To Protect and to Serve II

#6,926
#6,926
RockyTop85 said:
Also, I’m a fairly adamant libertarian and I was hip to the whole demilitarizing the police argument.

Questioning the justifications for the prohibition of heroin might have located the boundaries of my libertarianism, though.

(Without getting into the fact that no heroin was located, which is a bit more nuanced.)
Click to expand...

From a utilitarian perspective:

The justification (at its most basic level) for banning heroin is the idea that prohibition will reduce the social cost of heroin.

The justification (at its most basic level) for legalizing heroin is the idea that prohibition increases the social cost of heroin.

From a libertarian perspective, you do it because you believe man is meant to choose for himself what he can put in his body.
 
#6,927
#6,927
RockyTop85 said:
I thought it supported his point better than yours, but I’ve been skimming and may have misunderstood your respective points.

Accountability for police who abuse authority (throwing away the bad apples) is, I assume, one of the things he thinks will improve relations between the police and the public.

Right now, it seems like the farmers and many of the other apples glom together to protect the bad ones.
Click to expand...

Exactly... Holding bad cops accountable is probably the biggest thing that could improve relations between police and the public. But that would take a bit of self reflection and maybe a little acceptance that the current climate in police/public relations might just be a little bit their fault. Which I don't see happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oz615
#6,928
#6,928
n_huffhines said:
From a utilitarian perspective:

The justification (at its most basic level) for banning heroin is the idea that prohibition will reduce the social cost of heroin.

The justification (at its most basic level) for legalizing heroin is the idea that prohibition increases the social cost of heroin.

From a libertarian perspective, you do it because you believe man is meant to choose for himself what he can put in his body.
Click to expand...
And deal, by himself, for the results of doing that. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because no one lives on a deserted island where the results of those choices impacts only the one.
 
#6,929
#6,929
n_huffhines said:
From a utilitarian perspective:

The justification (at its most basic level) for banning heroin is the idea that prohibition will reduce the social cost of heroin.

The justification (at its most basic level) for legalizing heroin is the idea that prohibition increases the social cost of heroin.

From a libertarian perspective, you do it because you believe man is meant to choose for himself what he can put in his body.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you could ever sit down and tabulate that the direct and indirect costs of legalization are anywhere close to the direct and indirect costs of prohibition. The drug wars in Latin America alone have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and probably billions in economic losses and enforcement costs. We’ve spent billions and billions on enforcement and the criminal justice system to support it. And we have nothing to show for it. The people who want to use drugs still do it, and the people who want to sell it to them still sell it. We’ve just created an economic drag that is the law enforcement apparatus that is “eradicating” the problem. Now what government agency in its right mind will ever wholeheartedly attempt to eradicate the one thing that guarantees its existence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy and n_huffhines
#6,930
#6,930
37L1 said:
And deal, by himself, for the results of doing that. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because no one lives on a deserted island where the results of those choices impacts only the one.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So when you actions infringe upon the rights of someone else, you face the consequences. Banning drugs is like pre crime, I’m assuming no good will come of this so I say it’s not allowed.
 
#6,931
#6,931
n_huffhines said:
From a utilitarian perspective:

The justification (at its most basic level) for banning heroin is the idea that prohibition will reduce the social cost of heroin.

The justification (at its most basic level) for legalizing heroin is the idea that prohibition increases the social cost of heroin.

From a libertarian perspective, you do it because you believe man is meant to choose for himself what he can put in his body.
Click to expand...
Yes lets make it easier to get, that will solve all the problems.

So with this thinking you have no problems with the 2cd amendment. Because a man/woman can choose what to put in their house, right?
 
#6,932
#6,932
37L1 said:
And deal, by himself, for the results of doing that. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because no one lives on a deserted island where the results of those choices impacts only the one.
Click to expand...

But everything we do has some impact on somebody else, so with that justification you're asking for unlimited intervention in our lives. Obesity has more of a social cost than the war on drugs. Should we be banning fattening foods? This is mayor Bloomberg type reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia and MercyPercy
#6,933
#6,933
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Yes lets make it easier to get, that will solve all the problems.

So with this thinking you have no problems with the 2cd amendment. Because a man/woman can choose what to put in their house, right?
Click to expand...

Nobody said it would solve all the problems. Is the war on drug solving any of the problems?

I support the right to bear arms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321 and Pepe_Silvia
#6,936
#6,936
Cdywolfe said:
There are just a few super easy things LE could do that would win back the majority of the public that's become "anti-cop" and they simply refuse to. So this loser union rep can forget his victim mentality. If cops want to know why so many have turned against them they need to look no further then the mirror.
Click to expand...
It's like the old movie Colors..... you've got cops like Duvall and then you have cops like Penn..... and it's the cops like Penn that screw it up for everyone
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#6,938
#6,938
n_huffhines said:
But everything we do has some impact on somebody else, so with that justification you're asking for unlimited intervention in our lives. Obesity has more of a social cost than the war on drugs. Should we be banning fattening foods? This is mayor Bloomberg type reasoning.
Click to expand...
Not asking for unlimited intervention in the least. Nor do I believe that you are asking for a free for all either. Or are you?
 
#6,939
#6,939
37L1 said:
Not asking for unlimited intervention in the least. Nor do I believe that you are asking for a free for all either. Or are you?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, let me rephrase. Your argument is that the social cost of drug use is enough justification for intervention. If the social cost of obesity is greater than the social cost of drug use, it follows that you see enough justification for intervention there too, right? If not, why is bad food different than bad drugs?
 
#6,940
#6,940
n_huffhines said:
Fair enough, let me rephrase. Your argument is that the social cost of drug use is enough justification for intervention. If the social cost of obesity is greater than the social cost of drug use, it follows that you see enough justification for intervention there too, right? If not, why is bad food different than bad drugs?
Click to expand...
I have yet to see Narcan administered to OD's on food.
 
#6,946
#6,946
n_huffhines said:
So the shock factor is what gets you?
Click to expand...
Nope. It's the element of death by addiction. Death from opioid abuse tends to be quicker and the victim much younger than those who die from heart disease brought on by bad habits and advancing age.
 
#6,947
#6,947
37L1 said:
Nope. It's the element of death by addiction. Death from opioid abuse tends to be quicker and the victim much younger than those who die from heart disease brought on by bad habits and advancing age.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that if you take out all the "advanced age" deaths, more still die from obesity/heart disease than drugs.

You're now talking about the effects on the individual who chooses to take these drugs, and not the societal cost. Your original justification was the societal cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and MercyPercy
#6,948
#6,948
n_huffhines said:
I'm willing to bet that if you take out all the "advanced age" deaths, more still die from obesity/heart disease than drugs.

You're now talking about the effects on the individual who chooses to take these drugs, and not the societal cost. Your original justification was the societal cost.
Click to expand...
You like to do this a lot. If something isn’t the most or the leading cause then everything else is nil and you toss it aside. It’s silly.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top