Drug Legalization

Currently @admin is the only person listed on the site as not supporting marijuana legalization. Even @Swag thinks marijuana should be legalized, and he is the staunchest closet liberal that I know. I don't care for marijuana, but the legalization of opiates and drugs like Cocaine I am more passionate about. What is the point of banning any drugs?

Blackflag: Any drug that doesn't hurt anyone other than the user should be allowed in a nation built upon the principles of freedom and equal accommodation for (nearly) all groups.

Dassault Papillon: So you do not mind drugs like mushrooms, cannabis, and ecstasy I presume? I believe you once thought differently.
Are there any drugs that cause harm to anyone besides the user? Opiates, Heroin, and Cocaine for example?

Blackflag: A drug that causes the user to harm someone else or causes other people to involuntarily inhale it (through second-hand smoke, for example) is a drug that affects more than just the user.

Blackflag: I think drug legalization is generally a liberal position. I'm something of an exception. I think recreational drugs should be either banned (tobacco, marijuana etc) or, in limited cases (notably alcohol & caffeine), very strongly regulated.

The principle is the same as building codes for property zoning and development, or health and safety regulations for workplaces - governments have an obligation to protect their population against very poor decisions, be that to use poor construction materials, or chopping their arms off at work, or to damage their brains. This is because it is in society's interest generally to have each member of that society functioning as well as possible.

As with gambling, drug use invariably carries with it both unavoidable and avoidable-but-costly negative externalities. The extent of these externalities are the test that governments generally use in determining what is worth the trouble to ban. Currently I think in almost every country, this standard has been set wrong. Hence why almost every country has problems with controlling drugs.

Dassault Papillon: Oh, alright. Doesn't that mean you should be against smoke based drugs such as cannabis and tobbaco?

Dassault Papillon: I think a society built upon freedom has every obligation to remove elements from their society that impair their people's ability to exercise choice, to the maximum extent this is possible. Be that outlawing slavery, or outlawing drugs.

admin: Drugs are paradoxical; people choose to take them of their own free will (originally, at least) but they are also "enslaved" by the drugs.

admin: The principle is the same as building codes for property zoning and development, or health and safety regulations for workplaces - governments have an obligation to protect their population against very poor decisions, be that to use poor construction materials, or chopping their arms off at work, or to damage their brains. This is because it is in society's interest generally to have each member of that society functioning as well as possible.
Yeah, this is generally the territory we start to diverge on. You believe in authoritarian elite governments which control the lifestyles and choices of its subjects. I think it is hypocritical that you preach that certain beliefs are a waste of time, but defend peoples rights to preach their beliefs, then make the claim that government should prevent people from making bad decisions. Oh Stalin, look at the havoc you have reaped

Blackflag: I think that tobacco is mild compared to the rest and thus should be subjected to less regulation.
But yeah; I do think that Marijuana should not be something that people should be allowed to smoke in public (outside of places where people are intended to smoke weed).

admin: @Admin , restricting the freedom to restrict freedoms is still restricting freedoms. No maximization of liberty there.
I should have a right to limit my willpower in any way I see fit. Societies that seek to build upon freedom do not mess around with individual choice at all.

Choices come with consequences. Those consequences are for the decision maker, not you. Elitism has no place in modern day society.

This is also why I've taken a more Liberal stance on Environmental Regulations. Assuming anthropogenic climate change is happening on a significantly large and destructive scale, it effects more than the nation in question.

Dassault Papillon: *affects

Democratic nations were founded on enlightenment values. 50% of the choices I make daily are going to come with negative consequences. Soldiers fought and died so I would have the right to make my own mistakes. Is there no decency to the founding fathers of our respective governments? Is facing adversity a bad thing, or does it make me a stronger and more independent individual? What gives the elites the right to tell me they are right and I am wrong? How come authoritarian liberals defend my rights to believe what I want, but behind my back try to control my actions towards that said belief?

It just doesn't add up for me, sorry.

Blackflag: Sure, I may disagree with some people. Doesn't mean I need to oppose their right to their beliefs, or voicing those beliefs. An open marketplace of ideas is good for all.

I don't believe in authoritarian elite governments at all. North Korea, Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany etc all had HUGE drug problems. It's not elite because the ideas apply equally to all, and it's not authoritarian because I don't see it as a limitation on choice. I have less choices in our society because of drugs. Think of what all the drug users could offer me in terms of choice if they didn't have those addictions.

Blackflag: So governments should have no power to control individual choice, but drug cartels should?

Blackflag: You should have the right to make your own decisions, provided that nobody else is negatively affected.

Dassault Papillon: Yeah, I agree that clearly destructive behaviors to the population should be controlled, but I differ with admin on how far I draw the line. Admin is the kind of guy who would stamp out any threat to societies productivity even at the cost of liberty and individuality. The whole thing is to communist esque for me. Communists are almost as annoying as fascists.

Blackflag: True communism would exist without a government, though.

Blackflag: Is there no decency to the founding fathers of our respective governments?
IDK. Were they on crack?

Is facing adversity a bad thing, or does it make me a stronger and more independent individual?
Absolutely a bad thing, that's why we overcome it.

What gives the elites the right to tell me they are right and I am wrong?
It's not elites. It's a simple question of what kind of a society will be as good as possible for the sum of its members. What gives you the right to say you can have the choice to take drugs is a better question.

How come authoritarian liberals defend my rights to believe what I want, but behind my back try to control my actions towards that said belief?
I don't believe I am authoritarian, but there's a huge difference between belief and action. I'm always happy to accept I might be wrong and to listen to the ideas of others. And of course, to attempt to influence others with ideas of my own. It's how society and government both work.