Marijuana

D.C. Council Cancels Hearing on Marijuana Regulation

The District's attorney general warns that further legalization would be illegal.

|

Racine campaign

Today the District of Columbia Council, which is proceeding with marijuana legalization despite objections from some members of Congress, planned to hold a hearing on the licensing, taxation, and regulation of cannabis growers and retailers. The Washington Post reports that the council abandoned that plan after Karl Racine, D.C.'s newly elected attorney general, warned that such a hearing would conflict with a spending restriction approved by Congress in December.

That rider, introduced by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), bars the District from spending local or federal funds to "enact" legislation that reduces or eliminates penalties for marijuana offenses. Racine agrees that the Harris amendment does not block Initiative 71, which legalizes possession, sharing, and home cultivation, since the ballot measure was enacted before the rider took effect. But he says the rider prohibits the D.C. Council from going further by legalizing commercial production and distribution. 

In a letter he sent to the council last week, Racine said "we have concluded that [the Harris rider] should not prevent the District from using FY15 appropriated local funds to implement Initiative 71…because this initiative had already been enacted when the Appropriations Act became effective." But he added that the rider "directly and squarely prohibits" the use of those funds or federal money to "enact any measure that further legalizes marijuana." Racine said holding hearings on Council Member David Grosso's marijuana regulation bill, as the council planned, would "involve the expenditure of local funds to enact a measure legalizing marijuana." He noted that deliberately disregarding a congressional spending restriction could make D.C. officials and employees subjects to fines of up to $5,000 and prison sentences of up to two years under the Anti-Deficiency Act.

David Zvenyach, the D.C. Council's chief counsel, disagreed with Racine's reading of the law, arguing that the the District can legally talk about taxing and regulating marijuana as long as it does not actually approve a bill. D.C. Council Phil Mendelson ultimately decided not to chance it, announcing that he will instead convene an "informal roundtable discussion." In his letter, Racine said such a forum would not run afoul of the Harris rider.

Meanwhile, Initiative 71, which Mendelson sent to Congress for review on January 13, takes effect after 30 legislative days unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted before then (which is not going to happen). According to the D.C. Cannabis Campaign, which sponsored the initiative, the review period expires "approximately February 26." (The exact date depends on when congressional leaders say the initiative was officially received, which they do not necessarily announce in advance.) By the end of the month, then, Washingtonians 21 or older will no longer face local penalties for possessing up to two ounces of marijuana outside their homes, sharing up to an ounce at a time with other adults, or growing up to six plants (no more than three of which are mature at any given time) at home, where they will also be allowed to keep whatever those plants produce.

Further marijuana legalization does seem to be blocked by the Harris rider (at least until the end of this fiscal year), although there may be a loophole. Walter Smith, executive director of the D.C. Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, notes that the rider applies only to local money appropriated for the current fiscal year. He suggests that the District could draw on its reserve funds to cover whatever costs are involved in enacting a marijuana bill. Furthermore, the Harris rider does not forbid the District to carry out a bill once it has been enacted, so the money needed to create the regulatory system envisioned by Grosso could come from fiscal year 2015 funds.

President Obama has said Congress should not interfere with D.C.'s marijuana policies, and last Friday his drug czar agreed. "As a resident of the District, I might not agree about legalization, but I do agree with our own ability to spend our own money the way that we want to do that," said Michael Botticelli, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, responding to a question from Dan Riffle of the Marijuana Policy Project. "The president…was very clear that the District should stick to its home rule."

NEXT: Kid Rock: "Fiscally, I'm Republican. But the social issues kill me — gay marriage and abortion. It's like, Come on, man, get off it."

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

  1. So DC is about to have the only fully-unregulated marijuana industry in the Western World? There is so much awesome in this.

    1. There wasn’t any mention of a regulated retail distribution chain in I-71. The ballot initiative included petty possession of up to 2 ounces, petty cultivation up to 3 plants but only in a private residence and allowing the transfer of up to 1 ounce as a gift.

