By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 13 August 2011
Edit Thread
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

Everything has consequences to it.  Without some semblance of society intervention to assist those who lives have fallen apart, to act as the said safety net, where people can recover (this need not be government), end result is that without it, where people are told they need to fend for themselves, you will actually see looting and rioting breaking out as people who made bad decisions felt they had no option but to rob.  Merely saying life is hard, and creating a jungle-like environment, isn't going to solve problems.  This is particularly true with drugs, where you create addicts who are compelled to fund their habit one way or another.   Of course, one could then advocate increased arming of citizens and allow business owners to gun down whomever goes into their store, and shoot beggers to clean up the streets.

Want a system for legalizing drugs, with a semblance of a social safety net?  If it is known that people will end up messing up their lives for doing drugs, you end up taxing drugs at a proper rate, using it to fund rehab programs, and then have individuals who want to use drugs to have to get a license to buy such drugs, stating they are fully aware of the consequences, and use the money to fund education programs for people who want to use it.  Businesses selling such drugs, if they sell to individuals who don't have a license to buy, they can be sued, and put out of business.  There are negative externalities that happen from drug use, that need to be accounted for.  The license to buy, is something that states you take full responsibility for your actions.

We've just seen looting and rioting on a massive scale in Britain, a society which certainly does not lack for a social safety net. The problem really is a break down of society, of morals, of personal responsibility, and of any sort of culture of internal and external shame. Life was a lot harder decades and centuries ago, and people didn't riot because of it, but a bunch of spoiled kids armed with smartphones and brand new clothes will damned sure riot if society constantly tells them that they've somehow been cheated out of having even more stuff that they haven't earned. Especially if they don't have to worry about being shot either by the police or by an armed and empowered citizenry. It's rather darkly amusing how many governments promise they can take care of you from the cradle to the grave but are unwilling or unable (same difference, really) to carry out even the most basic functions of a government, like, oh, preventing roving packs of brats from burning down whatever they please.

As for the old "legalize drugs but tax the shit out of them and make it a great hassle with lots and lots and lots of regulation!" canard, sounds great in theory but if you tax it too much or make it too great a hassle, you'll probably do nothing to seriously harm the black market while still having the negative effect of removing much of the social stigma against using drugs. Sure, lots of people use illegal drugs anyway, but many more abuse legal prescription drugs and that, in part, is because it's not seen as something "dirty" like smoking crack.

On the first point, I would say the breakdown of morals leads to the later problems, and if you lose that, you lose society.  If you also foster a culture where everyone is led to believe they are supposed to get the best of the best, all you have to do is just "try hard enough" and if you are "good enough" you are guaranteed, or that such is a right, then you will have problems.

On the second point, the issue isn't to make it a great hassle, but to recognize that individuals using drugs can royally mess up their lives, and just like you would have with the ability to drive a car, if you want to do drugs, you need to agree you fully are aware of the consequences, and how you can get addicted and ruin your life, and you assume full responsibility for doing such.  Idea is to take just enough funds to make sure the negative externalities are covered for and people are responsible if they are going to do it.  I would also look to extend the license to the use of alcohol also.  Funds from taxes of it would also cover paying for needed law enforcement anfd so on.   What is happening is people verify they know the risks involved and you still end up making sure the funds covered make up for idiots who happened to get themselves addicted, so they can get off it.  Want to have the free market manage this, so that it is run more effectively?  Fine, but you make sure it is covered by society, and people fully understand what they are getting into before engaging in it.