Video: Noted pothead dutifully pretends he did something terrible
posted at 1:10 pm on February 6, 2009 by Allahpundit
Fun stuff as he tries to keep a straight face while the reporter ratchets up the guilt trip. The question about having let down the people of Baltimore, who think of him as their own son, is a faux-tragic masterpiece.
Legalization advocates have been begging him to take the “who cares?” position, but one endorsement’s already gone and he’s just been slapped with a three-month suspension. Even with eight golds, he simply doesn’t have enough mojo to fight that battle publicly; frankly, only one athlete in the world does. But look on the bright side. He’s now the holder of the “world’s most famous” title in two separate categories: Swimmer and dope-smoker. Or rather, second-most famous.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4
I hope the dizzyness and raspy throat was worth the MILLIONS you just pissed away.
kurtzz3 on February 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Tut tut king post.
He’ll still be a millionaire, thank goodness.
-
deesine on February 6, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Any claims that pot legalization would “harm society” are baseless. Prohibition is fairly recent in American history. There are plenty of ways one can get intoxicated and society still stands. Nearly half the population smokes pot at some point in their life, and society still stands.
Since you’ve fallen back on “but… it’s illegal,” I think it’s fair to assume that you have conceded. You keep trying to change to topic to whether or not it is moral to violate the law, when we are discussing the legitamacy of the law in the first place. I’m afraid you have proven again that the prohibition crowd has zero good arguments to keep the laws the way they are. Desire to keep pot banned is based entirely on emotion, not logic. And I thought it was only liberals who clinged to failed policies to the bitter end.
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 9:22 PM
I’m not going to advocate pot. I don’t smoke it or condone smoking it. I do think it should be legal and regulated, the same as alcohol. We do all kinds of stupid things to our bodies, why should this be any different?
john1schn on February 6, 2009 at 9:45 PM
I’m not sure, but isn’t “whining about it” basically speaking from the constituency, assuming at least some of that whining is directed towards proper powers? And at least some of that “whining about it” towards people with opposing viewpoints, like yourself, allows an argument to be more chiseled and airtight if serious considerations should arise. This is supposed to be a nation “of the people”.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Yeah whatever…live long and prosper.V
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 10:12 PM
…and the people have spoken.
Gather a stronger voice and make changes.
Until then. Deal with it.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 10:13 PM
When people make fun of you for pointing out how much more logical your argument is and don’t care to offer a rebuttal, it’s fair to claim yourself the victor. The only reason people want to maintain prohibition is either “It’s wrong,” or “I just KNOW it would be bad for society,” without really having any reasoning to back that up.
And you have ZERO good reasons for those changes to not be made apparently. Deal with it.
It’s a little bizarre that you keep taking that “HAHA potheads, it’s illegal right now, and there’s probably nothing you can do about it in the near future” route. Again, what we are discussing is the LEGITIMACY of the law, not what the best way to change the law is or the morality of disobaying the law. Do you admit, finally, that there is no legitimate reason to maintain prohibition?
I also noticed you never answered my two basic questions
1) Does the state have the right to prevent self harm? In particular, minor self harm that might takes years or decades to manifest itself?
2) Does the state have the right to persecute you for your thoughts, attitude, or disposition?
I think they are pretty straightforward. What’s your answer?
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 10:35 PM
The pot legalization crowd are stupid F***s.
csdeven on February 6, 2009 at 10:36 PM
OK, Why?
john1schn on February 6, 2009 at 10:41 PM
The anti-pot crowd are foul mouthed.
MadisonConservative on February 7, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Really.
When’s the last time this was voted on? And how many of the elected officials who took part in this piece of legislation are still in office?
If the ban was up for consideration every 10-20 years, the people would have spoken. Not so.
MadisonConservative on February 7, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Wait a minute! So your saying that if this old fat man started smoking a bong I could ruin my life so bad I would only have 14 gold medals and a 100 milllion dollars left? Hmmmmmm
Dadzilla on February 7, 2009 at 2:27 AM
This I will respond to, because it seem to ask reasonable questions. Some of the above positions or accusations pointed at me have been answered by me more than once, and I just won’t play that game. Its like trying to have a factual discussion with a 911 truther. After a certain point, it becomes obvious that an intelligent discussion is that last thing they are interested in.
Anyhoo, As to your point “When was the last time it was voted on?”, I’m not sure what your point is. Are you implying some sort of conspiracy exists to keep it out of the process? A lot of niche issues never get through the process to be voted on. This could be the result of some puppetmaster behind the scenes “working the system” for some nefarious reason, or simply the result of the voice of the people not seeing it as worth the time and tax dollars to change.
Those are two possibilities. There could be more, so I don’t want to try and establish a false dichotomy, so I’ll leave those two for a starting point. If anyone has anymore possibilities, put them out for discussion.
Of the two I presented, which do you find the most believable?
