TDPerk wrote:"The Libertarian argument is that people have a RIGHT to do whatever they want with their own body, including taking Hard drugs such as Heroine, LSD, Crack, Meth, or whatever. "
So? You haven't shown any evidence that prohibition has made these harder to get, or that rates of addiction have decreased because of it. We aren't getting anything out of Prohibition except the bill and a shredded constitution.
You haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with my argument. That is passing strange, because I have repeated it so often as to become tired of it myself.
My argument is simple. When you legalize drugs, this is what happens.
By 1905, 50% of the population of China was addicted to opium.
TDPerk wrote:
MSimon is a monomaniacal idiot for insisting it's all about PTSD from abuse--even if it's true it's beside the point.
Either we own us or the government owns us.
Following the necessary obligations of a civilized society does not equal "ownership" by the government, it means that someone is a beneficial component of the civil society. When you follow the rules against rape and murder it does not make you "owned" by the government.
TDPerk wrote:
Diogenes wants to live in a world where the government owns us, at his philosophical foundation he's no different from Obama--he's at best an odious fool.
Because I don't want people spreading a horrible disease among the uninfected, that means I want the government to "own" people? And you say *I'm* a raving lunatic? Does it not occur to you that when the addiction of a population reaches a tipping point you will be OWNED by the replacement government regardless?
TDPerk wrote:
The only thing which can be the government's job, is to prevent us from doing things that hurt other person's property and persons.
And I regard the introducing of people to a disease that will hurt and kill them as an injury to other person's property and persons. It is little different from spreading AIDS, other than the less predictable manner of their death. Of course the way you Libertarians would propagandize it, a prohibition against spreading AIDS would be called a "Religious Fanatical law against people's right to have Sex!" or something.
TDPerk wrote:
It does so justly only by convicting us of crimes when we commit them, after the fact and by a jury trial--by due process. Since using recreational drugs does not in and of itself do any harm to another person or their property, it should be legal.
That is a fact not in evidence. Perhaps most of the time it does no harm, but much of the time it does. You are ignoring the victims.
TDPerk wrote:
All the actual evidence is that here, in this country, it won't be a problem for more than 98% of us in any way anyway, and prohibition isn't improving anything.
So what's the excuse for it, Diogenes?
Then how was China different from Us? If you can't explain why China went into a state of massive addiction, then you haven't thought this issue through.
As G.K. Chesterton said:
"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —