Digging a Deeper Hole
David Frum writes:
(CNN) -- Last week, I joined the board of a new organization to oppose marijuana legalization: Smart Approaches to Marijuana. The group is headed by former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy…
Oh dear.
In no particular order, marijuana prohibition is a moral disaster, a practical failure, a colossal waste of public funds, a destroyer of lives, a gift to criminals, an insult to the notion of individual responsibility, and a brutal assault on the idea of limited government.
It’s grotesquely appropriate, in a way, that this new group is headed by Patrick Kennedy.
The Huffington Post reports:
Kennedy admits to having smoked pot but also said that, as an asthma sufferer, he "found other ways to get high."
In 2006, he crashed his car into a security barrier in Washington, D.C., and soon after sought treatment for drug dependency. He said he was addicted to the pain reliever Oxycontin at that time and suffered from alcoholism. He added that he has been continuously sober for nearly two years.
Patrick Kennedy is to be congratulated for getting his life together.
He is, however, to be condemned for suggesting that the legal system of the United States should be organized in a way to suit the needs of a small minority unable to cope with the temptation presented by a relatively innocuous plant.
It should also be noted that, as described in the Huffington Post, Kennedy’s own problems were with a prescription drug and with alcohol. The former is, under certain conditions, legal, and the latter is freely available for anyone over the (ludicrously advanced) age of 21.
Should alcohol be banned too?
David Frum goes on to point out that marijuana comes with health risks. He’s right. Their extent can be debated, but not their existence, even if (unlike the case, say, with alcohol) nobody has ever died of an overdose of this particular drug.
Ban pot for the under-18s by all means (and have penalties for those that inhale and drive too), but everyone else should be free to decide for themselves whether weed is a risk that they want to run. Some—Patrick Kennedy types—will make the wrong decision—and they should be helped back on to the right path when they do, but to assume that most people are incapable of deciding this relatively trivial matter for themselves is not only an insult, but a further step down the road to the infantilization of a society that once knew how to think for itself.
- Comment (64)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (23)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Severely Ltd.
The argument that coercion by the state is necessary to effect the right attitudes is rife with opportunities for abuse.
So is ANY kind of law enforcement. You don't see society eliminating homicide and robbery detectives because some have been on the take. I've never understood the Utopian instinct among Libertarians. It has more in common with the liberalism of Jean Jacques Rousseau than the conservatism of John Locke, especially in the Rousseauan assumption that man is inherently good until corrupted by the state. And that's flat wrong. Without civilization, man is a beast and a savage and will act like one. If "social stigma" was enough to prevent crime, there wouldn't be murder, theft, and rape. You need a law enforcement structure precisely because man is flawed and it takes both social stigma AND the threat of jail to keep him in line. Recognizing that is perhaps the oldest principle of conservatism there is.
Sep '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Douglas
Severely Ltd.
The argument that coercion by the state is necessary to effect the right attitudes is rife with opportunities for abuse.
So is ANY kind of law enforcement. You don't see society eliminating homicide and robbery detectives because some have been on the take. I've never understood the Utopian instinct among Libertarians.
If "social stigma" was enough to prevent crime, there wouldn't be murder, theft, and rape. You need a law enforcement structure preciselybecauseman is flawed and it takes both social stigma AND the threat of jail to keep him in line. Recognizing that is perhaps the oldest principle of conservatism there is.
Yes except that law enforcement has limited resources, and I think everyone agrees that murder and theft are worthwhile crimes to focus upon. Given that law enforcement has not been able to keep ordinary people from purchasing black market drugs adequately, and re-directs resources from murder rape and other serious crimes to catch drug dealers and users, and given that the very illegality of these marginal substances fuels cartels, thugs and miscreants with power....
Alcohol and gambling are bad for people, should they also be made illegal?
Jun '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
EJHill
The question I have is this: Did this involve hiring the crane operator in hisprofessionalcapacity? Are we talking about a hooker so large that took a fleet of taxisandthe crane to get her to work?
On second thought, don't tell us. Our imaginations have got to better than the real story... · 1 hour ago
I think if you could get David Lynch to direct, we'd have a chance.
Mar '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Franco
Yes except that law enforcement has limited resources, and I think everyone agrees that murder and theft are worthwhile crimes to focus upon.
All crimes are worthwhile to focus upon. See Giuliani's broken windows policy. I can't dispute that police have limited resources and should prioritize things like murder, but prioritize doesn't mean ignore lesser crimes either. And when we ignore lesser crimes, it's pretty clear this leads to more of the big ones.
As for the alcohol gambling question, it's all a matter of balance. We regulate alcohol heavily, but taken in moderate amounts, alcohol is not only bad, it can be good for you (even the Apostle Paul agreed that "a little wine is good for the stomach"). And harder booze is even more heavily regulated. You can buy a jug of Gallo Wine at your grocery store. Try buying Jack Daniels there. And while a glass of wine isn't going to affect most people's abilities, a single joint can get many people high. There IS a difference between the two.