I’ll maintain the position that, to date, the majority of people have indeed spoken on this issue. I don’t find any evidence based reasons to believe otherwise.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM
I have read with interest some of the arguments going back and forth and would throw in my 2 cents:
First, I have an issue with the government cherry-picking which drugs I can use (alcohol and tobacco) and which I can’t (pot). It’s a little bit like them saying you can eat a ham or corn beef sandwich, but not turkey. If part of people’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” involves smoking pot, and they are not hurting anyone else by doing it, then they should be able to do it.
Second, the question was poised whether “some puppet master behind the scenes was working the system for some nefarious reason(s)”. The short answer is “yes”, Harry Jacob Anslinger, the first Commissioner of the Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN. Here’s a brief discussion about his role in outlawing pot courtesy of Wiki.
For a better (and more entertaining) discussion on Anslinger’s efforts, I suggest you watch the movie “Grass”.
Last item has to do (ironically) with our current economic times. We are currently spending billions on the “War on Drugs” . Wouldn’t that money be better spent solving real problems in our economy?
Dagnar on February 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Yeah, if I was on the losing side of a debate and my opponent never allowed me to get off topic or obscure the issue, I’d get pretty irritated too. The 17 Billion Dollar per year drug war is doing more harm that good, and the reason I have to pay taxes to fuel it is becasue of people like you, who think the gubmint is good and drugs are bad.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 2:22 PM
The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority concerning any particular law.
The “government” is us. The idea that things are randomly cherry picked would have to have some supporting evidence for the claim to extend past the validity of some type of conspiracy imo. What is this evidence?
As far as Anslinger is concerned, that is one unsupported claim, giving him way more power than actually existed. There are a number of specious theories in circulation for decades..Anslinger in collusion with the Hearst newspaper empire..
“Big Cotton”, and “Big Wood Pulp” connected to Anslinger and others. “Big Alcohol” and “Big Tobacco” pulling the strings of the puppets while they themselveschuckle and puff on Cuban cigars, etc.
Like 911 conspiracies, there is always a “Puppetmaster” pulling the wool over everyones eyes when it would be much better to be pulling the hemp fiber over everyone’s eyes.
Like other conspiracies, they can seem plausible when the sequence of events, information presented, and context is cherry picked.
That being said, Anslinger is dead. Who’s pulling the strings now?
It’s always a good idea, if the intent is to actually arrive at an accurate understanding of reality, to look at both sides of a position.
If there is so much money to be made from taxes if a substance is legal, and the only reason to keep it that way is… what?, just to be assholes who hassle innocent people exercising their right of pursuing happiness? The argument that, if legal, dealers would be out of business, along with the violence etc, is specious at best. If the argument is that “The People” would reap great amounts of tax dollars to benefit the general running of the government is also a hollow argument imo. If the price for pot falls through the floor because of legalization…then whats the base for thinking there would be a net benefit from tax dollars, when having to fund a whole new bureaucracy with statutes and laws to govern the growing, training, enforcing, cataloging of product sold for tax purposes, study groups to determine policies to regulate legal amounts, testing for adulterants, and blood levels to determine legal levels of intoxication, the devises and equipment to allow for such on the spot testing, similar to DWI testing, licensing for distributors…etc. etc. etc.
When these baseline problems are on the table needing to be worked out…and they are only the most rudimentary of problems to be worked out, the legislative consensus..to date..has been that its just not worth the hassle and expense, and years of deflecting resources for the end result of..people getting a buzz.
If one were to rationally evaluate the two possible reasons that pot remains illegal…the one I laid out vs. an almost 80 year old plot of a dead guy to keep people in cotton underwear or wood pulp…I don’t know. One just seems to be more plausible than the other.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 2:23 PM
It’s not a puppetmaster, it’s a mindless stigma against pot and the kind of people who smoke it.
Yeah, just like how we were never able to do all of that crap when booze became legal again in the 30′s. Things actually became healthier, because people no longer drank harsh moonshine or liquid heat to get drunk (well, not as much), plus it helped crush Chicago and New York crime syndicates.
Plus, it’s awfully cruel to say “We can’t respect individual liberty, because it would be kind of a hassle if we did.” It DOESN’T MATTER if it would take some sort of organization to regulate the stuff. Personal liberty is always paramount.
Uh, and ending paramilitary police raids on innocent people’s home, freeing up an astronimcal sum on imprisoning nonviolent offedners and ending the drug war. It’s more than just “Hey man, I WANT to get high.” It’s about freeing innocent people and saving a ton of money.
One last time, quit avoiding my two fundamental questions.
1) Does the state have the right to prevent self harm? In particular, minor self harm that might takes years or decades to manifest itself?
2) Does the state have the right to persecute you for your thoughts, attitude, or disposition?
It doesn’t get any more complicated than that.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 2:35 PM
You offer little but repetitive opinion and specious claims back by simply repeating your opinion backed by specious claims.
I think you’re in a rut.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Living proof that smoking kills brain cells.
And as for you, justfinethanks…
Only if the state pays for the cost of said harm…you know, stuff like hospital stays, police work, the costs of a decent legal system. Which it usually does, and by extension so does every taxpayer. The minute someone else has when has a say in your actions is when they have to pay for them.
