Maryland Governor To Issue Mass Pardon to More Than 100,000 Marijuana Offenders
The blanket pardon is one of the largest yet, and another sign of the collapse of public support for marijuana prohibition.

Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore will issue a blanket pardon for low-level marijuana convictions in the state today, a move that the governor's office estimates will clear the records of an estimated 100,000 people.
Moore's office claims it is the largest mass pardon by a state related to marijuana, and the first to include offenses for the possession of paraphernalia as well. Maryland legalized recreational marijuana last year after voters approved a 2022 constitutional amendment by 67 percent.
Moore says the pardons are an effort to remove the burdens of felony convictions, such as barriers to employment and housing, which have fallen particularly hard on minority neighborhoods that were targets of the drug war.
"I'm ecstatic that we have a real opportunity with what I'm signing to right a lot of historical wrongs," Moore said in an interview with The Washington Post, which first reported the story. "If you want to be able to create inclusive economic growth, it means you have to start removing these barriers that continue to disproportionately sit on communities of color."
According to Moore's office, Maryland located every conviction or guilty plea in the state's electronic court records system for simple marijuana possession or possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, adding up to around 175,000 cases, and will issue automatic pardons, including in cases where the offender is dead.
Nine other states have issued large-scale clemency orders for old marijuana offenses, and two dozen others have launched expungement campaigns, resulting in the expungement or sealing of 2 million marijuana-related cases since 2018, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey announced a similar blanket pardon for misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions in March, and former Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced in 2022 that she would pardon an estimated 45,000 Oregonians with marijuana offenses on their record.
"Hundreds of thousands of Americans unduly carry the burden and stigma of a past conviction for behavior that most Americans, and a growing number of states, no longer consider to be a crime," NORML deputy director Paul Armentano said in a press release. "Our sense of justice and our principles of fairness demand that public officials and the courts move swiftly to right the past wrongs of cannabis prohibition and criminalization."
The first major cracks in prohibition have started to show at the federal level as well. The Drug Enforcement Administration recently proposed reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug—although as Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote, the impacts will be modest and the Justice Department still had to strong-arm the agency. President Joe Biden also issued mass pardons for low-level federal marijuana offenders, but those actions still left in place the framework for marijuana convictions and the "needless barriers to housing, employment, and educational opportunities" that Biden has lamented.
The mass pardons are an acknowledgement, though, that public support for marijuana prohibition has collapsed. Seven out of 10 Americans now oppose pot prohibition, and it's legal at the state level in some form in more states than not.
The pardons are also an acknowledgment that pot offenders are still being punished with a criminal record for voluntary, nonviolent behavior that the vast majority of people no longer think should be a crime. And although the pardon proclamations issued by governors are often couched in terms of racial justice, Reason has pointed out many times over the years that the drug war would still be immoral even if it was waged without bias. Criminal prohibition is a policy that's failed everyone except drug cartels.
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
It's a start, but I can think of a lot of other federal laws and regulations I would like to nullify.
The correct process is to get rid of the law, not to undo a law by executive rule. Just like I don't support a unitary executive.
Hey dickwad, it is not an executive order as much as the exercise of the pardon powers of the governor. Authorized by the Maryland Constitution.
The blanket pardon is one of the largest yet, and another sign of the collapse of public support for marijuana prohibition.
lol. Look up the difference between correlation and causation, CJ.
It's not "another sign" of anything. It's a hard-left Democrat trying to scrounge up votes for President Elder Abuse in an election year where he's hemorrhaging the black vote.
You have like this small down's syndrome child way of understanding things. "A government person did a thing. That must mean everyone loves that thing!"
Tell me you're a lackey without telling me you're a lackey.
"Hundreds of thousands of Americans unduly carry the burden and stigma of a past conviction for behavior that most Americans, and a growing number of states, no longer consider to be a crime,"
Y'know, it's not about the nature of the crime. It's about its commission in brazen defiance of the Rule of Law. The people said, "Look, we want the use of this particular product made illegal, and it's not unconstitutional to set such a law."
Then some other people say, "Screw that law, I'm doing it anyway." It doesn't matter which law it is - what matters is that you have just expressed clear evidence of your contempt for law and order.
Hey look, if it's civil disobedience and you're willing to accept the consequences - great, more power to you. But if you then turn around and whine that you should be given clemency, that really undermines your own message, doesn't it.
It was a crime at the time, and you knowingly committed it. It doesn't matter what people think about the crime now. It matters how little respect for the people and your community that YOU had at the time you committed it, when it IS law that people/community want.
Also, at the end of the day, a proportional majority of people can agree on something - and still be dead wrong about it. Slavery, eugenics, communism, heck a geocentric universe - they all carried popular opinion as well. Until they didn't.
The reason the left (and yes, I'm including lolertarians like you in that) is so gung-ho about drug legalization has nothing to do with liberty or autonomy. It has to do with creating a nation of addicts.
Because an anesthetized people are are controllable people. We've seen it happen in history (google: the opium wars, and how it helped the Brits to really screw up China). Just more of the bread and circuses to placate the masses so they pay no mind to the rise of tyrants.
Sorry, bud, passing a law does not make it a moral imperative to obey said law. It's especially rich that you complain "anesthetized people are are controllable people".
Which do you want, control, or not control?
I didn't say it was a moral imperative. But it certainly is a civil one.
Look, make it simple. It's the middle of the night and you come across a red light on an empty stretch of road where you can see in all directions. It stays red. There's zero traffic. It continues to stay red.
Run it? Sure, I would. But if Johnny Law is there waiting to peg me, he's got me dead to rights. I've got zero room to complain. I knew it was against the law, even if that law is stupid and its intent is not reflected in the middle of the night in an empty road where I couldn't possibly harm anyone - but I did it knowingly. I took the risk.
In a civil and ordered society, we don't just ignore the laws because we think they're dumb. Or, if we do, we do so knowing and accepting that we DESERVE to be prosecuted under them. We can plead our case in court - "I mean, come on Judge, I was there for 10 minutes and it wouldn't change! It was obviously broken or something!" - and that'd actually probably fly, esp. if you have like dashcam or something to prove it.
These addicts KNEW their actions were illegal, and they did it anyway. I don't see why that should get a pass just because we're getting more and more comfortable with the legality of the action. Like I said - it's not about the law; it's about the intentional flouting of it. That's a breach of your civic duty to be a law-abiding citizen. Even if you don't like the law.
“anesthetized people are are controllable people”
Am I wrong about that? That's not a question about the law. That's a question about the social value of drug addiction. Who stands more to gain from that? The degenerate chasing a fix, or the State who now rules over people controlled by an addiction; whose loyalty they can command by making addiction easily available and consequence free?
"These addicts KNEW their actions were illegal"
Pot smokers are addicts? You clearly don't understand the scientific meaning of that term. You just like to use pejorative terms to try to label perfectly decent people as somehow "bad".
Anti-pot people are pathetic, but liberty-loving people learned from the anti-abortion crowd that just because they are pathetic (and wrong and delusional), they still have to be actively opposed. Otherwise individuals will have decisions stripped from them by moralistic zealots and given to the government.
And yes, Dobbs stole decision-making from individuals and gave it to the government. There is no way to dispute that. Roe was pro-liberty, pro- individual, and anti-government. Now we have the Uterus Gestapo.
Yes, pot smokers are addicts. They are addicted to... wait for it... drugs. NGL, I did a spit-take laughing so hard when you started going on about "the sCiEnTiFiC mEaNinG" of it, lol, like that matters even slightly in the context of what we're discussing.
You want to use drugs to get high. Period. You think you're going to couch that in some scientific terminology to obfuscate that fact? I mean, come on. "Half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon." Would you prefer druggie loser? I mean, we can go with that if you want.
And yes, Dobbs
A...are you high right now? Is that why you suddenly pivoted unprompted and inexplicably to abortion?
"like that matters even slightly in the context of what we’re discussing."
Oh, I see. Your feelings about what you want addiction to mean is all that matters, not the actual meaning of addiction.
But you seem to have a habit of redefining terms you don't like and expecting people to accept your definition instead of the real definition. It's delusional.
"You want to use drugs to get high. Period."
Me, personally? No. I don't use marijuana Even when it becomes legal in Delaware in a few months, I won't use it.
You seem to be incapable of accepting that people can believe that something is right without it being something they, personally, want to do.
"You think you’re going to couch that in some scientific terminology to obfuscate that fact?"
Terminology defines things. Only someone who doesn't want to accept that words have broadly accepted meaning thinks terminology obfuscates.
Saying that someone who gets high is an addict is like saying someone who gets drunk is an alcoholic. Only an idiot would think that.
"Would you prefer druggie loser?"
So anyone who takes drugs is a loser? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Chemo? Or is it just some drugs? The ones that you, as the moral arbiter of the universe, have deemed "loser" drugs?
"inexplicably to abortion?"
It was specifically explicated. Self-righteous moralizing zealots like you comprise the majority of those who think people shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions. They think the government should force everyone to live by their arbitrary moral standards. That was my point. The vast majority of people in America reject both marijuana criminalization and abortion bans because they are both indefensible government coercion perpetrated for irrational reasons.
They are both part of the "legislation of morality is good" version of fascism. Coercing others to follow your moral beliefs using the power of government is wrong.
So anyone who takes drugs is a loser?
Yes! Recreational drugs taken for the singular purpose of getting high? Absolutely! You got it in one! Great job!
They are losers. They are degenerate losers. Soma addicts. Desiring of their holiday, whether it be an afternoon or a dark side of the moon.
They think the government should force everyone to live by their arbitrary moral standards.
Again with this morality thing. Something YOU keep bringing to the table, not me.
Do you know why you do that? It's because, deep down, you know there's an im/amorality that you're trying to rationalize. You know that there is nothing socially redeeming about this (in the case of drugs) and you know there is something absolutely unredeeming about other actions (in the case of abortion).
I don't have to say a single word on either moral subject - you're already and inadvertently doing all the talking for me. (How's that smoking hole in your foot feel?)
You probably also think that women are property that should be free to be raped by any man at any time. Or that black people are sub-humans that should be forced into servitude. Please, tell me all about how you think the government shouldn't force everyone to live by arbitrary moral standards to the contrary.
"Yes! Recreational drugs taken for the singular purpose of getting high?"
Do you say the same thing about alcohol, or is your moral outrage completely arbitrary? Are beer drinkers losers, too?
"Again with this morality thing. Something YOU keep bringing to the table, not me."
Are you oblivious to the fact that your entire argument is based on moral putrage? Or is it dementia?
"It’s because, deep down, you know there’s an im/amorality that you’re trying to rationalize."
And you confirm it, literally in the same paragraph. There is nothing immoral or amoral about getting drunk or getting high. Except for in the minds of authoritarians like you.
"You know that there is nothing socially redeeming about this (in the case of drugs)"
But not alcohol? How arbitrary and irrational.
"Please, tell me all about how you think the government shouldn’t force everyone to live by arbitrary moral standards to the contrary."
Laws are not about morals. They are about social order and natural rights. Rape, slavery, murder, assault, kidnapping, fraud, theft, and every other example you moralistic idiots use are illegal not because they are immoral, but because they violate someone else's rights. As I pointed out before, any law that can only be justified by morality is abusive and unjust. Any law that is justified by natural rights, but not morality, is invariably just.
Morality is irrelevant to law, except to help identify terrible laws.
All moral codes are arbitrary, since no one follows every element of even the most popular moral templates put forth by religions, never mind the ones based on philosophical reasoning.
If you believe that the law should be created based on someone's random moral code, you are a statist and despise liberty and individual freedom. Moral codes are irrelevant to anyone except the person who created it for themselves.
Do you say the same thing about alcohol, or is your moral outrage completely arbitrary? Are beer drinkers losers, too?
No. But I'm going to assume you haven't caught up with the rest of the thread yet, so I'll just say: Lolertarian Game: libertarian comparing drugs to alcohol argument! *drink*
Are you oblivious to the fact that your entire argument is based on moral putrage?
What moral argument do you think I've made? Cite it specifically, please.
And you confirm it, literally in the same paragraph. There is nothing immoral or amoral about getting drunk or getting high.
No, what I did was point out how YOU'RE making it a morality issue. And you're doing that on purpose, because it's the only way you can rationalize the issue. You HAVE to claim there's no moral quality to the subject, because you don't have any other leg to stand on. And then you have to ascribe a moral component to the counterargument as your straw man to attack it.
Weaksauce dude.
Laws are not about morals. They are about social order and natural rights.
Social order and natural rights based on what?
Rape, slavery, murder, assault, kidnapping, fraud, theft, and every other example you moralistic idiots use are illegal not because they are immoral, but because they violate someone else’s rights.
And violating someone's rights is... let me guess... antisocial and immoral?
All moral codes are arbitrary
"There are no absolutes!" he proclaimed, ignorant to the fact that he had just uttered an absolute.
lol. I don't think you're ready for this conversation, Nelson. Come back after you finish high school.
"What moral argument do you think I’ve made? Cite it specifically, please."
Any time you call.someone who takes a toke "scumbags" or "losers". You can't possibly be dumb enough to think that's not moral outrage. Maybe.
"No. But I’m going to assume you haven’t caught up with the rest of the thread yet"
Oh, I've seen your insane (and completely unsupported) assertion that alcohol is somehow different than other recreational drugs. It's something you made up to justify your bias.
"No, what I did was point out how YOU’RE making it a morality issue."
In what way? I am making a liberty and rights argument. I have specifically said that morality is irrelevant and unnecessary in the law. Rights and limited government are.the two most important things. If it also lines up with someone's arbitrary personal moral code, great. But it isn't necessary or important.
"You HAVE to claim there’s no moral quality to the subject, because you don’t have any other leg to stand on."
What are you talking about? I don't have to claim anything. The irrelevance of morality, which is arbitrary, individualized, and basically unique to each person, is self-evident.
Harrison Butker is a great example. He has a moral code taken from Christianity but most Christians, using the same moral source, find his positions immoral. That's how morality works, there is no "one correct moral code". It is individual, so it should never be used as a basis for a legal code.
