Trey Radel, Rob Ford Should Make Us Ask: Why Exactly is Snorting Coke Worse Than Drinking Booze?

When conservative Florida Rep. Trey Radel got busted for cocaine possession, he made the right move from a legal and p.r. point of view. He pleaded guilty and announced he was entering rehab. He was more honest than most, though, in that he acknowledged his real substance abuse problem was with alcohol. Indeed, he told the press that his buying cocaine was an effect of his drinking problem.

Writing at Time.com earlier this week, I noted the recent case of Radel and Toronto Mayor Rob Ford - who was long known for drunken oafishness but only really got in trouble when it turned out he'd also smoked crack - and asked the question, "What's wrong with casual drug use?"

Given that two states have already legalized pot beyond the medical variety (with more sure to follow), it's a question whose time has come. We should be focused less on what sorts of intoxicants people use and more on how they act when under the influence. Cocaine and even heroin are not "addictive" in any obvious way. Most people who try them never try them again and even those who use regularly are not enslaved by them. A landmark study of returning Vietnam vets in the early '70s found that even heroin addicts mostly dropped their habits when they came back stateside, even though they were able to find junk easily and many tried it after coming home without falling back into dependency:

As my Reason colleague Jacob Sullum has documented, such take-it-or-leave-it findings are common in drug research. In his 2004 book Saying Yes and other places, he’s detailed work in which researchers find a surprising range among heroin users, including a study that concluded, “It seems possible for young people from a number of different backgrounds, family patterns and educational abilities to use heroin occasionally without becoming addicted.”

It’s also true that regular drug users can often function quite well. Sigmund Freud used cocaine habitually for years, and his first major scientific publication was about the wonders of the drug (he eventually forsook it). Another pioneering late 19th and early 20th century man of medicine, William Halsted, was dependent on cocaine and morphine during an illustrious career that revolutionized and modernized surgical techniques.

None of this is a brief for snorting cocaine, shooting heroin or smoking marijuana (a substance that 58% of Americans think should be legal for recreational use) any more than it is a plea for drinking single-malt whiskey or pinot noir.

But in an age in which we are expected to use legal drugs (like beer) and prescription medications (Adderall) responsibly, it’s time to extend that same notion to currently illegal substances whose effects and properties are widely misunderstood. Indeed, the effects of coke, heroin and the rest are a mystery partly because their outlaw status makes it difficult both to research them and have honest discussions about them.

Read the whole Time story here.

What do you think? Are certain substances so inherently addictive that they must be banned? Or should the proper scope of policy be focused on behaviors?

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.

  • FreedomFighter75||

    The War on Drugs needs to end. If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg what difference is it to me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "We should be focused less on what sorts of intoxicants people use and more on how they act when under the influence."

    People thinking that politicians are supposed to be role models is part of the problem here.

    We should strive to burst that bubble.

    If I had children, I'd hate to think they might grow up to be prostitutes, used car salesmen, or politicians.

  • mr simple||

    Could be worse: they could want to become cops.

  • prolefeed||

    I'd consider a high end call girl to be an honorable profession, wouldn't be too butthurt if my daughters decided to make a lot of money that way.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I've known a few prostitutes and play cards with a couple of used car salesmen. You slander them by including them by comparing them to politicians. Have you no shame?

  • misthiocracy||

    A mayor has oversight powers over a city's police force.

    Therefore, a mayor who admits to purchasing cocaine is in a serious conflict-of-interest, because that mayor is doing business with organized crime.

    Therefore, the situation is more serious than merely the politician being a poor role-model.

    For my money, if the crack-user was merely a legislative politician, like a congressman, it wouldn't be AS big a deal, unless they sat on a committee that had oversight over law enforcement.

    That, for me anyways, is the key distinction. Any politician that has oversight over law enforcement should be held to a higher standard when it comes to associating with organized crime, regardless of my opinion on whether or not any particular law the politician broke is legitimate.

    I'd be just as hard on a head of an environmental agency if they drove a Hummer, even though I don't think there's anything wrong per se with driving a Hummer.

    I'd be just as hard on the head of a public education agency that sends their own kids to private school, even though I don't think there's anything wrong per se with private schools.

    I'd be just as hard on the head of a public health-care agency that uses private health care for their own family, even though I don't think there's anything wrong per se with private health care.

    Rob Ford is in a serious conflict-of-interest. That's the problem.

  • Hyperion||

    What do you think? Are certain substances so inherently addictive that they must be banned?

    We're asking this to a libertarian audience? Very unlikely we'll see any yes responses here. The WOD is one of the worst assaults on freedom in the history of the USA. No one can be for liberty and at the same time think they have the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot put into their own body under threat of imprisonment. The WOD is ignorant and intolerant thinking at its worst. All drugs should be legalized, immediately.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -No one can be for liberty and at the same time think they have the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot put into their own body

    I should not this should apply to physician assisted suicide as well.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    *note*

  • prolefeed||

    I've got no problem with someone being able to buy the materials to off themselves, or to have someone there to advise them on how to do it.

    What I have a problem with is the notion of someone, a physician or whatnot, pushing the button or pulling the trigger or whatever. That seems kind of murder-y to me.

  • ||

    I addressed that a little bit below. That's how all of the "assisted suicide" statutes here in the states are structured. The doctor may not administer the lethal drugs.

  • ||

    I addressed that a little bit below. That's how all of the "assisted suicide" statutes here in the states are structured. The doctor may not administer the lethal drugs.

  • ||

    Fucking squirrels

  • Hyperion||

    Correct, if I want to off myself, it's my biz.

  • DK||

    We're asking this to a libertarian audience?

    Yeah, Nick is getting his rhetorical freak on. Although, there could be a discussion on antibiotic addiction (of the behavioral sort).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -We're asking this to a libertarian audience?

    This article was written for Time.

  • Hyperion||

    Yes, but it's posted here, so we are effectively now addressing a libertarian audience.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Fair enough.

  • mr simple||

    The question is outside of the quoted text, so it was asked here, not at Time.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I would say that if an addict gets to the point he cannot take care of himself, his relatives should be able to petition for guardianship.

    That shouldn't harm the casual users, should it?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Petition...the government? Who then would, what, decide when and/or if it was best to violate his rights at his the request of some of his friends and family, for his own good (of course!)?

    How about this: unless he directly impinges on someone else's life he gets to live it as he sees fit.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    A person can petition for guardianship over a elderly parent with dementia, IIRC. So why not apply that principle to hard-core addicts? Not the guy who takes a snort or a snifter, not even the guy who gets mean when he's high, but the guy who can't even keep himself clean or housed, etc?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This from Black's Law Dictionary:

    "Guardian of the person. A guardian responsible for taking care of someone who is incapable of caring for himself because of infancy, incapacity, or disability."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I have to wonder who decides when a person has got to that point, and I keep coming to that person. Someone would have to be pretty far out of their mind before I would authorize the state to infringe their liberty at the request of family (btw, I know you are, let us say, quite sensitive to the possibility of relatives putting pressure on people in assisted suicide situations, are you worried about relatives with bad motives asking for, and being given, guardianship and power of attorney over 'struggling' relatives?).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Of course I am, but I would point out this isn't assisted suicide. I don't think even the person himself should authorize his or her own killing, so by extension, nobody else should be able to seek authority to do what he can't do to himself. This is hardly the same as withholding extraordinary medical treatment (which doesn't include food and water).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What I mean is that you have offered up relatives misusing their influence because of incentives to do so in the context of assisted suicide, and it seems to me a similar danger would be there in situations where relatives could get 'guardianship' over other relatives.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I mean that killing oneself is an illegitimate end - caring for oneself is a legitimate end, and adults are strongly presumed to have that capacity. Guardianship laws presume that it's not an irrebuttable presumption.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -killing oneself is an illegitimate end - caring for oneself is a legitimate end

    To quote a wise man, 'that's just like, your opinion man.'

    But more seriously, I think we are missing each other here: sure, you oppose assisted suicide even if everyone is acting competently, I get that. But you often argue against assisted suicide by saying that there will be strong incentives for relatives to invoke euthanasia for bad ends (to get out of medical bills for example). And I am saying that these guardianship laws have a similar danger (if you want to be in control of Grandmother's bank account, for example).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, I got that.

    But there *are* cases of relatives being motivated by better motives. And I certainly trust relatives more than the State to initiate such proceedings.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -And I certainly trust relatives more than the State to initiate such proceedings.

    Except in voluntary suicide situations, where you totally flip?

  • ||

    I mean that killing oneself is an illegitimate end - caring for oneself is a legitimate end

    Did you just come down from the mount with that declaration?

    The great part about self ownership is that it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks is a "legitimate" end for your life - including how to end it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Did you just come down from the mount with that declaration?

    Nah, unless I am mistaken I think for Eduard the Pope made that declaration.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The Pope himself couldn't change these truths. If he said suicide was cool, he'd be revealing that the Catholic Church wasn't actually the true Church, and I'd have to become a Protestant or atheist.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -I'd have to become a Protestant or atheist

    We'd welcome you into the fold!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Which fold? Prot or infidel?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Maybe both ;)?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm going to skip the obvious joke here.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (Episcopalian)

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is a good one (though not applicable here)!

  • SusanM||

    How about Presbyterian?

    Not sure about suicide itself, but when it comes to "assisted" suicide you seem to be close to drawing a parallel between that and "voluntary" slavery. You can't voluntarily tell someone to take your life?

  • ||

    You can't voluntarily tell someone to take your life?

    That's usually not the case with doctor "assisted" suicide anyway - the involvement of the doctor usually consists only in providing the drug cocktail and medical supervision necessary for the person to take his own life. In WA and OR, that is a statutory requirement. The doctor himself cannot administer the lethal drugs.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well said, which is why I think it is covered under the same principles you noted in arguing against the drug war. If people should be free to buy substances from a willing seller to put them in their body they should be free to do so whether their aim is to get high or end their own life.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Protestant, Episcopalian, Catholic, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, when y’all are done fighting and debating, don’t worry about that kind of thing, you can be ALL of those things, AND more-more-more, and ALSO, at the same time, become a Scienfoologist like me! To learn more, come and worship at www.churchofSQRLS.com

  • Mercutio||

    The great part about self ownership is that it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks is a "legitimate" end for your life - including how to end it.

    Agreed. You don't truly own something unless you are free to destroy it.

  • Hyperion||

    I've seen this tried, and I've seen it fail. If someone is young and able bodied enough to get around on their own, they will escape anything less than being locked up.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "If someone is young and able bodied enough to get around on their own"

    Would you be able to clarify what this means?

  • Hyperion||

    I'm not sure why that needs clarified. Bascially, what I mean is that you can have guardianship of someone, but if they are mobile enough, they will escape when they want their fix. I've personally seen this in action.

    So, if they can walk, and have the their intellect and bearings well enough in order, they will escape your feeble attempts at keeping an eye on them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, I'll have to think of the one, too.

  • Hyperion||

    I'll elaborate a little. Some very close friends of my family, had a son who had serious drug and alcohol problems. I grew up with the guy. I had to stop going around him because he was just trouble and I sure wasn't going to drink with him, which was all he wanted to do, that and xanax and assorted other things that are bad to mix with alcohol.

    It finally got to the point that they tried getting state control of the guy, who was in his 30s at the time. They couldn't do anything with him, and he finally had a serious accident, no surprise. Stole a truck from someone in the family, and ran it straight into a train at a crossing, apparently so messed up he didn't even see it, or was just passed out.

    Now he's under control, since he can barely walk and was so traumatized by the serious brain injury.

    You can't control an adult who is not incapacitated, and having the state to deal with them is probably a fate worse than addiction.

  • Hyperion||

    I'll elaborate a little. Some very close friends of my family, had a son who had serious drug and alcohol problems. I grew up with the guy. I had to stop going around him because he was just trouble and I sure wasn't going to drink with him, which was all he wanted to do, that and xanax and assorted other things that are bad to mix with alcohol.

    It finally got to the point that they tried getting state control of the guy, who was in his 30s at the time. They couldn't do anything with him, and he finally had a serious accident, no surprise. Stole a truck from someone in the family, and ran it straight into a train at a crossing, apparently so messed up he didn't even see it, or was just passed out.

    Now he's under control, since he can barely walk and was so traumatized by the serious brain injury.

    You can't control an adult who is not incapacitated, and having the state to deal with them is probably a fate worse than addiction.

  • Hyperion||

    Fucking squirrels!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'll have to take your experience into consideration. I will acknowledge that I have not experienced the details of guardianship proceedings. I simply know they exist.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I don't want to expand the Therapeutic State, but the good old Common Law seems to have acknowledged some of the principles I've articulated, and that predates the growth of the Therapeutic State. Also, guardianship puts a person under the care of relatives, not social workers and physicians.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The old Common Law could be quite paternalistic and coercive at times, that stuff did not start with the Therapeutic State.

  • Hyperion||

    I've been around addicts, both alcohol and drugs. Some people can be helped, others cannot be, because they don't want to be.

    You can try to help someone, and that's all good. But when someone is out to kill themself, there isn't much you can do. I don't believe in having someone locked up to protect themself, especially today, when the state will be more likely to increase the risk of their demise.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree. I do not trust the state to decide who really is incapable of caring themselves and/or out of their gourd and who is just not living as their relatives or some judge thinks they ought to be living.

    I do think this can be tricky. Take an addict who voluntarily wants to sign himself into a facility for rehabilitation, and upon signings asks that he be confined there for his own good even if he changes his mind later. If later he changes it, what then?

  • ||

    If he's signed a contract asking to be confined for a particular period of time, I'd say enforce the contract until it expires.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I go back and forth on this. On the one hand your point is powerful, on the other I wonder if we are not dealing with an inalienable right here.

  • ||

    The question is to what extent you can waive an inalienable right. It gets to the old "could you sell yourself into slavery?" question. But presuming treatment is temporary in nature, I'd think a timeframe typical of the industry would probably be enforceable.

  • Killazontherun||

    NASA, this is why they get the Big Funding:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nDCe.....AAO_b8.jpg

  • Rhywun||

    Please tell me that isn't a hoax.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm afraid I can't verify, that's my only link to it. However, I do know that they are still accepting astronaut candidates which may contradict part of the letter. The last batch were approved in August.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....90454.html

  • CatoTheElder||

  • Killazontherun||

    Some light reading for Bitcoin enthusiast who believe we are entering a new age of anonymity, a sobriety check:

    http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~smeikl...../imc13.pdf

    A Fistful of Bitcoins: Characterizing Payments Among
    Men with No Names
    Sarah Meiklejohn Marjori Pomarole Grant Jordan
    Kirill Levchenko Damon McCoy

    Geoffrey M. Voelker Stefan Savage
    University of California, San Diego George Mason University

    ABSTRACT
    Bitcoin is a purely online virtual currency, unbacked by either phys-
    ical commodities or sovereign obligation; instead, it relies on a
    combination of cryptographic protection and a peer-to-peer proto-
    col for witnessing settlements. Consequently, Bitcoin has the un-
    intuitive property that while the ownership of money is implicitly
    anonymous, its flow is globally visible. In this paper we explore
    this unique characteristic further, using heuristic clustering to group
    Bitcoin wallets based on evidence of shared authority, and then us-
    ing re-identification attacks (i.e., empirical purchasing of goods and
    services) to classify the operators of those clusters. From this anal-
    ysis, we characterize longitudinal changes in the Bitcoin market,
    the stresses these changes are placing on the system, and the chal-
    lenges for those seeking to use Bitcoin for criminal or fraudulent
    purposes at scale
  • Rhywun||

    If I had 6, 5, or even 4 names I would find it more convenient to be anonymous, too.

  • Killazontherun||

    Don't get me wrong, I support the mainstreaming of Bitcoin. I think its going to have a wonderful future, especially given the extra levels of crypto protection, but black and gray markets are going to be a shrinking part of it.

  • Warrren||

    As in those markets get smaller absolutely or as a percentage?

  • Killazontherun||

    From the paper:

    However, unlike cash, Bit-
    coin requires third party mediation: a global peer-to-peer network
    of participants validates and certifies all transactions; such decen-
    tralized accounting requires each network participant to maintain
    the entire transaction history of the system, currently amounting to
    over 3 GB of compressed data. Bitcoin identities are thus pseudo-
    anonymous
    : while not explicitly tied to real-world individuals or
    organizations, all transactions are completely transparent.

    In other words, if a bitcoin user purchases time on a webcam site that shows kiddie porn, when the authorities shut the operation down, they wont have immediate access to whom purchased that time, but their will be a complete, permanent record of that transaction occurring which they can subject to heuristic analysis.

    cont.

  • Killazontherun||

    One of the author's of the paper, Sarah Meiklejohn, believes she has already tracked down a transaction that made news due to its huge ammount:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ansaction/


    Who was responsible for the transaction? I asked Sarah Meiklejohn, a computer scientist at the University of California, San Diego, for her thoughts. She's the author of a recent paper demonstrating that sophisticated analysis can reveal a lot of information about who is responsible for Bitcoin transactions. She has compiled a large database of Bitcoin addresses tagged with their likely owners.

    Criminals who use it are fucked. Everyone else has a sweet new utility in their arsenal to use for the smoothest transactions in human history.

  • SweatingGin||

    Saw that transaction hit, it was fun seeing reddit and bitcointalk lose their shit over it.

    I need to look a bit closer at the actual mechanics of mixing. Maybe that only hits plausible deniability, rather than full anonymity. Somehow you have to get coins to the new address.

  • SweatingGin||

    SweatingGin opens his window 1/2", hands license and proof of insurance through crack, carefully keeping his mouth shut and waiting to proceed back to the Bitcoin mania

    On a more serious note, it brings an interesting question of forward secrecy that I ( and I'd think most IT/tech types) have ignored a bit.

    SSL and other encryption protects the data in transit, but if the encrypted stream is being recorded, it might be decoded years later. Likewise, the blockchain is there for everyone to see forever.

    It's entirely possible that a future government could go looking back in the block chain for people who did business with someone that was perfectly legitimate previously, but isn't anymore.

    Another note on the Bitcoin world -- catching rumors that someone (NSA) is sending 1 satoshi (1/10 millionth of a Bitcoin) to people to then be able to track where it goes after that. Just a rumor at this point.

  • John C. Randolph||

    This is anecdotal of course, but in my experience, every coke head I've ever met was a flaming asshole.

    -jcr

  • SIV||

    Anecdotal? Hell, science tells us the exact same thing.

  • Sevo||

    John C. Randolph|11.23.13 @ 6:33PM|#
    "This is anecdotal of course, but in my experience, every coke head I've ever met was a flaming asshole."

    I tend to agree, but I wonder if that doesn't mean that there are some folks who use coke and are not f-as so I don't know they do.

  • Rhywun||

    Lots of people use coke and are not "coke heads" - just like any other drug (incl. alcohol).

