Quote:
The problem with our system is we want it both ways. Even though I'm for Individualism and don't believe in victimless crimes, I still say if we're going to fight or war then let's do it and go froward - balls to the wall. For example, we want to fight a war on drugs but instead of just saying all bets are off and we're going to fight it, we allow political correctness to creep in. We make things illegal at the public or politician's outcry then they're the first to scream "foul" when we dole out harsh punishment or suffer a little collateral damage.
|
I understand where you're coming from. When a war is already as difficult as the war on drugs is, it's a strategic mistake to compromise the war's effectiveness by splitting focus between the war and protecting individual rights.
I agree with your comment on harsh punishment.
If we're really going to fight drugs, we can't whine if some octogenarian with cancer and a few marijuana plants gets locked up.
However, I disagree with the idea that fighting drugs through the legal and criminal justice systems is mandatory, and I think any reasoned examination of the "war" leads to the conclusions that the war is unconstitutional and carries enormous social costs of its own: death, injury, creation of "bad" neighborhoods, and property forfeiture involving individuals who are not involved with drugs.
Also, the legal status of various other drugs -- nicotine and alcohol and various OTC drugs -- compromises the moral foundation of the war on drugs to such an extent that drug warriors have no leg to stand on other than raw authority and some absurdly twisted concept of moral superiority.
If the war ends up costing either you or your family death, injury, or (confiscated) property -- despite your not being involved in drugs -- is that acceptable to you? Are you willing to pay that price? Or are you happy with the drug war only as long as other people are paying that price?