Why not?
James Delingpole ·
February 17, 2012 at 4:57pm
VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul decried the “war on drugs” Thursday night, telling supporters in Washington state that people should be able to make their own decisions on such matters.
Voters in Washington are likely to decide this year whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana
“If we are allowed to deal with our eternity and all that we believe in spiritually, and if we’re allowed to read any book that we want under freedom of speech, why is it we can’t put into our body whatever we want?” Paul told more than 1,000 people at a rally in Vancouver, a suburb of Portland, Ore.
Yep. Go on Ricochet friends. Tell me: why not???
- Comment (107)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Why not?
James, so long as the government burdens MY liberty by forcing me to pay for the consequences of others' substance abuse, I will oppose their liberty to abuse those substances without governmental interference.
US law says that a person who suffers an overdose of an illicit substance and requires medical attention gets that medical attention whether or not he can pay for it. If he can't pay for it, the taxpayers are forced to do so. If persons are held personally responsible for the consequences of their substance abuse, then I can support their right to abuse substances: that would mean that if emergency personnel find a person suffering an overdose or just the endgame of the long-term abuse of illicit drugs, they should require proof of financial responsibility before administering any medical treatment, and absent that prooof should leave the "patient" to his own devices.
Many substance abusers fall into dependency long before they reach the brink of death. In many cities, the policy for addicts sleeping and eliminating on city sidewalks and in parks has been to make others pay for cleanup, loss of use and lost business. The substance abusers should bear those costs themselves.
May '10
Re: Why not?
I reject the argument that having freedom of speech is comparable to having the freedom to "put whatever you want in your body."
Freedom of speech has been discovered, by centuries of sacrifice and bloodshed, to be essential to a democratic society that wants to govern itself. As a protection, we have generally erred on the side of near-absolute freedom of speech (you still can't run into a crowded theater and shout "Fire!", to use the common example).
Freedom to take absolutely anything you want into your body is essential to-- what? Empirical evidence from history shows that if we make this freedom absolute, people destroy themselves in large numbers, and harm others in the process as well.
In other words, I reject the absolutist arguments from the libertarian camp. No, it is not a choice between absolute tyranny and absolute "freedom." This is binary, one-dimensional thinking.
May '10
Re: Why not?
And as to the myth that if only we legalize pot, its mystique will fall away and people will make better choices about it... that is, frankly, an absurd argument as well.
First, look at history. Opium was forcibly made to be legal in China, by the English Empire, so they could balance their budget. Just because it was legal in China, did that make people want it less? No.
Second, if you remove the legal prohibition, the social pressures not to take drugs will still be there. Some, going through a rebellious stage, are always going to think that flipping off society is cool, and so its mystique will remain.
Re: Why not?
Nope. I used the word "terrifying" in the sense of "terrifying about what it tells us about the self-defeating cognitive dissonance which pervades US conservatism." You want Big Government to butt out of your lives, except in those special areas where you think it is government's job to intrude because it accords with your ill-thought-through prejudices.
What I should have titled this post is: "Why US conservatives are doomed to lose many more elections than they win."
May '10
Re: Why not?
Don Tillman
So you wanna ban water? Perhaps you misunderstood...
I'm asking, under exactly what conditions does one ban one of God's plants? How does that work? Is there precedent?
And wouldn't you also have to arrest God, being the creator of said plant?
And the earth for holding?
Again, more juvenile argumentation.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 7:34pmMay '10
Re: Why not?
Chris Deleon
Don Tillman
So you wanna ban water? Perhaps you misunderstood...
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. At no point did I say or imply we should ban water; I simply was illustrating that to argue that something is natural means it is good for you, or that it cannot be banned, is absurd. · 22 minutes ago
But I never claimed that natural implies being good or bad for you. I never even used the words "natural", "good", or "bad". 'Didn't talk about that at all. So I think your confusing me with someone else.
I simply pointed out that the plant came with the planet.
Mar '11
Re: Why not?
James Delingpole: Nope. I used the word "terrifying" in the sense of "terrifying about what it tells us about the self-defeating cognitive dissonance which pervades US conservatism." You want Big Government to butt out of your lives, except in those special areas where you think it is government's job to intrude because it accords with your ill-thought-through prejudices.
What I should have titled this post is: "Why US conservatives are doomed to lose many more elections than they win." · 7 minutes ago
You're absolutely right. We should be using the power of government to shove libertarianism down the throat of every citizen. Freedom is where it's at!
Nov '11
Re: Why not?
I find it amazing that people talk about the idea that the idea of personal liberty and responsibility demands that we allow people to smoke pot legally and then go on to explain how this principle applies to all drugs, and I'm not using the drugs so their free use doesn't affect me.
If someone is smoking crack and breaks into my house to steal something to fuel his habit it has a direct impact on me, a third party. If a neighbor is cooking meth and burns down my house with the lab explodes (and if you're free to consume meth you should be free to produce), it affects me, a third party. Drug laws aren't just there strictly to stifle your use, they're also there to protect me from your use.
Nov '11
Re: Why not?
James Delingpole: Nope. I used the word "terrifying" in the sense of "terrifying about what it tells us about the self-defeating cognitive dissonance which pervades US conservatism." You want Big Government to butt out of your lives, except in those special areas where you think it is government's job to intrude because it accords with your ill-thought-through prejudices.
