Charles Krauthammer and Bill O'Reilly on the Columbia, Missouri SWAT Raid Video

A couple of years ago, I had a telling IM exchange with an aspiring young conservative pundit. (I like the guy personally, so I'm not going to mention his name.) He had just gone on a cable network and said some things about an issue in the news that were completely wrong. So I sent him some links that showed why he was wrong. He thanked me and replied, "One of the really hard things about being a journalist is going on TV to talk about things you're not really read up on."

Well, no. That's one of the "really hard" things about being a hack. I really loathe this about cable news. They bring in the same personalities to talk what's going on in the news. It doesn't matter if those personalities have the slightest idea what they're talking about. They're on TV not because they have specialized knowledge about a given story, but because they're talented at applying standard partisan talking points to a wide variety of issues. And now, Dick Morris will talk about the Federal Reserve. Joining us to explain what the drug war violence in Mexico means to you, here's Democratic strategist Bob Beckell.  Their job is to tell the portion of the audience that already agrees with them what the audience already thinks it knows. Everyone is stupider for it.

What the hell does Charles Krauthammer know about the drug war? He knows he's in favor of it. That seems to be about it. What does he know about the increasingly militaristic way the drug war is being waged? Judging by this video, absolutely nothing.

As I explained in a column a couple weeks ago, this wasn't a "botched raid." It was a routine raid. The police got the correct house. They found the guy they were after. They arrested him. No one was killed. Most of these raids don't turn up huge stashes of drugs or weapons. Most result in misdemeanor charges. If Krauthammer finds the Missouri SWAT raid video "harrowing and horrible," he ought to find the drug war "harrowing and horrible." Because the images in that video are typical of how we're fighting it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Max||

    Okay, I have to admit that you have a point.

  • ||

    Yes, the evidence of pundit idiocy is overwhelming even for an ignorant shit such as yourself.

  • cynical||

    You can't fool us, spoofer.

  • ||

    This is my argument when people try to tell me that Reason is PURELY a mouthpiece for the wealthy uber capitalists: What billionaire benefits from an end to the drug war? Is their a strong bong lobby? Name the billionaire who would benefit from eminent domain restrictions. Which group of billionaires will benefit from sex offender law reform? (Okay, maybe there is a plausible argument for the last one, but reason primarily defends the 17 yr old accused of child pornography for showing naked pictures of his girlfriend to his friends.)

  • ||

    Can we get a strong lobby together of people who use the word "there" and "their" in the appropriate situation?

  • Sam Grove||

    their, their.

    I know what you mean.

  • Patriot Henry||

    "What billionaire benefits from an end to the drug war? Is their a strong bong lobby? "

    I don't know any statistics, but from my personal anecdotal research a surprising number of very successful and wealthy people smoke the reefer. Most don't gain from the war on drugs and despite their wealth are still subject to some level of risk.

  • ||

    Glory hallelujah! Max has seen the light, praise 'Bob!'

  • ||

    Krauthammer is as loathsome as Lieberman; I'd like to push that asshole down the steps of the Supreme Court.

  • ||

    Krauthammer is a total scumbag; the worst kind of statist neocon you can get. I can't condone pushing him down stairs, but I wouldn't cry if his wheelchair brakes failed, he caught on fire, and looked just like when Philip Seymour Thomas gets killed in Red Dragon. Terrible movie, by the way. Manhunter is so much better, it's not even comparable.

  • ||

    That was Gary Oldman as Mason Verger in Hannibal; though he was not a burn victim, in the movie he might have as well have been.

  • ||

    Don't correct me, you overcharging quack. Hannibal was terrible, too. Philip Seymour Thomas does in fact get set on fire in a wheelchair in Red Dragon.

  • Joshua||

    Hoffman. It's Philip Seymour Hoffman.

  • ||

    You are correct, but I hate him, so I purposefully get his name wrong, Jake.

  • ||

    But I bet you didn't hate him in Happiness though.

  • ||

    I hate him in everything, even The Big Lebowski.

  • ||

    I thought he was fabulous in Capote. And he was the only even half decent performance in Charlie Wilson's War.

  • ||

    C'mon, man....he rocked it as Joseph Plumb Martin in Liberty! The American Revolution.

    And Twister.

  • ||

    I liked PSH in Empire Falls, though it was basically a cameo. AND I liked him in The Big Lebowski. But then, I like EVERYTHING about The Dude. He abides, man.

  • phillip symour hoffman||

    ouch

  • ||

    you overcharging quack

    Epi, how many times do I need to tell you that your collection of Denny's bridge skanks is not a form of currency? They may be where you come from, but my insurance company doesn't see it that way.

    Proactive apologies to Tulpa and his over-developed sense of propriety, as he is a fan of the Grand Slam.

  • ||

    No, Tulpa likes Moon Over My Hammy, you goosestepping moron. Does the AMA know about your "sex change operation" side business?

  • ||

    I don't do gender reassignment procedures (though if I did, I suspect I would have many inquiries from certain H&R posters) and I dropped AMA membership years ago, , you insufferable festering genital wart. How many times do I need to tell you, duct tape will give the illusion of the mangina you seek. I would tell you to self stuff, but you lack the anatomy to do so. You already laser, so it's not going to rip out hair.

  • ||

    Your Buffalo Bill fantasies will be your downfall, Dr. Demento. Don't say I didn't warn you. Just make sure you put the lotion on your skin or you get the hose again.

  • ||

    It always comes back to Buffalo Bill, doesn't it? That should be some kind of drinking game.

  • ||

    Would you two just get a room already?

  • ||

    Yeah, seriously, you guys are grossing us out, man. Seriously, dudes.

  • ||

    Yeah there was Philip Seymour Hoffman in Red Dragon, Stephen Lang (the bad guy in Avatar) in Manhunter, and Gary Oldman in Hannibal. Krauthammer bears some resemblance to the latter.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Manhunter is so much better, it's not even comparable."

    I would disagree. They were both pretty bad, as was Hannibal. But the guy that played the detective in Manhunter was freakin' horrible. I certainly wouldn't watch it again. Won't see Red Dragon again either nor Hannibal.

  • ||

    I hereby exile you from the internet.

    You are the worst person in human history.

  • ||

    AlmightyJB is history's greatest monster.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That monster's in my pants.

  • ||

    Rest assured, I have dispatched Warty to rape him.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't care. The hamster will be pissed though.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Is that you Olby?

  • dfd||

    I was picturing either a Blofeld like departure in For Your Eyes Only, perhaps with someone taking over a police helicopter to scoop him up, or an O.J. Simpson in Naked Gun style bounce down the stairs and flying off the upper deck of FedEx Field.

  • Ted S.||

    I think Kiss of Death (blog post includes photo) is the original pushing a wheelchair-bound person down a flight of stairs movie.

    [giggles like Tommy Udo]

  • The Gobbler||

    I know it's a thread jack, but damn. Just, damn.

    Flint mayor blames laid-off firefighters for arsons - ABC NEWS

    Number of arsons fluctuated with funding of fire department

    http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10703411

  • skr||

    yeah, we've had firemen start wildfires out here in L.A. pretty disgusting.

  • Guy Montag||

    "for the good of humanity".

  • cynical||

    Just out of curiosity - given that government agencies and private businesses can be found liable for the actions of their employees even when those actions are unsanctioned, can the actions of a union member be grounds for a lawsuit against the union?

