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:
May '10
Re: Why not?
For Pete's sake. No one will be surprised to hear we have a meth problem in South Carolina, like everywhere else in the country. The problem manifests not as a pack of deranged addicts stumbling all over town (though it is known to happen), but as a wave of property crime; seems that stripping the copper innards out of air conditioners is a good way to feed your addiction to a toxic mixture of engine fluid and Sudafed. So, since it's the South, and it's hot, and we like our air conditioners, we arrest potheads, methheads, cokeheads and their ilk. It's more civilized than shooting them on sight - you know, progress and all that.
My apologies if that interferes with anyone's plan to toke themselves into the stratosphere.
Dec '10
Re: Why not?
Do you know how much marijuana is an overdose? Do not feel bad if you don’t because nobody knows. Every year people die from drinking too much water. Nobody has ever died from too much pot.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 8:32pmMay '10
Re: Why not?
And to turn the question around, why should we allow absolute, unlimited access to drugs that have little to no essential good uses and plenty of proven detrimental effects?
Just because of some new concept of absolute, pure, unfettered ideal of self-ownership and freedom?
Libertarians are constructing their own new philosophical framework for society and laws, that primarily hinges on the concept of self-ownership and the rights they believe this implies. Our country was not founded on libertarianism, nor on this particular philosophical framework. Yet libertarians are attempting to coopt the concept of liberty and freedom, without taking its corresponding half which is responsibility and obligation. Yes, I said obligation.
Now, libertarians and conservatives agree on freedom probably 90% of the way. Let's not get split over the last 10% of the distance that you want to go, just to get to what you see as purity of freedom. Especially on the topic of drugs. Drugs! Let's break apart the Republican party over this issue.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 8:40pmRe: Why not?
James, I have to grade a bunch of exams and papers -- which means that I am going to leave my thread orphaned. Could you take over and defend my side of the argument? It would confuse everyone greatly and stir the pot in a manner most fearful.
Dec '10
Re: Why not?
Foxman
Do you know how much marijuana is an overdose? Do not feel bad if you don’t because nobody knows. Every year people die from drinking too much water. Nobody has ever died from too much pot.
First: I believe "whatever we want" is broader than just marijuana. Are you going to argue that pot is okay but meth is not?
Second: pot today is far more potent than the pot that was available when I was a teen in the 1970s. And pot use is not so anodyne as you imply. Plain ol' marijuana is linked to an increased risk for symptoms of psychosis. That's not even factoring in the folks who adulterate marijuana with additives like PCP and crystal meth.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 8:47pmSep '10
Re: Why not?
James,
The short answer is that most supporters of legalizing drugs want the freedom to put into their bodies whatever they choose and make everyone else should the economic and social burden.
Longer answer: Allowing elicit drug use with a massive social welfare state is an economic and social disaster. It is already bad enough with drugs being illegal. Imagine it after it is legalized. More people collecting SS disability and welfare.
I live in California so I'm sure as an employer I will ordered by the health autocrats in Sacramento and Washington that my insurance will now have to pay for drug treatment. The all knowing labor autocrats will make it illegal for me to fire an employee because they use illicit drugs.
Finally, I must say that like most of these social issues, whether it be legalizing gay marriage or drugs, the underlying message is see by the proponents of it is not just the legalization but full-throated acceptance. I could live with the legalizing if stigmatizing was allowed but proponents of legalizing drugs want it embraced and anyone who dares find drug use wrong, themselves stigmatized and demonized using the latest word ending in "ist".
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 9:01pmApr '11
Re: Why not?
How many lives were affected by Whitney Houston's drug problems? She's the poster child for the conservative argument. Drug use may be fine for some people, but many people can become consumed by it and that in turn destroys families by draining savings or causing breakups which adversely affects children.
All of this being said, I don't like the idea of us filling our prisons with drug offenders. There should be fines, etc, but we seem to haven taken these things too far. I don't like the idea of condoning it through legalization though. The failed legalizing of marijuana in California seems to back up my position.
Sep '10
Re: Why not?
Drug legalization arguments are always based upon the concept that humans are rational. We will all be able to make rational decisions about what to with our bodies and if some of us fail, the rest of us will rationally decide that maintaining addicts as if they were normal people is stupid.
The problem is that people are not rational, they're rationalizing. That is, they use logic to justify what they want. If you surrender on marijuana, you won't solve the War on Drugs, you'll just move the line of battle to the next thing. If you surrender on the War on Drugs, you won't solve the social pathologies problem, you'll just retreat to the Weygand Line and get stomped there.
If you want to defend civilization, defend it everywhere with your utmost strength. If you don't, then load up on 9mm ammo and stop complaining about the culture going to hell in a handbasket.
May '10
Re: Why not?
K T Cat: Drug legalization arguments are always based upon the concept that humans are rational...
The problem is that people are not rational, they're rationalizing. That is, they use logic to justify what they want. If you surrender on marijuana, you won't solve the War on Drugs, you'll just move the line of battle to the next thing. If you surrender on the War on Drugs, you won't solve the social pathologies problem, you'll just retreat to the Weygand Line and get stomped there.
If you want to defend civilization, defend it everywhere with your utmost strength. If you don't, then load up on 9mm ammo and stop complaining about the culture going to hell in a handbasket.
Excellently put.
And when society becomes increasingly dependent on government assistance, they will enslave the productive members of society even more to pay for it.
As I've said elsewhere, fight on all fronts! The election this year is not just about economics. It's also about social issues. The two are inseparably intertwined.
Sep '10
Re: Why not?
