Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Drugs: Taking the Offense!

rated by 0 users
This post has 11 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben Posted: Thu, Nov 4 2010 9:28 PM

Copy pastad and edited a little from my DDO thread. Not much response:

So I just had some wisdom teeth pulled. Happy gas is made of win.

It got me thinking (during the procedure) about what drugs mean existentially. The whole point of drugs is to feel good, whether its uppers or downers, etc. But the whole point of most things is to feel good (eventually).

Not only that, but if the PURPOSE of entering the economy is to feel good, then it is possible that drugs are the ultimate utopian products. Not for everyone (and certainly not for me), but drugs are potentially the cheapest and easiest way for some people to feel good.

[EDIT] If you think about it, what would the ultimate consumer good look like? Its would have an on/off bliss switch. Hard Drugs are the only goods approaching this utopia zone.

I'm creating this thread because we need to take the offense on drug legalization arguments. Instead of saying "well pot isn't as bad as cigarettes" or "we can tax pot", we need to just say that meth is fantastic. Its amazing mana from heaven. Its not for most people and it has drawbacks, but it can make some people very very happy.

[EDIT] Don't go on defense. Don't let your opponent explain their prohibition theory and then waste tons of energy on logistics. Maybe their facts are wrong. Maybe their policies will produce unintended consequences. So what. This is peripheral. We need to stop arguing whats wrong with punishing drug users, and start arguing whats right about using drugs.

Denying people meth is on the same level as denying people the opportunity to have children or forcefully neutering them. Drug prohibition is completely bankrupt morally. All the arguments about how bad drugs are for your health go down the drain if we simply maintain that using drugs can be an END IN ITSELF.
 

Banned
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

That is true of any matter.  Defending = losing.  I never defend anything.  I only attack things.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Nov 4 2010 9:38 PM

But attacking prohibition versus explicitly advocating the use of drugs are two different things.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

They seem the same to me.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Nov 4 2010 9:45 PM

Anti government vs pro liberty

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Why be anti-state?  Because you are pro-liberty.  You attack prohibition by saying that something is good.  Someone that wants to stop good is bad.  Defense is trying to mitigate the negatives.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Nov 4 2010 9:54 PM

Exactly. They are two sides of the same coin, but there are many anti state ideologies. Being anti state does not clarify my position on drugs. It just says I don't want government prohibition. Being pro liberty means I actually advocate the use of drugs, a very different proposition.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Thu, Nov 4 2010 10:24 PM

Re: OP,

Agree with general sentiment and have wanted to make a video about it for a while. I'm particularly upset with many libertarians who openly state that they think drugs are evil, but shouldn't be made illegal. I think I made a thread about that. Let me find it..

 

I don't think the purpose of drugs is to feel good though. I think the purpose is to experience a different perspective on reality. This can have many advantages. Feeling good is a consequence of that different perspective.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

It just says I don't want government prohibition.

Why not?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

I recommend every living person have one psychedellic experience in their developmental (late teens, early twenties) years.  It's a great way to learn about the human psyche.

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Fri, Nov 5 2010 12:59 PM

I recommend every living person have one psychedellic experience in their developmental (late teens, early twenties) years.  It's a great way to learn about the human psyche.

 

Yeah, couldn't agree more :)

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Fri, Nov 5 2010 1:15 PM

People can't stand other people who have different subjective value preferences.  I came across some article today about San Fransisco banning McDonald's Happy Meals.  I thought this was an odd bias towards the fast food eating crowd, and to curb their bad morality and sins of eating high calorie food.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS