..Nevermind.

However, we have alcohol licensing and age requirements, as well as laws against public drunkenness and driving while intoxicated, demonstrating that alcohol use, while legal, is heavily regulated in our society, bounded within fairly tight strictures.
troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 12:40 AM

We should deal with pot the same way and the government will see an increase in tax revenues.

Some interesting info.

BTW, I take back what I said about being sorry for whatever happened to you and your meth lab buddy. Too bad you did not get a chance to join him in the campfire at his house. He probably burned himself up laughing at the thought of your diminutive genatalia.

As for the rest of you “conservatives” out there, if you want to know why the Republican party is on the decline than please carefully review the postings of troyriser_gopftw. If you think that our current drug policy is wonderful, than good luck buddy, you are f-ing lost…

Burying your head in the sand does not equal an “argument” or a “substantive case.” Indeed, your repeated failure to answer basic questions reveals the bankruptcy of your prohibitionist position. In this regard, I am still waiting for your answer about the moral nature of our nation pre-1933.

I am sorry for the bad things that have happened to you and your close friend as a result of drugs. However, you must try to remove yourself from the indefensible corner you have backed yourself into with respect to this issue (think Plato’s allegory of the cave). If you are correct (which you are not), then nearly all of the conservative principles our country are based on are false and worthless. If you are unable to apply the same limited government rationales to the issue of drugs that we so freely apply to issues like, e.g., gun-rights, then you are undermining those arguments too (i.e., my point about being a consistent conservative).

Nobody sane wants a ridiculously broad and disastrous open-book policy with respect to drugs just like nobody wants law-abiding gun owners to own bazookas and surface-to-air missiles.

There is a line to drawn on drug policy but what I am saying is that we need to re-draw it for the 21st Century. If our party is on the correct side of this issue (which it presently is not) then we can attract a tremendous amount of new voters to our side and, at the same time, make new policy that actually works for everyone and saves a ridiculous amount of taxpayer dollars.

I re-read your posts and hardly think characterizing those who disagree with your prohibitionist position as, e.g., a “a selfish, self-centered pack of worthless pleasure-seekers” as respectful. Likewise, your rationale that the prohibitionist view is the majority and therefore must be correct rings hollow in view of the fact that this was the same argument used by plantation owners to justify their ownership of slaves.

If you disagree with my use of the Taliban label than please, by all means, educate all of us as to how our government’s policy with respect to drugs differs from the Taliban’s desire to impose sharia law? NEWSFLASH: There is no ideological difference.

Contrary to your last post, I do not think drug decriminalization is a “victimless crime.” Maybe you should re-read my posts. In fact, I think it is a horrid habit that destroys lives, ruins families, etc. However, in this country, we believe in personal responsibility, liberty, and freedom. Thus, if someone wants to destroy their own life, they should be free to do so. However, if one steps over the line, with respect to children, use in a vehicle, at work and/or in connection with violence, they should be punished and punished severely for it. That is the America I was raised to know. I advise you to take a look at Jefferson’s Usufruct theory and apply it to our discussion.

Similar to our toleration of, e.g., hate speech, legal C&R pre-1986 machine gun sales (in most states), and 4th Amendment rights that let some guilty go free, we should also tolerate personal/recreational use of ALL “illicit” drugs.

Last question, if the drug war is so wonderful and repealing/ending it is so bad/immoral, then how would you characterize our nation for the first nearly 200 years of its existence when ALL DRUGS WERE LEGAL? Were all those people in the U.S. before 1933 immoral? Was our country before 1933 and its moral underpinnings in jeopardy? Were people running around smoking pot/opium and biting the heads off of live chickens because they were high? I think not. Rather, those are the wild (and false) stories told by the same water-walker/religous nut jobs (like you) who also thought banning alcohol was a great idea. They were wrong and so are you. Our country woke up one day and realized what a mistake alcohol prohibition was and how it was pointless. God willing, the same realization will happen across our country with respect to drugs. See, e.g., the November 4 state-wide referendum in Massachusetts decriminalizing marijuana that passed by a 65% to 35% margin.

Get a grip, brother (or move to Saudi Arabia). Just because you had a hard time controlling yourself from the “evils” of drugs/alcohol does not mean that everyone else should have to sacrifice their liberties for your lack of self-control.

It is easy to score cheap points (like the stupid NRSCC campaign commercial that started this string of comments), but it is much more difficult to answer the many good questions that you have studiously avoided. It is impossible to argue with people (like you) who think (much like the Taliban) that all drugs are evil and prohibiting them is both moral and consistent with God’s plan. My guess is that most of you SUPER PROHIBITIONISTS (aka “waterwalkers”) are recovering addicts/drunks who think that because you could not control your own weaknesses/personal demons than no one else can either.

Much like the super liberals who illogically fear all guns as evil pieces of wood, plastic, and metal that must be BANNED, your logic is neither conservative nor christian but rather fascist.

Also, just because people have a different view on the so called “War on Drugs” than your own, does not mean that they are “potheads” or “stoners” or “addicts.” I have never used “illicit” drugs in my life and never will. However, that does not mean that I am incapable of seeing the injustice in a bad law and you bet your bottom dollar that I will continue to advocate my position and continue to influence the minds of as many young people as possible to reverse the destructive path our government (and our grand old party) has walked down on this issue.

Lastly, all of the pro-drug war comments posted in connection with this video have failed to answer my question about Governor Palin and her support/enforcement of Alaska’s marijuana laws (the most lenient in the nation). Based on your logic, I guess that makes Governor Cuda a “pothead” and “stoner” too, huh?

troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 12:40 AM

I read this post and you sound like someone who forgot what they were arguing against. Your “short utilitarian answer” to his first question could be applied to the topic of drugs as well – a sizable part of the population are lawbreakers because a sizable part of the population smokes marijuana. And did you forget that this could also apply to alcohol? A sizable part of Americans under the age of 21 are lawbreakers because they drink before their birthday, should we then lower or abandon the drinking age in order to remedy this problem? The War on Drugs is turning a large part of the population into lawbreakers and felons when they’re only crime has been smoking a plant and paying someone else for said plant; are you not concerned with what this does to “respect of the law”?

And you ask how supposed “anti-fornication laws” would be enforced given that out-of-wedlock sex is widely integrated in “American/western culture and mores,” but, um, did you forget that drugs applies equally here as well?

Please explain how the so called “war on drugs” is different than alcohol prohibition and please refrain from the oft-repeated myths about gateway drugs, immorality, etc. NewsFlash: It is no different. Also, during these times of debate about where our federal government will come up with money, please justify the BILLIONS that we spend per year in prosecuting the so called “war on drugs.” Al Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Please explain how the current drug policy of our government is not insane.
sayabule1 on November 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Ok. I’ll use little words. And I’ll use small sentences, of the sort a drug-addled brain can understand.

The majority of the people in this country don’t want a prohibition on alcohol. The majority in this country do want a prohibition on drugs. Every prohibited drug is more addictive than alcohol.

That’s the difference.

You imply a sameness. It’s there. The drunk T-bones and kills another driver. The drunk parent who gives birth to a child with the DTs. The pilot insists he’s ok to pilot a jetliner carrying 300 other people, even though he’s got a few in him….

Yup, there is a sameness, because I’ve seen both the drunk parent and the child going schizo on MJ. And I’m happy we’ve got whatever limits we’ve got.

Sorry for any patronizing tone. I really don’t mean to be a jerk, and I’m sure you’re a nice guy, but this is a pretty big deal, and I really think you guys undercut our (the right’s) arguments and give the left good reason to call us the Taliban-like party. The Taliban also likes to punish moral crimes in which noone’s rights are violated.

And you do sort of advocate for me to be arrested and taken to jail, so I think I should get a little leeway. Peace out.