  • SIV||

    If you come back well after midnight looking to buy more you're a "coke head".

    For all the lower class social stigma associated with meth at least the customers had the decency to wait until the next day's business hours to re-up.

    Or so I heard from a "friend" long ago in college. God Bless the statute of limitations.

  • Warrren||

    I support whatever keeps the most cop-union money flowing to Obama and the Democrats.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do police associations and unions favor Democrats? My state has an FOP and it endorses GOP candidates quite often.

  • Warrren||

    They support whoever supports their justifications for existence and their desire to feed of of the public. GOP or Dem it doesn't matter.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Police unions and associations tend to back 'law and order' policies, they are lauded by conservative politicians, and when Republican lawmakers do restrict union activity they usually exempt police and firefighter ones, so I doubt seriously they are creatures of the Democrat Party (though they likely would be in big cities since they are usually one party Democrat governments and the main thing for the union is, of course, influence with those in power).

  • ||

    It's generally the astronomical "public servant" pay, pensions at 90% of salary, 100k/year medical plans and immunity from firing that attract police unions, and every other public union, to the Democratic Party.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My point was that since Republicans rarely threaten any of that when it comes to 'public safety' unions I doubt they break any more for one party than another (again, outside of big cities).

  • ||

    I don't have any data for police unions in particular, but public sector unions in general break heavily for the Democratic Party: http://www.opensecrets.org/ind.....hp?ind=P04

  • SweatingGin||

    One thing to note is that when Republicans (in state government) mess with unions, of late, they exempt public safety unions.

    Walker in Wisconsin exempted police and fire from the right to work law. Pretty sure MI's right to work exempts police, too (but not state workers).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think this is the general pattern, which is why I do not think data on public sector unions in general is dispositive (and to add to the complexity, some states forbid police unions, but they show up in quasi form [FOP associations]).

  • ||

    In general, I think Republicans tend to sell themselves to the public on fiscal responsibility, so they have a harder time playing ball with public unions on things like wages and benefits and still getting elected. Support of unions is a major plank of Democratic Party politics so they can get by with it more easily.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not find from my admittedly limited experience and reading that they sell themselves on fiscal responsibility in many areas, the military and 'law and order' being two. The latter allows them to cozy up to public safety unions. After all, in the GOP mythos those people are lionized as heroes only slightly below the military in terms of hagiography.

  • ||

    True, but they have to balance their voter base. Even the most patriotic fiscal conservatives will probably pitch a bitch if governor John Q Republican signs a budget that puts the state billions of dollars in debt so that cops can have a more generous pension than they already enjoy. All politics is local, of course, but generally speaking, I think those fiscal conservatives tend to wind up in the R column more than the D column (no penis joke intended).

  • Killazontherun||

    Civil forfeiture going from the hands of citizens to the hands of cops, and winding up in the coffers of the DNC, noice!

  • Rich||

    Are certain substances so inherently addictive that they must be banned?

    Is "desire for power over others" considered a substance?

  • Killazontherun||

    It certainly should be banned.

  • sunzoomspark||

    Freud never really stopped using coke, he kept using until his death.

  • Almanian!||

    So clearly another drug-related death...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So he has an excuse for his pseudoscience?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Anonymous Father’s Day is a film about adults of anonymous sperm donors and their perspective which is the one we most need to hear....

    "My favorite quote is from the gentleman who said, “It is quite possible to be grateful for your life and question aspects of your conception.” So very true. It is beyond time to question the use of third party gametes in creating children. Children who may be desperate to know their genetic parents and may never get the answers they deserve....

    "The heartbreak in the voices of these adults reminds me of the often maligned but so wise Church teaching that a child has a right to be conceived by and born to his or her parents."

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/1.....ign=Buffer

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Eduard, did you catch my post the other day about the social conservative group calling for the state to end to 'anonymous fatherhood' (sperm donation)?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I saw some stuff, but I would simply say this: If we're going to *insist* on fathers having paternal rights over their out-of-wedlock children, how can we restrict that right so as to deny such "rights" to anonymous sperm donors?

    I'm the one who wants to go back to the common law and not grant rights to out-of-wedlock fathers. You're the one confronting the problem of how far to extend such rights.

  • ||

    If we're going to *insist* on fathers having paternal rights over their out-of-wedlock children, how can we restrict that right so as to deny such "rights" to anonymous sperm donors?

    I'm pretty sure the contract you sign when you donate sperm takes care of that. Unless you're arguing in favor of never being able to waive your rights under contract.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Eduard, I am actually sympathetic to the idea that if one is not willing to marry the mother of a child they should not be able to assign their name to the child.

    -how can we restrict that right so as to deny such "rights" to anonymous sperm donors?

    I would say because there is a contract accepted by everyone involved* otherwise, and that is how freedom between consenting adults works.

    * Sure, you might say the child has no say in this contract, but that is true of every child. A child could just as likely protest that they would have preferred their parents to be wealthy, or attractive, or cool.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Sure, you might say the child has no say in this contract"

    Bingo!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But a child never has a say in things concerning their parents the child might think are important later in life. That hardly seems to be a good reason to restrict the liberty of consenting adults when it comes to procreating.

    For example, what if it were shown, via both statistics and most affected children's own testimony, that most children of young parents would have been happier, better adjusted children if their parents had them when the parents were older, would that justify the state forbidding young couples from having children?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm not sure that's the same situation.

  • ||

    Just out of curiosity, how on earth can you support adoption since it is premised on waiving the exact same parental rights?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Generally adoption is when there's a single unmarried mother seeking to let her child be raised by adoptive parents in an intact marriage.

    If two married parents want to give up their child, then it's generally a really tragic situation of extreme poverty.

    Naturally, the govt should be cautious in both situations to make sure the kid isn't being handed off into literal slavery (we actually have a law against that which is sometimes ignored). Short of that, in the single-mother situation, the very fact of single motherhood should be a factor in favor of accepting the mother's wish for adoption, considering the social pathologies surrounding fatherless children.

    Attempts by married couples to give up their children should be viewed even more cautiously IMHO.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Plus, consider the de facto alternative to adoption, and you'll see why I can see it as the better choice.

  • ||

    IOW, you have no consistent position. You like adoption because it isn't abortion, so you're willing to violate your own principles and let parents waive their rights in that case, but not in the case of sperm donation.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Like I said, I'm not the one saying out-of-wedlock fathers have rights at all. It's for those who *do* advocate such rights to say where that right stops, and to talk about contracts and waivers and all that.

    I wouldn't get the father involved unless the welfare authorities need his money to get the taxpayers off the hook for the child care.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Now, if you were to abolish welfare the issue wouldn't arise, but I'm not talking about the situation in Libertopia.

  • ||

    Hard to imagine what your problem is then. Sperm donation usually entails a waiver of parental rights that you don't think an absentee father should have in the first place.

    Recall that you were the one who began this discussion by appealing to the sperm-bank babies desperate to know who their real daddy is.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And I've been trying to explain my bottom line: We shouldn't be having "sperm bank babies" at all.

    There's that quote from the guy in my original post: “It is quite possible to be grateful for your life and question aspects of your conception.”

    The way to deal with the natural desire to know your father is to have you conceived in a marriage between your mother and father, so you have both parents right there. Sometimes tragic situations preclude this, but that doesn't mean deliberately increasing the number of kids who don't know their fathers.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -The way to deal with the natural desire to know your father is to have you conceived in a marriage between your mother and father

    Again, that can not for me be justification to make this so. A lot of children have a natural desire to have had cooler parents, or better off ones, or more mature ones, or overly career oriented parents, and I would not restrict any of those groups from having the child because the child would later have a 'natural lament' about their decision.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Who am I "restrict[ing]," except for saying the sperminators should be on the hook if Mom goes on welfare?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -We shouldn't be having "sperm bank babies" at all.

    You will excuse me if I took that to mean a prohibition on this.

  • ||

    And I've been trying to explain my bottom line: We shouldn't be having "sperm bank babies" at all.

    You could've just said that from the get-go. So you want to ban one-party artificial conception. I think you know how that's going to go over on a libertarian website.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I already said - if you want to be a sperminator, be ready to pay for the welfare benefits if Mom has to go on welfare.

  • ||

    if you want to be a sperminator, be ready to pay for the welfare benefits if Mom has to go on welfare.

    Lol. So you believe that out-of-wedlock fathers shouldn't have any parental rights, but should be fully financially responsible for their former partner, or some anonymous woman they don't know and never met, as the case may be? That makes too much sense.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Recall that you were the one who began this discussion by appealing to the sperm-bank babies desperate to know who their real daddy is.

    Right, according to what you have just said Eduard it seems you would simply like the babies of out-of-wedlock fathers (or mothers) who have decided to have nothing to do with their children join these lamenting spawns of sperm donors. But that seems odd.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    No, I said we shouldn't be creating all these fatherless children in the first place.

  • ||

    I said we shouldn't be creating all these fatherless children in the first place.

    You are aware that being conceived via anonymous sperm donor doesn't necessarily equal "fatherless baby" right?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think we all know what that means in this context.

  • ||

    If you mean 2 gay parents, that's a possibility, but wasn't what I was referring to.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    OK, now I am confused.

    -I said we shouldn't be creating all these fatherless children in the first place.

    cf.

    -Who am I "restrict[ing],"

    Given that people want to engage in these transactions, how do you propose we reach your first goal.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I said, putting sperminator-dad on the hook for any welfare.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Children who may be desperate to know their genetic parents and may never get the answers they deserve

    a. Who says they "deserve" anything?
    b. Who fucking cares?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That's the question under debate - are children entitled to the best possible public-policy climate encouraging a situation where they're raised by their two biological parents?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    no

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    no

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Again, I would go back the old rule that out-of-wedlock fathers don't have paternal rights, but if they're responsible for getting a woman knocked up and she's going to go on welfare, the father can be on the hook for the welfare. If that deters sperm donation, so be it.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Why the fuck would a man selling his sperm and to a woman who doesn't want a husband but wants a kid, be on the hook for anything? ESPECIALLY when all parties involved sign a contract relieving him of ANY responsibility?

    It's not even a debatable issue.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    That's absurd. What you're asking for is a legal standard that is a plain unvarnished hypocrisy. Either the man is legally recognized as the father or he is not. If he is to be legally recognized as the father, he is entitled to parental rights. If he's not to be, then there is no rational justification to put him on the hook. A thing cannot simultaneously be and not be. That goes all the way back to Aristotle.

  • ||

    Yes No

    Correct.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm talking about a public-policy climate which encourages children being raised by their biological parents, said parents being married to each other. My idea would deter "anonymous" sperm donation.

  • ||

    I would agree that a nuclear family is the best environment for raising children, I'm just not willing to bust out the guns to keep people from behaving differently.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What I said is that sperminator-dad should be on the hook if Mom goes on welfare to take care of the children.

  • ||

    sperminator-dad should be on the hook if Mom goes on welfare to take care of the children.

    Which is, of course, ridiculous. When he waived his parental rights, he also waived his parental obligations since they go hand in hand. Enforcing the provisions of the sperm donation contract that would prevent "sperminator-dad" from showing up at the school one day out of the blue, picking up his long-lost anonymous child, and moving to another state with him, but then obligating him to be financially responsible for the same child if the mother, whom he has never met and with whom he has no input on anything, happens to fall on hard times and go on welfare, is insane.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "the mother, whom he has never met and with whom he has no input on anything"

    I would think that's an argument for dad not to be dad in the first place, but to wait until he's married. It's not the community's fault that they have to pay for the child of irresponsible parents.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    How about this: since the mother voluntarily made the decision to have the child without any influence or expectation of assistance from the donor, if she becomes poor we have no government welfare and your church can take care of the woman and her child?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Because Eduard, your alternative is that those who want to engage in these consensual, anonymous relationships would not be allowed to do so, because some of those who do might go on state assistance.

    That strikes me as the same logic as those who oppose allowing immigration because some immigrants might go on welfare.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's the same logic as excluding immigrants likely to be a public charge, as the law used to do (and maybe still does, for all I know).

    But I'm not even calling for a ban on these "sperm donations," simply for the enforcement of the same support obligations as if the child was conceived in the more traditional one-night stand and Mom goes on welfare.

  • ||

    But I'm not even calling for a ban on these "sperm donations," simply for the enforcement of the same support obligations as if the child was conceived in the more traditional one-night stand and Mom goes on welfare.

    No such support obligations exist - baby daddy may be required to pay child support regardless of of the mother's welfare status, but he doesn't foot her welfare bill.

    Also, mister one-night-stand daddy didn't sign away his parental rights, so he still has obligations attached to those rights.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -It's the same logic as excluding immigrants likely to be a public charge, as the law used to do

    Are children of sperm donors more likely to be a public charge (and how much likely on average to result in a public charge should something be before we use the state to reduce or eliminate it for everyone)?

    -But I'm not even calling for a ban on these "sperm donations,"

    You are calling for a ban on them being done anonymously though, correct?

  • ||

    Are children of sperm donors more likely to be a public charge...?

    A relevant question considering the astronomical cost of fertility treatments. Octo-mom notwithstanding, most of the people who can afford fertility treatments and are that desirous to have children are also the kind of people with enough income to take of the children they spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars creating.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Indeed. And what if it is found that children of sperm donors are less likely to go on the public charge than children of traditionally married couples? Would Eduard then recommend that we 'deter' the latter?

    Or was this always about getting us back to the state fostering/promoting his preferred familial arrangement?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Indeed. And what if it is found that children of sperm donors are less likely to go on the public charge than children of traditionally married couples? Would Eduard then recommend that we 'deter' the latter?"

    What if it is found that toking on marijuana turned you into a zombie who ate all the neighbors' brains?

    What if it is found that atheists are all murderers?

    We can amuse ourselves with hypotheticals like this all day. Calling these hypos unrealistic would be an understatement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But it is not unrealistic that the children of sperm donors may be less likely to go on the dole than the children of married heterosexual couples, for reasons PM has pointed out.

    If it were the case, do you not realize that your logic would call for the state having policies to deter having children by married heterosexual couples and preferring they be had through sperm donation?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "your logic would call for the state having policies to deter having children by married heterosexual couples"

    I'm trying to understand your position about my position. By my logic, I would make out-of-wedlock fathers pay to support their children on welfare, but in practice they wouldn't have to do so with sperm donation, so if married couples are poor, sterilize them...no, I'm not getting your logic about my logic. Seems like a straw man.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But if they didn't become public charges, why would you worry about a law requiring sperminator-dad to support his offspring if they're on welfare? The situation wouldn't arise, right?

  • ||

    But if they didn't become public charges, why would you worry about a law requiring sperminator-dad to support his offspring if they're on welfare? The situation wouldn't arise, right?

    They may or they may not - you are the one premising an argument for outlawing anonymous sperm donation on the idea that sperm bank babies will likely end up on the dole.

    Whether they do or don't your plan sucks because it tramples on contract rights. Once the sperm donor has waived his rights to any potential child created from his donation, he should have no obligation to the child either.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "most of the people who can afford fertility treatments and are that desirous to have children are also the kind of people with enough income"

    Then my welfare suggestion wouldn't apply.

  • ||

    Then my welfare suggestion wouldn't apply.

    As I just articulated above, even if it did end up applying, your plan still imposes a parental obligation on a person who has waived his rights to the child created using his sperm. So even as a theoretical abstraction, it's a crappy plan.

  • Ted S.||

    Castrate Eduard so he can't father any children, because they might wind up on welfare?

    Kill the ones that have already been born, because they might end up on welfare?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Kill the ones that have already been born, because they might end up on welfare?

    Or...abort ones that have not been born yet, because they might end up on welfare?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    No, Ted S., recover the welfare money from Dad, which is the old rule.

    The new rule gives an illegitimate dad many of the rights and obligations of a married dad. That's why I'm for changing the rules.

    And one-night stand dad could always have a waiver form in his pocket next to his condom.

    I think that addresses several comments, not just yours.

  • ||

    And one-night stand dad could always have a waiver form in his pocket next to his condom.

    If he used the one he wouldn't need the other and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

  • ||

    How about this: since the mother voluntarily made the decision to have the child without any influence or expectation of assistance from the donor, if she becomes poor we have no government welfare and your church can take care of the woman and her child?

    I really, really like this arrangement. In fact, it's so good, I think we ought to extend it to society more generally.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, I am rather happy with it too. I am thinking of calling it 'libertarianism.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If the single mother's baby goes to an orphanage or adoptive family, then the welfare argument doesn't apply.

  • ||

    If the single mother's baby goes to an orphanage or adoptive family, then the welfare argument doesn't apply.

    Like magic!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    What, BCE?! Hold the woman accountable for her own actions?! Heaven forefend.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'm talking about a public-policy climate which encourages children being raised by their biological parents, said parents being married to each other.

    Why in the fuck would anyone support such a ridiculous tenet? It's nonsense. What does being married have to do with being good parents? What does being raised by biological parents have to do with a child's welfare? I'd much rather be raised by a responsible single or adopted parent with my interests in mind than biological parents that happen to be a pimp and a crack ho looking to score their next fix.

    Ed, you are simply trying to mold society to the old book you put so much stock in. I do not care about your skydaddy.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I'd much rather be raised by a responsible single or adopted parent with my interests in mind than biological parents that happen to be a pimp and a crack ho looking to score their next fix."

    Are the pimp and whore married to each other? Even if they were, it sounds by your account as the strong presumption in favor of parental rights might be under some strain - a presumption of fitness is not conclusive, it just needs a lot of evidence to overcome, like the presumption of innocence.

    "Ed, you are simply trying to mold society to the [Bible]"

    No, "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" not only precede the Bible, they're discoverable by anyone, including those who don't believe the Bible - including those who don't believe in God.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" not only precede the Bible, they're discoverable by anyone, including those who don't believe the Bible

    They just so happen though to not conflict with the Bible in any way!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Jefferson had only a Bowdlerized Bible, but he thought God and Nature had laws.

  • ||

    Are the pimp and whore married to each other?

    For the sake of argument, and since it's not a far-fetched idea, sure, they are.

    In this case, Ed would support the state taking their child away and giving it up for adoption, with the biological parents surrendering all former parental rights.

    I wonder if the pimp would then be required to foot the bill if the adoptive father leaves the adoptive mother a widow and she goes on the dole...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You were using an extreme case, as if there were no such things as exceptions to general rules.

  • ||

    You were using an extreme case, as if there were no such things as exceptions to general rules.

    Lol! You've been playing the hypothetical game since you started this discussion as the entire basis of your argument. You don't get to audit my count of angels on the head of the pin.

    And the problem with making "general rules" into laws is that either there are no exceptions, or the law becomes capricious and arbitrary and loses all respect and authority (see also, American law).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wait, what? A presumption of fitness for marital fitness, like the presumption of innocence for criminal defendants...is unprincipled?

    I'm hearing a lot of very interesting interpretations of my remarks tonight, but it's hard even to follow the reasoning here.

    Yes, the legal system overrides presumptions all the time, if the evidence is strong enough.

    But I'm not allowed to point out that your extreme case would override the presumption of fitness because....

  • ||

    A presumption of fitness for marital fitness, like the presumption of innocence for criminal defendants...is unprincipled?

    Of course not. Being principled doesn't necessarily make something any less wrong. It just seems very arbitrary when you override a presumption which you've made based upon your own social-optimization criteria, based upon further caveats of your own social-optimization criteria.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Goddamit, PM! Eddy's smart. He knows what's best for us.

    Sure he's not had much life experience, but gosh darnit, he's read the bible and all the answers are in there. And if you peons aren't smart enough to follow the good book on yer own there are a lot of government goons with guns eager to enforce Eddy's vision for a morally pure society.

    The bible thumping statists seem less threatening than the practically murderous progressives that we now face, but give 'em power and Eddie and gang'll be just as willing to use jackbooted thugs to put their visions to reality.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Im fairly sure my suggestion of getting the father involved only to recover welfare costs involves a lot fewer jackboots than indiscriminately meddling in parental situations, as the status quo would have it.

    And I believe ive alluded to a certain fellow who disbelieved in most of the bible while still acknowledging the existence of...whats the phrase? Yes, "the Laes of Nature and of Nature's God."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ive repeatedly explained Im not saying make sperm donation a crime. I *do* think its wrong, and I feel as strongly about that as some of you feel about deep dish pizza.

    Yet youre not expected to make repeated disavowals of wanting to ban deep dish.

  • ||

    Im fairly sure my suggestion of getting the father involved only to recover welfare costs involves a lot fewer jackboots than indiscriminately meddling in parental situations, as the status quo would have it.

    Under the status quo you can go to sperm bank, remain anonymous, and waive your parental rights and responsibilities in most jurisdictions. No jackboots involved at all. To make the system more perfect, eliminating jackboots altogether sounds better to me than using an efficient number of jackboots to mold the world to your desired social outcome.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    First, it took a while to realize I was being accused of wanting to make sperm donation, in and of itself, a crime. By now ive made two explicit disavowals of that position and who knows how many implicit ones. So people can either accept my denials or call me a liar to my face, and I will retaliate by saying you must either approve of deep dish pizza or want to ban it.

    Second, I would let illegitimate dads off the hook so long as mom stays off welfare. Can the supporters of the status quo say as much? And id spare mom the hassle of fending off dads legal interference.

    So now the remaining question is if the law should give special privileges to a dad who impregnates a woman with the help of a laboratory as opposed to a dad who impregnates a woman through traditional low tech methods. How would YOU justify such discrimination?

  • ||

    First, it took a while to realize I was being accused of wanting to make sperm donation, in and of itself, a crime.

    It took you a while to back peddle from that position, which was what you explicitly said previously. Congrats on your "evolving" viewpoints.

    So now the remaining question is if the law should give special privileges to a dad who impregnates a woman with the help of a laboratory as opposed to a dad who impregnates a woman through traditional low tech methods.

    And the answer has already been explained to you fifty times. Sperm bank dad entered into a contract with the sperm bank in exchange for money that is supposed to guarantee his anonymity and waive his parental rights. There's no reason you couldn't enter into a similar contract involving physical intercourse if you so desired (I wouldn't be surprised if surrogacy contracts like that have actually been used), but unless you do, they aren't the same thing. There's no discrimination to justify anymore than there is when you waive your rights in any circumstance, such as a liability waiver, non-disclosure, or non-compete agreement.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    No, I repeat my position that babies shouldnt be made in sperm banks. I feel as strongly about this as you do about deep dish pizza. Why do you eant to bsn deep dis?

    PS go and fuck yourself.

  • ||

    Why do you eant to bsn deep dis?

    I think that about sums 'er up.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You were using an extreme case, as if there were no such things as exceptions to general rules.

    I always find it funny that when people argue with libertarians they end up unwittingly saying things that support the libertarian viewpoint.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What?

  • ||

    Sigmund Freud used cocaine habitually for years, and his first major scientific publication...

    Freud didn't have "scientific" publications.

  • Irish||

    Oliver Willis claims that conservative's talking about the knockout game is an attempt to get 'their own Trayvon.'

    Except for the part where, you know, victims of the knockout game are actually innocent.

  • ||

    victims of the knockout game are actually innocent.

    You think the descendants of slavers are innocent? CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

  • Warrren||

    Whatchu talkin' bout Willis?!

  • ||

    I just posted the accompanying Bayer Pharmaceutical pic in a thread yesterday. Hivemind.

  • ||

    Anybody want to read a stupid comment on NPR?

    ColtKale • a day ago
    Shouldn't we let the free market decide which slop is most economical to feed our children? We have more important things to spend school districts' money on - like football stadiums, more administrators, and iPads.
  • Sevo||

    That's so weird, I can't figure out what sort of logical fail it is.
    False dichotomy?

  • ||

    This isn't right. It isn't even wrong.

  • playa manhattan||

    "spend school districts' money".

    That part is wrong. It's my money.

  • ||

  • Irish||

    What fallacy are you committing when you claim that the money a government spends on schools is part of the free market?

    I don't even know if that is a fallacy. It's just very wrong.

  • Sevo||

    Or that the we shouldn't use market info to decide what to feed kids, 'cause football stadiums!
    I'm going with PM; it doesn't even approach wrong.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (unofficial?) Dalek theme song:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOqn8FxuyFs

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Interesting Article on Knives and the 2nd Amendment

    -The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear “Arms”–not solely “firearms.” While firearms have always been the paradigmatic Second Amendment arm, there are many other types of arms which are protected by the Second Amendment. By far the most common of the other arms are knives.

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/.....qus_thread

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Believe you me knives are next. Just like smoking went from just trying to prevent young kids from smoking to banning it in private homes all the way to beginning the war on junk food. Knives are a natural progression.

  • Matt W||

    Some people say libertarians are just "Democrats who are too greedy to pay taxes." While this idea is undoubtedly wrong, Reason Magazine has done a great job promoting it. All you ever get is these politically correct article about how cocaine is harmless. How about an article about anti-discrimination law and its effects on American business?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Did you miss recent articles objecting to the extension of anti-discrimination laws to gays and lesbians?

  • ||

    Some people say libertarians are just "Democrats who are too greedy to pay taxes."

    I thought libertarians were just "Republicans who like to smoke pot"?

    How about an article about anti-discrimination law and its effects on American business?

    Ask and you shall receive: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11.....y-job-disc

  • Matt W||

    How about an article about Blacks?

  • Sevo||

    "How about an article about Blacks?"

    Yeah, how 'bout that? Or an article on Whites? Or Yellows?

  • playa manhattan||

    It's recipe time.

  • Sevo||

    And I'd make it something simple; PB&Js;?

  • playa manhattan||

    If you typed PB&J, you get full credit for posting a recipe. I agree with Ted S below, this sounds like 'Murican

  • ||

  • ||

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/05.....ians-and-t

    In case it helps, there's a box in the top right of your screen that says "Search". You can use it to find articles that have been published at reason.com. Alternatively, if you type site:reason.com into the Google search bar, it will return only results from reason.com. For example, you might type:

    site:reason.com anti discrimination law

  • Matt W||

    Good articles. The first doesn't answer the question of whether anti-discrimination laws are good or bad, instead blaming Jim Crow on "government"
    as if it wasn't driven by popular demand. The second actively supports them, with the caveat that they shouldn't apply to fat people who want to work in a gym. Equality before liberty, forever.

  • ||

    Pretty sure you didn't get what was intended out of the 2nd article. The point being that requiring the government not to discriminate against its citizens does not entail requiring individuals not to discriminate against and amongst each other. The former is good, and was necessary in breaking the back of Jim Crow laws that institutionalized racism by the government, while the latter is wrong. There was also nothing in that article about fat people.

    Equality before liberty, forever.

    I defer to Jonathan Swift

    It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

  • Ted S.||

    Somehow I have a feeling "Matt W" is Murkin.

  • playa manhattan||

    +1776

  • Sevo||

    Interesting choice of handles; I'm thinking you're right.
    If so, Matt W will disappear soon and the answers will be hanging in the air.

  • Matt W||

    You are pretty sure, you aren't 100 percent sure, because you didn't actually read the article:

    "A dispassionate or glib attitude on the subject is not a good way to win people over. One cannot talk about anti-discrimination law as an infringement on liberty and forget that for the first two centuries of America's existence, its treatment of blacks was a grotesque stain on its libertarian ideals.
    Yes, post-1964 civil rights law has generated real problems. Legally mandated colorblindness has evolved into legally mandated race preferences to remedy discrimination. Anti-discrimination law has expanded to more and more protected categories, to the point where a gym can be held liable for dismissing a fat fitness trainer.
    Curbing these excesses is a worthy goal. But calling for a repeal of the ban on discrimination in the private sector is both utopian and reckless, and Paul’s unequivocal rejection of such a position was a laudable move. Opponents of intrusive government, including journalists of Stossel’s stature, should know how to pick their battles."

  • Sevo||

    Matt W|11.23.13 @ 10:27PM|#
    "You are pretty sure, you aren't 100 percent sure, because you didn't actually read the article:"

    So what is your point? Please be specific.

