|
On December 10 2008 03:46 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 03:44 Mindcrime wrote:On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote:
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers. I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies. There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies. All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
I feel that there should be controls over what we can put into another person's body - bullets, knives, LSD - and maybe, to some extent, our own, but when it comes to a perfectly benign, non-toxic and harmless substance like weed, prohibition hurts more than a couple of kids getting high every now and then. Like you said, the issue isn't the regulation of prescription drugs.
It's weed. It grows in the ground. Steroids do not grow in the ground. Heroin does not grow in the ground. Cocaine does not grow in the ground. All of these require human refinement. Weed does not.
I mean, a black market, overburdened prison population, drug crime to deal with higher prices, potentially laced weed, shootouts between growers and the law, and on top of that, no tax revenue, versus a couple more kids and adults getting high every now and then?
Legalization of marijuana serves the twofold purpose of increasing public safety and bolstering the economy. I'm not advocating for the legalization of methamphetamine or crack cocaine. I'm not even fighting you on mushrooms. It's weed. Our founding fathers grew it by mandate. It's been smoked in China and around the world for millennia. There is research to suggest that it helps prevent diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, not to mention all the chemotherapy patients that benefit from it. Glaucoma, stress, hypertension, OCD, joint pain, muscle pain, jazz music, etc.
Marijuana was only made illegal in the past 100 years, you know. Prohibition happened to alcohol, too, and my god, alcohol is immeasurably more destructive - but not as destructive as the black market.
|
On December 10 2008 04:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 03:46 Savio wrote:On December 10 2008 03:44 Mindcrime wrote:On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote:
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers. I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies. There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies. All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue. for a small government conservative, opposition to legalization of weed most certainly is inconsistent with your other views.
Maybe. But conservatism doesn't explain all my views perfectly. Its like this:
1. The Republican party only slightly better than the Democratic party represent my views.
2. Conservatism is MUCH better than Republicanism at aligning with my views but still not 100%.
3. Some aspects of libertarianism appeal to me, but not all (I think having police/fire department are good).
People are more complicated than any one title can explain them.
I think addicting substances should be controlled within reason. Alcohol and tobacco are past the point where they would be reasonable to control, but weed isn't. Opioid narcotics should be controlled etc.
|
On December 10 2008 04:22 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 04:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 10 2008 03:46 Savio wrote:On December 10 2008 03:44 Mindcrime wrote:On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote:
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers. I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies. There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies. All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue. for a small government conservative, opposition to legalization of weed most certainly is inconsistent with your other views. Maybe. But conservatism doesn't explain all my views perfectly. Its like this: 1. The Republican party only slightly better than the Democratic party represent my views. 2. Conservatism is MUCH better than Republicanism at aligning with my views but still not 100%. 3. Some aspects of libertarianism appeal to me, but not all (I think having police/fire department are good). People are more complicated than any one title can explain them. I think addicting substances should be controlled within reason. Alcohol and tobacco are past the point where they would be reasonable to control, but weed isn't. Opioid narcotics should be controlled etc.
Weed is misclassified as a narcotic. It has no opiates in it. And I find that weed is past the point where it is reasonable to control. Nearly half the population will try it in their lifetime at least once, and that's in spite of its illegality.
And come on, nobody is so misinformed that they think weed is a killer drug anymore. Well, aside from the politicians, at least.
Our last 2 presidents and our president-elect have smoked weed, by the way  .
|
Meh, I don't feel super strong about weed. Its not like abortion. Although I am not so sure about the "harmless" and "benign" references you give it. Taking in smoke to your lungs in general is not a good thing. And it is addictive (although less so than tobacco admittedly) and addictive substances damage society by removing productivity and ruining lives.
But its not an issue I get all fired up about.
EDIT: surviving "trying something" is not proof that it is benign. Also weed is a cannabanoid and has similar effects as opioids. Its not strong but it does have addictive potential.
|
I earlier made 2 posts that I expected to generate strong reactions but then we talked about marijuana for a while. Here they are again:
My thoughts on gay marriage:
+ Show Spoiler +My thoughts on gay marriage are founded on my thoughts on heterosexual marriage. Without any government involvement, the issue would be moot, but marriage has a lot of legal perks including tax benefits.
So here it is:
One role that government plays in our society is in giving subsidies (extra tax benefits or just plain old cash) to things that they view as beneficial to society such as alternative fuel development. Heterosexual marriage is subsidized by the government in the sense that 2 unmarried people living together are not treated the same under our tax code as 2 married people living together. I think that part of this is that marriage is good for society because it leads to having children which increases the economy and potential of the country. Its also good for kids to be born into family's with both parents, they are less likely to fall into crime and so forth compared to single parent families.
So society decided long ago that heterosexual marriage should be subsidized by the government. The question we are trying to answer now is whether homosexual marriage should be subsidized by the government. There is no debate over whether homosexual behavior should be constrained...no reasonable person thinks government should do that. The question is only if they should receive a government subsidy for their union.