Hell, most of the Trn Commandments are unconstitutional.
"Social order and natural rights based on what?"
How ignorant are you? Start with John Locke and work from there.
"And violating someone’s rights is… let me guess… antisocial and immoral?"
No, dumbass. It's illegal. Morality may coincide with the law, but it isn't the reason for them. Or at least it shouldn't be, but you moralistic scolds keep pushing bad laws.
"“There are no absolutes!” he proclaimed, ignorant to the fact that he had just uttered an absolute."
What are you talking about? I said that moral codes are arbitrary and individual, which is self-evident.
"lol. I don’t think you’re ready for this conversation, Nelson."
You're the one who believes untrue things like use is the same as abuse. You don't understand basic concepts like natural rights. You think that getting high and getting drunk are completely different.
One of us understands high-school-level concepts. It isn't you.
"Pot smokers are addicts? You clearly don’t understand the scientific meaning of that term. You just like to use pejorative terms to try to label perfectly decent people as somehow “bad”."
Uh, they will be pardoning almost 100,000 offenders, representing about 175,000 individual convictions. That's an average of almost two convictions per offender (understand the pool likely consists of a majority of single-offenders, with a small percentage of super-offenders that racked up many, many convictions).
I'd like to know the racial breakdown of those pardoned, how many had felony vs misdemeanor convictions and of any spent actual time in jail for mere posession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia alone, no other crime?
Lets actually put some numbers to this "problem" so we can figure what needs to change.
I have no idea if you are right about some people's motivations for drug legalization. But that has nothing to do with why libertarians oppose prohibition.
We clearly have different ways of looking at the issue. I don't really see much civil virtue in obeying the law because it's the law either. Seems like a pretty degenerate form of morality to me. I obey most criminal laws because I don't want to do bad things to other people who don't deserve it, not because it's the law. Prohibition laws have always been scoffed at by lots of otherwise law abiding people.
Seems like a pretty degenerate form of morality to me.
Again, I'm not the one bringing morality into the subject. I've not said one word about moral qualities of anything we've discussed.
I obey most criminal laws because I don’t want to do bad things to other people who don’t deserve it, not because it’s the law.
Well, some people DO want to do bad things. Should they be able to on the same basis as you? I can immediately point to a bunch of neonazis on college campuses across America who would LOVE do to very bad things to Jewish people, who they don't consider "people who don't deserve it." (Or "people" at all.)
Law is, undoubtedly, couched in morality. And in a democratic republic, the People get to decide what laws based on what morals. If their majority vote is "No drugs, jail the drug addicts," are you incapable of respecting that because you're a minority dissenter?
Prohibition laws have always been scoffed at by lots of otherwise law abiding people.
Hey, I get it - I'm a scofflaw myself. But, unlike you apparently, I accept the fact that if I DO scoff at those laws - that there are, and should be, consequences for that. That is Rule of Law.
Are you for or against that?
"Well, some people DO want to do bad things."
Bad is, by definition, a moral judgement. So yes, you are bringing morality into it. You literally called people who use marijuana "druggie losers". That is 100% moral judgement. And completely wrong, unless you are referring to someone specific. Smoking pot is not wrong.
"Law is, undoubtedly, couched in morality."
No, only bad law is couched in morality. Law is about maintaining order in society, which we call the NAP. The further the law strays from that area, the more abusive it is. A law based purely on morality is the most abusive type of law. If the only argument for a law is that it's moral, it's an abusive law. If there are other arguments that support a law, morality is superfluous.
So no, the law isn't "undoubtedly, couched in morality". It sometimes matches up with certain ideas of morality, but since moral codes are arbitrary and unique to each individual, it's just is a coincidence.
"But, unlike you apparently, I accept the fact that if I DO scoff at those laws – that there are, and should be, consequences for that. That is Rule of Law."
Accepting a pardon isn't a moral failing. Giving a pardon for behavior that shouldn't have been illegal on the first place is, however, a moral act.
I am all.for the rule of law. And since the pardon power is part of the rule of law, I'm not being a hypocrite like you are.
You literally called people who use marijuana “druggie losers”. That is 100% moral judgement.
No... that's just a textbook definition.
No, only bad law is couched in morality.
Why is murder against the law?
I am all.for the rule of law.
Not if you support this you aren't.
These criminal degenerate junkies broke the law. They were arrested, tried, and convicted under the law. You think they deserve no retribution. Because you disagree with the law.
That is NOT being for the rule of law.
"No… that’s just a textbook definition."
Really? Which textbook is that? Untrue Things That Idiots Believe?
Because everyone has the natural right to life. Did you really think it was because of morality? Idiot.
"Not if you support this you aren’t."
The law has changed, decriminalizing pot use, and the pardon power is literally part of the rule of law. So choose which one you prefer, but it just shows that your position, not mine, opposes the rule of law.
But, since you seem determined to believe that an unjust law that is repealed means that behavior that was criminal yesterday is just fine today, go with the fact that the pardon power is a fundamental part of the rule of law in America.
You're a moralistic moron.
Really? Which textbook is that?
Tell me what OTHER thing that a bong-clouded pipe-sucking marijuana addict sitting around in his parents basement is than a druggie loser.
Because everyone has the natural right to life. Did you really think it was because of morality?
Why? Why do they have the natural right to life?
The law has changed
It doesn't matter. It was the law at the time. The rule of which they ignored. They weren't political prisoners, they weren't civil disobedient - they were intentional lawbreakers who put their own desires over that of We The People.
This is the pardon power being abused. For political purposes.
"Tell me what OTHER thing that a bong-clouded pipe-sucking marijuana addict sitting around in his parents basement is than a druggie loser."
Smoking the occasional bowl is the same as drinking the occasional beer and, like drinking, is the vast majority of pot use. You continue to misuse the word "addict" (although it may be that you just aren't smart enough to understand).
You lack comprehension, but you're dedicated to moral approbation. You're the poster child for self-righteous moralistic authoritarianism. Well done, if that was your goal.
"Why? Why do they have the natural right to life?"
As I told you above, read John Locke and move on from there.
"It doesn’t matter."
That's all that matters, if you care about justice. If you only care about harsh, unending punishment for victimless crimes, it says a lot about you. None of it good.
"This is the pardon power being abused. For political purposes."
Even Donald Trump pardoning his collaborators and friends wasn't an abuse of the pardon power. Disgusting, yes. Abuse, no. The pardon power is absolute. Look it up.
Ahh, so you're a Trumper. That tracks.
My biggest issue with weed prohibition is police mission creep. "I smelled weed" is blanket loss of privacy rights, or "my K9 alerted" and now the cops can destroy your car, find nothing, and nothing else happens.
That's a fair point, but it doesn't really justify what we're talking about here. It's no different than "I heard a scream," in order to justify kicking in the door.
Oh, must have been from the TV *clicks on the TV*.
Cops are always going to pull shady crap like that. You don't solve that by making crime legal.
"Cops are always going to pull shady crap like that."
And in your world that's OK, but accepting a pardon isn't? Jesus.
I didn't say it was OK. I said it doesn't justify ignoring a hundred thousand tried and convicted criminals doing crime.
