Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Weekend Idiot-Bashing
Over at Human Events , conservative blogger John Hawkins clenches real hard, and craps out a tedious defense of the drug war.
Hawkins has never been the brightest bulb in the conservative blogosphere. But wow. I think I'll keep the three hours of my life it'd take me to give it the thorough debunking it begs for. But feel free to fire away in the comments.
gregtmills|1.27.07 @ 4:33PM|#
How many crimes are committed using guns? How many gun owners
have killed their kids accidently? How many people are in jail
today because they used a gun in committing a crime? How many lives
have been wrecked in some form or fashion by guns?
//Just saying, using emotional manipulation in argument is supposed
to be a liberal trait.
Single Issue Voter|1.27.07 @ 4:34PM|#
I'll give it 30 seconds.........
That is mighty Progressive thinking for a Conservative.
( I bet he thinks Cockfighting is against "Our Moral Code" too)
Single Issue Voter|1.27.07 @ 4:42PM|#
One more.........
I think only "liberaltarians" want the Federal Government to be the
"drug pusher"
If I wanted those drugs I would prefer to buy them from the hippie
farmer at the local greenmarket, CVS Eckerds or Walgreens
|1.27.07 @ 4:59PM|#
I think I'll keep the three hours of my life it'd take me to give it the thorough debunking
3 hours? You underestimate yourself Radley. But it is saturday,
have a beer and enjoy a game of Halo, or something.
Pete Guither|1.27.07 @ 5:22PM|#
I've got a piece up at at Drug WarRant on this and several similar recent pieces of junk that came out this week. Like Radley, I felt that it was just too foul to be worth the bother of debunking, but I did talk about the prohibitionists' annoying and intellectually dishonest technique of equating marijuana legalization with murder legalization.
Colin|1.27.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Wow... He basically said prohibition worked. Awesome. I don't
know why it was ever repealed, what with the better health everyone
had and the lower crime ra... oh yeah...
The funny thing is that because of all the limits the states have
put on cigarettes, it's actually easier for a high school kid to
buy some weed than it is to get a pack of smokes. Obviously the
Drug War is working.
|1.27.07 @ 5:30PM|#
I like how Ann Coulter's opinion/unfunny-comedy book is cited as
a source.
Since I can't get those three minutes back, I'm going to now burn
the article from my memory with a nice, fat doobie.
|1.27.07 @ 5:37PM|#
"easier for a high school kid to buy some weed than it is to get
a pack of smokes"
Colin
You know, the funny thing is that my friends and I used to smoke
pot, and drop ecstasy all the time way back when (in the 90's).
Going to a party that had booze was rare cause the shit was harder
to get!
Speaking of which, The wife has a cold so I finally had my first
experience of trying to by Nyquil with sudafed in it today. They
had to swipe my ID.
|1.27.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Ironically, Hawkins, on his blog, lists The Agitator as one of the "right-of-center" blogs he emailed for his presidential poll.
Lonely Libertarian|1.27.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Here's the money passage:
If we legalized drugs, we'd be able to tax them and bring in more
revenue for the state. But, how is that working out with alcohol
and cigarettes? In 2004 and 2005, 39% of all traffic-related deaths
was related to alcohol consumption and 36% of convicted offenders
"had been drinking alcohol when they committed their conviction
offense." When it comes to cigarettes, adult smokers "die 14 years
earlier than nonsmokers." But, will we ever get rid of tobacco or
alcohol? No, both products are too societally accepted for that and
perhaps more importantly, the government makes enormous amounts of
revenue from their sale. Do we really want to be sitting around 10
or 15 years from now saying, "Gee, we'd like to get rid of heroin,
but how could we replace the revenue we make from taxing it at an
exorbitant rate?"
Just in case you didn't get all that, alcohol and cigarettes are
bad too, but we can't make them illegal because 1) they are
socially acceptable and 2) the government makes a lot of money off
of them. Only, that second reason, it's not a very good reason. So
that leaves us with the first reason which is social acceptability.
So there you have it, some drugs are legal because they are
socially acceptable and other drugs are illegal because they are
socially unacceptable. How can we ever win, going up against logic
like that.
J|1.27.07 @ 5:48PM|#
I just love how he switches from talking about Holland in one
sentence to whining about socialized health care in the next.
Health insurance in The Netherlands is mandatory, subsidized, and
heavily regulated, though nominally privately provided. There are
other reasons to dislike such a system, of course, although it is
actually a better in some subtle ways than the one we had until a
few years ago. The reason that subsidized health care hasn't kept
the Dutch from legalizing pot is simply that the burden on the
subsidized health care system from a couple of kids smoking pot is
negligible. The major source of medical problems is associated with
tourists, and the health care they consume is paid for out of
pocket (or in some cases by their respective governments.)
But what bothers me way more than this particular not so bright
blogger's whining is the DEA site he links to. This is not anything
remotely like a legitimate public service announcement, it's hard
propaganda for particular controversial policies. For instance, it
states in a big yellow box: "In 2006, voters in three states
strongly rejected efforts to legalize marijuana: Colorado, Nevada
and South Dakota."
http://www.justthinktwice.com/factfiction/LegalizationWorks.cfm
|1.27.07 @ 5:49PM|#
It seems to me that "legalizing drugs" is a different issue from
"stopping the drug war."
If drugs were still illegal, and people found with drugs were still
sent to jail, but the government no longer funded paramilitary
activity in Colombia and no-knock SWAT raids in the USA, that would
be a better outcome than what we have, if not as good as full
legalization. In fact, I'd say it'd be closer to the latter than
the former, in terms of utility.
Colin|1.27.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Steveintheknow:
Yeah, the same thing was pretty much the case with me. I remember
that my younger brother didn't touch cigarettes until he was in the
Army because pot was easier to get and "had a better kick
anyway."
When I lived in San Francisco, over 18 by then, it was *still*
easier to get an eigth than my daily pack of Camels. In New York,
now, it's almost cheaper.
RSDavis|1.27.07 @ 6:02PM|#
I read it, it made me mad, and then I moved on. It's one of
those rants there is so much wrong with, it's almost impossible to
begin.
- R
|1.27.07 @ 6:06PM|#
-Colin
No shit on the New York part! As for me, I didn't start smoking
cigarettes until I was 18. In retrospect, it was definately the
worst decision (in terms of drug use) I ever made. Cocaine, ex,
acid, pot, you name it, no harm done. Cigarettes on the other hand
could kill me, if I can't find a way to quit. But I do take
responsibility for that, and don't support bans in private
places.
|1.27.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Jesus tapdancing Christ, what wouldn't be okay to ban according to this guy's "argument"?
|1.27.07 @ 6:24PM|#
does the author really believe his own pap?
or does he just believe that he oughta believe?
go team!
TH|1.27.07 @ 6:40PM|#
I'm going to go off on a limb and guess the answer to his "How many crack babies have been born?" question is 0.
JohnHawkins|1.27.07 @ 6:52PM|#
You libertarians crack me up. Nothing more than America-Hating
hedonists in patriot clothing. Do some research and get back to
me.
JHawk
Pi Guy|1.27.07 @ 7:31PM|#
Mr. Hawkins,
That was so pathetic that it doesn't even merit being called
wrong.
PS: Referencing Coulter as an authority on anything pretty much
invalidates any argument you present.
PPS: Look up "non-sequitor". In the future, you might want to avoid
using more than, say, 11 of them in any given article where you
wish to convince people that you have a clue.
|1.27.07 @ 7:35PM|#
"Libertarians often attack the war on drugs as a waste of
tax dollars and an infringement on personal liberties. That is
misguided thinking that comes from trying to apply unworkable
theoretical concepts in the real world."
Funny, The Drug War seems to me like a perfect example of a
theoretical concept that's unworkable when applied to the real
world. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
There are no theoretical people and somebody should clue Hawkins
in. There's nothing "workable" about throwing real people in prison
for no apparent reason.
|1.27.07 @ 7:41PM|#
My computer is like a refrigerator bulb compared to everyone
else's searchlight, so I was unable to download the article from
Human Events. Nevertheless I can share the recent response I got
from my old friend, Peter Bronson, columnist for the Cincinnati
Enquirer about ending the war on drugs. Peter and I have been
jousting for years.
If I see some good responses here, I'll use them on him. But I
won't hold my breath that he'll change his mind.
.....
Thanks for the note. I try to keep an open mind on the topic, but
everytime I have reviewed it, often with every intention of
supporting your position, I come away with deep misgivings about
the unintended consequences of good intentions. I'm not sure I want
to live (or my children to live) in a world where "anything goes."
I think our culture is already eroding fast from that philosophy in
so many other ways. Decriminalizing drugs might reduce drug crimes
(or maybe not - we still have illegal betting despite casinos and
lotteries). But I think it would certainly accelerate the decline
of our society. The invisible fences of "permission" don't need
another break in the circuit that says drug use is OK.
|1.27.07 @ 7:50PM|#
Ken,
I, too, am frequently amazed at the usage of words like "reality"
and "real world" on both sides of the aisle to describe things that
are not real but are reflections of the way they want things to be.
Honestly, as much as libertarians are dismissed as idealists, I
think we tend to accept the world as it is--warts and all--and
don't try to make people something they aren't.
|1.27.07 @ 7:58PM|#
"I'm not sure I want to live (or my children to live) in a
world where "anything goes." I think our culture is already eroding
fast from that philosophy in so many other ways. Decriminalizing
drugs might reduce drug crimes (or maybe not - we still have
illegal betting despite casinos and lotteries). But I think it
would certainly accelerate the decline of our society. The
invisible fences of "permission" don't need another break in the
circuit that says drug use is OK."
Freedom scares the shit out of an awful lot of people, and an awful
lot of people really do hate us for our freedom.
b-psycho|1.27.07 @ 8:05PM|#
When you realize the true nut of the point being claimed by drug warriors -- "without the State telling people what they can and cannot do, they'd just go bonkers and try everything!" -- you find yourself wondering how the hell self-described "conservatives" ever bought that crap. Doesn't that directly contradict their whole "traditional values as guidance" bit?
|1.27.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Pro Liberate,
Yeah, I get into debates about that even with other libertarians
sometimes.
Freedom isn't necessarily the solution to every problem. Freedom
won't put an end to spousal abuse or alcoholism and it won't stop
people from cussing or looking at pictures of scantily clad women.
It won't make people be nice to their moms and it may not raise
awareness of AIDS. With more freedom, there will still be unwanted
pregnancies and armed robberies and people may still curb their dog
on your front lawn. Kids 'll probably still get funny hair cuts and
listen to loud obnoxious music. Freedom probably won't make rich
people pay for poor people's health care...
...but it has its points. Among other things, you get freedom.
Matt Moore|1.27.07 @ 8:09PM|#
PS: Referencing Coulter as an authority on anything pretty much invalidates any argument you present.
While this is true, you might get some credit if, in the reference
you use, she was actually correct (hey, it could happen). But in
this case it's the old "Prohibition worked because alcohol
consumption fell" canard. Alcohol consumption fell initially (and
known consumption fell for the entirety of Prohibition,
but only because true data on use of an illicit substance is hard
to come by) but arrests for drunkenness were essentially back to
pre-Prohibition levels by 1925.
And even if Prohibition had lowered drinking levels significantly
you'd still have to ignore all the peripheral crime problems to
call it a success.
Matt Moore|1.27.07 @ 8:11PM|#
Doesn't that directly contradict their whole "traditional values as guidance" bit?
The bedrock of American conservatism is Christianity, and the
bedrock of Christianity is original sin. Man is unredeemably
sinful, so therefore the state must force him to act correctly.
|1.27.07 @ 8:13PM|#
"I think we tend to accept the world as it is--warts and
all--and don't try to make people something they aren't."
Pro Libertate,
No one knows what the world will be. Very few know what it was.
Here's the nut. Very few know what it is.
The Sante Fe Institute is on the cutting edge of answering "what it
is," but who the hell ever heard of the Sante Fe Institute?
From what I can tell about the Sante Fe Institute from a distance,
even they don't realize how significant their thinking is, much
less how supportive it is of peaceful anarchy.
|1.27.07 @ 8:21PM|#
Reports of the West's decline due to moral reasons are greatly
exaggerated. Exactly which society in human history collapsed
because it had too much freedom? Again, political liberty
and libertine behavior are not at all the same thing.
I'm actually fairly traditional in my personal morals, and I've
never used recreational drugs, but I'm not worried about "letting"
other people do such things. Maybe a moral decline is happening,
and maybe it really is a problem. But I'm willing to weather a
period of wantonness much more than I'm willing to resort to
tyranny to stop it.
Ken,
I agree. Freedom is a valid end in and of itself. A free society
also works better, in my opinion. Look, humanity is obviously
screwed up, but handing our individual decision-making over to
other members of the same species, members who are likely to be
corrupted by power, makes no sense. Enlightened robot overlords are
another story, as is rule by Jesus or superbeings from outer
space.
|1.27.07 @ 8:25PM|#
The bedrock of American conservatism is Christianity, and
the bedrock of Christianity is original sin. Man is unredeemably
sinful, so therefore the state must force him to act
correctly.
Not to get off point, but I was raised in a Christian
fundamentalist tradition that, actually, rejected original sin as a
point of doctrine. Actually, many fundamentalists are quite
terrified of government overstepping its bounds. There's one branch
of fundamentalism that makes a lot of noise and gets a lot of
press, but in terms of their numbers and the influence they have,
that's often blown way out of proportion.
Christianity ain't the problem. ...those who would inflict their
will on the rest of us--fundamentalist or otherwise--they're the
problem. People who think there are "invisible fences of
"permission", people who think they should have some say in how
other people conduct their lives--they're the problem. People who
think an individual's rights and freedoms are a fungible thing,
something to be manipulated for the good of society--they're the
problem.
...and that lion's share of that last bunch, me thinks, hails from
the agnostic left.
|1.27.07 @ 8:34PM|#
Doesn't that directly contradict their whole "traditional
values as guidance" bit?
Hell no. If anything, it's much more traditional to conflate moral
rules, tradition, and criminal law into a single entity, even to
the point of including the laws of nature. It wasn't that long ago,
after all, that people stopped believing masturbation caused actual
physical illness.
|1.27.07 @ 8:45PM|#
Here's my question: Why do people bother to compose articles and
blog posts against legalization? I've never gotten the
impression that legalization is a proposal with any serious
prospects at the moment. So why would anybody feel threatened
enough by us legalization advocates to go out of his way and pick a
fight?
I would think that ignoring us would be a much better strategy for
them. What is it that they're afraid of?
Seriously, I'd like to know what they're afraid of, because then I
might feel hopeful about legalization.
|1.27.07 @ 8:47PM|#
"It wasn't that long ago, after all, that people stopped
believing masturbation caused actual physical illness."
You mean it doesn't? ...and here I thought I could go blind.
Hallelujah!
Well that's it for me, guys--I gotta go do somethin' important!
|1.27.07 @ 9:16PM|#
It comes down to this:
At the root of all evil is the desire to control others.
At the root of all good is the desire to control oneself.
(Or something like that...)
Single Issue Voter|1.27.07 @ 9:19PM|#
MR. Shultz,
You could do a lot of good spreading that truth about
fundamentalist Christianity. I was born and raised Heathen and it
took me a while to realise that "Christianity ain't the
problem".Quite a few of those fundies hold views perfectly
consistent with libertarianism. Uphill battle though, I hear/read
that every anti-freedom notion of secular progressivism attributed
to "Right Wing Christians".The transference is pretty popular right
here.
|1.27.07 @ 9:23PM|#
thoreau,
Paul H. Rubin has an article in the Winter issue of Regulation (of
the Cato Institute) that talks of the prehistoric fear tribes have
that the "braves," whose job is supposed to be protecting the
tribe, would weaken themselves (by drug usage).
But, then, there is the other characteristic of "braves," which is
called engaging in "handicap competition."
See why the Sante Fe Institute is so necessary in sorting out human
and tribe and societal behavior?
Freedom is so mental. Reality is so primal.
sINGLE iSSUE vOTER|1.27.07 @ 9:26PM|#
Well most people should be forgiven for thinking
masturbation caused insanity as that was the "scientific concensus"
at the time. To have questioned science would have made them
"masturbation insanity DENIERS".
The Wine Commonsewer|1.27.07 @ 9:34PM|#
Well, I guess we should just make alcohol illegal again and
solve all our problems.
BTW, there 377 comments on Hawkins blog. Read a few and you'll know
why drugs will never be legalized.
Big Sigh. There really is no hope.
Now I'm going back to my drudgery.
|1.27.07 @ 10:14PM|#
"...in the sort of welfare state that we have in this country,
the rest of us would end up paying a significant share of the bills
of people who don't hold jobs or end up strung out in the hospital
without jobs...."
And how do those costs compare with what we currently spend on
enforcement and imprisonment?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.27.07 @ 10:17PM|#
Yes, but Ken, that DOES explain the zits and the fur on your palms.
|1.27.07 @ 10:19PM|#
Actually, Prohibition did work to some extent: it drastically
reduced alcohol consumption, and it stayed low for decades after
before slowly climbing back up. And this in itself is pretty
amazing given how underfunded and undermanned the effort was from
start to finish: with very little effort and expense, the
consumption of booze was basically chopped in half. That's nothing
to sneeze at as far as social hacking goes.
The reason Prohibition was bad was not because it's impossible that
it could work, but because it was wrong, it put people who were
harming no one under legal suspicion, and it created a huge and
violent black market.
|1.27.07 @ 10:31PM|#
Quite a few of those fundies hold views perfectly consistent
with libertarianism.
Riiight, tell that anyone who wants a same-sex marriage, or a woman
who needs an abortion.
For all Single Issue's tendency to blame all American
authoritarianism on "progressives," I'm yet to find a high-profile
fundie give the Drug War anything but their jack-booted, theocratic
praise.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.27.07 @ 10:34PM|#
...huge and violent black market.
My grandmother's finance was gunned down at the Canadian border by
the feds when he tried to smuggle hooch in from Canada.
When I was a youngun I knew an old guy who was once a Texas Ranger.
Fargin Democrat too. As a misguided yoot he made a lot of money
smuggling alcohol from Mexico to Texas. The local sheriff looked
the other way but did warn him that if the feds caught him he was
dead meat.
|1.27.07 @ 10:52PM|#
"Do some research and get back to me."
*Slaps forehead*
Why didn't I think of that? RESEARCH! Oh, if only any libertarians
had ever thought to do research on the effects of drug
prohibition!
That's a great idea "JHawk!" *snicker* Maybe you should suggest it
to Jacob Sullum, or CATO!
thoreau,
People write anti-legalization screeds for the same reason they
call people "America-haters" - because something is wrong with
their brains, and spewing condemnation of those who don't agree
with them alleviates the symptoms momentarily.
|1.27.07 @ 11:10PM|#
Slightly off-topic, but I was struck in his article, and not for
the first time, about how hard it is to get accurate information
about drug use. That includes effects, by the way. My son broke his
arm this Thursday, an overlaying break of his upper arm, where the
ends of the two parts of the bone actually overlap. (The ER techs
told me more than once, "I wouldn't be as calm as he is if I had
that break.") I mention this both for sympathy and because it's
been an adventure getting painkillers for an eight-year-old. Nobody
makes 'em. Now, I'm willing to believe that part of this is the
dangers inherent in testing drugs on kids, but I have to wonder if
part if it is the fear that kids will get addicted, or just that
they'll enjoy the sensation. Honestly, I really don't care if Andy
gets a little stoned for the next few days so long as he doesn't
hurt. (Note: they gave him a full syringe of morphine in the ER. It
didn't knock him out. Woozy, but definitely concious, and with an
adult-sized opiate shot.) Seriously, though, our pain-relief
technology is hampered by the fear that someone, somewhere, will
use a painkiller without having a debilitating injury to earn it.
Thus, we're willing to allow thousands of people to hurt just so
some people won't have fun.
Oh, and just so's you know, our doctor gave him a Vicodin
prescription with instructions to cut the pills in half. The work
like a charm.
|1.27.07 @ 11:12PM|#
Plunge
"Prohibition did work to some extent: it drastically reduced
alcohol consumption, and it stayed low for decades after before
slowly climbing back up."
I'd like to see stats on that. I was under the impression that per
capita alcohol consumption in the US, Canada and Western Europe was
actually trending down. It is certainly far down from two centuries
ago, but I have no information either way on the trend since
1918.
|1.27.07 @ 11:15PM|#
If somebody wants to know why drugs should be legal, I can
answer that question with one word:
Taliban.
If it weren't for drug prohibition, opium wouldn't be terribly
profitable, and you'd see dudes at the freeway off ramp with signs
that read "Will hijack for food."
Single Issue Voter|1.27.07 @ 11:23PM|#
Akira,
I've yet to see a prominent Democrat call for drug
legalization.George Schultz and James Baker have (albeit after
their elevation to "elder statesman".I keep asking you
Progressive/Socialist Authoritarians to name ONE
libertarian leaning Democrat at the National level.
I still don't see anything libertarian about the State
sanctioning/recognising private domestic/sexual
partnerships-marriage if you will-Gay or Straight.Gay marriage is
one of those positive rights y'all are always whining about- like
freedom from income inequality.I don't see your "Constitutional
Right to Abortion" in any danger at the Federal level.
Perhaps you should lobby for legislation to protect it in case the
SCOTUS finds any legal problems with that air tight R vs W
decision.
You seem to have a strange conception of what libertarianism
is.
However as a Single Issue Voter I could be persuaded to some of
your views. What is your opinion on legal cockfighting?
MikeT|1.27.07 @ 11:24PM|#
I
took the time to rebut some of it. The guy is not one for
taking on others in debates. I have challenged him to a debate over
the issue of the "North American Union" which he has said can never
happen, and that only tin foil hat-wearing idiots would buy into.
Some of my pings to his entries have even been deleted, even though
I have
presented historic evidence to counter his claims, and none of
my posts were the stuff of conspiracy mongering.
He's a well meaning guy, which is more than can be said for a lot
of conservative commentators, but it's always been a mystery to me
why he's gotten so much attention. His writing for Human Events is
as conversational in writing style as your average blog post. It's
not even close to "serious writing" and generally barely qualifies
as fluff. Hell, I rebutted on his blog that claim he posted from
Ann Coulter's book that alcohol prohibition worked, by citing Cato
stats that showed that it barely touched consumption rates and
there was a marked increase in murder rates during that period, and
he still didn't respond.
I have for a while thought a blog sparring match between him and
Vox Day would be hilarious. It would not even qualify as a baby
seal clubbing by the time Vox was through with him.
MikeT|1.27.07 @ 11:26PM|#
Aresen,
Here are
Cato's stats. They show that prohibition did initially work, but
that's to be expected when the source of the alcohol has to
transition from open market to black market.
MikeT|1.27.07 @ 11:28PM|#
Heh, I should have finished that last thought. The reason that alcohol prohibition got consumption rates back down really low is simple. Prohibition killed all of the legal distribution channels and a robust black market didn't exist yet. The initial enforcements destroyed the existing open, legal market which ended all competition to the black market. Thus, markets being markets, the black market exploded in size to meet the same old consumption needs.
uncle sam|1.27.07 @ 11:49PM|#
Conservvatives, some of them at least, really don't know what it
is that accounts for civilizations and what brings them down.
Did Rome fall because of decadence? Or did Rome become decadent
because it was falling?
Political power corrupts not only those who rule, but those who are
ruled as well.
dhex|1.28.07 @ 12:40AM|#
"If it weren't for drug prohibition, opium wouldn't be terribly
profitable, and you'd see dudes at the freeway off ramp with signs
that read "Will hijack for food.""
thoreau, that's not the point. the point is that they're frightened
and dope fiends are scary. if we don't look tuff on drugs then the
talibans and the al kaedas and the soviet union will come out of
retirement and then we're up shit creek without a paddle.
you're either for the children or you're against them.
THartill|1.28.07 @ 12:43AM|#
Hey at least something good came out of reading his blog. According to the poll Republicans prefer Ron Paul over McCain by 40 points! Although RP is still 40 points behind Newt.
|1.28.07 @ 1:04AM|#
I still don't see anything libertarian about the State
sanctioning/recognising private domestic/sexual
partnerships-marriage if you will-Gay or Straight.Gay marriage is
one of those positive rights y'all are always whining about- like
freedom from income inequality.
First Your comment on "income equality," is a strawman fallacy. How
the Hell did you come o the assumption that I'm some sort of
socialist because I think same-sex couples should be allowed to get
hitched? Who formulates your...ahem... logic? Bill Orally?
Second, gay marriage is--or should be--covered under the First
Amendment: Under the Establishment Clause (i.e. the state shouldn't
be making the Christian notion of marriage law), the Free Exercise
Clause (i.e. Churches should have the right to marry whoever they
want, gays and lesbians included) and the Free Association Clause
(i.e. If the sexual practices of consenting adults do not count as
"association," then I don't know what does.)
I don't see your "Constitutional Right to Abortion" in any
danger at the Federal level.
Why should we have to have every human practice imaginable
enumerated in the Constitution in order to protect it? Hmmm?
Perhaps you should lobby for legislation to protect it in case
the SCOTUS finds any legal problems with that air tight R vs W
decision.
Which is about as likely to happen as Pat Robertson inviting
Richard Dawkins to dinner, unless we continue to pack the courts
with Bible-beaters. Besides, isn't putting freedom up to a vote by
the knuckle dragging mob just as "statist" as you allowing it be
defined by so-called "judical activists?"
|1.28.07 @ 1:34AM|#
Just a quick, vague, and general response:
It is interesting how nobody who argues against "moral
degeneration" seems to have a coherent non-tautological conception
of morality. At its skeleton, the argument seems to be this:
"Busybody: If we allow people to do drugs (allow gay people to get
married, etc.), then we are going to contribute to the moral decay
of the U.S.
Libertarian: Well, what exactly would the moral decay of america
entail?
Busybody: Gay people having sex and people doing drugs you America
hater!"
Too bad nobody cares about rationality anymore.
|1.28.07 @ 3:33AM|#
Karen,
Keep us posted and please tell the story - how did he break it?
I
would like to start a serial...
Really, let him know that there are people who, although he has
never met them, that his mother has never met them, but she has
occasionally communicated with them via the internet, but not in
real time, are still concerned and wish him the best.
It's kind of awe-inspiring if you think about it.
|1.28.07 @ 3:42AM|#
You libertarians crack me up. Nothing more than America-Hating hedonists in patriot clothing. Do some research and get back to me.
Woh!!!
(cliche coming)
Best. Troll. Evar!!
Well, I guess its better then being a LIBERTY and FREEDOM hating
dipshit!!!