Dec '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Douglas
. You can buy a jug of Gallo Wine at your grocery store. Try buying Jack Daniels there. And while a glass of wine isn't going to affect most people's abilities, a single joint can get many people high. There IS a difference between the two. · 12 minutes ago
Come to Michigan. We buy booze at the grocery store all the time.
If you smoke an entire joint of good pot you will be very high. If you drink an entire fifth of booze you will be wreaked. You can put the cap back on the bottle. You can put out a joint and save the rest for later; it is done all the time. They make one-hit pipes for a reason.
Mar '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Franco:And by the way, most who haven't smoked weed at this point are the very ones who will likely avoid it still when legal. Those who are attracted and likely to smoke are already doing so.
I thought conservatives believed in marginal effects. It's not true just of tax rates and economics you know.
There are some number X of people on the margin who do not smoke it at all BECAUSE it is illegal. Make it legal, and that incentive will change.
There are some number of people Y on the margin who smoke only occassionally because it is illegal. Make it legal, and they will smoke "more".
The problem with legalization is that our society no longer understands the concept of "legal but disapproved of". Everything which is legal MUST be celebrated, and if you scorn or disaprove of those who partake in any particular legal activity, then you're a hateful bigot.
Edited on January 10, 2013 at 8:01pmSep '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Douglas -
There are different alcohol laws which vary by State.I used to live in Pennsylvania and I think they have about the strictest laws. I was amazed traveling that you can buy beer and wine in gas stations in many states. Even single cans - at gas stations! In any case i don't think you will find much variation in DUI deaths per capita or alcoholism per capita state to state despite very different levels of regulations.
What you are saying about pot is demonstrating some level of ignorance. The "high" is very different. I wouldn't want to be a passenger in a car driven by someone high on either alcohol or pot, but if i had to choose it would be the pot smoker hands down.
Guiliani successfully cleaned up Times Square by cracking down on small crimes and the broken window effect. However he didn't stop anyone in NYC from smoking pot now did he? The two things are much different. In fact pot is no longer a priority of NYC police. Doesn't seem to matter much.
You would first have to prove that law enforcement has the ability to adequately control pot smoking.
Oct '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Douglas
Severely Ltd.
The argument that coercion by the state is necessary to effect the right attitudes is rife with opportunities for abuse.
So is ANY kind of law enforcement. You don't see society eliminating homicide and robbery detectives because some have been on the take. It has more in common with the liberalism of Jean Jacques Rousseau than the conservatism of John Locke, especially in the Rousseauan assumption that man is inherently good until corrupted by the state...Without civilization, man is a beast and...will act like one. If "social stigma" was enough to prevent crime, there wouldn't be murder, theft, and rape. You need a law enforcement structure precisely becauseman is flawed and it takes both social stigma AND the threat of jail to keep him in line. Recognizing that is perhaps the oldest principle of conservatism there is.
I wasn't clear, the abuse I was referring to is the state instituting laws that go beyond protecting the individual from others. Laws that, as Western Chauvinist put it so well, attempt to 'legislate virtue'. Versus preventing crimes against the individual.
This dovetails nicely with Franco's point concerning law enforcements limited resources.
Sep '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Miffed White Male
I thought conservatives believed in marginal effects. It's not true just of tax rates and economics you know.
There are some number X of people on the margin who do not smoke it at all BECAUSE it is illegal. Make it legal, and that incentive will change.
Absolutely. But the paragraph you quote is an afterthought . The point was that most of those who do not smoke pot now are not abstaining from it primarily because it is illegal, I contend most of these people would not start smoking merely because it is legalized. Some of course will, I'm not disputing that.
Whether a present smoker would smoke more is questionable. Presently pot is easily available and compared to alcohol considerably cheaper. Again I see people applying a characteristic to pot that doesn't really exist. People who haven't smoked pot don't know what they don't know as Donald Rumsfeld would say.
Mar '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Franco: Douglas -
I wouldn't want to be a passenger in a car driven by someone high on either alcohol or pot, but if i had to choose it would be the pot smoker hands down.
Guiliani successfully cleaned up Times Square by cracking down on small crimes and the broken window effect. However he didn't stop anyone in NYC from smoking pot now did he?
Oct '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Social conservatives, which I am myself on many issues, have a tendency to want to pass laws in accordance with virtuous living. And I think we should back away from this. It is not the states function. It is a desire to force people to be good, and that's a position we should leave entirely to the Left.
Obesity is a problem in this country and is considered by the left to be a vice. Given the many biblical injunctions against gluttony, they might even back up their position with Scripture. Do you want to give them that power?
If you approve giving the state the coercive power to enforce what they conceive of as virtue, it becomes a matter of whose version of virtue that we follow. Again, this is why I think the founders wanted a separation of church and state. Different religions have different views on virtue.
Your virtues differ from the church of progressivism, but neither of you should have the power to force people to act according to your principles.
Again, this is obviously excepting crimes against people, physical and contractual.
Jan '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Severely Ltd.: The state is not God's little helper toward making us better people. The gist of a separation between church and state is avoiding any particular religion's dogma being imposed on us by government. In light of that, law should only extend to the essentials that protect us from each other physically or contractually.
