Only thing I don't agree with is one of the passing questions at the end. "Sobriety checkpoints?" I think those are very good because drunk drivers hurt non-consenting adults all the time.
@rainbowfirewave i hear ya, but it doesn't stop it. be aware on the road. if you can avoid driving during 1am-3am that's probably the best thing anyone can do. if you have to drive at that time, just be alert and maybe take different routes that go out of the way of bars... just saying. checkpoints are horrible... besides, read the 4th amendment.
@ditendo That's funny. Friedman died years ago but the drug war is still failing. By keeping drugs illegal, government doesn't stop bad drugs. Instead, they provide incentives for gangs to support violent activities by selling them. The center cares about freedom? The center is always looking for the compromise between right and wrong or between liberty and slavery. The center is populated by pragmatists. Hard to find a principled person amongst them.
@georgelopezblows are you kidding? Democrats don't budge on those things either. Conservatives William F Buckley, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell all argue for drug legalization. Who on the left is advocating such?
@fzqlcs Aside from politicians, which side is more likely to support legalization? I'll give you a hint, it's not the Republicans. After all, why do you think the phrase, "pot smoking hippy" exists? The left is associated with drug use.
Got invited,by my bro,to a club tonight.His friends were all drinking.Loud,obnoxious,annoying as fuck.Im thinking,this,is the legal drug,socially acceptable..While I cant legally smoke marijuana in my own home.They hit the town,trashed,to worry the shit out of ya-all fucking night long.Goddamn world.
I love how the video editor doesn't even understand the argument Friedman is making, based on how s/he puts energy efficiency requirements in the same category as drug prohibition. Friedman specifically says that drug prohibition is wrong because it harms innocent victims, which is exactly what energy waste does as well.
Part 1: Drugs are illegal. thus criminalizing whoever wants to get high and forcing them to interact with criminals just to access it. if all drugs were as cheap as booze and available at your local drug store then crime would be WAY DOWN. you dont see any homeless drunks running around robbing and killing people for the simple fact they dont have to because its cheap as hell to get drunk. THINK PEOPLE laws are the problem, not drugs.
Part 2: BUT WAIT WHAT ABOUT MY KIDS I DONT WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUY DRUGS? Well watch their little bad asses, stop being a bad parent and be there for your kid. you don't see whole bunch of drunk ass kid running? BUT WHAT ABOUT INTOXICATED DRIVERS? apply the same laws as drinking and if TRILLIONS of dollars were NOT spent on a so called "drug war" then TRILLIONS of dollars could be spent on saving life's by IMPROVING car safety.
BUT WONT AVAILABILITY DUE TO IT BEING LEGAL CAUSE MORE ATTICS? the answer is no because illicit drugs are already available to any one who wants them. People have fucked up morals. instead of being obsessed with banning peoples human right to consume what ever they want. why dont people march or advocate for saving poor people or for free healthcare to all why dont people go out and march for free collage for all or for spending more money on research for cure on illnesses and diseases.
Don't use Milton for your own propaganda, he was specifically talking about drugs, don't try to extend it to other issues, though principle is the same, the outcome is very different.
wow...it's just wonderful to listen to a genius such as Milton
I was against the legalization...
Now I'm clearly favorable. And actually now I think it's really weird that the government creates laws that prohibits people of making their own decisions, considering that such decisions would cause no harm to anyone but themselves!
My point is that the federal government has no business telling states to make drugs illegal, or legal, for that matter. Stick to National defense and let the states compete to be the best.
This video describes how great Holland was, land of the free. Nowadays more and more things are forbidden and not done, we're losing our free moral and human prosperity. So sad.
There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical. Under the criminalization of drugs, "offenders" are jailed for doing drugs and, even worse, the innocent man who does not abuse drugs is forced to pay for the prison for the man who does. Freedom is half rights and half responsibilities--but criminalizing drugs makes the innocent man responsible for the actions of the degenerate drug user. Freedom means you are responsible for your choices--and not liable for the choices of others.
Thepeople who want to legalize drugs need someone like MIlton these days. Milton makes some powerful arguements for the legalization of drugs here, many of which I can agree with.
@Otzmatron I was trying to respond, but the dang thing wouldn't work correctly and now it shows like three times. But the answer to #2 is at the top underneath the film.
It's scary how almost all of the thing on this list 6:56 are already illegal. it seems like it's only a matter of the time before the rest are prohibited.
If drugs were legal, then people would be able to choose the better drugs. If marijuana was legal, I doubt I would have ever drunk so much alcohol as I did when I was young, and I would've been a lot healthier and safer.
@SocialLocust that is retarded. The fact that you integrate these things into your life is the reason your not a healthy person, not because these drugs weren't "legal" You made bad choices, and killed off to many brain cells. Who in the hell blames an inanimate objects legalization for the problems they themselves create? Oh right, you.
@AgentBusta I never said that I'm not a healthy person. I said that while I was a drinker, I was not doing something that was good for my health. I also did not blame my bad choices on an inanimate object's legal status. What I was getting at is that since alcohol was legal and easier for me to get, I did that instead of the safer and more healthy drugs that I wanted to do. Maybe you should make sure you understand what you are reading before you go and make snide remarks.
the dea would move from a drug war to a position of regulatory control, license control issuance,etc big pharam would lobby and support it, prisons/local jails would love more mandatory sentencing for drug related offenses, the government would love the gun control, taxes, fees. shop owners would love the money. banks would love to get their hands on that money to move it around.. you have to please everyone to get something done wrong or right...i think you guys can see where i'm going
legalize, (not decriminalize) regulate strength, dosage etc.. and tax the shit out of it let big pharma produce/ distribute.. issue licenses that generate fees,that set limits on single purchase amounts, the licenses also constitute a contract with the gov, that says i voluntarily give up gun rights normal sentencing other right etc
Friedman assumes that all drugs of abuse are the same which is patently false. There are many "legal" drugs (on prescription) that are abused and diverted for illicit uses. There are many household products (pain, glue, petrol) that are also abused. To have one consistent law for all of these simply based on the fact they are abused in ridiculous. Any drug addict can quit if they really want to. Two weeks to one month of withdrawal is all. Most don't have the will.
@tdarcy88 Do you get a script from the doctor for cocaine, when it is clearly not for therapeutic use. If you put cocaine (currently schedule 8 controlled substance in aus) in a special shop this would undermine its legislative regulation. Why go to the doctor for you temazepam or morphine when Wal-Mart sells it? Fact is abuse is everywhere and most don't want to change. Creating programs to get people off addiction simply creates a dependency on government for a certain product.
Doesn't change the fact that the end result of drug legalization would systematically improve the costs of drugs in society. Go look at Portugal after they de-criminalized everything including cocaine and heroin. Deaths went down. So did the cost of controlling and dealing with drug users.
I remember the first time I was offered marijuana. Nine years ago I was 12 and in the 6th grade and other kids we're trading for blunts on my school bus. Eventually they even started peddling much harder drugs. I was 14 when I was offered meth. Keep in mind we we're all 12-15 years old. We didn't live in a bad city either, we lived in O'Fallon, MO voted one of the top places to live in the country. I've never done drugs, but give me an hour and I could go buy any drugs I could ever want.
I find it funny that people bitch about big business and sinister politicians when it comes to drug laws, especially when you consider how these bogeymen would just LOVE a more "drug-liberal" world
What's better than a product that can lead to lifelong addiction? What's better than a population constantly high and unwilling/unable to see the incompetence of their leaders?
It's funny how people can proclaim freedom while in effect selling themselves into a potential future of slavery...