You know dude, you should try gauging your audience a little
better. When you are talking to a bunch of folks who value actual
PEOPLE more then some GOVERNMENT, the whole "I'm more patriotic
then you" spiel reads a bit like, I don't know, "my dad can beat up
your dad". Anyway, I could be wrong but I always remember being
taught back in the secondary schoolin' days and all, that
criticizing the government, especially when they act like a bunch
of dumb asses, that you know, it was like what's the word?....oh
yeah, PATRIOTIC!
Anyway, I'm going to watch Federer bitch slap some dude now. Kind
of like when some moron starts saying shit like "prohibition
actually did work and ……". Oh what's the point (sigh)…
|1.28.07 @ 5:50AM|#
Alright, I must apologize for my rudeness and crass language.
I'm not doing any libertarians, or anti-drug war folks any favors
by showing so little class. I just get upset sometimes, and like
with most of my comments on H&R, I really wish I had let myself
cool down before saying something stupid. I usually feel that way
when I respond to joe. ;)
Anyway, as a former (illegal) drug user, and pretty heavy at times,
I get pretty angry when drug-warriors question my values and
ethics, especially when they play the patriotic card on a domestic
issue. I eventually graduated college, recently got married and am
looking to starting a family. I could have gone to jail several
times if weren't for some very gracious police officers. I can only
imagine what would have happened if I had gone to jail and gotten a
felony. My life would be screwed, not to mention that I would have
never become a positive contributor to society. Anyway, drugs are
bad, but throwing people in jail for it is worse.
Karen
As a fellow Austinite, best wishes. And hopefully I will never need
your services (all smiles).
BTW, Fderer is up two sets!!! Switzerland vs. Chile, a pretty damn
fine libertarian match-up, if I do say so myself.
Single Issue Voter|1.28.07 @ 9:30AM|#
Akira,
You are casting marriage as a positive right.
Why should the State sanction/recognize any marriage at all?
The non-sequitor attacks on media personalitites of cable news and
publisihing taint your State Socialist trolling. What the hell do
O'Reilly and Coulter have to do with anything discussed in the
blog's comments?
These new "liberaltarians" seem to skip over Friedman and Hayek for
Al Franken.
|1.28.07 @ 9:34AM|#
"Our moral code" Is this clown really trying to make smoking a
joint the moral equivalent of murder. While I certainly agree that
murder is immoral, I am unable to make the giant leap regarding ANY
drug use. The crime and human degradation he speaks of are a result
of the drug war and not drug use.
I'm not a utopian. I don't pretend for even a second that liberty
will result in a society without any ugliness. But this so called
adherence to "morality" forces addicts (a medical condition and not
a moral failing btw) to conduct their business with the most amoral
elements of society (next to government), they are forced to deal
with filty, overpriced product. They are barred from getting help
by the stigma and legal exposure by admitting to use.
Conclusion: Drug wars are immoral.
|1.28.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Thanks for all the good wishes. It really does mean a lot and
helps enormously. Andy is doing really well, considering. We went
to see Night at the Museum last night and he enjoyed it
immensely, (it is actually a pretty cute movie, and I loved getting
to see Mickey Rooney and Dick Van Dyke in action again.) The movie
wasn't nearly as much fun, however, as gloating to his little
brother about being able to eat pizza in the den because the only
place he can prop up his sling comfortably is one of the recliners.
Oh, and steveintheknow, Seton Southwest has a nice and rather
uncrowded ER, but I hope you never need to use that
information.
Thanks again, guys, and I'll report anything else.
|1.28.07 @ 10:25AM|#
Seems the usual. OMG! If we legalize drugs the world will
collapse, the sky will fall, we will have dogs living with cats,
nazis riding dinosaurs, etc.
Plus added some really bizarre BS about alcohol prohibition being
good. It's really scary that I hear that more and more from
"conservatives".
|1.28.07 @ 10:31AM|#
MikeT
Thanks for the link. It covers about what I would have expected for
the prohibition era itself. However, I took Plunge's note to mean
that consumption was increasing. He didn't say per capita
consumption was increasing, though.
I just googled "per capita alcohol consumption" and came up with
this link:
http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/bestprice/alcoholdrinkconsumptionpriceseurope.htm
For most countries in the OECD, including the US, it looks like per
capita consumption is declining over the long term, although the
measure seems to be just the volume of the beverages, not the
ethanol content.
[I'm still trying to figure out how to post html, sorry.]
Single Issue Voter|1.28.07 @ 10:39AM|#
"a medical condition and not a moral failing btw"
re "Addiction"
I totally disagree
That is the argument for continuing drug prohibition-the Public
Health argument.
Addiction as moral failure is much more supportive of drug
legalization. Legislating public health has more voter appeal than
legislating morality.
Jackson Kuhl|1.28.07 @ 11:07AM|#
MikeT,
The reason that alcohol prohibition got consumption rates back
down really low is simple. Prohibition killed all of the legal
distribution channels and a robust black market didn't exist yet.
The initial enforcements destroyed the existing open, legal market
which ended all competition to the black market. Thus, markets
being markets, the black market exploded in size to meet the same
old consumption needs.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I would point out that it's
amazing how fast the black market did take shape immediately after
the Volstead Act became reality. But yes, it wasn't until 1924 or
so when the big organized syndicates had smuggling and cutting down
to a science that the market networks became so large and
intractable as to duplicate or surpass anything that existed before
Prohibition.
That said, I would suggest that the cause of the downturn in
consumption around 1920-1921 had more to do with public attitude
than with enforcement. Remember that Prohibition had its roots in
the temperence movement dating back to the mid-19th century and
only became law due to a sense of solidarity and self-sacrifice
brought on by the World War. Been-there historians like Frederick
Lewis Allen noted that the coming Prohibition was widely felt to be
a good thing during the war years but that a gradual sea-change
took place after the Treaty of Versailles -- people wanted to relax
and enjoy the good life. As the 20s progressed, consumption of
cars, refrigerators, and Florida real-estate went hand-in-hand with
that of beer and formaldehyde-laced whiskey.
|1.28.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Has anyone seen a quote from any Iraqi politician acknowledging
that Baghdad is in the midst of a civil war? I'm thinking most
there are blind to what's happening under their noses.
In the same way, metropolitan politicians here in the US are blind
to the fact that the War on Drugs has evolved into a civil war
between whites and young, black men.
That is how the greatest damage of the War on Drugs is being done.
Thoreau, it is creating a Taliban in all US cities. (As a reminder,
the Little Woman and I live in the inner killing fields of
Sinincincinnati.)
|1.28.07 @ 11:56AM|#
It is interesting how nobody who argues against "moral
degeneration" seems to have a coherent non-tautological conception
of morality.
One man's "moral decay" is another man's progress. Oh... I used the
"P" word, I guess that's yet more evidence for Single Brain Cell
that I'm a "socialist."
|1.28.07 @ 12:26PM|#
You are casting marriage as a positive right.
No, said that a certain human activity was protected by established
rights(i.e. freedom of religion and freedom of association). Unless
you want to claim that the First Amendment is a "positive right"
that Madison just pulled out of his ass, I'd suggest you learn some
reading comprehension.