If said thoughts, attitudes, or disposition turn into real harm toward others or have a proven habit of doing so, darn skippy.
Dark-Star on February 7, 2009 at 3:02 PM
I think it’s easier to dismiss crushing arguments as “specious” (twice) than to address them directly. I don’t like repeating myself, but it’s unavoidable when my issues are not directly addressed. It’s not my opinion that prohibition didn’t work during the 20s and 30s, its not my opinion that people who have nothing to do with growing or selling drugs are having their homes raided and being arrested, its not my opnion that our prison system is clogged with nonviolent offenders, its not my opinion that we are spending billions of dollars on an incredibly ineffective drug war. These are all documented facts.
Just for the hell of it, here’ the documentation.
Prohibition was a Failure
Raids on innocent People
Horrible Expenses and the Arrest of Nonviolent Offenders
Then you don’t believe in freedom in the first place. I suppose to convince you that the drug war is bad I would be forced to start from first principles of represntative democracy and the concept of a social contract. Honstly I don’t think I’ve ever been forced in a position where I’ve had to defend the very concept of freedom, and it’s a little baffling that you don’t find it as self evidently good as the rest of the world does.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Haven’t smoked in four years since my wife became pregnant. Don’t plan on considering it again until my daughter can support herself.
I agree.
Of course, I wasn’t talking about “real harm.” I think it’s farily obvious that you can only arrest people for actions, not thoughts. No one can say “Assholes are more likely than non assholes to hit people, and THAT guy is an asshole, let’s put cuffs on him.” I would think that you agree that mere thoughts or attitudes in and of themselves are not harmful.
Cool, it sounds like we are on the same page. Legalize it.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I simply responded in kind to the level of your type of discourse. You are constantly contradicting your own positions and accusations by offering nothing by opinion and specious claims,some sourced by obviously biased and simplistic organizations of absolutely no peer review.
I’m sorry if I can’t take your arguments seriously, it just that they register to me to be little different in content than the “logic” and “reasonings” of a spoiled teenager whining and bitching about being grounded for the week end.
But you can always prove me wrong.
1. Does society have the valid right to impose laws governing the actions of members of that society?
2. Are these laws binding on all members of that society, regardless of an individuals like or dislike of those laws?
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM
You’re delusional imo.
It seems to me you consistently offer nothing but opinion and specious arguments in support of childish demands. I’m sorry, but attempting a discussion with that kind of bias is like trying to take seriously the “logic” and “reasonings” of a pouting teenagers whining about no one having the “right” to ground them for the weekend.
You can do better. Here’s 2 simple questions for you to avoid.
1. Do societies have the right to establish laws
that can regulate the actions of their peers in that
society?
2. Do you believe individuals in that society can claim
special rights to be exempted from those regulations?
3. What would be the basis of those special rights?
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM
It happened again.
I posted a reply and it didn’t show up for 1/2 hour so I attempted to reconstruct it.
Don’t know why that happens. I visited a couple other sites and came back to see if there was a response..nothing. Thought I screwed up..so I re-posted.
Has this happened to anyone else?
If not, I suspect a conspiracy involving either Anslinger or Bush.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM
The lawmakers are limited by the Constitution, as interpreted by the Courts. Unenumerated rights default to the people. The federal government has powers granted to it by the people and those powers may restrict the rights of citizens. The federal government has many powers that allow it to regulate drugs to some extent, whether that should extend to personal use on private property some disagree on.
dedalus on February 7, 2009 at 4:36 PM
So is that a yes or a no?
Some will always disagree on something.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I don’t think it’s childish to be sick of paying taxes into a failed drug policy, any more than it is childish to be sick of paying taxes into a failed welfare policy. You also seem to think that smoking pot is a petty “right,” which is fine. I think that the right to play “World of Warcraft” is petty and a huge waste of time, but I don’t think the cops should bust through the doors of nerds and lock them up. How other people spend their time is their business.
Your analogy to pouting teenagers is very telling. You seem to think that adults are children in a way, and the government is the adult who gets to “ground” us if they want, for any reason.
Your “No Peer Review” complaint is a bit weird too. The claim that innocent people are being raided upon can be support with examples, which I have provided, and thus needs no peer review. The claim that the drug war costs billions of dollars and puts nonviolent offenders in prison is backed by information obtained by our own government, and thus also needs no peer review, unless you want to make the bizarre claim that our government is exaggerating how much they are spending and how many people they are arresting.
The only claim that one might feasibly claim needs peer review is the idea that prohibtion was a failure. I’m not going to say that there are ZERO economists or historians who say that prohibtion was a success, but it’s probably close to zero. I certainly haven’t heard of any respected historian or economist who think that prohibition helped anyone besides Al Capone. The article I referenced is written by Mark Thornton, probably the biggest expert on the economics of the prohibition in the world. It’s well documented and provides tons of evidence that suggest that, while drinking dipped initally, rose to pre prohibtion levels very quickly. The idea that prohibition was a failure is not a contraversial idea, and is virtually universally acknowledged.
Yes. The role of government is not to grant rights, but to protect rights. Individuals have the right to pursue their own version of happiness, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.
The law should be blind. I’m not an anarchist, however, and would grant the police special rights to initiate the use of force in protecting the rights of citizens. The police force, however, should be tightly regulated to prevent abuse.
It happens to me too. I think the second gunman hacked hotair using computers to fake the moon landing.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I think when states vote to allow private use of marijuana and the federal government stops them that the federal government is exceeding its authority.
dedalus on February 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Now the subject is being tired of paying taxes? I thought it was about the validity of the drug laws.
Actually no. You should try and pay closer attention to the points others make.
I’m not judging it a “petty” right, or any right.
I’m claiming that you and others have no “special rights” that gives you the power to pick and choose which laws to follow, and no valid reason to bitch and whine when you’re the subject of enforcement of those laws.
Well..no.
My analogy had nothing to do with adult behavior, in fact just the opposite.
Actually your analogy is very telling. You seem to think that its an expression of adult behavior to pick and choose which laws to follow and blame others when one doesn’t get their way.
What do you believe gives you those special rights??
Which branch of science are your examples a study of, and what are the sources of review.
I’ll guess that they represent no science or study worthy of any review, and are simply special interest compilations of cherry picked information.
Yes the enforcement of drug laws costs a lot of money.
Whats your point.
The claim of nonviolent offender is sometimes true..a lot of times not.
But thats beside the point isn’t it? The prosecutions are for violations of the existing laws, whether or not all offenders express violent behavior is irrelevant.
Again..alcohol prohibition has nothing to do with…and has few correlations to the drug laws.
Is that a yes or a no?
..thats just what they want you to think.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Thats true, but another complicated issue based on interstate commerce arguments.
The same overstepping on states right would be a stronger argument made in the overturning of Roe v. Wade which has nothing to do with interstate commerce imo.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 5:44 PM
O.K another long reply disappeared. Not reposting it.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 5:54 PM
It’s clear you fancy yourself HotAir’s resident Spartacus, taking on all comers. That would explain why the tone of your posts is always one of someone talking down to the ignorant here.
I made two points in my post: One, the government shouldn’t be allowed to tell me what I can ingest in my body and what I can’t. There’s no “fact” or grand truth here, just my own opinion so it can’t be either right or wrong. Second point was, I think the government could be spending the billions of dollars they waste every year on a failing “War on Drugs” on something a lot more beneficial for the country.
In regards to Anslinger, the facts are the facts and his efforts to criminalize pot are well-documented. (Not exactly 9-11 truther territory as you alledge, without any proof yourself). I don’t have first-hand knowledge of what his motivations were (neither do you) because I wasn’t around then. Fact is, pot is no more harmful than alcohol and tobacco, so why is and should it be illegal?
Dagnar on February 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Really? What do you suggest?
In that vein..or maybe not, apparently I can’t tell..I think its well established that ad hominems are an indication of weak points in a discussion.
I respond to points in a way that I feel is appropriate to the one I’m responding to. If after several interactions it seems like a poster is needlessly being evasive or trying to run me around in circles I’ll make that known, and wouldn’t be surprised if that may seem like being arrogant, so what? Would you like to stifle that right in others?
Do you find that offensive?.. I don’t and have expressed welcoming any type of response to my commenting…hopefully keeping on topic, but if not, thats fine too, I’m not that thin skinned.
I understand that.
I must not be expressing myself clearly, because I thought I pointed out several times that my whole point is that the laws that exist, are the laws that exist, and if one disagree with them, then work at changing them, and please not beleaguer others with carping about the violation of your “rights”, because it makes one come across as a thin skinned, pompous, whining ass imo…not that theres anything wrong with that.
Speaking of opinions, you pointed out that you simply expressed your opinion, and I agree that is your right and what mostly goes on in forums and blogs…and that makes it neither right or wrong. I agree.
But I’m not discussing opinions on this topic, just wondering about the attitude that some are expressing that their opinion gives them special rights to pick and choose which laws they follow.
I am just trying to find out the basis for believing one has these special rights and therefore is entitled to extend them beyond the realm of opinion and into the real world where everyone else has to deal with them.
Can you help me out with that?
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 7:10 PM
If you now claim to not know what Anslinger motivations were, why did you imply you did in the original post in which you brought up Anslinger and refered to him as the “Puppetmaster” mentioned in a previous post?
I claimed no knowledge of Anslingers intentions..in fact my position was that it was simply the opinions of a man who at the time seemed to think he was right about a position that was a current issue.
Unless I misunderstood what your point was, it seemed you were implying there was some sort of ulterior motive.
That was my connection to 911 conspiracy theories. Just a similarity of tactic.
Different substances have different dangers. What is the benefit in adding another as dangerous a substance to the market, particularly when the complications of putting a simple concept into practice would most likely cause a flurry of unintended consequences?
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Well, it seems like what is being discussed is two totally seperate topics.
1) The morality of civil disobedience
2) The legitimacy of the laws as they stand.
Even if one were to grant you (and bear in mind that I don’t) that there is no moral defense of disobaying the law in a representative democracy, you still haven’t settled the questions of whether or not the law is legitimate in the first place.
