The war on drugs has created a burgeoning criminal class and a massive militarized police force. Friedman is correct, prohibition failed because it was a form of legalism. The war on drugs is similar. Taking illicit drugs is a moral inequity, but it is not a crime - there is a difference. To fail to make this distinction is more destructive than the drugs themselves.
imagine with me for a moment that fentanyl is regulated like alcohol and tobacco instead of being comingled with cocain and other recreational drugs. fentanyl use could be almost as safe to use as alcohol. instead of black marketing all these drugs and driving profits to the cartels you could slash their income to almost nothing.
I agree with M.F. on many issues, but not this one. It's easy to make these arguments in the land of throry, but which city and which country would like to start the experiment and see what consequences follow, not just individual consequences, but consequences to families and communities.
same. Portland, OR is a recent case study in which "hard drugs" were legalized. the place is overrun with addicts, the place is tremendously unsafe, and the populace who voted for it is now pushing back.
But then shouldn't u promote stronger family values instead? What are addicts if not victims of shitty parents, or circumstace if u want to be broad with it
@@nicmart none, except that they are not liable when consumed drugs and do bad things. same like alcohol, if you drink, you are not liable. As long as you stay liable for your actions, you can eat and drink and smoke whatever you want.
What was China's experience with the opiate war? Legalizing drugs would only create similar and more problems and harm as we already have with alcohol. Why stop at drugs, why not homicide, pedophilia, and beastiality? I society has the right to set limits on permissive and impermissible conduct. It is the lack of enforcement of of boarders, ports, and areas where drugs and crime happen that is the issue - not the law or crimes occurance.
This is a poor take with zero understanding of nuance. When one takes drugs one is putting something into one's own body. Only limits should be on stopping others from passively participating unvoluntarily such as passive smoking etc. Homicide, pedophilia, and bestiality all involve others doing things to others. Plus, the reliance on opiates and painkillers to dull the pains of life come down to the culture of a society and what values are encouraged. A culture that lets people who self harm waste away but allows avenues of help to those who want to help themselves, such as private rehabs and health facilities, encourage natural selection. People who have things going on in life and who strive for goals don't live their lives in the gutter taking heroin. Read Life at the Bottom by Theodore Dalrymple if you need literature on the lack of innocence in the "under class" China had an opioid epidemic because it wasn't a culture that encouraged self responsibility and the freedom to make one's mistakes and to learn from them and find avenues to create wealth and happiness for oneself. It has always been a culture of authoritarianism and taking from others which led to awful conditions with very little prospect of social mobility.
IIRC, the Chinese call the aftermath of the opium wars "the Century of Shame." The Qing dynasty was brought to its knees because of the social degradation caused by mass addiction to opium. Ultimately, the mistake here is in comparing alcohol to opium. Alcohol can safely be consumed fairly regularly in modest quantities without creating dependence. Opiates, in this case heroin, cannot. That first hit is enough to get the job done because it is so potent. Once the body develops a physiological dependence on the substance, that's it. It's a "need" that person will experience for the rest of his life no different than the sensation of hunger or thirst. The psychological dependence just compounds the problem. This isn't a question of morality. You can't just quit it cold turkey if you wake up today and decide, "that's it, I'm done with this." You can't force it either, like they tried to have the cops do. Ask anyone who's struggled with addiction or anyone trained to treat it. It is a lifelong battle once it sets in. You always will have that need and there's always the potential for relapse. Anything can trigger it. He talks about "freedom" and it's a compelling argument, but the freedom to enslave yourself to dependence on a drug is not one we ought to be celebrating or promoting. Some things are too dangerous not to regulate. Heroin is such a thing.
@@kma3647 Friedman had already responded to your position in the video! What you are saying is that its okay for Government to be Paternalistic -- but that's NOT their job, man. With Friedman, we have addiction to contend with, but with your argument, we'd end up with a DOUBLE problem -- addiction-based criminal activity. Watch the video again and LISTEN carefully.
@@kma3647 called that by the powers that be in china. If I've learnt anything is that governments will blame their failures on an arbitrary thing. I can guarantee you that there are way more hard drug addicts now than there were then in china, proportional to the population. There are a million things for people to enslave themselves to and it is down to people to pull and discipline themselves away from those things. I have never once decided to try Heroin and most people who get addicted to it have the choice to take it in the first place. He isn't promoting or championing getting addicted and enslaved. He is championing having the right to be responsible for yourself.
@@MrJabbothehut Yeah, so drug and alcohol addicts are harmless peace loving people, if left to indulge in their vices? The problems in the inner cities have nothing to do with addiction, it just just the enforcement that is the problem??? People relying on "nuance" seem to blind their eyes to facts, and gouge their brain out cuz they can't see how arguments slip into areas they never imagine. I like Milton Freeman, but some of his ideas are ridiculous and based on nothing but idealistic assumptions which seems to forget that some of his ideas have been tried in the past and failed miserably.
