Former Drug Czar Advisor Compares Marijuana to Child Pornography

If you thought former drug czar advisor Paul Chabot couldn't top his claim that alcohol prohibition "actually worked" you would be wrong. Chabot recently appeared on HuffPost Live and compared marijuana to child pornography.

From the Huffington Post:

When asked by HuffPost Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim why we keep marijuana illegal, Chabot responded: "Why do we keep heroin, LSD, prostitution, child pornography illegal?"

"Drugs destroy lives," Chabot continued. "We have more addicts in this country today than we have had in a long time. It's a shame, when there are so many issues in the community that we could be working on, there's organizations of people who are not just trying to legalize marijuana but all drugs across the board."

Chabot can count me among those who would legalize "all drugs across the board," and I think that those who share my opinion should be thanking Chabot for his recent statements and actively encouraging him to make more media appearances.

Comparing marijuana to child pornography is a great way to insult millions of people by comparing them to pedophiles. Chabot is a free gift to those of us who would like to see drugs legalized; he is hardly going to make those who are undecided on drug prohibition more likely to support prohibition with the sort of moronic rhetoric he recently displayed.

Thankfully, most people can see beyond bad anti-marijuana arguments. A Quinnipiac poll from last month found that 51 percent of American voters favor legalizing marijuana, with 44 percent still in the prohibition camp. It's hard to see support for legalization of marijuana slipping if Chabot keeps saying that marijuana is comparable to child pornography.

Comments

[John]

When asked by HuffPost Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim why we keep marijuana illegal, Chabot responded: "Why do we keep heroin, LSD, prostitution, child pornography illegal?"

Why do we? Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Calvin Coolidge]

Why? Because Fuck You, that's why.

[Brett L]

Well, kiddie porn obviously has to do with the inability of the kid to give consent and the fact that it is never appropriate for the parent or guardian to do so. The rest, I'm confused about.

[John]

Production clearly. Mere possession is a bit harder.

[Some call me Tim?]

Consumption fuels production?

[cavalier973]

Child pornography is illegal because it involves people who cannot reasonably give consent to the activities in which they are involved.

[John]

That is absolutely true for making it. But possessing it? How is possessing it increasing the harm?

[sarcasmic]

thoughtcrime is death

[SugarFree]

Demand drives production of supply. The thoughtcrime aspect only comes in when they also ban cartoon or CGI child porn.

[John]

Demand drives production of supply.

No it doesn't. The people who make this crap are doing it for their own perverse pleasure. It is not like they are doing it for money. If it were impossible to trade this stuff, they would still make it because to them making it is an end in itself.

There is no evidence that demand is what creates this supply. That only happens when creating something is work and not something people would do anyway.

[SugarFree]

They don't make it for money, they make it for barter in order to get other images.

[John]

Again, if you are creating images, you should be hung. But merely possessing those images isn't what is driving the perverts to create it. If they couldn't trade, they would just make more of their own.

[sarcasmic]

Again, if you are creating images, you should be hung.

If you are creating images you should have a large penis?

Don't you mean hanged?

[SugarFree]

But merely possessing those images isn't what is driving the perverts to create it. If they couldn't trade, they would just make more of their own.

OK, John. Sure.

[John]

Why wouldn't they SF? Would they just give up? That makes no sense.

There is a certain group of people who are sick enough to create this shit. Why do they do that? As a favor to other perverts?

Take the crime element out of it. Does the consumption of Star Wars fan fiction drive its creation or do people who write such things do so because they like to do it and would still do it even if they didn't have the internet? I am thinking it is the latter.

[sarcasmic]

Demand creates supply.

[Rasilio]

The problem with this is it does not apply in this situation.

Even if Says law is absolutely true it does not mean that demand is the only thing which can produce supply, such a law would make new product research impossible. For example, 25 years ago there was no demand for home teeth whitening technology, but the producers created the product and demand arose, basically the supply of the product created the demand for more of it.

However even more fundamentally Says law only works with economically exclusive products, computer images are not economically exclusive, you can create an infinite supply of them for free and with no cost of production the demand of the individual producer alone is more than enough to stimulate supply. This is true whether we are discussing Star Trek Fan Fic or child porn, the creators create it for their own benefit and would do so whether or not anyone else wanted to read/view it.