This is where personal opinion comes in. My personal opinion is that children are BEST off when they are born to a father and a mother. Since that leads to the best outcome, it is worth subsidizing. Not every has that, but since it is optimal, it is worth subsidizing. So I am not for subsidizing homosexual marriage.
Finally, one more point: Regarding hospital visiting rights, inheritance, confidentiality (and there are probably a few more), I think that ANYONE should be able to set up a legal status with anyone to share these, whether they are a homosexual couple, or just best friends or whatever. If I am not wrong, this has already been done in most states under one name or another.
Thats my view of the issue.
Why I am a social conservative:
+ Show Spoiler +Thats a super complicated question that requires a lot of introspection.
But if you think about the 3 main social issues: abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, you see that one of these is addressed by the constitution and the other 2 are omitted. Yet all 3 are being fought in courts. The one with a constitutional basis is defended by conservatives and attacked by liberalsand the two that are not based in the constitution are defended by liberals and attacked by conservatives.
An entire amendment is dedicated to gun ownership and an entire amendment is dedicated to saying that if there are things not addressed by the constitution, those should be determined by the STATES.
Tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The only one of those three that should be fought on a national level is keeping the right to bear arms. The other two, should be decided by the states individually.
That is one good reason to be a social conservative. You are in line with what the constitution actually says. And I think its a pretty good document.
|
On December 10 2008 04:04 Savio wrote:
Are you a libertarian? If so, how do/did you vote?
/genuinely curious
That depends on how you define libertarianism.
As for how I voted... I supported Mike Gravel despite his insistence on implementing the "fair tax." During the general election, I had no recourse but to vote for the viable candidate with the more rational foreign policy.
|
I'm not arguing with you on the addiction part. Weed is habit-forming, and the only technical difference between an addiction and a habit is the withdrawal. I've seen psychosomatic manifestations of withdrawals from weed, but they were like "oh man i gotta take a shit" and "man i'm so out of it, i need a bong rip". Still, I don't deny that it has addictive potential.
Alcohol. Tobacco.
And yeah, surviving trying something is not proof that it is benign. But to overdose on weed, you would have to eat like 6 pounds of it, and even then, you'd probably wake up 3 days later feeling hungry as fuck. Cannabinoids differ from opioids slightly, but methamphetamine differs from adrenaline slightly as well. And at the chemical level, it's the slight things that make the biggest differences.
But yeah, I agree, it's not worth spending 3 pages over.
|
Fuck the tenth amendment. The various states have a worse track record of legislating oppression and irrationality than even the federal government.
I much prefer the ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the fourteenth amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
|
On December 10 2008 03:41 Savio wrote:
Just remember that Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. He was practically a democrat on fiscal issues and thats how we ended up with NCLB and other big spending bills he signed.
Saying that he was "like a Democrat" on fiscal issues is backwards and totally unsupported. For decades, Democratic Presidents have come closer to balancing the budget or running a surplus than Republican Presidents. Based on that history, Bush was exactly like recent Republican Presidents.
|
Punishing users and sellers of weed does nothing except destroy families and force people into corners, increase the prison population, and increase an already costly prison system especially as long sentences means inmates getting older and health care costs rising. Keep in mind its cheaper to treat medically drug users than to incarcerate them, MUCH cheaper. The war on drugs has been going on for quite some time and has has not done anything to clean our streets of drugs. The problem with punishing sellers and users is that it is reactionary to the drug problem instead of preventive. It comes after the fact and does nothing to change what is going on in the streets. It's just like people thinking arresting criminals is reducing the crime rate, an increase in prison population does not decrease the crime rate.
Criminal Justice cannot provide adequate solutions to the drug problems in this country, it is an educational and health problem. This is somewhat like cigarette smokers, smoking has decreased over the years because people are more educated on the effects of smoking. I believe in Switzerland they have heroin centers for the last fourteen years where addicts can go and shoot up, heroin related crimes have dropped 60% since. This would obviously not be approved in the states but it is an example that drastic changes need to be made. All the drug war has done is give politicians fuel to run campaigns, police departments to raise money through civil asset forfeitures, and public administrators to pad their budgets, as well as private contractors to make money off the growing number of the incarcerated.
sorry for the long post
|
On December 10 2008 05:00 Clutch3 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 03:41 Savio wrote:
Just remember that Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. He was practically a democrat on fiscal issues and thats how we ended up with NCLB and other big spending bills he signed. Saying that he was "like a Democrat" on fiscal issues is backwards and totally unsupported. For decades, Democratic Presidents have come closer to balancing the budget or running a surplus than Republican Presidents. Based on that history, Bush was exactly like recent Republican Presidents.
That is only true of 1 democratic president and that it Bill Clinton. As was discussed in the election thread (and agreed on by liberal posters), the more balanced budget of those years was more due to the Republican controlled congress and Newt Gingrich. Remember when the government shut down because of the big budget fight where Clinton wanted to spend more money and Congress wouldn't let him?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=80236¤tpage=23#448
Overall fiscal liberals are bigger spenders than fiscal conservatives. This is why Bush has behaved as a fiscal liberal.