  • TheNino85||

    Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that public servants would do such a thing, but how are we sure it isn't just the mayor trying to play hardball with the fire fighters? Get the public thinking that fire fighters are running around setting fires, so the fire fighters can't rely on public opinion when the mayor talks about cutting funding for the fire fighters. This reeks of hardball politics.

  • ||

    ps- thank you, Max.

  • ||

    agreed.

  • Richard Head||

    "Everyone is stupider for it"

    pretty much sums up cable news...

  • ||

    More gossip about the news than news.

  • ||

    Maybe I am missing it, but there doesn't seem to be a link to the video.

  • ||

    Don't watch it John, I did and feel more stupid for having done so.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's why I stopped watching the news. Their all freakin' morons.

  • crenata||

    Me too. I absorb more than enough MSM "news" through some kind of osmosis though. Still good to know thine enemies.

  • Astrid||

    The Fox News embedded videos don't like to work in all browsers, could be that.

  • Tim||

    Astrid you trickster. There are no female libertarians.

  • Astrid||

    Silly me, I forgot. Guess I should go join NOW.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Could you make us all snadwiches before you leave?

  • AlmightyJB||

    or sandwiches

  • Astrid||

    Sorry, too busy roasting a turkey right now. How about a beer instead?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh. I wish you were real. And here to bring me that beer:)

  • ||

    snadwiches

    For some reason, that perfectly cromulent word sounds very painful.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I thought about not correcting it.

  • Lorena Bobbitt ||

    You derserve a snadwiche. Would you like me to cut the crust, with my very dull knife?

  • Bill O'Reilly||

    Hey! I'm looking out for you!

  • ||

    DUM DUM DUM DUM DIDDY DUM.

  • ||

    Take your mind off this idiocy with The Jam:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubxYYzYNP84

  • Zeebs||

    "Lights goin' out, a kick in the balls
    That's entertainment, that's entertainment!"

  • ||

    The demo's pretty jake too:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • ||

    I'm with Mr. Balko - I loathe cable news as well but it is the result of policies such as free speech and media consolidation that Reason supports.

  • ||

    The Danster needs to apply himself to a study of the Iron Laws. The lesson for today is:

    You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.

  • Tim||

    What if you're wrong about that?

  • The Gobbler||

    Then he must be free.

  • ||

    That's deep.

  • ||

    Dude.

  • ||

    "but it is the result of policies such as free speech and media consolidation that Reason supports."

    This has nothing to do with free speech or media corporations. This is about political pundits who don't know what the fuck they are talking about. This is about the people who support the policies that rule our lives, all while not knowing what those policies actually mean and do.

  • microwave oven||

    News is a business that caters to the viewer's wants. The viewers want self reassurance, or baring that, news about far away places.

  • Ted S.||

    I don't think I want to see naked self reassurance....

  • ||

    Again, this is not about news media. It's about the people who affect policy.

  • Fluffy||

    Dan,

    The cable system was built on the back of the TV network system, which was built on the back of the radio network system. The entire metastructure is a masterpiece of regulatory engineering. It was brought into existence by regulation, sustained by regulation, and continues today only due to regulation.

    We had a free market in broadcast media for about ten minutes following the discovery of radio. Since then broadcasting, and its successor cable, has been a statist enterprise.

  • cynical||

    I'm with Mr. Balko - I loathe cable news as well but it is the result of policies such as free speech and media consolidation that Reason supports. the lamentable but acceptable downside to avoiding the tyranny of complete state suppression of speech and control of the ownership of media.

  • Kim Jong-Il||

    Come to my country where we are overrun with truth because we limited all the lying speech out of society.

  • ||

    Krauthammer does a pretty good job of calling out the fecklessness and idiocy of Obama's foreign policy.

    Outside of that, well, he should mostly either study up or shut up.

  • ||

    RC, not forget that he did study medicine, and specialized in psychiatry. From all of the psychiatrists that I know, it doesn't surprise me that he holds this opinion regarding the WOD.

  • Kolohe||

    But, unlike say George Will, did not call it out on the last guy.

  • Tim||

    If it really was a "drug war" Obama would apologize to drugs and bow.

  • Kolohe||

    I thought he only did that to East Asian heads of state?

  • Ice2||

    Actually Obama's foreign policy is better than Bush's...even though that is not saying much.

  • ||

    It's different how?

  • ||

    "Do you really want to live in a society where you can go into a store and buy cocaine...or buy hallucinogens?"

    Yes, yes I do.

  • Tim||

    How is it worse than being able to vote for liars, perverts, thieves and frauds?

  • ||

    Being able to is a good thing.

    Being unable to vote for anyone BUT liars, perverts, thieves and frauds is probably not so good.

  • Almanian||

    I'm with CrB, but make it a "HELL yes"

  • Astrid||

    So long as I can also buy guns, booze, porn, and tobacco products at that same store, yes.

  • Tim||

    From the drive up window, I will add.

  • Astrid||

    Knew I was missing something.

  • ||

    I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Colin||

    Or have it delivered.

  • skr||

    this is key. damn i miss drive-thru liquor stores.

  • ||

    That is pretty much my dream of how America should be, and my Canadian family's nightmare of how America really is.

  • ||

    Canadians are such panty wastes. They really believe all of America looks like Detroit.

  • Canuck||

    Ridiculous John. We know killer bees roam the south, Cleveland smells, and you never get laid.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    The actual roaming of killer bees is constrained by the treaties they were forced to sign by the fire ants.

  • Zeb||

    You can do those things in Detroit? How is it not the fastest growing city in the US?

  • WTF||

    Seriously - you can go into a store and buy a product that has no beneficial purpose whatsoever and in fact, the use of which serves only to worsen your health and greatly increase your death from lung cancer or emphysema.

    And you also can buy products that can, if not taken in controlled amounts, kill you in short order. Even when taken in amounts only slightly in excess of "moderation," they can create grave risks to your own safety and health and that of others around you. And even when taken in moderation, can increase you risk of various health problems, such as liver disease.

    Yet these are fully legal, albeit regulated.

    As far as living in a society where you could go buy cocaine or hallucinogens, Americans were living in such a society until right around the turn of the 20th Century.

  • Tim||

    Swimming pools and chainsaws and motorcycles all kill and maim way more people than all that illegal shit.

  • ||

    Tobacco has some beneficial purposes--if it didn't then no one would buy it. It has antidepressant effects, helps maintain a lower body weight, and seems to help reduce one's risk of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. It also seems to help with certain intestinal disorders. Of course it also increases one's risk of heart disease, lung cancer, and emphysema. Is the trade off worth it? Why can't each adult decide that for themselves>

  • Contrarian P||

    Keep in mind that one of the main reasons you have a lower risk of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's is because you tend to die of various cancers and heart disease before you get to the age where those are a concern.

  • Discord||

    Krauthammer has clearly never explored New York City.

  • Discord||

    This was supposed to be below CrB's post, sorry.

  • ||

    Fuck that noise. I don't want to have to go into a store. Heroin Vending Machines now!

  • ||

    "Do you really want to live in a society where you can go into a store and buy cocaine...or buy hallucinogens?"

    Yes, yes I do.

  • Almanian||

    ...and I second that emotion

  • ||

    NYC was like that when I first moved here. Do you want to be like NYC? LOL.

  • ||

    Thirded.

  • TickleStick||

    DOJ Voting Rights attorney resigns over gov't refusal to prosecute Black Panther case

    http://www.washingtonexaminer......z0oV5RJDit

  • Tman||

    I'm disappointed in Krauthammer for buying the usual pro-WOD arguments about the gateway drug stuff and "people will cause more car accidents". He's usually spot on in dissecting Government over reach, but he apparently has decided to shut off his sensitivity to civil liberties when it comes to the WOD.

    I had never heard him talk about this before, but I'm greatly disappointed. It undermines his other points substantially.

  • preston||

    Krauthammer has absolutely no idea what the hell he is talking about. He cites big ole ZERO statistics, and is a fallacy machine.

  • Nipplemancer||

    I always think of weird german porn whenever I hear Krauthammer's name.

  • AlmightyJB||

    ehhhhh. You just made me shiver dude. Don't ever say that again.

  • ||

    What? Krauthammer? Kraut Hammer ist das wunderlich sauerbrauten!

  • ||

    OK, it's been 30 years since German class, so I may have inverted the word order and I can't remember offhand if sauerbraten is considered a masculine, feminine or neuter noun. Sue me, dummkopfs!

  • Fluffy||

    "Do you really want to live in a society where you can go into a store and buy cocaine...or buy hallucinogens?"

    The question is whether, had we made a decision to be that society in, say, 1970, we would be better or worse off now.

    Would we have more or fewer people in prison? Would we spend more or less on prisons? Would we have higher or lower crime rates?

    Would we have more or fewer people on welfare? Would we spend more or less on welfare?

    Would we have more people unemployable due to the effects of drugs than are currently unemployable due to the effects of criminal records and periods of incarceration?

    Would our cities be better or worse off?

    Would the underclass be better or worse off?

    Would the family as a social unit be better or worse off?

    These are all counterfactual questions, so they can never be definitively answered. But I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that we would not be better off by each and every one of these measures today if we had taken the opposite course circa 1970.

  • Tim||

    Fluffy's a racist! Fluffy's a racist! Racist Militia Teabaggage!

  • ||

    That is just it. He acts like we can chose not to live in such a society without incurring any costs. Even if you grant him that drugs are bad, as pointed out above lots of things are bad but we don't ban them. Krautheimer never considers that maybe the price to be paid to stop drugs is greater than the cost of allowing them. He creates the false choice of drug ridden society or drug free paradise.

  • skr||

    false dichotomies on cable? the devil you say.

  • ||

    Actually, in that clip he explicitly says the costs ARE worth it... Therefore, he thinks shooting guns in a residence with young children in it (and sometimes killing them) is worth it.

    That shitforfuckingbrains.

  • ||

    He needs to sit his ass down--oops, sorry--and do a cost-benefit analysis of War on Drug Users. If he's .5 as smart as advertised, it should take him less than an hour.

  • ||

    One more question about unemployability: would any more people be unemployable due to the effects of drugs than are, currently?

    As with firearms, etc., "illegal" does not mean "nonexistent." Gun bans in Britain have not led to the end of "gun crime." And banning drugs has not stopped their use in the US.

    It has always appeared to me that anyone who wants to obtain illegal drugs is able to do so. Drug laws are not the only reason people might choose not to take them. Cigarettes are legal, yet fewer and fewer people in the US smoke -- purely by choice, because they believe they are better off not smoking.

    Furthermore, illegal drugs, coming from criminal sources, are more likely to be impure, improperly measured, "laced", stretched, etc., than, say, high-grade cocaine sold by Pfizer would be. How many drug deaths or injuries might be avoided if users simply knew exactly what they were taking?

  • WTF||

    It's too bad, because I often actually like Krauthammer's writing on other topics. Particularly when he's elegantly tearing Obama and his cronies a new arsehole.

  • ||

    Cheney tears Obama new assholes, too, but that doesn't make him any less of a fuckhead.

  • Oswald Acted Alone||

    There's got to be some way to mod this H&R post up.

  • j||

    Dear Squirell,

    The video is not working with Chrome. OK, Reason's videos almost never work with Chrome. This one doesn't work on IE either. Yeah, I know, USE Firefox. But I don't want to. Almost every other site I go to works on Chrome now.

  • Ted S.||

    No; use Opera. :-)

  • ||

    I like what Balko did there, calling Krauthammer a "hack" without actually doing so. It's like the winner of the "Draw Mohammad" contest: get the reader to do the work and be complicit with the deed. I am complicit.

  • Steve Jobs||

    Or like my iPhone and iPad. Get the customer to be the douchebag by displaying the Apple logo.

  • Apple Developer||

    Yeah, but we all know who the REAL douchebag is.

  • 88FH||

    Notice how they don't talk about the violence, casualties, and costs CAUSED by the war on drugs. He has no problem citing child abuse and vehicular homicide.

    So, Charles believes the only reason why the overwhelming majority of Americans refrain from marijuana is because government made it illegal? What a moron. So fear of government is the only reason we behave? That's a pretty insulting statement he just launched on all Americans. He's got a real high opinion of America.

  • ||

    And even his argument for the harms caused by drugs assumes that the drug war actually reduces drug use. Drugs are so widely available in this society, I find it hard to believe many people would use them if they were legal if they are not already doing so.

  • Tim||

    People? KIDS can get them. Convicts in prison can get them. IF we can't keep drugs out of our prisons what should that tell us about the prospects for stopping the drug supply to "free" America?

  • Brian Moore||

    "Convicts in prison can get them."

    Yeah, that's always been the kicker for me -- if you can't stop drug abuse in prison, where you can monitor people 24 hrs a day with cameras, and there is no right to privacy, then I really don't think any anti-drug campaign is gonna cut it in the not-in-prison world.

  • ||

    It's done with unwritten approval of prison staff, for their own reasons.

    You could probably get a truck load of drugs across the Mexican border if the right guard is on duty.

    Authority can't keep its own hands clean, that's part of the black market problem.

  • Joh||

    "It's done with unwritten approval of prison staff, for their own reasons."

    Pics of your family will get you to bring the drugs in yourself everytime.

  • ||

    46% of the US population has tried illegal drugs at least once in their life. I'm pretty sure everyone that wants to try it does it already.

  • ||

    ""I find it hard to believe many people would use them if they were legal if they are not already doing so.""

    I think some shy aways because of the laws. I would expect to see use spike up, the move back down to a little above what it is now.

  • ||

    Maybe, maybe not. Depends on if employers can still test and fire those found using. That is the thing that keeps a lot of people from using. Once I moved into "professional" employment, I had to make the choice to quit or make the choice to possibly wind up unemployed due to a test. The law doesn't bother me as much as employment loss does.

  • Gray Ghost||

    "Professional?" What kind of professional gets routinely piss-tested, besides athletes and transportation workers (pilots, drivers, etc...)? I understand lots of jobs---particularly entry-level---have pre-employment piss testing, but continuing on the job random testing?

    Guess the testing lobby has gotten further than I thought.

  • skr||

    pretty much the same argument the left makes with regards to the CRA. We're all despicable racists that would segregate everything if it were not banned.

  • ||

    In the circles Krauthammer runs in, the fear of getting caught is the only thing that keeps them from being total and complete douche bags. So of course he would think that fear of the government is the only thing keeping the peasants in line.

  • ||

    You could say that is just how Krauthammer rolls.

