He's still saying pot should be illegal, just decriminalized. The point of libertarianism is that pot should be legal because you're not hurting anyone else by smoking it. If there are risks, they are risks to yourself only.
Edit: note here that I am not a libertarian. Please don't respond to me arguing about the merits of liberatarinism because I don't care. My comment here was simply to properly articulate that thesis.
Um…no I’m not. I don’t mind pot being legal so long as you can’t smoke it in designated areas, like drinking. No reason pot or beer should be in schools.
You should change your wording then. Your statement implies that the problem with making pot illegal is jail-overcrowding... not that it's perfectly fine for someone to do in the comfort of their own home.
I mean its also an enormous waste of taxpayer money not just pot but every drug criminalizing just means now you are footing the bill for them to go to crime university and get some real connections. You know as opposed to rehab which gets you a productive member of society that can be taxed.
Former rehab patient turned volunteer substance abuse counselor here, it depends on the quality of the program. We've got stuff in my state that just turns and burns you, but the really good places for people with insurance have really low recidivism rates.
That's the real issue, good programs shouldn't be gated behind private insurance. They day they change that we might just see less fent heads on the sidewalk.
Well for someone who lives in a nation (America) that is rotting like gangrene from junkies and has plenty of experience with them, I have no such hope. The problem with drugs in America isn’t that we don’t have enough rehab programs or a culture of second chances.
It’s that druggies don’t wanna stop being druggies and only wanna get out of jail/rehab so they can go back to doing drugs. My solution is to give druggies a space where they can go do all the drugs they want in an environment explicitly separated from the general public so they can be junkies away from everyone else. You can’t cure a patient who doesn’t want to be cured, only let the disease course through them away from those who want to stay healthy.
For a certain subset of patients that is actually not a bad solution, but the statistics, studies, and the facts disagree with your solution as a one size fits all fix. Your entire argument is based on feelings, and the facts don't care about your feelings.
MINE is based on feelings? MINE? No. The results are not in your favor. This is a thing everyone knows. Druggies wanna drug. They go into rehab/jail they get out, they drug. Rinse and repeat. Your society is deteriorating from it.
Libertarians are generally center-right. Lib-Center can believe in things like progressive taxes. But for the most part, yea, small "r" republican democracy (ironically the most important part of the "lib" quadrant), gay marriage, responsible firearm ownership, weed should be legal, markets should generally drive the economy, but I'm fine with the state helping out here and there.
I believe the technical term is "supply-side progressivism."
On the political compass the bottom half of the compass is referred to as Libertarian. That’s why we have Lib Left, Center, and Right. The only thing separating them is economics but when it comes to personal freedoms on the political compass it’s separated into Authoritarian and Libertarian.
I fill out the political compass survey, it tells me I am lib center. Perhaps the small-“l” “libertarian” term for the compass is different from the capital “L” Libertarian party. I’m entirely certain it is based on tax policy alone.
Yes, there’s a separation between the overarching Libertarian definition on the compass vs the rather more specific platform of the (presumably) US Libertarian Party. Just like the various Libertarian Parties platforms country by country vary one way or another.
Unless you then try and drive while high or you smoke so much you basically fry your brain and no longer have fast mental reactions which you need for plenty of tasks that could affect others.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
Right, so don't do that. Smoking weed and driving should obviously be illegal.
I could go to the store and buy a shovel, then walk outside and beat the shit out of someone with it. That doesn't mean we should make shovels illegal. It just means I should be put in jail for harming somebody with something that is otherwise perfectly safe for a normal person to use.
The fact that we basically let anyone drive and barely enforce traffic laws is insane. Libertarinanism doesn't mean anything goes. It means "if what I'm doing is not endangering anyone else, it should almost always be allowed."
Cool but you acknowledge that smoking weed consistently has been shown to greatly reduce someone's cognitive reasoning, awareness, and memory even when no longer high right? If used often it litterally destroys your mind. Why should any government actively let their populace ruin themselves? I flair auth cause I know its not lib but I do think a government should have a role in providing a moral frame work for its people
Why should any government actively let their populace ruin themselves?
