Drug Prohibitions

Forums: Legal, Drug Laws
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In order for a government to coerce individuals not to use or sell certain drugs through threat of kidnapping or theft, it must first have partial ownership of the individual's body. Because the usage or consentual sale of Drugs does not violate the rights of other individuals, the government by default has no jurisdiction in such matter. In order for it to have legitimate jurisdiction over acts such as Drug usage, it must first have ownership of that individual. For the government to have ownership of individuals and therefore the right to deny them from acts that do not violate other individuals rights is slavery.

Drug Prohibitions makes slaves out of all American citizens, evil incarnate.

Punish the Drug user for neglecting his/her dependents.
Punish the Drug user for taking or damaging the property of others.
Punish the Drug user for physically harming others.
Punish the Drug user for driving while under the influence.
Punish the Drug user by denying them State funding for medical care.
Do not punish the Drug user for using any Drugs in their home or any other permissable areas.
Do not punish those in a consentual transaction of Drugs.

Those who are proponents of Drug Prohibitions are the enemies of freedom. Freedom's ultimate victory is inevitable, those who stand in the way of Lady Liberty will be defeated in time.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,862 • Replies: 24

No top replies

What would you like to come out of thsi thread? What we think about drugs being illegal? Which drugs? Alcohol? Tabacco? Weed? Coke? Or all the above and all in between?

0 Replies

.
The purpose of this thread is to confront and defeat the enemies of freedom, those who would make slaves out of the American people by supporting Drug prohibitions.

It's purpose is to persuade viewers and hopefully even participants of the true cause of freedom.

I invite those who disagree with my statements to make their arguments against them.

All Drug Prohibitions are the same, whether it be Caffeine or Crystal Meth, they demand as justification government ownership over the bodies of individuals, slavery. Call for any of them and you call for partial enslavement of the American people.

0 Replies

There is no prohibition on caffeine at least, not that I am aware of. There is, however, a prohibition on meth.

0 Replies

Did I misunderstand your statement?

0 Replies

.
I am calling out any who would support existing prohibitions such as that on Meth, and any who would call for a prohibition, such as on Cigarettes.

With the Caffeine to Meth statement I was demonstrating the sheer range of drugs we're talking about.

0 Replies

Ahh, ok.

0 Replies

This will be interesting to watch. I happen to agree with Ivory Fury on the substance, though I don't think online threads are an efficient way of confronting and defeating anyone. The best you can hope for is to persuade them. I wish you luck!

0 Replies

.
I am grateful for your support Thomas. Perhaps more relevant than persuading others is strengthening myself through trial and error so as to better prepare me for the real fight. For that purpose the Internet is wholly adequate.

0 Replies

Just curious... How do you intend on changing the system? People have been fighting for years to get weed legalized, if for nothing more than medicinal purposes and look how far that has come. I think you will be very hard pressed to make a huge change like the one you are proposing. But I am still curious as to how you will approach it.

0 Replies

.
Every stone thrown into the pond causes ripples, change will come in America, if not slowly.

The manner in which I shall achieve it in my lifetime must be done by starting from scratch. A people's revolution to depose of a filthy dictator overseas and the inclusion of strong individual rights in the new Constitution.

0 Replies

I don't think you will see that change in your lifetime.

0 Replies

.
Perhaps not the former, but the latter will be accomplished, if not in my lifetime then in the one afterwards and so on and so forth.

0 Replies

It's an interesting argument but it's not one that will excite the popular imagination. Most individuals think they're free - it's an illusion of course, the only true free individuals are the mega-rich - but I digress. The stupidity of prohibition stands by itself. Eventually society will wake up to it but it will be long and hard road for anti-prohibitionists. But I reiterate I think the best argument is to point out the fact that prohibition of itself does more harm than responsible use of a substance.

0 Replies

.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I find freedom to be the superior argument against Drug Prohibitions. At least for Americans, here everyone claims to be a patriotic supporter freedom, but when they are exposed, it shakes them and causes change.

Come out you Reaganite Fascists, surely there must be people here opposed to my argument and willing to counter it?

0 Replies

Re:

Ivory Fury wrote:

All Drug Prohibitions are the same, whether it be Caffeine or Crystal Meth, they demand as justification government ownership over the bodies of individuals, slavery. Call for any of them and you call for partial enslavement of the American people.

Regulation does not require ownership, or even partial ownership. For instance, I can object to a neighbor building a tannery next to my home, and even force him to cease operations, even though I have no ownership interest in my neighbor's property. You've obviously confused property rights with rights in general: the two things are not the same.

0 Replies

.
Regulation of Drugs is not outright prohibition, prohibition is slavery.

Your neighbor has the right to establish that Tannery, unless it is violating your rights or those of another, than you have no say in his business enterprises.

0 Replies

Re: .

Ivory Fury wrote:

Your neighbor has the right to establish that Tannery, unless it is violating your rights or those of another, than you have no say in his business enterprises.

I think Joe's idea is that it does, and you do -- tanneries normally produce quite a lot of pollution. When the pollution from your neighbor's tannery poisons the roses in your garden, he is violating your rights; and to the extend that he does, that gives you a say in his business behavior. It doesn't give you a property right in his business or his person though.

This is relevant to your thread because drug prohibitions are justified with a similar claim -- the claim that your taking drugs has a detrimental effect on society, and that this gives society the right to prohibit you from doing it. Even if society is wrong about that, this doesn't make prohibition slavery, because society doesn't claim property rights to your body -- it claims a right to self defense, based on assumptions it makes about the consequences of your taking drugs. You and I believe those assumptions are wrong. But even if our beliefs are correct, that still doesn't mean society is practicing slavery; what it practices is still (wrongly) perceived self-defense.

0 Replies

.
I was unaware that Tanneries cause heavy pollution. But someone using drugs in their home without neglecting their dependents or harming others is not violating the rights of any and therefore untouchable. I was under the assumption that drug prohibition supporters knew that drug usage does not in and of itself violate anyone's rights, and therefore they only wish to control the percieved wrong behavior of another. Like a parent in partial ownership of their child.

0 Replies

Ivory . . . I agree that the "war on drugs" through criminal penalties and prosecutions is not working. Prohibition did not stop people from drinking alcohol. Instead, prohibition encouraged crime and criminal syndicates to flourish due to the enormous profits to be made.

The government finally recognized the folly of total prohibition and now regulates rather than criminalizes the industry.

Similarly I don't think the government can stop people from using drugs. The war on drugs will NEVER be won so long as huge profits are made by criminals precisely due to the criminal nature of their activities. Our prisons are already bursting at their seams and for every drug law offender that we convict and incarcerate . . . several more step forward to fill the need for illicit drugs and to reap the profits.

To win the war on drugs, we need regulation; not criminalization.

But, I do not agree with your legal premise. The government has broad police powers. The government does not need property rights in the person / thing regulated in order to exercise police powers.

0 Replies

Drug Prohibitions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know