      The other part is that all black markets are by definition unregulated. The industry already exists on almost the entire planet. Its existence isn’t optional either. The only choice that lawmakers and outsiders get to decide is who gets to participate. Right now their choice is to assign the duties of production, distribution and quality control to organized criminal syndicates. Of course that’s just plain stupid but try explaining that to a foaming at the mouth prohibitionists.

    1. Never let the facts get in the way of disseminating an effective piece of hysterical rhetoric”
      ~~ The Prohibitionist Motto

  2. He noted that deliberately disregarding a congressional spending restriction could make D.C. officials and employees subjects to fines of up to $5,000 and prison sentences of up to two years under the Anti-Deficiency Act.

    Serious question: does any state threaten criminal sanctions when a locality’s elected officials if that locality does not properly carry out of state law mandates?

    1. gah…

      Should be: against a locality’s elected officials…

      1. They’re not talking about I-71. There’s been no mandate that the DC Council create a regulated retail distribution chain.

  3. I don’t like the semantics of equating “regulated” with “legal” or “not criminal.” It says that either something is regulated or banned and there are no other options.

  4. Remember when the GOP was all against centralized rule and for devolving power to the local levels?

    Me neither.

    1. Um Never?

      1. Yeah, the party founded to abolish slavery nationwide never really made much of a claim to being staunch federalists.

        It is only in opposition to the progressive Democrats that the Republicans have ever shown distrust of central government.

        1. The Republicans have never been particularly laissez-faire either but they only started defending the free market in opposition to the increasingly socialist Democratic party.

        2. Just as Democrats only care about state’s rights when it comes to California smog mandates or gay marriage or fracking bans or….

  5. Conservative pundit Star Parker: Obama’s prayer breakfast speech was ‘verbal rape’

    “It was verbal rape. Frankly, what the president did was verbal rape,” Parker said. “He stole all the energy in the room. He stole from all of us. He stole the momentum in the room, he stole from our country, he stole from the world.”

  6. Catholic Conservative gnashes teeth at Canadian Supreme Court’s decision allowing doctor assisted suicide

    “But the Supreme Court of Canada long ago left behind nature and holy reverence. It has struck down laws prohibiting abortion, and for this the innocent blood of millions indicts the court. It has struck down laws preserving marriage, and for this, untold numbers of broken hearts and fatherless children indict the court. It has struck down laws prohibiting prostitution, and for this thousands upon thousands of persons created in the image of God have been reduced to meat, to be used and abused, these humiliated victims indict the court. And once again, in striking down laws which prohibit doctors from assisting their patients in killing themselves, the court has inserted a poisonous siringe in the heart of the one true test of the greatness of a people, how it treats the weak, the defenseless and the needy. The Supreme Court of Canada has abandoned the natural foundations of all that is good and healthy and life giving. To wear the black robes of the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada is to be draped in shame.”

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/…..al-suicide

    1. Let’s see what Canada’s game-plan is:

      1) Institute a single-payer health-care system

      2) Let the doctors in that system kill their patients

      3) ????

      4) libertopia!

      1. Let the doctors in that system kill their patients…when the patients ask them to.

        Kind of a critical part to leave out.

        But who cares about their choices when they’ve clearly made the wrong one, the one that doesn’t respect the “the breath of God within us.”

        Or, to point to a better quote from the article: “Our lives do not belong to us.”

        1. You know, to justify physician-assisted suicide in Canada, you’re going to have to clear three hurdles:

          First, you’ll have to show that assisted suicide should be legal.

          Then you’ll have to show that physicians should be the ones doing the assisting.

          Then you’ll need to demonstrate that the doctors doing the assisting should work for Canada’s nationalized health service.

          I deny each and every one of these three propositions, but I don’t have to refute them all for present purposes. I simply have to refute *one* of the three propositions, while you’re stuck with the burden of proving all three.

          1. I could make it really easy on myself and focus on the part where the doctors making decisions to kill their patients work for the government.

            But I’ll focus instead on the second proposition, that *physicians* should have the right to “assist” patients in killing themselves.

            Most physicians will hesitate even to assist in *judicial executions* because their function is healing, not killing. Even physicians who are cool with the death penalty want it left to professional executioners, so as not to blur the lines between medicine and intentional killing.

