Buzzkill: DEA raids pot grower despite complying with state laws

posted at 3:35 pm on February 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Four months ago, the Obama administration made headlines by publicly announcing that it would not attempt to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that legalized its use, at least where suspects comply with the state law.  Among those states affected was Colorado, and suppliers of “medical” marijuana rejoiced in their newfound freedom from federal threats.  Unfortunately for one such supplier, he rejoiced a little too loudly and incurred the wrath of the DEA:

Federal drug-enforcement agents Friday raided the home of a Highlands Ranch man who a day earlier bragged in a 9News report about the large and profitable medical-marijuana-growing operation in his basement.

Along with the raid, Jeffrey Sweetin, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s special agent in charge of the Denver office, sent a message to anyone involved in Colorado’s increasingly profitable medical-marijuana industry.

“It’s still a violation of federal law,” Sweetin said. “It’s not medicine. We’re still going to continue to investigate and arrest people.”

That wasn’t exactly the message the DEA and the White House sent in October:

Federal drug agents won’t pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.

Maybe this is the new version of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  If you’re warm and happy in a pile of buds, keep your mouth shut. In any reading of this announcement, it would seem that the feds are mostly disinterested in pursuing pot growers unless they’re exporting business across state lines — which really should be the extent of their interest, anyway.  However, Sweetin gives an entirely different interpretation of DEA policy to the Denver Post:

“Technically, every dispensary in the state is in blatant violation of federal law,” he said. “The time is coming when we go into a dispensary, we find out what their profit is, we seize the building and we arrest everybody. They’re violating federal law; they’re at risk of arrest and imprisonment.”

In other words, the time is coming when the DEA plans to do exactly what they stated they would not do in October.  Will the Obama administration provide us with scorecards, please?  It’s getting difficult to keep up with the expiration dates.

Radley Balko and Jacob Sullum expressed a great deal of skepticism four months ago about the Obama administration’s sudden move towards federalism.  It looks as though that skepticism was prescient.  While the federal government is giving foreign terrorists Miranda warnings, they’re raiding local pot growers and continuing one of the least defensible components of the war on drugs.  If we can no longer rely on Obama’s word to allow a sort of benign neglect as a means towards local control, then Congress needs to act to stop wasting resources in states that clearly don’t want that kind of interference in their lives.  (via John Holowach’s Twitter feed)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4 5

I’ve never stolen…. I think your son had integrity issues. It’s a good thing that you lined that out.

whiskeytango on February 16, 2010 at 9:48 AM

That’s the problem right there. Uncle was an ineffective parent. He just doesn’t want to admit that. Enabler.

Socmodfiscon on February 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM

It sounds like the guys real crime was to make a profit. We can’t have that.

Is this hopeNchange version 2010? Pot heads hope they can finally grow pot, then the DEA changes it’s mind.

bitsy on February 16, 2010 at 9:56 AM

substance abuse.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM
precisely

whiskeytango on February 16, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Hmm. I do smell the worst kind of ad hominem attack here.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 9:52 AM

That probably means that you don’t know what ad hominem means. If I compare West to East, that is not a personal attack on you, my wise, benevolent, long-suffering martyr friend.

You aren’t even trying any more. And can we agree that, in light of your son’s outrages against you, that you are the opposite of unbiased and objective?

misterpeasea on February 16, 2010 at 9:56 AM

that you are the opposite of unbiased and objective?

misterpeasea on February 16, 2010 at 9:56 AM

I’ll agree for him

whiskeytango on February 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM

If it’s similar to alcohol, and alcohol already does so much damage to our society, why would I want to legalize it?

No, don’t answer that — it’s rhetorical, and you’d just tie yourself into knots anyway.

As for everyone reacting, I have yet to see anyone react positively to substance abuse.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Again, you miss the point. Why treat alcohol and pot differently when people react similarly to them in that some can handle them and some can’t? And why treat pot worse when, from a health standpoint, it’s less harmful than alcohol?