  • ||

    FTW! I busted out laughing on that one! Jerk!

  • ||

    I think you just won the Internet.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    O'Reilley mentioned that drugs harmed kids. At the 3:09 mark O'Reilley laments how pot put that "poor kid in the video" in a position where he sees bad things.

    That's Journalism!

  • ¢||

    FYI, Mr. Squirrel:

    A PHP Error was encountered

    Severity: Warning

    Message: DOMDocument::loadXML() [function.DOMDocument-loadXML]: EntityRef: expecting ';' in Entity, line: 39

    Filename: helpers/MY_text_helper.php

    Line Number: 513
    A PHP Error was encountered

    Severity: Warning

    Message: DOMDocument::loadXML() [function.DOMDocument-loadXML]: EntityRef: expecting ';' in Entity, line: 39

    Filename: helpers/MY_text_helper.php

    Line Number: 513
    A PHP Error was encountered

    Severity: Warning

    Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach()

    Filename: helpers/MY_text_helper.php

    Line Number: 517

  • Ragin Cajun||

    The squirrel jihad is late.

  • j||

    I still have customers call me when the Windows PC I installed 10 years ago gets a BSOD. They read try to read the memory dump to me as if I know what it means.

  • ||

    Invalid argument supplied for foreach

    Even the servers assert that your arguements are invalid. Sad, that.

  • ||

    Philip Seymour Thomas does in fact get set on fire in a wheelchair in Red Dragon.

    Putting Krauthammer (wheelchair and all) in a catapult, setting alles ablaze and sailing him over the Jefferson Memorial on the Fourth of July would make me happy.

    For a while.

  • ||

    Here is some data on actual botched (officially botched) raids: http://www.fastcompany.com/165.....swat-raids

  • ||

    You know that map was created by Radley, right? He also wrote an accompanying paper called Overkill that, in my mind, is the seminal investigation on the militarization of police tactics.

  • ||

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....n-control/

    We have such wonderful people in power in this country.

  • ||

    Canadians are such panty wastes.

    RC'z Law of the day.

  • strat||

    Not when it comes to their TV programming (the Canadian content silliness notwithstanding) - it's racier than ours but a shade less violent.

    He said "panty." Heh.

  • Ted S.||

    So you're the person who likes Red Green and Degrassi Junior High!

  • ||

    Does anyone else think that Krauthammer look like a puppet from Spitting Image? Just curious.

  • ||

    I still say he looks like Gary Oldman in Hannibal.

  • ||

    Meh, I don't hold it against him. His background in psychiatry makes his approach to the issue pretty predictable. No doubt he's seen some of the worst effects drugs can have on people, and given that, it's difficult to really blame him much.

    On the factual stuff, it's obvious he isn't up to date on how the drug war is fought. Still, it's worth noting that he's not completely opposed to at least *trying* marijuana legalization, and he's a rational enough guy that he'd probably accept the data if it was opposed to his instincts. And that's what this video is really about: instincts. Krauthammer's instincts are roughly equivalent to the average GOP voter on this issue. He's not a libertarian, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that his instincts aren't what some of us might hope them to be.

  • GILMORE||

    good point

  • Isaac Skipworth||

    Its great how Krauthammer lists all the reasons that the drug war is terrible and ineffective , yet still supports it.

  • Hockey Guy||

    Krauthammer needs a case of Exlax and a week of vacation, he really looks bound up.

  • Paul||

    Point/Counterpoint, Jane you ignorant slut.

  • ||

    My only disagreement with the post is the word "cable". I don't think the network news is significantly better.

  • ||

    ♪ ♪ Or like a group of college freshmen ♪ ♪ who were rejected by Harvard and forced to go to Brown. ♪ ♪ We're Rhode Island bound... ♪

  • ||

    Saying that the "War on Drugs", which is just a slogan, is a failure is equivalent to saying the "War on Murder" is a failure.

    The reason for this claim of failure on the part of drug prohibition is to argue for the legalization of drugs, which is an absolutely idiotic idea. It would be equivalent to arguing that since the "War on Murder" is such a failure, we should just legalize murder.

    The fact is that the "War on Drugs" is not a failure. Critics of the WOD claim that one of the problems is that "we have too many people in prison." My response? GREAT. In fact, the drug laws have helped put these people in prison. And do you know what the results are? CRIME IS DOWN. Property crime, down. Violent crime, down.

    Why is that? Because the offenders are incarcerated, often on drug charges. Drug charges are easy to prove and there is a high correlation between people who commit drug offenses and also commit other crimes. In essence a drug crime often is the same as sending Al Capone to Alcatraz for tax evasion. All of his other crimes were very difficult to prove, but tax evasion was not as hard.

    The other aspect of making drugs illegal is that when a person is convicted of a drug offense we can force that person into rehabilitation that they would not do on their own. The true failure of the drug issue is the 1960's liberal academics who have never developed an effective drug rehabilitation program even as they created a segment of society were recreational drug use was acceptable.

  • ||

    OK there is a high correlation between drug use and other crimes. I'll buy that. One reason for that is that drugs are expensive and dangerous to deal is DUE TO THE FACT THEY ARE ILLEGAL.

    There is also a correlation between being black and committing other crimes. Ditto with being from a singleparent household. Do we lock up all black people, or all people raised by a single parent, on the grounds that it will prevent acutal crimes (eg those with a victim)?

    Regarding the use of drug laws to force people into "rehabilitation," there is no evidence that drug treatment programs work any better than simply allowing a user to mature out (e.g. grow out of their habit) which most do. This applies to voluntary programs, as well as those entered into under threat of imprisonment.

  • ||

    Crimes are acts committed against other people or their property not against oneself. Vices are acts that people commit against themselves (drugs or prostitution) or their own property (gambling).

    When societies make crimes out of vices, they manufacture criminals where none previously existed. They also make it very hard for someone addicted to ask for help, because to admit you need help to someone else risks giving up your liberty.

    A society must be very rich indeed if it feels the need to create criminals out of people that are pursuing their own happiness at the expense of no one else.

    I am not just talking about the vice being criminalized, but the person learning how to be a criminal by being forced to associate with people who have made their living by committing criminal acts against other people or their property.

    When people with vices then graduate from these universities that teach how to commit crime, prisons and jails, they now have a record and are legally discriminated against in both housing and job opportunities.

    This severely limits the options for their very survival. Unless some employer is willing to over look the criminal offense this individual has no future. There is no possibility of supporting a wife or children. Unless some landlord overlooks the offense there is no possibility of being part of a family.

    So what is a person who can not get a job to do for money? Sell drugs of course! NOT!

    I have known tens of people, if not a hundred people who have sold drugs at one time in their lives. I have known very few that were able to make it their primary means of support (unless you mean supporting their own drug use), and then only for short periods of time. The sale of drugs is rarely as big a money maker as most people pretend. What is profitable enough to support an individual or even a family is selling stolen drugs or moving large amounts from one place to another. In fact selling anything that you get for nothing is very profitable and drugs are easy to steal as the victim can not report the crime. So I agree with you about that “there is a high correlation between people who commit drug offenses and also commit other crimes”, I believe that the causation is the “War on Drugs” not the drugs themselves.

    The is the real cost of the “War on Drugs” is not the amount it costs to society to apprehend and incarcerate an individual it is what happens to society when that individual is released and is no longer able to contribute to society. When society does not allow a person to contribute any longer, all they can do is take from it.

