Rightwing libertarians and drugs

sunfighter

Thing is that right wing libertarians want to legalise all drugs and I don’t know of any left wingers who wanted to legalize drugs, like they do because theirs is a particularly right wing, free market approach to the issue.

The right wing libertarian ideas on drugs are based in individual rights and free market principles. All drugs would be legalised and unregulated so they would be open to anyone to take, make or sell within the bounds of a capitalistic free market. And along with right wing libertarian philosophy about individual responsibility there would be no public programmes of education or treatment (except for those that could afford it) to counter the market.

The thinking on the left want a drugs policy that is good for society and the individual. They don’t think probation works but neither do they want drugs to become just another unregulated profit making product in a consumerist market.

They also base their views on personal freedom but they also see drugs from a
social and healthcare standpoint.

Soft drugs would be grown and made under licence and regulated in much the same way as alcohol.
Those addicted to harder drugs would receive them under medical supervision with the goal of stabilising and then getting people off them.

The emphasis would be on education, treatment, and assistance.

*

I’ll leave it there for the moment.

 

Drugs are a personal choice, that said in a perfect world it would be the individual choice. If you do "opiates" and kill your self doing it then so be it.

This counties drug polices and law are based on "the common good". However those who determine the public good have their own agenda's. The drug cops get money from the forfeiture law, get over time and advance their careers with the broken lives of others.

I know that they can brag about all the "good" they do but the reality is they get to put someone in jail for pot is a gross miscarriage of justice.

Some day this system will collapse, and all those who put people in jail for their personal choice will get their Karma. I don't think that doing hard drugs is in anyone's best interest, but again it is a personal choice, and spending billions and billions of the people's money to stop it is just a boondoggle that many make their living off of.

 

1. You really think most free market economists would let with no regulation what so ever.

2. A.) This is 2009, there's information everywhere on drugs. Even a homeless person could go on a computer in a library and go onto erowid. B.) Most of the "public" education and support groups around here are public in the fact they're open to the public but are actually private groups/charity, so that argument doesn't hold up

3. The thinking from the other side is also that it's better for society. All a black market for drugs does is create the black market, killings in cities here, blood money in Columbia, ect, along with taking away our freedoms.

4. Yes drugs should be looked at from a medical point of view, addicts need help, not prison, they have a medical problem. But it's not just about medicine, it IS about freedom and rights too, most people who do drugs are in fact not addicted and if someone wants to do say cocaine, they should have the right, and that coke shouldn't be made on the Colombian blood

 

Mad

It seems to be the idea.

Not sure what you’re getting at?

As a statement I agree, but I’m not sure an unregulated free market in drugs is the best way to go about tackling the problem.

And in a right wing libertarian society where does that help come from?

Again the rhetoric about freedom and rights as if no other group thinks about them.

Am I saying differently?

Fine by me, but what I would want, licensed sellers and regulation to insure that the cocaine is of a good quality (and not cut with rat poison). That the coke was made in a reputable factory were the dangerous chemicals used to produce it are dealt with in a clean and environmentally sound way and that trade agreement were in place that insured that the coca growers got a fair share of the money from their crop.

 

Cutting your product with rat poison would be a very poor business decision.

 

Indeed, that would never survive in a free market. Balbus though, you like to think that anyone who's for a free market wants a universe totally devoid of any regulation. Oh you silly old school British socialists

 

DL

Oh mister nit picker, would talcum powder be better?

My point is that it is often can be cut.

Just as baker used to use sawdust in loafs of bread (before regulation).

It the difficulty that often arises with ecstasy and LSD, with badly produced stuff being sold.

*

Mad

No I’m not saying that I’m saying what the right wing libertarian stance on this seems to be. From what I can tell it doesn’t go beyond legalisation, “the repeal of all laws” full stop.
And to libertarians “the model of a free market functions as a template for all things.” (Susan Lee, wall street journal)

If you are saying it is different please explain what you think it is?