  • ||

    You are pretty sure, you aren't 100 percent sure, because you didn't actually read the article:

    The article you quoted from was the first one I linked to, not the second. In the case of the first article, Cathy Young essentially acknowledges that it's not racist to oppose the 1964 CRA provisions on private discrimination, but contradicts herself later saying it's boneheaded to oppose those provisions now given the social complexities of the era in which they were enacted (and proceeds to prove the point of her critics - that Jim Crow was created and fostered by government).

    In any case, Reason is pretty much in the mainstream of libertarian thought in acknowledging that anti-discrimination laws trample freedom of association. You were wrong, and I'm sure you're very sorry.

  • Matt W||

    They acknowledge that the laws' trample freedom of association, but support them anyway. I feel so much better!

  • ||

    They acknowledge that the laws' trample freedom of association, but support them anyway. I feel so much better!

    If by "they" you mean, one writer who contributes to Reason, then, uh, yep. There's some diversity of thought in libertarianism. Who knew.

  • Sevo||

    ..."instead blaming Jim Crow on "government" as if it wasn't driven by popular demand."...

    Uh, yeah, that one reason that a republican form of government is most often preferred here; it minimizes the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

  • Irish||

    The first doesn't answer the question of whether anti-discrimination laws are good or bad, instead blaming Jim Crow on "government"
    as if it wasn't driven by popular demand.

    So a government can't be driven by popular demand? That's why we prefer that certain things not be allowed even if the majority of people want it.

    Majority rules will inevitably result in horrible things like Jim Crow laws.

  • Irish||

    Why is blacks capitalized?

    Before I forget: Shut the fuck up, American.

  • JhD||

    If you look at the "African American" page on Wikipedia, it is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not. Same with the page for "White American." I always thought you were supposed to capitalize it, but I read that in the MSM they aren't supposed to.

  • playa manhattan||

    Speaking of booze, I just scored 2 Pliny the Elders at the grocery store. Not a bad way to start my Saturday night!

  • Warrren||

    Whoo!

  • playa manhattan||

    Just 2, though, and then I transition to Brown Shugga (9.9 ABV).

  • Warrren||

  • Stephdumas||

    I spotted that article at http://www.policymic.com/artic.....-have-done
    who mentionned Rob Ford smoking crack is nothing compared to U.S. mayors like Marion Berry, Bob Filner, Kwame Kilpatrick, Buddy Cianci, James Michael Curley.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    As an aside, didn't Dr. Evil's father claim to have invented the question mark?

    ?

  • ||

  • SweatingGin||

  • Sevo||

    Yeah that darn punctuation. What? Are they thinking?

  • Warrren||

    I thought microagressions was when in Risk you decide to attack somebody, lose a couple of armies right away and then decide to do something else.

  • Rhywun||

    Spell-checking - it's not just for white people.

  • playa manhattan||

    PRIVILEGE
    noun
    1. Attending graduate school at one of the nations's top public universities without having to learn grammar and punctuation.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Subtle verbal and nonverbal insults directed toward non-whites, often done automatically and unconsciously. They are layered insults based on one’s race, gender, class, sexuality, language, immigration status, phenotype, accent, or surname.

    Phenotype?

    Dang man, I think that by saying basic grammar and spelling checks are racist is the same as saying that some races are incapable of writing correctly. Which is racist. Fucking meta.

  • playa manhattan||

    What is a nonverbal insult? Eye rolling?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Really.

    Let's unpack this fully.

    I'd like "layered insults" explained to me as well, and also how they're "based" on the insultees given criteria.

    I can see why this person doesn't like anyone investigating the merits of their claims and the manner in which they're presented.

  • playa manhattan||

    Obviously, they'll know it when they see it.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Racist

    1. A meaningless word applied to anyone not in agreement with the accuser. Specifically used when one is incapable of presenting a logical argument.
    -Billy is a racist because he doesn't believe in AGW.

  • Matt W||

    See you are arguing the way white people write is "correct" and Black people write is "incorrect." Typical example of white privilege.

  • Sevo||

    Matt W|11.23.13 @ 10:33PM|#
    "See you are arguing the way white people write is "correct" and Black people write is "incorrect." Typical example of white privilege."

    ^?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Nick,

    It's also worth noting that the media's treatment of Ford was typical whenever someone outside their flock doesn't get elected. The Toronto Star in particular was derelict in its bullying calling "fat" on numerous occasions. Somehow the same liberal blowhards have no problem talking about bullying in school.

    Par for the course I reckon.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Billy Joe Armstrong + Norah Jones doesn't suck

  • JeremyR||

    You left out "doesn't just suck, it sucks on a whole new level"

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Trailer: Stone Roses documentary

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    According to TechCrunch, Winamp may live on thanks to Micro$oft

  • ||

    In other news, I guess Winamp still exists.

  • Warrren||

    I'm proud of you guys, nearly a whole Saturday has passed and no EvH-type interminable super-thread on college football.

  • playa manhattan||

    My team got blown out by 50 points. As I expected.

  • ||

    Are they going to press bullying charges?

  • playa manhattan||

    It's Cal, and they are at the cutting edge of pussydom, so maybe...

  • Sevo||

    Cal's really, uh, something, about now. If you're gonna accept gorillas to win games, you better win games.
    I'm sure the alums fronting the dough for the stadium are NOT happy and the AD's pants is on far and his ass is catchin'!

  • playa manhattan||

    -50 points in the big game. Someone has to pay.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "EvH gype"

    Who is more trollish, the troll or the troll who replies to him?

    -alec Guinness, paraphrased

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Evh type

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    The Newest craze sweeping across the US to make you stay home in fear!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Sounds like it's only dangerous to jewish guys in gun-free cities.

    Being a well-armed, naked black man, I feel safe from these "gangs".

  • Warrren||

    SALUTES

  • playa manhattan||

    I thought you gave that up and converted to christianity...

  • ||

    Remember that being naked only protects you from bullets, you can still get knocked out. It's like your kryptonite.

  • BuSab Agent||

    That's true, however to knock him out you still have to get in hand-to-hand range which is covered by the "well armed" part. So the General is pretty damn safe from the knockout game.

  • JeremyR||

    It's funny, that's been going on for years here in St. Louis (and other cities in the Midwest).

    Now it happens a couple of times in NYC it's suddenly a big deal.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    OH now what is his Obamaness going to relay to us plebians this evening?

  • Old Yellin||

    Hey libertarians, I just want to say, congratulations on destroying the middle class:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlYojsi3Zqw

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    C-

  • Sevo||

    C'mon. Cut the courtesy grading.
    I'll give it a D.

  • Irish||

    Great point! It's not like that occurred over a time period in which the power of the Federal Government expanded rapidly.

    If it had, that would make dumb liberals feel awfully foolish.

  • Old Yellin||

    Great point! It's not like that occurred over a time period in which the power of the Federal Government expanded rapidly.

    Look at the taxation to GDP ratio. And I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative.

  • Irish||

    Look at the size of the code of federal regulations. Regulations is a better metric than taxation to GDP.

    More importantly, look at a map of revenue to GDP. What do you notice in that graph? What I see is that the total revenue as a percentage of GDP is virtually identical to what it was in 1970. In fact, it's virtually identical to what it was in 1954.

    This tells me that taxes don't equate to revenues. Revenue as a percent of GDP has been almost constant since the 1950s. For that matter, spending as a percentage of GDP is also a better metric than something as essentially meaningless as 'taxation as a percent of GDP.'

    You'd know that if you weren't a moron.

  • Sevo||

    "And I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative."

    Why is it that imbeciles show up here thinking claiming to be a conservative is somehow worthy of a pass for posting brain-dead shit?

  • Irish||

    He's probably one of those 'Socialism for white people!' conservatives we get.

    I can't figure out how else someone could be gibbering about the need for higher taxes and claim to be conservatives.

    I also note he didn't bother answering my point about revenues being constant for the last 60 years. It's almost like I completely obliterated his point and he's unwilling to admit defeat.

  • Sevo||

    "I also note he didn't bother answering my point about revenues being constant for the last 60 years."

    Irish, I applaud your ability to stay on-topic and address the substantive issues presented by all sort of folks.
    OTOH, sometimes I think it's just best to call them sleazy, lying assholes and be done with it.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Try something like this next time:

    People of colour are often berated for valuing status symbols by people who don’t understand what it’s like to be deprived: "Why buy such an expensive car when you’re living in the ghetto?" white privileged people like to ask from the comfort of their yuppie lives, subsidized by family money. God forbid the "lower classes" try to enjoy their lives from time to time!
  • Old Yellin||

    That would have been easier for you to laugh at. It's harder to argue for CEOs making 380 times the amount their employees make. We would have socialism, if not for the socialists.

  • Irish||

    Which, again, has happened during a period of rapidly increasing regulation. You can't just say 'X happened, IT'S LIBERTARIAN'S FAULT!' when the people in power have been consistently on your side.

  • Old Yellin||

    You can't just say 'X happened, IT'S LIBERTARIAN'S FAULT!' when the people in power have been consistently on your side.

    No. They were the neo-cons and the liberals. And the "increased spending" you talk about mainly went to increases in military spending, which just fed right back into the corporatist machine, and welfare for the worthless poor, which also feeds back into the corporatist machine.

    I want the system we had in the 1950s, where the federal government supported the middle class, taxes were high, and incomes were more equal. We need a negative income tax funded by taxing capital derived income.

  • ||

    I want the system we had in the 1950s

    Lol. You mean when the MIC that you just got done railing against first came into existence and taxes were higher to help support it?

