tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post4971667977235702157..comments2023-10-22T12:32:07.579+02:00Comments on Libertarian.be: The legalization of drug useVincent De Roeckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06234233503033576053noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-9298708029416769782008-04-18T00:42:00.000+02:002008-04-18T00:42:00.000+02:00@ simon1) So, you call me "despotic" because I dar...@ simon<BR/><BR/>1) So, you call me "despotic" because I dare to "think" about societal regulations. I am afraid you have no clue what real "despotism" is, but I dare to say that you may well encounter it in the future in your own country if your shallow kind of thinking finds many followers in society.<BR/><BR/>Everybody "thinks" about societal regulations all the time. And no society can Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-37542252823081330482008-04-17T03:19:00.002+02:002008-04-17T03:19:00.002+02:00@ Marc Huybrechts:1) Your mindset is despotic beca...@ Marc Huybrechts:<BR/><BR/>1) Your mindset is despotic because you think about how to regulate other people. Instead of looking at yourself and others the way they are; rational beings with the same rights as you, you adopt the viewpoint of a gardener onto his plants or a slavemaster onto his slaves. You treat them as "stuff" that needs to be arranged according to your plans, forgetting that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-69759687085632984552008-04-17T03:19:00.001+02:002008-04-17T03:19:00.001+02:00@ Simon1) Please, explain on what basis you call m...@ Simon<BR/><BR/>1) Please, explain on what basis you call me "despotic"? Do I give anywhere any indication that I would impose my personal wishes on others, if I could do so? An honest answer, please. All I have done is asserting a democratic society's 'right' to regulate a variety of behavior and actions. Do you consider the trafic code also an intolerable infraction of your indiviudal freedom?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-90319918663590176142008-04-17T03:19:00.000+02:002008-04-17T03:19:00.000+02:00Some questions:How is a legislative war of all aga...Some questions:<BR/><BR/>How is a legislative war of all against all to be prevented when people with despotic minds like Mr Huybrechts want to impose their opinion (on drugs) on others? Has he considered the fact that the power he gives to the state to regulate other people's lives according to his wishes can be used against him as well (for example in curtailing freedom of speech)?<BR/><BR/>WhyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-88389624703800540492008-04-16T19:23:00.001+02:002008-04-16T19:23:00.001+02:00As a general comment I would repeat that widesprea...As a general comment I would repeat that widespread acceptance of extremist positions (such as "no state regulation is acceptable...") is a clear sign of cultural degeneration and decline. And conflating or confusing human freedom with 'freedom'-to-take-drugs is another such sign.<BR/><BR/>On specific points:<BR/><BR/>1) The notion that "prohibition" would generate an "increase in drug addicts" Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-472438573183968722008-04-16T19:23:00.000+02:002008-04-16T19:23:00.000+02:00I believe Marc is both right and wrong: It is true...I believe Marc is both right and wrong: It is true that doing stuff while under the influence of drugs can cause harm to others. Nevertheless, this has never been an argument to ban alcohol (and only slightly -- and, some argue, under false pretences -- so for tobacco).<BR/><BR/>IMHO, a non-dualistic drug ethic is necessary: While a responsible adult should be free to do to her/his body and mind Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-86331701153086337772008-04-16T15:46:00.000+02:002008-04-16T15:46:00.000+02:00I'm generally sceptic about slippery slope argumen...I'm generally sceptic about slippery slope arguments, but in this case one cannot escape the fact that the argument is fundamentally correct. We start with regulating drug use and we end with the war against drugs with no effect on drug use whatsoever but with enormous human and financial costs. Putting people behind bars because they use instances wich have been used almost universally over the Ivan Janssenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09270717381524403422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-8344590674127260812008-04-16T14:36:00.000+02:002008-04-16T14:36:00.000+02:00The drug debate is exactly the same kind of discus...The drug debate is exactly the same kind of discussion as the one on the legalisation of drunk driving (see Lew Rockwell's webpage for more info on alcohol abuse). Do we accept the state as a supreme power prohibiting us the use of drugs/alcohol, or do we believe in the rationale of the individual making its own decisions and taking responsibility for its own actions. If a drug using car driver Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-26497519941400881622008-04-16T12:04:00.000+02:002008-04-16T12:04:00.000+02:00Wauw, een Engelse discussie op deze blog. Lekker i...Wauw, een Engelse discussie op deze blog. Lekker internationaal doen!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-26276766621419393862008-04-16T11:16:00.000+02:002008-04-16T11:16:00.000+02:00The only critique of Mr. Huybrechts I can concur w...The only critique of Mr. Huybrechts I can concur with, is his opinion on Mises' view. Mises is a very important philosopher for liberals and libertarians, but regarding drugs, he made the mistake to ridicule the prohibition of drugs, while there is no real ground for doing so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-20410281717874533892008-04-15T23:11:00.000+02:002008-04-15T23:11:00.000+02:00And furthermore, since "poison" is a very misleadi...And furthermore, since "poison" is a very misleading shibboleth regarding to drug use, Vincent De Roeck is completely right by stating that there are no real physical exteriorisations of drug use towards third parties, but even for the drug users themselves there is no risk, as pointed out by many independent research papers on the issue. The widespread propaganda that illegal drugs are "deadly Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-74041890779425086282008-04-15T22:39:00.000+02:002008-04-15T22:39:00.000+02:00Marc, perhaps you might be interested in the follo...Marc, perhaps you might be interested in the following quote of Franklin P. Adams in the 1930s during the Prohibition in the United States:<BR/><BR/>Prohibition is an awful flop.<BR/>We like it.<BR/>It can't stop what it's meant to stop.<BR/>We like it.<BR/>It's left a trail of graft and slime,<BR/>It don't prohibit worth a dime,<BR/>It's filled our land with vice and crime.<BR/>Nevertheless, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448769.post-69979476190357708372008-04-15T22:00:00.000+02:002008-04-15T22:00:00.000+02:00Vincent, you are taking an 'extremist' position wh...Vincent, you are taking an 'extremist' position which defies common sense. This is just as dangerous as the extremism of those who want to regulate everything and who devalue individual freedom.<BR/><BR/>There are numerous "physical exteriorisations of the damage caused by drug use to other people than.....". Take the simple example of car accidents caused by mind-altering drug use. Also, the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com