DeSantis Frets About Florida 'Reeking of Marijuana,' Says He'll Oppose Legalization
Once again, DeSantis is a guy who claims to love freedom—until he disagrees with the choices some adults make.

There may not be a more apt visual metaphor for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' past few years than his opposition to a proposed marijuana legalization ballot initiative—which he announced Tuesday while literally standing behind a sign celebrating "Freedom Month."
"I don't want this state to be reeking of marijuana," DeSantis said, defaulting to one of the laziest arguments against pot freedom, but one that DeSantis has been using for years. "We're doing fine. We don't need to do that."
How's that for Freedom Month?
In fairness to DeSantis, the jarringly dissonant signage was celebrating the state's sales tax holiday during May. Even so, the gap between DeSantis' pro-freedom messaging and his actions as governor has become a recurring theme for the one-time presidential hopeful.
After all, this is the same guy who wrote a book titled The Courage To Be Free, but has made a name for himself in conservative politics by wielding state power against drag queens, student groups, and others who have had the courage to freely express their opinions. On the presidential campaign trail, DeSantis would talk up the importance of school choice and parental rights, then moments later promise stricter state control over school curriculums. He's championed Florida's status as a refuge for Americans fleeing poor government policies in other states, even as he's tried to boot out migrants who are voting with their feet by coming to America for the same reason.
Freedom, for DeSantis, seems to mean that you can do whatever you'd please—but only if he approves.
It's disappointing, but hardly surprising, that DeSantis is applying that same logic to marijuana legalization. Florida residents might get a chance to vote on legalizing recreational weed in November, but DeSantis promised Tuesday that he would be "getting involved in different ways" to combat that ballot initiative. It's unclear exactly what DeSantis means, but State Attorney General Ashley Moody and some anti-legalization groups have already sued in state court to block the initiative from getting on the ballot.
The ballot initiative, Florida Amendment 3, would change the state's constitution to allow adults aged 21 and older to possess up to three ounces of marijuana. Existing licensed medical marijuana distribution centers—Florida voters approved medical marijuana in 2016—would be the only places allowed to distribute recreational weed, although state lawmakers could pass new laws to allow for commercial distribution and home growing.
As Marijuana Moment notes, economic analyses of the ballot initiative show that legalization would be a boon for Florida and could generate between $195.6 million and $431.3 million in new sales tax revenue annually.
Greater freedom for Floridians and higher tax revenue seem to matter less to DeSantis than the possibility that some of the state's residents might dislike the smell of reefer. "You want to walk down the street here and smell it," he asked, rhetorically, on Tuesday. "Do you want to not be able to take your family out to dinner because you're worried about it?"
If that's the best argument that the opponents of legalization in Florida can muster, there might be little cause for concern. Even so, having the (admittedly quite popular) governor campaigning against legalization figures to be a factor in the election.
Voters seem to be split on the legalization issue: A poll taken last month by USA Today and Ipsos showed 49 percent of Floridians support the ballot initiative—including 38 percent of registered Republicans. That's well short of the 60 percent threshold required for the amendment to pass.
What DeSantis does as Florida's governor will continue to carry national implications, not solely because he remains one of the most well-known Republican politicians in the country. He's reportedly seeking to patch up his relationship with former President Donald Trump—the two had dinner this week, according to The Washington Post—and may have a role to play in a future Trump administration, or as a Republican presidential candidate in 2028.
By then, maybe he'll have gotten over his fear of the smell of weed.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
>Once again, DeSantis is a guy who claims to love freedom—until he disagrees with the choices some adults make.
Like Biden? And Obama? And Clinton? Like every single candidate that Reason has, over the years, suggested we 'reluctantly, but strategically' vote for?
Again -
1. Articles bashing DeSantis - he's not running for President, save it for 2028.
2. Articles about why we should hate a politician - no articles about why we should support Reason's preferred candidates.
FloridaOrangeManBad
I always got a chuckle out of "Oranges man bad!"
Oranges Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!
We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!
These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!
I was going to make a sarcastic post saying that it’s ok because Democrats did it first and that only leftists criticize Republicans, but you beat me to it.