So you seem to think that civil disobedience is never justified. That’s fine, but the more pertinent question is “Are the LAWS themselves justified.” This questions itself has nothing to do with civil disobedience or what the best way to change the law is. I would submit given the miserable track record of prohibition and unnecessary invasion into the personal lives of citizens, laws restricting weed are not justified on either a philosophical or even a practical level.
I don’t I have special rights over you. I do think that I have the right to get intoxicated with pot in my home, but this does not extend to anywhere else to any place where anyone else has to deal with it. It is important to note that what an individual has “right” to do, and what is allowed to do under the law aren’t always identical.
But again, the main topic is the prohibition or marijana justified, yes or no? That’s the main question, not civil disobedience or legislative change.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Like what, exactly? A few years ago Denver almost de facto legalized pot, putting pot offenses on the bottom of the priority list for police. Since then, the number of pot arrests have dropped several fold, saving the city a ton of tax money, and yet it still functions as a society. It is highly unlikely that any “unintended consequnces” are going to be any worse than the waste, pain, and expense being generated by our current drug war.
The “unintended consequnces” claim is a varaition of the “it will harm society” claim, and it is totally unfounded.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I agree, and have pointed that out myself.
On the topic I’m discussing, do you agree that the laws that are in effect are in fact the laws that we all must follow, or do think that the drug laws are not legitimate?
If you think they are illegitimate, what is that based on?..does your rationale then transfer to ALL drug laws? If not, why not?
You stated this:
..Your mixing two different topics..one accusing me of thinking disobeying a law in an act of civil disobedience is immoral.
This is without any foundation at all imo, and simply a tactic to bolster you bias. Its actually dishonest imo.. an act of civil disobedience as a form of protest, does not equal actively committing the crime one is protesting.
If one were protesting the instituting of “hate crime” laws, one would not do that by publicly committing hate
crimes.
Well actually no. Thats not what I think, and is an obvious misrepresentation of my position.
Its comments like that that have caused me to respond in a way that is as exacting as possible…one that some find offensive and pompous. Thats not my intent, but what I apparently must do, or either have my views misrepresented or have them misunderstood.
I have not made any claim of civil disobedience being immoral. Why would you think that I did?
You have the right to do what you will,that is free will, but if you think, or expect to not be treated like everyone else when violating a law…then that is the expectation of a “special right”. Take your chances/take your lumps. I have no problem with that.
But then you go on to point out that you should have the right to smoke in your home..that implies that laws would still be in effect outside your home. That seems to be a contradiction to your idea that there should be no legal restriction on it. Which is it?
Sort of…but when you go on to state that the topic has nothing..or little to do.. with legislative change…ya lost me. How can laws be changed with out “legislative change”?
It should be needless to point out, but for the record, I think the marijuana laws are justified.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 8:12 PM
I don’t think that that the drug laws are effective or legitmiate, but the qeustion of whether or not we should be forced to follow pointless and ineffective laws has zero bearing on whether or not those laws are legitmate in the first place.
Civil disobedience does not in and of itself have to be an act of protest. It means to simply disobay civil laws, like what people do when they light up. If you think that “civil disobedience” can be justified, then you think that it is at least possible for someone to argue that they have the right to smoke pot, even if the law says otherwise.
Well, you have repeatdly chastised people to “follow the laws” until they get changed. It’s easy to infer from this that you think there is something inherently wrong with disobaying the law.
I don’t expect to be given special rights. I have the same rights as everyone else. And I believe that the current laws are a violation of citizen’s rights. I don’t think anyone is above anyone else. Everyone has the right to get stoned in their house equally.
Lawrence v. Texas ruled that public intoxication laws are constitutional, and I generally agree with that. Indviduals can do what they want on private property, but I can see how one would argue that things change when you go out onto public property. I think individual states should be allowed to make their own public intoxication laws.
Because HOW to change the law is totally seperate from whether or the law NEEDS to be changed. I’m not arguing the HOW at the moment, because before you even talk about the HOW, you have to settle on whether or not it SHOULD be done in the first place. And that’s all I’m arguing. The current pot laws are wasteful, a violation of rights, and pointless.
Well, it saddens me that I have to pay money to fuel your failed anti drug program. It keeps very few people off of drugs, jails innocents, and expands an already bloated government. I would really encourage you to explore the drug war. It has been nothing but a disaster. Once you really learn how miserably ineffective it is and how much we are wasting each year to accomplish nothing, there is really no other logical conclusion to come to than to abolish it.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 8:35 PM
I mean different drugs have different potential problems associated with them.
If anything is put at the bottom of the list it should come as no surprise that the number of arrests for that violation would drop.
What makes that work, in part, is that it is still against the law and up to the discretion of the officers to decide whether making an arrest is warranted or not.
