Yaron Answers: Should Drugs Be Legal?

[victoriangirl]

EXACTLY. FINALLY! Someone with a rational viewpoint on drugs.

[TeaParty]

>Mandate proper labeling, with all the necessary warnings

For politicians, not merely drugs...

[blakecircle]

Mr. Brooks is certainly consistent. He often invokes rights. My question for him is where do these rights come from and do they have any limits?

[jamesmiller]

Take government off peoples backs and let them grow up, and fully take control of their own lives is what Yaron is saying here. If it kills them or not, does nature really care?

[vikingvista]

I seek experts for arguments, not pronouncements. I judge expert arguments all the time, and often reject them. For those of us who believe logic is objective, rather than a function of the person exercising it, Brook's arguments are often compelling. The fact that he is expert in Objectivism may have helped him in the development of such arguments, but there's no need to know that, since arguments stand on their own merits.

You may stop asserting you embrace irrelevant appeals. I'm convinced.

[vonGleichenT]

The Dutch people have been enjoying it for a long time, and haven't had the problems that you are worried about. It's a matter of choice.

[TimothySmithMIPM]

Most of the "top dogs" that are producing or distributing the drugs don't do drugs. It is just a way to make vast amounts of money. Take away the profit motive, and they will be forced to find something else. However, because we have lobbyists, there will always be someone willing to pass a "feel good" law that enables blackmarket profiteering...primarily because of the generous contributions to their election campaign.

[Bith]

Limits? Not really, no. They come from an idea of nearly-absolute freedom. The concept, so far as I understand it, is that everybody should be able to do exactly what they want under the condition that no person is nonconsensually involved or harmed.

[lilit_ivanyan]

I also think that if drug usage is legalized, there will be a lot of benefits. First, making them illegal hasn't stopped anyone from using them. Instead, it's all just gone hidden. If we made drugs legal, we could keep an eye on their quality, which means less chance of getting something nasty that could hurt you more. Also, if drugs were legal, the dealers who make a lot of money from selling them wouldn't have the power they have now. Right now, a lot of the money from illegal drug sales goes to these groups, increasing the levels of crime and violence. If the government took over selling drugs, the money could go to good stuff like schools and hospitals. Also, talking about health, if drugs weren't illegal, people who need help for drug problems would be more likely to get it without being scared of getting in trouble. This would mean fewer health problems and less shame for them. And finally, think about the money. Legalizing drugs could bring in loads of tax cash that we could use for improving our communities, making them safer and healthier for everyone.

[rmcdaniel]

He very briefly touched on an issue that is almost always ignored, but should be more openly addressed. That is, the ability to purchase and use medicinal drugs as well, without requiring gov't control. If there are ethical/philosophical reasons to allow the free use of pot & heroin (and I believe there are), then why in the world are life-saving antibiotics and heart medicines not being discussed at the same time?
Mandate proper labeling, with all the necessary warnings, then make them OTC.

[Berelore]

you should be able to determine your own level of risk in all endeavors.

[jasontch]

My. Argument against drug is that, addiction is a kind of coercion to make you buy more drugs, and we should be protected from coercion.

[TeaParty]

No, because then uncool people would use drugs and it would be difficult to be snobbish about finding some primo Panama Red. Can you even imagine the horrid sounds of your grandmother and her friends playing canasta with a bong on the card table? I think not!

[vikingvista]

I'll take your historical revision as evidence of progress, even if you don't take exposure very well. As for me, it doesn't take much time. You have so many layers of contradiction in one short post that I find it interesting to see how you attempt to explain your way out. Thanks for glancing at my channel, but since you don't know who I am, your action of pursuing my opinions once again contradicts your words. I.e., not knowing who I am, you have no way of knowing if my arguments are valid.

[Bith]

There is sense here, but what of parents in this? Drug-addicts are obviously not in a position to be decent, rational parents and are unable to create psychologically healthy environments for children--what do we do with the children and the parents' freedom to have them? We could look to private and not-for-profit organizations here, but there's the matter of the child's "ownership" and the parents' rights all tied in with the child's well being.

[vikingvista]

Unkhoteling, why do you think an argument's validity depends upon who articulates it? And how is it you can form your opinions in a vacuum?

[FourthRoot]

1:17 Thumbs up for increasing drug use!

[TeaParty]

What problems?! My post is outrageous humor.

[TheBilliam]

have you seen the effects of taking crystal meth? I wouldn't say the pain is 'low'

[vikingvista]

You misunderstood. I know you *would* assume it incorrect, b/c you think a statement's truth value depends on who utters it. You confirm this by your second sentence (appeal to authority). On top of being a proponent of logic's best-understood informal fallacies, you're oblivious to the irony of YOU giving opinions, and to the hypocrisy of you choosing to watch the video.

You can only find out if someone is a waste of time for insightful arguments by scrutinizing the arguments, not the person.