Media

Recreational Pot Smokers "likely deluding themselves about how well they are managing their drug use," Says David Frum

|

In announcing his involvement with a group that seeks a "third way" for American drug policy, David Frum explains why he thinks marijuana should be unavailable even to people who can use it responsibly: 

The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

There's a trade-off, yes, and it takes the form of denying less vulnerable people easy access to a pleasure they believe they can safely use. But they are likely deluding themselves about how well they are managing their drug use. And even if they are not deluded—if they really are so capable and effective—then surely they can see that society has already been massively re-engineered for their benefit already. Surely, enough is enough?

Wow. 

NEXT: Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge to GA Law Banning Guns in Churches

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.

  1. By Frum’s logic, clearly all people should have their speech heavily restricted because he can’t be trusted to say anything intelligent. We must all give up our rights because Frum is a retarded moron.

  2. Sounds intrinsically paternalistic to me.

    1. You’ll thank me when you get out of prison.

    2. Read People’s History of the United States, that book will fuckin blow your mind.

    3. Actually, Frum might have a point. It explains how President Choom Gang doesn’t think we have a spending problem.

  3. surely they can see that society has already been massively re-engineered for their benefit already

    Wtf is he even talking about?

    1. He’s talking about the tireless efforts that our Enlightened Elite undertake on behalf of the great unwashed.

      And in case it’s not clear, when I say “great unwashed,” I’m referring to you, nicole.

      1. No, it reads like just the opposite: that society has been massively re-engineered to favor the less vulnerable (the capable and effective) over the more vulnerable.

    2. He’s not talking. He’s babbling. There’s a difference.

      1. Look, if society has been reengineered for my benefit, the least he could do is direct me to my goodies. I assume there is some serf assigned to bring me ginger ale now that we have Obamacare and I have a tummy ache, for example.

        1. You’re the one who chose to live in Chicago. If you would unass your couch and get out of there you’d stumble right onto your pile of goodies.

          1. I don’t think they count as goodies if accepting them makes you feel shame and self-loathing…

            1. Are you kidding? Those are the best kind.

            2. I believe the self-loathing is essential for the Plan to work long term.

              1. I’m sure some of the ‘entitled’ persons experience shame and self-loathing, but these are people who won’t be ‘entitled’ for long. The serial receivers necessarily lack these emotions. I think the Plan is all about desensitizing people to living at the expense of others. If you have no shame, there’s nothing to stop you from wanting or even demanding more.

            3. It has already happened.

              nicole – my dear – you(us all) are the serfs….

        2. NutraSweet will be along with that artisanal ginger ale shortly, nicole.

          1. Bruce Cost Fresh Ginger Ale is a fine beverage, but not for those with weak constitutions.

            1. See? Babbling.

        3. In order to access your goodies, you must be a member of Little Orphan Annie’s Secret Circle and use your decoder ring.

    3. Exactly. It’s amazing how many times I hear that. Some of these people seem to honestly believe that the government gets smaller and smaller every year, that programs are cut every year, that bureaucrats are being fired, laws are being repealed, that we are sliding closer and closer to anarchy.

      They are either liars, overwhelmingly ignorant, or quite literally delusional, in the medical sense of the word.

      Best lie I saw: While attempting to track down some information on the number of bases the US military owns, I discovered on Mother Jones that the federal government spends 800 billion annually on defense, but only 5 billion on Social Security. Needless to say, not one of the 30 comments pointed out this was incorrect.

      They live in a fantasy world.

        1. http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..ur-country

          In the section called Priorities, Priorities. They also lowball the Education number, the feds spent 90 billion that year, not 60 billion.

          1. Oh, 2008. Well back then, they were only off by 500 billion. I wonder if they update the bullshit, or did all those problems go away as of January 2009 like unemployment and the wars?

            1. Yeah it was back in the Dark Times, before the Lightworker arrived to redeem us.

          2. I’m gonna guess they’re using a DC-math “net” spending on SS number. You know, actual spending of half a trillion or so, minus the contribution to the, ahem, trust fund (LOCKBOX!!)