If this was not the case, in a situation of making it fully legal, then all kinds of unintended consequences would most likely spring to life. That being said, I would have to see the data you’ve looked at to see the saving of tax dollars is actually the case, and what the guidelines are for deciding whether violations are prosecuted or not. If you think about it honestly, there is a possibility of great discrimination of prosecution in a system like that. One person may get off because of the attitude of a particular cop, when the person across the street gets prosecuted because of a bad day the cop is having. I think even and consistent enforcement of the laws are the fairest approach.
What is that based on? I know “hope” is really popular these days, but wouldn’t suggest it for a way of moving forward.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 8:36 PM
This is based on nothing. In the case of Denver, obviously, the number of PEOPLE who smoked dope did not drop. But the number of people who got arrested for it did. This meant that there was an increase in the number of people who happily puffed away without legal consequences. When you can be shown that more people smoking dope without legal consequences has no affect on society, I would hope it should give you pause.
Uh, this is true for everything from assault to driving tickets, and its basically unavoidable.
This is based on pockets of the US where pot has all but been decriminalized. I’ll give you another example: Los Angeles. LA is filled with medical pot dispenseries, and NORMAL can give you a list of “pot friendly” doctors who can give you a “perscription” for medical pot. (The most common excuse is “insomnia”) Again, society did not crumble. There is no record of an increase in addiction from more people puffing away with no legal consequences. Cops can’t even arrest these people because they have a “perscription.” Again, if we see that there is no connection between loosening the laws on pot and the health and well being of society, (and we have seen this, repeatedly) then it makes sense to just legalize it already, so we can stop paying taxes on a failed drug war, and have our income taxes decreased from “sin tax” revenue.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Its still illegal. Thats the control.
Still,,speaking of things being “based on” or not, what are your sources for your claims concerning Denver?
For your claim to be an accurate representation of the effects on a society, they would have to be correlated to the statistics involving other violations…traffic..domestic disputes..drug dealing etc.
What you’re saying may be true. Where did you get the stats? Please..no “pro legalization” organization stats.
When will this be shown?
This is a red herring imo.
Seeing that pot is not legal, any statistic showing problems would be difficult to show. Pot is legal nowhere in practice, and there has been a natural decline in pot use that effect statistics and has little to do with decriminalization in one city in the country.
You could extrapolate though. Most anytime regulations are eliminated, corruption and manipulation of the system takes root.
But legalization is not what you’re advocating is it? Its not represented by your example of Denver. At anytime the laws could be enforced…and I suspect they are more frequently than your seem to like to believe.
But anyway, what the source of your claim?
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Actually it appears that pot arrests are up in Denver.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15508443/detail.html
More people are smoking in public….one unintended consequence.
The implication is that police in Denver have always treated pot possession in small amounts as a low priority.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 9:27 PM
What exactly is the distinction between not enforcing a law and legalizing something. If it was announced tomorrow that speed laws would not be enforced, how would that be distinct from removing speed limits?
Here’s a story regarding the ordinance requring officers to put pot at the bottom of their priority list.
http://denverdirect.blogspot.com/2009/02/denver-marijuana-prosecutions-plunged.html
Here’s the crime stats between 2007 and 2008
http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/337/documents/Citywide_Reported_Offenses_2008.pdf
As you will notice, there is basically no change in violent crime as well. If anything, violent crime dipped a little. Less enforcement, no affect on society.
If you are a resident in Los Angeles and want to get high with zero legal consequences, you can. That’s de facto legalization. Somehow, LA still stands. Except we can’t reap the full rewards because it’s technically “illegal.” It’s illegality isn’t preventing people from getting high, it’s only preventing us from lower taxes.
You were the one claiming that legalization will have consequences. What’s the source of your claim?
And the thing is, even if you could demonstrate that it would increase the addiction rate, or some other unforseen consequence, it wouldn’t matter, because I STILL have the right to get intoxicated on private property. That’s the real important thing. Nothing changes that fact, and that’s the core reason for legalization.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 9:39 PM
In any case the number of PROSECUTIONS has dropped significantly, despite the apparent increased number of arrests. That still means that more people are smoking without legal consequence.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 9:43 PM
The distinction is that the option to prosecute exists as a control to irresponsible use and distribution.
Those Denver stats seem to show basically all crime down, except domestic problems and crimes against children and sexual offenses up 65%. Do you attribute that to smoking pot?
Hard to actually arrive at any conclusions based on those stats.
If I’m following the ideas that you’re making that are based on the crime stats for Denver, it seems to show keeping pot possession illegal but being able to use more discretion in prosecutions for small amounts saves some dollars on the prosecution end, but takes more time and cost more on the arrest end. Is it a wash?.. hard to tell. It doesn’t really seem to be representative of the enforcement of pot laws in Denver, as it was pointed out that it has always been treated as a non offense, and the police stated they haven’t changed their frequency of prosecutions before or after the law change…so I don’t know what that is suppose to show support of.
I don’t think that a college town like Denver or Seattle, or the bay area can be held up to be potentially representative of decriminalization across the country any more than a city with a specialized population like Salt Lake City would make a case of everyone being Mormon to solve many of the countries substance problems.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Then its a good idea to eliminate the problems with a whole range of offenses, by simply not prosecuting them. Makes sense.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Actually no. You can get intoxicated on any legal substance.