Was that too knotty for you?

As for substance abuse, that’s the whole point. Some abuse substances, some merely use them. I know your drug rehab classes don’t make that distinction, but it’s there.

You aren’t going to convince me or anyone else that we should make laws based on what your son does.

misterpeasea on February 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Hmm. I do smell the worst kind of ad hominem attack here.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Wow. This theater of the absurd has gone on long enough. Leave poor uncle alone. He really is not up to the debate.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Uncle failed in his responsibilities toward his son. Uncle doesn’t blame himself for his sons poor decisions; he blames society. Rather than take responsibility for his apparent lack of effective parenting he prefers to play victim and blame. Society must pay because Uncle didn’t teach his kid to make wise choices.

Uncle tought kid to make wise choices. Kid chose not to make wise choices, because unwise choices were available. Uncle understand that “wise choices” often are required when bad choices are available. Uncle believes in eliminating bad choices whereever possible.

If only drugs didn’t exist my son wouldn’t have made the choice to use them.

True.

If cars only went 55 my son wouldn’t have made the choice to go 90. If only their had been a barrier on that bridge my son wouldn’t have made the choice to jump off.

Socmodfiscon on February 16, 2010 at 9:49 AM

You lost me here. What does going any speed at all have anything to do with illegal drugs?

Oh, I see. You advocate the right to go 150MPH in rush hour, and the removal of all barriers from bridges. Because it’s a personal right to kill others, and a personal right to be able to drive off of a bridge if you choose.

Got it.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Wow. This theater of the absurd has gone on long enough. Leave poor uncle alone. He really is not up to the debate.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Be quiet or I shall taunt you a second time.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Wow. This theater of the absurd has gone on long enough. Leave poor uncle alone. He really is not up to the debate.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM

I’m just glad we don’t come from a tradition of wise, benevolent rulers protecting their childlike wards from themselves. It’s a bit creepy.

“My kid had big trouble with pot, so it should be illegal for everyone!”

misterpeasea on February 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Again, you miss the point. Why treat alcohol and pot differently when people react similarly to them in that some can handle them and some can’t? And why treat pot worse when, from a health standpoint, it’s less harmful than alcohol?

Was that too knotty for you?

As for substance abuse, that’s the whole point. Some abuse substances, some merely use them. I know your drug rehab classes don’t make that distinction, but it’s there.

You aren’t going to convince me or anyone else that we should make laws based on what your son does.

misterpeasea on February 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM

I don’t have to. The laws are there, were put there for a reason, and inertia at the least will work to keep them there. And if I can aid the laws of political physics by using inertia to help me, that’s cool.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 10:04 AM

You advocate the right to go 150MPH in rush hour, and the removal of all barriers from bridges. Because it’s a personal right to kill others, and a personal right to be able to drive off of a bridge if you choose.

You seriously process information in this way? No sign = kill people

whiskeytango on February 16, 2010 at 10:05 AM

I’m just glad we don’t come from a tradition of wise, benevolent rulers protecting their childlike wards from themselves. It’s a bit creepy.

“My kid had big trouble with pot, so it should be illegal for everyone!”

misterpeasea on February 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Glad you got rid of the “Confucius say” meme you were on earlier.

You forgot the word “autocratic”. I know you wanted to say it, but missed.

We are talking about a democracy. If your side wins, the laws will change, and your descendants will deserve every bit of the liberty you will give them, at whatever age they care to take it.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 10:08 AM

You seriously process information in this way? No sign = kill people

whiskeytango on February 16, 2010 at 10:05 AM

No. That’s how kids do it, and quite a few adults as well. As for yourself, you have the meme “sign == kill people anyway”.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Be quiet or I shall taunt you a second time.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Great movie, remember the Black Knight? You’re playing him.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Yes, kiddies, that’s right – the Feds don’t care what your state legislature said on the subject.

