Barney Frank to propose marijuana decriminalization?
posted at 9:36 am on March 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Can anyone take a statement on Bill Maher’s HBO show seriously? Barney Frank told Maher on Real Time that he would introduce legislation in Congress to decriminalize small amounts of pot, asserting that its illegal status is out of step with the American public. When asked, an aide had heard nothing of it until Frank’s HBO appearance:
Rep. Barney Frank will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, the Massachusetts Democrat said during an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” …
Frank has introduced legislation in previous years to allow the use of “medical marijuana,” although the bills never made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Asked by Maher as to why he would push a pot decriminalization bill now, Frank said the American public has already decided that personal use of marijuana is not a problem.
Frank claimed he would call it the “Make Room for Serious Criminals” bill. The intent would be to take the burden of marijuana investigations, arrests, trials, and encarceration off of an overtaxed justice system and allow resources to go after more serious crimes. Frank called incarceration for smoking marijuana “silly” and that lawmakers had to catch up to public sensibilities on marijuana.
I’m not necessarily opposed to legalization, but even with that, Frank oversells the concept. Most people caught smoking marijuana don’t serve any jail time at all. In most places, it’s not even a serious misdemeanor, and in many jurisdictions it’s more of an infraction. Convictions for personal use usually result in fines and sometimes in compulsory rehab, but it’s been decades since individual users have been jailed for simply smoking a joint.
The big drain on law enforcement resources come from interdicting the larger traffic in marijuana, at the border and in the interior. It doesn’t sound as though Frank will propose that marijuana becomes completely legal, and so it will do very little to “make room for serious criminals”. It also imposes a forced legalization on states and communities that the federal government has no business mandating. In fact, the only action Congress can take is to remove the federal bans on marijuana, including importation, so that states can make their own decisions on legalization.
Should Congress take that kind of action? The decades of prohibition on marijuana have done little to stem its popularity and abuse. In terms of intoxication, it has no worse effects than alcohol, and some argue considerably less impairment. A regulated marijuana industry could dry up the gang economics in its trade and ensure some safety for the users. It would also free resources to fight the distribution of far worse substances, such as heroin and cocaine. On the other hand, its status as a gateway drug could drive up other forms of abuse, and federal decriminalization could call into question the rest of the war on drugs that has thus far been a failure that has incarcerated large numbers of Americans and driven violent behavior between rival “distributors” in their markets.
We know that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. Is it time to acknowledge a new paradigm on marijuana? Perhaps — but what Frank proposed will have no effect at all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
Great Post! Would enjoy your insight on my forum.
tx2654 on March 24, 2008 at 2:37 AM
Garandfan,We have the highest percentage of the population incarcerated in our history.As far as locking up all screwups I guess it would be alright with you if lock up anybody that runs a redlight or speeds.I think its far more dangerous for somebody operating a two ton missile down the road unsafely,than it is if I’m sitting in my house smoking a joint.Here in Texas we have spent more money building prisons in the last twenty years than we have on schools.Almost half the people locked total in city,county,and state facilities are non violent crimes. And I don’t care what the hell your position is that is just crazy.I haven’t smoked pot or drank in almost ten years,But I can recongnize a stupid law when I see one.The reasons cops don’t want it legal it’s an easy bust.I’ve haven’t heard one good argument yet about why it should remain illegal.Other than suppostion and quoting arcane reports that anybody who has ever smoked know is B.S.
E.Tex on March 24, 2008 at 1:36 AM
tx2654 on March 24, 2008 at 2:56 AM
Wooops! Got the quote backwards.
tx2654 on March 24, 2008 at 2:57 AM
( Oh, nevermind I forgot the forum alternates the background color )
That’s funny. I nearly spewed my drink.
tx2654 on March 24, 2008 at 3:01 AM
Standard issue blue label generic pot head response. As predictable as the rising of the sun each and every day. Plus the obligatory bonus as if he has the authority to declare whether the facts I bring here to the debate are welcome or not. Typically self-serving, and quite the moral authority isn’t it?
I’ve been trained to the hilt and working the streets in the midst of the “marijuana revolution” for 20 years. I know what I’m talking about. Your fearful response bears no merit whatsoever. I rest my case.
SilverStar830 on March 24, 2008 at 3:39 AM
We should discuss why pot is so bad at a casino, while sampling some fine liquor and smokes.
….
If you think mary jane is a bad mistress, you are an idiot.
spec_ops_mateo on March 24, 2008 at 4:34 AM
I thought pot was supposed to mellow you out.
Stealing your car is a nonviolent crime. Seducing your 16 year old daughter is a nonviolent crime. Stealing your identity and ruining your finances is a nonviolent crime. Which are ok to leave the guy on the street?
Selling dope to your 15 year old son is a nonviolent crime. We shouldn’t punish that guy, should we? Make it legal then your 15 year old can have his 18 year old freinds get it for him alot easier. OH/ He gets it anyway even though it’s illegal? So make it easier to access? Sorry, haven’t smoked dope in 25 years so I don’t get that logic.
By the way, the root of libertarian is liberal.
peacenprosperity on March 24, 2008 at 7:44 AM
In the past 10 years there has been a huge decrease in violent crime. Why? Because we lock more people up.
Blake on March 24, 2008 at 7:56 AM
no surprise coming from Barney..
Viper1 on March 24, 2008 at 8:02 AM
A science fiction author named Harlan Ellison once had more than a few drinks with a police captain, and this is what he was told (I paraphrase):
You know, once upon a time there were ‘us’, the good people - you and me, the cops and firefighters and EMTs and all the hard-working, bill-paying, child-rearing folks - and ‘them’, the bad people - the murderers, thieves, muggers, burglars, rapists, scam artists and other scum of the earth. Then the government mandated, in the ’60’s and since, that we aggressively pursue potsmokers. So we did our job, and have busted millions upon millions of hard-working, bill-paying, child-rearing folks who only wanted to smoke an occasional joint at the end of the day instead of kicking back with a couple of brews. They, and their friends and relatives, quite naturally began to distrust and resent us for this - and we, also quite naturally, responded in kind. Now, ‘us’ refers to the boys in blue, and we consider you and all your neighbors and friends and anybody else who’s not a cop to be ‘them’.
Besides the horrible financial and human cost of an entire growth industry committed to the apprehension and warehousing of people for the offence of ingesting a non-addictive and non-lethal substance, we must add the terrible cost of the destruction of the bonds of respect and trust between out law enforcement and our citizenry, an antipathy that can even be seen manifesting itself on this thread.
We need to repeal the disastrous criminalization of marijuana, not only to end the vast human carnage caused by the imposition of fines, imprisonment and permanent criminal records upon decent people, but also to begin the process of regenerating the bonds of respect and trust between the police and the people which these travestous laws have so catastrophically shattered.
Some people will always disapprove of other peoples’ life choices, but that is no better a reason to criminalize the choice to use marijuana use than it was to criminalize the use of alcohol. We live in a constitutional democracy, the hallmark of which is individual personal freedom - which means that there must be a range of choices available to the citizenry, not all of which all would choose. Only in totalitarianisms and theocracies are all life choices either mandated or forbidden.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Good ole Bend-Over Barney. I’m sure it makes for better sex when his partner is too stoned to see how “F”ing ugly he is. Makes for a better male brothel too - right in his own livingroom!!
jimbo2008 on March 24, 2008 at 8:03 AM
No Barney, its illegal status is not out of step with the American public . . . you’re out of step with the American public. On second thought Barney you’re not simply out of step; you live in some parallel universe.
rplat on March 24, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Quite so - classic liberalism. A far cry from the bastardized socialistic liberalism of today.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Quite so - classic liberalism. A far cry from the bastardized socialistic liberalism of today.
Are you suggesting that the law should be decided democratically?
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Legalize Pot. Sounds like a political policy geared for fund raising.
Liquor and Tobacco are legal and taxation is the only reason to continue their legal status-despite the number of persons killed by drunk drivers, livers lost, lungs cancered, and the little ones who have to endure second hand smoke.