Whut else IS there but left-looters and right-looters? Looters who wish libertarian spoiler votes would go away--like in Australia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil?
The libertarian vote isn’t threatening to spoil anything these days,you senile old fuck. The ‘spoiler votes’ this time come from the extreme far left. Which will put those girl bullying members of the ‘gee oh pee’ back in charge.
DeSantis killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden with his asinine Covid policies…all praise to Allah!!
Hmmm, what are the chances that whataboutism will rear its head in an article about DeSantis....looks at comments...100%
I can tell you, you can't smoke (tobacco) in my building, but the tenants who smoke weed are apparently exempt. And it does reek.
They aren’t exempt, they just act like they are.
I would expect that to change with full legalization. When it's actually against the law, you can't really stop it because the only two options you have are to ignore it or to call the cops and have your tenants arrested.
Once it's legal, an owner can just say "no smoking. Of anything."
And smoking cannabis isn’t necessary to use it. Just vape it or take edibles. No smell at all.
When I signed the lease at my last apartment they went out of their way to say despite weed being legal you couldn’t smoke inside. I would only smoke weed or tobacco on my balcony because I don’t want my place smelling like weed, but most of my neighbors smoked weed inside and you couldn’t tell.
This was a newer building. I imagine in older buildings the ventilation wouldn’t be as good. If I did smoke inside and it bothered my neighbors I would knock it off, but I realize most stoners aren’t as courteous to their neighbors.
Exhale your pot-smoke into a wet towel, preferably wetted with perfumed (scented) water. It works wonders! I should know... I have, um, HEARD shit from military folks serving in tight quarters!!!
(Saying shit, for some fiends that I know!)
A clear no-smoking policy prohibits all forms of smoking, including smoking marijuana for medical reasons. A landlord who has included a no-smoking policy in a lease or rental agreement can terminate the tenancy of or evict a tenant who smokes.
My favorite is when you can smell it in places where you aren't allowed to vape... anything.
Forget menthol nicotine vapes, plain old mint oil is a no-go even if just to cover up the weed.
It feels a lot like ENB's "Can you believe they want to license porn online to prevent it from being put into minor's hands? That's legally and logistically unpossible!" idiocy.
Drop off an empty paper towel roll and some dryer sheets for them, maybe they'll use them?
They arent exempt. They just don't care.
We did a weed tourism trip to Colorado and I checked ahead on the rules at hotels and such. Its not allowed to smoke weed in a hotel or motel in Colorado anymore than it is legal to smoke cigarettes.
Oddly you can't smoke tobacco I a weed shop even if you can smoke weed there. Even if you are the designated driver. Weird.
In Amsterdam in the 1990s you would smoke weed with tobacco…the guy I was with hated it because he didn’t smoke cigarettes.
Yeah, I learned that trick from a Brit. I rolled my own Drum tobacco and he did the same, we met because he grabbed my tobacco and thought it was his. Then he taught me the weed plus tobacco mix. I liked it. At that point strait weed was just putting me to sleep. The mix gave me the high but didn't make me fall asleep.
You're equating skunk weed with pedophiles?
Eric, ask yourself: why do drag queens insist more than anything on the right to read to little children in libraries, and to parade down main street with everyone else? Strippers don't do that, and you've never campaigned for their right to do so.
Eric, you're an idiot.
At what velocity to the pearls explode from between your clenched fingers when someone says "drag queen"?
I bet those fuckers break the sound barrier when his pearls pop.
Hey Drunky, why are you obsessed with Drag Queens interacting with small children?
Fucking punk ass pussy.
Why does it bother you much? Parents have allowed those children to go. While I wouldn't let my child, if I had one young enough for a story time, go to such an event I don't presume to tell others how to parent.
I take it you think you know how other people should parent their kids.
Uh huh. Its ok. About as ok as taking children to strip clubs.
If a parents wants to do that then who are you to stop them? I'm not saying I would do it, but then I wouldn't drag a child to church either. But then I don't claim to know what's best for everyone. That's what you do.
why do drag queens insist more than anything on the right to read to little children in libraries
Are you sure it's the drag queens doing the insisting rather than the progressives who have adopted them as mascots?