Im a huge psychonaut but with fentanyl ive relaxed by libertarian stance. I think we should take those trafficking that substance and put em behind bars and throw away the key. Ppl always bring up speakeasies and al capone. That was chicago. Just like now big cities are flooded with open.air drug markets and people nodding off on the sidewalk. But what about middle and rural america. Were there speakeasies in small towns? Im asking.
Speakeasies weren't necessary. There have always been rural people who made their own alcohol, and if you know who to contact and where to pick up the drop, you could get what you were after. As for middle America, my grandfather in a small town made bathtub gin during prohibition.
Possibly, but more importantly those areas produced much of the distilled spirits which supplied the urban speakeasies. One issue with fentanyl is that the substance itself is not schedule I as it has medical utility. Therefore, its sale and possession can't carry the severe federal sentencing guidelines which automatically apply to those schedule I drugs with no accepted medical application. It is somewhat surprising the media isn't overflowing with stories of wrongful death prosecutions of dealers who (according to the media) sold fentanyl as cocaine or some other completely different substance. Such transactions make zero marketing sense from a dealer's perspective, and I have to believe there's some critical piece missing from media reports of such cases, assuming a given report is true to begin with.
Just as it is with guns, we have to stop blaming the drug. Those addicts on the street that you've alluded to, ended up there because of the Jackasses that destroyed our economy. Once your life has been ruined, why would you want it prolonged anyway? The open border that the Democrats intentionally leaves open brought in all this fentanyl. If it's in the selfish interest of a politician to do the right thing, only then will s/he do it. Chicago and Capone represent many cities and many mob bosses, but the movies would leave one thinking it was just that place or that person. It's a prevalent thing. Every adult has the right to put in their bodies what they wish, but once you say, "But not this", then it becomes a slippery slope of Big Brother. Take away the misery that bad governance causes and many more folks will have less reason to take these drugs.
Government is too big. It should be the greatest defender of our rights, but it has become the greatest threat to those rights.
Milton Friedman and Antonin Artaud share the same position on this issue. If we would've heeded these men, we may still have John Belushi.
We didn't heed them. Drugs were illegal then and illegal now. John didn't die of a pot overdose. No one has.
The war on drugs has created a burgeoning criminal class and a massive militarized police force. Friedman is correct, prohibition failed because it was a form of legalism. The war on drugs is similar. Taking illicit drugs is a moral inequity, but it is not a crime - there is a difference. To fail to make this distinction is more destructive than the drugs themselves.
imagine with me for a moment that fentanyl is regulated like alcohol and tobacco instead of being comingled with cocain and other recreational drugs. fentanyl use could be almost as safe to use as alcohol. instead of black marketing all these drugs and driving profits to the cartels you could slash their income to almost nothing.
It would also slash government authority to strip people of their wealth on nothing more than suspicion or false accusations.
Meanwhile Rothbard: unleash the police
Big fan of Friedman. Disagree 100% on this issue.
why? what facts do you have that point to resisting the drug wave being the answer to solving the drug wave? what you resist persists.
Look at how Portugal tackled this issue. Decriminalization is the way forward
in Theory I agree. In reality, disagree 100%
I agree with M.F. on many issues, but not this one. It's easy to make these arguments in the land of throry, but which city and which country would like to start the experiment and see what consequences follow, not just individual consequences, but consequences to families and communities.
same. Portland, OR is a recent case study in which "hard drugs" were legalized. the place is overrun with addicts, the place is tremendously unsafe, and the populace who voted for it is now pushing back.
I can not begin to imagine how little attention you were paying. He later pointed to prohibition as proof
@@netguy888 Rather than propose a succinct and reasonable counter argument, it seems you're using a leftist tactic of insults and condescension.
But then shouldn't u promote stronger family values instead? What are addicts if not victims of shitty parents, or circumstace if u want to be broad with it
@@siddid7620 Why not both?
Did nobody listen to what he said?
Wrong, people under drugs are no longer legally competent and then the question is: who is liable for them?
What were the harmful consequences when all drugs were legal in America, including heroin and cocaine?
@@nicmart none, except that they are not liable when consumed drugs and do bad things. same like alcohol, if you drink, you are not liable. As long as you stay liable for your actions, you can eat and drink and smoke whatever you want.
@@maxmuster3229 Of course you are expressing an opinion, not describing things as they are.
What a muppet that interviewer is!
What was China's experience with the opiate war?
Legalizing drugs would only create similar and more problems and harm as we already have with alcohol.
Why stop at drugs, why not homicide, pedophilia, and beastiality? I society has the right to set limits on permissive and impermissible conduct. It is the lack of enforcement of of boarders, ports, and areas where drugs and crime happen that is the issue - not the law or crimes occurance.
This is a poor take with zero understanding of nuance. When one takes drugs one is putting something into one's own body. Only limits should be on stopping others from passively participating unvoluntarily such as passive smoking etc. Homicide, pedophilia, and bestiality all involve others doing things to others.