[acidovorax]

Demand creates supply.

I'm almost sure that Say's Law is the complete reversal of this phrase: "Production creates it's own demand."

[SugarFree]

Does the consumption of Star Wars fan fiction drive its creation or do people who write such things do so because they like to do it and would still do it even if they didn't have the internet?

The creation of Star Wars fan fiction doesn't require unwilling third-part participants.

Why do they do that? As a favor to other perverts?

So they can barter with the images they create for images other people create. As I already stated.

Fucking hell, John. You aren't really this stupid, you just want to fight.

[John]

The creation of Star Wars fan fiction doesn't require unwilling third-part participants.

That just means writing Star Wars fan fiction should be legal while producing child porn should be illegal. But so what?

So they can barter with the images they create for images other people create. As I already stated.

Think about what you are saying. They don't just create it to barter. They create it because they like the shit. If they couldn't barter it for other images, they still would create the shit. Why? Because they are perverts and like taking and looking at such images. They barter it because they like making it. They don't make it because they can barter it. You have the causality backwards.

I don't just want to fight. Making possession of child porn a crime is very problematic because it is nothing but a thought crime. Someone who downloads a 30 year old picture off the net hasn't contributed to the making of child porn or the victimization of children in any concrete way. The kid has already been victimized. He is not more victimized by some kook downloading a picture 30 years later. No pervert is now driven to create more porn because some other kook downloaded a picture. Yet, downloading that picture is still illegal. Why? There isn't any reason. It is a thought crime. And that should worry people.

[marie]

If demand drove supply, then the demand surely must be diminishing because the number of men incarcerated for child porn is higher than ever, right? Instead, the supply has not been affected. At all.

Why do we think the prohibition on possession of CP will have a different result than the prohibition on marijuana? Pot is still widely available, even though it has been prohibited for decades.

Thanks for speaking up, John. Most people don't have the nerve.

[robc]

Its both John.

It can be two things.

Some do it for their own thrills, some do it for the money, some do it for both reasons.

[John]

Rob,

I seriously doubt anyone produces child porn for the money. The risk of doing so is far too great and the money involved is very little if any. People can barely make money on legal porn these days.

[Francisco d Anconia]

I seriously doubt anyone produces child porn for the money.

Really John?

I suppose no one produces cocaine for the money either.

[Rights-Minimalist Autocrat]

Does the consumption of Star Wars fan fiction drive its creation or do people who write such things do so because they like to do it and would still do it even if they didn't have the internet? I am thinking it is the latter.

The existence of people in the latter category does not preclude the existence of people in the former.

This is the point at which you again engage in goalpost shifting by saying, "Yes, but which is there more of?" which conveniently for you cannot be proven.

But it is a fairly safe bet that there is more Star Wars fanfic currently written than there would be if no one wanted to read it.

[John]

But it is a fairly safe bet that there is more Star Wars fanfic currently written than there would be if no one wanted to read it.

True. But you are not risking jail to write such fiction. You are in producing child porn. Is the pleasure of writing fiction so great people would risk jail? Some but few. But the pleasure for some at least of producing child porn is so great they will risk jail to make it. That is a pretty good indication that they are not making it because they like to trade it or make money.

[cavalier973]

It increases the harm if the possessor owns child porn that happens to feature the children of his neighbor. The neighbor-parent would have no reasonable course of action but to kill the porn possessor using Assyrian-style torture.

[cavalier973]

I should say "the kidnapped children of his neighbor"; there are, unfortunately, miserable wretches of bastardy who will force their own children into making porn.

[cavalier973]

Suppose a popular new narcotic reaches the market, the ingredients of which includes the blood or body parts of murder victims (it gives it that "special kick").

The murder victim is already dead, the real harm was already done; what further harm is there in possessing such narcotics?

[Brett L]

I, for one, can't wait for the new Hands of Glory weaponized by mirror bases.

[John]

So you would make possessing blood illegal? Murder is already illegal. So I am not sure how your analogy works.