The drag queens just do it because his face gets all puffy and red when he hears about it.
If the Rebuplicans didn't have hissy fits the drag queens wouldn't waste their time.
Huh. Makes you a Republican then, I see.
What are you smoking and where can I get some.
So let me see if I have this straight. Drag Queens didn't obsess over small children until after Republicans didn't like it so there weren't any Drag Queen story hours until after Republicans ... wait, something doesn't add up here.
No. They did it because it WOULD piss you off. If you hadn't of reacted so predictably they would have stopped.
Maybe they are Republican actors hired to stir up the congenital acephalic vote for Grabber Of Pussy. What have Republicans got to offer but screeches and armed coercion?
I've wondered about that. They aren't above doing exactly that. But I think it is organic. Drag queens getting pissed at the right and looking for ways to turn the tables makes more sense.
I have flipped on this issue, which is very un-libertarian of me, but I'd rather be right than the right label.
For 40 years I supported full drug legalization, with MJ on the front edge.
Now that MJ is basically legal everywhere, with others to follow, the results of that culture shift are basically what the Mike Pence's of the world always said they would be.
(Minor) whole areas of town (St. Louis) reek of marijuana odor. Literally you can smell it driving down the streets with no source in sight. Not skunks.
(Major) I watch both my kids and all their friends literally unable to go through a day without it. Not just recreationally or at parties. Just to function. I don't think the rise of "muh anxietyyyyyy" is unrelated at all. I don't know which is the chicken and which is the egg, but the diagnosis of "anxiety" and the remedy of MJ to take the edge off your anxiety, are a definite and observed doom loop.
I'm ag'in it now. Always swimming against the tide, now that the tide has shifted.
Did you know that doctors prescribed alcohol during Prohibition? I shit you not. Are there any medical uses for alcohol? None that I know of. I don't think medical MJ is much different. Treat it like alcohol instead of both sides pretending it is something that it is not.
Alcohol use certainly hasn’t affected your life in a negative way.
Family lore says that my great grandfather, who was a T-totaler and never drank, had a prescription for brandy from his doctor when he was older to help him sleep. Which he kept in the medicine cabinet and took the precise prescribed dose before bed.
My family was on the other side of prohibition. We always seem to wind up against the Revenuers.
True. The Volstead act regulated gin scrips and bonded warehouses for ethanol. When was the last time anyone here saw the actual text of that dry law? Volstead replaces Constitution: (https://bit.ly/3F7rH3k)
"Are there any medical uses for alcohol?" Well, yes numerous, as disinfectant, though it is not as important as it used to be. (yes, I know what you meant :o) )
(Minor) whole areas of town (St. Louis) reek of marijuana odor.
Whole areas of any major city smell nasty, full stop. Why is smelling someone's weed worse than smelling their cigarettes or other random foul odors one inevitably encounters in a city?
I watch both my kids and all their friends literally unable to go through a day without it. Not just recreationally or at parties. Just to function.
I don't think this is related. Weed has been legal in CA my daughter's whole life and she and her friends have 0 interest. Outlawing weed isn't going to fix kids' anxiety issues.
Outlawing weed isn’t going to fix kids’ anxiety issues.
Actually makes it worse, because they have to worry about getting busted.
Getting high makes one paranoid in any case. And not because it is illegal, but because it speeds up the heart rate and increases uncertainty.
For some people and probably weed strain dependent. I've never experienced paranoia from weed besides aforementioned getting busted.
Sounds like advice he got from Reefer Madness.
I’ve never experienced paranoia from weed besides aforementioned getting busted.
Yeah - it used to make me paranoid back when it was illegal and I was a renter, but strangely ever since legalization and home ownership it's never a problem.
One of my favorite one-liners from the early '90s -
"Dude - is that cop still following us?"
"Yeah - but now he's in a truck."
Ah, Reefer Madness and DARE strike again.
I pass out when I smoke weed. I get some of the best sleep ever from a couple of tokes. Never got any paranoia or racing heart beat. That sounds like someone on too much caffeine.
I watch both my kids and all their friends literally unable to go through a day without it.
