Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[ipecac]

Certainly, part of the reason our Dutch drug policy (i.e "legal" weed, and decriminalized, but not legal, hard drugs) works so well is a good support system for the mentally ill. It works through mandatory insurance paying for hospitals so that everyone can get almost free help and medication (for about 80 euro's the month ).

It's not very libertarian to be forced to pay for others' drug issues.

It's a subject where, surprisingly, the democratic process is doing exactly what I'd want it to do: gradually reduce government control, while watching to see if the doom and gloom comes true...and if it doesn't, then reduce control some more.  It's weird, as a pragmatic libertarian, to ever get what I want. I don't want to jinx it by arguing about it .

Higher-order effects come into play. Government allows the consumption of drugs, but you're forced to pay for healthcare of druggies, either through mandatory insurance or taxes.

Is that what you libertarians really want?

[Mardoc]

It's a subject where, surprisingly, the democratic process is doing exactly what I'd want it to do: gradually reduce government control, while watching to see if the doom and gloom comes true...and if it doesn't, then reduce control some more.  It's weird, as a pragmatic libertarian, to ever get what I want.  I don't want to jinx it by arguing about it .

Higher-order effects come into play. Government allows the consumption of drugs, but you're forced to pay for healthcare of druggies, either through mandatory insurance or taxes.

Is that what you libertarians really want?

Compared to what?  Perfection is not an option.

There are higher-order effects either way.  I consider this an empirical question, which approach is worse, which is why I'm glad to see the process taking place slowly.  My understanding is that the world might be better off if weed had never existed or never been discovered, but now that the genie is out of the bottle, it's a question of damage control.  Also, of course, I could be wrong: it could be that judicious use of weed is better than totally ignoring it, at least for some people in some situations.  The most likely place for me to be wrong is in people who suffer chronic pain.

Bans lead to black markets, violent crime, no-knock warrants and police planting weed on arrestees when they have mere certainty rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing on other crimes.  Bans also require me to pay for the incarceration of druggies, dealers, etc.  I don't see why that is cheaper than paying for their healthcare.  I suppose it's likely that consumption and hence healthcare costs increase somewhat when it is legal, but it seems likely to be a smaller increase than the savings on jails and police and violent crime.  In addition, weed taxes partially offset these costs, plus weed users are more likely to pay other taxes (income, payroll, etc) in a world where they aren't felons.

That's before you even account for the well-being of the drug users themselves.  Although I would prefer a world where no one wanted to smoke, throwing them in jail does not seem to accomplish this.  Use seems to be bad for mental health, as Krill points out - but I'm sure incarceration is bad for mental health too.  A perfectly anarcho-capitalist libertarian would deny responsibility for the well-being of anyone but himself and those he has promised to help.  I don't go quite that far myself but I acknowledge that makes me less libertarian rather than making libertarianism inconsistent.  

As a third-order effect: practically, laws can't be too different than the general understanding of morality.  In a case like this, where people think that marijuana is maybe a bad idea but not immoral, banning it causes a fading in the respect for the rule of law, just as much as it causes a decline in the actual use rate of the drug.  If you want to smoke, keeping yourself safe requires you to acquire habits of concealment, distrust for police, etc, which cause other laws to become less effective.  But of course this sort of thing is even harder to judge than the rest of the factors.

Finally to revisit this question:

Is that what you libertarians really want?

I see no evidence that I can have all of what I really want, certainly not by tomorrow.  The best I can hope for is movement in the direction of what I want.  Maybe tomorrow we can move a little further toward what I want.  It'll be easier to convince people if I can point to initial baby steps working ok.

[Japper007]

Certainly, part of the reason our Dutch drug policy (i.e "legal" weed, and decriminalized, but not legal, hard drugs) works so well is a good support system for the mentally ill. It works through mandatory insurance paying for hospitals so that everyone can get almost free help and medication (for about 80 euro's the month ).

It's not very libertarian to be forced to pay for others' drug issues.

It's a subject where, surprisingly, the democratic process is doing exactly what I'd want it to do: gradually reduce government control, while watching to see if the doom and gloom comes true...and if it doesn't, then reduce control some more.  It's weird, as a pragmatic libertarian, to ever get what I want.  I don't want to jinx it by arguing about it .