    You're not very good at this. Lurk the Tony and Shreek threads a little bit more.

  • Sevo||

    Old Yellin|11.23.13 @ 11:20PM|#
    "I want the system we had in the 1950s, where the federal government supported the middle class, taxes were high, and incomes were more equal. We need a negative income tax funded by taxing capital derived income."

    Why is it that imbeciles show up here thinking claiming to be a conservative is somehow worthy of a pass for posting brain-dead shit?

  • Irish||

    And the "increased spending" you talk about mainly went to increases in military spending, which just fed right back into the corporatist machine, and welfare for the worthless poor, which also feeds back into the corporatist machine.

    I was right. He's a "socialism for white people" conservative.

  • Sevo||

    Old Yellin|11.23.13 @ 11:00PM|#
    "That would have been easier for you to laugh at. It's harder to argue for CEOs making 380 times the amount their employees make"

    Why is it that imbeciles show up here thinking claiming to be a conservative is somehow worthy of a pass for posting brain-dead shit?

  • mr simple||

    It's not hard at all. There is only one CEO, good ones are hard to come by and they bring in a lot more revenue for the owners. There are hundreds to thousands of the lowest rung workers, they are easily replaceable and ghecwork thry do individuslly doesn't bring in nearly as much revenue. See, easy. You'd kniw that too if you weren't a brain dead troll who felt how economics should work rather than thinking about how the world actaully operates.

    Or, what Sevo said.

  • mr simple||

    The lack of autocorrect on this tablet is a microaggression against me.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I was wondering if you had knocked back a few.

  • mr simple||

    It reads like the booze finally caught up to me or I stroked out mid comment.

  • ||

    Autocorrect can go to he'll.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I sea whut ewe did they're.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Teh korporashunz stole all teh welths frum teh po!

    herpity derpity dooz

  • Sevo||

    My goodness! A worthless 'man in the street' poll, proving that some concern troll is a concern troll!
    Well, I NEVER!

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Is that all you got?

  • mr simple||

    People think wealth should be distributed more equitably.

    Translation-- Give me more money that I did nothing to earn because I feel I deserve it.

  • Real Talk||

    How about give me money because society has allowed a person of color to be successful. The mindset of poor whites who believe they’re privileged because they were born white.

  • Irish||

    The mindset of poor whites who believe they’re privileged because they were born white.

    Wait...you think it's white people who are always talking about white privilege?

    Really?

  • mr simple||

    I'm not sure why we need to bring race into this as my original statement covers all types.

  • Irish||

    Dude, check out that guy's blog. It's hilarious.

    Over 90% of so called Independents are actually undercover Republicans. The only reason these people claim the title Independent is because they don’t want people to know they’re supporting the racists Republican Tea Party members.

    Anybody ever wondered why the majority of people who are having major problems with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are Texas hillbillies, and southern racists? I worked for a major fortune five hundred company for over twenty years; the health care policy changed every year, it didn’t matter if you liked your policy or not, this is nothing new. What’s new is that we have a Black President, and there are racists hillbillies GOD bent on making sure the first Black President is a failure.

    I don't believe that this guy actually worked for a Fortune 500 company.

    I mean, maybe he was a janitor or something.

  • Irish||

    There's also this not at all racist post.

    Allen West, just another nigger mad because he was born with 1/5th of Black blood in his vein.

    David Webb, some will deem him as a criticle thinker; but real people will deem him as an Uncle Tom Nigger that doesn't know any better.

    Kevin Jackson, this is just a dumb Uncle Tom nigger talking without the benefit of intellect

    Senator Tim Scott; this is the far most nigger that's the overwhelming Uncle Tom Nigger of all. This stupid nigger sits silently by while Senators like Ted Cruz dehumanize our President. This Nigger is nothing more than the Nigger police who stood by while Rodney King was nearly being beaten to death.

    Holy shit.

  • ||

    It's called tolerance and critical thinking, Irish. Do you have something against that?

  • mr simple||

    Wow, I think I'll pass on that blog tonight.

  • ||

    criticle thinker

    That about sums 'er up.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Confound it, man, you're giving trolls a bad name.

  • silent v||

    On the mobile site, the headline reads "why exactly is snorting coke worse than Nick Gillespie"

  • ||

    Now THAT would make for an interesting article.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Because of the comedown?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    I just phoned my grandfather who I know is driving over to see me and he always takes the freeway, but I just saw an alarming story on the local news.
    So I had to let him know.
    So I yell over the phone(he's a little hard of hearing but still sharp as a tack). I yell, "Be awful careful, Gramps, I've just been watching the local news and they say there's a car going the wrong way on the 405."
    My Grampa said, "Thanks for the warning, son, but it's not just one car. There's hundreds of them."

    I suppose he'd know. He's there and these local news anchors are in a studio somewhere, drinking coffee and laughing at each other's jokes.

  • Sevo||

  • Jugwine Warren||

    He didn't deserve a rimjob.

  • ||

    The first time I heard that joke it was a Swede telling it about a Norwegian.

  • ||

    You can always tell a Norwegian, you just can't tell him much.

  • playa manhattan||

    You can both suck it.

  • Sevo||

    At least the Swedes has better neighbors.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Finns?

  • Sevo||

    You're kidding! The Finns have the Russkis as neighbors!
    Not on your LIFE!

  • Jugwine Warren||

    It's that time!

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    PACQUIAO TIME!

  • playa manhattan||

    I sent my 2 year old to the store, and look at what he got me!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Say goodby to your kid. Social Services is enroute.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Christ on the cross. I just google Pliney the Elder and it asked me if I was of legal drinking age.

    Is it now illegal for kids to read about beer?

  • Jugwine Warren||

    They cannot even hear the word! SOCIETY!

  • playa manhattan||

    They discriminate any way they can. Purchases are limited to 2 bottles per person per day.

  • Jugwine Warren||

    SOCIETY!

  • Irish||

    Holy fuck.

    Students stage sit in because of 'toxic racial climate' caused by professor. What did this professor do?

    In a letter sent to colleagues in the department after the sit-in, Rust said students in the demonstration described grammar and spelling corrections he made on their dissertation proposals as a form of "micro-aggression."

    He said the protesters were also responding to a conversation in class between two students about critical race theory that he allowed to take place by not stopping the discussion.

    This is my favorite part. A student who took part in the sit in explains why he didn't go through the school's complaint process:

    “Many of us have been through the formal complaint system of leveraging charges … the letters are reviewed, and we receive responses saying (the) charges have no merit,” Watson said.

    Maybe that's because your complaints have no merit.

  • Jugwine Warren||

    So you missed that whole other thread earlier? Or are you just micro-aggressing us?

  • Irish||

    You can't seriously expect me to read an entire thread, can you? There's like 200 posts in here!

  • mr simple||

    Yeah but about 150 of them are Ed arguing that people shouldn't be able to have kids out of wedlock or whatever. That subthread is easy to skip.

  • playa manhattan||

    There is a Bo-Ed lovefest almost every night these days.

  • playa manhattan||

    Covered. See above.

  • Killazontherun||

    So much stupidity, I feel like I'm squandering my talents that I am not actively swindling these fuckstains.

  • Irish||

    This comment gave me hope:

    I am glad this issue is finally coming to the forefront. As a student of
    color in Moore Hall, I have never experienced more racism in my life.
    The irony is that the racism comes from other students of color. CRT students are the biggest bullies in Moore Hall. If you are a (non-white)
    student who doesn't subscribe to CRT, you are considered ignorant, even if that framework is not relevant to your research abroad. There is room for different research perspectives. Let passion and curiosity guide our research, not dogma.

    This guy knows what's up.

  • mr simple||

    The scool is already taking all of their money and apparently giving them nothing but a worthless piece of paper.

  • Real Talk||

    A dumbass like you, should have died in your daddy dick.

  • ||

  • ||

    Calkins said that, in the first half of the year, the overall number of people pulled over by the State Patrol on suspicion of driving under the influence, whether of alcohol or drugs, remained roughly on par with figures from the last two years.

    So maybe people are using legal pot instead of legal alcohol or other illegal drugs?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Be back after the fight.
    GO PACMAN

  • Sevo||

    OK, is this part of REASON?
    http://reasontoday.com/2013/11.....offeecare/
    Not bad, but it hasn't shown up here.

  • prolefeed||

    even heroin are not "addictive" in any obvious way

    Seriously? Talked with someone who tried it once, and who swore she'd never try it again because it was a scary great high, made her want to do it nonstop. Said over a decade later, still remembers how great it was.

    Sounds mighty addictive to me.

  • ||

    No. Have you ever tried it? I have a few times, didn't find it especially amazing. Maybe it's just not compatible with my idea of a fun high.

  • playa manhattan||

    To each his own. I can't stand opiates, but I have some friends who can't control themselves around them.

  • ||

    I did have some Valium type thing once at hospital, that was pretty fun, removes all stress immediately. I could see how that could get addictive quite quickly.

  • ||

    Valium (diazepam) is a benzo

  • ||

    I'm just saying it was pretty awesome.

  • prolefeed||

    Haven't tried it. Not readily available in my social circle, and don't want to try anything that people have told me is hard to quit using. Don't want to give up that kind of control over my life.

    If it was legal and readily available, maybe I'd try a tiny cautious dose once.

  • Sevo||

    "If it was legal and readily available, maybe I'd try a tiny cautious dose once."

    And if you thought it might not be a good idea, you might well (as your friend did) say thanks but no thanks.

  • mr simple||

    It would have to come in a form that wasn't administered intravenously before I would consider it.