That happened plenty before legalization (though I’d question “unable”, it’s more “unwilling”). Young people were just less open about it. All my friends were the same way back in the dim dark ages of the 1990s. Though we didn't feel the need to justify it with some crap about anxiety. We mostly just wanted to get stoned (though I did find it was a great cure for my lifelong insomnia problems).
We had “burnouts” back in the 70’s, and they weren’t called that because they had demanding careers. I’m sure they turned out fine.
Most of those people were going to find some way or other to be losers. I certainly know people like that. I also know a lot of people (including myself) who are lifelong frequent pot smokers who are quite successful and hard working.
No argument from me.
I watch both my kids and all their friends literally unable to go through a day without it.
Probably poor parenting. (joking)
Is it affecting their lives negatively? Because it is pretty fun, but benign. Most users don't let it negatively affect their lives. most also "mature out" once their careers and families take off.
Would you prefer your kids arrested though?
I'd say it is a case of piss poor parenting and not be joking.
As usual lazy parents want the government to do the hard work of parenting.
So turn in your kids and their friends to the feds so they can spend years in prison. If you don't do that but don't support legalization you are a hypocrite.
No one goes to prison (for example) for working in a strip club or going to a strip club. Yet it's not societally accepted in the sense that they're hardly anywhere and an extremely low percentage of the population partakes either as buyer or seller.
I would want weed to be societally unacceptable in the same way. And virtually non-existent. But not prison for doing it.
Seriously? An extremely low percentage of people take part?
Porn and strip clubs are like professional wrestling. It's incredibly popular but few people admit to partaking.
My issue is with 'the soma effect'. We certainly weren't perfect without or before and it's not strictly causal, but correlated with increased legalization of MJ, MDMA, shrooms, etc. seems to be a distinct "Borders are just, like, imaginary social constructs, man!" and "There are 52 genders but, when you really think about it, men and women are really the same." and "I'm fat on the outside, but I'm thin on the inside, and in my mind, and that give me power to defy expectations. And my power to defy expectations makes me beautiful to everyone! That makes us all beautiful to each other!"
Even fairly intelligent and critical people will watch the "moot point"/"no standing" two-step happen, after they watched Russiagate happen, after an ex-President's home got raided for documents that were so classified the FBI didn't even know what they were looking for and then turn around and say things like "If the side that wants Trump to be President wants to kick immigrants out of the country, they should be more clear about passing a law to do so." Leaving it up to the rest of us to determine (generously) if they're stoned out of their gourd and don't grasp the fact that it's not about kicking people out of the country as much as it is about property rights, equality between natives and immigrants, balancing welfare with the border control, etc.... if they've just retarded themselves back to radical progressive IQ levels otherwise... or if it's a combination of the two (or other).
Obviously
Better than smelling of shit like San Francisco.
Hell, Belle Fourche smells like molasses lick tubs. So does Whitewood, but theirs smell better.
Agree. 26 year old neighbor of mine toked up 10-12 times a day and did not nothing but play video games and live off his dad's money. He had a neuroscience degree from Northeastern too. He said weed robbed him of all ambition in life and wish he had not started.
Raise a hand if you believe everything anonymous faith-based GOP sockpuppets belch.
Hmmm... I guess every city must have that exact guy living in it because I hear about him all the time on forums all over the internet.
How original! The "when I was a child I favored freedom, but I'm senile now and over it" meme. That argumentum ad senectutis was a YAF fave in the Reagan Campaign!
Big thumbs up for this opinion, Think It Through. I thought I was alone, and was prepared to be kicked out of the libertarian club.
You won't be thrown out, but I do wonder why you would stay. It's not like you're going to vote for Libertarian candidates which is the reason to have a political party.
De Santis likes Freedom the way Mussolini did.
Why are so many people moving to Florida?
As long as you share his ideology you have lots of freedom. Disagree and his police who have learned special techniques from the Israeli Army will fuck you up.
Bush and Duce, faith-based executive orders... (http://bit.ly/3JfGFYL)
Ok, now do Kathy Hochul or Gavin Newsome.
DeSantis was in the military. Many ex-military people liked the regimentation and very well-defined rules. I think he will get over this if he ever looks into it thoroughly. But maybe he knew a guy or two who threw their lives away for weed and it scared him.