            And with executions, at least the condemned prisoner isn’t considered a *patient.*

            So if you’re for assisted suicide, why not hire a self-executioner to cut your head off, poison, you, etc? Why get a physician dragged into the business?

            1. Of course you take the agency of the patient out of it entirely. The doctor only approves when the patient asks.

              “blur the lines between medicine and intentional killing.”

              You’ve built your premise into the conclusion. Who says medicine is only about saving life? Maybe it’s about fighting pain too.

              “why not hire a self-executioner to cut your head off, poison, you, etc? Why get a physician dragged into the business?”

              Because I want him to and he wants to. What are you going to stop us from this? How are your rights infringed?

              1. “The doctor only approves when the patient *asks*.” [emphasis added]

                I’m not sure you appreciate the dynamics of the situation.

                You’re flat on your back in a hospital bed with a serious illness. A family member, or a budget-conscious member of the hospital staff, “starts a conversation” with you about how – in your own interest, of course – maybe you should consider offing yourself.

                After several “conversations,” you file a request for physician-assisted suicide.

                Which might not have occurred to you if interested persons hadn’t brought it up.

                1. You don’t value human agency. What you’re talking about sounds like the ‘prog’ when they say ‘you can’t get rid of a minimum wage or protections against adhesion contracts or similar things, because if you appreciated the dynamics of the situation you’d see a poor person with hungry kids has it ‘suggested’ to him that he should work for less or sign a contract waiving liability, etc., then you really can’t say no….’

                  Of course, this is all rather coy of you Eddie, and it’s easy to show: if the government got out of all medical decisions tomorrow, and then someone said they should also get out of the business of telling doctors whether they can prescribe medications for patient suicide, you’d oppose it, right? This isn’t about the possibility patients might be pressured ultimately for you.

                  1. Your reading skills make me wonder how you passed the LSAT – heck, make me wonder how you passed the SAT.

                    If you go up to my 7:27 post, you’ll see where I specifically said assisted suicide should *not* be legal.

                    1. I saw that, my question is premised upon it. Why all the talk about the government pressure when that’s not really your problem with this (if that were lifted entirely you’d still oppose it)?

                    2. I mean, if your opposition is rooted in that the doctor works for the government I guess you oppose allowing medical marijuana in places like Canada and Britain? I mean, you’ve got this sick patient, lying on his back. The doctor works for the government, the government makes money off the marijuana sales he might prescribe. Their thumb is on the scale….

                      I mean, it’d just lead to doctors forcing marijuana on poor, vulnerable sick patients…

                    3. “I mean, it’d just lead to doctors forcing marijuana on poor, vulnerable sick patients…”

                      Oh, no, Br’er Fox, don’t throw me in the briar patch!

                    4. What is it with you and your avoidance of analogies and neutral principles? Is it a Catholic thing in general? Comes with transubstanation?

                      If it’s wrong for government doctors to prescribe willing patients drugs which could be used for the patient’s suicide because the patient is sick and vulnerable and the doctors might have incentive and influence to make this less than voluntary, then what in that scenario doesn’t apply with medical marijuana in a place like Canada?

                    5. You’re the one who assigned yourself the task of proving that there should be physician-assisted suicide in Canada.

                      I’m just pointing out that you don’t just have to argue for assisted suicide in general, but must also prove why physicians should be allowed to do it and why physicians in the Canadian health system should be allowed to do it.

                      I can attack you at any point in this chain of reasoning, and I am availing myself of this privilege.

                    6. “you don’t just have to argue for assisted suicide in general, but must also prove why physicians should be allowed to do it and why physicians in the Canadian health system should be allowed to do it.”

                      Silly me, I thought since you were the one arguing to restrict other’s actions/choices you might have the burden of justifying that.

                    7. I think you mean others’ with the apostrophe *after* the word.

                    8. Yes, you’re correct there, others’

          2. One and two are easily met: you own yourself. The doctor owns himself. You have no right to tell me and him what we can do with each other’s consent that affects no one else.