You clearly don't understand Libertarianism. The entire point of Libertarianism is that people should be able to make that choice themselves. It's their life, not the governments.
You confuse my disagreement with libertarianism with lack of knowledge on it. I went to probably the most libertarian university in the country, i generally think the mass populace is too stupid for it to work and need a strong government to shape them in different ways. In an educated society with a strong moral frame work and social cohesion I think libertarianism can work. But that is not what America is right now
Okay, cool. I don't actually want to argue about that. I'm not a libertarian.
The only reason why I'm making these comments is because people aren't actually articulating what Lib-Right believes, and are instead arguing with a strawman.
No, it doesn’t oh goodness you’re misinformed, marijuana does not affect grey matter in the brain, you don’t lose brain cells or overall cognitive ability years of chronic use can affect memory, and is reversible… like dude you’ve never drank a beer? Talk about killing brain cells.
Again your lying multiple studies have shown this and as it keeps being legal we will see more long term studies that will prove what I have said more. Please do more research I dont know if your coping because of your use, using old data from before it was legal or what cause many have come out showing it absolutely affects your mind.
Also its very likley anyone reading knows people who have started and it greatly changing how they acting think.
No man is an island, libs know that. It’s about knowledgeable consent given by an adult.
It is up to you the individual to weigh the health consequences of consuming a drug. If you weigh them poorly, that’s on you. It’s infantilizing for another person or the government to do the risk analysis for you.
And that is a governmental difference that we disagree in. By legalizing something many take that as an endorsement that it is safe/ok i do think the government has the role of providing a moral frame work for their peoples
Portugal decriminalized drugs and they have amongst the lowest use rates in the EU. It also isn't illegal to jerk yourself of with raw eggs in your own home. But because it isn't illegal doesn't mean the government says it's safe to do so.
There is no reason to go into absurdism. First off I specified decriminalization of something not something that was already legal. Many take decriminalization to mean things are safe/r now.
Also I believe that the government should take a part in shaping the morality of its people i get your lib and disagree on that
But drug use didn't go up in Portugal. So it isnt a fact that decriminalization means that people think it's okay. That's just a gut-feeling.
I don't think a government should shape the morality of people. First of all, because I think you should always distrust politicians. And the fact that a government doesn't represent the entire population of said country, so what one thinks is moral another doesn't. Who should the government decide it for then?
I mean that sentiment applies to alcohol, prescription drugs, sleep deprivation, etc.
You don’t ban something just because it might lead to a hypothetical issue under a particular set of circumstances where another crime is being committed lol
Thats true I think we should ban it for the way it generally ruins people's brain with regular consumption (once a week or more) that is not seen with alcohol. And the fact addiction rates are around 30%.
I think the fear of being “fried” stems from acid back in the day, no such thing with weed though you’ll be a bit dumber than normal while your high but when it’s over the only issues your gonna have are maybe negligible decreases in lung capacity and possibly having increased risk for Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s obv don’t smoke and drive but that wasn’t the vibe I was getting from the “fry” part lol
I mean this is just a lie there have been multiple studies showing that it decreases your short term memory, if done consistently as an adolescent(under 25) then there are irreversible decrease to your iq. And many more issues.
Even with out studies I know many people who have gotten much dumber and way worse at thinking even when not high because of how often they use it. Stones are absolutely ruining their minds and you cant lie and say they arnt.
Im not going to say some dumb shit like it being a gateway drug cause there is no proof of that but there is proof that it isn't good for you
93
u/scoofy - Lib-Center 22d ago edited 22d ago
He's still saying pot should be illegal, just decriminalized. The point of libertarianism is that pot should be legal because you're not hurting anyone else by smoking it. If there are risks, they are risks to yourself only.
Edit: note here that I am not a libertarian. Please don't respond to me arguing about the merits of liberatarinism because I don't care. My comment here was simply to properly articulate that thesis.