Yep, quite the dummy.
Yale magna cum laude.
Attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 2005 with a Juris Doctor, cum laude.
In 2004, during his second year at Harvard Law, DeSantis was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Navy and assigned to the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG). He completed Naval Justice School in 2005.
In the spring of 2006, DeSantis arrived at Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
In 2007, DeSantis reported to the Naval Special Warfare Command Group in Coronado, California, where he was assigned as a legal adviser to SEAL Team One.
Deployed to Iraq in the fall of 2007 as part of the troop surge.
He was a Navy Officer with the JAG office? Jesus, that's not being in the Military. He had it softer than the Air Force.
Also, dude was a direct commission - most of them can barely get their uniform on correctly. They're hired for their specialty, not military bearing.
If you think the military is regimented and with well-defined rules, you've never been in the military.
It's not 'full metal jacket'.
If you don't like my fire
Then don't come around
Some might say if you don't like my gun in your face, don't put the smell of your weed in my face.
So now you're an environmentalist who wants his air to be free of any contaminants that might create an olfactory sensation?
Its a song. Light one up, Francis.
It’s not “fear”. For pete’s sake, is that the only argument the Marxist left has when normal, reasonable, rational people are opposed to their policies? A person is only against something when they’re afraid of it?
Guess what – most people, especially those of us who aren’t pothead addicts – hate the smell of weed smoke. It’s pungent, pervasive, and immediately recognizable. Just like cigarette smoke, excessive perfume, or body/pet odor – as soon as the senses are assaulted with it, it triggers a pull of the face that is simple disgust.
But of course, the smell isn’t a basis for outlawing it (no, not even when you pretend that “secondhand” exposure is somehow “dangerous”)– nor is that the argument DeSantis is making. But you already you know that. You choose, however, to frame it through that narrative just the same, because that’s easier to ridicule/dismiss than the ACTUAL argument).
When he says, “I don’t want this state to be reeking of marijuana,” he’s not complaining about smell. He’s complaining about the cultural degeneracy. Where you strain to see hypocrisy with him, there is in fact extreme consistency: degenerate drug addicts, degenerate sex perverts (or sex workers), degenerate materials in schools intentionally exposed to children, degenerate anti-American border jumping handout dependent criminals who claim to flee persecution but then want the same degenerate culture here that they fled from.
Ron DeSantis recognizes – correctly – that cultural (and particularly American cultural) degeneracy is a bad thing. It’s a bad thing individually, and for a community. It’s a bad thing locally, at the state/federal, and at the global level. And he, like the Founders, understood and appreciated that the Freedom guaranteed by government should not come at the expense of Morality (or even Decency); that liberty is not the same as unbridled hedonism. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Because they recognized that a society that cannot maintain temperance will quickly decline when vice is revered and defended more than virtue under the color of “freedom.”
The United States of America and its Constitution was NOT made for the purpose of creating tent cities and wandering derelicts who have condemned themselves to regularly chasing a drug-induced stupor. DeSantis gets that.
Why don’t you?
He’s complaining about the cultural degeneracy.
And that's supposed to be better? This is your defense of him?
The governor can opine about other people's personal choices all he wants. If he wants to use the force of government to combat some nebulous "degeneracy" he can fuck right off - that's not how we do things here.
Why do you find the notion of degeneracy "nebulous?"
Here, I'll make it even simpler: tell me the redeeming aspects of drug abuse/addiction.
Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol(I enjoy both). Do you think alcohol should be illegal?
I know plenty of people who do drugs and are able to live productive, fulfilling lives. I’ll take someone like that that over someone like you who believes pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing. Or how you want to invade Iran and kill Iranians and steal their oil.
Why are you even on this website? You’re a social conservative. You’re not a libertarian. I’m not a libertarian, but I care about civil liberties. You don’t seem to care about those either…
Man, you sure like to try and conflate issues to avoid answering what would be a very simple question if your position had any merit whatsoever.
A redeeming aspect of drugs is they are fun to do. Some people go overboard, but the vast majority don’t and should be free to put whatever they want in their own bodies.