  • ||

    Saying that the "War on Drugs", which is just a slogan, is a failure is equivalent to saying the "War on Murder" is a failure.

    The reason for this claim of failure on the part of drug prohibition is to argue for the legalization of drugs, which is an absolutely idiotic idea. It would be equivalent to arguing that since the "War on Murder" is such a failure, we should just legalize murder.

    The fact is that the "War on Drugs" is not a failure. Critics of the WOD claim that one of the problems is that "we have too many people in prison." My response? GREAT. In fact, the drug laws have helped put these people in prison. And do you know what the results are? CRIME IS DOWN. Property crime, down. Violent crime, down.

    Why is that? Because the offenders are incarcerated, often on drug charges. Drug charges are easy to prove and there is a high correlation between people who commit drug offenses and also commit other crimes. In essence a drug crime often is the same as sending Al Capone to Alcatraz for tax evasion. All of his other crimes were very difficult to prove, but tax evasion was not as hard.

    The other aspect of making drugs illegal is that when a person is convicted of a drug offense we can force that person into rehabilitation that they would not do on their own. The true failure of the drug issue is the 1960's liberal academics who have never developed an effective drug rehabilitation program even as they created a segment of society were recreational drug use was acceptable.

  • GILMORE||

    So nice, you said it twice?

    Here: since you clearly can't read, here's all the facts you need to disprove your crock-of-shit argument in picture form.

    http://www.druglibrary.org/sch.....graphs.htm

  • ||

    "there is a high correlation between people who commit drug offenses and also commit other crimes"

    Based on that, since there is a high correlation between, say, low IQ, poverty, and ethnic background, and committing various crimes, we should just imprison these people and be done with it, right?

    You know, I have long rejected the notion that "conservative" means "fascist", in part because "liberal" does, too. But the above post is a remarkable example of the conservative/fascist mindset, and I do not use the term "fascist" flippantly. I'm not sure I've ever used it, except in jest -- until now.

  • ||

    A fascist is someone who believes that when someone breaks the law they should be punished appropriately? I see. Your analogy about "low IQ" and high correlation for committing crimes is idiotic and typical of the strawmen you like to create in your mind.

    If you break the law, you go to jail. Creating a prohibition on drugs is a very good idea. It is a fact that it is hard to enforce, but when someone is caught with violating the drug laws of this nation they are justifiably sent to jail. Since these are the people who commit other crimes it has the supplemental benefit of reducing property and violent crimes simulataneously.

    WIN WIN is what we call this.

  • Ghjost||

    Sure, win-win in the case of a hardened killer caught with a sack of rocks. But let's not pretend those horrid individuals are the only people to be caught up by the war on (some) drugs. How about the kid just out of high school who gets caught with a couple joints and completely loses out on college aid? Is it right for the government to strip someone of their future over such a petty offense, especially when this individual is otherwise law-abiding and respectful of others? I don't really think so, though i suspect a law and order at all costs kinda guy like you would call it a small price to pay, or likely even root on the practice. The whole thing is despicable if you ask me. Sounds like lawyers, cops, and judges just want a corner to cut so they don't have to actually bother with proving guilt in tough cases (ie convict criminals of violent, victim based crime). And, yes, your rhetoric does beg the term "fascist." just sayin.

  • tjking||

    You are blasting Krauthammer as an imbecile on this issue without explaining what his credentials are. You are guilty of that which you are criticizing, i.e. blurting out opinion without empirically noting his background. He happens to be a Doctor educated at Harvard and Oxford and has served as a board certified Chief resident in Psychiatry at several prestigious Hospitals. He is considered one of the foremost authorities on Bipolar disorders and Neurological conditions among other things. He also served on Bush's council on Bioethics. I think he knows a bit more than you do about Drugs.

    Recent studies have shown that Marijuana has a direct link to increasing the likelihood of manic episodes amongst people with a predisposition to Bipolar Depression. If you are claiming that he does not go on ride-alongs as much as you and that somehow makes him unfit to discuss the damaged lives that surround the world of substance abuse, then you know "absolutely nothing" as you put it.

    I know many agents in DHS and the DEA and your claim that the dog shooting raid is "typical" is just an outright lie meant to bolster your chosen means of garnering a paycheck.

    As sympathetic as I am to the majority of libertarian premises, drugs inhibit the primary rationale for a free society in a liberal democracy. It destroys individual's ability to choose rationally. You want to skydive or jump 50 buses on a motorcyle or any other form of risk taking? fine. But when you biologically destroy an individual's ability to make rational and sane decisions, the entire basis of our philosophy of sovereign individual self governance unravels. I think Krauthammer is throwing you a bone by arguing that a federalist experiment in an individual state might prove his point, but you won't have any of that, because it gets in the way of your jack booted thug meme.

    There are two types that perpetually make Libertarians look like kooks. Anti-war truthers and those that characterize our brave DEA agents as thugs and you happen to be the poster child of that kook fringe.

  • GILMORE||

    ""Recent studies have shown that Marijuana has a direct link to increasing the likelihood of manic episodes amongst people with a predisposition to Bipolar Depression. ""

    Therefore we need to storm into people houses in the dead of night with guns drawn and shoot their dogs.

    Makes perfect sense.

  • ||

    John Locke, logical fallacy, argument from authority. Look it up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

  • GILMORE||

    you beat me to the same point... damn you

  • GILMORE||

    Oh, and p.s. on the dog shooting "lie"?

    Reason has covered dozens of instances. Ask Cheye Calvo how uncommon it is. There's *videotape* of cops doing it. There are websites devoted to police dog shootings. There are police departments that defend the practice as pre-emptive defense. "Lies" they are not, sir. Do your own homework rather than toss your "appeal to authority" ("I personally KNOW DEA...") B.S.

    Additionally, equating 9/11 truthers with people who - for extremely valid and demonstrable reasons - believe the war on drugs is a total failure, is absolutely ridiculous. Why not just call everyone racists too? You look like a fool equating people who have the preponderance of evidence on their side with people who have basically NO evidence. Get real. The comparison is absurd. And your claim that "libertarians against the drug war" put people off of other small government policy?? Nonsense. Look at any poll on attitudes towards the WOD, and the only people who think it is sacrosanct are the politicians who use it as a funnel to dump money into districts and the cops who use it as justification for their existence. Oh, and prison operators... Everyone else in the real world? Not so much buddy.

  • ||

    DEA, DHS? LOL.

    I've known FBI, PD, etc. The DEA and DHS guys I came into contact with seemed like smirking asshats who liked to do full-auto mag dumps with your tax dollars, for no particular reason.

    Now I can't say whether that's representative of these alphabet soup agents or not, but my anecdote is as good as anyone's.

  • ||

    wrt mag dumps, I mean practicing at the gun range, not at people's dogs, necessarily...

    The FBI types seem like straight-up people. Maybe that's why the gummint farms out certain tasks to DEA and DHS instead, but that could just be my opinion...

  • Joh||

    Ruby ridge FBI at its best. nice

  • ||

    Well, there is that. Never met those particular FBI. Not a huge fan of Federal LE, but not all of them are evil, either. There are real crimes that do need some mechanism for enforcement at that level, and there are some good people who do it.