            Although I thought on that basis SS was technically generating a “surplus” until last year. So maybe not, or maybe their $5M is really negative and our priorities are even THAT MUCH MORE SCREWED UP!!1!

            1. Wow, speaking of idiot-math skills – from the comments:

              The only graph that is missing is the percent of GDP going to the Military Budget-It is a difficult chart however, as it passed the 100 percent mark in 2008!

              For reals, dude! It’s unpossible to show a graph of 100%!!

              1. Screw you squirrels and your greater-than sign-eating-ways.

      1. It’s deliberate ignorance. The information is right there on the web. It’s 10 seconds of Googling away. They KNOW is it right there at their fingertips. But they only care if they see a “fact” that doesn’t fit their internal bias. Anything that does fit the bias gets a nod and a “like”.

      2. Like how Jay Diamond (after he went from WABC & WOR to WEVD) that radical libertarians were running the country.

    4. I came here to ask the same question. Does he mean that our world has been somehow bubble-wrapped to allow drug addicts to fake functional adulthood (standard libertarian disclaimer)? Or does he mean that society has been engineered to further the greatest good for the greatest number and those who use drugs recreationally are not doing their part to sustain this system which blesses all of us?

      1. I think he’s actually referring to our massive prison / correctional system. Apparently, we’re supposed to be grateful to live in a prison nation.

      2. I think…not that this makes any sense…but I think he’s actually talking about all the other stupid bullshit in the article. Student loans, mortgage financing, etc. I don’t know, the “logic” of the piece as a whole is very interesting.

      3. No, look again at the quoted passage. It’s that society has been re-engineered to favor the capable. Yeah, I don’t get it either. Over what period did that massive re-engineering take place, and what was society like before? The way society ordinarily would be would be to favor the more vulnerable and less competent?

    5. I thought he was suggesting that society is already plenty tolerant of use. But who can tell with this chuckle head.

      1. If you look for meaning in the ravings of a control freak retard asshole, do not be surprised if what you find is confusing. Just remember that he has no idea what’s he talking about either.

    6. Looks like that rancid teabagger Jared Lee Loughner is ghostwriting for him.

    7. That should be somebody’s slogan…”Massively re-engineering society for YOUR benefit!”

  4. One more person added to my “fuck you” list. I’ve been experimenting with weed and booze for 35 years. Booze is by far the more powerful drug.

    1. I’ve been experimenting with weed and booze for 35 years.

      Apparently, the experiments have been quite successful.

    2. Indeed. Put a person who smokes pot all day for 30 years and a person who drinks all day for 30 years in front of me and I will tell you which is which in 1 second. If it weren’t for the legal issues, alcohol would be without question a far worse drug to be chronically addicted to than coke or heroin.

      1. Blasphemer! How dare you speak that way of the blood of christ!

      2. Put a person who smokes pot all day for 30 years and a person who drinks all day for 30 years in front of me and I will tell you which is which in 1 second.

        Bullshit. I have been doing both and I seriously doubt you could tell, at least in the few moments every day that I am straight/sober.

        1. One or the other, man. You’ve probably found the magical balancing point.

      3. I was buying some pseudoephedrine the other day and the pharmacist’s assistant asked for my driver’s license. Not just to see it, he needed it so he could enter information in the computer. I made a comment on how it’s too bad pe isn’t as safe as alcohol but he ignored it.

      4. It is a trick question. Drink all day for 30 years, and you will be dead, or so embalmed as to make no difference.

        1. “A man drink like that and don’t eat, he is going to DIE.”

          “…When?”

          /Blazing Saddles

        2. Ok. Try being a bit less literal. I don’t mean 24 hours a day spent actually actively consuming alcohol.

    3. Frum should have been on this list a long time ago.

  5. The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

    Someone stop David Frum from writing articles before he hurts himself.

    1. Yeah, what about career-wrecking choices?

  6. This guy might be just as evil as Gil Kerlikowske, except he’s not in any official government position. That’s the only bright side I can think of.

    1. Can retards truly be considered to be evil? I don’t think he has enough agency to actually be evil.

      1. I’ve known lots of retards that never tried to tell anyone what to do. So yes, retarded, but also evil.

      2. I worked in a residential care home for that population. One of the “residents” was borderline IQ, he was very evil. The two with much lower than normal IQs were fairly tame, but you would not turn your back on this one who was borderline.