It’s fun to drive 120mph on the freeway. And it’s an utterly harmless action.
But we don’t legalize that, because we know that the risk of harm (catastrophic harm, at that) far outweighs whatever “fun” benefit we’re claiming for it.
The same is true for drugs. A single glance at the blue city drug cesspools is evidence enough of that. Your claim that YOU can handle it does not outweigh the tens of thousands who clearly can’t – and, with their failure, the degenerative rot it’s brought to countless communities.
Driving 120 mph is endangering others. Doing whatever drugs I choose in the privacy of my own home is not endangering others. Because they are illegal, procuring drugs may have unintended consequences, but with legalization we could mostly eliminate that. If I grow my own weed in my home and smoke it at home I’m not bothering anyone.
I don’t know if you’re religious or not. I assume you are, but I apologize if you aren’t. By your logic because of Religion potentially causing harm(the Crusades, inquisitions, institutional sex abuse) we should make religion illegal because some people use it for nefarious things.
I live in a blue area and the drug problem can be annoying, but I still will take the minor inconvenience of it to not have my liberties further restricted.
Driving 120 mph is endangering others.
No it's not. I know you want to pretend it is, for the explicit purpose of distinguishing it from drug use, but it's actually not. You might not like it, but Speed Racer is in no way depriving you of your rights when he whips past you in the Mach 5. You might not like his behavior - it might even scare you. But that is not the same as a rights deprivation.
Doing whatever drugs I choose in the privacy of my own home is not endangering others.
Well, here's the problem - when large numbers of people start to do 120mph with a reckless abandon and the consequences of that become manifest, then we see a social problem with that behavior. The activity that is harmless in and of itself, when unbridled causes a social harm that is far greater than whatever benefit one would claim in demanding the freedom (if not the right) to do so.
And we don't need to imagine the consequences when it comes to drug use. We already KNOW them. Or, maybe you think tent cities, wandering addicts, increases in crime, and declining property values is a good thing?
If I grow my own weed in my home and smoke it at home I’m not bothering anyone.
Problem is, you're the extreme minority when it comes to drug (ab)users. I can be trusted to own and maintain a nuclear warhead complete with launching platform - but I get why the State still doesn't allow it. It's ultimately a cost/benefit risk analysis. There's no way to carve out an exception for me with that that could be equally applied across the board.
Or for you with your thing. Not one that doesn't ultimately result in tent cities, wandering derelicts, and crime. Which we know it does.
I assume you are, but I apologize if you aren’t.
OK, side discussion for a moment - why would you apologize if I wasn't? It's not an insult to assume someone has a belief in the objectively Good, True, Right, and Beautiful. It's an insult to assume that they don't. And if one TOOK that as an insult, because they're against the Good, True, Right, and Beautiful - it pretty much tells you everything you'd ever need to know about them. I always try to assume the best of people, until they illustrate otherwise. You need not apologize for doing the same to me.
You should, as a rule, assume that ALL people are religious people - if for no other reason than the hope that they stand for the objectively Good, True, Right, and Beautiful. It's only when you run into wantonly intentional openly advertised deviants and predators (such as, try not to lose your mind, the LGBT) where there's no valid basis for that assumption. And then, there's nothing about them that warrants apology.
By your logic because of Religion potentially causing harm(the Crusades, inquisitions, institutional sex abuse) we should make religion illegal because some people use it for nefarious things.
That's not my logic. It might be yours, but I've advanced no such argument. (It's also quite telling that you only mention harmful events commonly associated with Christianity. As opposed to the far more egregious and far more damaging religions of Islam, Environmentalism, and LGBT. There may be a bigotry in play there, no?)
Also, religion is explicitly protected by 1A. Unlike drugs.
I live in a blue area and the drug problem can be annoying
Define: "annoying."
But I'm glad you're at least admitting that there's a problem inherent to what you're trying to defend.
Then go to a small airport and ask permission to drive fast on their runways. As long as a plane isn't due then it's fine by the most of the time. Also some cities do Beat the Heat nights where you can drag race against the street rods the cops make. That's legal. You can drive as fast as you want on private property that you own.
So do it. Stop bugging others about their hobbies
I don't want to do it on a runway. I want to do it on my way to work. It's harmless. Leave me alone.