Hint: make them spend their own money.

mojo on February 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM

“My kid had big trouble with pot, so it should be illegal for everyone!”

misterpeasea on February 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Actually, I think the argument goes more like this:

I believe the government should force my values down everyone else’s throat, and by the way, I have the moral high ground here because I am a victim.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:27 AM

This isn’t about principle for people like you, it’s about forcing your opinions/beliefs (notice I didn’t say “truth”) on others – you want all people to live by your values, not their own.

Oh no, it’s about you forcing your own opinions about the limits of police power, on the public–without the trouble of winning elections first. That’s the whole point of this thread. President Obama’s DEA is following the laws enacted by Congress over forty years ago. Somehow that’s outrageous, and they oughta just stop it! Because! Just because.

You have concern for genuine liberty as much as the old DDR had for genuine democracy.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM

That would appear to be a philosophic value.

Which you admit we don’t share.

But I have to adopt it anyhow.
Genuine liberty would appear

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Actually, I think the argument goes more like this:

I believe the government should force my values down everyone else’s throat, and by the way, I have the moral high ground here because I am a victim.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:27 AM

No, that’s your whole argument against enforcing some pretty old drug laws. It shouldn’t happen, and people who swore to uphold the law oughta just stop.

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 10:30 AM

The federal government enforces laws against drugs because a majority of Americans want it.

There are 2 million druggies in our criminal justice system because the majority of Americans want it.

Druggers lose liberty, property, the franchise, student loans, and sometimes social benefits, because the majority of Americans want it.

When you demand none of that matters, and the authorities MUST ignore the written law, based on the liberty values of a persistent minority, then you’re forcing your views on others.

I don’t mind forcing my views on others. Not at all. If you do, I suggest you stop it. That kind of inner turmoil is very harmful.

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 10:39 AM

You seriously process information in this way? No sign = kill people

whiskeytango on February 16, 2010 at 10:05 AM

You do have an uphill road, explaining your neofascist ban on left turns except in marked lanes… it’s a free country, why can’t adults be mature enough to cooperate? If a few can’t handle that, OH WELL

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 10:54 AM

There’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from leaving the United States.

misterpeasea on February 16, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Respectfully,

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows a State to leave the United States for obvious reasons.

If there were such provision, the act of one State leaving terminates the entire Union. Hence, the value of the Constitution changes from priceless to worthless.

Hat tip to unclesmrgol. He has stated this before, in another thread, prior to myself ever taking the time to think about it.

rukiddingme on February 16, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Hat tip to unclesmrgol. He has stated this before, in another thread, prior to myself ever taking the time to think about it.

rukiddingme on February 16, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Thank you. The problem at hand will be solved, however, at the Federal level. I will assure that my elected representatives — Ms. Boxer, Ms. Feinstein, Ms. Watson, and Mr. Obama — all know how I feel.

Wish me luck — I think they’re all probably closer to Mr. Pee than to me.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 12:21 PM

I believe the government should force my values down everyone else’s throat, and by the way, I have the moral high ground here because I am a victim.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:27 AM

You are learning. Three fingers point back, if you look carefully.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Great movie, remember the Black Knight? You’re playing him.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:12 AM

I do my best.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I don’t mind forcing my views on others. Not at all. If you do, I suggest you stop it. That kind of inner turmoil is very harmful.

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 10:39 AM

+1000

Oooh, that’s good. The one-way sword strikes again.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM

A Pot Head might forget… EVERYTHING Obama says has en expatriation date.

liquidflorian on February 16, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Uncle believes in eliminating bad choices??

Ok then where do you draw the line? What qualifies as a bad choice? NY actually proposed a sugar tax on soda and validated it by saying that too much sugar is bad and a tax will force people to make better choices.

