Rightwing libertarians and drugs

This is pretty much how everyone sees it here.

But not Balbus.

 

Hipstatic

As I’ve set out on a number of occasions now my argument is that actually right wing libertarian ideas are based within a right wing philosophy and that there stance on social issues are not of the left as some claim.

Could you possibly read those posts and there arguments first before making yet more misinformed comments.

Cheers Balbus

 

Its "their" not "there."

 

..................................................................................................
As a hippie and as a "right winger" let me say that I do not want All Drugs legalized.
There is no way that narcotics like smack and coke should ever be legal, nothing good ever comes from these substances. These drugs give hippies and pot smokers a bad name; big media types coflate pot smoking with narcotics all the time as lazy reporting.

Hippies want decriminalization of natural stimulants only, Cannibias, peyote, mesaclline, perhaps LSD. We do not need yet another goverment agency monitoring, regulating, taxing, or sticking thier arrogant noses in our business telling us that its good for us and that the tax revenue will perform some wonderful purpose like cure all addiction 4 ever.

Decriminalize personal posession and growing of Cannibias.

If Democrats in America had even made a feint at decriminalization,
I might feel some respect for them, they have left hippies behind for 40 years while pandering to every other special interest group around.

Republicans, well I understand the stance about law enforcement and traditional values and such I have low expectations for help here.
Our preachy Democrats seem to posture about liberalization but its all a crock of shit they want to attract soccer moms as voters and have sacrificed hippies to do so.

Our Goverment is a prostitute in the name of money, taking a piece of tobacco, lotteries casinos racetracks and sports betting; they have lost an element of thier dignity and majesty by endorsing these vices in the name of the tax vig. But Weed remains on the outside, even today! Nothing in the pipeline on the federal level to decriminalize weed.


.

 

This feels like AA. Hi my name is----- and I am a right winger....

There is a difference between legalizing and decriminalizing. I am all for legalization of natural substances! But I feel all drugs need to be decriminalized, because if you take LAW ENFORCEMENT and the court system out of the equation, more resources would be available for TREATMENT and COUNCILING, and probably the outcome would be much more effective, because the drug war is just that. A war. And in a war, violence begets more violence and the end result is worse than the drug problem. Does this make me a right winger???

 

of couse it does i mean if you think of decriminalization then you must be for less gov.!but then again if your for treatment then you must be left? hhmm?
but now if your for personal responsability then you must be liberterion ohh wait maybe you are vulcatairion? or is you are ........

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If you don't legalize raw opium and maybe even morphine people will still turn to heroin, and cocaine is not very addictive. I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal.

No one used heroin recreationally until the government outlawed opium.

 

Piney

In a lot of ways your view on drug legalisation is a lot closer to mine than is the right wing libertarian approach.

But this has been my point – you are happy to be a right winger, as I’m happy to be a left winger, and you’re not claiming that because you views are similar to mine on this subject you are not a right winger and I’m not claiming that because of the similarity I’m not a left winger.

I understand that there can be crossovers of viewpoint but that doesn’t mean the philosophical outlook is the same.

What I’m saying is that the general and philosophical outlook of right wing libertarians is right wing, it is not as they claim partly left wing.

*

The thing is that there are right wingers out there that are advocating legalisation and decriminalisation.

Here is something from the right leaning magazine ‘The Economist’

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13237193

This so closely mirrors my own view that I could have written it, and I have written stuff here over the years that match it.

Does that mean I’m really a right winger I don’t think so.

It just means that on some issues some on the left and right have similar views that are in opposition to others of both the left and right.

 

Earthmother

I’m saying that from things you have said you seem to have a right wing outlook but I’ve also said that it is very hard to say it with any certainty because you often seem to be unwilling to discuss you views.

For example I’m still not clear about you Social Darwinist viewpoint and it seems difficult to reconcile them with what you are saying here.

You claim to want more treatment and counselling but you have already said you think people are too molly-coddled and implied that they needed to do without such things. And you have specifically said you would like to stop people receiving medical treatment.

So you general and even specific outlook doesn’t seem to match what you’re saying here.

Which makes me wonder what you mean by ‘treatment’?

The Swiss when from a traditional drugs policy based on repression and prohibition, but moved to another strategy in the 1990’s based on harm reduction. But this involved wide ranging social programmes (treatment and counselling amongst them) aimed not just at treating the already addicted but tackling socio-economic factors as well, which in the main were government sponsored.

