Tuesday, 7 June 2005

Prohibition works. Yeah right.

There's a handy list of the harms of prohibition up at Helen Hughes's' 'Speakeasy' newsletter site. If the Greens hadn't lost their freedom mojo (did they ever really have it?) they might themselves have spent some time at their weekend conference pointing out some of these iniquities, or trumpeting the new US report which calculates the cost of prohibition -- it's not cheap.

Sadly, their conference has ended instead with little of substance beyond name-calling (Peters as Hitler and a "snake oil merchant" -- one of which is at least correct -- Brash as sexist and racist), context-free scare-mongering (somebody has stolen all the clean water and it's all your fault), and a call for more theft in order to buy the votes of students.

So, nothing really new then, apart from the name-calling from Rod and Jeanette.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Ruth said...

Sure prohibition never works. But I have a problem with people like Hughes who choose to alter their consciousness with drugs. It simply is not rational. Life is hard enough without deliberatley choosing to be a fool. Sure that is her choice - but don't expect *me* to take her comments seriously.

I have a problem with the Libs obsession with drugs, and I think many others do too. Only losers use drugs. You tell me how much wealth people like Hughes and other druggies have created. They cost society - they don't add to it.

6 Jun 2005, 17:20:00  
Blogger Blair said...

Somebody give that woman a joint.

6 Jun 2005, 19:07:00  
Blogger Richard said...

Yeah, Ruth, chill out. Engage in some consciousness altering yourself. We'd take *your* comments more seriously if you were a little less grumpy.

Taking drugs is a rational choice. What's irrational about having a good time? Most adults use mind-altering drugs.

6 Jun 2005, 19:28:00  
Anonymous Julian Pistorius said...

Hi Ruth,

Do you know Helen? How can you possibly say that she has added nothing to society? Having just spent a weekend with her, I don't even know where to start to address the complete absurdity of your slanderous remarks. It boggles the mind.

Moving past the ad hominem arguments, which part of the article did you actually have a problem with?

Cheers
Julian

6 Jun 2005, 19:46:00  
Anonymous Robin Thomsen said...

Ruth, you've jumped to a very peculiar and somewhat irrational view of Helen. Helen is a sensible, passionate and intelligent woman. She is also constructive, a talented artist.

I think you'd find that libertarians are the *least* obsessed with drugs compared with other political movements. The libertarian position is simple: your life, your choice, your responsibility. Other politial movements want to have a say in your affairs (usually banning), even the Greens want to regulate, legislate and tax cannibus use.

6 Jun 2005, 21:15:00  
Blogger Sid X said...

> your life, your choice, your responsibility

Well, if only everyone is as responsible and intelligent with their choice.

Restricting/prohibiting is not the perfect answer, but neither is going to the other extreme (legalising ALL drugs).

It needs to be somewhere in the middle (e.g.: legalised some drugs that are only as harmful as cigarretes or alcohol).

Its not simple but like they say, there's always a wrong simple solution to a complex problem.

7 Jun 2005, 09:34:00  
Anonymous Robin Thomsen said...

So what are you saying it *should* be? Your life, your choice, your responsibility, as long as its ok with sid x?

7 Jun 2005, 15:01:00  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home