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 '11
Re: Why not?
What good has the Twinkie, alcohol and Phil Collins done for society? Should we outlaw those 2 vices and one atrocity as well? I'll let everybody guess which is which.
May '10
Re: Why not?
thelonious
What good has the Twinkie, alcohol and Phil Collins done for society? Should we outlaw those 2 vices and one atrocity as well? I'll let everybody guess which is which. · 0 minutes ago
An absurd analogy based on an absolutist view of liberty.
The whole point is that if a substance is banned, it is banned for a good reason-- namely, because it does much damage and has very little or no mitigating positive uses. Twinkies hardly rise to the level of damage of addictive, destructive drugs.
And before you deploy the slippery slope argument, I'm fully aware of it. "If they can ban crack cocaine, Twinkies will be next." Right. Therefore in the interests of preserving your right to Twinkies, we have absolutely no recourse or standing to prevent the ravages of destructive drugs?
Remember, even free speech rights are not completely absolute.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 11:57pmMay '11
Re: Why not?
@Chris Deleon I was responding directly to his point about marijuana having no social redeeming qualities. My point is that a substance doesn't have to have socially redeeming value to be legal. We don't outlaw every vice because doing so would be more damaging to society than keeping them legal.
Apr '11
Re: Why not?
Easy now, everyone. Maybe we should step back, have a smoke, and relax ...
Er, nevermind.
Again, I can see merits and flaws in the Libertarian argument for legalization, but at present in the welfare state legalization will result in that the ability will be supporting even more of those with "need." Cart and horse.
Too often I get the impression that we've made great strides in the Libertarian cause in regards to social policy, but each stride brings the government even more involved in our lives and pocketbooks through economic and entitlement policy.
Feb '11
Re: Why not?
Why not legalize drugs?
Because I'm tired of having to pay for the actions of drug addicts in the form of taxes to pay for medical treatment for them, childcare for their children, and prison costs after drug addicts finally get sentenced for their crimes- not to mention what harm springs from those.
Unless and until self-described libertarians come right out and acknowledge those issues and provide a solution I conclude that libertarians are simply silly people who like to smoke pot, and don't think beyond that.
Or simply expect other people to keep picking up their tab, because the state will force people to do so.
May '10
Re: Why not?
I have a hard time imagining that a serious person would even bother to ask such a question. But, since I am apparently idealistic in the extreme, one principle: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent." -- John Donne
It is inescapable for all but the extreme hermit, that there are other people whose welfare depends upon each of us. Anything that compromises me, therefore, compromises those who depend upon me. It is not my right to compromise the lives of others.
Extreme libertarianism has another, simpler, older name: Selfishness.
Apr '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... · 5 hours ago
Edited 4 hours ago
I apologize for harshing your Rocochet experience. I did not mean to do it or to go over the line.
However, you mischaracterize mocking effrontery as an ad hominem argument. It was no part of my argument.
Feb '12
Re: Why not?
thelonious
What good has the Twinkie, alcohol and Phil Collins done for society? Should we outlaw those 2 vices and one atrocity as well? I'll let everybody guess which is which. · 4 hours ago
Twinkies fill you up and give you energy, which are good things for some people, at least. Alcohol is an ingredient in drinks such as wine that can be consumed for the aesthetic pleasure rather than the buzz, which is why most people don't drink pure alcohol. It is not just an animal pleasure, but a human one.
I haven't heard of Phil Collins. If he is a bad singer, I would agree that the world would be better off without him, but since other people disagree and insist on keeping their tastes coarse, we come to a political compromise and allow him.
Mar '11
Re: Why not?
Mr. Delingpole, I admit I can't provide you with a comprehensive answer in the 200 words allotted here. However, I appreciate the Ricochet members who have attempted to do so.
I believe illicit drugs, including marijuana, should be illegal. I think there are constitutional, theoretical and practical reasons why this should be. Once again, there's not enough space here.