Why should the State sanction/recognize any marriage at
all?
Maybe it shouldn't. I would have no problem if the state got out of
the marriage business completely. But this isn't libertopia and the
fact of the matter is that the states DOES sanction/recognize
marriage. As long as it does, it should recognize that right for
all Americans no matter who they like to fuck.
The non-sequitor attacks on media personalitites of cable news
and publisihing taint your State Socialist trolling. What the hell
do O'Reilly and Coulter have to do with anything discussed in the
blog's comments?
1) My Bill O'Reilly comment as no more a non sequiter than your
obsessive accusation that I, or anyone else who disagrees with you
in the slightest, is a "socialist."
2) I'm a troll? I've been commenting on his blog for about three
years. Where the fuck have you been all this time? As for any
socialist taint in my posts, your inability to see that statism is
a result of both the Left and the Right betrays your own
conservative biases.
Stop lying to us, you're about as "libertarian" as Pat Buchanan.
Come clean!
These new "liberaltarians" seem to skip over Friedman and Hayek
for Al Franken.
Versus the "conservatarians" who hide out in their Montana shacks,
stock up on nitrogen-based fertilizer and fuel oil, rant about the
end of the gold standard, and keep a constant eye out for black
helicopters from the UN.
For all Franken's ideological faults, I'd rather mix my capitalism
with his social views than with fucking Timothy McVeigh.
|1.28.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Lots of interesting points here. I agree that alcohol
consumption is going down, but I think that has more to do with
refrigeration and clean water supplies than improved morality.
Sodas, milk, and fruit juice are entirely products of
refrigeration. Fruit juice, for example, turns into booze pretty
much automatically if it's not refrigerated. It's not good booze,
but it'll get you quite drunk. Milk curdles. Water becomes
contaminated with really nasty stuff if it's allowed to become
stagnant or if there's a large settlement upstream. (I read
somewhere that typhoid fever, which is water-borne, is still
largely incurable. It's just that because of treated water, no one
gets it anymore.) We can afford now to drink less because we have
other safe alternatives. Take away water treatment and
refrigerators, and we'd be as big boozehounds as our
ancestors.
Also, I agree that the black market ginned up (pun definitely
intentional) very quickly after the passage of the Volstead Act.
Booze is one of the easiest things in the world to make -- see
above about unrefrigerated fruit juice -- and most people in the
past made their own. That, by the way, is why I mistrust alcohol
consumption stats from the early 20th C. My ancestors clung to
their tradition of homebrew well past WWII; Prohibition didn't make
any difference. They just didn't connect their hard cider and corn
squeezin' to What Those Nasty Yankees And Icky Brown People Got
Drunk On. Look up the origins of stock car racing sometime for
grins. There's lots of dog-whistle racism in drug laws, by the way.
Why else would crack carry harsher penalties than powder?
Sadly, pointing out that the drug war is expensive and ineffective,
the original laws were racist, enforcement is either crooked or
dangerous, and that we really don't know what the actual health
effects of moderate recreational drug use are or whether withdrawal
produces terrible phsyical symptoms, has pretty much zero effect.
Drug prohibition is, in my opinion, a modern version of ancient
contamination superstitions. We don't stone people to death anymore
for eating pork; we just lock them up for smoking marijuana.
dhex|1.28.07 @ 12:49PM|#
"Why else would crack carry harsher penalties than powder?
"
ironically, a lot of black leaders helped lead the call for these
penalties, under the mistaken impression it would reduce
participation in the drug market in their communities.
Single Issue Voter|1.28.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Akira,
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I referred to your
posts as socialist. You are removing all doubt. You betray yourself
with the FAUX NEWs crap-save it for Democratic Underground and
Think Progress.
Demanding State recognition of gay marriage and state funding of
embryonic stem cell research are not "libertarian" causes -they are
Statist. Since this isn't "libertopia" and we don't have truly free
markets Protectionism and Central State Planning of the economy are
OK?
Enough with your ad hominem/strawman/ logical fallacy attacks when
you use them all yourself. Get to the point.
How is libertarianism compatible-in any way-
with liberal democratic progressivism?
I am arguing it is at least somewhat compatible with modern
conservatism as they at least acknowlege individual liberty,
private property rights and free markets rhetorically and
ideologically even if they fail in practical governing.
Single Issue Voter|1.28.07 @ 1:05PM|#
What is with the sex thing here?
Ken is all about bestiality and Akira is "fucking Timothy McVeigh"
?
Single Issue Voter|1.28.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Karen,
We may be locking them up for eating foies gras(if not pork)
soon.
dhex|1.28.07 @ 1:09PM|#
i have a drug problem...i can't stay away from the comments
thread!
i like pretending everyone's laughing as they write things
like
"And the true Socialists are counting on the selfish drives of
pleasure addicts to help them destroy America, so they can turn it
into the USSR, Jr. - the original worked so well! sic."
|1.28.07 @ 1:20PM|#
I'm sure someone has come up with this idea before:
So many people want drugs to be illegal because annoying aging
hippies and punk kids use drugs. What we need is for the aging
hippies and punk kids to make a sacrifice for their country, and
turn into drug prohibitionists.
After the conservatives attend a couple of prohibitionist rallies
with smarmy, self-righteous hippies and undereducated,
backwards-baseball-cap-wearing kids make lectures about the perils
of legalization, conservatives will switch over to supporting
legalization.
|1.28.07 @ 1:26PM|#
What we need is for the aging hippies and punk kids to make
a sacrifice for their country, and turn into drug
prohibitionists.
Sorry, but it is the aging hippies that have turned into
drug prohibitionists. Once those sons of bitches got haircuts and
jobs and had children they turned into the worst
authoritarians of all.
|1.28.07 @ 1:35PM|#
How is libertarianism compatible-in any way-
with liberal democratic progressivism?
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am
large, I contain multitudes.
-Whitman
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
-Emerson
Tom|1.28.07 @ 1:44PM|#
I think this is just sour grapes over the fact the Republicans
cannot rely on the Libertarian vote anymore.
And it further proves that the modern Republican party no longer
stands for republican (ie a republic) values of personal liberty
and Federalism.
|1.28.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Why didn't I think of that? RESEARCH! Oh, if only any
libertarians had ever thought to do research on the effects of drug
prohibition!
That's a great idea "JHawk!" *snicker* Maybe you should suggest it
to Jacob Sullum, or CATO!
This, to my mind, is an example why joe is a respected member of
the H&R commentariat.
See, joe, thinks that we're intelligent enough that with the right
impetus we'd just become New Deal Liberals. And there are some of
of us here who think that with the right impetus joe'd just become
a libertarian. :) Well, maybe not, but you know what I mean.
You see when we know we agree over some issues and disagree over
others we can discuss those issues.