  7. Frum’s support for his “argument” boils down to “you’re not a parent, I don’t expect *you* to understand.” What a contemptible pile of shit. Tony’s soul mate.

  8. The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

    Dave’s mother should had sought an abortion at the appropriate time.

    1. She should have one now….really really late term. For the children.

  9. If Frum consumes alcohol, then he is a fool and a hypocrite. If he does not, then he is just a fool.

    1. I’m a little late to the party, but this comment deserves some love.

  10. Do I have to go get Towelie again?

    1. You’re the worst character ever Towelie.

    2. David Frum, over the past few months, I have watched you go from an ancillary character with a few amusing catch phrased to a dried out spooge rag covered in the jizz of a thousand older men.

    3. Please don’t.

      This site really needs to establish a Towelie-ban.

  11. “The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.”

    I think someone needs to sit down and explain to Frum that at the core of his statist concern lies fascism. Anyone speak retard?

    1. Are you sure he doesn’t already know? Concern troll is deeply, sincerely, passionately, concerned; they all are.

    2. “She only speaks French, Roy. She doesn’t speak imbecile.”

      1. You’d make a fine little helper, what’s your name?

    3. “Anyone speak retard?”

      Tony, you’ve been paged!

  12. The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

    Wanting to take away everyone’s rights to “protect” the “vulnerable”: check.

    But they are likely deluding themselves about how well they are managing their drug use.

    “Knowing” other people’s lives better than they themselves know them: check.

    And even if they are not deluded — if they really are so capable and effective — then surely they can see that society has already been massively re-engineered for their benefit already. Surely, enough is enough?

    Unsupported and breathtakingly stupid assertion: check.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  13. The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

    How in the name of fuck do you prevent people from making any life-wrecking mistakes? Some people are irresponsible and do what they want to do, with little regard for consequences. Whether they’re driving too fast, having unwanted kids, pursuing destructive dead-end relationships, drinking too much, or huffing gasoline, SOME PEOPLE ARE FUCKUPS. FUCKUPS WILL FUCK UP.

    1. Laws are magic. See?

    2. With the right people in charge, fucking up will cease to exist.

      1. If the right people are in charge, the voters fucked up.

        1. Voters constantly fuck up by putting the wrong people in charge. That’s alright though, because the right people know who they are and will take the wheel to steer us along the proper course. The fact that the wrong people are in charge just proves the fact that the right people need to take control.

          1. The people who we vote for aren’t “in charge” as much as the legions of bureaucrats. It’s the millions of unelected drones who hold the real power in government. And they answer to no one but themselves.

  14. Well according to his wiki page, his mother is dead.

    So that’s something, right?

    Also it says he’s a distant cousin of Paul Krugman.

  15. From almost any David Frum column, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber ? go!”

  16. The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

    *barf*

  17. “The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.”

    Preferably by breaking down their doors in midnight no-knock raids, seizing their property, shooting their dogs, and sending them to prison for the rest of their natural-born lives.

    1. “Here at the DEA, we wreck your life FOR you, so that you don’t have to do it alone.”

    2. No, no, no, no!

      Laws are meant to be obeyed. If these people obeyed those magical words written by legislators, then they wouldn’t make these life-wrecking mistakes. The harsher the penalties, the better an example is set, and the more likely these people will submit and obey like good serfs. If government men seize their property and kill their pets before locking them in a cage, they did it to themselves by not obeying legislation.

    3. Frum would be glib in his answer to you- “It’s the law, son, and you made the conscious decision to have your life ruin’t.”

      Human empathy is so fucking lame and selective in both political wings.

  18. In Frum’s world alcohol should still be prohibited. Oh, you think I jest? This mindset is still quite strong among the neoconian authoritarian elite. For example, the current DEA admin Michele Leonhart (the beer-drinking Obama pick coincidentally) actually believes alcohol prohibition ‘worked’!!

    http://www.republicreport.org/…..on-worked/

    1. Do you really think someone could claw their way to the head of the DEA without believing that prohibition works?
      Social engineering is a religion, and government is its god. To become a high priest your faith must be strong.