[cavalier973]

I think the argument is that consumption of such a product incentivizes suppliers to increase their production, resulting in more murder/child molestation.

[John]

But the problem is that is that someone who molests children does it because they like doing it. They don't need any motivation. In order for the argument to work, there would have to be a group of people who wouldn't otherwise do such things but do anyway because they get to trade it on the internet or sell it.

That seems very unlikely.

[Brendan]

I don't like it, but when I drink the blood of murder victims, their spirits compel me to molest AND share the documentation I'm also compelled to make.

It's a vicious circle.

[Brendan]

This only applies if all demand is satisfied by trading something of value to the supplier and/or all demand is satisfied by supplying original depictions.

[Way Of The Crane]

Suppose a popular new narcotic reaches the market, the ingredients of which includes the blood or body parts of murder victims (it gives it that "special kick").

I think the Jews call it matzo.

[SIV]

+1 Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

[Matrix]

Sad thing is... some people still believe this shit. -_-

[gaoxiaen]

The Liberians call it vulva.

[H. Reardon]

Suppose a popular new narcotic reaches the market, the ingredients of which includes the blood or body parts of murder victims (it gives it that "special kick").

Give a whole new meaning to smokin' ass.

[Rasilio]

No, child porn sometimes involves people who cannot reasonably give consent.

Much of it involves 15, 16, and 17 year olds who are making it themselves for their own pleasure or are at least over the legal age of consent for their jurisdiction. Even more of it involves photoshopped images making adult models appear to be younger or entirely computer generated images with no human involved at all, yet all of which is legally considered child porn.

[Brendan]

It's also very unique in that it's the only real time that the depiction of an already illegal act is in and of itself illegal.

Animals can't give consent, bestiality is illegal, but prosecutions for possessing bestiality videos are virtually nonexistent.

Repeat with snuff films, videos of animal abuse, fights, etc.

In fact, depictions of child physical abuse are apparently perfectly legal to possess, distribute, etc.

It's only depictions of child sexual abuse that are uniquely illegal to possess.

This unique and unusual prohibition should mean that child pornography laws have no bearing or applicability in any other area.

[John]

All good points. Your points also completely undermine the justification form making possession of such things illegal.

[Brendan]

Yes, it does.

Mere possession is much closer to thoughtcrime than it is anything harmful.

The argument that possession means demand and demand means supply implies that all demand is satisfied by trading something.

What about repositories where anyone can download? If a person is a "collector" who, in forum parlance, 'lurks' and never uploads, what harm are they perpetuating?

If it's used as a proxy to show that they are child abusers in waiting, then that same rationale should call for All possession of bestiality depictions to be to be made illegal, along with snuff films, videos of child physical abuse etc.

If we accept that possession must be banned, then we must also accept that rationale behind that is so unique, unusual, and so narrowly construed/applied that that prohibition is inapplicable to any other area or sphere of law.

[marie]

Don't forget to ban adult porn because it makes viewers more likely to rape someone.

Sad that reason has almost no role in discussions about CP possession.

[Brendan]

Can you clarify?

Do you believe CP possession makes someone more likely or less likely to abuse/rape children or people under 18?

[marie]

I can clarify. One argument against CP is that it makes the viewer more likely to run out to the nearest Chuckee Cheese and molest children. If that argument is true, then it would also be true that someone looking at adult porn is more likely to to run out and molest someone.

It is a ridiculous argument against CP. That was my point.

I hate porn. All of it. But prohibiting any of it, especially child porn, will only drive production further underground. See also, war on drugs.

Currently, it is nearly impossible for a guy who wants help with an addiction to CP (compulsion...call it whatever you want) to get help without being turned in to law enforcement. That's a hell of a deal: the only way to get help without getting turned in to LE is to get arrested by LE first.

[John]

Excellent point Marie.

[sarcasmic]

"Drugs destroy lives," Chabot continued.

And prison doesn't?

[The Other Kevin]

I was thinking about this the other day.

"I don't want you to ruin your life with drugs. So to save you, I'm going to ruin your life with prison."

[marie]

Not only destroy YOUR life, but that of your family, too.

[Juice]

You were ruining your life anyway, so now we can ruin it for you and simultaneously generate revenue.