Plus, the reliance on opiates and painkillers to dull the pains of life come down to the culture of a society and what values are encouraged. A culture that lets people who self harm waste away but allows avenues of help to those who want to help themselves, such as private rehabs and health facilities, encourage natural selection. People who have things going on in life and who strive for goals don't live their lives in the gutter taking heroin. Read Life at the Bottom by Theodore Dalrymple if you need literature on the lack of innocence in the "under class"
China had an opioid epidemic because it wasn't a culture that encouraged self responsibility and the freedom to make one's mistakes and to learn from them and find avenues to create wealth and happiness for oneself. It has always been a culture of authoritarianism and taking from others which led to awful conditions with very little prospect of social mobility.
IIRC, the Chinese call the aftermath of the opium wars "the Century of Shame." The Qing dynasty was brought to its knees because of the social degradation caused by mass addiction to opium. Ultimately, the mistake here is in comparing alcohol to opium. Alcohol can safely be consumed fairly regularly in modest quantities without creating dependence. Opiates, in this case heroin, cannot. That first hit is enough to get the job done because it is so potent. Once the body develops a physiological dependence on the substance, that's it. It's a "need" that person will experience for the rest of his life no different than the sensation of hunger or thirst. The psychological dependence just compounds the problem. This isn't a question of morality. You can't just quit it cold turkey if you wake up today and decide, "that's it, I'm done with this." You can't force it either, like they tried to have the cops do. Ask anyone who's struggled with addiction or anyone trained to treat it. It is a lifelong battle once it sets in. You always will have that need and there's always the potential for relapse. Anything can trigger it. He talks about "freedom" and it's a compelling argument, but the freedom to enslave yourself to dependence on a drug is not one we ought to be celebrating or promoting.
Some things are too dangerous not to regulate. Heroin is such a thing.
@@kma3647
Friedman had already responded to your position in the video! What you are saying is that its okay for Government to be Paternalistic -- but that's NOT their job, man. With Friedman, we have addiction to contend with, but with your argument, we'd end up with a DOUBLE problem -- addiction-based criminal activity. Watch the video again and LISTEN carefully.
@@kma3647 called that by the powers that be in china. If I've learnt anything is that governments will blame their failures on an arbitrary thing. I can guarantee you that there are way more hard drug addicts now than there were then in china, proportional to the population.
There are a million things for people to enslave themselves to and it is down to people to pull and discipline themselves away from those things. I have never once decided to try Heroin and most people who get addicted to it have the choice to take it in the first place.
He isn't promoting or championing getting addicted and enslaved. He is championing having the right to be responsible for yourself.
@@MrJabbothehut Yeah, so drug and alcohol addicts are harmless peace loving people, if left to indulge in their vices? The problems in the inner cities have nothing to do with addiction, it just just the enforcement that is the problem???
People relying on "nuance" seem to blind their eyes to facts, and gouge their brain out cuz they can't see how arguments slip into areas they never imagine.
I like Milton Freeman, but some of his ideas are ridiculous and based on nothing but idealistic assumptions which seems to forget that some of his ideas have been tried in the past and failed miserably.
Im a huge psychonaut but with fentanyl ive relaxed by libertarian stance. I think we should take those trafficking that substance and put em behind bars and throw away the key. Ppl always bring up speakeasies and al capone. That was chicago. Just like now big cities are flooded with open.air drug markets and people nodding off on the sidewalk. But what about middle and rural america. Were there speakeasies in small towns? Im asking.
no they were too busy selling moonshines and making cars that can outrun the police.
Speakeasies weren't necessary. There have always been rural people who made their own alcohol, and if you know who to contact and where to pick up the drop, you could get what you were after.
As for middle America, my grandfather in a small town made bathtub gin during prohibition.
Want me to show you the drug dens in my town?, no one talks about them, or bust them...
Possibly, but more importantly those areas produced much of the distilled spirits which supplied the urban speakeasies.
One issue with fentanyl is that the substance itself is not schedule I as it has medical utility. Therefore, its sale and possession can't carry the severe federal sentencing guidelines which automatically apply to those schedule I drugs with no accepted medical application.
It is somewhat surprising the media isn't overflowing with stories of wrongful death prosecutions of dealers who (according to the media) sold fentanyl as cocaine or some other completely different substance. Such transactions make zero marketing sense from a dealer's perspective, and I have to believe there's some critical piece missing from media reports of such cases, assuming a given report is true to begin with.
Just as it is with guns, we have to stop blaming the drug. Those addicts on the street that you've alluded to, ended up there because of the Jackasses that destroyed our economy. Once your life has been ruined, why would you want it prolonged anyway? The open border that the Democrats intentionally leaves open brought in all this fentanyl. If it's in the selfish interest of a politician to do the right thing, only then will s/he do it. Chicago and Capone represent many cities and many mob bosses, but the movies would leave one thinking it was just that place or that person. It's a prevalent thing. Every adult has the right to put in their bodies what they wish, but once you say, "But not this", then it becomes a slippery slope of Big Brother. Take away the misery that bad governance causes and many more folks will have less reason to take these drugs.