Yes, sometimes some people take things too personally and insults
are traded (and they are sometimes bad enough to shock a jaded old
cynic like me) but for the most part this an exceedingly civil
place to pass time.
|1.28.07 @ 3:32PM|#
"You libertarians crack me up. Nothing more than America-Hating
hedonists in patriot clothing. Do some research and get back to
me.
JHawk"
If that really IS John Hawkins ( that has to be satire, right?),
that is the funniest/stupidest shit I have read in awhile.
Why do YOU hate America, J-Ho?
uncle sam|1.28.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Prohibitionists are unable to see the beams in their own
eyes.
It is the corrupting effects of political power that eventually
brings about the decline of a civilization..., and prohibition
requires expanded political power.
|1.28.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Single Issue Voter says:
"Demanding State recognition of gay marriage and state funding
of embryonic stem cell research are not "libertarian" causes -they
are Statist. Since this isn't "libertopia" and we don't have truly
free markets Protectionism and Central State Planning of the
economy are OK?"
First off, your mention of stem cells is the first I've seen in all
these comments. IOW, it's a strawman. Second, what part of "I don't
agree with the government doing X, but if they MUST do X, then they
should apply it fairly."? You aren't really so dense as to not
understand how someone could be against something in principle, but
also against it being applied unfairly...are you?
I don't agree with the government funding public schools---but
demanding that, if the government DOES fund public schools, it
doesn't discriminate on race, creed, etc., does NOT make me a
socialist, nor does Akira demanding that if the state is going to
recognize marriage, it should apply it fairly. One CAN disagree
with something in principle, and at the same time, believe that if
that something must be applied, then it should be applied fairly.
You obviously never took a logic course.
"How is libertarianism compatible-in any way-with liberal
democratic progressivism?"
Just about the same as it is compatible with conservatism. The
basic jist is (if you wanna get really basic) conservatives value
economic freedom more than social freedom, while liberals value
social freedom more than economic freedom. Libertarianism values
both. So libertarianism is, roughly, equally compatible
with either side of the aisle---depending largely on whether
economic or social concerns are the bigger issues of the day at
that particular point in time.
"I am arguing it is at least somewhat compatible with modern
conservatism as they at least acknowlege individual liberty,
private property rights and free markets rhetorically and
ideologically even if they fail in practical governing."
As I said above. Modern conservatism might jive, in theory, with
libertarianism on the above points, but it fails horribly when it
comes to social freedoms. Just like liberalism fails horribly when
it comes to the above freedoms. It's two sides of the same coin,
and conservatism isn't any better than liberalism in theory. In
practice, it's much worse, given the statist political crimes of
the so-called republicans as of late.
It's time to get off your high horse. Your theoretical
"conservatives can be better friends with libertarians than
liberals" schtick is tired and empty.
uncle sam|1.28.07 @ 4:46PM|#
When the desire of people to control their circumstances grows in the desire to control others, the seeds of eventual chaos are planted.
|1.28.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Though I agree, in theory, that there should be legalization, I
personally don't want it. Just imagine what good, god-fearing
americans such as the author would want to put in my nice clean,
natural pot. No thanks...considering I don't trust my government to
tell me much of the truth about anything or to do anything that is
REALLY right or without ulterior motives...I'll prefer to keep
getting my "smoke" from the friendly guy down the street who does
wonders in his basement....with no "government approved" additives
: )
BTW there JHawk...though you might WANT to lable me as whatever...I
am a 10 year USMC gulf-war vet...so where did your patriotic ass
serve? I bet I can guess the answer to that...probably about the
same service that GWB had...IF that..."unpatriotic"...LMAO at a
lame ass.
Single Issue Voter|1.28.07 @ 5:18PM|#
I don't see liberals/progressives as so supportive of social
freedom. There seems to be an assumption among some here (and
elsewhere) that they are. The Nanny State tendencies of big
government are either transferred as ostensibly conservative
ideology (Progressive Prohibition) or embraced as "fairness" in our
less than utopian society.
If you read any utilitarian political philosophy, particularly
Amitai Etzioni's Communitarian stuff you will see "they"
specifically identify libertarianism and the very notion of
individual rights as the dangerous ideology. The American
Democratic Left is opposed to individualism.
A more practical example is in the Supreme Court Kelo decision.The
judges recognised as left/liberal in their philosophy all
supported
The State taking property for non-public purposes-they were quite
shocked at the outcry.
Who would appoint more like-minded judges?
The liberal riff on tax policy is one of how much taxpayers are
allowed to keep-of Society's money, not how much The State needs to
take of individuals money.Of course taxpayers are not even
individuals we are "working families" or Corporations.
The only future of a leftist-libertarian alliance is the hope that
they take us on as an aggrieved group constituency and throw a bone
as payback for political support. I'm not a group I am an
individual.
Despite their practices, the American Right talks the talk. Their
philosophy incorporates individualism and private property
rights.
I am arguing that libertarianism is somewhat consistent with one
political philosophy while it is opposed to the other.
That does not mean Republicans "deserve" our vote- they don't
usually get mine.
A left/libertarian fusion based on a percieved agreement on an
issue is unworkable as the two political philosophies are
diametrically opposed.
As for prohibition,it is far easier to find anti -pornography and
anti-free speech leftists than it is to find the anti-drug
prohibition ones some people think are out there.As I've pointed
out elsewhere-they invented Prohibition.
|1.28.07 @ 5:34PM|#
SIV
"Since the two principles, Authority and Liberty, which underlie
all forms organized society, are on the one hand contrary to each
other, in a perpetual state of conflict, and on the other can
neither eliminate each other nor be resolved, some kind of
compromise between the two is necessary. Whatever the system
favored, whether it be monarchical, democratic, communist or
anarchist, its length of life will depend to the extent to which it
has taken the contrary principle into account."
"...that monarchy and democracy, communism and anarchy, all of them
unable to realize themselves in the purity of their concepts, are
obliged to complement one another by mutual borrowings. There is
surely something here to dampen the intolerance of fanatics who
cannot listen to a contrary opinion... They should learn, then,
poor wretches, that they are themselves necessarily disloyal to
their principles, that their political creeds are tissues of
inconsistencies... contradiction lies at the root of all
programs."
Props to Evan!
|1.28.07 @ 6:16PM|#
Morality: the desire to punish others for doing stuff you are
secretly obsessed with doing.
No one thinks so much about Hot Gay Sex as the fundies, I
bet.
My own view on drug liberalization: anything you can grow in your
back yard is legit. Cooking up in a chemical lab? Not so legit
(mainly because most people out there are lousy chemists and have a
tendency to blow up things. And they don't know how to dispose of
the side products correctly.)
No one ever caused an explosion by growing opium poppies.
|1.28.07 @ 6:57PM|#
"No one thinks so much about Hot Gay Sex as the fundies, I
bet. "
Just ask Ted Haggard.
