Repeal the Drinking Age

Let's get real. No beer machines in schools.

Until adulthood, PARENTS decide what their children can or cannot do. When they turn 18, those children deserve full natural rights, as guaranteed by The Constitution. That should include the right to ingest whatever substances they wish, as well as living with the consequences when they break a law by infringing on someone elses liberties...i.e. there is no crime when someone uses a mind-altering substance or drinks to excess, but if they commit a crime against someone else, they will face criminal or civil penalties. Why is this simple concept so hard for some to understand?

Quote :

Let's get real. No beer machines in schools.

I was never serious.

fatbass wrote:

Why is this simple concept so hard for some to understand?

Heaven forbid that man actually be free, and use his liberty/agency........

fatbass wrote:

That should include the right to ingest whatever substances they wish...

I'm in general agreement, but just for the sake of the discussion...

There are dozens of different antibiotics that treat different kinds of bacterial infections, and they're not easily available to the average person without a prescription. Antibiotics save millions of lives each year, yet their effectiveness is lessening all the time as drug-resistant bacteria evolve. Making them available over the counter would almost certainly result in tens of millions of people buying the wrong antibiotics to ineffectively treat the wrong infections — like viral colds. This would mean a huge acceleration in the declining effectiveness of these drugs as antibiotic-resistant bacteria emerged at an even faster pace. The end result being the possible deaths of millions from the more rapid re-emergence of diseases like tuberculosis and scarlet fever.

There are also some awfully attractive feel-good pharmaceuticals that, right now, are difficult to obtain by the general public without prescriptions: benzodiazepines, like Xanax and Valium, for example. This and similar classes of prescription drugs, although common, are highly subject to misuse by everyday people from housewives to lawyers who don't fit the typical drug-user profile. They're also highly addictive — both physically and psychologically. It's very possible, or even likely, that over-the-counter availability of these drugs would result in a huge explosion of serious drug addictions by a large swath of the general public.

So with these examples (and dozens more that could be given), are their instances where the societal costs incurred by the abuse of individual liberties by the minority warrant the curtailment of those liberties to the majority? To illustrate my question, I'll use an extreme example: should owning nerve gas agents be prohibited to the majority simply because an incredibly small minority would use them as terrorist weapons?

Pete, I'm pretty sure that FB is not advocating the willy nilly abandonment of all regulation of these things. Given the addictive nature of a lot of things, that would be unwise and irresponsible, as you have suggested.

I think what he is trying to get at, is that their consumption shouldn't be a crime, but that the crime be when something is committed under the influence. And the government, shouldn't be dictating what we ingest. I am too far of base brother?

Quote :

Pete, I'm pretty sure that FB is not advocating the willy nilly abandonment of all regulation of these things. Given the addictive nature of a lot of things, that would be unwise and irresponsible, as you have suggested.

I think what he is trying to get at, is that their consumption shouldn't be a crime, but that the crime be when something is committed under the influence. And the government, shouldn't be dictating what we ingest. I am too far of base brother?

If drugs were made legal for consumption because people have the right to put anything in their bodies then can we deny these people unemployment benefits if they cannot hold down a job because of their addictions? Therefore, their families would be responsible for them if we denied benefits. If there family didn't claim them they would be on the streets or in a homeless shelter. Also if this person has kids then who takes care of the childrens needs?

Would the crime rate get higher because these people are stealing in order to survive?

Also drug rehab is paid by tax payers right?


I might be making this into a bigger deal than it might be.

shotgunwill wrote:

Pete, I'm pretty sure that FB is not advocating the willy nilly abandonment of all regulation of these things. Given the addictive nature of a lot of things, that would be unwise and irresponsible, as you have suggested.

At what point, then, is the line drawn?

shotgunwill wrote:

I think what he is trying to get at, is that their consumption shouldn't be a crime, but that the crime be when something is committed under the influence.

And this brings me to another point that I was getting at.

For example, you might say that, "Prohibition of alcohol shouldn't be attempted as the solution of our nation's drunk driving problem." In other words, it's driving drunk that should be illegal, not drinking. The government shouldn't try to preempt a crime by curtailing the freedoms of the responsible majority just because the irresponsible few might misuse those freedoms to commit crimes.