The “right” that you claim you have does not exist in the society that you’re living in.
Why not take the course that people took in Denver..one that I recommended and supported several times in this thread..and work to have the laws changed.
By the way..if you feel so very strongly about the issue, what are you actually doing to change the laws besides whining about being a victim and demanding special rights?
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Well, I would argue that “irresponsible use” only happnens when it begins to violate the rights of others, and we already have laws to protect that outside of drug laws.
I wholly agree. There is no real conclusions that these stats show, which displays that there is no reason to infer that the decrease in prosecutions on pot has led to any affect on crime. Even if you think it’s a “wash” in terms of tax dollars saved, it’s also a “wash” in terms of benefit or harm to society, which itself makes the law look silly.
Fair enough, but all I’m saying is that loose pot laws don’t lead to a collapse of society (just like, I suppose, SLC can show that being Mormon doesn’t cause a societal collapse). This fact should be enough to cause us to at least REVIEW the point of current drug laws. Like it would perhaps cause a review of the legality of being Mormon (if that also happened to be illegal everywhere else.)
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 10:25 PM
I’m out for the night..eating up too much time for nothing.
Itchee Dryback on February 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM
You need to bone up on John Locke. Rights exist outside and above society.
One last time. I’m not discussing what the best way to make these changes are, or how to make these changes. All I’m trying to do, right now, is convince you of the idea that our current pot laws are wrong, unjust, and ineffective.
I’m not demanding “special rights.” it’s really, really strange that you keep accusing me of that. I already have these rights, as do you and everyone else, regardless whether they are given to you by the government or not.
I donate money and time to some Anti Prohibition organizaitons here in Orange County. I also take the time to convince hard headed prohibtionists on internet why they are wrong.
justfinethanks on February 7, 2009 at 10:33 PM
There isn’t a damned thing wrong with smoking pot.
Funny watching Phelps try to pretend there is though. And why does this interview go on so long? He’s smoked a joint, big deal.
Ares on February 8, 2009 at 6:49 AM
Well you can’t reason someone out of a position that wasn’t reasoned into.
My whole point has consistently been this:
1. The laws that exist have been established via due process.
2. The same process can be used to change the existing ones.
3. Until that happens, the laws that exist are valid. If someone disagrees with that, point out the mistakes in the process establishing the statute in dispute, provide your evidence and make your case. Best of luck with that.
4. Feel free to ignore any statue, but don’t whine about it if caught.
5.Someone who claims to be above the law and therefore has a “right” to be exempt, is imagining themselves to be in possession of some special right.
Its really not that difficult to grasp. No abstractions or philosophical hoops to jump through.
What does John Locke have to do with anything?
Here’s a suggestion, it will help you become a millionaire.
Advertise a solution for all people facing drug possession prosecutions..pot..crack..heroine, etc. Guarantee a solid result.
Get a large fee up front.
Hand them a paperback book over viewing the perspectives of John Locke. Tell them to wiggle it front of the judge and jury while shouting “It’s all in here!..The court is a sham!”
Easy money, and the existing statutes would have no legal standing to combat such a defense. The court would slink away in humiliation at such a bulletproof position and the jig would be up on the facade of law they’ve been forcing on innocent people all these years. Why hasn’t anyone thought of this?
Easy money!
Nice dodge!
The data you presented is not representative of anything, other than business as usual in a liberal college town.
Denver has serious drug problems and is a major hub for distribution of drugs to other areas of the country.
But you’re changing the subject and being dishonest about it imo. Claiming that you are not interested in any way to actually change the laws seems an odd position to take.
If you don’t want to change the laws, what are you complaining about?
For one last time.
If you feel you have the “right” to pick and choose which laws are valid, you’re claiming a right that does not exist for the rest of the population.
That makes you special.
Good for you! Thats the process that need to be taken, and one that I can respect.
How’s it workin’ out?
Itchee Dryback on February 8, 2009 at 8:54 AM
I was with you up until the last one. Like I said before, I personally don’t smoke. No one is above the law, and everyone, without exception, has the right to smoke in their home. I’m not claiming “special rights” or that some people are exempt, I’m claiming equal rights.
I’m not claiming that you can use philosphy in order to wiggle out of a bust. That’s what lawyers are for. If you grow or use, obviously, you should be cautious, because, hey, it’s illegal. And if you get busted for intoxication/possession/growing, I would only reccomened to try to get off or get a light sentence within the legal framework. I never, ever claimed that anyone is above the law or has special rights. I’m just claiming that the law is wrong and violates everyone’s rights.
I do want to change the laws, but that is something that I think would be more interested in discussing with someone who also recognizes how wrong prohibition is. I’ve tried to maintain the topic to “Is prohibition justified?” You are the one who tried to derail it to “How can changes be made?” or “Should a person complain if they are caught breaking the law?” These are separate issues.
I’m claiming that a law is equally invalid for everyone. I don’t see how that raises myself or anyone else as “special” if I recognize a right that every single adult person has. That seems to be the opposite.
It’s going OK. One big problem in CA is that the Feds raid legal medical marijuana dispenseries, because they said that they can do it even when a state votes for pot to be legal for medical purposes. Bush’s administration was big on this, but Obama said that this wouldn’t be a good allocation of resources. I suppose if I’m going to have socialism rammed up my butt, and least some good can come from these pot clinics being left alone. Assuming, of course, that Obama really meant it.
justfinethanks on February 8, 2009 at 11:42 AM
First, thanks for being civil..some find me obnoxious lol.
This is winding down for me, as nothing will be settled, though the exchanges have been fun and interesting.
The problem I have with claiming “That” law is without legal standing because I claim a personal interpretation of some right, is that when someone does this, most often it only includes the topic or law they personally view as invalid, based the general idea that it violates their idea of what constitutes their “right” of happiness. But if that were to be valid, one would also have to accept all drug use..anywhere, any kind and any transactions in which they personally caused no “harm”. But you can’t stop there. You would also have to have no restriction on things like child pornography..prostitution..a different set of enforceable laws for different states, etc.
This is my point about the process of some types laws instituted via due process..laws like drug regulations, are validly and logically enforced with the general welfare of the citizens in mind. Not every single possible interpretation of the idea of “personal freedoms” validly put on the table to be hashed out by lawyers would actually serve the general welfare of the population.
To date..the consensus opinion of the majority of citizens through out the country apparently feel that the drug laws have struck a livable balance between the general welfare of the people and individual interpretations of “freedom”.
If that changes..so be it. The people will have spoken and be just as enforceable and valid as the laws are now. Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Well thats a surprise to me, because it doesn’t at all mesh with the positions you were seeming to make, at least the way I took them
The bolded part is a personal opinion and has no bearing on enforcement of laws, so the preceding insights as well advised…Don’t get caught.
Thats easier, but then one is just preaching to the choir in an echo chamber, imo. No minds are changed in that environment.
Like any law or perceived injustice, it just has to be dealt with until the laws are changed.
The original topic was about Phelps. We both derailed it.
I not sure how the subjects of “is it justified” is much removed from “If not justified, how is this best rectified?”
To the bolded part, I wasn’t claiming “should or shouldn’t” a person complain if caught…It was more that complaining is all thats being done and one should work on the issues one feels strongly about. The complaining and abstract arguments will most likely not change the types of minds that need to be swayed in your favor in order to bring about change. They will most likely be lumped into the same basket as the “taxes are illegal”..”all laws are illegal, I’m a Sovereign Citizen”, all these lines of reasoning have been tried ad nauseum in courts. Ain’t gonna work.
If the basis of that would be an abstract idea of the right to total freedom, as long as no direct effect on others could easily be shown, than, by default these other things like child pornography laws would also have to fold.
Itchee Dryback on February 8, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Imagine if he’d knocked up Octo-Mom.
BHO Jonestown on February 8, 2009 at 6:44 PM
He’d only need 8 sperms…tops.
Yeah..he’s that good.
Itchee Dryback on February 8, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Pretty picture, but bad for your nuts.
http://www.javno.com/en/lifestyle/clanak.php?id=232267
Itchee Dryback on February 8, 2009 at 10:49 PM
The world’s most famous dope smokers are William Jefferson Clinton, George W. Bush, John H. Kerry, Al Gore, Willie Nelson, The Beatles, and Barrack Hussein Obama.
Of course, many members of the Federal Court have also smoked dope and do drink alcohol, and take pharmaceuticals, and many media members, AKA “Journalists” as well as Hollywood celebrities and entertainment personalities from stage, screen, and the music and dance, performance art industries take dope, have taken dope, and do imbibe alcohol, illegal drugs, such as cocaine, PCP, Heroine, and more.
So, what difference does it make that Michael Phelps is busted as a result of a photograph of him smoking a bong?
Not a dimes bit of difference!
He is a patsy for the self righteous who have done the same thing themselves, but who pretend that pot smoking is the worst thing one can do in life, worse than aborting babies, worse than supporting Islamic Jihad, worse than plagiarizing, worse than suborner to perjury, worse than enjoying a blow job by a young intern while speaking with an international dignitary from an official White House telephone, and worse than running up a bill of a few trillion dollars in a socialist/communist take over by government which will burden our children, and their children, and their children and their children’s’ children with deep debt even before they wear their first diaper, if the US even exists any longer by then.
Michael Phelps won those gold medals fair and square. His dope smoking, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it!
He deserves those medals, he should keep them, and he should not be ashamed of the bong incident.
Is there a perfect person who never did ANYTHING so-called “wrong” in their youth?
Let he who is without “sin” caste the first stone.
Go Michael Phelps!
William
William2006 on February 9, 2009 at 6:33 AM
I don’t think he’s busted in any sense other than his own business and commercial potential. It’ll never even be close to being prosecuted. There is zero evidence. He made a decision and if his endorsements dry up, thats their call. They’re both free to make those decisions. I don’t think it’ll affect him much at all in the long run.
Itchee Dryback on February 9, 2009 at 8:04 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4