Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Monday, May 6, 2013

The Decriminalise/Legalise Cannabis Debate Again - & Animal Testing.

Economist Matt Nolan has a nice article up on TVHE today on the externalities regarding K2 and drug use, and the economic (and moral) argument for drug decriminalisation. Well worth a read: as ever, balanced, well-stated economist faire.

I’ve written about the need for decriminalisation many times, from a strictly philosophical point of view: namely, we are adults, we should decide what to do with our bodies, and be responsible for those decisions, not the state. For me the decrimilisation debate is almost inseparable from the euthanasia debate: such basic rights for free adults, yet denied by successive ministers on the first count vis a vis drugs, and disgracefully in the case of euthanasia, given this is an issue many of us will have to face, our ability to die with dignity in the arms of our loved ones without making them criminals, which our system preposterously puts down to a lottery, being Maryan Street's Bill subject to the Parliamentary ballot system. A lottery on an issue as fundamental as this is something I find offensive.

Anyway, below is simply my hot-headed comment posted to Matt’s cool-headed analysis:

Not on all fours with your piece, Matt, but I'll say my piece.

This whole issue is criminal. Cannabis, the plant, is less harmful than alcohol; its first recorded use was 2727 BC, it is impossible to overdose because unlike these dreadful synthetics, it’s not toxic: indeed, cannabis has documented medicinal qualities; its pain relieving powers are uncontroversial, now legalised in 35 US states. I have a friend, 39 years old, being treated for bone cancer, and for whom cannabis has proven the best substance at helping to manage his pain, which is considerable, and yet on top of all his issues, he has to risk criminal prosecution to source, and meaning it is not being managed in conjunction with the cocktail of legal drugs being administered.

Inhumane and insane. I would like to see Minister Dunne face up to him and explain why he is allowed no legal recourse to cannabis for his pain relief.

The fact natural cannabis is not, at the very least - forget the ethical argument for decriminalisation - in the pain treating arsenal of every hospital and hospice, is an indictment on our system of social democracy, and every minister who has held that portfolio. And returning to the current minister, on the advent of the current law change banning K2, but effectively setting the conditions for tortuous animal testing of these toxic synthetics for them to go on the market, when the plant they are trying to replicate is harmless, has me angry beyond words. He calls himself a liberal (huh?) democrat: as an animal lover, and freedom lover, I call him a barbaric ... (as I said, it's not polite to put it into words).

If animal testing is allowed, then I will drop my Objectivist / Libertarian principles in the blink of an eye, and this Minister of My Body will find himself in a non-violent, albeit vicious, war with not just myself, but the animal protection community, because in the case of torturing an animal so an adult can make the recreational choice to use drugs for a high, the allowance of same signifies a minister of black heart and implacable cruelty. And I’m not just emoting: a reasoned approach to human and animal welfare draws that inescapable conclusion. We literally are torturing animals, including dogs, for our own recreation, when a harmless alternative exists – what does that say about you and your vaunted reasonableness, Mr Dunne? I’m fascinated to see what comes from United Future’s decision-making matrix on this one.

Side note: I think my blog is mainly becoming about how democracy doesn’t work, or rather, as voters pursue the illusory free lunch that all politicians continue to irresponsibly dangle before them, how democracy is always on the road to mobocracy and statism; my serfdom. So, it doesn’t really matter whether National or Labour win in 2014, other than perhaps the speed of our demise, and United Future has let the IRD literarily off its leash while condoning the torture of our animal friends, so while Libertarianz will always have my party vote, for the candidate I will vote on single issues only: if I was in Maryan Street’s electorate she’d get my electorate vote to support her euthanasia bill, and if I lived in Dunedin (whichever applicable ward), Clare Curran would get my vote if she firmed up her support of the following tweet:

It’s not a beautiful world being legislated by the current Minster of Taking and My Body, or any party in parliament, for that matter: it truly is a barbaric one. But that Ministership, and the one for Taking that has allowed the Westminster Principle to be destroyed, both need to change.

No comments:

Post a Comment