De-criminalizing drug use, by way of contrast, wou...

2007-02-01T21:42:00.000-07:00

De-criminalizing drug use, by way of contrast, would end this price support program and mitigate much of the violence. Which is precisely why that option is not seriously considered.

I realize this wasn't the premise of your post here so don't hang me. Nevertheless, it begs the following question:

If government elites only wanted drugs kept illegal because they merely were only interested in allying with other (underworld) gangsters for the purpose of profiteering handsomely in the drug trade, why on earth was Prohibition rescinded in 1933? Couldn't they have made a killin' on illegal alcohol?

Also why isn't government capitalizing on illegal prostitution in the same manner as with illegal narcotics? Illegal gambling? Well, on second thought in the gambling arena, they might be doing just that with lotteries. Even so, why isn't Nevada's crime problem very low even with legalized gambling and prostitution?

I mean, how come I never hear anyone saying that if the ordinary commoner stooge ended their insatiable demand and hunger for illegal drugs (or any mind-altering, recreational drugs for that matter), how in the world could government elites or the private-sector gangsters profit in the first place?

Keep in mind, I'm merely trying to grok the reasoning you're invoking here, apparently thinking it must be obvious to all. Well, to my layman head, this "decriminalization" rant being the "end to all corruption" remedy ain't at all obvious to me.

Decriminalization of any behavior can only work adequately if the populace is able to exhibit self-control and restraint on their own. That ability by the average commoner is becoming increasingly rare in the modern era. IOW, I see folk avoid behaving in a depraved manner or acting up in some shit way only because it is illegal and they fear the state's "sword" coming down upon them, NOT because their own conscience dictates against acting or behaving that way. Get it? That would indicate that folk have little or no self-control; they have to be externally controlled or else.

Was it John Adams that said, in essence, this republic as contructed was only adequate for a moral and religious people; totally inadequate for the government of any other?

That makes perfect sense to me. And it explains much about why we see the increasing growth of the State over time in virtually every arena of life.

Comments on Pro Libertate: The Soviet States of North America (pt. II): The Criminal Nomenklatura

De-criminalizing drug use, by way of contrast, wou...