Now again one of your themes seems to have been a desire to ‘getting government off peoples backs’ and the thing is that the Swiss model seems to be the very opposite of that.

So again, can you explain your thinking?

 

I'm very willing to discuss my views, do it all the time, but I am done discussing views with someone who can not understand anything I say.

What is a "Social Darwinist" IN YOUR POINT OF VIEW?

Implied? If you say so, but I actually never did imply anything like that. And I NEVER EVER said anything about DENYING people medical treatment. Now, it's time for Balbus to pull a piece of a quote from a different thread, and totally out of context, out to "prove" he's right...

Torture 'em, I tell you!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Uh, There is a difference between someone being "on your back" and someone being helpful.:toetap05:

 

I can't get beyond your use of the phrase "right-wing libertarians". In my mind, right-wing has always referred to those who are so reactionary they are almost fascists. Right-wingers have always been quick to go to war and throw people in jail. I don't associate right-wing with respect for the Bill of Rights, for instance.

I think you should just say "libertarians", because I associate them with absolute respect for individual rights.

 

here here!

 

Earthmother

Your whole reply was just you saying you are going to refuse to enter into an open and honest discussion.

So I can only go on the views you have expressed not any unsubstantiated claims and unexplained assertion to the contrary.

 

Sun

So in your view anything left of being ‘almost a fascist’ is, in your opinion, a left winger?

Don’t you see how silly and irrational that is?

It is like claiming that anyone to the right of being ‘almost a Stalinist’ is a right winger.

*

When I first came to these forums back in 2001 it was full of people proud to call themselves right wingers, a lot of those people left because things started go bad for the Bush admin, but there are still many here who still are proud to call themselves right wing.

And the fast majority of people with right wing views are not ‘almost fascists’ they are decent people with a certain set of beliefs.

Just as the fast majority of people with left wing views are not ‘Stalinists’ they are decent people with a certain set of beliefs.

To say that anyone claiming to be a right winger is ‘almost a fascist’ is as silly as claiming that anyone who calls themselves left wing is ‘almost a Stalinist’.

 

Wrong again. I am SAYING that I will NOT have a debate with YOU because of how YOU behave towards my responses as well as others. And the fact that you always put out 20 or 30 questions that you really don't want the answers to. If you could simply ANSWER MY QUESTIONS TO YOU and ask ONE OR TWO of your own in reply IF you REALLY want to know what I think, I will treat you like anyone else. Otherwise I will and DO talk to anyone else here, because there is nobody else who is so disrespectful as you are.

 

Why don't you try staying on topic? And, by all means, if there is something you REALLY want to know that I can offer, just let me know RESPECTFULLY and ask only one or two questions at a time like most folks do.

 

And, you NEVER address any of my questions to you. How about it? CAN you?

What is is about my post #31 you don't understand? I WISH THAT YOU WOULD SIMPLY ADDRESS MY POSTS RATHER THAN BE SUCH A NIT PICKER WHO SAYS NOTHING.

 

Earthmother

The problem is your claims are contradicted by the reality.

Oh you are willing to tell people about your views and even willing to talk with uncritical sympathisers BUT and it is a big but, as soon as someone is critical or begins asking questions you seem unwilling to answer you start becoming evasive. And if someone persists in their criticism and continues to ask questions, you start being huffy.

And so you go -

I’m not going to talk to you because…you’re rude

I’m not going to talk to you because…you’re disrespectful

I’m not going to talk to you because…you don’t listen

I’m not going to talk to you because…you’re pushy

I’m not going to talk to you because…you ask too many questions

I’m not going to talk to you because…you’ll twist what I say

I’m not going to talk to you because…because…because

Basically these are just excuses – because you are unwilling (or unable) to debate your ideas openly or honestly.

As my mother used to say – ‘take a pee or get off the pot’

*

In your post 31 you ask one straight question

But I’d already answered than from when we were last talking about it, if you didn’t read it then what’s the point of repeating it here so you can ignore it again?

*

Now my questions were aimed at trying to understand your ideas on drug policy in the light of you stated viewpoints.

Are you willing to enter into that debate or are you going to continue to be evasive?

 

Which came first, the cart or the horse?

So, remind me rather than being a snot.

If you will stop being like this:

you’re rude

you’re disrespectful

you don’t listen

you’re pushy

you ask too many questions

you’ll twist what I say