However, does this logic always hold true or is it dependent upon variables? Should society allow the selling of all or most antibiotics over the counter when the subsequent abuses by the minority in doing so will hasten the obsolescence of these lifesaving drugs.

Another example — Most currently illegal street drugs are easy to grow and/or manufacture, so their illegal status does little to curtail their use, but it does provide the necessary profit motive for a vast black market in these drugs. In other words, it's a futile and highly counterproductive strategy.

Most synthetic drugs, however, aren't easily manufactured in backrooms and amateur labs, so their availability on the street isn't much of a problem. Making these sorts of highly complex and synthesized drugs available over the counter (as opposed to a prescription) would likely create millions of new addicts in demographic groups that would never dream of touching something like cocaine or heroin.

A libertarian view places a primary emphasis on the right of the individual to make personal choices as long as those choices do little harm to others. Libertarians, in general, frown on laws that attempt to preempt crimes by curtailing the rights of the majority.

For example, libertarians would most definitely not say that the best solution to armed robberies is to prohibit gun ownership. After all, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." But how well does this logic scale up when the variables change. Does, "nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people," hold up using the same logic. Should the selling, buying and possession of plutonium be legal, but only its use in detonating a nuclear weapon be illegal.

I think it's fairly easy to look at the extreme examples and arrive at fairly obvious conclusions. Yeah, people should be able to buy ammunition, but buying daisy cutter bombs really ought to be next to impossible since some lunatic fanatic would almost certainly detonate one in the middle of Times Square and kill 20,000 people.

Again, the real issue, in my opinion, is determining just where the line is drawn.

coyoteslayer wrote:

If drugs were made legal for consumption because people have the right to put anything in their bodies then can we deny these people unemployment benefits if they cannot hold down a job because of their addictions?

First, I think we'd need to decide whether unemployment insurance (and taxes) is something that the government ought to be involved with in the first place, but that's another discussion.

Another issue is whether or not the legalization of currently illegal recreational drugs, like marijuana, cocaine, LDS, etc., would result in an increase in the use of these drugs. Evidence from countries like Portugal, that have removed nearly all criminal penalties associated with the use of these drugs, indicate that drug use levels do not change significantly, but that secondary crimes associated with these drugs do decline.

Pete wrote:

At what point, then, is the line drawn?

Now, I think I see what you are getting at.

Pete wrote:

However, does this logic always hold true or is it dependent upon variables? Should society allow the selling of all or most antibiotics over the counter when the subsequent abuses by the minority in doing so will hasten the obsolescence of these lifesaving drugs.

In the case of prescription meds, these should be regulated by people in the know. Misuse or over use of antibiotics, as you suggest, cause problems or harm to people. How that in turn affects society is anybody's guess. Obtaining a prescription is no big deal for me, I go to the doctor, when my illness exceeds my own knowledge or skill. I don't have a problem with that kind of regulation.

Pete wrote:

Another example — Most currently illegal street drugs are easy to grow and/or manufacture, so their illegal status does little to curtail their use, but it does provide the necessary profit motive for a vast black market in these drugs. In other words, it's a futile and highly counterproductive strategy.

I disagree with you here, I think that the legalization of these street drugs will give the black market little or no incentive to push their wares. And hell, if the government would step forward and regulate it as they do tobacco and alcohol, they'd probably make off like bandits.....

Pete wrote:

Most synthetic drugs, however, aren't easily manufactured in backrooms and amateur labs, so their availability on the street isn't much of a problem. Making these sorts of highly complex and synthesized drugs available over the counter (as opposed to a prescription) would likely create millions of new addicts in demographic groups that would never dream of touching something like cocaine or heroin.

You are right in that more people would have access to the drug, and that it might cause millions of addicts. Personally, I'd rather deal with a strung out heroin fiend, than the Mexican cartel.

Pete wrote:

For example, libertarians would most definitely not say that the best solution to armed robberies is to prohibit gun ownership. After all, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." But how well does this logic scale up when the variables change. Does, "nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people," hold up using the same logic. Should the selling, buying and possession of plutonium be legal, but only its use in detonating a nuclear weapon be illegal.

I think it's fairly easy to look at the extreme examples and arrive at fairly obvious conclusions. Yeah, people should be able to buy ammunition, but buying daisy cutter bombs really ought to be next to impossible since some lunatic fanatic would almost certainly detonate one in the middle of Times Square and kill 20,000 people.

