The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

AJAX22 · February 24, 2007, 10:19 PM

I'm not a LEO, and I don't have any experiance dealing with the problems you guys see on a daily basis. In principle I agree with the concept of just legalizing everything and taxing the heck out of it. I used to be an absolutist on the subject, but now I'm not so sure.

I rented a room in a house a few years back (while going to school) which was the cheapest I could find and unfortunatly had a few other guys living there who turned out to be meth addicts. These guys were basicly good people, (I didn't pick up on them using at all for the first few months) but eventually it became obvious, and I started noticing things. It wound up pretty much destroying these guy's lives, and really changed who they were at a fundamental level. It made regular people into guys you couldn't turn your back on or trust at all, and while I understand that the decision to use the first time was no ones fault but their own, I don't know if I can assign them all the blame for subsequent use. I saw these guys try to quit the stuff and fail over and over again. It was harsh.

It seems that even from a libertarian standpoint meth may be a social evil that we need to deal with incramentaly. If a drug is so addictive that it you are unable to overcome the desire for it with your will, then it is in fact infringing upon your freedoms? and if using it even a handfull of times can make you addicted then we might want to think long and hard about making it available over the counter.

The current war on drugs isn't working as it was originally intended, but I'm not so sure that total legalization is the answer either.

I guess from a constitutional standpoint it all comes down to wether or not an inanimate object can infringe on an individuals rights. If it can, then we have an obligation to either regulate meth or find some other way to keep people away from it (perhapse offer something else that is non-addictie and has similar properties?)

I'm still absolutly support the bill of rights compleatly, I just don't know how I feel about drugs (cocaine, herioin, meth) anymore.

If something has the power to change who you are fundamentally and permenantly, is it ok to make compleatly unrestricted?

February 24, 2007, 10:19 PM	#77
AJAX22 Member Join Date: June 2, 2006 Posts: 27	I'm not a LEO, and I don't have any experiance dealing with the problems you guys see on a daily basis. In principle I agree with the concept of just legalizing everything and taxing the heck out of it. I used to be an absolutist on the subject, but now I'm not so sure. I rented a room in a house a few years back (while going to school) which was the cheapest I could find and unfortunatly had a few other guys living there who turned out to be meth addicts. These guys were basicly good people, (I didn't pick up on them using at all for the first few months) but eventually it became obvious, and I started noticing things. It wound up pretty much destroying these guy's lives, and really changed who they were at a fundamental level. It made regular people into guys you couldn't turn your back on or trust at all, and while I understand that the decision to use the first time was no ones fault but their own, I don't know if I can assign them all the blame for subsequent use. I saw these guys try to quit the stuff and fail over and over again. It was harsh. It seems that even from a libertarian standpoint meth may be a social evil that we need to deal with incramentaly. If a drug is so addictive that it you are unable to overcome the desire for it with your will, then it is in fact infringing upon your freedoms? and if using it even a handfull of times can make you addicted then we might want to think long and hard about making it available over the counter. The current war on drugs isn't working as it was originally intended, but I'm not so sure that total legalization is the answer either. I guess from a constitutional standpoint it all comes down to wether or not an inanimate object can infringe on an individuals rights. If it can, then we have an obligation to either regulate meth or find some other way to keep people away from it (perhapse offer something else that is non-addictie and has similar properties?) I'm still absolutly support the bill of rights compleatly, I just don't know how I feel about drugs (cocaine, herioin, meth) anymore. If something has the power to change who you are fundamentally and permenantly, is it ok to make compleatly unrestricted?