 

The thing is that no one is putting up a counter argument to what I’ve said - that the right wing libertarian stance on drugs is not a left wing stance but one based in right wing ideas and beliefs.

It is the philosophy that underpins the policy not the policy itself that is important.

Elements of both the left and right might wish to decimalise drugs but why are they doing it, the philosophical outlook than underpins it, still make the reasons of the left and of the right.

 

I don't really know what you just said. Yoy seemed a bit "all over the place".

Let's not just be idiots and assume that "left" or "socialist" equates to "Stalinist USSR". It doesn't.

I'm not even sure if that's relevant.

The modern leftist movement is wonderfully accepting. Read it, think it, live it.

 

Evolving

In what way is it ‘all over the place’

If you have any particular questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

 

This is all hogwash anyhow.

Just a bunch of unfounded opinions based upon the mistaken idea that every situation only comes in black or white...

Because some people feel that illegal drugs should be decriminalized we are to assume that those same folks would have drugs instead be a free-for-all??? That is total foolishness, and not at all realistic no matter how you look at it.

 

You are saying it is hogwash but why?

You are not explaining why I’m wrong you’re just telling me I’m wrong – have you an actual counter argument?

I’m saying that people have differing views on the decriminalisation of drugs, that it isn’t black and white.

But what I’m saying is that the right wing libertarian approach is based on the legalisation of all drugs, within the framework of a free market society.

 

You insist on using the term "right-wing" because of the emotional baggage it carries as well as the negative connotations it harbors, especially in the United States.

Why not get rid of the some of the linguistic fluff that disrupts political discourse and call it what it is: a free market approach.

 

I use the term right wing because the views being expressed seem to be clearly right wing, if they didn’t seem to be right wing, I wouldn’t call them right wing.

Why do these people seem to hold right wing views if don’t want to be called right wingers?

Rather than shouting at me to stop or getting upset, why not change the views that so seem to upset them or explain succinctly and clearly why these views are not right wing.




*

 

But all that is being talked about is whether belief in X makes a person Y or Z. It's pointless. Granted, it takes two to tango, but you seem to be the most eager party.

 

Balbus, I will ask you ONE MORE TIME, just because I'm a nice guy, to shut the hell up. I don't know how things are viewed in the UK, but here, being labled "right wing" CAN be and IS seen as derogatory and insulting in some circles. I have a feeling the the term "right wing" in the UK must mean something different to people than it does here.
Either that or you simply GET OFF on being obnoxious, insulting, pushy, demanding, nit-picky.

Because it's just a bunch of unfounded opinions based upon the mistaken idea that every situation only comes in black or white...

Because some people feel that illegal drugs should be decriminalized we are to assume that those same folks would have drugs instead be a free-for-all??? That is total foolishness, and not at all realistic no matter how you look at it.

Try reading.

 

technically, libertarians are only right wing when it comes to economic issues. they're left wing when it comes to social issues (like drug legalization). that's what i was taught/learned somewhere at least. there could be different theories or whatnot on this though.

i'm not talking about the libertarian party here. i'm talking about the libertarian political stance. ie democrat=party. liberal=political stance. (people not from america, i already know)

i figure they should be about the same though.

 

earthmother


Quote:
You are saying it is hogwash but why?

Why is it unfounded, it is based on right wing libertarian ideas, you don’t seem to be saying these ideas are wrong.

As I’ve pointed out there are many ideas for the decriminalisation of drugs I’ve being setting out and explaining what seems to be the main right wing libertarian approach. You’re not actually putting up any counter arguments you are just saying it’s all ‘hogwash’.

The problem is that isn’t an argument.

If you have something a little more constructive to say, please say it.

 

Look as I’ve told you if you want to stop being called right wing then stop expressing what seem to be right wing views.
It is no use telling me to ‘shut the hell up’ because you don’t like your own right wing views being highlighted, if you find being a right winger obnoxious then stop being a right winger.

 

From another perspective

The Case Against Legalization by M. A. Paarlberg