What political ideologies support legalization of all drugs?

looks like DMT

all of them

Attached: zergface violence escalated ok.jpg (388x443, 151K)

Prohibition increases drug costs.
Any increase of costs ultimately leads to a reduction in market share. On the long term all prohibition works. But it requires several generations to reset the time-preference of the individuals.

Those who heavily desire a drug will forgo other utilities to pay the more expensive price of the drug during prohibition. However many of these utilities are investments that would make them and their families more successful. So via the process of social darwinism the non drug users become more successful due to prohibition and the drug users are weeded out of society.

Legal to possess. Fine. Illegal to sell, however. Because if it is legal, then the predators will be selling to minors and young 20 year olds who have no mentors. Make it all legal but make it legal for me to shoot drug dealers. Or just make drugs illegal.

why die from drugs when you can die from high cholesterol instead

I used to be completely opposed to this shit, until a close friend started selling some. I've used him to gather data, and it's somewhat opened my eyes on the issue. Here's a few interesting points.

>Almost all drugs sold outside of Cocaine and Heroin come from the State.
As in, people who sell their meds. Every retirement home will have one or two old ladies who happens to be the aunt or grandma of a drug dealer, and she'll buy the extra meds from other old ladies who need cash. And how are you going to stop this, when the amount of those meds given out is based on arbitrary definitions? Basically, ask for a little more than you need, use a little less than you need, sell the extra. Plus people who keep receiving the meds of dead relatives for months to years, etc... State provides almost all the drugs on the market being sold by drug dealers already.

>Very few people are self destructive.
I used to think that drug usage was a downward slope, as in you started with a little, it went up over time until you killed yourself. But that's not the case at all. 90% of users are at an "equilibrium" point where they consume the same amount week on week. The ones who self destruct and OD start off hard and head straight into self-destruct. They're people who were broken already, and if they aren't killing themselves with drugs, they're doing it with something else.

>Respect freedom
Relative to the last point, it's not like drugs are the only things people can use to destroy themselves. Alcohol, tobacco, FOOD, meds can all do it. And if we let people turn themselves into massive burdens and die through food, why the fuck do we forbid it for drugs? Treat all the same. Either control all freedom, or let everyone do what they want with themselves.

I have a few more points, but these are the main ones I came to. I'll never consume drugs myself, nor sell some, but I can't find it morally reprehensible to do either if you chose to.

>Prohibition increases drug costs.
>Any increase of costs ultimately leads to a reduction in market share.

Actually, the price of drugs hasn't increased in decades. It's much cheaper to consume now than ever before. And even the legalization of Pot here hasn't had any impact on dealers. They still sell as much, at the same price. If anything, they sell more.

That’s protein powder.

That's because prohibition effort hasn't kept up with technology. Prohibition is active. We don't have true prohibition.

The only real impact I've seen from prohibition have been pure negatives. Prohibition impacts quality. The amount of drugs a dealer sells is fairly steady week on week, month on month with a few peeks and valleys around various holidays, so if a big bust happens and a shipment is seized, the end users end up suffering because they DEMAND just as much as they usually do, and to satisfy demand, dealers cut their drugs with various shit that has terrible effects.

Without prohibition or these busts, the users would be much more likely to only get clean, pure drugs. Or they'd have a much better access to it, which would be overall safer. Not safe, just safer. And again, if they want to kill themselves with drugs, it's their right to do so.

A negative quality of life for the drug user is the goal.
The goal is to implement social darwinism to evolve the entire culture into a non-drug-using one via evolutionary selection.
A drug-using parent will likely have drug-using children. But if the would-be parent has a negative quality of life, they are less likely to have children, and have less of them because they will be unable to attract a mate.

I'm all for it. Put the druggies "not in a zoo" so we can take your kids and point out the degeneracy. Its better to see something once, than to hear about it a hundred times.

Attached: _101074543_pig.jpg (660x438, 33K)

Ron paul supports the legalization of drugs. We have a nanny state on one hand and an enabler on the other since the cia runs drugs across the boarder anyway. Let people live their own lives. If you 'hate druggies' then let them kill themselves.

free for everyone

Liberalism and Libertarianism.

Just the non-authoritarian ones who believe in individual liberty.

All drugs should be legalized, controlled and taxed. This is just a matter of logic. People are going to get drugs if they are degenerate, at least they know that they are paying for a quality product. Within 5 years of this starting, most of the deadbeats and retards would be dead, and the problem would have generated taxes well in excess of what would have been predicted. I would guarantee it.

in medieval Christian Europe all drugs were legal.
just sayin

>The goal is to implement social darwinism to evolve the entire culture into a non-drug-using one
That's literally impossible tough. Drug use isn't a hard cut-off "yes or no" deal. It's on a sliding scale. Everything we consume affects us in some way, and we've arbitrarily decided that certain things shouldn't be consumed on no real objective basis.

What's important is that we should be a society where everyone consumes whatever they want responsibly, without abuse. Be it food or drink or drug. Prohibition will never achieve this, while price control, quality control, education and help will.