Now we can legally get a liquor high (without drinking), continue to destroy our lungs with inhaled foreign substances, and still kill the little ones who get stoned from the second hand smoke as they play with their video games while their parents groove on the animated action and color. What a family chemical.
MSGTAS on March 24, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Barney Frank told Maher on Real Time that he would introduce legislation in Congress to decriminalize small amounts of pot, asserting that its illegal status is out of step with the American public.
No small piece of irony that a deviant like Barney F__ is attempting to define deviancy down with this proposal.
Spanglemaker on March 24, 2008 at 9:49 AM
People talk about how marijuana smoke damages the lungs more than tobacco smoke; however, I don’t think that even the most besotted pothead regularly smokes anywhere approaching 20 joints per day.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 9:51 AM
People also talk about how a minority of people predisposed to schizoid psychosis can sometimes be tipped into it by smoking marijuana; however, it doesn’t seem to trouble them that chronic heavy alcohol abuse will burn anyone’s pyramidal cells out of the hippocampus in their midbrains (these cells do not regenerate or reproduce), preventing them from transferring short-term memories into long-term storage, and reducing them to chronic and permanent wetbrains.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Two points:
1. Marijuana is a gateway drug. To decriminalize it is just the next step in declaring all drug use “okay.”
2. If society opts to decriminalize marijuana it needs to be for a far more legitimate reason than a rabid partisan homosexual from the east coast version of San Francisco telling us that prosecution is “silly.” That sentiment needs to come from somebody who is a legitmate part of society with children and family. Not an old gay guy who lets a male prostitution ring operate out of his home.
highhopes on March 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Are you just goofing, or was any part of your absurd comment serious?
Jaibones on March 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM
The real gateway drug is sugar. Imagine thin people with good teeth. Ban sugar now.
infidel on March 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I think personal MJ use should be legalized. That said, anyone caught selling, should get big fines and do some time. Case in point: My aunt used MJ periodically. She made the mistake of “sharing” a joint with a person whom she thought was a friend, who wound up being an undercover. She did not sell the joint to him, but gave it to him from her own personal. She had never sold so much as a leaf but got 2 YEARS in Tutweiler prison. In case your not familiar, Tutweiler prison houses hard core women offenders. Murderers, etc. By the way, first time offender and she had smoked a joint with this “officer” on more than one occasion. Some “justice” system.
kcd on March 24, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Two counter-points:
1. Don’t let your homophobia get in the way of good public policy.
2. Show me copies of all of your letters to your elected representatives and major newspapers, calling for the prohibition of alcohol production, sale, possession and consumption. Clearly alcohol is a gateway drug. Know anyone who smoked pot before they drank? No? Good, then we can assume a pretty strong correlation.
Jaibones on March 24, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I have always been and always will be in favor of Marijuana decriminalization. It is the sensible thing to do and would be far less consequential than our decision to end alcohol prohibition.
My 2c
PaulD on March 24, 2008 at 10:11 AM
.
And the fire in the Twin Towers didn’t get hot enough to liquify steel.
I’m really enjoying some of the logic in these posts.
peacenprosperity on March 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Totally wrong.
Jaibones on March 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM
If you dislike something, and can gather a big enough mob, does your mobs number generate the authority to dictate others’ lives in accordance with your mobs preferences?
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I just deleted a big long post that highlighted pros and cons on both sides of this issue…I’ll spare you and say…I just don’t really know how to feel about this issue. I feel strongly on both sides of it.
beefytee on March 24, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I’m not joining in that silly game, but FYI - the steel didn’t liquify. It got hot enough to soften steel, which is why the structural integrity of the towers failed.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Yes. Almost everyone I smoked pot with in high school.
peacenprosperity on March 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM
How many people raped and never tried masturbation before?
CASTRATE EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD!
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM
If marijuana were legalized and legally sold in legitimate businesses like alcohol is, its buyers would not come into contact with people who sold harder stuff when they went to purchase it. That would greatly lessen any ‘gateway’ status.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM
gateway drug? What a silly concept. People make their own desicions. The basis of marijuana illegality wasn’t brought about due to any sort of ‘harmful’ effects but because the DEA (it wasn’t called that then though) needed a reason to exist. Watch the history channel folks, it’s all right there. Let’s focus on getting the cocaine and the heroin and the meth off the streets, leave the pot smokers who want to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home alone.
drift on March 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM
What about the swinging couples that like to do a little coke to fuel a good ol’ sex romp?