      1. It’s a political appointment, they don’t have to believe anything.

    2. That’s creepy, to say the least.

  19. Alt-Text Caption Contest!

    I’ll start: “Yeesh, it’s creepy to look in the mirror when I’m tripping.”

    1. “Rico Suave’s got nothing on me.”

    2. “Sorry, Ladies, I’m taken. But only in the 1960’s good-ole-boy, ass-slappin’, women on the side, sense of the word.”

  20. Blah blah blah, I have no facts and no evidence and you are deluded blah blah blah. Hey Frum, no one cares what you think except the media whores who don’t care about facts and evidence.

  21. I’ve found that the argument that makes the biggest impression is: “Marijuana is illegal. Stay away.”

    Cool story, authoritarian shitbird.

    In 1943, Vice President Henry Wallace published a book celebrating the coming “century of the common man.” That century did not last very long. We have transitioned instead into the era of the clever man and clever woman. We have revised our institutions, our programs, our rules in ways that offer profitable new chances to those with cultural know-how — and that inflict disastrous consequences on those who are overwhelmed by a world of ever-more-abundant and ever-more-risky choices.

    So David Frum-Chum’s answer to the problems created by social engineering and bureaucratic interference is more social engineering and bureaucratic interference.

    GENIUS!

    1. But this time, we need to “balance” things to the side of the stupid, dysfunctional and simply unfortunate.

      OK. I’m willing to acknowledge there is some merit in the idea. Politics requires compromise and balancing competing values. If we must err, let’s err on the side of having laws that protect those most vulnerable in our society. I can see how more complicated laws are detrimental to the poor.

      But the war on drugs hasn’t really panned out for the disadvantaged. The simple, straight-forward policy of banning MJ might help inept parents like David Frum, but what about legitimately vulnerable children whose parents aren’t wealthy political operatives? Will they be helped by David Frum’s 3rd way? And if by a 3rd way, we mean a more nuanced and hence more complicated middle ground, that’s precisely the sort of nonsense that Frum is railing against earlier in the piece.

      As you suggest, Frum makes his argument while simultaneously demolishing it.

  22. The goal of public policy should be to protect (to the extent we can) the vulnerable from making life-wrecking mistakes in the first place.

    This is the goal? I mean, I can almost express some empathy for those who think the goal of public policy should be to accomplish something concrete. For example, the goal of public policy should be that everyone is fed or the goal of public policy is to make sure out children have a better world. Etc.

    I’ve never heard anyone actually say out loud that the goal should be control of the individual for it’s own sake.

    Well, at least the totalitarian troll is honest, right?

    1. That’s what I couldn’t figure out in the article about gov’t control of the British press. It’s like some pressure group had to favor that for its own sake, rather than to try to make the press more this way or that way.

  23. Life wrecking decisions should be expedited, not withheld.

  24. I cannot adequately express how much I absolutely fucking loathe David Frum. He masturbates to fantasies of an all-powerful, ever-intrusive security/surveillance state that treats our military like a SWAT team for Israel and where anyone outside of his Friedman/Brooks/Daily Beast nexus is some benighted stooge waiting for his benevolent guidance. Not to mention he’s fucking wrong about everything and still affects this brave Cassandra pose all the time. He got everything about the ’94 midterms exactly wrong, he thought Iraq was a great idea, thought Giuliani was gonna run away with the GOP nomination in ’08, said the GOP would lose seats in the ’10 midterms, Obamacare would be a huge hit with small businesses, Sestak would crush Toomey, etc. He makes some snarky asshole tweet about toddlers and concealed carry while the 6-year-olds are still bleeding out in Newtown, and when called on his fundamental lack of decency, goes the classic pussy route of saying all he cares about is the children and spouts some nonsense about people who actually take the Bill of Rights seriously (unlike the president he worked for and wrote an ass-kissing book about) are enabling massacres. Fuck David Frum. Fuck him. Fuck him. Fuck him.

    1. I disagree — that was very adequately expressed.

  25. Dude a little pot never hurt anyone!

    http://www.AnonMix.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.