@ogith open your eyes, drugs are already being produced and sold at a industrial scale. Everyone who want to buy, buy , everyone who want to sell, sell, only a few percentage of dealers and users get arrested. The War on Drugs has being a failure since day 1. Watch the video with atention.
If drugs were legal, produced and sold by legal companies, they would pay taxes, be fiscalized if they sold tainted stuff(like skank) and so on.
@ogith Except that alcohol manufacturers would crumble if all drugs were legalized, that's why they lobby against it. And let's not mention the DEA and other government agencies who would be out of jobs.
kids cant even control themselves with weed (illegal), could you imagine the damage that would be caused if they where using something like cocaine and it was legal?
@diurdi the question is do you want to encourage it and publicize it? i agree with your/milton friedmans perspective, but i dont think it will work out the way you think it will. i agree with freedom and liberty to do what you will, but the addictions are too strong. i dont assume youve done crack, for example, i havent either, i but in my life ive only heard one 1 person whos done it once and never again. it being illegal is another reason to not try it. sex, food, etc.can be solved easier.
@RESTxINxPIECEZ No, ofcourse you do not want to encourage it. There are many interest groups around that actively educate people on the dangers of drugs. Decriminalization is not the same as encouraging.
In nations like Holland or Portugal where certain drugs (or all drugs) have been legalized, there has not been any increase in domestic use.
And it being illegal is actually a problem because that makes people who normally are law abiding citizens, to begin the path of crime over one substance
@diurdi i agree with you. people should be responsible for their own actions and have freedome of choice. but everybody makes mistakes, we make up for them, fix them, learn from them. but the mistake of injection heroin isnt the same. and based on principle (which is a big thing for milton friedman) why would you educate on the dangers of a substance and try to turn people away from it, but allow it to be consumed. to me it seems hypocrytical.
@diurdi also, people need self control. the government is not making people criminals, people are choosing to do something they know is illegal. whether or not you agree with a law, you still need to have enough self control to abid by it. its like speeding, you can be an honest, law abiding person, but when yoou get a ticket for speeding, you cant blame the gov't for putting the speed limit too low. that being said, im curious to see how decriminalization would affect society.
@RESTxINxPIECEZ Speeding puts others people's at lives. Taking drugs only puts your own.
However, contrast the drug prohibition to the alcohol prohibition. People should've had more self control back then, right? Yet they didn't, they sincerely believed that it was within their rights to consume alcohol. They believed the law was so ludicrous as even the law enforcement themselves consumed alcohol, that abiding the law wasn't necessary.
Today even the US president admits to use of cocaine.
@RESTxINxPIECEZ Do you want kids to buy drugs from dealers that are made by uneducated people in dirty underground laboratories, with no oversight of what is put into them
Or do you want them to buy drugs that are produced by educated experts and sold by legal businessess against whom legal recourse will be taken if the product they sell contains anything but what they say it contains?
Your answer might be, no - I want neither. But the reality is that you must choose between one or the other.
@diurdi Right, I don't want kids to buy drugs at all. When I was in HS in Utah (there probably is not a more weed unfriendly state) I had much easier access to pot than alcohol and I have no doubt that legalization would create a safer environment for my kids.
TBH I'd prefer for no one to buy drugs. They are bad for you. However alcohol and tobacco use goes down, especially with underage when you create laws around, while still allowing them. When you can buy drugs from a pharmacy, or convenience store, street level drug dealers would drop substantially, and businesses will look to keep part of their market rather then risk it to a small subset.
@diurdi That is very true. I understand what you're saying now. Unfortunately we can't stop the consumption drugs so we have to make a decision if we want our government to regulate the way drugs are sold or do we want cartels to make that decision.
You've been sold misinformation and horeshit all your life, friend. The anti-cannabis and general anti-drug laws have been funded by the alcohol industry. None more so than against ecstasy during the rave era, where young people would nurse a bottle or two of spring water all night and dance instead of buying their liver rotting drinks. They spent millions and backed newspapers such as the UK's Daily Mail to go on propaganda campaigns. Start thinking for yourself and wake up.
i dont know, i agree with his principles but this is much larger than an eating dissorder. eating dissorders dont cause major physical addiction and get you killed for not paying for the product. you should be in charge of what risks you take in life, but you shouldnt be allowed to do take that risk. someone who goes skydiving can make a choice wheather or not to do it again, some teenager who just tryed heroin is 90/100% likely to do it again, and be addicted.
@RESTxINxPIECEZ Average rhetoric coming from an indoctrinated individual absent of the facts or proper ethics. Friedmans' perspective, like many of ours, is the proponent of cognitive liberty & self-ownership; this alone disproves any of the excuses you can conjure. Overeating typically IS an addiction. Gambling is. Sex. Media. Technology. Life is full of addictions, as well as risk. But there is no place for a state that claims dominion over how one does or does not live their life.
I understand the idea that some drugs are 'TOO' dangerous, but keeping them illegal doesn't keep people from doing those drugs. People need to understand that stopping drug use comes from the individuals and how they raise their children, local communities. Government shouldnt and cant stop people from using drugs thats PEOPLE's job.
He makes good points and I totally understand the view, but the man suffers from the exaggeratedly positive view of the effects of legalization
And using alcohol as an example of "success" strikes me as odd, seeing as it is a killer of millions (500k a year in russia alone) and even though its legal, alcoholics who booze away all their money turn to stuff like wood polish because the alcohol is "too expensive"
I can't honestly make myself see any positive end to the legalization scenario.
@ogith I think you miss the point. People are punished for drunk driving, because it can harm others or their property. However, those that use to the extent that it effects no one but themselves, are not punished. So, let a dumbass turn to wood polish. His choice. The idea is, is that government has no right to intervene in how you live, if no one else rights are being violated. Let people live how they choose is the issue.
If you are going to be completely honest with this point of view and refuse medicinal aid to these people when some of their number invariably either deteriorate due to the drugs or due to accidents caused during an intoxicated state, then sure, but this is neither the world we live in nor what is even proposed when people talk about legalizing it.
I would agree with you if we were talking about an isolated island of users here, but this just isn't the case.
Well good thing Gary Johnson is running for president. he would legalize pot n pardon people incarcerated for possesion n sale of it. he needs campaign donations tho. $10 or even $4.20. hes up against Romneys millions so what ever u can give.
I knew a woman who lived in a Chicago ghetto. I once asked her what she thought would happen if they made cocaine legal. She stared at me in disbelief and said, "A lot of the people I know would be dead."
Different drugs do different things. Let's categorize all drugs in terms of cost-vs.-benefit: if a drug is relatively safe, sell it over the counter; if it's harmful but has legitimate uses, require a doctor's prescription; if it's too dangerous (say, extremely addictive), criminalize it.
@ClumsyRoot Does that idiot lady think druggies can't find drugs now? She is a poster girl for ignorance. Apparently, her friends live in fear of the drug laws, but if drugs were legal, would hurry out to be junkies. Really?
I especially like it when drug warriors warn about how legalization would affect young people. Are they kidding? Right now, the BEST place to find illegal drugs is your local high school.
@ClumsyRoot Yea, they are already doing that. And they decided Pot is as dangerous as heroin. So now we're back to the same point. Where we decide to voice our opinions and say that the goverment is over stepping its bounds yet again.. lol
@ClumsyRoot I think you make a valid point, but what friedman is saying is that criminalizing drugs doesn't stop them from getting into the hands of drug users. He's saying there's a tradeoff with legalizing all recreational drugs: it's very likely that they will be more widely used as a result of it, but criminalizing these drugs creates a slew of other problems in society. though society would be better off without harmful recreational drugs, criminalization doesn't solve the problem.