What I should have titled this post is: "Why US conservatives are doomed to lose many more elections than they win." · 14 minutes ago
James, I'd like to ask propose something to you: let us both attend a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and listen to the stories told by the NA members, and afterwards come back to Ricochet and say whether our positions have been stregthened or undermined by the experience.
I am making an assumption that based on your statements you feel that drugs of all sorts (or at the least many sorts) should be freely available, and mine being that many drugs should be illegal because of the excessive harm done by their use to the users, their families, and everyone involved.
Do you think this would be a worthwhile undertaking?
May '10
Re: Why not?
Don Tillman
I simply pointed out that the plant came with the planet.
No, you implied it was silly that there were laws about said plant.
Jan '11
Re: Why not?
James' use of "Terrifying" is an insult; as is "ill-thought-through prejudices". Instead of insulting your readers, James, why not try responding to those who rose to your challenge?
May '10
Re: Why not?
James Delingpole: .
What I should have titled this post is: "Why US conservatives are doomed to lose many more elections than they win."
Because we're not libertarian enough? Have you checked the polls?
Nov '11
Re: Why not?
James Delingpole: Nope. I used the word "terrifying" in the sense of "terrifying about what it tells us about the self-defeating cognitive dissonance which pervades US conservatism." You want Big Government to butt out of your lives, except in those special areas where you think it is government's job to intrude because it accords with your ill-thought-through prejudices.
What I should have titled this post is: "Why US conservatives are doomed to lose many more elections than they win." · 14 minutes ago
This is hardly the most politically salient issue in 2012.
Jan '12
Re: Why not?
"why is it we cant put into our body whatever we want"
Some have touched on this issue already, but how many children have suffered and continue to suffer because their parents are addicts? What of the babies born on heroin? Ive dealt with this issue in my own family, and I can tell you Ron Paul is not speaking for these defenseless kids who are abused and going hungry because their parents spend their paychecks on drugs. I love the whole "well its my body argument" but children must rely on "those" bodies to give them what they need. Who, Mr. Delingpole, do you suggest should take care of these kids? You? The State? No, when you can promise me that drug abuse and use will affect no one but those who use, then I might support it. We both know that is never the case.
Feb '12
Re: Why not?
K T Cat: If we just surrender this one time, we will be able to stop the entropy death of our society at the next boundary.
Or, translated into French and modified to fit the 1940s,
Si nous nous rendons de la Meuse aux Panzers allemands, nous serons en mesure de les arrêter avant qu'ils n'atteignent Paris par maintien de la ligne suivante.· 1 hour ago
Bien dit, mais c'est pire que cela. Suivons l'analogie, la France est deja battue, et les allemands ont saisi tout l'Europe. Il n'y a que l'Angleterre qui reste, et le chef de l'Angleterre n'est pas Churchill - a vrai dire, s'oppose a Churchill - et aime plus les idees politiques allemandes du 19eme siecle que celles de la tradition anglaise.
Apr '11
Re: Why not?
I don't mind a discussion about legalization eventually, but in my observation, Libertarians like to put the cart before the horse. Once something is legal, then behaviors that result of practice of that activity can be subsidized.
Basically, once we legalize marijuana or other drugs, we will be forced to support those who use such drugs -- at least under our present system. Roll back the government programs, subsidize-mania, and welfare systems and then I'm happy to have this discussion.
Oct '10
Re: Why not?
Stuart and C.U. Douglas touched on my concerns.
The saying "you can't have open borders with a welfare state" applies in this case. "You can't have legalized recreational drugs and socialized medicine. And unemployment insurance. And food stamps. And housing assistance. And so on".
The same immigration counter argument might come up, "we'll just deny benefits to drug users/illegal immigrants". Sorry, all it takes is one judge to blow that idea out of the water.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 8:22pmRe: Why not?
You did expressly ask Ricochet to tell you "why not???", which is why the lion's share of the comments here are opposed to your thesis. If you instead asked "who's with me???", maybe you'd have gotten a lot more dittos from the crowd.
Just a thot :)
Feb '11
Re: Why not?
The first thing to note is that Liberty doesn't apply only to individuals. Exercising rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness leads individuals to form communities for varying reasons; individuals and their rights would be most insecure and notional otherwise.
That communities have a right to govern themselves is just as basically right as an individuals right to free speech. Why should ten individuals be prevented from establishing a community as they see fit just because one disagrees? Obviously, this communal authority can overreach and even be abused. That's why federalism and subsidiarity are such blessings. Overreaching communities can be changed from within or deserted by its inhabitants; abusive communities can be corrected by the next level.
Not all that goes into building (or destroying) a community is easily identifiable, quantifiable, or actionable - that doesn't mean such things don't exist or can't be intuited. Are communities barred from trying to regulate these factors? Are they obliged to ignore anything without direct consequences? I don't think that's the case. Citizens contribute their 2 cents and the community acts accordingly. They aren't required to produce detailed studies to justify their votes; intuition is enough.
Feb '11
Re: Why not?
You may have a case that the war on drugs shouldn't have a federal component and that the states should be free to implement drug policy or ignore drugs altogether as they please. However, there is also an interstate commerce case to be made that the federal level is exactly the place to regulate drugs.
Personally, I'm conflicted. I think that marijuana should probably be decriminalized, at least, but I deny that it's harmless and that we have nothing to fear from its legalization. You'd have a hard time convincing me that the harder drugs should be legal.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 8:38pm