Do you always want to protect people from themselves? People get drunk and drive and can possibly kill- why not just eliminate alcohol- again? That way they won’t be able to make the bad choice. Except the problem with prohibition was, that people still CHOSE to drink. The reality is, it’s not your decision to make. If the state chooses to make a substance available to it’s populace, then the federal government has no purview. This is a matter of the state being able to make a CHOICE and live with the consequences of that choice- whatever they are.

xax on February 16, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Drugs are illegal so that politicians, cops, judges and yes the CIA can make a fortune selling drugs. There is nothing in our constitution that says drugs are illegal. They never amended it like they did for prohibition.

All drugs were legal for over 150 years in this country and we became the envy of the world. Since the war on drugs started the only thing we have lost is our liberty and freedom. Drug use is actually higher since they started classifying drugs as illegal. Look up the statistics and you will find that there are more drugs available to young people now than before they started enforcing the unconstitutional drug laws. There is violent crime between the various illegal drug dealers trying to protect their turf.

The DEA should be put out of business along with the ATF which are both hold overs from prohibition. Both agencies are unconstitutional. Ask yourself why they amended the constitution for ending prohibition but not for making drugs illegal?

These two agencies waste over 100 billion a year and do nothing to stop illegal drug use. In fact, they encourouge people to get rich by dealing drugs and nothing else. Every time the arrest a big time dealer the very next day another person takes their place. It is a waste of time and effort.Gangs finance themselves with drug sales.

Even the CIA is making billions/millions from importing illegal drugs. Recently a jet crashed in Mexico(ran low on fuel) with tons of cocaine in the back and the plane was owned/registered to the CIA!!

Education is the only thing that will stop harmful drugs from being used, not arresting people for consumption and the endless corruption from Law Enforcement to the criminal justice system that has become big business.

Remember drug use was lower and there were no drug wars until they made drugs illegal in this country. This is shear insanity and we should have learned this from prohibition of alcohol. All it did was breed corruption and caused the mafia to become powerful.

Same thing with this stupid war on drugs.

ScottyDog on February 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Do you always want to protect people from themselves?

xax on February 16, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Yes, I’m all for guardrails, stop signs, and the prison time that comes with ignoring same.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 5:21 PM

If the state chooses to make a substance available to it’s populace, then the federal government has no purview.

Right, that’s why High Times supports decriminalization of machine guns. That dang 1934 Firearms Control Act! Let’s just disobey it!

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Even the CIA is making billions/millions from importing illegal drugs. Recently a jet crashed in Mexico(ran low on fuel) with tons of cocaine in the back and the plane was owned/registered to the CIA!!

Same thing with this stupid war on drugs.

ScottyDog on February 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Proof? Last I looked, said aircraft was a private plane formerly leased to the CIA, but was owned by Donna Blue Aircraft.

If you take a cab and the cabbie later robs someone, is it your fault?

The Mexican Army helicopters chasing the plane when it crash landed were provided by the United States of America.

We are fighting amongst ourselves in this brave new world of yours, it seems. Well, I’m for letting the good guys win — in this case, the Mexican Army and the guys who sold them helicopters.

The story was carried in the manner you state by only a couple of outlets — DailyKOS and CurrentTV. Heh.

Now on to the grit. Assume for the moment that the CIA was doing this. Does that make you feel the CIA is the hero or the villain in the Drug Wars? For me, it makes them the villains. Now, do I believe they are the villains? No, but whoever hired that plane, loaded it, flew it, etc certainly are.

And you wouldn’t have brought it up, except that you secretly feel likewise.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 5:36 PM

What other federal laws should Obama just ignore pending repeal? Child prostitution? Food purity? Repression of piracy? Air traffic safety? FOIA requests?

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM

This isn’t about principle for people like you, it’s about forcing your opinions/beliefs (notice I didn’t say “truth”) on others – you want all people to live by your values, not their own

Oh no, it’s about you forcing your own opinions about the limits of police power, on the public–without the trouble of winning elections first. That’s the whole point of this thread. President Obama’s DEA is following the laws enacted by Congress over forty years ago. Somehow that’s outrageous, and they oughta just stop it! Because! Just because.

Reading comprehension is obviously not a strong point for you.

My point was that people like unclesmrgol, who tolerate the legality of alcohol and tobacco while supporting the illegality of marijuana, aren’t basing their opposition to MJ on objective principle, but rather on a personal, subjective dislike of MJ. People like that are enemies of liberty.

You have concern for genuine liberty as much as the old DDR had for genuine democracy.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM

That would appear to be a philosophic value.

Which you admit we don’t share.

But I have to adopt it anyhow.
Genuine liberty would appear

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Not only do you have problems with reading comprehension, you have problem with definitions.

Liberty is not a philosophic value which can be imposed upon anyone; no one can force freedom upon another. If what you are saying were the case, self-defense is no different morally than assault.

Self-righteous people like you don’t believe in ‘live and let live’ morality, but instead practice ‘might makes right’ morality, and are more dangerous than people like me who don’t.

Yes, I do understand that you aren’t capable of consciously understanding what I just typed, but that’s ok – I typed it anyways because I felt like it, much to your chagrin! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on February 16, 2010 at 10:47 PM

May you never lead an interesting life with your child.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 8:03 AM

I will have an interesting life with my child. However, I am certain it won’t be a negative one.

It’s simple – if you don’t give your kids something to rebel against, they won’t be rebellious. You in particular should ponder that.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 16, 2010 at 11:11 PM

My point was that people like unclesmrgol, who tolerate the legality of alcohol and tobacco while supporting the illegality of marijuana, aren’t basing their opposition to MJ on objective principle, but rather on a personal, subjective dislike of MJ. People like that are enemies of liberty.

All life-experience is personal. I would think liberty was more threatened if a guy couldn’t speak to his life-experience unless he held to somebody else’s supposedly impersonal categorization of Things That Are Alike And Must Be Regarded Alike.

In any event, the law is with unclesmrgol, and not with you. How shall that be changed? By persuading a majority of voters to agree with you– or subverting officers to ignore their duty to follow an informal, minority opinion?

Liberty is not a philosophic value which can be imposed upon anyone; no one can force freedom upon another. If what you are saying were the case, self-defense is no different morally than assault.

The Brits are moving that way–there is personal violence in violation of a ban on personal violence, period. That is an idea they have. If you have a contrary idea, that is a philosphic difference.

Of course liberty can be imposed. You seek to restrain the lawful repression of drug use, undemocratically, through subversion. If I kick down your door and enjoy your chair, I have imposed liberty upon your household.

Self-righteous people like you

and you. Surely you don’t label me “dangerous” because somebody ELSE told you it was the right thing to do

don’t believe in ‘live and let live’ morality, but instead practice ‘might makes right’ morality, and are more dangerous than people like me who don’t.

So what?

And don’t underestimate the people you’d kill with libertine excess.

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 11:12 PM

All life-experience is personal. I would think liberty was more threatened if a guy couldn’t speak to his life-experience unless he held to somebody else’s supposedly impersonal categorization of Things That Are Alike And Must Be Regarded Alike.

unclesmrgol can say whatever he wants; that isn’t the issue at hand here.

In any event, the law is with unclesmrgol, and not with you. How shall that be changed? By persuading a majority of voters to agree with you– or subverting officers to ignore their duty to follow an informal, minority opinion?

This is the underlying issue at hand – unclesmrgol and his ilk may have the ability to violate the freedom of others (for example, slavery was legal in this country at one point), but that doesn’t mean they have the right to do so.

If the the Feds do have the legal authority to go after this guy, obviously they can choose to exercise their power whether the law is moral or not. I am an Anti-Federalist, and I believe that the Feds don’t have legitimate Constitutional authority to go after him. The courts will have to decide this, I guess.

The Brits are moving that way–there is personal violence in violation of a ban on personal violence, period. That is an idea they have. If you have a contrary idea, that is a philosphic difference.

You won’t like how I choose to phrase this, but I consider that a serious philosophic difference as much as I take those who wonder if they really exist or not seriously; existence is not a philosophy.