But the pardon power does, legally and according to the rule of law.
Your opposition is what isn't justified.
You don't understand the pardon power.
But I get it. You seem to hate the idea of a Constitutional Republic and seem to favor a benevolent dictatorship.
"You don’t understand the pardon power."
Once again, you boldly and confidently display your complete ignorance for all to see. The pardon power is absolute and based in the Maryland Constitution. Here's the text:
Universal Citation: MD Const art II § 20
"He shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons, except in cases of impeachment, and in cases, in which he is prohibited by other Articles of this Constitution; and to remit fines and forfeitures for offences against the State; but shall not remit the principal or interest of any debt due the State, except in cases of fines and forfeitures; and before granting a nolle prosequi, or pardon, he shall give notice, in one or more newspapers, of the application made for it, and of the day on, or after which, his decision will be given; and in every case, in which he exercises this power, he shall report to either Branch of the Legislature, whenever required, the petitions, recommendations and reasons, which influenced his decision."
The breadth and depth of you ignorance is astonishing, but your willingness to display it is mind-boggling.
"You seem to hate the idea of a Constitutional Republic"
The pardon power is literally part of the Constitution, dumbass. It is literally a core part of our Constitutional Republic.
It's moralistic authoritarians like you who prefer the tyrannical dictator route. But you know what's right and wrong so it's OK, eh?
When I think of easily controlled people, I don't think of pot smokers. And having that notion put forth by someone simultaneously arguing that we all must obey every law or we deserve the consequences deemed appropriate by our overlords is beautifully ironic.
In a civil and ordered society
Where/when are you living?
Genuinely curious Brix, why do you ask?
I assume you're making a point about the decline of America into partisan chaos and something quickly approaching anarchy. But do you ask that question on the notion that, because society is falling that we should fall with it? Or do you ask it because you don't believe American society is/was civil and ordered?
Yes, my point is about the decline of America, not to anarchy, but approaching totalitarian socialism. I’m not saying we should fall with it, but we have no choice to disobey some laws as they force us to act in immoral or illogical ways. I decided a long time ago that I would disregard some laws, not for civil disobedience, but so I can live my life the way I want to, not the way some busybody authoritarian wants me to.
Do you mind if I ask in what ways you've been "forced" to act immorally or illogically?
Some examples: places I have lived require training courses and permits for handgun ownership. Given 2A, I call that illogical. I'm legally required to buy a fishing license to fish even in my friend's private pond on his private property. Although not illegal it's been made impractical to use non-ethanol gasoline despite its inferior quality and damage it causes to carburetor engines. This list could go on a long time.
As for immorality: I'm forced to fund public indoctrination of woke culture via public schools, abortion and many unnecessary wars. I wish I had the option to ignore tax laws but the punishments are too steep for me to do what I consider the moral thing.
Why not move to a place where such things are not a condition of residency? You're not forced to fund any of that. You choose to do so by virtue of taking advantage of the society in which you choose to remain which you do support.
And what does practicality matter? If you really valued the use of non-ethanol gasoline, you'd go out of your way to live upon that value. Not just begrudgingly lament the fact that you "can't" because it's not convenient for you to do so. (See also, abortion seekers.)
Also, why did you characterize it that way? "what I consider the moral thing."
You realize that, if we're now going into moral territory, that your definition doesn't matter, right? Nor should it, nor anyone else's. Morality is as objective as anything else, subject to the same Law of Identity and Principle of Non-Contradiction as anything else in our grasp of knowledge. If you're going to take things in that direction, you have to accept that what "you consider" might be, in fact, objectively wrong.
Why not move to a place where such things are not a condition of residency?
Many, many reasons...if such a place does exist. Besides, I found a suitable workaround.
No, really - what are they?
This is kind of a "fundamental understanding of how/why America works" question. You say "many, many reasons" - but what are they? Why would you intentionally stay in some place that "forces" you to act immorally/illogically, instead of exercising your freedom to pack up and go elsewhere more in line with your own values?
Because you think there's no place else to go? Because you want to subvert the will of the majority? Because it's inconvenient?
I would really like to understand this, if you'd be willing to explain it.
"Why not move to a place where such things are not a condition of residency?"
So if an unjust law exists, it is your obligation to follow it or leave? You really love yourself some governmental tyranny, don't you?
No, really – what are they?
Most important is family and family obligations and employment. My kids are dependent on me for now. I enjoy my work, but it is specialized and opportunities are geographically limited.
I grew up on land owned by GGG grandfather. I have a sense of attachment to it.
Ultimately I don't think such a place exists though, there's only greener grass phenomena.
Most important is family and family obligations and employment. My kids are dependent on me for now. I enjoy my work, but it is specialized and opportunities are geographically limited.
So, what you're saying to me if I'm reading you correctly (and by all means, please correct me if I'm not), is that you're NOT actually "forced" to engage in immorally or illogically. Instead, you've WILLFULLY AND VOLUNTARILY AGREED to live under a certain set of enforceable rules - not all of which you agree with - but which you will accept as a tradeoff for conveniences that make your family life and the ability to provide for your/their livelihood possible (or, at least, easier) and/or preserves your ancestral property.
Perhaps without appreciating it, what you've done is a cost/benefit analysis. Which is what most people do (myself included). In fact, to give you an illustration of the opposite, when I fled Seattle as it fell into decay and total ruin - one of the hardest parts of it was giving up VERY lucrative job for a less lucrative one, and saying goodbye to a house and family/friends I loved.
But I didn't want to live under Seattle's rules - the benefit no longer outweighed the cost. (I actually think my immediately-following employer knew that, and used it as a bargaining tool in his favor, lol.)
But that's how it works in America. That's the design. Individual local self-governance, with no obligation to remain if you're in the minority on a subject that really matters to you. I, for one, wanted more affordable living; less crime, vagrancy, and drug rampancy; and better moral/cultural values. Seattle wanted none of those things. I was the minority, so it was on me to either try and change it, or leave.
I recognized the futility of trying to change it, so I left. You tolerate the things you disagree with, though you may not like them, so you stay in your place. That's how it's all supposed to work.
When it breaks down - what folks like Nelson here don't understand - is when people try to have their cake and eat it too. When they want all the benefits, but none of the costs. When they disagree with laws, and regard that as legitimate justification for willfully engaging in criminality (usually rationalizing it to themselves as "necessary" or "not hurting anyone"). That's NOT how it works, as I pointed out in my original argument.
That's also, as an aside, why their argument is not one of individual autonomy and personal freedoms - but one of entitlement. "The people have spoken," say the People. "Screw you," says oh-so-entitled Nelson wishing to impose his will over theirs and engaging in crime to do so with no respect for the People whatsoever. Which shouldn't surprise us at Reason.com, but alas - it's not like there's anything libertarian about most folks here. :/
Yes, YOU can say I “WILLFULLY AND VOLUNTARILY AGREED to live under a certain set of enforceable rules” by not moving.
I question what gives anyone the power to tell me how to live my life just because I live in a certain geographical area. A monopoly on violence seems like the answer. I agreed to nothing, but I recognize my rulers’ ability to enact force against me.
their argument is not one of individual autonomy and personal freedoms – but one of entitlement.