That's kind of logic that got us in all these dicked up firearms laws..... But, I personally have yet to run into a situation where I needed a MOAB, so I'll let you know how I feel about that if/when I get there.....

shotgunwill wrote:

Pete wrote:

Most synthetic drugs, however, aren't easily manufactured in backrooms and amateur labs, so their availability on the street isn't much of a problem. Making these sorts of highly complex and synthesized drugs available over the counter (as opposed to a prescription) would likely create millions of new addicts in demographic groups that would never dream of touching something like cocaine or heroin.

You are right in that more people would have access to the drug, and that it might cause millions of addicts. Personally, I'd rather deal with a strung out heroin fiend, than the Mexican cartel.

We might be talking past each other a little. My point was that organizations like the Mexican drug cartels don't typically deal in complex synthetic drugs because they require too much expertise, access to proprietary information and high-tech chemical facilities to produce. Instead they deal with the low-tech drugs, like heroin, marijuana and cocaine. This being the case, these low-tech drugs are widely available, but most of the equally dangerous and subject-to-abuse synthetic pharmaceuticals are generally not nearly as available from street dealers. Making these synthetic drugs available over the counter would likely cause an explosion in the abuse and addiction rates of these drugs — especially in middle income demographic groups that view these currently prescription-only drugs as medicinal, not recreational.

shotgunwill wrote:

Pete wrote:

Another example — Most currently illegal street drugs are easy to grow and/or manufacture, so their illegal status does little to curtail their use, but it does provide the necessary profit motive for a vast black market in these drugs. In other words, it's a futile and highly counterproductive strategy.

I disagree with you here, I think that the legalization of these street drugs will give the black market little or no incentive to push their wares. And hell, if the government would step forward and regulate it as they do tobacco and alcohol, they'd probably make off like bandits.....

Like I said, I think we might be talking past each other, since I doubt that we disagree. Legalization of the common recreational drugs would gut the drug cartels and leave the vast underground, multi-billion-dollar illegal drug business starved for income. This alone, in my opinion, is a compelling argument in favor of legalizing, regulating (and taxing) marijuana, cocaine and heroin. What I was trying to do was draw a distinction between the widely available, low-tech street drugs and the high-tech, prescription-only synthetic drugs that aren't widely available without a doctor's prescription. Making these complex synthetic, prescription-only drugs available across the counter would create very easy avenues to addiction for millions of people who currently have their doctors supervising their use of these medications.

shotgunwill wrote:

That's kind of logic that got us in all these dicked up firearms laws..... But, I personally have yet to run into a situation where I needed a MOAB, so I'll let you know how I feel about that if/when I get there.....

It's likely that you don't really need an AK-47 either. I don't know your opinion on gun control, but I suspect that you (and I) will argue that AK-47 possession remain legal. Neither you nor I need a MOAB, but again, my question is where do we draw the line between a MOAB and an AK-47?

Pete wrote:

Like I said, I think we might be talking past each other, since I doubt that we disagree. Legalization of the common recreational drugs would gut the drug cartels and leave the vast underground, multi-billion-dollar illegal drug business starved for income. This alone, in my opinion, is a compelling argument in favor of legalizing, regulating (and taxing) marijuana, cocaine and heroin. What I was trying to do was draw a distinction between the widely available, low-tech street drugs and the high-tech, prescription-only synthetic drugs that aren't widely available without a doctor's prescription. Making these complex synthetic, prescription-only drugs available across the counter would create very easy avenues to addiction for millions of people who currently have their doctors supervising their use of these medications.

States really should be the ones who need to regulate this sort of stuff, but the complexities of interstate commerce may need a large amount of Federal oversight, but only in interstate trade!

proutdoors wrote:

BERG wrote:

I think Pro. has gone the way of the libertarian.

There, I fixed you typo.

I take it as a great honor to be called a radical/fanatic, as that is what I have no doubt Jefferson/Franklin would be considered if they were alive today. I guess you consider Ron Paul a fanatic also, but somehow view the current pinheads in BOTH parties 'rational'. Oh the irony.

Sorry that I can't fix YOUR (not you) typo.