All of this being said, I don't like the idea of us filling our prisons with drug offenders. There should be fines, etc, but we seem to haven taken these things too far. I don't like the idea of condoning it through legalization though. The failed legalizing of marijuana in California seems to back up my position. · 29 minutes ago
I also agree with you on the drug enforcement. Politicians, prosecutors and police need to adopt more common sense in our drug enforcement. The state of California is bankrupt in part because of the number of drug offenders, both users and dealers, that are incarcerated.
Mar '11
Re: Why not?
Haakon Dahl: You lot are trying too hard to phrase this in libertarian terms. As a conservative, I have no such problem. We recognize that there is ancient wisdom in tradition, and that we tinker with taboos and moral settings at our shared peril.
We do not claim that the United States is a libertarian utopia (or any other variety). It is the country as set up by the founders, and it succeeds like gangbusters when not run into the ditch by Marxists and other assorted Progressives whose M.O. is relenteless, disorienting change.
In each question of rights there is a balance to be had (nose vs. fist, etc), and we have been fairly consistent in where that balance is on this score. Serious excursions have failed seriously.
This is not "Because" as a defense. It is Sowell's argument that a given person is probably not, in fact, smarter than all those who came before him. · 4 hours ago
Edited 4 hours ago
Great!
Apr '11
Re: Why not?
[Comment redacted for violation of the CoC]
[Second try] The poster's question is the common Liberal/Jacobin ploy of demanding that the tried and true Present justify itself. Improvements are welcome, but they can't assume the default position; that belongs to what has been and is working. The proper framework for the discussion is for the "Why not" crowd to be answering some substantive questions.
What exactly are you proposing to turn loose in our bodies? What is your desired end state and what changes will be necessary to reach it? Who will be responsible for cleaning up the debris?
And the big Conservative question: What in human experience can you propose to persuade us that this time the wholesale application of abstract principle won't lead to hundreds of millions of deaths? In the '60s and '70s sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll were going to make us free. What we got is stoned syphilitic bastards up to our eyebrows sucking on the welfare teat and dancing to dubstep. I guess when you are a cultural harbinger, you go with the heaven you get instead of the heaven you want
Edited on February 18, 2012 at 3:25amNov '10
Re: Why not?
Some misguided ideas have very harmful effects on society, once people act on those ideas.
Obviously, the people who intentionally promulgate such misguided ideas are responsible for the harm those ideas cause.
So, clearly, in the interests of society, the ideas themselves, and the people who promulgate them, should be forcibly suppressed.
This is merely prudent preemption. Why tackle actions that harm society when you can tackle the ideas that drive those actions in the first place?
Liberty, after all, has limits.
The enlightened ones, of course, are qualified to determine those limits--in this case, which ideas are permissible for promulgation and which are not.
Then, the enlightened ones can justly coerce, using financial penalties or physical incareration, those who would promulgate such misguided ideas, into not doing so.
Happily, the same argument works for disinhibiting drugs too. People do not, after all, have absolute jurisdiction over their own mind and body.
Instead, the enlightened ones enjoy ultimate jurisdiction. And thank God, unlike the misguided ones, they do not err. They can be trusted with their power to serve the general good, efficiently and effectively.
History amply proves the point, as Professor Rahe will surely confirm.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 9:58pmMar '11
Re: Why not?
James, I have to roll some papers. Can you also defend my argument that libertarianism is utter nonsense? Oh, and can you pick up some Doritos?
Sep '10
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." · 2 hours ago
James, I agree with you if that means drugs users can do so freely and deal with the consequences on their own. No SS insurance, no free drug treatment, no welfare so you can eat, sleep and toke, and no restrictions on whether employers can fire you or not hire you if you use.
But we don't live in that world. Nearly a hundred years of progressivism has created an America that wants the liberty without any responsibility. Let me put in my body whatever the h*** I want and you pay for the detritus left behind.
Deconstruct much of the social welfare state and then maybe we can talk about legalizing drugs.
Re: Why not?
@grendel [CoC violating ad hominem attack redacted by editor]
Ah yes. The cheap ad hom, deployed with such grace by a truly beautiful and no doubt immaculately pure, principled and 'nice' human being.
Funny, Grendel: one of the things I used to like about Ricochet was that members here could be relied on to be more civilized than the trolls you find on lesser sites. Ah well...
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 10:59pmSep '10
Re: Why not?
James Delingpole:
"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??? · · 6 hours ago
If you're flying an airplane, you sure as &^#$ better not put into your body whatever you want. Even if you don't kill anyone else, it would be a waste of a good airplane.
Sep '10
Re: Why not?
Before this gets redacted, may I express my envy? No one's ever called me a [redacted], and I feel left out.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 11:03pmFeb '12
Re: Why not?
What good has marijuana ever done a society? (don't cite medical uses--- THC is legal as a medication).
Jan '11
Re: Why not?
James Delingpole: @grendel [CoC violating ad hominem attack redacted by editor]
Ah yes. The cheap ad hom, deployed with such grace by a truly beautiful and no doubt immaculately pure, principled and 'nice' human being.
Funny, Grendel: one of the things I used to like about Ricochet was that members here could be relied on to be more civilized than the trolls you find on lesser sites. Ah well... · 49 minutes ago
Edited 30 minutes ago
Tu quoque, Mr. Delingpole. Your remarks here are replete with even cheaper, in-artful, gratuitous insults: "Terrifying"; "ill-thought-through prejudices"; "a truly beautiful and no doubt immaculately pure, principled and 'nice' human being". Such an example you set.