Video: Shep Smith – The drug war is lost

posted at 6:05 pm on February 17, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

So… how’s that war on drugs going for you? According to Shepard Smith at Fox News, not so well. In fact, he’s fairly sure that the war is lost.

Thanks to the drug scandal at Texas Christian University, we got to see all the different sides of our nation’s debate on drugs (besides, of course, the never-invited actual drug users, but whatever…) today on Studio B. Unsurprisingly, when you have a bunch of opposing sides on an issue like this, things got heated…

And, in the middle, was Shepard Smith who just seemed saddened by the whole thing. When Zelin argued that this was no way to “win the war,” Smith sighed.

“Win the war? This is a stupid war. This is a stupid war, isn’t it?” he asked. “We’ve lost this war. This war is lost.”

This is a constant bone of contention between libertarian leaning conservatives and more traditional fighters. (We’ll get to the video below in a moment.) But the case in Texas does highlight one of the profound differences of opinion and the seemingly intractable conundrums of modern society. And it shows up in a variety of conversations which are worthy of discussion.

Drug trade adds to the burden of national security efforts at the borders, since it affects everyone in that sense. Current drug laws create a market vacuum which someone will always seek to fill. It also fuels the need for guns and other weapons of mayhem as this battle is waged. But left unattended, the detrimental societal impact of illegal drugs is hard to deny. Have we lost this war? Was it even worth fighting? Or is there a moral imperative here which makes the cost – any cost – worth it for keeping society safe?

Check out the video and decide for yourself.


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 2 3 6

Give it up!

dom89031 on February 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

The war against rape is lost. Despite all we’ve done, and tried educating people about the evils of rape, rape still happens. Therefore, I motion that we legalize rape.

/sarc

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

The war against illegal parking is lost.

pedestrian on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

I prefer Curly. He’s funnier.

NotCoach on February 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Legalize Pot! But make sure you can’t buy nyquil without a prescription.

Wait. What?

Exactly.

lorien1973 on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Or is there a moral imperative here which makes the cost – any cost – worth it for keeping society safe?

Yes! The moral imperative of making sure people don’t have the freedom to do as they like with their own bodies! The moral imperative of making sure others don’t make choices different from ours, and of stepping in when we clearly know better than they do.

Tzetzes on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

More druggies complaining about being denied their poison.

Count to 10 on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

The war against rape is lost. Despite all we’ve done, and tried educating people about the evils of rape, rape still happens. Therefore, I motion that we legalize rape.

/sarc

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Rape involves a non-consensual party, by definition. Drug use in and of itself doesn’t, never has. Try again, so-con fascist.

Daikokuco on February 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Something he ate?

Joe Mama on February 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Think about it- if you want to legalize drugs, you agree with Shepard Smith.

BKeyser on February 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Sorry OT but, wow, this really takes the cake:

Blacks sue Iowa for discrimination

(snip)
The plaintiffs — up to 6,000 African-Americans passed over for state jobs and promotions dating back to 2003 — do not say they faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests in Iowa, a state that is 91 percent white. Instead, their lawyers argue that managers subconsciously favored whites across state government, leaving blacks at a disadvantage in decisions over who got interviewed, hired and promoted.
(snip)
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2012/02/17/blacks-sue-iowa-for-discrimination/?subscriber=1

sicoit on February 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

The drug war has done nothing but waste billions of dollars, balloon government control and agencies, make gangs rich, and stuff prisons with nonviolent offenders instead of the real criminals.

It is a disgrace just like prohibition was, and has done absolutely nothing to effect drug use or addiction.

mythicknight on February 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Cocain?

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Shep Smith is lost. Has been for a long time.

Flora Duh on February 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Sheppie certainly has gotten more and more animated in the last few years. He use to play things right down the middle. He no longer does and is getting more and more tedious to watch. His guest including the Attorney’s are there to give opinion, Shep. Try sticking to the reporting.

De Oppresso Liber on February 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Try again, so-con fascist.

Daikokuco on February 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Thank you for funding the Mexican drug armies.

pedestrian on February 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Yes! The moral imperative of making sure people don’t have the freedom to do as they like with their own bodies! The moral imperative of making sure others don’t make choices different from ours, and of stepping in when we clearly know better than they do.

Tzetzes on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Personal autonomy is out of fashion with todays socons.

mythicknight on February 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

“Let’s legalize prescription drugs.”

-Tony Bennett

portlandon on February 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

“We’ve lost this war. This war is lost.”

Who writes his scripts ? Harry Reid ?

burrata on February 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

If Obama wins another term, then yes, I think everybody should get stoned and stay stoned. It’ll be less painful that way.

RBMN on February 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

My fav … well, my only Shep Smith story.

Prior to Katrina hitting N.O., good ol’ Shep was “reporting” from a bar. He went up to a guy and asked him, incredulously, “You know that a hurricane is headed this way, what are you still doing here?”

The guy said … “That’s none of your FU*&ING business.”

The “interview” was over … and the guy’s statement made it through … without censor.

Good times. Good times.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Legalize Pot! But make sure you can’t buy nyquil without a prescription.

lorien1973 on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Or cigarettes. Or foie gras. Or table salt. Liberals are retarded.

Jaibones on February 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM

The war against rape is lost. Despite all we’ve done, and tried educating people about the evils of rape, rape still happens. Therefore, I motion that we legalize rape.

/sarc

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Rape involves a non-consensual party, by definition. Drug use in and of itself doesn’t, never has. Try again, so-con fascist.

Daikokuco on February 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

You obviously missed the part I just bolded.

Try again.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Meth ?

burrata on February 17, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Randy and Shep are stoned.

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Was it even worth fighting? Or is there a moral imperative here which makes the cost – any cost – worth it for keeping society safe?

To be serious for a moment, let me answer this question.

By itself, drug-use does not constitute a moral violation. So why do we go after it passionately? Because drug-use results in addiction, delusion, value alteration, motor impairment, and impaired reasoning.

Morality requires that actors maintain self-control so that they are capable of making their own decisions, and that when those decisions are destructive, can be held accountable for them. Drugs render the user unaccountable because they sacrifice that capacity for self-control due to the effects of the drug.

Also on a serious note, the idea that we should legalize something simply because the law against it continues to be violated is silly. Do we legalize murder, rape, theft, insider trading, illegal parking, voyeurism, jaywalking, speeding, drunk driving, streaking, fraud, etceteras simply because these laws are not followed 100% of the time? If so, we might as well all become anarchists.

The point of the law isn’t to stop these activities, but to give society a legal framework through which we can impose consequences, hopefully in proportion to the infraction. That is the essence of the criminal justice system.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Legalize Pot! But make sure you can’t buy nyquil without a prescription.

Wait. What?

Exactly.

lorien1973 on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

There’s always a ‘new’ thing to get high off of. But hey, but that’s ok with me if you still want your mommy and daddy to tell you what’s bad for you.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I’m for legalization of drugs as long as I don’t have to subsidize someone’s treatment (for bad health or addiction).

I don’t, however, think that will clear up all the crime at the border.

One of the deadliest gangs in San Francisco’s Chinatown initially funded themselves through the sales of black market fireworks.

Unless we’re ready to make absolutely everything legal, we’ll still have black markets and the crime that goes along with them.

And, before you say, “Just make everything legal then” consider that this includes things like human trafficking (child prostitution, slavery, etc).

JadeNYU on February 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Shep, “Dude this war is lost dude.”

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Rumor is, and this is just a rumor, that he’s suffering from radiation poisoning after being exposed at the Fukushima Reactor meltdowns.

Flora Duh on February 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Rumor is, and this is just a rumor, that he’s suffering from radiation poisoning after being exposed at the Fukushima Reactor meltdowns.

Flora Duh on February 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

My 92 year old Mom will be heartbroken if anything happens to Shep.

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Shep looks really thin and terrible; I guess his unrequited man-crush on obama is eating him alive.

Pork-Chop on February 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Why does no one on hotair ever mention Portugal? That’s all the proof you need that decriminalizing drugs is by far the best option. Less than half as many people are using drugs now in Portugal ever since they decriminalized.

thphilli on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

It’s an age old argument. My favorite libertarian, Doug Mataconis and I have gone back and forth on this topic several times. There is no easy answer here. Me as a Christian conservative have moral objections to legalizing narcotics, and believe that doing so will lead to moral decay, and that has led to the downfall of other civilizations. Winning the war on drugs is similar to the global war on terrorism. You have to keep fighting it or you lose. And when you lose either, we as a nation are doomed.

simkeith on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Drug binge?..eyeliner poisoning?..anorexia?

Mimzey on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

lorien1973 on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I don’t know if its like this where you are. Here you get Id’d for spray paint and other aerosols that contain solvents.

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Thank you for funding the Mexican drug armies.

pedestrian on February 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Thank you for creating the Mexican drug armies instead of people getting their pot from Marlboro.

Spliff Menendez on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

The Libs (both Liberal and Liertarian) that think that this magical utopia exists where people smoke crack at will and there are no ill effects to society are just delusional.

CycloneCDB on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

What is wrong with the drug war is those most involved have a vested interest in not winning it.

If they did their cash cow of funding would dry up and they would see their empire shrink.

There are many who really want to win at this but they are swamped by those who want to let the gravy train go on till whenever.

CommentGuy on February 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Thank you for funding the Mexican drug armies.

pedestrian on February 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

That doesn’t make sense. The History channel had a special on about the Mexican cartels and one of the leaders was interviewed.(With a hood on his face.) He said their biggest nightmare would be the US legalizing drugs. He was laughing and saying it will never happen and was glad. He said the US is hungry for the drugs and we’ll never stop needing them to bring them here.

stingray9813 on February 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM

The worst part about the “war on drugs” are the excuses it has created and have been exploited by government. No single cause has been more responsible for the erosion of our rights against search and seizure. From confiscation of cars and houses which have had something to do with drug traffic, to no-knock searches and all the rest. We have seen massive overreach of legal entities such as RICO and GPS surveillance.

We heard all the blood-curdling shouts over the PATRIOT act and yet it is nothing compared to the abuses wrought by the drug war.

MJBrutus on February 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Indeed

Schadenfreude on February 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I think it’s time to start a war on Shep.

platypus on February 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Thank you for creating the Mexican drug armies instead of people getting their pot from Marlboro.

Spliff Menendez on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

And their meth, cocaine, heroin, crack and LSD.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

My 92 year old Mom will be heartbroken if anything happens to Shep.

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

If your 92 year old Mom can stand to watch Shep, God Bless Her, she has a lot more intestinal fortitude than I do.

I couldn’t stand the smarmy lib when he was on WSVN in Miami, and he’s only gotten worse since then.

Flora Duh on February 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM

The Libs (both Liberal and Liertarian) that think that this magical utopia exists where people smoke crack at will and there are no ill effects to society are just delusional.

CycloneCDB on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I need laws to tell me heroin is bad for me. Just like I need laws to tell me not wearing my seat belt is dangerous too.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Gee Sheep you’re starting to sound like Harry the Cockroach Gried!

cableguy615 on February 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

The war against fraud is lost. May as well legalize fraud.

Mimzey on February 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Yes he looks terrible, food poisoning can do that too. At the same time though, it appears he has kicked his mascara habit and that changes his face some.

slickwillie2001 on February 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Daikokuco

Bingo….

All one has to do is look at Prohibition.

Now the problem is that too many people are making money off of illegal drugs!

Police Departments: Asset Forfeiture, etc
Courts: increased staff
Prison Guards: (Just look at California)
Lawyers:
Drug dealers (the big ones, not the guy dealing a little

Stop with the government intervention into everything.

Pot is illegal because William Randolph Hurst wanted to corner the market on newsprint. (Crony capitalism, what a shock.)

There is no moral imperative to destroy freedoms to impose a police state. Think for a few minutes about all of the laws in place because of the war on drugs.

Go to the bank and take out some cash. But make sure it’s under $10,000 because you don’t want the IRS and the Feds to decide that you are “laundering money”.

Put that $5,000 or so in nice $100 bills in your pocket and try to get on an airplane. Or get arrested for a speeding ticket. Big shock, they’ll “arrest” your money. Why? because you MIGHT be using it for drug transactions.

I’m going to step over the bodies of the neighbor kids one way or the other. Either they’re going to screw themselves up with drugs or they’re going to be shot by the TSA/DHS for trying to have some semblance of freedom. I’d rather give them the chance to ignore the drugs, than to watch the bureaucrats peal liberty away layer by layer while the real scumbags get rich.

CrazyGene on February 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

I need laws to tell me heroin is bad for me. Just like I need laws to tell me not wearing my seat belt is dangerous too.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Do you need laws to tell you that rape and murder is wrong? No. Should we get rid of those as well?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Who writes his scripts ? Harry Reid ?

burrata on February 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Please don’t sue me for plagiarism. :(

cableguy615 on February 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Or is there a moral imperative here which makes the cost – any cost – worth it for keeping society safe?

 
Umnfortunately we’ve embraced it as a solid corner of our fed/state/local financial foundations and neither our economy or our employment numbers can tolerate us solving the “problem”.
 
Like poverty, this problem can never go away, and (just like poverty) I’d imagine they’ll manipulate numbers to make it seem worse than it is if the need arises. Too many people and government entities rely on it for paychecks.

rogerb on February 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

He’s not ordering pot and pizza in NY, that’s for sure. Daughter insists Shep is an alien. There’s another alien over on CNN, grrr… can’t remember her name, lol.

Fallon on February 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Do you need laws to tell you that rape and murder is wrong? No. Should we get rid of those as well?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Am I hurting anyone if I shoot up?

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Flora Duh on February 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Yeah, I know its strange she is very Conservative and thinks my sister is nuts for her liberal views. She just adores Shep for some reason. Some things a son just doesn’t breach with his Mother. I try to be a very good son.

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

The war against rape is lost. Despite all we’ve done, and tried educating people about the evils of rape, rape still happens. Therefore, I motion that we legalize rape.

When rape occurs there is a victim. Tell me, who is the victim when someone smokes a joint in the privacy of their own home.

A little reason might help.

Sammy316 on February 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Why does no one on hotair ever mention Portugal? That’s all the proof you need that decriminalizing drugs is by far the best option. Less than half as many people are using drugs now in Portugal ever since they decriminalized.

thphilli on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Not so fast thp, the drugs in Portugal are not quite decriminalized.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what’s known as a “Dissuasion Commission,” an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico’s president has proposed doing the same.

Looks to me that it’s only the end user who gets a lighter punishment.

NapaConservative on February 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

YES, the drug war is lost. And it’s immoral. And costly, in so many ways beyond $. Freedom is worth something. And the police state we have, where police thugs break through doors in the middle of the night, is largely because of the lost drug war. Where are conservatives on this issue?
90% of those in prison are for drug related crimes (sometimes theft to get $ for drugs). 80% of drug criminals are in for possession or use. Ridic. Even drug sales is not akin to violent crime. We have mandatory long sentences for victimless drug crimes, and then because of overcrowded prisons we are forced to violent criminals free, that may assault us! Absolutely ludicrous. Immoral too.
Sure, using drugs is bad. But there’s a thing called education, and choice. We just can’t win this war. No possible way. End it.

Main thing, Ron Paul almost has it right. A little more moderation at couple of spots, and he would cruise to victory, and the presidency. In the future, someone, maybe Rand Paul, will arise and break apart the left – paradigm, and storm to victory. The “soft center” will give. The pointless drug war is part of that soft center.

anotherJoe on February 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Am I hurting anyone if I shoot up?

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Yeah. Others have to pay for your medical problems, and your welfare checks, and when you can’t keep a job they get their cars broken into when you need some cash for a hit.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Rape involves a non-consensual party, by definition. Drug use in and of itself doesn’t, never has. Try again, so-con fascist.

Daikokuco on February 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

And drug use affects the user’s family, often very negatively, which in many cases, causes the user and their family to become a burden on society, but you knew that. That’s why you were forced to qualify your statement with, “in and of itself.”

There is a price to be paid for letting people have unlimited freedoms, and counting on them to exercise those freedoms responsibly, which is obviously something you do NOT know. Hence, your support for Ron Paul and friends™

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I need laws to tell me heroin is bad for me. Just like I need laws to tell me not wearing my seat belt is dangerous too.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

You’re as obtuse as the sheep that compare Obamacare’s mandates to state auto insurance laws. It’s not for your protection – it’s to protect me from you losing your gourd and driving your car through my living room while on your next heroin binge.

CycloneCDB on February 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Thank you for creating the Mexican drug armies instead of people getting their pot from Marlboro.

Spliff Menendez on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

How would that work? You mean legalize drugs and the sale
of drugs by any Tom, Dick and Harry?
What could go wrong?

Mimzey on February 17, 2012 at 6:36 PM

It’s comical to see all of the small government “conservatives” and their big government neoconservatism…

An individual using drugs (even though I, personally, don’t use them, nor alcohol or tobacco) doesn’t directly affect the life of another individual. Hypothetically, if I use marijuana in my own home, that’s basically no different than going to the local food mart and purchasing a six-pack of beer. It harms my body, but not someone else’s.

Comparing legalizing marijuana to legalizing rape, murder, fraud, theft, or prostitution is just plain stupid and ignorant. All of those aforementioned crimes are “crimes” because they harm OTHER people. I don’t give a damn what some junkie does in his parents’ basement, as long as he’s nowhere near me. Now, I don’t see people smoking pot wherever I go, but I do see winos and smokers everywhere, and I’ve learned to deal with them.

But nevertheless, it’s always amusing to read comments from so-called “conservatives” showing how liberal they really are.

Aizen on February 17, 2012 at 6:36 PM

When rape occurs there is a victim. Tell me, who is the victim when someone smokes a joint in the privacy of their own home.

A little reason might help.

Sammy316 on February 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

You could argue the same thing about voyeurism, since nothing happens to the “victim” of voyeurism. You could also argue the same thing about streaking and sexual exhibitionism.

As I said, the point is to guard against the loss of self-control. Anti-drug laws are a prudent measure against degradation that arises from actions undertaken in a mentally impaired state.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Alright, wasting no time comparing recreational drug use to rape and murder. Bring on the logical fallacies and dont scrimp on the manufactured outrage!

Jeddite on February 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

It’s an age old argument. My favorite libertarian,DougMataconis andI havegonebackandforth on this topic several times. There is no easy answer here. Me as a Christian conservativehave moral objections to legalizing narcotics, and believe that doing so will lead to moral decay, and that has led to the downfall of other civilizations. Winning the war on drugs is similar to the global war on terrorism. You have to keep fighting it or you lose. And when you lose either, we as a nation are doomed.

simkeith on February 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Why stop at narcotics? How about criminalizing other things you have moral objections to like Family Guy, hot chicks making out, curse words, cigarettes, and whatever else you got.

Spliff Menendez on February 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Am I hurting anyone if I shoot up?

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Sure, go for it, but when you overdose and die, don’t ask anyone to lower the flag to half mast for you.

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Am I hurting anyone if I shoot up?

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Yes.

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

The War on Drugs is over.

Drugs won.

JohnGalt23 on February 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Anti-drug laws are a prudent measure against degradation that arises from actions undertaken in a mentally impaired state

Better ban the McRib then – people will do stupid things for processed pork filling if the government isnt there to protect them from themselves!

Jeddite on February 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Yeah. Others have to pay for your medical problems, and your welfare checks, and when you can’t keep a job they get their cars broken into when you need some cash for a hit.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM

The medical argument might work if I believed in socialized medicine. That’s an entity that I don’t believe in the first place. Heroin, crack, certain prescription pills (in large amounts), and etc are all illegal right now and I could still go out and find any of those things in a few days (I’m a teacher) in the hallways and start doing it immediately. I’m not infringing on anyone’s rights if I want to do them myself and I’m certainly NOT going to do it because the gov’t says it’s illegal.

Hell, it’s getting to the point in high school where pot is the safe choice.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Why does no one ever point out the Constitutional impacts of the drug war?

Prohibition required an amendment to the Constitution that has since been repealed (that fact alone should give drug warriors pause).

If it required an amendment to ban alcohol…why doesn’t it require one to ban cocaine, marijuana, etc.?

I would expect that to count for something on a conservative site…

ChrisL on February 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

An individual using drugs (even though I, personally, don’t use them, nor alcohol or tobacco) doesn’t directly affect the life of another individual.

Aizen on February 17, 2012 at 6:36 PM

A friend of the family got beaten unconscious by her son when she confronted him about some frozen steaks he stole to sell for drugs. She died a month later in hospital.

Is that a direct effect or an indirect effect of drug use?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

if they legalize it, can i get mine susidized? and paid for by the insurance companies with no increase in my premiums? i think thats possible….

t8stlikchkn on February 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Sure, go for it, but when you overdose and die, don’t ask anyone to lower the flag to half mast for you.

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Again, who’s rights am I infringing upon if I want to snort some crack off a hooker’s ass? (Well, assuming the hooker complies with my request.)

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

the answer is obvious: outlaw frozen steaks.

t8stlikchkn on February 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Am I hurting anyone if I shoot up?

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Sure, go for it, but when you overdose and die, don’t ask anyone to lower the flag to half mast for you.

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Did he ever?

Seriously? Are you expecting flags at half mast for you when you die? That is seriously the oddest anti-legalization argument I have heard.

ChrisL on February 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

… decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico’s president has proposed doing the same.

NapaConservative on February 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Hasn’t Mexico legalized drugs?
Hows that working out? I hear things are just swell over there…no drug gangs and violence has dropped to practically zero. Almost Utopia.

Mimzey on February 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaL_z8cK68Q

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

You could argue the same thing about voyeurism, since nothing happens to the “victim” of voyeurism. You could also argue the same thing about streaking and sexual exhibitionism.

Voyeurism violates a persons right to privacy. Streaking or sexual exhibitionism might offend ones religious or moral values. But you still have not told me who the victim is when someone lights up a joint in the privacy of their own home.

People always want to take away others rights and yet they scream the loudest when someone infringes on one of their own.

Sammy316 on February 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

“Washington Times journalists Robert Farago and Ralph Dixon cite a “CIA insider” to make the claim that Operation Fast and Furious was a Central Intelligence Agency-orchestrated program to arm the Sinaloa drug cartel, a group that was also given the green light to fly tons of cocaine into the United States.”

Wait, wha…?

Seven Percent Solution on February 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM

More druggies complaining about being denied their poison.

Count to 10 on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

More geniuses trying to force their will on others.

Like typical democrats (oh, and nazis for that matter.

Squiggy on February 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM

A friend of the family got beaten unconscious by her son when she confronted him about some frozen steaks he stole to sell for drugs. She died a month later in hospital.

Is that a direct effect or an indirect effect of drug use?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I think that’s a reason to ban frozen steaks.

EddieC on February 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM

The proper solution follows the proper role of government.

First, it is a natural right to consume what we want and what we can get through our own devices or through barter and trade. It is also a natural right to associate with those we wish to associate with and to not associate with those we do not want to associate.

Allow drug use as a legal activity. Make drug use something that every aspect of society has the ability to fully 100% discriminate against.

Prices of drugs will go low enough to crush the vacuum fully as respect to it being no longer worth crossing borders illegally. Use will not increase dramatically as those who would use do use. Theft will decline as it will not be necessary to have lots of money to feed the habit. Murders will decline as turf wars over drug sales will become a thing of the past. Tax revenues will increase, but if drugs are over taxed, then we are back to the whole drug war thing as it becomes a black market item again. Drug abusers will be blacklisted from high paying jobs and will fill the roles of illegal aliens. I say it is win win win.

astonerii on February 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Stopped watching Smith long ago.