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I’m with the others on the legalization of it. I’ve never smoked it, nor do I intend to, but all it does is make folks slow and stupid. And if that were illegal, millions would be in jail.
Don’t waste government time and money chasing pot heads.
And come to think of it, I’m not sure that I don’t agree with legalizing most drugs. Sell them controlled, and get the violent gangsters out of the equation. Hmmmm…how would that change the hip-hop community? I guess they’d still have prostitution to glorify…lol.
tickleddragon on March 24, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Please mate, leave the double negatives at home ;)
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Let’s pass this bill…
*
NO BILL PASSED FOR A YEAR BILL
right2bright on March 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Pot heads smell funny.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 24, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Wow, alot of weak no good smelly hippy pot heads in this thread.
Darksbane on March 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I am in awe of your mastery of the ad hominem.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I guess since it is not politically correct to demonize blacks, women or gays any more, this is what some people who feel they must boost their self-esteem by sliming someone are left with.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM
We can’t demonize darkies, hos & fags anymore? Who knew?
[/satire]
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Just a curious question to people willing to be honest:
How many here smoke dope, in clear violation of the law?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Why is this a federal issue at all? Shouldn’t the States decide their own drug laws? As long as we are not talking about interstate or cross-border traffic this shouldn’t be the concern of the federal government. What was the 10th amendment about anyway?
Vote Sauron 08 on March 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Probably less than the number of women who use vibrators in Alabama, also in clear violation of the law.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Your point?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Quite simply: some things that are in clear violation of the law, shouldn’t be.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Absolutely correct. This is a categorical states’ rights issue, not federal.
I doubt that prohibition could be argued even under the various states constitutions either.
Hence it should merely be a choice for the people. Privately.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM
There is probably more people in Vermont that cheat on their taxes than the total amount of HA registered commentors.
Why is that relevant to my question?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I think Salamantis was taking your question and using it to make a broader point.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Oh! So anybody who disagrees with legalizing pot is now a homophobe? Got it!
Really though, you need to try to read my post before responding- works much better that way. My point is that a gay old man doesn’t have to deal with issues like his children getting addicted to pot and becoming substance abusers just because people like you and Frank are too damned selfish to see public policy in broader terms than how it relates to your own lives.
highhopes on March 24, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Who is the arbitrator of laws that should be broken and the laws that shouldn’t be?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
People who cheat on their taxes are in a different category that potsmokers or dildo-wielders. They are not merely engaging in private behavior.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 10:57 AM
The individual.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:58 AM
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I understand, but still a complete dodge. I wasn’t trying to be cute, I think it is a poignant question. It’s a curiousity that I believe many here would like to see answered.
If you don’t want to answer it, fine. Perhaps paranoia is setting in.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:01 AM
The decision of which actions should and should not be legal, I believe, should be based on principle, and my candidate principle is this:
All people should have all freedoms that do not trangress the freedoms of others, and where competing freedoms come into inevitable conflict, that conflict should be resolved via equal and proportional compromise.
I can see tax cheats depriving the government of needed revenues it must then extract by raising the taxes of all, and corporate polluters augmenting their filthy lucre by fouling our common nest as transgressing the freedoms of others not to have to pay more than their fair share or to have to be poisoned by others. I do not see private potsmoking or masturbation as similarly harming others.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Barney Franks and his colleagues should be more concerned about U.S. border security than the status of hemp.
Without a secure border, the rest is moot, and America itself goes up in smoke.
profitsbeard on March 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
No paranoia here :) I suspect that many will consider it none of your damned business, that’s all.