SteveInClearwater|1.28.07 @ 7:46PM|#
FRIENDS...Please file this away for future use anytime you read
or hear someone saying that "Legalizing drugs is bad...."
99.5% of drugs are LEGAL in North America.
Why?
Because we cannot regulate production and commercial distribution
unless they are legal.
If we wish to have a discussion on the merits of drug use, the
health benefits/risks of drug use, let's do it.
But it's a separate discussion from the question of which is
better:
a) A multi-billion dollar drug market that is legal and therefore
able to be regulated
or
b) A multi-billion dollar drug market that is illegal and left 100%
uncontrolled.
"A" is not a perfect system. We can make a list of flaws and
problems associated with "A".
But there is no question that "A" is preferable to "B" when we're
talking about drugs.
That's why our society has chosen to place 99.5% of drugs into a
legal market.
It's not an endorsement for "drugs".
It's an endorsement for sensible regulation.
And that regulation need not solely be a government oversight. A
combination of local, state, federal and private business oversight
is what we apply towards 99.5% of currently in-demand drugs.
Only the Prohibitionist attempts to make a case for leaving a short
list of in-demand drugs on the street and 100% uncontrolled.
Pat|1.28.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Radley:
Thanks for posting this bit of stupidity by Hawkins. I contributed
an ample put down on my LeftIndependent blog. Its too big to post
it all here.
Dear Human Events Editors:
Mr. Hawkins prefers the drug war status quo of addict drug dealers,
gangsters and other social predators controlling the morals and
ethics of drug sales in our communities (and to our children) to
the drug policy reform community alternative of regulating and
licensing responsible members of the community to sell drugs.
Citizens who would better respect and reflect the values of America
in a controlled drug market. Absurd!
As to the comparison to alcohol prohibition I will cite a
conservative of the day for argument.
"Horrified by the violence and corruption that alcohol prohibition
fostered, lifelong Republican Pauline Morton Sabin told Congress in
1930, "...women played a large part in the enactment [of
prohibition]... They are now realizing with heart burning and heart
aching that if the spirit is not within, legislation can be of no
avail. They thought they could make prohibition as strong as the
Constitution, but instead have made the Constitution as weak as
prohibition..." She went on to say that before prohibition, her
children had no access to alcohol. During prohibition they could
get it anywhere." October, 1998 Brainstorm Magazine, Cascade Policy
Institute
When addicts, gangsters and social predators are the only people
selling drugs drugs are sold according to the morals and ethics of
addicts, gangsters and social predators. That is the economic
reality of the drug war.
MORE:
Defending the right-wing drug war
Single Issue Voter|1.28.07 @ 8:14PM|#
Thanks Pat,
Funniest link I've seen all day!
Kucinich will end the drug war!
And from a confederate flag-free website!
(click on his profile for that bit o' fun)
|1.28.07 @ 8:44PM|#
I like Pat's argument about a regulated market. With a regulated
market, you not only have the government attempting to control the
market, you have the legal dealers ratting on each other and the
illegal ones.
I see no reason drug sales wouldn't work the same way. With an
illegal market, every participant has an equally strong interest in
keeping the cops OUT. The only way to divide and conquer is to be,
well, corrupt, because the authorities have to ignore some
violations in order to secure deals with witnesses to testify
against bigger fish. (In theory. In reality, mid-level mules get
jail time and the actual big guns live in palaces in South
America.) In a regulated market, by contrast, the ones who go to
the trouble of getting the ticket are going to be fifty times
harsher on the fly-by-night sorts than any jury would. The
associations form committees to go out and look for violators. I've
never seen a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of booze that didn't
have a tax stamp on it, and I promise you that's not because the
Treasury Department or the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission are
so very efficient. It's because Phillip Morris and Seagrams and
Fortune Brands have a strong interest in making sure everyone plays
by their rules. It may not be ideal, but it does assure basic
quality of the products, and keeps the mob out of it.
|1.28.07 @ 9:11PM|#
Karen-
I have to disagree. In the drug trade, dealers sometimes use the
cops to go after rivals.
Markos Moulitsas Zúniga|1.28.07 @ 9:52PM|#
Your so right Jim after all she appears on Faux News!
There is a story over on Wired that says Hilary Clinton is the
strongest candidate on electronic privacy.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72549-0.html?tw=rss.index
Robert|1.29.07 @ 12:36AM|#
"Left" and "right" agree on the wrongness of using certain drugs non-medically, and in the rightness of criminalizing wrongness. However, the "left" is soft on crime, so they happen to wind up better for us on some drug-related matters.
Guy Montag|1.29.07 @ 1:56AM|#
So, does the backlash against this guy bring us any closer to being able to smoke tobacco at the next Reasonid gathering in DC?
Guy Montag|1.29.07 @ 5:10AM|#
Russell,
Nice to see someone else up at this hour. The rest of this lot are
a bunch of slackers!
I.Self.Divine.|1.29.07 @ 8:25AM|#
Somewhat OT...what ever happened with that Nadelman-Barr throwdown? Was it cancelled?
Pat|1.29.07 @ 10:37AM|#
TO: Robert |
January 29, 2007, 12:36am |
True, most of America, left, right and center are all deluded about
what the drug war is and what it is doing TO them. Your post is a
textbook example of this ignorance.
Prohibition of free markets does not stop the markets it simply
gives the market over to the criminals and predators in the
community. They thrive on illegal markets. America has created a $
322 billion annual retail black market for drugs and this black
market inspires entire criminal industries dedicated to
circumventing America's best criminal laws in order to get a piece
of that pie.
America learned this with the alcohol prohibition. America is
re-learning this economic lesson today. Deprogramming ignorant
folks like you is a big part of the job of saving America and the
world from the crime fostering and terrorism funding drug
prohibition.
TO: Single Issue
Voter | January 28, 2007, 8:14pm |
Grow up. Or grow a brain.
Either way you are not contributing to a civil and intelligent
discourse.
Pat|1.29.07 @ 10:44AM|#
Conservative free market economists tell us that regulation
stifles the growth of profitable free markets.
The prohibition created black market for drugs is a totally
unregulated free market and is growing exponentially as a
result.
This is why democratic society regulates the excesses of anarchy
out of free markets.
|1.29.07 @ 11:03AM|#
"As for any socialist taint in my posts, your inability to see
that statism is a result of both the Left and the Right betrays
your own conservative biases."
It's insane, this guy's taint!
Pat|1.29.07 @ 1:35PM|#
TO: uncle sam |
January 29, 2007, 12:55pm |
LOL! The original, defective, test modal was sewn onto Bush's head
back in the 1970's. Pat Robertson and Dick (for brains) Cheney
shove a new battery into it one every election cycle.
The drug war is like one huge intellectual condom that will not
allow the smallest germ of an alternative get out into the
world.
|1.30.07 @ 1:35AM|#
The prohibition created black market for drugs is a totally
unregulated free market and is growing exponentially as a
result.
Wha?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245