[daveInAustin]

It's sad to hear him use "We have more addicts in this country today than we have had in a long time" as a reason to continue the war on drugs. We have the same number of addicts as we had before the war on drugs, and the illegal pot is easier for high school kids to obtain than the alcohol. At best, the war on drugs is a huge waste of money. Unfortunately, that's just the start of the damage it does.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

and pot is not addictive

habit forming? yes. anything that people enjoy is habit forming

[gaoxiaen]

Right. I just wish that seafood fettucini Alfredo wasn't so habit-forming.

[Hugh Akston]

"Why do we keep heroin, LSD, prostitution, child pornography illegal?"

"Drugs destroy lives," Chabot continued.

And yet the federal government is allowed to continue unabated.

[Rasilio]

But Marijuana is almost exactly like Child Porn.

The government has created a series of logically inconsistant but relatively draconian prohibitions for possession and sale of the bad thing and yet it's general availability for those who wish to access it continues to increase.

The only real difference between the two is that in the case of some "child porn" (in quotes because I am using the legal definition of anyone under 18) it's production does result in harming someone.

[Brendan]

There's that. Two 17 year olds who take nude pictures and swap them are both guilty of producing, distributing, and possessing child pornography.

A 17.99 year old who takes a sexually explicit (not 'artistic' nude) picture of themselves is guilty of possessing child pornography.

[gaoxiaen]

Damn. I better tell my mother to hide those baby pictures of me.

[Brendan]

Those aren't typically considered 'sexually explicit'

It just occurred to me that a teenager who has copies of the pictures someone else took of her when she was younger is in possession of child pornography, and by the standards of most states is a sex offender.

[Rasilio]

No they aren't "Generally" but they certainly have been from time to time and this is yet another point that is always overlooked by prohibitionists of all stripes.

The ultimate ineffectiveness of attempts at prohibition to actually stop the prohibited item from reaching those who desire it always results in a steady ratcheting up of laws and expansions of what is prohibited.

15 years ago no one would have ever believed that you could be arrested for possessing an inappropriate cartoon or naked pictures of your high school girlfriend, today people have actually served time for just those offenses.

[SIV]

"Why don't we just legalize murder then?"

[/drug warrior]

[Dunphy (the real one)]

Lord, please keep my enemies ridiculous!

ok, opponent not enemy, but it still fits

[Thane of Whiterun]

Sometimes a joint is just a joint.

[Concerned Citizen]

Again, the accurate term is re-legalize. And today is the anniversary of prohibition.

[Apatheist ?_??]

I for one won't stoop to his level and compare drug czar advisers to sheep fuckers.

[Matrix]

it's an insult to sheep fuckers anyway. At least they aren't hurting anyone

[NeonCat]

Baa!

[Tim]

Drugs are the last great scapegoats left. I mean we can't place blame on and scare people with lurid racist tales, or horny gays. Drugs is all we got left.

[AlmightyJB]

Drugs. Assault Weapons. 32oz sodas. If you possess all three at the same time than you're the devil.

[gaoxiaen]

We'll scare 'em with... FOOTBALL!

[Agile Cyborg]

You have to understand that Chabot is a religious nut. He has no other option but to respond to reality with a contemptible self-righteousness that is the harbinger of the strict moralist. He is the result of very serious Christianity. This is a type of Christianity that incorporates a legality and absolutism that is frighteningly dominating and assertive. This can be likened to the same fervor a hardcore Nazi holds for his anti-Semitic ideology. Compromise and intelligent deviation from orthodoxy is NOT an option.

External forces that threaten the ideology of a hateful legalism are severely marginalized with labels of depravity. If the label doesn't forcefully modify behavior then the next step is to criminalize the so-called deviant.

Chabot's mindset isn't just fodder for Libertarian fun- his type is a verifiable danger to the freedom-seeking adult.

[Brandon]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01.....nt_3512695

I deserve a hat tip for this one. Sarcasmic is my witness.

[T]

He's not credible, he gets his news from the Daily Fail.

[Matrix]

Well, heroine, LSD and prostitution should NOT be illegal, fuckwit!