Personally, the closest I come to drug abuse is enjoying a fine bourbon & cigar outdoors on a pleasant evening.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
A long winded dodge. It was a simple question. If you don’t smoke dope, then say it. If you do, let us know. If you don’t care to answer it, then stop pretending I’m saying something else. Please?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Masturbation is the gateway stimulation. A few innocent jerks here and there, and before you know it, you’re drooling in dark alleys waiting for unsuspecting trollops.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I used to, but I haven’t for quite some time now, mainly because I do not wish to either buy or grow it, or have it in my home, and subject my hard-earned fortune to a draconian forfeiture. I still see nothing wrong with people still choosing to indulge, and I will not say that I will not do so in the future, should the opportunity casually present itself. I DO see something wrong with the government criminalizing a private solitary act.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:10 AM
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I did preface my question for those willing to be honest. I don’t believe that falls under the heading of interrogation.
Again, it’s a simple question. Why such strong evasive reactions?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM
It appears there is still a large contingent of folks that can’t leave others well enough alone or at the very least have little faith in their fellow man to make good decisions for themselves.
Personally, I abhor the pothead culture that is likely aggravated by the illegality of the plant. And I have no interest in partaking. But the effects are comparable with alcohol, a legal drug.
I feel confident trusting my fellow citizens with concealed firearms. If they use them inappropriately, there are laws in place to punish them.
I’m unconcerned with bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. The vast majority of patrons are responsible. If they break the law and drive while intoxicated, there are laws in place to punish them.
Besides a negative stigma attached to the habit, what’s the difference that makes marijuana so very controversial? It’s impossible to address concerns that anti-legalization opponents have because, as this thread illustrates, it generally breaks down into red herring fishing expeditions and cliche snark.
Let’s face it…not unlike cigarrette smoking, about 90 percent of the opposition isn’t’ based on logic, freedom or societal concerns. It comes down to a mere distaste for the activity and a lack of a personal and consistent philosophy.
Asher on March 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Well said.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I agree, but when you lay the groundwork like “corporate polluters augmenting their filthy lucre by fouling our common nest”, you do recognize the harm that dope smokers foster in a home with children, do you not?
Or, how about the lack of judgement that may have led to a child getting hurt or killed because a “responsible” adult was stoned?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:18 AM
You could make the same arguments, but to a much greater degree, for users of tobacco our alcohol; are you now calling for their criminalization?
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:20 AM
No, you are.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:21 AM
We must trust parents to make responsible choices within their own households. Nanny-statism is not a workable answer. And there is a vast difference between smoking or drinking within your own home, and releasing tons of carcinogens into the air or into public water supplies.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM
At what point is the state allowed to step in and defend a child’s rights?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM
When that child shows up at school or in public with marks of physical abuse, tales of sexual abuse, signs of starvation or untreated illness or injury, indications of drug abuse, or not at all (in the absence of responsible homeschooling).
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Also, if the child is obviously suffering from mental illness or significant emotional instability.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Why is the continuous release of carcinogens into a child’s air off limits?
And why is that not physical abuse?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I would strongly urge parents not to smoke cigarettes around their children. However, I am not prepared to seize those children and warehouse them in a state facility, or to prosecute the parents for child endangerment, in order to legally effect my desires on this point. Are you?
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Then, strongly urge corporations not to pollute.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I have already made the point that parents smoking cigarettes around their own families in the privacy of their own homes is vastly different from corporations dumping tons of toxic pollutants into the public atmosphere or aquifers and causing damage to anonymous millions; perhaps you missed it.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Come on, these are legitimate and fair questions based on your arguments. And I’m not just talking about cigarette smoke.
Why is the continuous release of carcinogens into a child’s air off limits?
And why is that not physical abuse?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM
The public air, in general, is cleaner than the air inside a cigarette/dope smoker’s home.
“Tons” into the atmosphere, is hyperbole, until it is measured in terms of parts per billion in order to give parity to the toxicity in these situations.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Intent, I suspect. Recklessness, perhaps, but although inadvisable, there is still no conclusive medical proof that demonstrates a consistent cause of harm.
We ingest harmful things our entire lives, and our bodies cope.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Guys,
Make sure you distinguish between the state-state and the nation-state. The feds have no constitutional role in many things, including whether you beat your wife or kids, or grow dope to smoke yourself. Federalism is the answer to a lot of our biggest dissagreements, and repealing the 17th amendment would take us a long way down the road back to it.
