum of money for scaring her. I would be scared too. But in this perfect society of one certainly wouldn't need lawyers if we didn't need cops to protect us, so the people who get scared shitless or spill hot coffee on their lap couldn't make millions of dollars because of a mistake... A M I S T A K E. Of course, no one would ever make mistakes either, because when a person is high, there are no mistakes.. there just 'is'.. The Zen of Crank and Cracksters. >6. Police would have more time and manpower to go after real >threats, such as terrorists, murderers, rapists and burglars, and >other crimes in which leave victims who otherwise would be forced >to compete for attention from the justice system with now >voluminous drug related cases. Again, someone is grossly misinformed about what police are doing for a living, but I'm not even going to try and convince anyone, because I will hear about the Spokane police or some such place where I don't see what is happening. I'm curious. Would there be speed limits in this world where we all have rights to get high and drunk? Would there be laws against driving impaired? Because unless it's an obvious drug house, cops don't usually come beating the doors down when someone is sitting in their front room shooting up. Probable cause doesn't even help them. If you tell a cop that the people told you first hand they are shooting up daily, there is nothing they will do. If you baby grandchild is in that home, CPS will ask if he has bruises or looks neglected... Pffffffft.. LOOKS NEGLECTED.. I'm one big fat woman and you know.. I've been neglected many times in my life.. So how does one "look neglected." Or would we eradicate CPS as well. >Of course there are a lot more benefits that we could cite. Many >of our civil liberties could be restored, since they were taken >away from us in the first place under the false pretext of aiding >efforts to track down and identify drug criminals. > >So, although we do have a drug problem in America, we would be >much better able to end most of the violence associated with it >by simply legalizing drugs and enabling the free market to >regulate such trade. It would also open a plethora of >opportunities for ordinary people to work in the direction of >lessening drug abuse without the government becoming the chief >part of the problem, as it is now. > >Kindest regards, >Frank I know a lot of what I said was in a smart aleck tone, but honestly I just can't see this reality. I can't even begin to absorb, no matter how hard I try, a world where we allow Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, Acid, etc. be a matter of a person's personal choice. In the long run I see nothing but havoc and the world I live in being much worse than most of you all see it under the Bush administration. But then, as I said I voted for Bush and would do it again. It was pretty slim pickin's this election. Conster _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
