Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
▼
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Ethan Nadelmann: "Why we need to end the war on drugs".
Even considering the things he's gotten wrong, this is a very good talk.
First of all, "we" don't need to do anything- other than withdraw consent, perhaps. I did end my own war on politically incorrect drugs. Decades ago. I came to realize how ridiculous supporting prohibition was- or is. How hypocritical, since everyone uses "drugs". I haven't used any "illegal" drugs in years, nor have I used any "legal" drugs in "illegal" ways recently (that I can think of). Not because those things are "illegal", but because I haven't wanted to. "Laws" mean about as much to me as the opinions of a drooling idiot- because that's exactly what they are: idiotic opinions, backed up by bullies with guns, which you and I were forced to buy for them to use against us.
There should be no "policy" regarding drugs, beyond "if you don't like them, don't use them" or "if I catch you coming to work stoned, you're fired". It is no government's business. I don't want drugs "taxed" or "regulated" like alcohol (which I also know shouldn't be "taxed" or "regulated"). Those things are just new, sick facets of prohibition. They empower and finance The State, and are just evidence of the troglodytes who are still desperately clinging to the failed experiment of The State.
Drug abuse can be bad. Prohibition is always horrible- much, much worse than any drug abuse can ever be.
Don't do drugs? Don't do prohibition!!
.
The important thing to keep in the forefront of one's mind is the fact that psychopaths grouped into that egregious phenomenon called "the state" depend largely upon the tactic of divide-and-conquer for rulership to survive. If you see it from that perspective it is obvious that the war-on-drugs has been very successful.
ReplyDeleteThe "war-on-drugs" had nothing to do with drugs or their consumption. It had to do with centralization and increased manifestation of power (or that which is construed as "power"). It matters not what you think of David Icke in general -- what he says on this short video is factual.
Get the proletariat swaying and chanting and you can lead them off the cliff in a moment of excitement. All psychopaths seeking power -- the Marxists of the world -- understand that. The science of rulership is perhaps the most sought-after scholarly work today. Galvanize and sustain the majority of the hoi polloi to all move in the same direction emotionally is the key to tyranny.
The tyrant has no power without it. Étienne de la Boétie addressed that proclivity almost five centuries ago. It's as true today as it was then.
Dorothy and Toto uncovered the nature of the scam behind the "drug war" some years ago. Sam
Sorry (again) for the second post, but it seems Mises has once again redone their indexing. Here is a link to la Boétie's "Discourse" (I think) in PDF: http://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude
ReplyDeleteBut it's also available in html (once again -- "I think") somewhere in cyberworld. If you want to read it bad enough you'll find it. Sam
And, since sometimes a link posted on this site "enlivens", and sometimes it doesn't -- here's a live link:
Deletehttp://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude
Now I'll go away. (no, I won't: '[triangle with exclamation!!] Your HTML cannot be accepted: Reference "http:" is not allowed: A')
So, if this doesn't enliven you'll just have to cut and paste: http://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude
Sam
Even what he got wrong he got right. He said if drugs were taxed and regulated, it would *reduce* black markets, etc.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
Delete"if I catch you coming to work stoned, you're fired"
ReplyDeleteRegrettably, your still falling into the mindset of the prohibitionists with your catch-all derogatory comment. Some of these illicit drugs have actual medical uses whether Congress -- who are not medical professionals -- will admit it or not and need to be taken to alleviate the symptoms of the maladies of which patients suffer. Whether they are fired should be between the employer and the employee after the employee demonstrates his level of impairment (or lack of) with whatever drug he is taking.
Even if I think it's silly to fire a grocery stocker for coming to work stoned (notice I didn't say "for failing a random drug test"), I do think it's the business owner's right to do so. And that holds whether the medication is prohibited by "law" or not. If a job requires attention to detail, I can't take most allergy medications and still do my job. It has nothing to do with prohibition, but with doing the job I am being paid to do.
Delete