Spartacus on March 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM
“cleaner” and “toxicity” are two totally different things.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Count me as one more vote for “this is a state issue”. I think there can and should be differences between the states. This is one of them. Federal law should only cover the interstate aspect of it. If various states had different policies, we would eventually have more evidence to support a position either way.
Personally, I’m opposed to making it legal. I’m an alcoholic, but might not be one if alcohol had been illegal. But that’s a very personal point-of-view, and it would be impossible for many to understand.
But I think the biggest reason is to get this issue and any other issue back to the states or to the lowest level of government possible. Call me a Fred-Head.
connertown on March 24, 2008 at 11:56 AM
When you, and a majority of the citizens of this country, are as willing to arrest and prosecute tens of millions of American parents and seize their tens of millions of children as readily as we should all be, and indeed are, to prosecute feckless and venal corporate polluters, you let me know.
Otherwise, go to work organizing a voting majority in favor of criminalizing tobacco and shutting down all the tobacco companies, and cut it off at its source - and see how far you get with that, too.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your motives; my father died of cigarette-induced emphysema, and it was painful for him in his final years - and on me, too; I took care of him. In faxct, 600 thousand Americans die each year of cigarette-smoking-related illnesses. But the decision to smoke was one that he himself made, and he bore its consequences himself.
Part of American personal freedom is having the freedom to indulge in self-destructive behavior, as long as it does not harm others. In the case of parents smoking cigarettes around their children, you’d have better luck shutting down the tobacco industry than you would have breaking into every American home checking for used ashtrays. But I don’t think you’d have much luck at either one.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:56 AM
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM
“cleaner” and “toxicity” are two totally different things.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Wrong.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Toxicity is a measure of parts per.
The term “clean” is used to represent the very exact, same thing when used in this context.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM
If I feed my child almonds, containing the highly toxin poison cyanide, am I guilty of attempted murder?
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Wrong.
Wow! Winning arguments is easy!
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM
But…
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Wow! Winning arguments is easy!
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM
No, it’s not.
Pretending to is.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:05 PM
If I feed my child almonds, containing the highly toxin poison cyanide, am I guilty of attempted murder?
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM
It is not a highly toxic poison unless the parts per billion threshold is crossed.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM
And the compromise we make is that parents are not prosecuted for smoking cigarettes around their children, or for drinking responsibly around them, nor are their children seized from them and warehoused in public institutions for these things, but they ARE prosecuted, and their children ARE taken from them, if those children are beaten, sexually abused, starved, fed drugs or alcohol, are not treated for illness or injury, or are not educated in either the school or the home.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM
You mean, there’s a difference between a substance being toxic, and its level of toxicity?
Well I never.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM
You’re a goldmine :)
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 12:15 PM
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM
You used the term “highly” toxic.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM
You’re a goldmine :)
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I used the terms “cleaner” and “toxicity” in a context I believe was appropriate. You made an issue of it, I responded with why I thought you were wrong.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Correct. Because it is. Ditto nicotine.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM
The crime, if we’re trying to be consistent, would be polluters augmenting their filthy lucre by fouling the common nest, not simply smoking around their children.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Yes; the common nest being defined as entire population swaths. But I said that before. I sincerely doubt if corporate polluters are releasing tons of toxic pollutants within the confines of their own homes.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I’m simply trying to say, that it is not a private solitary act, unless you’re willing to ignore the carcinogenic nature of smoking dope and tobacco in places where people (children) have no option other to endure it for eighteen physically formative years.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Sorry, Salamantis, I totally botched your quotes above. This is what I meant to do.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Yes; the common nest being defined as entire population swaths.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 12:37 PM
The home is not a common nest to which a child’s fortunes are tied?
It is the same basis for legitimacy of state enforcement of individual rights.
Look, in all my questions, I’m not stating that this law or that law should or shouldn’t be. In that way, I’m not being fair to you, because I’m not making a stand on anything. I’m just trying to point out that it’s not cut and dried. There are serious questions of individual rights involved and the state’s obligations to protect these rights blindly, and on principle.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »