Linked above is an editorial that states the exact opinion that Paul voiced in his earlier post.
"The fentanyl situation is clearly a consequence of drug prohibition, something that would virtually never happen under a system of regulation. Not surprisingly, this angle has been essentially absent from the media's discussion of the incidents."
2006-05-30
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Laws banning me from putting anything into my body constitute violations of my "inalienable rights". Such laws represent a classic example of Big Government attempting to Solve a Problem in its quest to create a perfect heaven on earth, and as a consequence creating more and worse problems.
It may very well be that another example will be US govt employees spearheading the creation of a democracy in Iraq and Afgahnistan, where the people there don't even want freedom and self-rule enough to wrest it themselves from the rule of gangsters and religious tryants. Perhaps a Big, Oustide govt succeeded in Japan, Germany, and South Carolina only because it first completely destroyed all infrastructure and killed a critical mass of would-be tyrants.
Are you saying the same thing should happen in the US? Do you believe that is the only way to defeat those who would impede on your inalienable rights like freedom of speech, privacy and the right to put anything into your body that you want?
Do we need a big outside government to step in (the UN)? You don't think US citizens can do it?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-30-meth-litter_x.htm
Another safety reason for legalizing & regulating all drugs: toxic waste neccessarily mis-handled. We free-marketeers believe that an effective and righteous use of govt includes enforcing laws which ensure that consumers receive what the seller has advertised, ie, enforcement of contracts. This would include disposing of waste, which amounts to a contract for what the recipient of the waste has aggreed to receive.
Nadir: I agree with you that no benign govt "A" should invade another nation "B" in order to rescue nation B's people from internal brutes. However, I do support govt "A" invading and destroying govt "B" if govt "B" has invaded nation "A", or supported the invasion of nation "A" or nation A's allies. The question then becomes, does nation A's invasion force then take up the responsibility to rebuild nation B, and to facilitate the erection of a new govt in nation B?
At a minimum I support Bush invading Iraq to eradicate the govt whose leaders had supported terror attacks against Isreal, using the premise of violations by that govt from the cease-fire attending its previous state invasion of Kuwait. The question that I have is: should the US military after apprehending Sadaam Hussein and his sons then left, leaving various gangsters and religious brutes (and democrats?) to fight amoungst themselves, and prey upon the populace? Would the new resulting tyranny (presumably any democratic effort would have failed under such a circumstance) restrict its violence to its own populace, undertanding that a failure to do so would lead to its dismantling by the US military? Would surrounding tyranies (Syria, Saudi Arabia) now fear similar eradication from a poised US military (not bogged down trying to rebuild Iraq) should they assist terror strikes against the US and its allies?
"At a minimum I support Bush invading Iraq to eradicate the govt whose leaders had supported terror attacks against Isreal, using the premise of violations by that govt from the cease-fire attending its previous state invasion of Kuwait."
What evidence do you have to support these allegations?
Nadir: Iraq's govt paid Palistinian suicide bombers (or as Fox New retardedly calls them, "homicide bombers"), and violated various clauses in the cease-fire aggreement attending the origianl "Gulf War." Do you dispute these allegations?
Post a Comment