However, one simple point: I view drug legalization like I view the subject of abortion. We know abortion does something to our society. It's not just the murder of one baby. In a way, it's a murder of a part of all of us, even those of us who've never come close to the procedure. It may not at all seem logical but we can't deny the effects of it since the early 70's.
Drugs are the same way. In 101 different ways, we can logically rationalize why drugs should be legal. But, I believe when we accept a product into our civilization that's only purpose is to ruin people's lives, then that says something about all of us--even those of us who would never think about doing them.
Edited on February 18, 2012 at 5:05amJul '11
Re: Why not?
Chris Deleon
thelonious
What good has the Twinkie, alcohol and Phil Collins done for society? Should we outlaw those 2 vices and one atrocity as well? I'll let everybody guess which is which. · 0 minutes ago
An absurd analogy based on an absolutist view of liberty.
The whole point is that if a substance is banned, it is banned for a good reason-- namely, because it does much damage and has very little or no mitigating positive uses. Twinkies hardly rise to the level of damage of addictive, destructive drugs.
And before you deploy the slippery slope argument, I'm fully aware of it. "If they can ban crack cocaine, Twinkies will be next." Right. Therefore in the interests of preserving your right to Twinkies, we have absolutely no recourse or standing to prevent the ravages of destructive drugs?
Remember, even free speech rights are not completely absolute. · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
Well free speech rights should be completely absolute. Who do you think is qualified to limit them? You?
Sep '10
Re: Why not?
Grendel:[Comment redacted for violation of the CoC]
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 thistime 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 · 8 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
Fabulous. I am unworthy to comment on the same blog as you.
Sep '10
Re: Why not?
GOVICIDE:
However, one simple point: I view drug legalization like I view the subject of abortion. We know abortion doessomethingto our society. It's not just the murder of one baby. In a way, it's a murder of a part of all of us, even those of us who've never come close to the procedure. It may not at all seem logical but we can't deny the effects of it since the early 70's.
Drugs are the same way. In 101 different ways, we can logically rationalize why drugs should be legal. But, I believe when we accept a product into our civilization that's only purpose is to ruin people's lives, then that says something about all of us--even those of us who would never think about doing them. · 46 minutes ago
Edited 38 minutes ago
Society is as much art as it is science. Science said that legal abortion would reduce illegitimacy. I think that before we legalize drugs, we might want to nail down the mechanics of just why that happened.
Apr '11
Re: Why not?
Xennady: Why not legalize drugs?
Because I'm tired of having to pay for the actions of drug addicts in the form of taxes to pay for medical treatment for them, childcare for their children, and prison costs after drug addicts finally get sentenced for their crimes- not to mention what harm springs from those.
As with illegal immigration, the welfare state turns individual infractions and indulgence into social problems. I have long favored the decriminalization of all drugs, but only on the condition that the state get out of the ingestibles business altogether: No prohibitions, quality standards, rehab, needles; no "disabled" status for drug users that mitigates criminal behavior or protects against employment or other discrimination.
Yeah, whether junkie crime went up or down, a lot of people would destroy themselves, for a while.
My grandmother (b. 1890) recalled that when a young man showed up at a party or dance under the influence, the other young men escorted him out the door. That was 100 years after the era of Gin Lanes and Hell's Kitchens. Then the great Progressive/Methodist/KKK triumph of Prohibition made drinking chic.
We have drug prohibition, and doing drugs is chic.
Apr '11
Re: Why not?
cont.
From a conservative standpoint, drug prohibition may be the imposition of some misguided do-good regime. Was there a real drug problem, or is the ban another solution that doesn't work for a problem that didn't exist?
Sep '10
Re: Why not?
Late to the party, such as it is, no beer no weed, but here goes...
First, too many here are arguing as though the fact that drugs are illegal somehow has prevented or prevents their use. This is not the case.
Citiations of the scourge of drug use here stand as evidence of massive failure to outlaw drugs. Do people know that most high school students have easier access to pot than tobacco?