Well to be fair, Bush chose the worst path. He was liberal in spending and conservative in taxing so we ended up with huge deficits. You should either spend big and tax big or spend small and tax small.
I am for the latter.
|
Oh, so he behaved just like Reagan and his father.
:|
|
On December 10 2008 06:24 Mindcrime wrote:
Oh, so he behaved just like Reagan and his father.
:|
Reagan cut domestic spending. His military spending did go up, but hey the USSR did fail, whether or not you think Reagan directly led to it. This time and that time are vastly different.
But he cut domestic spending.
Also compare Bush Sr. to the democratic candidate he ran against and see who would have spent more.
|
On December 10 2008 04:43 Mindcrime wrote:
Fuck the tenth amendment. The various states have a worse track record of legislating oppression and irrationality than even the federal government.
I much prefer the ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the fourteenth amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Due process of law=women can kill their unborn babies if its convenient
The funny thing is that the people who are comfortable with stretching the 14th far enough to make it seem like the founders left an "implicit" right to abortion in the constitution with the 14th are NOT comfortable enough with stretching it far enough to mean:
"Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed=Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
One of these "rights" requires more stretching and legal finangling to get to than the other.
EDIT: I've also always found it interesting that "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." doesn't give any protection to unborn or mostly born babies who move of their own accord, suck their thumbs, react to pain and stress and can recognize their mother's voice.
|
That Reagan managed to triple the national debt while cutting domestic spending is just sad.
|
On December 10 2008 06:30 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 04:43 Mindcrime wrote:
Fuck the tenth amendment. The various states have a worse track record of legislating oppression and irrationality than even the federal government.
I much prefer the ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the fourteenth amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Due process of law=women can kill their unborn babies if its convenient The funny thing is that the people who are comfortable with stretching the 14th far enough to make it seem like the founders left an "implicit" right to abortion in the constitution with the 14th are NOT comfortable enough with stretching it far enough to means Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed=Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One of these "rights" requires more stretching and legal finangling to get to than the other.
I presume liberty, and I probably have a more pro-arms view than you.
If you think only enumerated rights should be protected, you're doing exactly what the ninth amendment says you mustn't.
|
That Reagan managed to triple the national debt while cutting domestic spending is just sad.
Please, we can ignore that because it was a 'different time'.
|
On December 10 2008 06:33 L wrote:Show nested quote +That Reagan managed to triple the national debt while cutting domestic spending is just sad. Please, we can ignore that because it was a 'different time'.
Ya, you are probably right. The Soviet Union was probably about as important as Cuba is now.
|
irrational foreign policy and irresponsible fiscal policy... Reagan was just a shitty president.
|
On December 10 2008 06:15 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 05:00 Clutch3 wrote:On December 10 2008 03:41 Savio wrote:
Just remember that Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. He was practically a democrat on fiscal issues and thats how we ended up with NCLB and other big spending bills he signed. Saying that he was "like a Democrat" on fiscal issues is backwards and totally unsupported. For decades, Democratic Presidents have come closer to balancing the budget or running a surplus than Republican Presidents. Based on that history, Bush was exactly like recent Republican Presidents. That is only true of 1 democratic president and that it Bill Clinton. As was discussed in the election thread (and agreed on by liberal posters), the more balanced budget of those years was more due to the Republican controlled congress and Newt Gingrich. Remember when the government shut down because of the big budget fight where Clinton wanted to spend more money and Congress wouldn't let him? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=80236¤tpage=23#448Overall fiscal liberals are bigger spenders than fiscal conservatives. This is why Bush has behaved as a fiscal liberal. Well to be fair, Bush chose the worst path. He was liberal in spending and conservative in taxing so we ended up with huge deficits. You should either spend big and tax big or spend small and tax small. I am for the latter.
Actually, the national debt as a percentage of GDP has dropped for every Democratic President since WWII (it increased under FDR, but he had the responsibility of using government spending to try to pull us out of a depression that developed under Hoover... of course that's a debate for another thread).
debt as a percentage of GDP
The debt/GDP ratio has ONLY increased under Republican Presidents over the past sixty years.
And to say that the balanced budget didn't have a lot to do with Clinton and Bob Rubin's decisions is being a little naive, imho. It also had to do with general economic strength (which, contrary to all Republican doctrine, actually gained momentum after Clinton cut income taxes on the poor and raised them on the top ~1%, over the objections of every Republican congressman).
Also (in response to another post where you mention that Reagan cut domestic spending), I'm constantly amazed how the label "fiscally conservative" is always based on domestic spending, while ignoring military spending. Why is there any reason to exempt increases in defense spending when trying to apply this label to people? I'd rather cut the defense budget and increase spending on domestic priorities rather than the opposite. (In my opinion, the defense department needs more funding like TL needs another "girl help" thread.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