    There is no need for the DEA, however. We have Federal LE to handle real crimes (i.e. malum in se); we don't need "brave" agents specifically to enforce made-up crimes by gunning people down.

  • TJKing||

    Oh, I guess the fact that you have heard of John Locke refutes my point, huh? You defend your point by saying There's "video" and "websites", Wow, can't argue with that,...duh!

    Balko said:

    "...If Krauthammer finds the Missouri SWAT raid video "harrowing and horrible," he ought to find the drug war "harrowing and horrible." Because the images in that video are typical of how we're fighting it...." How would would Locke describe the logic in that statement?

    So, if Krauthammer finds a specific video of a single raid "Harrowing and horrible", he SHOULD extrapolate that the entire war on drugs and every other aspect of it,...and every other raid should be considered "Harrowing and Horrible" because, and I quote again,..."BECAUSE the images in that video are TYPICAL of how we're fighting it". That is a lie and it is a lie that you are now defending, because you claim "There's "video" and "websites".

    This was a very atypical raid and you either know that or you are full of it. The very reason that it is being publicized shows that most DEA raids are against high level and violent targets, who are successfully prosecuted for huge amounts of contraband. There is rarely shots fired, rarely are animals shot, rarely are children present. This video by its very nature is an anamoly which is why it is being publicized. If it is typical, as you now attempt to posit, then there is a massive conspiracy to cover up an imaginary world where the majority of raids include all of the so called "Harrowing and Horrible" elements noted above.

    You are either defending a lie, ignorant of basic logic, or you are a conspiracy theorist, which as I previously noted puts you on the same Kook fringe I previously mentioned. Thanks for proving my point.

  • ||

    The images and video are typical of how it's being fought, against low-level targets, with many resulting convictions being for misdemeanors. Want numbers? Look them up.

    Your verbose post does not hide your laziness nor compensate for your lack of thought.

  • TJKing||

    OK, Mr. Not so lazy, cough it up. Show us the numbers how this is a typical forced entry DEA raid in that as you claim against mostly "low level targets" and your use of "many" means what? Not most? which would make it...ummm...atypical? If you got numbers, show us your source of "authority" or else stop defending hyperbolic nonsense.

  • ||

    Or else what, you lazy twit?

    Or else what?

    Grow up.

  • TJKing||

    Ha, Ha, Ha. What are you going to do? Start saying I know you are but what am I? Provide some facts to back up your gibberish or continue to look like a moronic blowhard that wimpers and curses instead of defending his ignorant rant. That's what! LOL.

  • GILMORE||

    TJKing|5.21.10 @ 6:35PM|#

    ""This was a very atypical raid and you either know that or you are full of it""

    Actually asshole, there's a book you can read that demonstrates exactly how typical these things are:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

    Conveniently authored by the person who put up this post.

    And as far as your "video" and "websites" rhetorical nanny-poo-poo... I was talking about the dog shootings. You want to find them? Type "Police shoot dog" into google, dipshit. You can rant all you want but people here have been following this topic for years, and a bunch of authority-claiming nonsense from you isnt exactly going to change things.

  • TJKing||

    I see, since you can't back up your argument with independent information, you find it necessary to call me an asshole. How is it that the only piece of evidence you want to provide is the very source that you are failing to defend? Your premise is that since you have been in an echo chamber for years, that somehow inoculates you from your inability to defend a nonsensical statement is laughable. Balko said this raid is typical and your emotional desire for it to be typical of the majority of DEA raids, doesn't make it fact, it just isn't and if it was you would back it up. Your use of phrases like "Dipshit" and "asshole" as a poor substitute for your your inability to present a valid refutation only bolsters my point ...and again, makes you come across as a Kook. Nice job.

  • ||

    I was on the receiving end of one of these raids (they didn't shoot my dogs, but they threatened to) just because I buy allergy medicine regularly (because you know, I have allergies).

    The drug war is completely insane.

  • GILMORE||

    TJKing

    Read the linked white paper.

    And also read every single other thing Radley has ever written about. If you still have the same attitude after that, I congratulate you for your insane irrational conviction.

  • GILMORE||

    dipshit

  • TJKing||

    Gilmore responds to getting his ass kicked with the word "Dipshit"

  • GILMORE||

    No, I'm just calling it like it is.

  • Kolohe||

    tjking is that rarest of breeds, an "18th amendment libertarian"

  • TJKing||

    I think Krauthammer adequately shot down the old Volstead canard.

  • Robert||

    Isn't it possible that skydiving or motorcycle jumping could produce brain damage that also would destroy one's ability to make rational and sane decisions?

  • TJKing||

    Not if they are done correctly.

  • ||

    LOL

  • claude||

    "Anti-war truthers and those that characterize our brave DEA agents as thugs and you happen to be the poster child of that kook fringe."

    If it makes you feel better, i consider DEA agents to be more along the lines of child molesters. Have a lovely day! :)

  • TJKing||

    My satisfaction that you are proving me correct regarding the amount of unstable Kooks on this subject is diminished by my despair that seemingly conservative communities are sometimes infected with the delusional psychoses usually reserved for the far left. You and the guy that wants to burn Krauthammer in his wheelchair and toss him down the stairs are real gems. You are a disturbed individual.

  • claude||

    Actually dude, its you who is disturbed. Maybe someday when you and charles break up and no longer give each other mouth hugs... you will realize what a tool you truly are. You seem to quite full of yourself. Its so cute. Simply because you dont like someones argument, does not make it weak. Time to change your diaper, TJ... and put on a new bib. ;-)

    Oh yeah... and spark one up.

  • TJKing||

    This is getting even more humorous than I could have imagined. For the simple fact that I take exception to people wishing Krauthammer tortured and murdered, that makes me his "tool"? This thread contains more hair trigger morons than a lot of lefty blogs.

    A complete lack of argument is by its nature weak, regardless of whether I like it or not. I said Balko's claim that Krauthammer was unqualified to discuss drugs was a foolish and wrong statement, you apparently disagree, but fail to say why. I said Balko's statement that the raid and its significant characteristics were typical of most DEA forced entry raids. You clearly disagree with that statement and believe that a majority of the raids actually include gunfire, children and dead dogs. Yet, you seem to show no interest in elaborating on such a bizarre premise.

    Failure to make an argument is a weak one, but then hiding your lack of an argument behind generalizations against all DEA agents that they are wicked monsters or as you said child molesters or the guy that wants to set Krauthammer on fire, that is distrurbed. It would be a lot simpler to just source these arguments and see if they can withstand refutation instead of devolving into these calls for violence and hatred. Maybe if you refrain from sparking one up for a bit you can maintain your wits long enough to muster the gumption to explain yourself.

  • fortyouncer||

    Ah, always a day late I am. Must be that pot I smoked a while back - it's still making me lazy. But this post is so full of BS that it's worth making a post no one will read.

    The lies posted here about drug use and it's ability to make a person into some subhuman zomibe, unable to make rational decisions is just total nonsense, and is what perpetuates the violence against them.