At this point pretty much anyone who wants to use drugs can. So legalizing or decriminalizing drugs would not dramatically increase usage nor would it dramatically shift who takes drugs and who doesn't.
Ironically the fact they are illegal exacerbates problems for the drug user himself, victims of crime perpetrated by drug user and society. These things have to be weighed into the equation. If as I'm speculating (and we are all speculating here) legalized drugs would not increase significantly the population of drug users, and it would reduce significantly societal costs such as petty crime by addicts, corruption of law enforcemnet and judiciary drug cartel power, cost of incarcerations prosecutions mis-applied law enforcement and so much more, then it would be a plus.
Edited on February 18, 2012 at 1:37pmSep '10
Re: Why not?
There is a real dilemma that all these "Drugs are bad, mkay?" arguments mask:
If a government makes laws it can't effectively enforce, corruption and tyranny will ensue.
Consider that when the police make a major cocaine or marijuana bust, like, tons of weed or hundreds of kilos of cocaine (they boast street value in millions of dollars) and there is nary a spike in local prices. What does that tell you, my amateur economist friends?
Allow me to direct y'all to a post I wrote a while back, inspired by a news story about a gang who impersonated police officers , staked out mid-level drug dealers and "busted" them. They busted (ripped off) 100 dealers in five years!
Drug use and gang networks are much more rampant and out of control than most people think.
Sep '10
Re: Why not?
Another example on the free-market of drug world:
Recently Michigan legalized medical marijuana. I know - it's largely used as a ruse by the stoner set, but I was told of an interesting (and predictable) consequence. Some weed smokers like "regs", this is low grade pot that is cheap. It has it's advantages, you can roll it in a joint and casually smoke it. With the introduction of the new law, the only weed available is the highest grade stuff. "You can't get regs anymore in Michigan" .
Now before you weep for sympathy for these folks, just consider the how and why. It isn't worth it to import bales of Mexican (or Iowan) weed when there is all this hydroponic stuff around at fairly low cost. The drug gangs, at least as far as gunja is concerned, have been cut out of the loop.
Feb '12
Re: Why not?
For all you pragmatists, don't know where you've been but a lot of people smoke pot even though it's illegal. It has become a mainstream drug in our society like alcohol and like alcohol should be legalized and taxed. I'm sitting here in my chair, in front of a fire in the Sierras of California. I do not smoke pot because I don't like it. If I did I would and the government and all you nannys out there be hanged. Even still, today if I wanted to buy a pound of it I could, although it would be rather expensive. My main point is is that government can fight the desires of society only for so long. Average law abiding folk aren't asking their friends for heroin, but they are asking them for pot. Give it up, please!
Feb '12
Re: Why not?
Franco says..."Now before you weep for sympathy for these folks, just consider the how and why. It isn't worth it to import bales of Mexican (or Iowan) weed when there is all this hydroponic stuff around at fairly low cost. The drug gangs, at least as far as gunja is concerned, have been cut out of the loop." If it were completely legal, which it is not in California or Michigan, then lower grades would become available because people are still trying to get as much bang for their buck as they can. When it's $15.00 an ounce then people would buy what they prefer. I think to tax it by the THC content would make sense.
Aug '10
Re: Why not?
Xennady:
Unless and until self-described libertarians come right out and acknowledge those issues and provide a solution I conclude that libertarians are simply silly people who like to smoke pot, and don't think beyond that.
Or simply expect other people to keep picking up their tab, because the state will force people to do so.
Well, if you want to keep waiting for something that has already happened, go right ahead.
Several libertarian types have already said on this thread that legalization of drugs is a non-starter as long as other people are forced to pick up the tab of druggies' dysfunctions, and I agree with them.
As for me, I test "hardcore libertarian" on all those political quizzes, but I've never even tried pot.
Of course, in my case, even a secondhand whiff of the stuff is enough to send me into a full-blown asthma attack, so I can't claim any special virtue in having avoided it -- though I suppose I could've tried eating it instead, and I haven't.
But you can go ahead and keep calling folks like me potheads if you like.