It’s not a philosophy to say that innocent people have the right to defend themselves against those who assault them. “objective morality”, which is a self-evident truth, is some sort of philosophy only to those who are mentally operating in an irrational realm.

Of course liberty can be imposed. You seek to restrain the lawful repression of drug use, undemocratically, through subversion. If I kick down your door and enjoy your chair, I have imposed liberty upon your household.

You are confusing “impose” with “restraint”; by the definition of “impose”, liberty cannot be imposed upon anyone. If you believe that it can be, I honestly believe that you are insane.

So what?

And don’t underestimate the people you’d kill with libertine excess.

Chris_Balsz on February 16, 2010 at 11:12 PM

You said “so what” because you don’t care genuinely care about liberty. You wish to limit the freedom of others because the idea of freedom scares you. I have no respect for you on this topic.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2010 at 12:15 AM

I honestly believe that you are insane.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2010 at 12:15 AM

You ain’t kidding. Several pages back in this thread it was Chris_Balsz who suggested that arson would be an appropriate way to deal with pot smokers. Presumably, burning them out of their homes would force them to either kill them or force them to leave the area: problem solved.

Either Chris_Balsz is a psychopath, literally, or else he’s just some dumb idiot making inflammatory statements online. One or the other; no third option. MikeA, another psychopath or idiot, wished death upon everybody who’s ever smoked pot. He’s so enthusiastic, he chomping at the bit to help make it happen, his hatred runs so deep.

That’s the Internet for you. We’ll never reach people like them, but their irrational hatred being exposed online for the majority of rational people to see makes it all worthwhile. Just be grateful that they’re too stupid to realize it.

FloatingRock on February 17, 2010 at 2:30 AM

…Oh, and there were at least two people in this thread that indicated they believe “Reefer Madness” is actually real, not just a fictional propaganda film from the 30′s that has long since been revealed as a total farce. If 40+ years of reality hasn’t reached them yet, we certainly won’t, but they’re a shrinking minority at this point whose influence is rapidly waning.

FloatingRock on February 17, 2010 at 2:41 AM

FloatingRock on February 17, 2010 at 2:30 AMThe fury so many anti-marijuanaists have towards those who use MJ is so disproportionate to the offense that I agree with you that it rises to the level of psychopathic, right along the lines of wishing for the death of gays for being gay. It’s weird.

What’s also weird are the ones who won’t acknowledge their statist/authoritarian position when it comes to personal drug usage. I guess that’s because it’s too painful for them to face the fact that they aren’t being consistent with their professed subservience to Conservatism. People tend to not like admitting they are hypocritical, do they?

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2010 at 2:56 AM

People tend to not like admitting they are hypocritical, do they?

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2010 at 2:56 AM

They tie themselves in knots inventing convoluted rationalizations to justify their prejudices.

FloatingRock on February 17, 2010 at 3:15 AM

I will have an interesting life with my child. However, I am certain it won’t be a negative one.

It’s simple – if you don’t give your kids something to rebel against, they won’t be rebellious. You in particular should ponder that.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 16, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Good. You understand fully my meaning. And I love your idea of child psychology. It’s the parent’s fault if a child gives in to peer pressure. I really do hope that’s the case in your universe.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 8:38 AM

They tie themselves in knots inventing convoluted rationalizations to justify their prejudices.

FloatingRock on February 17, 2010 at 3:15 AM

Libertarians are the precise reason laws exist.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Good. You understand fully my meaning. And I love your idea of child psychology. It’s the parent’s fault if a child gives in to peer pressure. I really do hope that’s the case in your universe.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 8:38 AM

If anyone’s kid gives into peer pressure, it is because the parent did an inadequate job of teaching them to ignore it. It isn’t difficult at all to train children that it’s worse to disappoint their parents than it is their peers.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Libertarians are the precise reason laws exist.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Position A on drug usage: the government is better at deciding what individual adults may ingest than individuals adults are, even though what the government determines is acceptable to ingest is susceptible to shifting due to a particular substance’s popularity at any given point in time. The government has the ultimate authority over individual adults’ bodies.

Position B on drug usage: individual adults are better at determining what they may ingest than the government, whose standards are susceptible to shifting due a particular substance’s popularity at any given point in time, is. Individual adults have ultimate authority over their own bodies, not the goverment.

One of those positions is the Conservative one, and one is the Authoritarian. You have shown that you side with the Authoritarians, which means you’d have no credibility when it comes to condemning such evils as slavery, because Authoritarians don’t honestly have objective values to stand on.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2010 at 10:05 AM

If the the Feds do have the legal authority to go after this guy, obviously they can choose to exercise their power whether the law is moral or not. I am an Anti-Federalist, and I believe that the Feds don’t have legitimate Constitutional authority to go after him. The courts will have to decide this, I guess.

Believe that’s already been decided, with regard to other soveriegn entities, the Indian reservations. So now what?

You won’t like how I choose to phrase this, but I consider that a serious philosophic difference as much as I take those who wonder if they really exist or not seriously; existence is not a philosophy.

It’s not a philosophy to say that innocent people have the right to defend themselves against those who assault them. “objective morality”, which is a self-evident truth, is some sort of philosophy only to those who are mentally operating in an irrational realm.

Then you are left with an evolutionary mystery: how was it that Homo sapiens sapiens, along one coast of the Atlantic, suddenly developed the capacity to recognize what the human race had failed to see for 20,000 years. As late as 1600s Britain, the king could batter who he liked; there was no right for a subject to use force upon the soveriegn in any circumstance whatever.

Me, I think they just thought differently about morality. It is because I under that’s all their is, that I am “furious” at your sloppy thinking. I agree with a morality of self-defense; I know its just a broadly shared opinion, not a fact of nature that only the insane could deny.

You ain’t kidding. Several pages back in this thread it was Chris_Balsz who suggested that arson would be an appropriate way to deal with pot smokers. Presumably, burning them out of their homes would force them to either kill them or force them to leave the area: problem solved.

Perhaps you and Bizarro should discuss the innate right of self-defense and the ultimate responsibility of parents to eliminate the capacity for teen rebellion, with the necessary absence of government repression of tons of drugs in suburban neighborhoods.

It’s simple – if you don’t give your kids something to rebel against, they won’t be rebellious. You in particular should ponder that.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 16, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Position B on drug usage: individual adults are better at determining what they may ingest than the government, whose standards are susceptible to shifting due a particular substance’s popularity at any given point in time, is. Individual adults have ultimate authority over their own bodies, not the goverment.

oops! You failed, Bizarro No. 1.

What is this basis for denying hedonism to children, anyhow?

The law? The law denies you MJ.

Custom and culture? Custom and culture denies you MJ.

The will of the people? The will of the people denies you MJ.

Once a young person reaches the capacity for enjoyment of drugs and the mental power to assert a right to them, then what power can legitimately restrain their enjoyment just because of a few years of age? I know many young people who see it just that way. You can’t stop them, anyhow! (At least many don’t think they can stop them.)

There’s no argument in hedonism against that; you’ve got to fall back on hoary old bromides from great-grandfather’s day, the sort of thing preached against corn liquor from a horse wagon: social fabric, individual responsibility, self-pride at avoiding charity, moral development, etc. etc.

Chris_Balsz on February 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM

And you wouldn’t have brought it up, except that you secretly feel likewise.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Actually, I brought it up as example of corruption in this illegal War on Drugs.

Before I retired from LE, I was involved in this ridiculous war on drugs and saw first hand how it has corrupted our laws and the people that are fighting it.If you think our Government is not profiting from having drugs illegal you are very naive. The CIA or other black projects have been selling drugs ever since Vietnam.Ever hear of Air America?