    The problem with drug raids is that drug users have become so dehumanized that narcotics officers of any type (Federal, state, local) can get away with anything. Unlike TJking, who knows a guy who knows a guy in the DEA, I've actually been on raids. Shit, went on one last week with four massive pits bulls at two locations (2 at each), who where subdued and placed out of our way (used that pole thingy). I am not a cop, but more than cops get to go on raids. I just don't get to be in the the conga line that goes through the door. From what I have seen, narcotics officers are the worst of the law enforcement. I can't stand working with them. Are they brave? No, they are drunk on power. They love it. They get to play cowboys and Indians all day long, and we are all Indians. They can cut corners because it's so easy to bust someone for simple possession of a substance. It's the drug war and that dehumanization of drug users that allows stuff like this to happen. It can be done differently. A little surveillance will tell you that dogs are present (espcially at a residence - dog bowls, toys, the actual dog itself!) and how to prepare. No need though if the targets are subhuman. They don't deserve family pets anyway. What kind of family can they be if drugs are present, right TJ? Child abusers!

    TJ's argument that the freedom to chose drugs is destroying freedom, therefore we need to end freedom to save freedom is just weird. Continuous sobriety can have the effect of making arguments like that seem to make sense.

  • TJKing||

    "...But this post is so full of BS that it's worth making a post no one will read..."

    Consider it read.

  • Daniel||

    Actually, the interview makes it clear that Krauthammer is open and honest about the costs of the drug war, but in his opinion he feels, at least for "the hard stuff", the benefits outweigh the costs.

    You might disagree with him, but unlike the Bill Bennett's of the world, he fully acknowledges the down side.

  • ||

    Krauthammer is not ignorant as some posters proclaim. He is a doctor and is trained in psychiatry. He knows tons about drugs and their effects, both physiologically and on community and family dynamics.He, like most people doesn't fancy American youth being raised in the Darwinian/Spencerian world that ignorant libertarians dream about whilst touching their nether regions.

  • ||

    Big up for the reference to Spencer. Seriously.

  • GILMORE||

    Anyone notice that this post dragged out a bunch of serious folk who... I dont know... Love Charles Krauthammer?

    Or really think militarized drug raids that shoot pets in front of kids are like, a good thing?

    I thought it was only Immigration posts that brought the freaks out... who knew.

  • TJKing||

    More proof that your natural comfort zone is an echo chamber where you are not required to defend your weak arguments.

  • ||

    Balko has done a hell of a lot of research into this, with numbers and everything. You're right here. The research would be very easy, if you cared to engage in any.

    Demanding that people do it for you, when it's all right here at your fingertips, makes you look bad. You seem to have plenty of time to type a lot of spew, but no time to learn a damned thing.

  • TJKing||

    You are the one that approached me and questioned my premise. I said Balko was wrong on two points. One He portrays Krauthammer as the icon of MSM bringing a hack on a media personality who has no specialized knowledge in a particular area and then asks his opinion on the subject for which Balko claims he knows absolutely nothing. I said Krauthammer is an accomplished Doctor who with his background in Psychiatry and his having participated at the behest of President Bush on Government panels has both expertise in Drug issues on the micro level as well as its greater public policy implications. Balko made a fool out of himself on that exaggeration. Period.

    Then on his statement that this was a "typical" DEA Raid. I mentioned that I know agents that would tell you this is bunk. I didn't check a "video" or a "Website" (Apparently your imaginary ones)as you tossed out there,...I went straight to the source and asked about the Missouri Raid. You started spouting off about John Locke. If my mentioning the fact that Krauthammer is a reliable expert on Drugs and my discussion of what actual federal agents say about whether this was an anomaly or if it is typical is enough to draw your attention, approach me and mock my response to Balko, then you should at least have the Nads to produce an independent source to back it up, rather than telling me to go google stuff that doesn't exist. That only proves to me and everyone else here that you are incapable of supplying even one shred of evidence to back up your premise. I'm not demanding as you say for anyone to do any research for me, I already proved Balko is exaggerating. Why should I have to go in search of non existent data to bolster your nonsensical argument. Its your lame premise not mine. As I said you continue to play yourself off as a hair trigger Kook with no data to back you up. Is your argument so weak that it can not withstand a debate? Nuff Said.

  • GILMORE||

    The capitalization of Nads and Kook really helped your argument.

  • GILMORE||

    Why should I have to go in search of non existent data to bolster your nonsensical argument

    thats qualifies as 'appeal to ignorance'. you're scoring points on every fallacy that exists...

  • GILMORE||

    Find one point in Radly's book that is incorrect. please. You will win our respect if you can.

  • TJKing||

    The above three pathetic flailings of yours "score points" on every blog post fail highlight reel. First you insist on being the spelling police, or in this case the capitalization police, as a poor substitute for disproving my argument. Then you fall back to your initial John Locke schtick that you somehow believe that by preening to the other morons here that you even know who John Locke is or what he believes will somehow hide the fact that you are avoiding the point. You think by trying to pretend like you are doing "analysis" of debate or what you want to show as debating techniques, that you don't have to actually prove a point. Appeal to authority, Appeal to ignorance, etc. is very cute, but it can't hide that you continue to run and hide from the point.

    I said Balko made a fool of himself by portraying Krauthammer as absolutely unqualified to comment on Drugs, when in fact he is indisputedly an authority. You register a big Fail (with a Capital F).

    I said, and several other more reasonable people than you on this board have concurred, that when Balko conveyed that this raid was typical he was exaggerating and wrong. You took exception to that but have Failed(with a Capital F) to prove that most DEA forced entry raids include all of the anomalous characteristics that make this video significant.

    Then you fall back on the same Kitty Kelly "Read the book" defense ploy of your fellow moron above by asking that I go read Balko's entire book and find inaccuracies. Talk about a logic class from the world of Bizaro?

    The point in dispute is not whether Balko made a single error in his book. My point was that he made two in the above article and when clearly disproven, Krauthammer's credentials and the falsehood that most DEA forced entry raids include dead dogs plus children plus gunshots,...you challenged my points, but only that John Locke would consider my techniques as a form of black magic.

    You haven't been able to disprove my two points, so on that you get a Fail with a Capital F. Your spelling police, "Logic Instructor" schtick and Kitty Kelly routine only compounds your Fail.

    I'm not going to read Balko's book in an attempt to bolster a lame argument of YOURS that you are not even willing to defend. ...and if you think I give a damn about your respect or anyone else that expends so much effort to avoiding backing up his point with such a steaming pile of crap as you have skiploaded here, you Fail once more.

  • ||

    ...and by the way, you can start by clicking the links in the article above.

  • ||

    Uh, if I know that hitting a tree with a car at 30 MPH isn't good for you, does that qualify me to decide what the fine should be for speeding at various increments on a specific stretch of highway?

    Despite their expertise, I don't hire malpractice attorneys to operate on me, nor do I want doctors to decide what laws we should live under.

  • ||

    Krauthammer delenda est.

  • ||

    Agreed. And big ups for paraphrasing Cato the Elder.

  • ||

    The only bit of knowledge gleaned from these comments is that Philip Seymour Hoffman was a supporting character in Twister, one of the great mediocre films of all time. Memorable only for Helen Hunt's wearing of a tight white t-shirt through all sorts of natural mayhem. I particularly like the penultimate scene wherein the little satellites or whatever they are called are finally sucked up into the tornado (after numerous failed attempts) and everyone intensely stares at the computer screen to discover its...its...its...a FUNNEL!!!!

  • ||

    Helen Hunt in a tight T--um, excuse me for a minute, guys. And I do mean a minute.

  • ||

    This page is one of the better examples of why I'm not a libertarian. The idea that we can reduce crime by legalizing it is absurd. And puerile insults and curses (like wishing someone who is paraplegic would be set afire and rolled down steps) only weaken your argument.