            Should the government be involved? No, but the problem there is they shouldn’t be involved in the medical field at all. Interestingly, you’re not arguing they should be involved less here, but more.

            1. “The doctor owns himself.”

              Under single-payer?

              “Should the government be involved? No, but the problem there is they shouldn’t be involved in the medical field at all. Interestingly, you’re not arguing they should be involved less here, but more.”

              No, it would be great if Canada had a more free-market-oriented medical system.

              So let’s spend some time contemplating alternate-universe Canada, where there’s no nationalized health service.

              Meditate closely as you contemplate this beautiful idea.

              Now return to *our* universe and the actual policy being proposed here.

              1. They have to deal with the government as if there were a single insurer. That’s an immoral and stupid policy, for sure, but it doesn’t mean they can’t have the agency to say yes or no to a patient’s request for this.

                1. I guess I didn’t get the part where physicians should be allowed to be involved in the process.

                  1. Because they own themselves. Who are you to tell them they cannot prescribe these drugs to a willing customer?

                    1. Because, in *this* universe, not the alternate universe where Canada has free-market medicine, the physician is under the thumb of the government?

                    2. In what way is he under the thumb of the government that matters for this question?

                      Of course, again, let’s be clear, you’d be against it if the doctor had no connection to any government. In such a scenario, who are you to tell the contracting parties they cannot so contract and act upon it?

                    3. You have given up proving the second and third propositions, so now you naturally return to the first.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..nt_5077785

                    4. I gave up on the second one because I won that way upthread (you’ve offered no argument at all why doctors specifically should not be allowed to contract in this way, I’ve offered a reason why they should [they own themselves too]). And it’s nice you pulled your link to a comment above dodge, because I addressed your third argument above too.

                    5. You haven’t offered an explanation for why the physician *qua* physician should be in the killing business.

                    6. Everyone is currently prohibited from assisting suicide. I’d like it if any consenting adult were freed from that prohibition.

                      You haven’t offered a reason why the physician should be treated differently because of his profession or whatever. But I think doctors own themselves too, and can buy, sell and trade whatever they want as long as they don’t infringe on another’s rights.

                    7. If you can hire an executioner to off you, why would you need a physician in the first place?

                      In contrast, physicians are held to a higher standard than Joe Blow – they *voluntarily* agreed to follow this higher standard on the job when they became physicians.

                    8. “If you can hire an executioner to off you”

                      You can’t. Once again, it’s illegal for everyone. I think it shouldn’t be. I do think making it legal for anyone is a step in the right direction.

                      “physicians are held to a higher standard than Joe Blow – they *voluntarily* agreed to follow this higher standard on the job when they became physicians.”

                      Why not let them and their patients determine if this is meeting those standards or not?

                    9. You see, this is why answering your questions is a fool’s errand – not only do you ask the same question repeatedly, after I answer you pretend I haven’t answered.

                      I quoted the AMA saying that a physician is “a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so” – but you didn’t like my answer, so you pretended I hadn’t answered at all.

                      So you ask a question, I answer, you pretend I didn’t answer and repeat the question, I answer, you pretend I didn’t, you repeat the question, and you do this over
                      and over
                      and over
                      and over
                      and over
                      and over
                      and over
                      and over
                      and over
                      and over
                      until the Botardation simply overflows.

                    10. That’s a nice try Eddie, but as you can see, I’m not the only one who thought a citation to the AMA on executions was somehow dispositive. You’d like to escape to an easy, middle school-esque dodge now, but it’s pretty transparent in this instance.

                    11. You have given up proving the second and third propositions, so now you naturally return to the first.

                      I would say that Bo has addressed the second proposition you made, but you kept changing the subject to the 3rd and thus deflecting the point he was making.

                    12. OK, how about: Why is it problematic (according to the American Medical Association) for physician to help the state execute a convicted murderer, but not problematic for a physician to kill a putatively suicidal patient?

                      “An individual’s opinion on capital punishment is the personal moral decision of the individual. A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution.”

                      http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pu…..n206.page?

                    13. “Why is it problematic (according to the American Medical Association) for physician to help the state execute a convicted murderer, but not problematic for a physician to kill a putatively suicidal patient?”

                      Uhhh, consent is present in one and not the other?

                    14. They allow the physician to make the “personal moral decision” to support capital punishment. But they can’t help an execution in their professional capacity.

                      As to voluntariness, a physician doesn’t have the job to assist in every form of voluntary activity, just medical-related activity, and where does suicide fit in there?

                    15. The doctor’s not required to assist, he’s just not punished if he chooses to do so. Why should he be punished if he does, Eddie?

                    16. Because he agreed that he would practice medicine, and medicine doesn’t involve killing?

                    17. “and medicine doesn’t involve killing?”

                      Says who? Why isn’t it up to the doctor and his willing patient to decide what the practice of medicine entails?

                    18. I don’t speak for the AMA and I am not answerable for their peccadillos.

                      I do think you are correct that all 3 propositions must be addressed in the context given, but if the context is changed such that the government is not the payer, then the case against assisted suicide being legal is nonexistent from a libertarian standpoint.

                    19. Then maybe that’s why I’m not a full-on libertarian (never claimed to be).

                    20. I never said you were.

                      Yet surely you can expect that libertarians are not going to budge on something we consider as fundamental as the self-ownership principle.

                      So where do you hope to go with this discussion?

                      Besides fucking with Bo, of course.

                    21. He was hoping to convert us with the whole ‘but remember this is government doctors in Canada’ argument, one he doesn’t rest on himself but thought might be good enough for us poor, libertarian saps.

                    22. “So where do you hope to go with this discussion?

                      “Besides fucking with Bo, of course.”

                      Wait, I need a *second* reason?

                    23. I’m not even sure the government being the payer necessarily shoots this down. As long as the patient and doctor has the ability to say no, the fact that the government might ‘pressure’ someone in the same sense a private insurer, family member, or just dire straights might isn’t obviously a deal killer to me, any more than we should oppose allowing medical marijuana to be prescribed by government doctors.

                    24. I understand. Legal suicide in Canada is completely related to legal cannabis in DC.

  7. Speaking of drug regulation. I just went back and saw Agile Cyborg shit all over the East Germany thread.

    A good friend of mine had a schizophrenic break a few years back and wrote a bunch of just off the wall shit all over Facebook. At first it was funny speculating what drugs he was on or how smashed he was, then word of the diagnosis and temporary involuntary commitment got around and rereading the posts wasn’t so funny anymore – sad, really. Reminded me a lot of that and I’m a little worried about the guy (gal?).

    1. Yes, especially since he posted something about an emergency-room visit.

    2. Schizophrenic breaks usually occur in the early 20s. Any idea how old he/she is?

      1. Mathematically, at least in his forties. I recall him saying he’s retired after 25 years in business.

  8. As a formerly devoit, Evangelical Christian, I never understood this type of reasoning. Even then, I thought of those arguments in these terms:

    (1) There’s a bit of a debate about something called the Age of Accountability. Most Protestant denominations teach that children will be sparred from Hell if they die before reaching the age/point when they knowingly commit sins. The age is flexible depending on certain factors.

    Cathloics tend to fall under the Original Sin starting with conception. That means you’re damming a zygote to an eternity of punishment….(continued)….

    1. Nonsense. catholic dogma presumes a person to be innocent until age 7. It’s only a relatively recent event that the church started baptizing infants less than 20 days old. Being murdered is not a mortal sin.

      FYI I’m a recovering catholic. I don’t consider an elective abortion of a fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb to be murder but the catholic church does.

      Don’t you remember the story of the holy innocents? The jews call it passover.

  9. Either way, they view it as killing a human with a soul and therefore murder. If the either are are right, then that’s a truly sick god. Both put the burden of salvation on people never given the chase at it. (Protestants) the poor bastards who live and die without being exposed to Christianity, and (Catholics) them, and babies/fetuses.

    I get why they believe abortion is evil, but so is they’re god…..(continued)….

  10. (2) Prostitutes will be prostitutes if it’s legal or not. When they get abused and humiliated it’s because they have no legal recourse against it. Making it legal would at least give them the power to end such behavior towards them and improve their lives. Any good Christian should hate the sin, love the sinner. And certainly not make their lives worse when their actions don’t effect you. Do on to others….continued…

    1. Did you know that St. Nicholas AKA Santa Clause is the patron saint of prostitutes? Can you believe that parents allow this pervert to sneak into their homes in the dead of night to ply their children with toys and candy?”

  11. (3) I see why they believe assisted suicide is evil. Suicide is the only unforgivable sin. Mix it murder and yes, very evil in their eyes. On the flip side, anyone willing to kill themselves is probably a devoit Christian. I’m sure they’re exceptions, but generally, no. So they would in all likely go to Hell anyway. As for the doctor, outside of the Hippocratic Oath, it’s a mercy killing. You’re basically relieving the person who’s dying from damnation. It’s a loophole, yes, but there are numurous examples of in western history.

    Basically, Christianity should stay a personal issue of atonement and salvation. Imposing it on people through state force just causes unnecessary suffering.

    Sorry. I haven’t had a religious rant in a while. Thanks for the opportunity and feel free to rip apart my half-ass logic. I encourage it.

    1. If you permit me, I’ll address myself to your Erasmian side – more fun to talk to than your Lutheran side, I would guess.

      Beginning with children who die before the age of accountability, there has been some dispute among Catholics, some allowing for the possibility of heaven in some cases, others saying all go to Limbo – no torment, but no union with God either. As the current Pope reminds us, we can even hope for the slavation of some atheists – so maybe for the unborn as well.

      Re prostitution – some jurisdictions allow it, some not – sometimes the Popes themselves legalized it in Rome, sometimes not. I wouldn’t see it as a libertarian issue because whoever patronizes a prostitute is usually betraying a spouse – so much for consenting adults!

      1. I have some familiarity with suicide and the harm it does – the Church (at least in the US) generally gives a Christian funeral for suicides nowadays based on the idea that they had some mental illness which precluded full moral responsibility (see Ophelia in Hamlet).

      2. “I wouldn’t see it as a libertarian issue because whoever patronizes a prostitute is usually betraying a spouse – so much for consenting adults!”

        Wait, what?

          1. I mean, I gotta hear more on this. Is it your contention prostitution between a willing prostitute and a willing john is not a libertarian matter because if the john is married and has made vow to their spouse, the spouse or the john or something hasn’t really consented?

            1. Perhaps you could look up the comment threads where I’ve already discussed this.

              1. Certainly you’re capable of repeating yourself (in fact, I know you can too well).

                Don’t hide your light under a bushel, Eddie.

                1. Yes, that is a fire hazard. Thanks Fire Marshal Bo!

                2. Which of my comments in the earlier threads were unclear to you?

                  1. I’m sorry to say I have not read the collected works of Eddie van Heuelin. So why not just explain it again? You’ve already spent as much time talking about other things.

                    1. I had much rather spend my time mocking your retarded questions than answering them.

                      Especially if I’ve answered them before.

                    2. Now you sulk back to insults…

                      It’s a bit aspergers to say ‘I’ve talked about this before, if you can’t go back and read my ideas on this I can’t be bothered to restate them,’ especially when you broached the subject in the first place.

                    3. Watch me decisively win this argument:

                      http://xkcd.com/1081/

                    4. No one clicks on those Eddie, they just see your tail tucked between your legs as you run the other way. I’m afraid your Bishop has failed you when he suggested this as a response tactic when you’re frustrated.

                    5. Eh, Aspies would explain it all in painful detail, again

      3. I wouldn’t see it as a libertarian issue because whoever patronizes a prostitute is usually betraying a spouse – so much for consenting adults!

        The aggrieved spouse is not a party to the adultery, but rather to the marriage. Likewise, the prostitute is not a party to the marriage, only to the adultery. It is the cheating spouse and him (or her) alone who is at the intersection of both arrangements.

        The only way to make what you say true is to have spouses own each other. Generally speaking, the courts do not uphold such arrangements, regardless of vows exchanged. I think you can make the libertarian case for making spousal ownership legal; but, as it stands, the husband and wife are independent agents in the eyes of the law and so your reasoning relies on an invalid premise.

        1. It’s a completely ludicrous argument, but it’s interesting in how it’s insightful into the dark places some social conservatives ideas take them. Note that the logic re: prostitution would apply to adultery (more so actually, because by definition there’s a spouse being betrayed there). I guess that’s not a libertarian issue…

          1. Note that the logic re: prostitution would apply to adultery (more so actually, because by definition there’s a spouse being betrayed there).

            I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that GKC was well aware of that fact and meant exactly what he said.

            Of course, not all prostitution is adulterous; there are plenty of unmarried people patronizing prostitutes and they are only fornicating.

            I don’t think it’s ludicrous, but I do think it would be quite a radical change from our current legal system to have spouses actually owning each other. Again, not unlibertarian per se, but still quite foreign.

            1. We used to actually have law against not only prostitution but adultery too. I guess I do see that kind of thing as unlibertarian per se.

              “Of course, not all prostitution is adulterous; there are plenty of unmarried people patronizing prostitutes and they are only fornicating.”

              That’s what I was getting at when I said “the logic re: prostitution would apply to adultery (more so actually, because by definition there’s a spouse being betrayed there).”

              1. I think that, if you own yourself, you can transfer some or all of that ownership to another, just like with any other form of ownership. Thus things like indentured servitude and chattel marriage can exist in libertarian societies.

                However, the role of the state (as always) must be kept very circumspect to avoid it using such institutions to coerce the people.

            2. Private contractual issue, no need for the state.

        2. And ultimately there is a response to a spouse failing a contractual obligation of remaining fateful.

          It’s called divorce.

      4. because whoever patronizes a prostitute is usually betraying a spouse

        That’s quite the assumption there. Or are marriage rates among (but not between!) sailors on shore leave higher than I thought.

        1. Yeah, I’ve heard enough Howard Stern shows to know there’s plenty of guys who had the bad luck to end up social disasters that couldn’t get any, no matter how hard they tried. For these people, the sex-for-pay market is their only hope.

  12. OT: I am so jealous of people that get to live next to active volcanoes.

    http://www.reuters.com/news/pi…..USRTR4OU50

    1. Jealous of the Pompeiians?

      1. Why? They were a bunch of ashholes.

        1. The Nucerians would agree.

      2. He’s from Alberta. He’s jealous of the weather in volcanoey regions.

    2. That’s a great picture. I’ve been to that volcano and stayed at nearby Lake Toba, it’s a beautiful area.

  13. Damn why so few comments? I thought Reason was filled with hedonist, libertine vulgarians? I am teh disappoint. What would Agile Cyborg say?

    1. “What would Agile Cyborg say?”
      Not sure, buy I am sure he’d have a LOT to say about it. Or pretty much anything.

    2. Don’t worry, there’s still Eddie and Bo

    1. From the linked article:
      “The immense awkwardness that is Heidegger’s Nazi affiliation is always quite a thing to behold. The simple fact of the matter is that, in terms of influence and also perhaps quality, Heidegger is a giant of 20th century philosophy, and one whose influence was felt primarily on the “Left.” The fact that a man who exercised such a tremendous influence on postmodern and progressive philosophy was also a Hitler supporter obviously raises eyebrows.”…

      I’m sure there are people who are surprised at this, but they are poorly educated, self- or otherwise.
      Richard Pipes’ books, Judt in “Post War” and “Wages of Destruction” by Tooze make it blazingly clear that National Socialism differed from the Commie ratten in Russia only in that they intended not to export the socialism. Hell, even that lefty Figes states as much, while he scours the record for hairs to split.
      And he was an anti-semite? You mean like Stalin? Oh, and like that guy Hitler who murdered far fewer.
      The left is in constant denial of this, and it gets tiring repeating the obvious history involved.

      1. well, he was a boozy beggar, who could drink you under the table

  14. I’m sorry that I wasted time on this thread.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.