Yes, I believe I'm entitled to certain inalienable rights which were endowed by my Creator such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..
I question what gives anyone the power to tell me how to live my life just because I live in a certain geographical area.
Easy: consent of the governed. You understand how our society works. You understand your role and voice in how it’s defined. You presumably have had the ability to exercise your right to vote.
This is the society you consented to. And if you don’t like it, you’re under no obligation to stay. You have the freedom to move somewhere more like-minded. But, your cost/benefit analysis of doing so keeps you where you are.
What gives anyone the power to tell you how to live your life? YOU. YOU gave it to them.
Yes, I believe I’m entitled to certain inalienable rights which were endowed by my Creator such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As do I. But I also respect that such a thing is not defensible – or, if you prefer, guaranteed – without an ordered society that establishes and enforces rule of law. One that can and should be defined by its local people – but sometimes that means you don’t get what you want. But, again, you’re not beholden to the majority. You can go somewhere else. That’s your freedom.
I mean, you can try your life liberty and property in the Hobbesian state of nature – but it’ll be up to you and you alone to defend your rights. GLWT. Anyone who deprives you will be wrong for doing so, to be assured – but there’ll be nobody but you to stop them from violating them. You’ll die knowing they were wrong and you were unjustly treated – but you’ll die all the same.
That’s why we do this whole “society” thing instead. It's what makes it work.
I think we reached the crux of agreement/disagreement. I appreciate the thoroughness and courtesy of your responses. We will continue to disagree on some matters, but I understand your points.
Fair enough. See you next time Brix. Always appreciate your more reasoned thoughts on a subject. 🙂
Moved to another spot.
MDC
Political abuse of the law is one of the most abusive things someone can support. Governor should be advocating removing the law. Not using the law for an election year bump.
The governor signed the law that decriminalized pot. He doesn't have to advocate for it, it's already done. It's basically only red states left with those abusive laws.
But you're right, in general. Getting people to accept that drug laws are largely unjust is an uphill battle. It's taken 60 years to get most people to finally admit that pot isn't what Reefer Madness claimed. It was still a schedule 1 drug last year, for God's sake.
Even that small change has the prohibitionists up in arms but, since most of them are deeply conservative, they actually relish another excuse to bash Biden.
Respect for the law is not a virtue if the law is not respectable.
Yes, respect has to be earned, it cannot be mandated. Mandating it is the surest way to not get it.
I tried explaining this to a chief in the Navy, and it was a waste of time.
I already covered the issue of civil disobedience.
But it seems that most people want to pretend what they're doing is "civilly disobedient" and not criminality for criminality's sake.
Zeb, who decides what laws are respectable? Are you advocating for anarchy? What i agree with you may not. And vice versa.
I'm not for drug use laws. But I'm also not for a criminal system that is allowed to choose what laws to use or who to use it against.
The libertarian answer should be to remove the law. Not allow a random politician to pick and choose what laws to use or who to use them against.
It’s a hard-left Democrat trying to scrounge up votes for President Elder Abuse in an election year where he’s hemorrhaging the black vote.
No one has to shill for the democrat vote in MD.
If that's the strategy then having a couple of Democrat governors do something like this will be reported as "Democrats reverse decades of unjust criminal convictions" and let the halo effect do it's magic.
So Black voters are fleeing the looter kleptocracy?
"lol. Look up the difference between correlation and causation, CJ."
Public support for criminalizing marijuana is almost as low as public support for banning abortion. Less than 25% of Americans support either of those positions.
There's a large crossover between those two positions, which is unsurprising given the anti-liberty character of both. It's a bunch of fact-resistant, self-righteous, authoritarian, moralistic zealots who are furious that the rest of us are sick of them forcing their minority, emotional, belief-over-reality biases on the rest of the country.
So yes, this is a response to the deep unpopularity of marijuana criminalization. If it wasn't overwhelmingly supported, politicians wouldn't be willing to agree on it. Agreement across the aisle gets you fired in today's GOP, so this is about as bipartisan an issue as there is.
"It doesn’t matter which law it is – what matters is that you have just expressed clear evidence of your contempt for law and order."
No, you jackbooted fool, it shows contempt for THAT law, not all laws. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you a bomb-throwing anarchist, you idiot. Contempt for one law doesn't mean you have contempt for all laws. That's just basic logic. One doesn't equal all, dumbass.
"It has to do with creating a nation of addicts."
Only if your last name is Sackler. No one says, "I want to be an addict". No one wants "a nation of addicts". Every time I think you've said the dumbest thing I've ever heard, you outdo yourself.
Public support for criminalizing marijuana is almost as low as public support for banning abortion. Less than 25% of Americans support either of those positions.
If the majority believed in legalizing slavery, would you be on board with it?
Like, literal slavery. The blacks are property again and we can force them to work for us. With the whip and the rapes.
No, you jackbooted fool, it shows contempt for THAT law, not all laws. Smoking marijuana doesn’t make you a bomb-throwing anarchist, you idiot.
Why not? If I like throwing bombs, and I can get people to go along with me in doing so - that makes it OK, right?
Might makes right? Mob rule? DeMoCraCy?
Contempt for one law doesn’t mean you have contempt for all laws.
It does if you think you should be excused from breaking it. I'm fine with contempt for laws. But you keep trying to equate that to INTENTIONALLY BREAKING IT because of your contempt for it.
Which, again, I made the case for - but you don't seem to think you deserve the consequences of being a criminal.
No one wants “a nation of addicts”.
Then why enable one?
I'm curious what your stance would have been during the opium wars, actually. Would you have been on the side of the British, intentionally addicting the Chinese? Would you have been on the side of the Chinese, protesting their efforts (probably not)? Would you have been some lone Chinaman saying, "Hey, leave the Brits alone - if we want to get high, let us get high, damn the consequences."
You realize why the Brits were flooding China with drugs, right?
"If the majority believed in legalizing slavery, would you be on board with it?"
Seriously? The "if everyone jumped off a bridge" illogic crossed with a slavery reference? Game out that nonsense and get back to me when you figure out how vapid an argument it is. If you ever do.
"Why not? If I like throwing bombs, and I can get people to go along with me in doing so – that makes it OK, right?"
Damn, you managed to say something even dumber than your first comment. And that one was pure, unthinking idiocy.
"Might makes right?"
Absolutely no one here has advocated for that. We all have said it's a good thing to pardon all those people subjected to an unjust, and finally repealed, law. Do you even understand the principles we're discussing? Or do you just love unjust laws and the government that enforces them.
They were pardoned. That's a good thing. Build a bridge and get over it.
"It does if you think you should be excused from breaking it."
The pardon power is part of the rule of law. You don't like that? Build a bridge and get over it.
"Then why enable one?"
So allowing people to decide what to put in their body is "enabling" a "nation of addicts" (using that word completely wrong)? Because the government is the one that should decide things for me that don't involve anyone else? Plus, of course, theirs the hysteria of your "allowing pot will create a nation of addicts" hysteria.
Wait, did you write Reefer Madness? It would explain a lot.
"if we want to get high, let us get high, damn the consequences.”"
Yes, exactly. Because the consequences of getting fucked up are individual consequences. Whether someone is high, drunk, or otherwise fucked up, it isn't the government's role to forbid it. Regulate it? Sure. Ban it? No.
Your obsession with the Opium Wars is bizarre. There's a much more relevant corrolary. Alcohol is legal in America and we aren't a nation of alcoholics. Why would you think pot would be any different?
Individuals should be able to make decisions for themselves. If they decide they want to get high, what justifies the government saying no? Especially since they already have one drug that is widely available, legal, and even celebrated?
Having "Man, I got do fucked up on Saturday" be either fine or awful depending on what substance you used and whether the government says it's acceptable is an indefensible position.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously. Your argument is about "public support" for your position. But you know as well as I do that some things shouldn't be supported even if the public supports them. Like eugenics, for example. Or slavery. Or a geocentric universe. Heck, let's take some that exist today - like Islamic public support, for oppressing women and chucking LGBT/pedos off the rooftop.
They shouldn't be supported because they're wrong - civilly, socially, culturally, morally, objectively, take your pick - and the public is wrong for desiring them.
YOUR problem is that you KNOW this, but you have to deny it because you have no basis for defending a drug addicted society without it. Which is why instead of advancing such an argument, you instead just insult mine in a pathetic attempt to sidestep the issue.
We all have said it’s a good thing to pardon all those people subjected to an unjust, and finally repealed, law.
Well, you're all wrong. Change my mind. (Protip: You'll have to do better than insults and running away from your own argument.)
Or do you just love unjust laws and the government that enforces them.
No, I don't love unjust laws. But the mere fact that a law is unjust does not create a basis to break it and not expect/deserve consequence. Because it's not about the law itself - just or unjust - it's about the ignoring the rule of law.
And not for any noble reason like Rosa Parks in the back of the bus. She KNEW she was breaking the law, and she KNEW there would be consequences for that. But she did it to bring attention to just how unjust that law was - and she was WILLING to face the consequences for that.
What you're talking about - I guarantee for all 100,000 of those criminal scumbags about to be loosed on society - is NOT that.
You're just degenerate addict losers who want to get high.
Right?
So allowing people to decide what to put in their body is “enabling” a “nation of addicts”
In the case of recreational drugs? Yes, absolutely.
Yes, exactly. Because the consequences of getting fucked up are individual consequences.
A) Language.
B) No they're not. One need only look at any major city on the east or west coast to see that. The tent cities and the shantytowns and the derelicts roaming the street. They're just people who want to "get high" too. But the consequences of it are far from individual. And not to mention the drug trade itself. And God forbid drug users are raising children. How do you think that plays out to them, knowing that mommy or daddy can only handle life - or handle them - through a drug induced high? What do you think that teaches them? What do you think it models for them? Do you think it doesn't affect them in any way, as you blather pretending that the consequences of drug addiction are strictly individual?
C) You realize that you just admitted to being the opium slave in that example, right? The one being exploited by the British, and harming his own people and society as a result.
What's odd is that you seem really proud of that fact. :/
There’s a much more relevant corrolary. Alcohol is legal in America and we aren’t a nation of alcoholics.
No, it's not at all relevant. I know the lolertarians like to pretend so, but alcohol abuse and drug addiction are two very, very different things. Both in the nature of the product, the radical differences in its pharmacological effects, its social/cultural effects, heck even the civil infrastructure already established to mitigate its negative effects.
But hey, since we're playing the Lolertarian Game: libertarian comparing drugs to alcohol argument! *drink*
Individuals should be able to make decisions for themselves. If they decide they want to get high, what justifies the government saying no?
Lots of things. I've explained them.
But here, I'll give you another illustration. Individuals should be able to make decisions for themselves. If, let's say... 70% of them decide they want to drive at triple-digit speeds and ignore traffic signals, what justifies the government saying no?
You know as well as I do what justifies it. Stop being obtuse.
"Your argument is about “public support” for your position."
No, I have never made that argument. I agreed that the law decriminalizing pot was a sign of the lack of public support for pot being illegal.
The consent of the governed has shifted. Build a bridge and get over it.
"But you know as well as I do that some things shouldn’t be supported even if the public supports them."
I agree. You keep pretending that I don't because ... I have no idea why.
"They shouldn’t be supported because they’re wrong – civilly, socially, culturally, morally, objectively, take your pick – and the public is wrong for desiring them."
Correct. That's why abortion bans are so awful. Well, one of the many reasons.
"defending a drug addicted society"
I have never and would never support that. You are projecting things onto me that are patently false and completely ridiculous.
Use and addiction are two completely different things. They aren't in any way equivelent, nor does one inevitably lead to the other. In fact, use rarely leads to addiction.
"Well, you’re all wrong. Change my mind."
The government doesn't have the right to prevent you from doing something that doesn't impact anyone else. Getting drunk or getting high only effects one person: you. That's pure NAP. Plus, of course, government doesn't give rights to people, they belong to people naturally. Government has to justify restricting rights, people don't have to justify having them.
You have made a bizarre strawman out of my positions in which I support addiction, slavery, and eugenics.
While simultaneously making the argument that laws are an exercise in morality. And pretending that use and abuse are the exact same thing (or that use inevitably leads to addiction, which is equally dumb). And that the pardon power, a fundamental part of the rule of law, is somehow ... not.
"But the mere fact that a law is unjust does not create a basis to break it and not expect/deserve consequence."
Apparently you don't read much. That's actually a pretty common position in moral philosophy.
"criminal scumbags"
Remember the time ... actually times, that you insisted you weren't making any moral judgements or arguments? Can you explain how you know over 100,000 people are scumbags without knowing anything about them?
"In the case of recreational drugs? Yes, absolutely."
For the love of God. Using recreational drugs is not the same as addiction. Only a fool thinks use and abuse are the same thing. Can't you understand simple concepts?
"Language"
Seriously? Oh, wait. Let me guess. Swearing is wrong.
"No they’re not. One need only look at any major city on the east or west coast to see that."
First off, the rural areas of America have a much higher per-capita rate of addiction and drug use. There are just a lot more people in a city, so the numbers are higher. It's called math.
Secondly, you want to take the behavior of a small minority of people who.use pot (addicts) and pretend that anyone who uses pot is the same. They aren't.
Actually, it's an even dumber argument than that. You want to project the follow-on behavior of addicts of ALL drugs onto pot smokers, as if it's all the same. That's idiocy.
"But the consequences of it are far from individual."
Consequences? So even you know that using pot doesn't impact anyone except the one using it, so you want everyone to just accept the insane idea that the most extreme follow-on behavior of a tiny fraction of people who use recreational drugs is a certainty. That's ridiculous on its face.
Millions and millions of people have used recreational drugs over the years. Almost none of those people are addicts. Because addiction is an very, very rare result of using drugs. And it's almost nonexistant with pot.
You believe things that aren't true and expect everyone to do the same. Prove use leads to addiction, not in a tiny fraction of cases, but as a vo.mon outcome. You can't, because it doesn't.
"You realize that you just admitted to being the opium slave in that example, right?"
I don't use recreational drugs. So you're projecting again. And still incapable of understanding a simple idea: supporting someone else's right to do something doesn't mean you want to do that thing. Principles are real.
"alcohol abuse and drug addiction are two very, very different things"
No, they aren't. The only difference between pot smokers and beer drinkers is the drug they choose. Just because there's a special word for a drug addict who abuses alcohol doesn't make it a different thing.
"Lots of things. I’ve explained them."
Rights belong to the people. Government has to justify restricting them, people don't have to justify having them. So what objective things justify preventing people from using some drugs, but not alcohol or Adderall or pot (if you have a doctor's note), etc.?
"If, let’s say… 70% of them decide they want to drive at triple-digit speeds and ignore traffic signals, what justifies the government saying no?"
Objective facts and data show it is a danger to public safety. There is no such data about using recreational drugs at home.
"You know as well as I do what justifies it. Stop being obtuse."
Use isn't abuse. And it rarely leads to abuse. That abuse even more rarely leads to crimes. You have a deeply flawed and unsupported belief that use and abuse are the same thing. That addiction is an inevitable result of the use of recreational drugs. That abuse inevitably results in criminal behavior.
It doesn't. You believe untrue things and can't even recognize your own ignorance.
No, I have never made that argument.
Quote: "Public support for criminalizing marijuana is almost as low as public support for banning abortion. Less than 25% of Americans support either of those positions."
The consent of the governed has shifted.
Were that the case, this wouldn't need to be done by fiat.
I have never and would never support that.
Why do you support 100,000 drug users/addicts/peddlers released from jail, if that's the case?
Use and addiction are two completely different things.
Not in the context of recreational drugs. And don't even try to lie to the contrary.
Drug use is far, far more prone to habitual abuse, and far more prone to use for the sake of being used. Nobody goes out and smokes a bowl periodically as they enjoy their dinner. Nobody goes out and tokes a bong without the express purpose of getting high. The same goes for snorting a line, shooting up, or however else you degenerates self-administer.
That's not what social drinkers do. They don't have a glass of wine with dinner to get bombed. They don't have a beer while watching the football game to head to drunk. Drug users are. You are just trying to get high, wherever and whenever you use it. That's not the act of a user. That's the act of an addict.
The government doesn’t have the right to prevent you from doing something that doesn’t impact anyone else. Getting drunk or getting high only effects one person: you.
Wrong, and I already explained why.
in which I support addiction, slavery, and eugenics.
Yea, why do you support that? Or, are you now denying your "popular/public support" argument? (You should, btw.)
Apparently you don’t read much. That’s actually a pretty common position in moral philosophy.
A wrong one.
Remember the time … actually times, that you insisted you weren’t making any moral judgements or arguments? Can you explain how you know over 100,000 people are scumbags without knowing anything about them?
They intentionally broke the law. Criminal. Scumbags. Would you like some more synonyms?
Seriously? Oh, wait. Let me guess. Swearing is wrong.
Yes, but even if you don't believe that - try to be a little bit better than that.
Unless, of course, your goal is to justify degeneracy. Which would track.
First off, the rural areas of America have a much higher per-capita rate of addiction and drug use.
That make it OK? Desirable?
Secondly, you want to take the behavior of a small minority of people who.use pot (addicts) and pretend that anyone who uses pot is the same. They aren’t.
Yea they are. Compare it to the number of people who don't feel compelled to down a dose of soma just to get along. You're addicts. You pretend that the specific drug is the addiction in order to deny it. But it's not the drug that makes you an addict - it's the vacation it provides. Beacuse that's what you ultimately want. Not weed particularly. Just to be stoned.
Millions and millions of people have used recreational drugs over the years. Almost none of those people are addicts. Because addiction is an very, very rare result of using drugs.
lol, sure. They're not chasing the high for it's own sake. Right.
I don’t use recreational drugs. So you’re projecting again.
Oh my, the arrogance. To think I was talking about you specifically.
I provided you the example to illustrate the three positions on the subject. You then identified when of those positions you took. You literally took the position of the opium slave.
Why would you do that?
No, they aren’t.</i.
Yea they are, already explained why. You offered no rebuttal except "Nuh uh!"
Objective facts and data show it is a danger to public safety. There is no such data about using recreational drugs at home.
Notice how you conditioned that?
Use isn’t abuse.
In the case of recreational drugs, yes it is. I've explained this at length and you've offered no argument to the contrary.
"Quote: “Public support for criminalizing marijuana is almost as low as public support for banning abortion. Less than 25% of Americans support either of those positions.”"
And? That's an observation about the support for those two things, both of which are supported by moralistic authoritarians. There's nothing there that indicates, in any way, that I believe that laws should be dictated by public popularity. That's just you, once again, extrapolating wildly. Like your assumption that because I support legalized drugs I use drugs. You have a bad habit of accusing people of things they don't support or believe.
"Were that the case, this wouldn’t need to be done by fiat."
It wasn't, dumbass. The law was passed last year decriminalizing pot in MD. The pardon came after that. Thinking that a law that's been repealed should still be used to justify incarceration is inherently unjust.
"Not in the context of recreational drugs."
You seriously believe that use and abuse are the same thing? That's delusional. It's literally not in touch with reality. Abuse is a very, very different thing than casual use.
"Why do you support 100,000 drug users/addicts/peddlers released from jail, if that’s the case?"
I support pardoning nonviolent offenders whose only offense was possession. They aren't pardoning drug dealers, idiot. And unless you have some facts to back it up, calling them addicts is not true.
"Drug use is far, far more prone to habitual abuse, and far more prone to use for the sake of being used."
Yet another thing you believe with exactly zero factual basis. That seems to be the foundation of your worldview: don't accept facts, just refuse to acknowledge the things that don't want to believe.
"That’s not what social drinkers do."
Right. No one ever drinks to get drunk. Do you actually believe that? And yes, people smoke a bowl just to relax after work. Just like having a beer.
"Wrong, and I already explained why."
Smoking a bowl hurts no one. You want to pretend that there are a slew of other things that will inevitably happen by smoking a bowl that would harm others. But that's just nanny state bullshit.
If we outlawed everything that might, possibly, lead to something that might, possibly, lead to something else that might, possibly, negatively impact someone else, everything would be illegal. "What if" is an even worse basis for laws that an arbitrary moral code
You just make insane assertions like "use and abuse are the same thing" and alcohol addicts and drug addiction are completely different" and "people don't have rights unless the government allows them to" and "drug users are losers". You have an extreme and irrational opposition to people being allowed to casually use drugs (except alcohol, that's OK) in a safe and responsible way. And you support the government coercing people to implement your personal biases on everyone.
"Yea, why do you support that?"
I don't, and even you aren't stupid enough to believe I do. Maybe.
"A wrong one."
I see. You're the arbiter of moral philosophy? Like neurochemistry? And psychology? Any other subjects on which you're the most brilliant, absolutely right, arbiter of what's correct and false?
"Yes, but even if you don’t believe that – try to be a little bit better than that."
Not swearing isn't better than swearing. People who don't swear aren't better than people who swear.
"That make it OK? Desirable?"