Bill Clinton was importing drugs into Mena Arkansas when he was the Attorney General and used the profits to finance his campaign.

I have a challenge for you. Go to any major city and find out who is on the Narcotics squad then go to their house and see how many toys and possessions they have. Then compare that to their reported income.

The fact is that this illegal war has corrupted our Government from top to bottom.

ScottyDog on February 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I’m 46 and my 74 year old mother calls me a Pothead. I tell her that the chronic I pay $400 a lid for makes me a Cannabis Connoisseur. The tenth amendment makes the drug war illegal. Period. I’ll do with my body what I want to. God gives me that right. I don’t need the government to disagree with God to take away my right to Happiness……

adamsmith on February 17, 2010 at 6:50 PM

The fact is that this illegal war has corrupted our Government from top to bottom.

ScottyDog on February 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

The war on drugs is not illegal.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 10:07 PM

One of those positions is the Conservative one, and one is the Authoritarian. You have shown that you side with the Authoritarians, which means you’d have no credibility when it comes to condemning such evils as slavery, because Authoritarians don’t honestly have objective values to stand on.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Objective values. Heh.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Believe that’s already been decided, with regard to other soveriegn entities, the Indian reservations. So now what?

Then you are left with an evolutionary mystery: how was it that Homo sapiens sapiens, along one coast of the Atlantic, suddenly developed the capacity to recognize what the human race had failed to see for 20,000 years. As late as 1600s Britain, the king could batter who he liked; there was no right for a subject to use force upon the soveriegn in any circumstance whatever.

Me, I think they just thought differently about morality. It is because I under that’s all their is, that I am “furious” at your sloppy thinking. I agree with a morality of self-defense; I know its just a broadly shared opinion, not a fact of nature that only the insane could deny.

Perhaps you and Bizarro should discuss the innate right of self-defense and the ultimate responsibility of parents to eliminate the capacity for teen rebellion, with the necessary absence of government repression of tons of drugs in suburban neighborhoods.

Oops! You failed, Bizarro No. 1.

What is this basis for denying hedonism to children, anyhow?

The law? The law denies you MJ.

Custom and culture? Custom and culture denies you MJ.

The will of the people? The will of the people denies you MJ.

Once a young person reaches the capacity for enjoyment of drugs and the mental power to assert a right to them, then what power can legitimately restrain their enjoyment just because of a few years of age? I know many young people who see it just that way. You can’t stop them, anyhow! (At least many don’t think they can stop them.)

There’s no argument in hedonism against that; you’ve got to fall back on hoary old bromides from great-grandfather’s day, the sort of thing preached against corn liquor from a horse wagon: social fabric, individual responsibility, self-pride at avoiding charity, moral development, etc. etc.

Chris_Balsz on February 17, 2010 at 10:36 AM

blah blah blah you aren’t having a discussion with me, you are talking at me.

Take this as you will (which you will do, of course): you are an Authoritarian I have little respect for, and I find you such a poor logician and conversationalist that I deem you unworthy of my time. FYI this is exactly why I don’t debate Leftists.

I don’t take you seriously, except in the sense that I see you as a self-righteous, dangerous opponent of freedom.

That is all.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 18, 2010 at 12:27 AM

The war on drugs Slavery is not illegal.

-famous slave owner Thomas Jefferson, 1800

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on February 18, 2010 at 12:38 AM

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Objective values. Heh.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 10:10 PM

If the shoe fits…

Bizarro No. 1 on February 18, 2010 at 12:40 AM

The fact is that this illegal war has corrupted our Government from top to bottom.

ScottyDog on February 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

The war on drugs is not illegal.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Show me in the Constitution where the federal Government has the right to regulate drugs or substances that we ingest. That is why they had to amend the constitution to make alcohol illegal during prohibition. They used the Harrison Act as an end run around the Constitution to regulate Drugs.In modern times they then enacted another unconstitutional piece of legislation called the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

ScottyDog on February 18, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5