I agree with Friedman in principle. But I do think that certain drugs are so dangerous--so addictive (like meth) and/or so likely to result in extreme antisocial behavior (like PCP)--that it might be in society's best interest to keep them illegal.
I like Milton Friedman, and this was an excellent Q&A, but I do think he turns a cold shoulder to his fellow man.
Basically he's saying people that wreck their lives should be left to die in the street(because an addict won't be able to afford health care). That's wrong in my opinion.
Choices are molded by culture, and who someone is raised around ignorants has a higher chance of being ignorant. Unequal wealth disparity leads to hostile Counter-cultures; cultures that embrace crime.
@Seedofwinter An addict, by definition, doesn't care about his own health. So why should a stranger? Of course, you are personally free to give your own money to help him. But that is not enough for you, is it? You want to dictate where the fruits of other people's labor goes. Occupy Wall Street? Government should have no right to take our money by force simply to donate to charity. We can do that ourselves.
@fzqlcs I believe that an addict is misguided, not inconsiderate of his health. Things are more complicated, me thinks.
I don't take on the mentality of the forest and wilderness when constructing economic policy.
It's not so much "dictating where the fruits of people's labor goes" as much as having a social contract that says we are all indeed our brothers keeper. Making sure we have maximum freedom, yet also health care and jobs. Political considerations must be weighed here as well.
@Seedofwinter We can love them, but you cannot force us to work for them. Let's remind ourselves that when the government uses money to try to help a certain person or group of persons, it is in effect stealing that money from every working person in the society. And many of those people will disagree with what it does with that money. Instead, let people decide for themselves whether they want to help addicts or not. It is, after all, their money.
@doom032 I disagree with you. A society is a giant organism and it's in everyone's interest to make sure we don't have severely low income areas and income disparity because poverty leads to ghettos and dangerous counter cultures and consequently, high crime rates. It ends up costing a lot more via the legal system and all it's components
Now when you say taxing is stealing, I think that it's a unjust accusation. Taxing is the price you pay to live in a safe, stable, brotherly society.
@Seedofwinter What is taxing? I essentially, it is the government putting a gun to your head and saying "give us some of your money or go to jail". Whether the government uses it to create what you call "a safe, stable, brotherly society" is irrelevant to the fact that it's still a form of legalized theft. What gives government the right to take that money from anyone? And why can't people use their money to improve society as they want to?
@doom032 Well, you could look at the glass as half full.
If you think about yourself, and don't take into account others, other wills only think about themselves. Let's not make any illusions here, not every can be rich. In Capitalism, private interests already have the entirety of production in their hands, when you don't try to even the field for others, you face political problems. Without a state playing an active role in Capitalism, and helping out the less fortunate, Capitalism fails.
@Seedofwinter im in favor of freedom. Not fairness. It isn't fair that a kid is born blind but it happens. Life isn't fair so don't make the illusion that capitalism fails because life isn't fair.
You say capitalism fails because its not fair, what do you want me to do? Cut my eyes out and be blind to compete fairly with the kid who is blind? Or should i hold myself back and not go to college because I am smarter than my friend?
@sniped101 Blindness is something that cannot be helped, economic philosophy and social policy is something that can be helped.
Capitalism fails precisely because it isn't fair.The only reason why Capitalism has survived is because of GOV.
Folks that assume people aren't rich because they are lazy or not trying hard enough, are folks that ignore the facts: everyone isn't rich because not everyone can be rich. Eventually, the system creates political instability due to crashes and Wealth gaps
What you are saying is that in the case of the blind person, the social philosophy would be to pluck out everyone eyes for the sake of making us equal.
What you are saying in the case of a rich person is that the economic philosophy would be to take his money ( BY FORCE) and give it to whoever Obviously, you will always have more people richer than others. The question here is, Is capitalism the best way for people to be free to do whatever they want? The answer is yes.
@Seedofwinter He simply said that people who wreck their lives on purpose is of less concern than that child who gets killed in a drug shootout.
2nd statement you make.. "BASICALLY what he said" and "WHAT he said" are two different things. It would be wise for you to say what he said instead of saying what you think he said.
obviously if someone is raised by ignorant people his whole life, he will be ignorant too. what you are talking about is an education issue.
@Seedofwinter If you see an addict lying in the street, you are of course free to help him if you want to - you have a choice. However, there is no choice if this care is levied on every working citizen. This is the crux of Friedman's argument.
@Seedofwinter Thats not what hes saying at all. Hes saying he has alot less sympathy for people who chose to be a victem, then innocent people who get dragged into this crap. Thats a long shot from him saying "let them die in the street''
@ashkaji Well, that is a survival of the fittest mentality. What ends up happening is that that person starts to become a problem if he ins't helped. Poverty also creates ugly counter-cultures.
We can't take a stance that says everyone is in it for themselves, because such a society creates political instability. What people often forget is that economics is a political exercise.
You CANNOT give tyrannical powers to private enterprise to rape the collective people. It always ends bad
@Seedofwinter "Basically he's saying people that wreck their lives should be left to die in the street(because an addict won't be able to afford health care). That's wrong in my opinion." It's already the case, he just wants the government to be consistent towards ALL drugs.
The reason drugs should remain illegal, as opposed to unhealthy food or other dangerous activity - is that drugs destroys the person. If drugs were legalized we would be socialists within a generation. Drugs weaken the mind and the will and the connection to the soul (even if it may feel like the opposite). A drugged population is a population of slaves and sheep who will never resist any master over them because they are drugged, and thus are perfectly content to become slaves. No legalization!
Drugs are capable of weakening the mind, agreed. But legalizing them would not be socialist, in fact the opposite. The slaves and sheep who take the drugs were most likely "slaves and sheep" to begin with. Who's role is it to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body? The government? Why do they know best?
@7Highlander Nice to know unhealthy food and dangerous activity do not destroy people. Wonder why they call them unhealthy and dangerous? Also, the people are sheep now. Don't blame that on drugs. Blame that on an unwillingness to think.
@7Highlander but the people do the drugs anyway, and they find worse ones than the most accessible would be, if legalized. There are people that just want to sniff glue, paint, aerosol cans etc. It's bizarre, and terrible, however, it gets to the point where now everything is illegal. If you want to buy a Sudafed, you get ID'd and they log it, if you were to try to buy more than they think you should, you'd be arrested (so don't try to stock up), because now people make Meth.... lame
Haha my dad is extremely into economics and this is one of his favorite debaters and he has shown me several of his videos I've debated legalization with him and he is 100% against it....I need to show him this
Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded. - Abraham Lincoln
"We can each resolve, every last one of us, to do the maximum that we can, in each of our given circumstances and by making opportunities, and this then becomes our personal contribution towards ending the worldwide prohibition of cannabis." - Jayelle Farmer
im pro that weed should be Legalized, but if u take LSD, and i see a man walk down the street, u might imagen that he looks like a zombie and u kill him. now you would never have killed him if it wernt cuz of the drug. so u cant legalize every drug in my opinion :)
@knezoskin Gee, do you have any stats on the deaths caused by LSD hallucinations? I am going to guess there are none most years. Is this your best case for basing criminality on the political status of substances rather than on violations of personal, civil or property rights? Just asking ...
THis is the most precise and well spoken conversation on the reasons why we should legalize drugs and I do agree with Mr. Friedman. I am a philosophy major from Berkeley and I happen to agree with his reasoning, I am not abdicating the use of drugs but from a purely ecconomic standpoint the money raised could educate, be put to great uses, and not criminalize hard working people who wish to consume drugs for whatever reason. Hats off to Milton.
so much for free country and democratic country , free choice ?? as long you don't harm others why is thatt mater? , tell you what mater.. if matijuana was legalised , people are thinking and more smarter , then the government and thir bosses ( the shadow government ) will loose their control , because people actualy thinking and get smarter , and the CIA ( crrok in action ) will loose their lolly money.
