Comments on: A battle of absolutes http://www.amerika.org/social-reality/a-battle-of-absolutes/ New Right, Conservationist, Traditionalist, Deep Ecology and Conservative Thought: Conservation Conservatism (Crunchy Paleoconservatism) Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:22:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: susan28 http://www.amerika.org/social-reality/a-battle-of-absolutes/comment-page-1/#comment-598 susan28 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:37:52 +0000 http://www.amerika.org/?p=2632#comment-598 as someone who knows lots of perfectly functional, successful drug users i'd have no problem living in the "drug zone", because those same people i reference abhor violence and graft, and would likely have things like zero-tolerance laws for things like sholifting and assault. knock over a convenience store for a fix? that's the sort of thing that biases a society against drug use. how's 20 years grab ya? you've proven you're a parasite, goodbye to you. did it young and in yer 40's when you get out? mind yer manners, cuz second offense is life. but the whole restricting everyone by punishing based on what the least common denominator does is bollox. i'd rather live where all vices were legal but *actual* crime (against persons and property, not against "social ideals") was slammed hard, than what we have now where crimes against the ideology of a "drug free world" are slammed harder than the crimes drug use supposedly "always" leads to. nevermind most people in for drugs have no other crimes on their record. also, "banning" clearly doesn't work, and regulated legalisation as with alcohol is proven to at least delay first use by making it less accessible to kids. the drug war like alcohol Prohibition does the opposite of what was intended. however, i agree with you in principle about the localisation/minarchy and would jump at the chance for such an arrangement. it's like my beloved Federalism "writ small". i also think people viewing personal habits as merely not being illegal as sending the message it's ok, happens only because we've become so dependent on "experts" to tell us what's good for us that our intelligence has atrophied. anyone with a lick of sense knows cigarettes cause cancer etc, and choose to do it and take the consequences, or not. "socialising costs" is also an inrresponsibility-rewarding behaviour which is what *really* sends the message that self-abuse is ok, not the drug laws. if anything, require anyone caught with a potentially harmful substance to produce an insurance card with limits that cover those damages, and if they don't have it, pop 'em for lack of health insurance. if we must restrict personal behaviour, i'd rather see it go down that way. and yes: that means tho poor can't get high, which is politically incorrect, but it's in keeping with the libertarian notion of accountablity and self-reliance. as someone who knows lots of perfectly functional, successful drug users i’d have no problem living in the “drug zone”, because those same people i reference abhor violence and graft, and would likely have things like zero-tolerance laws for things like sholifting and assault. knock over a convenience store for a fix? that’s the sort of thing that biases a society against drug use. how’s 20 years grab ya? you’ve proven you’re a parasite, goodbye to you. did it young and in yer 40′s when you get out? mind yer manners, cuz second offense is life.

but the whole restricting everyone by punishing based on what the least common denominator does is bollox. i’d rather live where all vices were legal but *actual* crime (against persons and property, not against “social ideals”) was slammed hard, than what we have now where crimes against the ideology of a “drug free world” are slammed harder than the crimes drug use supposedly “always” leads to. nevermind most people in for drugs have no other crimes on their record.

also, “banning” clearly doesn’t work, and regulated legalisation as with alcohol is proven to at least delay first use by making it less accessible to kids. the drug war like alcohol Prohibition does the opposite of what was intended.

however, i agree with you in principle about the localisation/minarchy and would jump at the chance for such an arrangement. it’s like my beloved Federalism “writ small”.

i also think people viewing personal habits as merely not being illegal as sending the message it’s ok, happens only because we’ve become so dependent on “experts” to tell us what’s good for us that our intelligence has atrophied. anyone with a lick of sense knows cigarettes cause cancer etc, and choose to do it and take the consequences, or not. “socialising costs” is also an inrresponsibility-rewarding behaviour which is what *really* sends the message that self-abuse is ok, not the drug laws.

if anything, require anyone caught with a potentially harmful substance to produce an insurance card with limits that cover those damages, and if they don’t have it, pop ‘em for lack of health insurance. if we must restrict personal behaviour, i’d rather see it go down that way. and yes: that means tho poor can’t get high, which is politically incorrect, but it’s in keeping with the libertarian notion of accountablity and self-reliance.

]]>