Now, you've made a few rather large assumptions. First, I never suggested that Ron Paul is a fanatic. Second, you assume that I view the current pinheads in both parties as rational. Third, I never suggested that you're even in the same league as Jefferson/Franklin; you did that on your own. How is it that you purport to know my thoughts, when I have yet to expound? I think that Jefferson, or Franklin, would have sought out further clarification on the matter. Oh the irony.

After reading this thread, I think that Pete’s comments are totally rational. He has a grasp on the bigger picture regarding the abolishment of age restrictions for drugs and alcohol. My good friend fatbassamatic wants the incompetent parents of today teaching kids about drugs. Interesting in theory, but in practical terms a certain disaster. Most kids can't even clean up their rooms, because their parents never learned how to do it themselves. Great, now parents should teach their kids about synthetic opiates…good hell, many parents are strung out on the same.

"Parents draw the line, not the government...just like it was 120 years ago." - fatbass

This only works when kids are lucky enough to have a good parent like you brother;
And, we now a buffet of drugs that were not available 150 years ago.

Pete wrote:

shotgunwill wrote:

Pete wrote:

Most synthetic drugs, however, aren't easily manufactured in backrooms and amateur labs, so their availability on the street isn't much of a problem. Making these sorts of highly complex and synthesized drugs available over the counter (as opposed to a prescription) would likely create millions of new addicts in demographic groups that would never dream of touching something like cocaine or heroin.

You are right in that more people would have access to the drug, and that it might cause millions of addicts. Personally, I'd rather deal with a strung out heroin fiend, than the Mexican cartel.

We might be talking past each other a little. My point was that organizations like the Mexican drug cartels don't typically deal in complex synthetic drugs because they require too much expertise, access to proprietary information and high-tech chemical facilities to produce. Instead they deal with the low-tech drugs, like heroin, marijuana and cocaine. This being the case, these low-tech drugs are widely available, but most of the equally dangerous and subject-to-abuse synthetic pharmaceuticals are generally not nearly as available from street dealers. Making these synthetic drugs available over the counter would likely cause an explosion in the abuse and addiction rates of these drugs — especially in middle income demographic groups that view these currently prescription-only drugs as medicinal, not recreational.

Pete, I don't of any libertarians that are advocating putting synthetic drugs up for the taking at the local 7-11. You are mixing apples with bananas, and I am not sure why.

As for obtaining a nuke, how many people in America do you think can purchase a nuke? If they could afford it, what is there to prevent them from obtaining/using one right now? I am fairly certain that terrorists cells would get one if they could, since they haven't I contend acquiring one isn't such a simple task. Thus, I think you are bringing up a bunch of non-issues in regards to reality.

I think this is absurd. Doesn't he have more important things to worry about?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/108067-schumer-ftc-must-probe-flavored-drinks

proutdoors wrote:

Pete, I don't of any libertarians that are advocating putting synthetic drugs up for the taking at the local 7-11. You are mixing apples with bananas, and I am not sure why.

All prescription medications aren't equally problematic. For example, from a libertarian perspective, there's likely no good reason why proton pump inhibitors should require a prescription, but there are more defensible reasons for keeping benzodiazepines controlled. But that's not really the point I was attempting to make.

proutdoors wrote:

As for obtaining a nuke, how many people in America do you think can purchase a nuke? If they could afford it, what is there to prevent them from obtaining/using one right now? I am fairly certain that terrorists cells would get one if they could, since they haven't I contend acquiring one isn't such a simple task. Thus, I think you are bringing up a bunch of non-issues in regards to reality.

If Burma or Syria or Al-Qaeda could have purchased a nuke, they would have done so. Money isn't the problem for them; it's availability. But that wasn't my point either.

I've been trying to ask a difficult to phrase question, and I'm not being especially successful at it. I think that you're taking me too literally, when I'm speaking more abstractly. I'll try to approach it from a different angle.

I'm not big on dogmatic solutions to problems. By nature, I'm mostly a libertarian, but I also see that a dogmatic approach to greater personal liberties also ignores certain negative consequences that would occur if an extreme form of libertarianism were actually implemented. I don't expect anyone to answer this with anything concrete, but at what point does looking out for the common good of society outweigh the personal freedom of the individuals in that society?

It's easy to say that my freedom to swing my fist ends before my fist makes contact with someone else's nose. But really, that's not a one-size-fits-all answer. For example, even though one person might be perfectly capable of using, say, Demerol responsibly, many people cannot and would destroy their lives with it if given the chance to buy it over the counter. Similarly, much the same can be said of fully automatic weapons, high-explosives, cigarettes or alcohol.

Again, where is the line drawn? It's easy to look at the extremes and come up with common-sense answers, but that big, vast middle ground is where it get's sticky. For example, the writers of the Constitution had rather primitive firearms in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. I mean, that was pretty much the extent of weaponry at the time. Today, weapons exist that can kill millions in an instant, and there are everything from weapons of mass destruction right on down to old-fashioned, single-shot muskets.

In all of these discussions of personal libertarian freedoms, how far can a libertarian approach go before it, like other "isms" become too dogmatic, too extreme, too devoid of common sense and, consequently, counterproductive?

Pete, for me I say we should stop just short of anarchy. What I mean is; we should side with the individual whenever possible. There is a new song out on country radio by Lee Brice that has a great line: "Don't outsmart your common sense." Seems like good words to live by.

Pete wrote:

In all of these discussions of personal libertarian freedoms, how far can a libertarian approach go before it, like other "isms" become too dogmatic, too extreme, too devoid of common sense and, consequently, counterproductive?

Spot on!

Pete wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

Pete, I don't of any libertarians that are advocating putting synthetic drugs up for the taking at the local 7-11. You are mixing apples with bananas, and I am not sure why.

All prescription medications aren't equally problematic. For example, from a libertarian perspective, there's likely no good reason why proton pump inhibitors should require a prescription, but there are more defensible reasons for keeping benzodiazepines controlled. But that's not really the point I was attempting to make.

proutdoors wrote:

As for obtaining a nuke, how many people in America do you think can purchase a nuke? If they could afford it, what is there to prevent them from obtaining/using one right now? I am fairly certain that terrorists cells would get one if they could, since they haven't I contend acquiring one isn't such a simple task. Thus, I think you are bringing up a bunch of non-issues in regards to reality.

If Burma or Syria or Al-Qaeda could have purchased a nuke, they would have done so. Money isn't the problem for them; it's availability. But that wasn't my point either.

I've been trying to ask a difficult to phrase question, and I'm not being especially successful at it. I think that you're taking me too literally, when I'm speaking more abstractly. I'll try to approach it from a different angle.

I'm not big on dogmatic solutions to problems. By nature, I'm mostly a libertarian, but I also see that a dogmatic approach to greater personal liberties also ignores certain negative consequences that would occur if an extreme form of libertarianism were actually implemented. I don't expect anyone to answer this with anything concrete, but at what point does looking out for the common good of society outweigh the personal freedom of the individuals in that society?

It's easy to say that my freedom to swing my fist ends before my fist makes contact with someone else's nose. But really, that's not a one-size-fits-all answer. For example, even though one person might be perfectly capable of using, say, Demerol responsibly, many people cannot and would destroy their lives with it if given the chance to buy it over the counter. Similarly, much the same can be said of fully automatic weapons, high-explosives, cigarettes or alcohol.

Again, where is the line drawn? It's easy to look at the extremes and come up with common-sense answers, but that big, vast middle ground is where it get's sticky. For example, the writers of the Constitution had rather primitive firearms in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. I mean, that was pretty much the extent of weaponry at the time. Today, weapons exist that can kill millions in an instant, and there are everything from weapons of mass destruction right on down to old-fashioned, single-shot muskets.

In all of these discussions of personal libertarian freedoms, how far can a libertarian approach go before it, like other "isms" become too dogmatic, too extreme, too devoid of common sense and, consequently, counterproductive?

I had long, homebrew-fueled response to your earlier post yesterday, hit preview, THOUGHT I hit save, turned off the laptop only to check the post and find out I accidentally nuked it.

It wasn't the beer though.

Here's the gist: I am dogmatic about my liberty. I also believe that Darwin was really onto something with the whole survival of the fittest thang and that many of our problems would disappear if we maybe allowed stupid people to abuse their liberties. I'll probably die from my own selfish, bullheaded decisions but that's my prerogative. If someone isn't smart or disciplined enough to stay away from lethal doses of pharmaceuticals, so be it. The species isn't threatened.

As far as nerve agent or other WMD's go, you got me on that one. Nobody should own them...but I highly value the knowledge and ability to build one should the need arise.