  • ||

    It's easily snorted.

  • mr simple||

    Really? Then why do people inject it?

  • prolefeed||

    Here:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/quest.....152AAui6nj

    Short summary: injecting it gets you much more bang for your buck than snorting, and heroin is expensive and you quickly develop a tolerance for it.

  • ||

    The guy I knew who was a heavy user never injected. But yeah I imagine it's more efficient and also gives a spikeier high, like freebasing coke.

  • prolefeed||

    Are certain substances so inherently addictive that they must be banned?

    No. FUCK no. Either you have self-ownership, or you're someone's slave.

    Or should the proper scope of policy be focused on behaviors?

    The proper scope of * government * policy should be to not exist at all. Any governance should be limited to individuals or their hired representatives or protective services minding their own damn business unless someone else harms them.

  • Sevo||

    OK, but she quit after one try, so how "addictive" can it be? She acted as a moral agent and said 'No thanks'.
    I (and many others) quit smoking after many years; a decision and appropriate behavior once the decision is made. I'm told nicotine is among the MOST addictive drugs.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    more addictive than Oreos?

  • Sevo||

    Can't BE! Oreos and bananas! YUM!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    If quitting heroin is as hard as quitting nicotine, I'll pass.

    I quit dipping on October 15th, 1999. I still dream about having a dip.

  • Sevo||

    Francisco d Anconia|11.24.13 @ 12:17AM|#
    "If quitting heroin is as hard as quitting nicotine, I'll pass.
    I quit dipping on October 15th, 1999. I still dream about having a dip."

    Acting as an adult moral agent; choice made, action taken. "Addictive" drug turns out to be one more option.

  • mr simple||

    According to this article:

    Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties. However, only after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine.

  • playa manhattan||

    Amphetamine isn't addictive.

  • ||

    only after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine.

    Important parts bolded. It doesn't suggest "amphetamine is addictive".

  • playa manhattan||

    You know the exact date? Fuck.
    Did you have to have a graft?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Traumatic experience. I remember where I was and the actual last time I had Skoal in my mouth. Vividly.

  • playa manhattan||

    But what would make you stop? The wife?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Bumps in my lip that I never noticed before. Was nothing, but it scared me.

  • ||

    That happened to my brother, only he was 22 when stopped using tobacco because of a growth in his mouth. Thankfully that also turned out to be nothing.

  • Irish||

    There are so many things wrong with this.

    rolandsmartinVerified account
    ‏@rolandsmartin

    I bet Dick Cheney is cussing right now. He wants to control Iranian oil fields.

    I mean, I just don't even know where to begin.

  • ||

    I'm sure Dick will think of something involving that weather machine.

  • playa manhattan||

    I was in Buena Park (which I understand is near your neck of the woods) today for a meeting, and after it was over, I googled "Korean BBQ" so I could get some delicious dinner. There were more than 8 choices within a mile of one another.

    How is it that you have only had it once in your life if every 3rd restaurant in the area is KBBQ?

  • playa manhattan||

    P.S. It was delicious. I'm still burping up chili, sesame, and Hite beer.

  • ||

    There are dozens of them all along Beach Boulevard. And I really don't know how to answer that, I had a lot of Asian friends from high school and I'd sometimes go out for sushi or Chinese but never KBBQ. I liked it but it's not something I'd crave.

  • playa manhattan||

    I went to the one on Beach and Crescent. There are a whole bunch on Orangethorpe, too.

    This stuff is more addictive than any of the drugs being discussed. Plus, it's all-you-can-eat. I take that as a personal challenge of my manhood.

  • ||

    Well I'm sure I'll enjoy it again sometime in the future. The drawback is that the place makes your clothes smell like Korean BBQ.

  • playa manhattan||

    Racist!
    And, that's a good thing. I'm still enjoying the smell of my burps.

  • BuSab Agent||

    How is that a drawback? KBBQ is one of the most heavenly smells on the planet.

  • mr simple||

    Don't you know that Cheney is part of the secret cabal that really runs our country?

  • playa manhattan||

    I have never heard of this asshole.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Folks who follow lots of right-wing nutjobs are going to check Twitter tomorrow and think that President Obama sold nuclear weapons to Iran.

  • ||

    Yeah the lamentations of the neocons are something to behold.

  • ||

    I'm concerned Jennifer Rubin might have a stroke. Well, not really concerned but just saying that might happen.

  • ||

    You are saying is that Rubin is entering the Danger Zone?

  • ||

    Sploosh

  • ||

    "Have you noticed how the anniversary of JFK's assassination seems to come earlier every year?"

  • ||

    Inspired gift-giving: Bought my mom a case of Labatt Blue for her birthday.

  • William of Purple||

    why do you hate your mom?

  • playa manhattan||

    Make sure to sure this link with her:
    http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/478/1371

  • playa manhattan||

    You gave her a beer that was rated a 63 (D-). Why not give her a beer ranked 100?
    http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/863/7971

  • ||

    See comment below. I personally think it's a decent macro brew, especially compared to some other American macros.

  • ||

    Is that like Homer giving Marge a bowling ball for her birthday?

  • ||

    It's her birthday, not mine and Labatt happens to be her favorite and not readily available. I assume she likes it for nostalgic value because she's from upstate New York and back when she was young the drinking age in New York was 19.

  • William of Purple||

    Sevo works for Costco?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    What else could you reasonably label it?

    Should have heard the idiots at FOX report on this the other day.

    Calling it "the obvious mistake."

    Please!

  • playa manhattan||

    That's why my TV is "locked" on Nat Geo or Smithsonian.

  • ||

    You and Sevo are kind of like the kids who discovered pot in freshman year of high school and thought it was like a really cool, novel, undiscovered type of thing.

    So edgy breh!

  • playa manhattan||

    ?Que?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Actually, I don't really care what people believe. That's an individual choice.

    What I'm sick of is people pushing their beliefs on me. I've quietly been putting up with Eddy's bullshit for months. I'm done with it.

    I'm also sick of the faux outrage. Oooooh, someone put a book in which people are raised from the dead and some guy turns water into wine in the fiction section. Yeah, anyone doing that is unreasonable.

    Believe whatever you want, but when you start preaching to me, don't give me shit when I preach back.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Dude, what Costco did was fucking outrageous; it clearly should have been labeled as "fantasy", rather than generic fiction.

  • Jerry on the boat||

    Should have put it in the alternative medicine section instead.

  • ||

    I don't care what anybody else believes either, it's just like... grow up. Ooohhhh, check this out guys, I put the Bibles in the fiction section!! It's the kind of shit you expect out of 12 year olds hanging out in Barnes and Noble at the mall. It was probably clever the first time it was done... like 150 years ago. And it was probably even edgy back when there were any consequences, social or otherwise, for doing so. In 2013 it's more or less like hearing a stand up comic do a Lenny Bruce routine from 1962.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I did not post the link. I merely responded to it. I really don't care about where they file their book either. It's their outrage that annoys me, as though we should all be offended.

    My assumption was WoP was outraged and trying to make a point, like Eddy does with nearly every post. If that was not the case, I'm sorry.

  • ||

    Ahh, see I thought WoP was just poking fun at Sevo's rather militant approach to his lack of faith.

    Anyway, no offense intended. I always enjoy your comments. Like I said, the whole thing just seems pretty stale at this point to me. All the kids these days think they are the edgiest mofos on the planet because they just now discovered counter-culture shit from the 1960's.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    No worries.

  • Cassanov||

    Burlesque Dancer Twerks To Beethoven, Which Is As Amazing As It Sounds

  • Redmanfms||

    I see hipsters eeevvvvvrrrryyyyywwwwhhhheeerrrreeeeee........

  • CatoTheElder||

    If any substance should be banned, it is tobacco. Of course, I don't think it should be banned because that would even more stupid than putting astronomical taxes on it, but it's the most additive of all things consumed by a significant number of people. I say this as a nicotine addict myself, and an occasional consumer of other recreational pharmaceuticals. A crack smoker or a smack junkie doesn't feel the urge to light up as often as a smoker. Sure the dose lasts longer, perhaps, but still a tobacco addict needs dozens of doses throughout the day. And crack smack is not as foul as lingering odor of stale tobacco smoke. I'd write more, but I now must go outside for a smoke...

  • Atanarjuat||

    Your comment distilled into Western Swing music.

    FWIW, I know a guy who smokes crack every day, but he manages to get all the way through his workday without using any, unlike cigarette smokers. I guess he's one of those (semi) functional addicts. Kinda sad to see him spend $50-100 each day to fuck up his health.

  • ibcbet||

    Not the guy who takes a snort or a snifter. someone put a book in which people are raised from the dead and some guy turns water into wine in the fiction section. Yeah, anyone doing that is unreasonable. Nice topic

  • misthiocracy||

    Cocaine is worse than booze because cocaine is illegal, and elected officials should not willfully break the law and/or knowingly associate with known criminals.

    Even if one agrees that the recreational use of cocaine SHOULD be legalized, I do not believe that an elected official (particularly a mayor that has oversight powers over a municipal police force) who knowingly associates and does business with organized crime is a trivial concern.

    Any mayor that does business with organized crime is in a serious conflict-of-interest, regardless of one's position on recreational drug legalization.

  • misthiocracy||

    One other point: People should remember that cocaine IS a legal substance when purchased with a prescription.

    As such, it is legally on par with drugs like Adderall, Codeine, or Oxycontin, not drugs like Heroin or Marijuana.

    http://www.rxlist.com/cocaine-drug.htm

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