@crazypants88 He's not talking about your petty home town contacts. He's talking about the South American drug cartels that own the coca fields or the Afghanistan cartels that own the poppy fields. Those are the big business monopoly guys, unless your hometown contacts have a poppy field or coca field in their backyards they have to go to another source in order to purchase the drugs they are selling. Only big business have the finances in order to smuggle the drugs into the United States. I'm
@Username14129 I don't agree. I can buy from at least 4 guys and I live in fairly small society. I'm sure if I tried I could get up to 10 contacts. I agree that it should be legalized but I can't agree on the monopoly part.
well, I was in a mmj legal state and could barely afford it. now i'm back in illegal state I can't. So I smoke pall malls and am taking time off my life. never done crack but I have SEEN his point first hand in my friends community.
haha And most of libertarian arguments can't be debated, Simply because they are right.
TheMango121 2 days ago
50 control freaks dislike this.
jbkibs 2 days ago
Only thing I don't agree with is one of the passing questions at the end. "Sobriety checkpoints?" I think those are very good because drunk drivers hurt non-consenting adults all the time.
rainbowfirewave 2 days ago
@rainbowfirewave i hear ya, but it doesn't stop it. be aware on the road. if you can avoid driving during 1am-3am that's probably the best thing anyone can do. if you have to drive at that time, just be alert and maybe take different routes that go out of the way of bars... just saying. checkpoints are horrible... besides, read the 4th amendment.
jbkibs 2 days ago
I could've done without the background music. Made it creepy...
TheCruel 3 days ago
Government is not the solution to stop bad drugs, he is the problem.
ditendo 5 days ago
@ditendo That's funny. Friedman died years ago but the drug war is still failing. By keeping drugs illegal, government doesn't stop bad drugs. Instead, they provide incentives for gangs to support violent activities by selling them. The center cares about freedom? The center is always looking for the compromise between right and wrong or between liberty and slavery. The center is populated by pragmatists. Hard to find a principled person amongst them.
fzqlcs 5 days ago
I'm not a 100% libertarian, but I completely agree with this. Drug laws, do more harm than they are supposed to do.
Faerlon123 5 days ago
Wasn't this asshole an advisor for Ronald Reagan? The guy that amped up the drug war?
Redfingers 6 days ago
@Redfingers He was an economic adviser.
DukeofWellington91 5 days ago
Republicans LOVE Friedman, until he suggests legalizing drugs.
Republicans HATE freedom.
georgelopezblows 1 week ago
@georgelopezblows The GOP holds no monopoly on freedom hating. Consider economic freedom.
fzqlcs 1 week ago
@fzqlcs We have the chance to have economic freedom, but Republicans won't budge. Drugs and prostitution would bring big money.
georgelopezblows 1 week ago
@georgelopezblows are you kidding? Democrats don't budge on those things either. Conservatives William F Buckley, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell all argue for drug legalization. Who on the left is advocating such?
fzqlcs 1 week ago
@fzqlcs Aside from politicians, which side is more likely to support legalization? I'll give you a hint, it's not the Republicans. After all, why do you think the phrase, "pot smoking hippy" exists? The left is associated with drug use.
If you weren't so PC, you would see this.
georgelopezblows 6 days ago
@fzqlcs You didn't mention prostitution. Why?
georgelopezblows 6 days ago
@georgelopezblows Right or left they don't care much about freedom. Only center cares.
ditendo 5 days ago
He's hilarious, even though I don't agree with some of his ideas, he makes me laugh lol!!!
usmaan93 1 week ago
@usmaan93 Freedom makes you laugh?
georgelopezblows 1 week ago
The drug laws keep the Cartels in power... and guess who really run the cartels? Fucking ALL-CIA-DUH
batfly 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Fed has absolutely no business making laws regarding the sovereignty of our state of mind PERIOD!
Mit Romney is a piece of shit tyrant .
batfly 1 week ago
Got invited,by my bro,to a club tonight.His friends were all drinking.Loud,obnoxious,annoying as fuck.Im thinking,this,is the legal drug,socially acceptable..While I cant legally smoke marijuana in my own home.They hit the town,trashed,to worry the shit out of ya-all fucking night long.Goddamn world.
OnlyAPawn1970 1 week ago
Again, Milton Friedman is correct....
stephenabm 1 week ago
Say hello to an intelligent man. Ask yourself, "Why am I disagreeing with this man?" Consider your own intelligence when asking that question.
Crust218 1 week ago 2
well, at least he got this right.
thecrooksareinoffice 1 week ago
Well, I always wonder about the supply source for the Drug Cartels...
SusieQ962 2 weeks ago
Yeah, Ron Paul 2012!!
cahivx 2 weeks ago 7
Learn the difference between "effect" and "affect" -- "How Would Drug Legalization effect [sic] society" -- learn how to capitalize too!
rdbchase 3 weeks ago
If cocaine, marijuana, and heroin are SO BAD then why doesn't the US help those people instead of throwing them in jail?
93214919321491 3 weeks ago 2
Friedman would be shocked to see how theres so many legal drugs these days being sold as anti-depressants by big pharma and whatnot...
We even drug our kids these days because they act like kids do. Because they can't always sit still in the schools like good little slaves...
Society failed.
RealTrueTarget 3 weeks ago
I love how the video editor doesn't even understand the argument Friedman is making, based on how s/he puts energy efficiency requirements in the same category as drug prohibition. Friedman specifically says that drug prohibition is wrong because it harms innocent victims, which is exactly what energy waste does as well.
Alex3917 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 1: Drugs are illegal. thus criminalizing whoever wants to get high and forcing them to interact with criminals just to access it. if all drugs were as cheap as booze and available at your local drug store then crime would be WAY DOWN. you dont see any homeless drunks running around robbing and killing people for the simple fact they dont have to because its cheap as hell to get drunk. THINK PEOPLE laws are the problem, not drugs.
dustin741 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2: BUT WAIT WHAT ABOUT MY KIDS I DONT WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUY DRUGS? Well watch their little bad asses, stop being a bad parent and be there for your kid. you don't see whole bunch of drunk ass kid running? BUT WHAT ABOUT INTOXICATED DRIVERS? apply the same laws as drinking and if TRILLIONS of dollars were NOT spent on a so called "drug war" then TRILLIONS of dollars could be spent on saving life's by IMPROVING car safety.
dustin741 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 3:
BUT WONT AVAILABILITY DUE TO IT BEING LEGAL CAUSE MORE ATTICS? the answer is no because illicit drugs are already available to any one who wants them. People have fucked up morals. instead of being obsessed with banning peoples human right to consume what ever they want. why dont people march or advocate for saving poor people or for free healthcare to all why dont people go out and march for free collage for all or for spending more money on research for cure on illnesses and diseases.
dustin741 3 weeks ago
Dont the ppl realize its the government that brings the Drugs in in the first place!? talk about contradicting
NoHataHere1 3 weeks ago
@NoHataHere1 thats just conspiracy
MEEs1ab 3 weeks ago
@MEEs1ab yeah yeah yeah
meddeyc 3 weeks ago
The top comments nail it right on pretty much. Well said.
CHTWillCome723 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Narcotics Anonymous meeting. Many of them are against drug legalization.
atmchickluva 4 weeks ago
I almost got kicked out of an NA for saying that drugs should be legalized and regulated.
atmchickluva 4 weeks ago
@atmchickluva What's a NA?
crazypants88 4 weeks ago
@crazypants88 Narcotics Anonymous meeting. A lot of them are totally against legalization of drugs.
atmchickluva 4 weeks ago
@atmchickluva Alcohol is a drug, are they upset about that being legal?
rms16006 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 Narcotics Anonymous meeting. Many of them are against drug legalization.
atmchickluva 4 weeks ago
Don't use Milton for your own propaganda, he was specifically talking about drugs, don't try to extend it to other issues, though principle is the same, the outcome is very different.
atemlos2585 1 month ago
wow...it's just wonderful to listen to a genius such as Milton
I was against the legalization...
Now I'm clearly favorable. And actually now I think it's really weird that the government creates laws that prohibits people of making their own decisions, considering that such decisions would cause no harm to anyone but themselves!
WillWolfrick 1 month ago 2
The more I listen to this guy, the more I like him
AliceNchainz011 1 month ago 2
My point is that the federal government has no business telling states to make drugs illegal, or legal, for that matter. Stick to National defense and let the states compete to be the best.
noelschwenk 1 month ago 4
Comment removed
jhvhjhvk 1 month ago
This video describes how great Holland was, land of the free. Nowadays more and more things are forbidden and not done, we're losing our free moral and human prosperity. So sad.
Bartt88 1 month ago 2
The government in the Netherlands gives out free heroin and the heroin use has dropped.
johammbass 1 month ago
they legalized some drugs in portugal, and the results were good
optionsupdate 1 month ago 2
@optionsupdate they "decriminalize" and "liberalize" not "legalize", but of course legalisation would be even better, especially with hard drugs
antyszwed 1 month ago
There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical. Under the criminalization of drugs, "offenders" are jailed for doing drugs and, even worse, the innocent man who does not abuse drugs is forced to pay for the prison for the man who does. Freedom is half rights and half responsibilities--but criminalizing drugs makes the innocent man responsible for the actions of the degenerate drug user. Freedom means you are responsible for your choices--and not liable for the choices of others.
Success0527 1 month ago
I've never heard this kind of music being used in video interviews. I like the atmosphere it creates.
xXvolhvXx 1 month ago
This is why I like being a libertarian---because you can piss off both groups of people from the political aisle.
thecritiquevirtuoso 1 month ago 47
@thecritiquevirtuoso Fun times. When both sides are against you your nuts. Even when the majority of the people are also with you.
ssjwes 1 month ago
Please come back MILTON!!
MrCitsidas 1 month ago
Thepeople who want to legalize drugs need someone like MIlton these days. Milton makes some powerful arguements for the legalization of drugs here, many of which I can agree with.
buisyman 1 month ago
Friedman could have lived to 150 and his work wouldn't have been done,the world needs a thousand of his kind. We are all poorer for his passing.
samsamm77 2 months ago
@samsamm77 That is why it's imortant to find a cure for senescence. You too can contribute.
xXvolhvXx 1 month ago
this dude is awsome
420thedanknight 2 months ago
Zombie Friedman for president 2012
stebecool 2 months ago 53
Who's the interviewer?
TheHeshbon 2 months ago
it should NEVER have been made ILLEGAL in the first place..
---------------- REMEMBER THAT -------------------
no REGULATIONS , no TAXES , no PRISONS , no DEA SWAT RAIDS
no ASSET CONFISCATION , no GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION !
nick off OBAMA. !
VOTE >>>>>>>>>>NO PROHIBITION <<<<<<<<<<<< VOTE
FREEDOM & HUMAN RIGHTS. No compromise.
GO the TOMATO MODEL. ... free to GROW & USE as we DECIDE..
USA government is full of IDEOLOGICAL MORALIST FUNDAMENTALIST morons.
WeAskThePeople 2 months ago
Two things, hopefully someone here knows:
1. Where is this clip taken from, what interview was it? What year?
2. There's background music, although it's almost unnoticeable, what is the name of the track?
Otzmatron 2 months ago
Artist: Philip Glass Ensemble;Michael Riesman
Buy "Glasspieces (Choreographed by Jerome Robbins): Glasspiece #2 ("Facades" from Glassworks) (Instrumental)" on: AmazonMP3,
iTunes
alan69686 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Artist: Philip Glass Ensemble;Michael Riesman
Buy "Glasspieces (Choreographed by Jerome Robbins): Glasspiece #2 ("Facades" from Glassworks) (Instrumental)" on: AmazonMP3,
iTunes
alan69686 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Artist: Philip Glass Ensemble;Michael Riesman
Buy "Glasspieces (Choreographed by Jerome Robbins): Glasspiece #2 ("Facades" from Glassworks) (Instrumental)" on: AmazonMP3,
iTunes
alan69686 2 months ago
@Otzmatron I was trying to respond, but the dang thing wouldn't work correctly and now it shows like three times. But the answer to #2 is at the top underneath the film.
alan69686 2 months ago
It's scary how almost all of the thing on this list 6:56 are already illegal. it seems like it's only a matter of the time before the rest are prohibited.
ColonalCustard 2 months ago
If drugs were legal, then people would be able to choose the better drugs. If marijuana was legal, I doubt I would have ever drunk so much alcohol as I did when I was young, and I would've been a lot healthier and safer.
SocialLocust 2 months ago
@SocialLocust that is retarded. The fact that you integrate these things into your life is the reason your not a healthy person, not because these drugs weren't "legal" You made bad choices, and killed off to many brain cells. Who in the hell blames an inanimate objects legalization for the problems they themselves create? Oh right, you.
AgentBusta 2 months ago
@AgentBusta I never said that I'm not a healthy person. I said that while I was a drinker, I was not doing something that was good for my health. I also did not blame my bad choices on an inanimate object's legal status. What I was getting at is that since alcohol was legal and easier for me to get, I did that instead of the safer and more healthy drugs that I wanted to do. Maybe you should make sure you understand what you are reading before you go and make snide remarks.
SocialLocust 2 months ago
and the biggest reason.....NATURAL SELECTION back in full force lol
cblazer 2 months ago
the dea would move from a drug war to a position of regulatory control, license control issuance,etc big pharam would lobby and support it, prisons/local jails would love more mandatory sentencing for drug related offenses, the government would love the gun control, taxes, fees. shop owners would love the money. banks would love to get their hands on that money to move it around.. you have to please everyone to get something done wrong or right...i think you guys can see where i'm going
cblazer 2 months ago
legalize, (not decriminalize) regulate strength, dosage etc.. and tax the shit out of it let big pharma produce/ distribute.. issue licenses that generate fees,that set limits on single purchase amounts, the licenses also constitute a contract with the gov, that says i voluntarily give up gun rights normal sentencing other right etc
cblazer 2 months ago
Friedman assumes that all drugs of abuse are the same which is patently false. There are many "legal" drugs (on prescription) that are abused and diverted for illicit uses. There are many household products (pain, glue, petrol) that are also abused. To have one consistent law for all of these simply based on the fact they are abused in ridiculous. Any drug addict can quit if they really want to. Two weeks to one month of withdrawal is all. Most don't have the will.
tdarcy88 2 months ago
@tdarcy88 Do you get a script from the doctor for cocaine, when it is clearly not for therapeutic use. If you put cocaine (currently schedule 8 controlled substance in aus) in a special shop this would undermine its legislative regulation. Why go to the doctor for you temazepam or morphine when Wal-Mart sells it? Fact is abuse is everywhere and most don't want to change. Creating programs to get people off addiction simply creates a dependency on government for a certain product.
tdarcy88 2 months ago
@tdarcy88
Doesn't change the fact that the end result of drug legalization would systematically improve the costs of drugs in society. Go look at Portugal after they de-criminalized everything including cocaine and heroin. Deaths went down. So did the cost of controlling and dealing with drug users.
MrTurdFurgeson 2 months ago 2
I remember the first time I was offered marijuana. Nine years ago I was 12 and in the 6th grade and other kids we're trading for blunts on my school bus. Eventually they even started peddling much harder drugs. I was 14 when I was offered meth. Keep in mind we we're all 12-15 years old. We didn't live in a bad city either, we lived in O'Fallon, MO voted one of the top places to live in the country. I've never done drugs, but give me an hour and I could go buy any drugs I could ever want.
BreezyObserver 2 months ago
I find it funny that people bitch about big business and sinister politicians when it comes to drug laws, especially when you consider how these bogeymen would just LOVE a more "drug-liberal" world
What's better than a product that can lead to lifelong addiction? What's better than a population constantly high and unwilling/unable to see the incompetence of their leaders?
It's funny how people can proclaim freedom while in effect selling themselves into a potential future of slavery...
ogith 2 months ago
@ogith open your eyes, drugs are already being produced and sold at a industrial scale. Everyone who want to buy, buy , everyone who want to sell, sell, only a few percentage of dealers and users get arrested. The War on Drugs has being a failure since day 1. Watch the video with atention.
If drugs were legal, produced and sold by legal companies, they would pay taxes, be fiscalized if they sold tainted stuff(like skank) and so on.
kupfernikel 2 months ago
@ogith Except that alcohol manufacturers would crumble if all drugs were legalized, that's why they lobby against it. And let's not mention the DEA and other government agencies who would be out of jobs.
balistik94 2 months ago
kids cant even control themselves with weed (illegal), could you imagine the damage that would be caused if they where using something like cocaine and it was legal?
RESTxINxPIECEZ 2 months ago
@RESTxINxPIECEZ You do realize that kids will get cocaine or weed right now if they want to?
The question is, do you want these kids to buy it from pharmacies or from shady criminal dealers?
Do you want them to be open about their drug problem or do you want them to hide it because what they're doing is illegal?
Do you want the money from the drug business to go to legal businessess and to taxation, or to drug lords and other organized crime?
diurdi 2 months ago 36
@diurdi the question is do you want to encourage it and publicize it? i agree with your/milton friedmans perspective, but i dont think it will work out the way you think it will. i agree with freedom and liberty to do what you will, but the addictions are too strong. i dont assume youve done crack, for example, i havent either, i but in my life ive only heard one 1 person whos done it once and never again. it being illegal is another reason to not try it. sex, food, etc.can be solved easier.
RESTxINxPIECEZ 2 months ago
@RESTxINxPIECEZ No, ofcourse you do not want to encourage it. There are many interest groups around that actively educate people on the dangers of drugs. Decriminalization is not the same as encouraging.
In nations like Holland or Portugal where certain drugs (or all drugs) have been legalized, there has not been any increase in domestic use.
And it being illegal is actually a problem because that makes people who normally are law abiding citizens, to begin the path of crime over one substance
diurdi 2 months ago
@diurdi i agree with you. people should be responsible for their own actions and have freedome of choice. but everybody makes mistakes, we make up for them, fix them, learn from them. but the mistake of injection heroin isnt the same. and based on principle (which is a big thing for milton friedman) why would you educate on the dangers of a substance and try to turn people away from it, but allow it to be consumed. to me it seems hypocrytical.
RESTxINxPIECEZ 2 months ago
@diurdi also, people need self control. the government is not making people criminals, people are choosing to do something they know is illegal. whether or not you agree with a law, you still need to have enough self control to abid by it. its like speeding, you can be an honest, law abiding person, but when yoou get a ticket for speeding, you cant blame the gov't for putting the speed limit too low. that being said, im curious to see how decriminalization would affect society.
RESTxINxPIECEZ 2 months ago
@RESTxINxPIECEZ Speeding puts others people's at lives. Taking drugs only puts your own.
However, contrast the drug prohibition to the alcohol prohibition. People should've had more self control back then, right? Yet they didn't, they sincerely believed that it was within their rights to consume alcohol. They believed the law was so ludicrous as even the law enforcement themselves consumed alcohol, that abiding the law wasn't necessary.
Today even the US president admits to use of cocaine.
diurdi 2 months ago
@RESTxINxPIECEZ Do you want kids to buy drugs from dealers that are made by uneducated people in dirty underground laboratories, with no oversight of what is put into them
Or do you want them to buy drugs that are produced by educated experts and sold by legal businessess against whom legal recourse will be taken if the product they sell contains anything but what they say it contains?
Your answer might be, no - I want neither. But the reality is that you must choose between one or the other.
diurdi 2 months ago 85
@diurdi Right, I don't want kids to buy drugs at all. When I was in HS in Utah (there probably is not a more weed unfriendly state) I had much easier access to pot than alcohol and I have no doubt that legalization would create a safer environment for my kids.
flyfeetup1 1 month ago
@diurdi they legalized many drugs in portugal with great success
optionsupdate 1 month ago
@diurdi
TBH I'd prefer for no one to buy drugs. They are bad for you. However alcohol and tobacco use goes down, especially with underage when you create laws around, while still allowing them. When you can buy drugs from a pharmacy, or convenience store, street level drug dealers would drop substantially, and businesses will look to keep part of their market rather then risk it to a small subset.
Muslim91 1 month ago
@Muslim91 I would say drugs are bad for your physical health, but some drugs mentally are can be great for you.
halfasser 1 month ago
@diurdi I don't want my kids to buy drugs at all...
Sirafrican 2 weeks ago
@Sirafrican Some kids will always buy drugs. But I think it's your responsibility to make sure YOUR kids dont buy/use them. Not the government's.
diurdi 2 weeks ago
@diurdi That is very true. I understand what you're saying now. Unfortunately we can't stop the consumption drugs so we have to make a decision if we want our government to regulate the way drugs are sold or do we want cartels to make that decision.
Sirafrican 2 weeks ago
@RESTxINxPIECEZ
You've been sold misinformation and horeshit all your life, friend. The anti-cannabis and general anti-drug laws have been funded by the alcohol industry. None more so than against ecstasy during the rave era, where young people would nurse a bottle or two of spring water all night and dance instead of buying their liver rotting drinks. They spent millions and backed newspapers such as the UK's Daily Mail to go on propaganda campaigns. Start thinking for yourself and wake up.
GhibliFan1 2 months ago
i dont know, i agree with his principles but this is much larger than an eating dissorder. eating dissorders dont cause major physical addiction and get you killed for not paying for the product. you should be in charge of what risks you take in life, but you shouldnt be allowed to do take that risk. someone who goes skydiving can make a choice wheather or not to do it again, some teenager who just tryed heroin is 90/100% likely to do it again, and be addicted.
RESTxINxPIECEZ 2 months ago
@RESTxINxPIECEZ Average rhetoric coming from an indoctrinated individual absent of the facts or proper ethics. Friedmans' perspective, like many of ours, is the proponent of cognitive liberty & self-ownership; this alone disproves any of the excuses you can conjure. Overeating typically IS an addiction. Gambling is. Sex. Media. Technology. Life is full of addictions, as well as risk. But there is no place for a state that claims dominion over how one does or does not live their life.
Raelsatu 2 months ago 2
I understand the idea that some drugs are 'TOO' dangerous, but keeping them illegal doesn't keep people from doing those drugs. People need to understand that stopping drug use comes from the individuals and how they raise their children, local communities. Government shouldnt and cant stop people from using drugs thats PEOPLE's job.
mbcannan 2 months ago
41 people are complete idiots.
StratoBlaster420 2 months ago
NATURE drew the line, the GOVERNMENT crossed that line. Support your local occupation.
StratoBlaster420 2 months ago
He makes good points and I totally understand the view, but the man suffers from the exaggeratedly positive view of the effects of legalization
And using alcohol as an example of "success" strikes me as odd, seeing as it is a killer of millions (500k a year in russia alone) and even though its legal, alcoholics who booze away all their money turn to stuff like wood polish because the alcohol is "too expensive"
I can't honestly make myself see any positive end to the legalization scenario.
ogith 2 months ago
@ogith I think you miss the point. People are punished for drunk driving, because it can harm others or their property. However, those that use to the extent that it effects no one but themselves, are not punished. So, let a dumbass turn to wood polish. His choice. The idea is, is that government has no right to intervene in how you live, if no one else rights are being violated. Let people live how they choose is the issue.
SunlitTrollFilms 2 months ago 2
@SunlitTrollFilms
If you are going to be completely honest with this point of view and refuse medicinal aid to these people when some of their number invariably either deteriorate due to the drugs or due to accidents caused during an intoxicated state, then sure, but this is neither the world we live in nor what is even proposed when people talk about legalizing it.
I would agree with you if we were talking about an isolated island of users here, but this just isn't the case.
ogith 2 months ago
I agree with blakerwalk. This is a great video, but the music distracts from the discussion......Ron Paul 2012!
Houndshooter 2 months ago
Great discussion, but this couldve done without the music.
blakerwalk 2 months ago
But marihuana don't give sexual impotence?
mycrazylittIestar 2 months ago
We all know the brainwashed sycophant zealots will do whatever their Zionist masters say, this includes keeping drugs illegal.
brandontimm1001 3 months ago
It's all true but could you imagine if crack or heroin was marketed at us like alcohol or tobacco? Choice is a construct.
PauseTape 3 months ago
@PauseTape And yet tobacco use declined as soon as people became educated about its detrimental effects
SkepticThink 3 months ago 3
Well good thing Gary Johnson is running for president. he would legalize pot n pardon people incarcerated for possesion n sale of it. he needs campaign donations tho. $10 or even $4.20. hes up against Romneys millions so what ever u can give.
john639 3 months ago
@john639 Same as Ron Paul. Cept Rons got abit better funding. Id love to see Ron Paul / Gary Johnson :]
ashkaji 2 months ago
I knew a woman who lived in a Chicago ghetto. I once asked her what she thought would happen if they made cocaine legal. She stared at me in disbelief and said, "A lot of the people I know would be dead."
Different drugs do different things. Let's categorize all drugs in terms of cost-vs.-benefit: if a drug is relatively safe, sell it over the counter; if it's harmful but has legitimate uses, require a doctor's prescription; if it's too dangerous (say, extremely addictive), criminalize it.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@ClumsyRoot Does that idiot lady think druggies can't find drugs now? She is a poster girl for ignorance. Apparently, her friends live in fear of the drug laws, but if drugs were legal, would hurry out to be junkies. Really?
fzqlcs 3 months ago
@fzqlcs
Exactly.
I especially like it when drug warriors warn about how legalization would affect young people. Are they kidding? Right now, the BEST place to find illegal drugs is your local high school.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@ClumsyRoot Yea, they are already doing that. And they decided Pot is as dangerous as heroin. So now we're back to the same point. Where we decide to voice our opinions and say that the goverment is over stepping its bounds yet again.. lol
ashkaji 2 months ago
@ashkaji
Good point. I should have clarified that doctors and scientists should be doing the categorizing, NOT politicians. :)
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot I think you make a valid point, but what friedman is saying is that criminalizing drugs doesn't stop them from getting into the hands of drug users. He's saying there's a tradeoff with legalizing all recreational drugs: it's very likely that they will be more widely used as a result of it, but criminalizing these drugs creates a slew of other problems in society. though society would be better off without harmful recreational drugs, criminalization doesn't solve the problem.
AndrewSpriter 2 months ago
@AndrewSpriter
I agree with Friedman in principle. But I do think that certain drugs are so dangerous--so addictive (like meth) and/or so likely to result in extreme antisocial behavior (like PCP)--that it might be in society's best interest to keep them illegal.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
Where do YOU draw the line for yourself?
LollerStormeR 3 months ago
@LollerStormeR Anything I want to do as long as I am not harming no one else.
sniped101 3 months ago 3
I think all economics should watch.
jjdamien1 3 months ago
I like Milton Friedman, and this was an excellent Q&A, but I do think he turns a cold shoulder to his fellow man.
Basically he's saying people that wreck their lives should be left to die in the street(because an addict won't be able to afford health care). That's wrong in my opinion.
Choices are molded by culture, and who someone is raised around ignorants has a higher chance of being ignorant. Unequal wealth disparity leads to hostile Counter-cultures; cultures that embrace crime.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter An addict, by definition, doesn't care about his own health. So why should a stranger? Of course, you are personally free to give your own money to help him. But that is not enough for you, is it? You want to dictate where the fruits of other people's labor goes. Occupy Wall Street? Government should have no right to take our money by force simply to donate to charity. We can do that ourselves.
fzqlcs 3 months ago
@fzqlcs I believe that an addict is misguided, not inconsiderate of his health. Things are more complicated, me thinks.
I don't take on the mentality of the forest and wilderness when constructing economic policy.
It's not so much "dictating where the fruits of people's labor goes" as much as having a social contract that says we are all indeed our brothers keeper. Making sure we have maximum freedom, yet also health care and jobs. Political considerations must be weighed here as well.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter And you and me should pay for there mistakes? Nope sorry got my own fish to fry here...
ssjwes 3 months ago
@ssjwes Why can't us humans love our fellow brothers, in lieu of shunning them?
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter We can love them, but you cannot force us to work for them. Let's remind ourselves that when the government uses money to try to help a certain person or group of persons, it is in effect stealing that money from every working person in the society. And many of those people will disagree with what it does with that money. Instead, let people decide for themselves whether they want to help addicts or not. It is, after all, their money.
doom032 3 months ago
@doom032 I disagree with you. A society is a giant organism and it's in everyone's interest to make sure we don't have severely low income areas and income disparity because poverty leads to ghettos and dangerous counter cultures and consequently, high crime rates. It ends up costing a lot more via the legal system and all it's components
Now when you say taxing is stealing, I think that it's a unjust accusation. Taxing is the price you pay to live in a safe, stable, brotherly society.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter What is taxing? I essentially, it is the government putting a gun to your head and saying "give us some of your money or go to jail". Whether the government uses it to create what you call "a safe, stable, brotherly society" is irrelevant to the fact that it's still a form of legalized theft. What gives government the right to take that money from anyone? And why can't people use their money to improve society as they want to?
doom032 3 months ago
@doom032 Well, you could look at the glass as half full.
If you think about yourself, and don't take into account others, other wills only think about themselves. Let's not make any illusions here, not every can be rich. In Capitalism, private interests already have the entirety of production in their hands, when you don't try to even the field for others, you face political problems. Without a state playing an active role in Capitalism, and helping out the less fortunate, Capitalism fails.
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter im in favor of freedom. Not fairness. It isn't fair that a kid is born blind but it happens. Life isn't fair so don't make the illusion that capitalism fails because life isn't fair.
You say capitalism fails because its not fair, what do you want me to do? Cut my eyes out and be blind to compete fairly with the kid who is blind? Or should i hold myself back and not go to college because I am smarter than my friend?
sniped101 3 months ago
@sniped101 Blindness is something that cannot be helped, economic philosophy and social policy is something that can be helped.
Capitalism fails precisely because it isn't fair.The only reason why Capitalism has survived is because of GOV.
Folks that assume people aren't rich because they are lazy or not trying hard enough, are folks that ignore the facts: everyone isn't rich because not everyone can be rich. Eventually, the system creates political instability due to crashes and Wealth gaps
Seedofwinter 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter
What you are saying is that in the case of the blind person, the social philosophy would be to pluck out everyone eyes for the sake of making us equal.
What you are saying in the case of a rich person is that the economic philosophy would be to take his money ( BY FORCE) and give it to whoever Obviously, you will always have more people richer than others. The question here is, Is capitalism the best way for people to be free to do whatever they want? The answer is yes.
sniped101 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter He simply said that people who wreck their lives on purpose is of less concern than that child who gets killed in a drug shootout.
2nd statement you make.. "BASICALLY what he said" and "WHAT he said" are two different things. It would be wise for you to say what he said instead of saying what you think he said.
obviously if someone is raised by ignorant people his whole life, he will be ignorant too. what you are talking about is an education issue.
sniped101 3 months ago
@Seedofwinter If you see an addict lying in the street, you are of course free to help him if you want to - you have a choice. However, there is no choice if this care is levied on every working citizen. This is the crux of Friedman's argument.
woogoose 2 months ago
@Seedofwinter Thats not what hes saying at all. Hes saying he has alot less sympathy for people who chose to be a victem, then innocent people who get dragged into this crap. Thats a long shot from him saying "let them die in the street''
ashkaji 2 months ago
@ashkaji Well, that is a survival of the fittest mentality. What ends up happening is that that person starts to become a problem if he ins't helped. Poverty also creates ugly counter-cultures.
We can't take a stance that says everyone is in it for themselves, because such a society creates political instability. What people often forget is that economics is a political exercise.
You CANNOT give tyrannical powers to private enterprise to rape the collective people. It always ends bad
Seedofwinter 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seedofwinter "Basically he's saying people that wreck their lives should be left to die in the street(because an addict won't be able to afford health care). That's wrong in my opinion." It's already the case, he just wants the government to be consistent towards ALL drugs.
balistik94 2 months ago
Interesting angle. This is actually a very good argument for legalizing drugs.
joejohnson043 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IM HUNGRY FOR SUM LIBERTY!!! RON PAUL 2012!
iluvpoliticzz 3 months ago
IM HUNGRY FOR SUM LIBERTY!!!
iluvpoliticzz 3 months ago
The reason drugs should remain illegal, as opposed to unhealthy food or other dangerous activity - is that drugs destroys the person. If drugs were legalized we would be socialists within a generation. Drugs weaken the mind and the will and the connection to the soul (even if it may feel like the opposite). A drugged population is a population of slaves and sheep who will never resist any master over them because they are drugged, and thus are perfectly content to become slaves. No legalization!
7Highlander 3 months ago
@7Highlander
Drugs are capable of weakening the mind, agreed. But legalizing them would not be socialist, in fact the opposite. The slaves and sheep who take the drugs were most likely "slaves and sheep" to begin with. Who's role is it to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body? The government? Why do they know best?
alanross999 3 months ago
@7Highlander Nice to know unhealthy food and dangerous activity do not destroy people. Wonder why they call them unhealthy and dangerous? Also, the people are sheep now. Don't blame that on drugs. Blame that on an unwillingness to think.
fzqlcs 3 months ago
@7Highlander but the people do the drugs anyway, and they find worse ones than the most accessible would be, if legalized. There are people that just want to sniff glue, paint, aerosol cans etc. It's bizarre, and terrible, however, it gets to the point where now everything is illegal. If you want to buy a Sudafed, you get ID'd and they log it, if you were to try to buy more than they think you should, you'd be arrested (so don't try to stock up), because now people make Meth.... lame
joejohnson043 3 months ago
Haha my dad is extremely into economics and this is one of his favorite debaters and he has shown me several of his videos I've debated legalization with him and he is 100% against it....I need to show him this
55beau55 3 months ago
If only politicians would listen to information like this.
charon128 3 months ago
Looks like we should all move to portugual!!!!!! Summer Vacation here we come.....
MrUncensorable 3 months ago
if you like this also watch judge jim gray on the six groups who benefit from prohibition
sativasymbiosis 3 months ago
Hard to believe this guy was friends with Reagan on this issue.
htiberian 3 months ago
I wish that fucking saxaphone wasn't playing; I can't hear Milton!
htiberian 3 months ago
Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded. - Abraham Lincoln
Anomki 4 months ago
"We can each resolve, every last one of us, to do the maximum that we can, in each of our given circumstances and by making opportunities, and this then becomes our personal contribution towards ending the worldwide prohibition of cannabis." - Jayelle Farmer
Anomki 4 months ago
im pro that weed should be Legalized, but if u take LSD, and i see a man walk down the street, u might imagen that he looks like a zombie and u kill him. now you would never have killed him if it wernt cuz of the drug. so u cant legalize every drug in my opinion :)
knezoskin 4 months ago in playlist Videoklipp som favoritmarkerats av knezoskin
@knezoskin Gee, do you have any stats on the deaths caused by LSD hallucinations? I am going to guess there are none most years. Is this your best case for basing criminality on the political status of substances rather than on violations of personal, civil or property rights? Just asking ...
fzqlcs 4 months ago
THis is the most precise and well spoken conversation on the reasons why we should legalize drugs and I do agree with Mr. Friedman. I am a philosophy major from Berkeley and I happen to agree with his reasoning, I am not abdicating the use of drugs but from a purely ecconomic standpoint the money raised could educate, be put to great uses, and not criminalize hard working people who wish to consume drugs for whatever reason. Hats off to Milton.
baronsting 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exactly!
END THE WAR ON DRUGS!!!
trick69ist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th*
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
+5500 pledges so far!!
Please spread the word!!
qwerty94376 4 months ago
so much for free country and democratic country , free choice ?? as long you don't harm others why is thatt mater? , tell you what mater.. if matijuana was legalised , people are thinking and more smarter , then the government and thir bosses ( the shadow government ) will loose their control , because people actualy thinking and get smarter , and the CIA ( crrok in action ) will loose their lolly money.
deskcorner 4 months ago
quelqu'un aurait cette vid en français?
Accompp 4 months ago
Legalize It
OppressedAnarchist 4 months ago
@crazypants88 He's not talking about your petty home town contacts. He's talking about the South American drug cartels that own the coca fields or the Afghanistan cartels that own the poppy fields. Those are the big business monopoly guys, unless your hometown contacts have a poppy field or coca field in their backyards they have to go to another source in order to purchase the drugs they are selling. Only big business have the finances in order to smuggle the drugs into the United States. I'm
Dmacthemackdaddy 4 months ago
if not legalized, monopolies are created
Username14129 4 months ago
@Username14129 I don't agree. I can buy from at least 4 guys and I live in fairly small society. I'm sure if I tried I could get up to 10 contacts. I agree that it should be legalized but I can't agree on the monopoly part.
crazypants88 4 months ago
This is the only thing on which I agree with Friedman.
rolopolo66 4 months ago
well, I was in a mmj legal state and could barely afford it. now i'm back in illegal state I can't. So I smoke pall malls and am taking time off my life. never done crack but I have SEEN his point first hand in my friends community.
assman255 4 months ago
I LOVE FRIEDMAN, NAPOLITANO, STOSSEL, & RON PAUL!!!!
iluvpoliticzz 4 months ago