You're projecting again. You're the one who said cities were the ones with the drug addict problem, which is kot the case, statistically. It's just one more thing that you are wrong about. The list is getting huge.
"You’re addicts."
Again, I don't use drugs. And most people use drugs casually, just like most people drink casually. Your bizarre belief that casual use is the same as zombie-addicts who can't function without drugs is so insanely delusional.
"lol, sure. They’re not chasing the high for it’s own sake. Right."
Elon Musk is a known drug user. Is he some zombie unable to function? Great musicians, thinkers, scientists, CEOs, politicians, and business leaders are drug users. Your inability to accept the reality that drug use can be casual, done for a variety of reasons, doesn't mean you get so high you can't function, or impairs your ability to succeed in life is completely at odds with facts and reality. You are a zealot, and a particularly ignoelrant one at that.
"Yea they are, already explained why. You offered no rebuttal except "Nuh uh!""
No, I pointed out that the thing you believe literally requires words to mean the exact opposite of what they actually mean. You make Communists and George Orwell look like amateurs. Use is not abuse, no matter how strongly you assert it. Casual use is not addiction. Alcohol is just another drug, not some super-special thing that people can get addicted to, but not like recreational drugs. That's different.
"Notice how you conditioned that?"
So now there's only one right way to speak as well? Man, your God complex is getting out of control.
How would you like me to say it? The bottom line is that just taking a drug recreationally does neither damage nor harm to anyone else.
"In the case of recreational drugs, yes it is. I’ve explained this at length and you’ve offered no argument to the contrary."
It's a very basic argument. They are two different words that mean two different things. Words have meaning and your inability to accept reality doesn't change that fact.
There’s nothing there that indicates, in any way, that I believe that laws should be dictated by public popularity.
Then why’d you bring it up in the first place?
Thinking that a law that’s been repealed should still be used to justify incarceration is inherently unjust.
See, that’s where you’re fundamentally mistaken. This is where you illustrate your sheer contempt for rule of law and self-governance.
If the People vote for a law that says you have to wear a silly hat for 30 minutes every day at noon, the consequence of breaking it being a 10 year jail term, then so be it. It’s a dumb, stupid, pointless, excessively punitive, and probably unconstitutional law – but silly hats for a half hour a day is what the people want. And now it’s law. If you balk at that, and refuse to wear a silly hat, you are A) breaking the law; and more importantly B) spitting in the face of We The People for whom you obviously have zero respect. (Which, fine – if you don’t respect the People because they vote for dumb laws, that’s your prerogative. But then why stay in their community?)
Now, if you’d like to overturn that law – you have two options: 1) attempt to get enough People on your side to do so legislatively; 2) intentionally and publicly break it in an act of civil disobedience so you can gain standing to challenge it judicially. But if you choose the latter, you’re going to jail.
What you can’t do is break it with impunity just because you think it’s stupid, and expect no consequence. And if you do, you shouldn’t expect to be released from jail when the silly hat law is repealed. Because it wasn’t about the silly hat. It was about your refusal to obey and respect the rule of law when it WAS the law.
Now, if we were pardoning 100,000 civil disobedient political prisoners – that’d be one thing. If the law and the jailing were ruled unconstitutional – that’d also be a valid argument. But NEITHER are the case. WE’RE JUST RELEASING STUPID ADDICTS WHO THINK THEIR PATHETIC ADDICTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RULE OF LAW AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
"Then why’d you bring it up in the first place?"
I didn't. It was in the article. Did you even read the article?
"If the People vote for a law that says you have to wear a silly hat for 30 minutes every day at noon, the consequence of breaking it being a 10 year jail term, then so be it."
Wow. That's about as brazen a "might makes right", stateist statement as I've ever seen. If the government does it, it's right, eh?
"Now, if you’d like to overturn that law – you have two options: 1) attempt to get enough People on your side to do so legislatively"
Dumbass, that's what happened. The law was literally repealed by the legislature.
I didn’t. It was in the article.
And yet, you repeated it for your own argument.
This is what happens when you outsource your brain to others.
If the government does it, it’s right, eh?
Totally didn’t understand a word that was said. Wow. Just, wow.
The law was literally repealed by the legislature.
Go ahead and ignore everything else then.
You’re sad, Nelson. You’re a sad, trapped little addict who can’t admit when he’s wrong. I pity you.
I think we're done here. Go smoke a bowl, addict.
You’re an undisciplined writer.
You call someone a lackey and then go into a weird ad hoc spiel about moral duty, civic duty, and the imperative to obey laws, the “rule of law” like some tinpot rousseau. You’re not mad they are a lackey, you’re mad they are not your lackey.
I don't know what you think you read, but it clearly wasn't my post.
You can't be wrong with an opinion. Opinions are neither right nor wrong.
That's why it's best not to deal in terms of them. I avoid it whenever possible.
Your opinion on this matter is wrong.
Note to foreign readers: Libertarian Party spoiler vote clout repeals the superstitious drug laws that provide sinecures for ignorant goons at the DEA and in similar do-nothing positions. Their budget more than allows them to hire loudmouthed ani to try to irritate Reason subscribers into deciding that threats of deadly force and shooting pet dogs are "ordered liberty".
About fucking time someone made a blanket pardon. The best thing a President could do with his pardon power is this.
Pardons are supposed to be individualized. This has been normal jurisprudence for centuries.
While true I think this process should be normalized. Law repealed, existing convictions for that law alone reviewed and pardoned. My concern is if there are plea deals that effectively pardons greater crimes in an ad hoc process. It's hard to think of the greater crimes that pot possession might be covering but then tax evasion did a lot if work once.
"Law repealed, existing convictions for that law alone reviewed and pardoned."
Exactly.
"My concern is if there are plea deals that effectively pardons greater crimes in an ad hoc process."
That's pretty easy to weed out (no pun intended).
"It’s hard to think of the greater crimes that pot possession might be covering"
Honestly I think the important distinctions are between possession and distribution (dealing isn't being pardoned) and violent vs. non-violent offenses (although I struggle to imagine a scenario that would be "violent drug possession".
The part that I think should be normalized is the blanket pardon for laws that have been repealed. The hard-core moralists will insist that because you broke the law you should be punished, but that is way too simplistic and reductionist.
Ultimately we need to see less laws that punish behavior that is disfavored on strictly moral grounds. The "this will lead to that will lead to the other thing" logic is flawed. If the thing itself harms others, sure. But the "what if" nanny state nonsense puts people in prison based on what someone else has done in the past or what they might do in the future. Neither is a justifiable basis for incarceration.
"how's about a QP of Alien Cookies as reparations?"
"The pardons are also an acknowledgment that pot offenders are still being punished with a criminal record for voluntary, nonviolent behavior that the vast majority of people no longer think should be a crime."
Translation: After 4 million LP votes defeated Hillary, Dems changed their platforms and policy to protect pregnant women from coercion and stop shooting people over plant leaves. The GOP fossilized its "bully them bitches" and "bullets for brown folks" planks in amber so moderates can't delete them. After copying LP positions Dems WON the last two elections. Dems won, Libertarians gained freedom: Message received. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/getting-their-attention-with-spoiler-votes/