Libertarianism

First question, what is your goal?
Second question, what is your goal, really?
Third question, are you sure that's what you want?
Fourth question, the only one I've seen that will not place any restrictions on use is Free Market Libertarian Capitalism.
I've heard stories that Islam may allow some drugs, but I don't believe it allows all of them.
Hindu Caste Monarchy might, but it would depend on the Monarch, I believe.
Generally, most societies have a form of taboo against drugs because they tend to create addicts who die of starvation related diseases, and those taboos have translated to their legal forms.
Personally, I have no problem with restrictions on some drugs in some places. I would rather you be skinned alive, than accept you selling addictives to children, for instance.

Besan

>Hedonism
>Judaism
>Liberal Christianity
>Free market fundamentalist libertarianism
>Anarcho-syndicalist socialism
>Neo Pagan
>occult

>It's on a sliding scale
I agree. And I want to slide it towards the direction of less use.

>Everything we consume affects us in some way, and we've arbitrarily decided that certain things shouldn't be consumed on no real objective basis.
What I'm talking about here is mostly psychoactive compounds which have addictive effects or effects that are counter to the broad goals of the nation.
Its not an objective descision. Its a value judgement. There is no "rational" choice here. Its what a nation values.
There are no objective morals, only decisions that stem from a system of values.
I for one like the system of values that is traditionally known as Western Culture.
This is a system which had very little debauchery in the middle and lower classes.
For purely aesthetic reasons, I want there to be less psychoactive drug use.

>What's important is that we should be a society where everyone consumes whatever they want responsibly
No. What's important is what the nation values. Individualism is a cancer. A spreading of power of single cells over the greater organism.

>Prohibition will never achieve this
It certainly can.

>price control
This is just prohibition-lite. Instead of trying to raise the cost to infinity, it raises it to a specific number.

>quality control
Basically just a euphemism for price-control, as the results are the same

>education
Education is important for prohibition, although I would take it one step further and make outright propaganda. Truth doesn't matter, results do.

>help
usually the cost to help is higher than just to let the drug-user die an earlier death, which will ultimately result in the same societal change.
Plus help can't change their addictive genes, whereas evolutionary selection can.

>What's important is what the nation values.
I value personal responsibility and freedom. Is this antithetical to what you see as western values? If so, then we'll have to fight to see which of our ideal western values will prevail.

this is a mining thread.

everyone responding in this thread is having their personal information captured by multiple third-parties.

Attached: 1546976255501.gif (350x455, 2.89M)

Liberalism isn't western ideology.
Liberalism is a parasite that began in the late-western culture period known as the "enlightenment"

True western values are the desire of conquering infinite space.
Enlightenment liberalism/individualism is the death of western society.

See: Spengler's Decline of the West

>>quality control
>Basically just a euphemism for price-control

But this is wrong. If you want to consume coffee, quality control assures you that there is only coffee in your coffee, and not a mix of arsenic and coffee. That's what I mean about quality control for drugs. If you want to consume Heroin or Cocaine or Pot, you should be able to buy unadulterated amounts of those so that you know what you're getting and what the effects will be. A LOT of the overdoses and bad side effects of drugs we see are due to compounds mixed into them to increase profits. Quality control would get rid of this, a huge step in the right direction.

>Liberalism isn't western ideology.
Yes it is. And it isn't the parasite. Personal freedoms will never, ever be wrong. The issue came when we started to abandon personal responsibility. Our rights have a cost, and that cost is the results of the actions we takes with these rights. This is what brought us to greatness. Both of these, together. I want to restore the one that is missing, you want to turn us into slaves to your ideals.

Point to where in the constitution it says I can't have drugs?

>quality control
is good business. you kill your clients, you destroy your market, and remove all the specializations that that market provides to you.

Most people want to be slaves. They don't want to think of high culture. They don't want to make decisions. They want to work for a greater purpose.

In individualism there is NO greater purpose than one's own personal values.
In individualism it is irrational to sacrafice yourself for higher purpose.
In individualism the only co-operation that is successful is win-win co-operation, but when your enemy is also winning you are bringing your own downfall.
There must be room for win-lose or even lose-lose, as sometimes pyrrhic victory is more important.
Sometimes all that's important is seeing your enemies burn.

But as regulation, it is questionable.
The extremity on both sides is death to the consumer.
The Seller-regulated product may see a dangerous product produced and sold because it's more profitable in the immediate to the seller.
The State-regulated may see a dangerous product remain on the shelves because a safer competition would literally eliminate the need for the regulating agency.

idk, why dont you kill yourself and find out?

The first question government should ask is can they control it?
The second they should ask is, if we cant control it can we tax it?
In the case of Marijuana the answers are the following.
No you can't control it because any fool who can handle a chia pet can grow it int heir backyard.
Yes you can tax it because those fools are impatient enough to pay for it like cigarettes.

Of course you can control it, it's a matter of how much it's worth investing.
Nobody needs weed to stay alive, and as weed users love to say, you can't get addicted, so nobody needs weed to stay alive.

Suicide. Kill yourself druggie faggot.