KBird on February 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

More druggies complaining about being denied their poison.

Count to 10 on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Who said anything about banning religion?

EddieC on February 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

You could argue the same thing about voyeurism, since nothing happens to the “victim” of voyeurism. You could also argue the same thing about streaking and sexual exhibitionism.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

What are you talking about? Voyeurism infringes on my privacy. Streaking and exhibitionism is something that infringes on my privacy as well. Those examples are awful.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

We lost the drug war 20-odd years ago. During the most active indictment campaigns in Mexico, central, and south America when we were literally in a shooting war…we lost.

We cut the head off the snake many, many times. And each time, the new snake was far worse than the old one. Fast forward to 2012 and in Mexico at least we have Los Zetas. Those boys make their predecessors look like choir boys.

The War on Drugs failed on both fronts. Supply and demand. Our first mistake was to prioritize supply over demand. The entire thing was a clusterfark from beginning to end.

CorporatePiggy on February 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Shep? I thought his name was Shemp. Sorry.

jb34461 on February 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Hasn’t Mexico legalized drugs?
Hows that working out? I hear things are just swell over there…no drug gangs and violence has dropped to practically zero. Almost Utopia.

Mimzey on February 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

So your assertion is that Mexico legalizing drugs is the raison d’etre for the drug cartels?

Man, those Dutch cartels must be really, really, really bad at their jobs. :|

Jeddite on February 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Again, who’s rights am I infringing upon if I want to snort some crack off a hooker’s ass? (Well, assuming the hooker complies with my request.)

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM

When you lose your sense of judgement and stab the hooker over her refusing to let you use her eye socket in inventive ways…I would guess the hooker…

When you find a strain of crack that does not impair your judgement in any way – we can talk. Until then – you’re delusional.

CycloneCDB on February 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Better ban the McRib then – people will do stupid things for processed pork filling if the government isnt there to protect them from themselves!

Jeddite on February 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I have yet to see anyone lose self-control from the consumption of the McRib. But given the notoriously lackluster standards of McDonalds, I concede that it could be necessary. =P

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

That doesn’t make sense. The History channel had a special on about the Mexican cartels and one of the leaders was interviewed.(With a hood on his face.) He said their biggest nightmare would be the US legalizing drugs. He was laughing and saying it will never happen and was glad. He said the US is hungry for the drugs and we’ll never stop needing them to bring them here.

stingray9813 on February 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Of course, just like the prohibition gangsters the only reason they exist is because of the stupid war on weed.

steel guy on February 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

A friend of the family got beaten unconscious by her son when she confronted him about some frozen steaks he stole to sell for drugs. She died a month later in hospital.

Is that a direct effect or an indirect effect of drug use?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

if he used the money to buy a car, would we outlaw cars?

t8stlikchkn on February 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

What’s the matter with Shep, he’s lost a ton of weight and looks awful?

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Botulism? I heard you get it from bad meat in the can…

fegerter on February 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

More druggies complaining about being denied their poison.

Count to 10 on February 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Arguing with social cons on this issue is like when liberals tell me I don’t care about poor people when I don’t think there should be social security or medicare.

Notorious GOP on February 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

An individual using drugs (even though I, personally, don’t use them, nor alcohol or tobacco) doesn’t directly affect the life of another individual.

Aizen on February 17, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Except when they get into a vehicle and kill someone because they’re impaired, or when they burglarize someone’s house because they need money to feed their addiction, or when they share their stash and someone else OD’s on it, or when they neglect their children because their drug addiction takes precedence in their lives.

Otherwise, you’re absolutely right.

NapaConservative on February 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Did he ever?

Seriously? Are you expecting flags at half mast for you when you die? That is seriously the oddest anti-legalization argument I have heard.

ChrisL on February 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

A joke perhaps? Sorry I forgot my sarc tag.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to lower the flags to half staff in honor of the death of singer Whitney Houston.

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6