Also, hard-core drug addicts start with alcohol as well. And prostitutes would be illegal under my law against sex out of wedlock (which is not a victimless moral crime). Want to now try and answer one of my questions?

No. Conservatism is about the restriction of government to those few arenas where it has a proper role. Law enforcement is one of those arenas. The legislature has, not only the right, but the duty, to pass laws that express the moral sense of the community. The Executive has, not just the right, but the duty, to enforce those laws.

I agree it’s conservative to enforce the law, but doesn’t conservatism have a say on what those laws are? If the law blacks can be owned by whites, is it conservative to insist on enforcement of that law since conservatism is about law enforcement?

The system of thought that automatically and unthinkingly asserts that less government is always better is called “Anarchism,” and that produces what is arguably the worst possible state for a human society. Anarchy is so bad, in fact, that human beings throughout history have agreed to the very worst sorts of tyranny rather than continue to live in it.

I don’t know of anyone here arguing that less government is always better. To say that adults should be able to consume and smoke things if they want to (but still suffer from the natural consequences- somehow you guys figure the meth or crack lifestyle is a generally desirable one if not for government punishments) without having someone bust down their door, take them to jail, and confiscate their property, does not equate with anarchy. We actually want the police to enforce good laws and not spend their limited time and resources enforcing victimless crimes.

Your argument against the illegality of drugs, those referred to as ‘controlled substances’, is essentially utilitarian, a line of argument we owe to the likes of Bentham and Mills. In my view, what they miss and what you miss is this: all successful laws have as their basis a moral principle. Moral principles may be inherent to human nature or learned, I don’t know, but these principles have been the guide for princes and parliaments for thousands of years. The moral principle at work in regards to the illegality of certain, often very powerful drugs is that these drugs kill people, drive them mad, destroy productivity and families, and ultimately undermine the societies receptive to their use.

What is the standard for laws you’re proposing, exactly? If something is immoral, it should be illegal? We live in a mostly Christian nation, and one of the general beliefs held by Christians is that it’s immoral to have sex out of wedlock, or even lust or lie. Do you want laws against these things, so that if someone fails morally we can stop them from being a productive, tax-paying member of society and instead spend $40,000 or so a year incarcerating them? I don’t think you can honestly tell me sex out of wedlock and lying aren’t destructive to society, like you’d say with drugs. I’d argue they’re way more destructive. In any case, would you say alcohol should be illegal, since it is an actual addictive, destructive drug?

I know a lot of people here think this is a marginal issue, but I think it’s pretty important. The arguments y’all are making for the drug war undercut our arguments for small government in general.

Do you not think the left argues for a “living wage” and welfare rights from a moral standpoint? If you bring up all the negative consequences from a government-imposed “living wage” and welfare, what are you going to argue when they accuse you of being utilitarian and that morals are important, no matter what the consequences? What about when they accuse you of being anarchists?

And let’s examine the moral aspect of this. Imagine one adult peaceably growing pot, and another adult peaceably trading money they have earned for some of that pot. Now imagine a bunch of guys with guns drawn breaking down one of their doors, taking them to a prison, confiscating their property, and then using our tax dollars to incarcerate that person for 40 grand a year. Is that second scenario morally pure for you, more moral than the first scenario where adults were peaceful and bothering noone? Which is less moral, prostituting, or stoning prostitutes? Should the right, who is made up in large part by Christians, take some sort of cue from Jesus’s example when it came to punishments for moral, victimless crimes, or are you guys so pure you feel okay throwing stones, or drawing guns and putting people in jails.

Troy, do you think it’s unjust for you not to march to the police tomorrow and cop to all the possessions of drugs you were never caught for? How about Rush or George Bush, if only to be an example to the kids?

Now will anyone answer any of these questions? I smoke pot occasionally, so it should be easy to take apart my arguments. You can even drink beer while you do it, all the while knowing you’re a much better person than me.