Ok, then do it. People speed all the time and don't cause accidents. I had a Corvete blow past me at 145 mph when I was doing 75. Twice. I met up with him at a gas station after he got pulled over. He was in control and not endangering anyone. He paid his ticket and everyone was happy.
Go ahead. Get your rocks off. Fuck it, drink a bottle of vodka before you speed. Just keep in mind if you kill somebody then you will be put under the prison if their family doesn't blow your head off first.
Why should he get a ticket? Again, he’s not harming anyone.
Remember, this is your argument at work here. Harmless action that you don't like, but doesn’t affect the rights of others. Until it does.
So anything that you can't find any redeaming features about should be illegal. Sounds like a typical Republican.
It'd be one thing if it simply had no redeeming features. But that's not even the case here, as it has entirely destructive features with literally no upside whatsoever to contribute to any kind of cost/benefit analysis that might justify its legality.
Spewing Republican talking points as usual. I know a number of young adults who use weed. One of them is the hardest working kid I've ever met. He's in his early 20s and has built up his own cattle ranching business. Another did the right thing when he knocked up his girlfriend and is going to trade school. There are a number of them who are attending the School of Mines in Rapid City and getting degrees in all manner of engineering. Getting good grades and on track to graduate.
Weed isn't the problem. It's parents raising worthless kids. They'd be worthless on booze if they couldn't get weed.
Good for them. Now tell me about this guy:
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/homeless-san-francisco.jpg
(Yea, just pick one at random.)
Weed isn’t the problem. It’s parents raising worthless kids.
Cool. Let's lock up the parents of any person that uses drugs at any point in their life. Obviously their parents failed them, and something should be done about it. If we stop them, we stop the drug use.
Is that acceptable to you?
No? That doesn't make any sense at all? And would be patently unconstitutional?
Then we should probably just go after the drugs themselves.
Stop being intentionally moronic please.
Look, if you're going to be a tyrannical fuck then just be a tyrannical fuck. Stop pretending that you support individual liberty and admit you only support the liberties that you want to engage in.
Weird that you didn't tell me about any drug-addled degenerate from that photo. Like, you intentionally avoided that or something.
Nor did you further your argument about jailing parents who produce drug using children. Are you abandoning that argument, and coming back around to the fact that the drugs are the problem? (It's OK if you are, I sure would.)
Unlike an arrogant prick like you I dont think I know how everyone needs to live their lives.
I also don't think I said we should jail the parents of fuckups. Having fuckups is enough of a punishment for screwing up your kids.
Language.
Maybe that's the problem you have. Now I'm starting to think you don't understand life at a fundamental level. Because there is a Right and a Wrong way to live ones life. For instance, if you grab onto something clearly marked "High Voltage" with bare hands, you will quickly discover that is NOT conducive to living.
Therefore, we say don't do that. You need to not do that to live your lives. Can you choose to ignore that? Sure. Free will. But that doesn't mean you should. Nor does it mean that society should make it easy and convenient for you to ignore that. Even more so when your doing so could detrimentally affect everyone else.
But if your argument is predicated on an outright denial that Reality exists and instead operate exclusively on some relativistic (or perhaps even solipsistic) premise - then my mistake for not understanding your argument in the first place, because I thought I was dealing with someone at least baseline intelligent and rational; as opposed to someone for whom notions of True/False, Right/Wrong, Good/Evil, etc simply don't exist because you're not operating in Reality at all.
As to your other point - I'm not sure what you're advocating: do you want a society of perpetual screw ups, or a society that is demonstrably better off with modest restraints put on individually/socially destructive activities that have zero redeeming aspects?
The brood parasite Republicans are out in force.
A Marxist red diaper baby like you must hate that.
Funny thing. You are on a Libertarian site dedicated to recruiting more Libertarian voters to give the Libertarian Party a chance of winning elections but the only "othering" you can think of is to call someone a leftist.
That's either stupid or pathetic. I'm not sure which.
I'm glad to see that you automatically and reflexively equate Leftist with Marxist. That's progress.
Marxist is just a subset of leftist for you wanna be tyrants.
Actually, they're interchangeable terms at this point. Utterly synonymous.
A post with thoughtful analysis.
No, a post with excuses for tyranny.
Just like we can accept the occasional gun violence in gun free zones as an acceptable loss in the name of individual liberty we can accept the occasional fucked up person from legal intoxicants as an acceptable loss in the name of individual liberty. Liberty is dangerous. Want security, vote for tyrants.
Language.
Except the ratio of legal gun owners to gun violence is pretty much the exact opposite to that of "harmless" drug users to tent cities/wandering derelicts/addicts/crime/etc.
Americans, by and large, are extremely responsible when it comes to gun ownership. Likely because they appreciate the gravity of that liberty. The same cannot be said for druggies, who clearly do not.
Also, it's a fundamental difference between Virtue and Vice. The Virtue can be articulated for gun rights, and very little Vice can be attributed to it. The same is not true for drug use. What's the Virtue in that? Meanwhile, let me go find some place I can copy/paste the litany of Vice associated with it, because that's readily known.
We know pretty well how many gun owners are in the US. So we can make that comparison. You have no idea how many people do recreational drugs so any ratio you try to justify is bullshit.
Virtue and Vice are religious concepts. I don't have a religion so I don't see actions as falling into categories of virtue and vice. I see them as individuals and their actions as individual actions. Some hurt others and most don't. That's people.
You want to play Pre-Crime and lock people up because they might hurt someone then admit you're a tyrant and fuck the fuckity fuck off.
Yes; De-Santis has a power streak in him.
I'd like to think it's the major reason he couldn't win the primaries.
Don't do it. Massachusetts legalized weed and now Cambridge and Somerville reek to high heaven from all the woke stoners. The smell of weed travels in a way tobacco does not. If those inconsiderate wokesters would just stick to edibles, it would all be fine.
God's Own Pussies... whining for someone else to mug hippies for them.
Beating a hippie is always the right call you old pinko.
Until you run into one of us redneck hippies who listen to Willie Nelson. We shoot back.
What the litteral fuck? When those cities smelled of pollution and human body odor that was fine. When they smell of too much aftershave or perfume that's fine. But if you can smell weed that's just too much.
Fuck you.
Four million LP votes on the 2016 platform. Unless the Mystical Anschluss has added banning weed to the Florida LP platform, DeSlantis might possibly lose to spoiler votes.
Oh good. Back to the one and only guiding principle of libertarians (or whatever the Reason crew call themselves): drug legalization. Such a courageous stance that definitely hasn’t been tried in, and consequently failed in, state after state after state. Let’s all be California and Portland. If there’s one thing we know that they stand for, it’s personal freedom. This movement is an abysmal joke.
The West Coast was fucked up way before legalizing weed was on anyone's radar. That's a lame try.
How dare you!
Reason libertarians hold THREE things above all else.
Weed, ass sex, and Mexicans;)
Pretty sure it wasn't drugs that made the West/Left coast terrible. It's a convenient excuse, just like when the Nanny-statists try to ban and sin tax tobacco products because of their health consequences.
Republicans are theocratic fascists who want to use government to keep people from sinning. They aren't "Pro Life" they are anti sex. Once in a while one says the quiet part out loud and admits they want to see women who engage in sex outside marriage to be punished for having had sex.
They are for the drug war because people on drugs are enjoying themselves. They offer social order and other bullshit excuses but really, that's all it is. Happiness without their gawd is a sin. Sin must be opposed.
They aren't going after Drag Queen Story Hour to protect children, they are opposed to any kind of sexuality that diverges from basic man on woman missionary position sex for reproductive purposes. They oppose porn because one can enjoy themselves without suffering through marriage. Much the same reasons.
If their Gawd Almigjty doesn't like it, they want it illegal. They go after the sins that are harder to defend first. Then they start on the harder ones. It's how they work.
It's always easy to sniff out a religion-hater, even easier than sniffing out skunk-weed.
I'm an atheist who doesn't hate Christians because that's my (our) culture. I'm a cultural Christian but not a religious one. There is no Sky Daddy. But having the majority of people act like there is, keeps them in line much better than theocratic anarchy.