About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
G. that was brilliantly said.  Good job.



Post 1

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:12amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Eichert,

Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate your readership and kind words, and-- since you do not hesitate to speak your mind-- I know that they are sincerely meant.

I am
G. Stolyarov II




Post 2

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:40amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Excellent article Gennady.

Ethan




Post 3

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 3:39pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Excellent article, but I think I would add in there that black market drug trade is the primary funding source of all forms of organized crime.   



Post 4

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I too must also pay tribute to this article, it presents a well stated argument.  However, one minor issue I have with it is that it seems to characterize 'drug addicts' as the whole of all drug users.  I can't tell if this is intentional or not.

Needless to say, I disagree with this characterization.  For example, many recreational drug users are also productive and otherwise law abiding citizens (this, of course, includes all people who drink alcohol to the point of feeling its effects).  Clearly, there is a stark moral contrast between a self reliant person who smokes a joint of marijuana in his home after a long day's work, and a street junkie who has thrown away every opportunity in his life just to get his next fix.  It is just as much an affront to the former that their peaceful activities are being interfered with as it is for productive, drug-free citizens to have their liberties curtailed in the name of 'fighting' the latter. 




Post 5

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 5:42pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I must also tip my hat, Mr. Stolyarov. This is a polemic-with-teeth!

Ed




Post 6

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Senor williams concurs.


gw




Post 7

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:08pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
G. Stolyarov II for President!



Post 8

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:04pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What about the kids? Should it be illegal for Mr. drug dealer to sell or give drugs to the kids?
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 5/23, 10:05pm)




Post 9

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:34pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What about the kids? Should it be illegal for Mr. drug dealer to sell or give drugs to the kids?


Dean I'm not sure I follow your question. Why would legalizing drugs mean allowing children to buy drugs? Prescription drugs are legal now, is it legal for a pharmacy to sell prescription drugs to a child? Alcohol is legal now, but it is illegal for a child to purchase it. Of course it should be illegal for Mr. Drug Dealer to sell drugs to kids. Children do not have the capacity to make rational decisions about their welfare.

I also would like to agree with Pete that drug use does not automatically mean one has a questionable moral character. Remember alcohol is a drug, I enjoy partaking in this drug. I would bet the vast majority of people on this forum like to consume alcohol on occasion, or am I wrong? I own a bar, I sell alcohol every day to adults that are willing to buy. I am essentially a legalized drug pusher. Is my moral character in question because of this?



Post 10

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 5:01amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Making these drugs illegal also raises difficulties for those who do become addicts and want to stop.  A functioning alcoholic can seek treatment without facing charges of unlawful possession of alcohol.  A functioning cocaine addict enjoys no such freedom.  This more deeply entrenches the addiction problem that prohibitionists claim they want to prevent.




Post 11

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 7:07amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
GS, I've tried explaining a similar proposition to a few people. Oddly, they, these few people, still believe that people 'must be saved from themselves' or that 'the majority rules.' And I have to wonder, in either proposition it seems there's an implicit declaration that one must subsume one's will to something outside them that is quite arbitrary. It's as if some people are raised to believe this general idea, and to have a want for it; the want for external control of themselves by others. It's a strange problem...

-- Bridget



Post 12

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:06amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Is called 'dependency'... the mark of being 'as a child'.... and such is how most are taught, whatever lipservice given to independency and the adult recognition of self- responsibility...




Post 13

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Dawe, Mr. Dickey, Pete, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Williams, Mr. Anspaugh, Mr. Gores, Mr. Armaos, Mr. Setzer, Ms. Armozel, Mr. Malcom,

Thank you for the kind words and interesting comments.

Pete,

You are correct; I agree with you on the distinction between the drug addict and the person who occasionally consumes drugs but is not largely impaired in his productivity. There is a vast difference of degree here, and the latter can definitely be respected and associated with. I would not make the same choices as he, but I will not condemn him in the way I would condemn a drug addict.

This article's criticisms were targeted at drug addicts alone. When I wrote, "Let us presume that someone has decided to ruin his life by consuming harmful drugs...", I meant that someone has decided to consume drugs to the extent that it ruined his life. This would not apply to the casual drinker or marijuana smoker.

Mr. Gores, Mr. Armaos,

Children should not have the same freedom to purchase drugs as adults; they are under the custody of their parents, and parents must ultimately have the authority to restrain their children's drug consumption. Rather than have a one-size-fits-all restriction on children, however, it should be up to the parents whether to allow a 14-year-old a glass of wine, for instance.

I am
G. Stolyarov II




Post 14

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Children should not have the same freedom to purchase drugs as adults; they are under the custody of their parents, and parents must ultimately have the authority to restrain their children's drug consumption. Rather than have a one-size-fits-all restriction on children, however, it should be up to the parents whether to allow a 14-year-old a glass of wine, for instance.


Good point! As the law does reflect this ought you have spoken of. Minors are permitted to consume an alcoholic beverage under the supervision of a parent or guardian on private property. My only question is you make a distinction between individuals that are an addict and individuals that consume in moderation, and I would agree with this distinction. But you say you would not condemn the occasional drug user in the way you condemn a drug addict, so am I to assume there is some degree of condemnation you give to the occasional drug user? And what about those who sell alcohol such as myself?
(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/24, 11:31am)




Post 15

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 5:56pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
A strong, argument, Gennady.  Add in the caveat that John and Pete gave (regarding the distinction between casual users and outright addicts) and I heartily agree. 

You make some interesting economic points that add weight to the arguments I have previously made in speeches against the Drug War, and I appreciate the support.  I particularly like the "free food and lodging" crack at the penitentiary system.  Well done.




Post 16

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:23pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Excellent article.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 7:49pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Armaos,

Thank you for your comments. To the extent that the use of drugs (including alcohol and marijuana) does not impair the user's health, productivity, and/or valued relationships with others, the user ought not be condemned. A similar judgment would apply to someone who eats chocolate in moderation versus someone who eats chocolate in obscene amounts. The casual drinker who does not harm himself is not blameworthy, while somebody who eats 50 chocolate bars a day and greatly impairs his functionality and health can be condemned.

Selling alcohol per se is not blameworthy, just like selling chocolate is not blameworthy. No one is obliged to misuse a product one sells; the seller is just providing the product. How to use it is entirely the consumer's moral responsibility.

The judgment in all cases is greatly dependent on context; one needs to know a given individual's habits and how they affect him. Consuming the same amount of the same substance might be harmful for one person but perfectly healthy for another. It is definitely not the province of government to set up one-size-fits-all prohibitive criteria on such matters.

Luke,

Thank you for the kind words. I enjoyed your prior speech on this issue, and I salute your work in this area.

I am
G. Stolyarov II




Post 18

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:04pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Thanks for the clarification.



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
GSII wrote:

Thank you for the kind words. I enjoyed your prior speech on this issue, and I salute your work in this area.

Which speech was that?  I know Rick Pasotto did a speech that mentioned the War on Drugs but I do not recall posting one.




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.