If a drug is so addictive and controlling that it compels it's users to theft or other crime, outlawing it is legitimate, but Pot is far from that. And the gateway-drug argument is a penumbra too far. · 3 hours ago
Permit me to point out that your use of the 'Separation of Church and State' argument is not germain; and as for the notion that the state should not legislate to try to 'make us better people', our penal code is greatly influenced by the Ten Commandments!
One way to address the valid concerns of those on both sides of the 'legal vs. illegal' argument is to keep the use of marijuana illegal until age 21, and mandate a stiff penalty for procuring it for those who are 'underage' (thus, applying the same rationale as for 'statutory rape').
Jul '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
The state has a long history of legislating virtue: i.e. laws in the U.S. proscribing sodomy, adultery, fornication, incest, prostitution, bigamy, bestiality, public indecency, obscenity, contraception, gambling, drugs, etc. Obviously, as norms change, some activities become legalized while new ones become criminalized. But I don't really see the state getting out of the business of legislating virtue, nor do I see either side of the political spectrum ceding that ground to their opponents. In a way, all politics is about fighting over how society will be structured, and that includes what behaviors will be allowed.
Oct '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Barbara Kidder
Permit me to point out that your use of the 'Separation of Church and State' argument is not germain; and as for the notion that the state should not legislate to try to 'make us better people', our penal code is greatly influenced by the Ten Commandments!
The point about the separation of church and state is that institutionalizing particular dogma is unfair to folks with conflicting views. The church of Obama feels strongly that the Catholic Church should be paying for birth control for its employees.
Our penal code is influenced by the Ten Commandments. In areas such as murder, which also comes under the non-aggression principle, I am all for it. Illegal adultery was also once in accordance with the Ten Commandments, but no longer. Do you think adultery ought to still be against the law?
I'm all for everyone following the Ten Commandments, I try to myself. It's not the job of the state to enforce them, though.
Sep '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Douglas
Again, they are not doing an adequate enough job. Not.Even.Close. Legalization would likely make it harder, not easier, for teens to get it.
And all conservative know the concept of unintended consequences. There are severe unintended consequences to this drug war, retail and wholesale, which in my opinion dwarf the things you express concern about.
I would go as far to say this: Pot is not nearly as physically or socially destructive as alcohol. When alcohol was outlawed, there were far fewer drinkers per capita than todays pot smokers per capita. The gangs in the 30's were far less powerful and less brutal than gangs/cartels today. Government corruption as a result of prohibition was less than it is today under the drug war policies.
Same thing with gambling. Both alcohol and gambling were made legal under weaker grounds.
May '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Except that is what the state exists for. A nation's laws are it's collective expression of right and wrong. It may not be a 100% match to your concept of morality but it never will.
Sep '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
EJHill
Except that is what the state exists for. A nation's laws are it's collective expression of right and wrong. It may not be a 100% match to your concept of morality but it never will.
Well, Washington and Colorado have made it legal, other states have gone along with the scam (and I do believe it a scam myself) of medical marijuana. And you all can proudly take David Frum as your ally. Speaking (on other threads) of guilt-by-association! :)
Sep '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Some people who seem to be against legalization seem to be ignoring the key factor. Does it mater if a couple more people, or even a lot more people, smoke, when in our current environment, people are dying from violence; lives are ruined with prison sentences, and we are spending a ridiculous amount of money, simply to signal that, as a society, we think ingesting a particular substance isn't up to our standards?
Dec '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Recycling is a virtue. The government should outlaw garbage dumps.
Riding your bike to work is virtuous (it fights obesity and prevents CO2 production through the combustion of fossil fuels). The government should outlaw the combustion engine.
Family size at or below the replacement rate is virtuous. The government should compel contraceptive use, sterilization, or abortion once a couple produces two children.
Not murdering 20 school children is virtuous. The government should outlaw guns.
Purchasing health insurance for your family is virtuous. The government should compel people to purchase health insurance.
I don't believe any of the above, but there are plenty of people who do to one degree or another.
The law should not be used to compel someone's idea of virtue. It should be used to protect the life and property of the individual.
Prohibiting marijuana is doing neither. And if you believe, as I do, that keeping it illegal is actually promoting its use (by the dealers) as a gateway drug, it's actually more harmful than good to keep it illegal.
Oct '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
EJHill
Except that is what the state exists for. A nation's laws are it's collective expression of right and wrong. It may not be a 100% match to your concept of morality but it never will. ·
EJ, that isn't what the state is for. The legal system wasn't put into place as the secular strong-arm of the church.
Laws must align with morality but they aren't intended to encompass morality. They have to protect us from physically harming one another, from breaking contracts, from exerting control over each other in any number of ways, but it doesn't extend all of God's laws. I've come to believe lately that the libertarian principle of non-aggression is the best guide to formulating law.
Your view doesn't even make sense from a spiritual or philosophical point of view. If you're being chaste because of laws against adultery, you're not being virtuous in any real sense.
Many people fled England to escape the religious tyranny of the Church of England. Now we have the Church of Progressiveism being institutionalized right here.
Edited on January 10, 2013 at 10:30pm