ACT on Campus President Slates Drug Prohibition
AOC President, Helen Simpson, has blogged on the foolishness drug prohibition.
Although I'm not too concerned with 'celebrating cannabis culture', I'm a strong believer in individual freedom- that is, the freedom of individuals to do as they please as long as no one else is harmed in the process. That also means taking personal responsibility for your own actions should you come to harm as a result of your own (irresponsible) actions.
If you want to drink copious amounts of alcohol until your liver needs replacing, or smoke until your rotted lungs require extensive cancer treatment, you are free to do so, even now. But in a truly free society you should also be prepared to pay for your own health insurance; otherwise you're placing the financial responsibility on others, a.k.a. taxpayers, to fund your stupidity.
Check out the full post here.
Although I'm not too concerned with 'celebrating cannabis culture', I'm a strong believer in individual freedom- that is, the freedom of individuals to do as they please as long as no one else is harmed in the process. That also means taking personal responsibility for your own actions should you come to harm as a result of your own (irresponsible) actions.
If you want to drink copious amounts of alcohol until your liver needs replacing, or smoke until your rotted lungs require extensive cancer treatment, you are free to do so, even now. But in a truly free society you should also be prepared to pay for your own health insurance; otherwise you're placing the financial responsibility on others, a.k.a. taxpayers, to fund your stupidity.
Check out the full post here.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
5/08/2006 11:36:00 AM
12 Comments:
What would Helen say then about the person who wants to drink copious amounts of booze, and then kills Heln's mother on the road? What's the pure libertarian answer - sue the killer for compensation?
I'm quite sure Epsom will love Rodney campaigning for free drugs.
Of all the problems NZ faces, drugs reform is way down the bottom of the list.
Let's first get started with making sure most Kiwis even believe in taking responsibility before embarking on a program that, without all these reforms, will cost the taxpayer, me, even more money.
Before people can take responsibility for something they must be allowed to do the something!
"What would Helen say then about the person who wants to drink copious amounts of booze, and then kills Heln's mother on the road? What's the pure libertarian answer - sue the killer for compensation?"
And the current law has prevented this happening how many times Anon....? People who do things like this are not bothered by laws and rules in the first place so what is achieved?
Some, if not many drugs cause behavioural changes in people that cause them to become violent and aggressive. In the case of "P", it can turn people into psychopathic maniacs. I can't see any reason at all to legalise something that causes people to become incredibly violent against innocents. The medical damage, societal damage and costs to families, friends and the wider community makes it a good case to prevent legalisation of these drugs.
For even a so-called harmless drug like marijuana, which can cause learning disabilities, distorted perceptions, increased blood pressure/heart disorders, decreased immunity from illness, adverse affects on pregnant women and their unborn children, there is a good case to ensure that even this drug remains illegal, despite its reputation as a drug that makes people peaceful and happy. Use of marijuana socially might also make people try harder drugs that do cause even worse problems.
I'm prepared to consider the medical use of marijuana for pain relief, but beyond that I'm certainly not convinced.
I used to think drug law reform wasn't important, but then I thought - hold on, why should anyone be in prison for ingesting something of their own choice?
Think about it. There are few things more fundamentally abhorrent that criminalising people for what they do to themselves.
legalising all drugs overnight would probably cause quite a few problems - ones we could probably recover from, but a policy of decriminalising possesion of small quantities of drugs would be a step in the right direction in my opinion
James, so your same view applies to the road speed restrictions? ie you believe there should not be any?
I would have thought the point of having restrictions is the discipline regime that is attached to it. ie speed and you get fined, drink and drive and kill someone and you go to jail. The success of a rule comes down to the certainly of the consequences.
The answer would not seem to be in the extreme positions of no rules (ie your view James) or too many rules (the extreme Green view), but a medium where people can get on with their lives but the 5% who go outside the tram tracks are brought back into line.
The libertarian position that Helen and James advocate is an extreme that is more ideological than functional. Most people realise this which is why libertarian views are considerd a cult rather than a political movement.
The speed you drive on the roads is dependant on a few things...such as whose road is it? and what is reasonable safe speed for the conditions? The owner of the road has the right to set speed limits as they see fit....why can't the owner of a body make their own call on what happens with that?
Ahh but we have a Socialist health system that makes you pick up the tab for the mistakes of others so you must be denied full liberty over your body and how you use it...but if thats the problem then simply scrap socialist health care and leave everyone free to individually purchase their own healthcare and pay according to their individual risk factors...problem solved.
The view I advocate is consistent...%100 of the time.Thats how objective reality wants it...you can't pick and choose when principles apply or they cease to be principles.It is you Anon who needs to address the cotradictions in your stance.When does someone own their body and when don't they? And who gets to make that decision? and by what right?
James I have to agree you are 100% consistent... always incomprehensible!
I say again, James, do you believe there should be a legal speed limit of roads? "Yes" or "no" James.
As a libertarian, while the state owns the roads there should be speed limits. They should be enforced where breaching them presents a clear risk to innocent road users or people nearby. As the state owns the roads it can do this, but the state should progressively get out of it.
Drugs are about ingesting something into the most private thing anyone can own - his or her own body. What people do under the influence is what they should be accountable for, and in most cases, they harm no one.
Libertyscott says "in most cases drugs harm no one"... Tell that to Mrs Choi whose son was killed by P users. Tell that to the women who had her hands cut off by a P user. Tell that to the road accident victims who suffer because the wanker who crashed into them was driving while stoned. What do you say to those people ... sorry?
劈腿,劈腿,劈腿劈腿劈腿,劈腿劈腿劈腿,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇, 外遇,外遇,外遇, 外遇,外遇,外遇, 偷情,第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 徵信社,徵信社,外遇,外遇,徵信社,徵信社,外遇,徵信社,徵信社,外遇,外遇,抓姦,徵信,徵信公司, 外遇,徵信 包二奶 跟蹤 監控 徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社, 徵信社,徵信,徵信, 徵信社,徵信社,徵信社, 徵信社,徵信社,外遇,第三者,徵信社,偵探社,徵信社,偵探社 ,偵探社, 偵探社,偵探社,偵探,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務家事服務家事服務,家事服務,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,離婚,徵信社,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,外遇,離婚,劈腿,持久,持久,持久持久持久,劈腿,徵信,徵信社,外遇外遇外遇,外遇徵信社,徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信徵信社,徵信,徵信徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home