http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1XttujOlhE
What does everyone think of this kind of strategy, that is going about it slow? I like the idea of transition as oppose to sudden change. If a stateless society is in our future let it come through evolution not revolution. That's how I imagine it happening here in NH and everywhere else.
As a misesian, i have to disagree. middle of the road solutions do nothing but lead us back to socialism. I mean if we imply the same framework ( do x but take it slow, in this case legalize drugs but take it slow ) then surely you have to accept that abolishing slavery works best in transitions instead of taking absolute action now, or going to the middle east and advocating equal rights for all (for the women are treated as econd class citizens in many middle eastern countries) but only in transitions instead of right away.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
If the CIA didn't formulate crack and distribute it to low income inner city black kids it wouldn't be a problem.
As for legalization, gradualism is for the weak. We need to decriminalize all of it.
Another city in Wisconsin decriminalized today, so gradualism is probably more popular than my opinion and is currently demonstrating itself.
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
But what if 95% of the people don't want it legalized or even decriminalized right away? What shot do you have of getting your proposal through?
The tyranny of the majority is a major flaw in the system but it's a reality.
but, generally, you are falling into the trap government wants you to fall into. "What if 95% didnt want legalization of drugs right away?" Of course government policy would rather have transitional policy than immediately. But the reason to that is because they love to extend the dead lines to things. For example, take balancing the budget. I am sure if one purposed to have a balanced budget by 10 years, many would be on board with that... but what good does that do? It does no good at all because the chances of government in keeping its promise to balance the budget in 10 years is very slim. Same thing would apply to this drug transitional policy that you advocate. It does not good because while it might look like the government is trying to move in the right direction, they are simply misleading you. Or another example,: "Sure we'll be out of Iraq in 12 months" ...12 months later... "Give us another x months/years" ...x month/years later... etc.
While it may happen to an extent as you envision, e.g med mary jane in many states now, it will never reach your goal in that manner without a collapse of the government.
The government makes too much money on it from both ends, e.g Florida officer of the year indicted for distributing meth, prisons filled with flower smokers, etc.
Never mind the hit the black market would take with greatly reduced profits selling products with very inelastic demand.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
I hear this a lot. A professor once told me that the people who want to keep drugs illegal the most are the dealers, because if crack and smack and meth were 100% legal and sold in 7-11s the dealers would lose all their business. That's another reason why I support evolution over revolution. An instant revolution (like what a lot of socialist anarchists want) would leave too much leadway for the state to come back. It's better to transition slowly, like first getting anti-marijuana laws off the books, then getting the laws against club drugs like extasy off the books, then slowly decriminalizing small amounts of coke and so on. If everything were legalized all at once the state would use it to their advantage and would probably tax and regulate it to make more revenue for themselves.
While I don't promote an instant revolution against the government, I hope to see a peaceful evolution of society without the need for government. I still disagree on your take though since it will only perpetuate the government with more tax revenues and feel good policies that buy future votes.
If crack, smack, and meth were legal, I doubt you'd even hear about it. There are hundreds of legal psychoactive plants out there, many much more powerful than the three drugs previosly mentioned, and yet they aren't hardly known about or for sale widely.
What irks me about the war on drugs is that it acts as a regulation against ones' mind. While Abortion Jane can vacuum her unborn babies' brains into a jar, Mr. Leary can't go on a private journey to the depths of his soul.
99.9% of people will not be affected one way or another if it's "taken slow" or if it's overnight. If anything, we will continue with our daily lives more unhindered by searches, taxes, and drug violence.
The only people it will affect are government bureaucrats and a sector of law enforcement who will have to find new (productive) jobs.
99.9% of people will not be affected one way or another if it's "taken slow" or if it's overnight. If anything, we will continue with our daily lives more unhindered by searches, taxes, and drug violence. The only people it will affect are government bureaucrats and a sector of law enforcement who will have to find new (productive) jobs.
My feeling is, if the gov. knew it was going to disappear overnight, they'd do everything in their power to keep their positions of power including the use of violence against the general population. That's also why I think taking it slow is a much better option if you're looking to avoid forceful confrontation with state thugs. We can fight against the state by ignoring them, learning primitive skills, being self-relient and using gold and silver for monetary transactions as opposed to FED notes. Moving to NH and living without paying much taxes is a good idea too.