Higher-order effects come into play. Government allows the consumption of drugs, but you're forced to pay for healthcare of druggies, either through mandatory insurance or taxes.

Is that what you libertarians really want?

And I'm not a libertarian so... Meh I guess? (I do agree with them on some issues though)

Paying into universal healthcare is a good deal cheaper for me than the exhorbitant prices Americans pay for healthcare (I have bouts of extreme migranes for which I need expensive drugs, hardly comes down to a tenner because of our system though, I save 100's a year by paying the 80 a month) so again... Meh I guess?

The extra healthcare cost is negligable compared to the cost of the extra policing illegal weed incurs. Do you think the War on Drugs doesn't end up on the plates of the citicens? On top of that it doesn't solve the problem either.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Well everyone is are going to have to pay for Ipecac's colon surgery to unclog the enormous pile of shit building up inside, so he doesn't have much to complain about.

[ipecac]

Is that what you libertarians really want?

I see no evidence that I can have all of what I really want, certainly not by tomorrow.  The best I can hope for is movement in the direction of what I want.  Maybe tomorrow we can move a little further toward what I want.  It'll be easier to convince people if I can point to initial baby steps working ok.

I was addressing your claim about how legalisation supposedly results in the reduction of government control. There is 'less government control' on consumption, but then government control increases on the mandatory healthcare that results. On the 'reduce government control' count it looks like one step forward, two steps back, but libertarians focus on the one step forward, which I find puzzling.

Whether legalisation is overall a good thing, that is a separate question. To address one point you brought up, I find rather dubious the notion that if some police are willing to plant weed, that if weed is legalised they're not going to change to planting something else.

[Krill]

How is healthcare greater governmental control than locking people up?

[ipecac]

And I'm not a libertarian so... Meh I guess? (I do agree with them on some issues though)

I know you're not, it was just an interesting point. The libertarian attitude is 'as long as it doesn't affect me or other people then whatever man', unfortunately they will definitely be affected by the socialised health costs.

Paying into universal healthcare is a good deal cheaper for me than the exhorbitant prices Americans pay for healthcare (I have bouts of extreme migranes for which I need expensive drugs, hardly comes down to a tenner because of our system though, I save 100's a year by paying the 80 a month) so again... Meh I guess?

An apples to orange comparison. Price gouging is common in the US, trying to get people into some level of universal healthcare through Obamacare did not change that.

The extra healthcare cost is negligable compared to the cost of the extra policing illegal weed incurs.

The cost of policing weed per se is low, because they by and large don't care about it as Commodore explained.

Do you think the War on Drugs doesn't end up on the plates of the citicens?

To a large extent the War is still quite necessary. Or maybe I'm just unaware of some new initiative by the Dutch, 'tolerate hard drugs consumption too, because why fight drugs'.

On top of that it doesn't solve the problem either.

Maybe you should start that new initiative.

[ipecac]

How is healthcare greater governmental control than locking people up?

When libertarians talk about government control it's usually about 'how many areas of life it interferes in', so I was reasoning on their basis. Legalisation is primarily supported on the basis of 'government is interfering in one less area of our lives' and not so much about the locking up.

[Japper007]

Do you think the War on Drugs doesn't end up on the plates of the citicens?

To a large extent the War is still quite necessary. Or maybe I'm just unaware of some new initiative by the Dutch, 'tolerate hard drugs consumption too, because why fight drugs'.

While we still impound drugs and go after dealers here in NL, hard drug consumption is actually indeed largely decriminalised. This is so that addicts can seek out healthcare without fear of imprisonment and other trouble. Addiction is a mental illness, not a criminal activity. Other countries have done so as well (Portugal is one I can think of off the top of my head). Turns out it's more productive to help people overcome addiction then throwing them in jail.

[Krill]

When libertarians talk about government control it's usually about 'how many areas of life it interferes in', so I was reasoning on their basis. Legalisation is primarily supported on the basis of 'government is interfering in one less area of our lives' and not so much about the locking up.

Ok, let me amend that question to be explicit regarding the implications I intended.

How is (the demand to pay for a form of socialised) healthcare greater governmental control (than the threat to remove you from society, remove your total liberty and control your every action).

I still don't see how arguing on that basis is even close to estimating the variance in control between the two points.