Mideast: The Big Debate - Daniel v. Peter

[MHS2002]

Peter Bell, what is your stance on drug legalization?

[Peter]

Peter Bell, what is your stance on drug legalization?

Drug legalisation can both be damaging to the longer term public health and also to the wider fabric of the community. Drugs such as heroin and ecstacy have no tradition or history of use in the United States; They offer no particular benefits to their users, and they can leave the users with life-devastating addictions, family members with the problem of helping them through a long rehabilitation. The crime associated with people trying to feed their addiction is damaging to communities and often forces law abiding citizens to live in fear of muggings.

I am a believer in liberty, but not at the price of other people's liberty. For these reasons I could not support the legalisation of heroin, ecstacy, coccaine, LSD and other hard drugs.

My position on cannibis is undecided; The drug has nowhere near the level of damaging side-effects as other drugs and does not have the associated problems for the community. There are circumstances where I could accept its legalisation under regulation, but I would likely abstain in any vote on the matter.

[Joe Republic]

Exactly which drugs are you proposing to legalise?

Most of them. Marijuana and ecstasy, as well as other such drugs, will be treated the same way as tobacco and alcohol.

Opiates like heroin will be treated like morphine, available by prescription only. Similar treatment will be in order for amphetamines.

LSD will remain illegal. It is dangerous in any dose, and has no medicinal value. That's my standard: drugs that can be used in moderation reasonably safely and/or have some form of medicinal value should be legal.

To be honest, I have not decided what do with cocaine. Probably remain illegal, or perhaps available by prescription.

raising money by applying sales and excise taxes to gambling, prostitution, and drug businesses that will no longer be underground.

DanielX:

Although I find your endorsement of drug legalisation as irresponsible and uninformed, and the idea of taxing gambling and prostitutes as tantamount to the liberalisation of socially destructive activities, I think I agree with most other policies.  Though please tell me exactly what you do have in common with the mainstream Republican party of which you seem to be aligned.

Also, as a potential voter, and a swing voter at that, please tell me how you feel about certain social issues.  In particular, I'd like you to tell me where you stand on the Defence of Marriage Act and the issue of abortion.

[Joe Republic]

On the same issues, I'd also like to hear from Peter Bell.

Also, and I have to admit I'm new to all this, when exactly is the election?  And who are all the candidates?

[Peter]

Also, and I have to admit I'm new to all this, when exactly is the election? And who are all the candidates?

The election begins on 21st January at midnight EST and concludes 72 hours later. There will be a thread established for voting. The candidates are myself and DanielX so far, though new candidates may yet file.

Also, as a potential voter, and a swing voter at that, please tell me how you feel about certain social issues. In particular, I'd like you to tell me where you stand on the Defence of Marriage Act and the issue of abortion.

Assuming you aren't asking me how I am aligned to the Republican party, because I quite clearly am not, I'll answer just these two bits.

DOMA doesn't exist on the forum. Gay marriage is legal and all authority for it has been passed for defining marriage to the federal government by the Constitution.

Abortion is a tricky issue; I don't think its appropriate to go fishing for votes by appealing to a pro-life or pro-choice mindset, so I'm not going to. I will certainly go this far however, there is in my opinion a Constitutional directive to protect the mother's life and health, and certainly I feel a moral imperative for that also. Any law on this issue must recognise this. Beyond that, I think it should be for every person to decide with their own conscience what's best for them, and for the State to maintain its distance from what is an incredibly emotive and distressing issues for those closest to it.

[Peter]

bumping for Daniel to answer.

Also are there any other questions from citizens (you don't have to be mideastern obviously)?

[Akno21]

Do you think Governor's should have a say (vote) in a tied Senate election, when the tie is otherwise unbreakable, or should the Senate do that, or should there be another system?

The context of this question is from Gabu's Electoral Reform Bill/Amendment in the Senate right now.

[Peter]

Do you think Governor's should have a say (vote) in a tied Senate election, when the tie is otherwise unbreakable, or should the Senate do that, or should there be another system?

No, with one qualification. A proposal to use Governors in this fashion gives disproportionate to the Midwest under the present setup and would dilute the power of Northeast voters in my opinion. My one qualification is that if we were to ever return to Regional seats in the Senate, I would find it acceptable for the individual Regional Governor to break a tie.

The problem is complicated, though presently I favour the system used, i.e. we start counting first preferences, then second preferences, etc. The reason for this is that if we start counting sixth preferences the same as first preferences in this tie break scenario, it completely ignores the intent of the voter. Many voters do often preference every candidate on their ballots, even when they wouldn't want to see certain candidates in office. To treat these lower preferences the same as first preferences in tie breaks, is in my opinion, wrong.

Should this still result in a tie, then obviously some sort of tie break is still needed. In the case of the Presidency, this can be achieved by a vote of the Senate. Random number draws are too open to fraud in my opinion. It might be appropriate to ask the other District Senator to break the tie, I think thats about the only option left.

[DanielX]

Exactly which drugs are you proposing to legalise?

Most of them. Marijuana and ecstasy, as well as other such drugs, will be treated the same way as tobacco and alcohol.

Opiates like heroin will be treated like morphine, available by prescription only. Similar treatment will be in order for amphetamines.

LSD will remain illegal. It is dangerous in any dose, and has no medicinal value. That's my standard: drugs that can be used in moderation reasonably safely and/or have some form of medicinal value should be legal.

To be honest, I have not decided what do with cocaine. Probably remain illegal, or perhaps available by prescription.

raising money by applying sales and excise taxes to gambling, prostitution, and drug businesses that will no longer be underground.

DanielX:

Although I find your endorsement of drug legalisation as irresponsible and uninformed, and the idea of taxing gambling and prostitutes as tantamount to the liberalisation of socially destructive activities, I think I agree with most other policies.  Though please tell me exactly what you do have in common with the mainstream Republican party of which you seem to be aligned.

First off, notice I'm not a 'Republican'. What do I have in common with them? A desire for sensible, small-government economic policy. I, like most Republicans, favor low taxes and a "liberal" economy. Also, I align with them on foreign policy, but that really isn't a big issue for a governor.

My big disagreements, as you can see, are social issues - drugs, gambling, prostitution and other 'sin' stuff that, in my opinion, is up to individuals and, for legislation, small communities. Note that I do oppose abortion, except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. However, I don't see anything, at the moment, that I can do about it, save perhaps banning late-term abortions when a mother's life is not at risk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My opinion of DoMA? I think it's not really a Federal issue. Social issues are regional, state, and local jurisdiction. Therefore, regardless about how i feel about the actual bill, I nominally oppose it.

To be honest, I am in favor of 'civil unions', but not gay marriage per se . 

I already told you about abortion.

My opinion about moral issues: unless it's already criminal (you know, murder, stealing, sacrificing animals, etc.), it's up mainly to the individual to patrol his or her own behavior.