Political Theory

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Bert — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:15:42 GMT

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.

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

MaikU — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:59:30 GMT

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 :)

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Laotzu del Zinn — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 05:03:09 GMT

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.

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 04:29:38 GMT

It just says I don't want government prohibition.

Why not?

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Nielsio — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 04:24:57 GMT

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.

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Sieben — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:54:21 GMT

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.

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:48:58 GMT

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.

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Sieben — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:45:36 GMT

Anti government vs pro liberty

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:44:03 GMT

They seem the same to me.

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Sieben — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:38:29 GMT

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

Re: Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:34:25 GMT

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

Drugs: Taking the Offense!

Sieben — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:28:13 GMT

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.