  • ||

    The idea that we can reduce crime by legalizing it is absurd.

    Prohibition was absurd. Ending it reduced crime. While the notion reducing crime by legalizing it may or may not be appropriate in every case, the idea is hardly "absurd". It has precedent, and it has succeeded.

  • joh||

    The idea that free individuals can do with their life as they like. You didn't notice that in any of these posts? Your not a real person your a member of society and love the individual kicked into compliance. I dont condone setting wheelchair bound people on fire but, the visual of a WOD lover flaming through the air on fire is pleasing. Don't be libertarian enough light weights are already.

  • whappan?||

    Wishing Krauthammer was set on fire and rolled down steps was said in jest. Libertarians really just don't want people like you to be able to imprison or kill people who have not harmed anyone. And for this you hate them.

  • Peter Jackson||

    Well if the entire point of drug prohibition is to jail as many Americans as possible then Mark might have a point. But that's not the point of prohibition. The point of prohibition is to curtail drug availability and, ergo, drug use. The fact that drugs are available in pretty much every prison and middle school in America successfully rebuts the idea that prohibition as a policy succeeds on any level.

  • ||

    One more comment...

    Krauthammer may be a psychiatrist, which may mean that he knows more about hallucinogenic drugs than I do (especially as I'm a grown man and not too interested in fucking up my brain, so I don't experiment with them).

    My plumber also knows more about drains than I do, or want to, even though I do basic household maintenance, and some not-so-basic stuff, myself.

    However, despite the plumber's knowledge, I'd have to take his support for, say, making snaking my own drain a Federal crime, with at least a grain of salt. There might be an ulterior motive to this support, don't you think?

    In the same way, a doctor's support for brutal enforcement of laws that support his profession's particular monopolies just MIGHT need to be taken with a grain of salt. He might be right, but as a reasonable human being, I'd like to get a second opinion from someone who doesn't have the same vested interest.

    Maybe that's just me. The AMA and other professional organizations would NEVER do anything simply to protect their members' business interests, now would they?

  • ||

    Do you think Mr. Balko could explain to the rest of dumb people how we are going to regulate cocaine and meth? I saw Krauthammer's comments and agree with him. What is it the rest of us are not getting?

  • Anonymous Backstabber||

    Maybe it could be regulated like, I dunno, cigarettes and alcohol?

    Just blue-skying here...

  • ||

    After reading all these elevating comments, maybe I'll become a libertarian.

    Or maybe I won't.

  • ||

    Don't be afraid. We mean you no harm. We come in peace. Soylent Green IS PEOPLE!!!

  • GILMORE||

    har har

    Anyone ever meet a libertarian recruiter?

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    He lives next door to the gay recruiter.

  • ||

    I heard the Columbia chief of police saying that the raid was perfectly legal and procedure was followed. But this is the exact problem. Since when do we show such presumption of violence that the massive use of force is thought to be routine for dealing with non-violent citizens, especially when in this case at least, there was obviously plenty of opportunity to apprehend the suspect in ways that would not have shown such disrespect.

    The chief of police will now modify the rules bit. What mindset allowed the rules in the first place?

    In my book the rules that allow such SWAT raids should be immediately suspended. Let us save shows of force for the rare times when it is really needed to protect the rest of us from an imminent threat. We only corrode the relationship between government and citizen by such raids.

    I full support police however I think turning them into a military force is a totally different matter.

  • ||

    Ordinarily I like Krauthammer and he usually makes cogent points about the issues he addresses, but I don't think he knows "anything" about the Drug War and the way it's being handled..

  • ||

    Well as someone else who isnt "up on it" and looking for information, I'm not seeing much more for me in this article or the one you linked to.

    Krauthammer calls this a botched raid, you say no it happens all the time. I'm not seeing the support for that beyond some blurb about the typical guy who did a study. This study happened to say SWAT deployments went up precisely 1 assload.

    You seem to be suggesting every raid ends in a dogs death and a child's psyche crushed all over a bag of pot. I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that.

    I'm pretty much with Krauthammer in that I'm ok with marijuana being legalized in "test" situations, but a no for me on the hard stuff.

  • TJKing||

    I think any rational person heard the same thing you did. If you disagree with Balko on any point, especially his exaggerations, a bunch of Kooks come out of the woodwork saying they want to see Krauthammer set on fire and pushed down a flight of stairs in his wheel chair or that he is a money grubbing doctor motivated by greed for making his point. What a bunch of nutjobs.

  • ||

    Well, he started it!

  • nicrivera||

    When people show up on libertarian message boards stating "I'm not a libertarian because of the libertarian position in favor of drug legalization", my response is, "No, you're not a libertarian because you support state-sanctioned violence against individuals whose lifestyles you don't personally approve of."

  • TJKing||

    Darn, can we re-apply for membership after we remove our brains?

  • nicrivera||

    TJKing,

    You're on record here on this message board of supporting state-sanctioned violence against drug users, and yet WE'RE the ones that are KOOKS?

    Where do you get this strange idea that you have the right to dictate to other people what activities they can and can not engage in?

  • TJKing||

    You just got finished "dictating to other people what activities they can and can not engage in", by telling people that come on this board that they can not be a member of the group known as "Libertarians", because of your distorted view of liberty and individual rights. You want to be the piety police and tell people what to do, but you can't see how nosy neighbor you are being. What reasonable person would want to be a member of a club that would have you as a member? Kooks like you are the main reason people avoid libertarians, not the drug issue itself.

  • ||

    Prohibition is a sickening horror and the ocean of incompetence, corruption and human wreckage it has left in its wake is almost endless.

    Prohibition has decimated generations and criminalized millions for a behavior which is entwined in human existence, and for what other purpose than to uphold the defunct and corrupt thinking of a minority of misguided, self-righteous Neo-Puritans and degenerate demagogues who wish nothing but unadulterated destruction on the rest of us.

    Based on the unalterable proviso that drug use is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation.

    If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history.

    If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

    If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

    If you support prohibition you've helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.

    If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

    If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

    If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

    If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

    If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

    If you support prohibition you've helped overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.

    If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

  • ||

    The idea that we can reduce crime by legalizing it is absurd.

    Dizzy now.

  • JOR||

    "Krauthammer calls this a botched raid, you say no it happens all the time. I'm not seeing the support for that beyond some blurb about the typical guy who did a study."

    The police claim the raid followed SOP. Therefore, it was not a botched raid; they were carrying out the drug war precisely as it is intended to be carried out.

  • juris imprudent||

    Krauthammer may be a well qualified shrink but that indicates no particular expertise with recreational substances at low, moderate or severe doses. Almost no researcher has that knowledge (let alone a 'general practitioner') because the Drug Warriors are so reticent to allow such research - no doubt in fear that their rhetoric would be undermined (save Bennett et al for whom this is pure morality - getting high offends God). Look at the recent work from JHU with psilocybin - clearly some real research/knowledge would be more damaging to the WOD than supportive.

    Also, Dr K. has no substantive expertise in law enforcement - which means his opinion is only elevated above mine by virtue of his being on TeeVee. Big fucking whoop. I am certainly more impressed by the research that Balko does, then the opinion-spouting of some random talking head.

  • GILMORE||

    +1

  • erikk||

    YES

  • دردشة||

    thank u

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement