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 3 4 5 6

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:38 AM

And once again:

Where, exactly, in the US Constitution, do you find the authority of the US Government to tell the Sates and their citizens what drugs are and are not safe?

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:40 AM

.
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, and
.
The Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution: Article I Section 8, clause 18.
.
If you don’t like that answer … take it up with the Supreme Court.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:47 AM

that’s what’s called a straw man.

you’ve officially gone all liberal all over everyone’s @sses

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM

If you first list the FDA’s successes you will grow old before you get around to listing its failures.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:43 AM

And I’m sure the TSA can point to a long line of airlines that haven’t been bombed. Are we now to defend the existence of the TSA? An agency, that BTW, actually has the benefit of at leat being tangentially related to Constitutional duties.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Commerce Clause!

this is rich.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Pretty much. They have grown up in a culture so safe and wealthy that they have no idea where that shield from reality comes from or how it is maintained. They are overgrown children demanding their ‘rights’ without any sense of what those rights entail or what sort of sacrifice and responsibility are required to exercise them.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:45 AM

.

The Democratic Party spent no little effort seducing them in the later years of the Bush Administration. They abandoned the Republican Party in mass in 2006 and 2008 and now therefore they seem destined for a future in an American twilight which they will find quite harsh and unforgiving.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, and
.
The Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution: Article I Section 8, clause 18.
.
If you don’t like that answer … take it up with the Supreme Court.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Well, I disagree with SCOTUS a lot. Like in Roe. Like in Kelo. But I’ll give you that. For now, you have SCOTUS on your side.

Of course, rolling over for the infinitely elastic Commerce Clause argument makes it sort of tough for the rest of us to defend against ObamaCare and other Constitutional atrocities. But if that’s the cost to (incredibly unsuccessfully) defend the American people against their own vices that their own state governments don’t have the desire to police, while simultaneously creating supranational mafias controlling hundreds of billions of dollars in trade… I guess you find the tradeoff worth it.

I don’t.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:47 AM

There were two other sources about two other studies that were given by Mike O’Malley. I find it interesting that you ignored them in favor of attacking the BBC article, because you don’t approve of the source.

I doubt you accept anything from any authority on the subject of marijuana, and if you even bother to try to critique the information at all, it will come from some objective source like NORML.

Disapproval of sources. Government conspiracies. You are pathetic. No amount of facts and reality will cut through the wall you have up when it comes to marijuana use and abuse.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Commerce Clause!

this is rich.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

I just like making them say it. Perhaps because I own stock in an antacid company.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:00 AM

ouch…I saw that coming.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:00 AM

They abandoned the Republican Party in mass in 2006 and 2008 and now therefore they seem destined for a future in an American twilight which they will find quite harsh and unforgiving.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Yup. They always seem to vote their liberalism before their fiscal conservatism. They seem incapable of understanding that societies don’t just spring from whole cloth. That’s a liberal notion which doesn’t correspond to reality. If you want certain rights protected then you must have a civil society that promotes and respects those same rights. The Soviet constitution can say anything it wants but if the society doesn’t respect human rights then its just meaningless drivel. You cannot attack and destroy traditional society and expect that traditional rights will survive.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Dunno if we lost the Drug War, but we sure have lost the Shepard Smith screaming like a pansy War.

The Nerve on February 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Government propaganda isn’t a conspiracy – it’s a fact of life. One you probably gladly subscribe to in the media bias debate.

but go on with your straw men…you seem to enjoy them.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

that’s what’s called a straw man.

you’ve officially gone all liberal all over everyone’s @sses

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM

And you continuing to scream at me and calling me a fascist is called a diversion. And you dismissing factual information based on not liking the source, is about as liberal as it gets.

You accused me of wanting to force my morals on you. That’s not supportable, no matter how many times you call me a fascist.

I’m out. This is like arguing with a two year old.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Dunno if we lost the Drug War, but we sure have lost the Shepard Smith screaming like a pansy War.

The Nerve on February 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Okay… I don’t care what your position is on this, that’s just funny right there.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:06 AM

I just like making them say it. Perhaps because I own stock in an antacid company.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:00 AM

’twas masterful. I didn’t think he’d go for it…nice job.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:08 AM

I’m out. This is like arguing with a two year old.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:05 AM

the brave Sir Robin ran away

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:08 AM

And I’m sure the TSA can point to a long line of airlines that haven’t been bombed. Are we now to defend the existence of the TSA? An agency, that BTW, actually has the benefit of at leat being tangentially related to Constitutional duties.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Above one can find an example of a red herring.

.

BTW: The statue creating the FDA was signed by President Theodore Roosevelt on June 30, 1906, long long before the New Deal. Do you want to try your hand at challenging the Constitutional reasoning of a pre-New Deal Supreme Court?

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Roosevelt signed a statue?

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:11 AM

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Government propaganda isn’t a conspiracy – it’s a fact of life. One you probably gladly subscribe to in the media bias debate.

but go on with your straw men…you seem to enjoy them.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

You made claims that were refuted, and then you dismissed the refutations as government propaganda –without proof. You continue to prove that you just dismiss any information that doesn’t support your assertions as illegitimate, or propaganda, or whatever you deem appropriate, so that you don’t have to deal with refuting the actual points made. You believe what you want to believe, regardless of being shown evidence to the contrary.

You are a closed-minded individual, and you must be truly dizzy from all your dodging and weaving.

Good night.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Good night.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:12 AM

are you ever actually leaving? I’m tired of your bs

go sleep under the watchful eyes of your beloved Big Government

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM

BTW: The statue creating the FDA was signed by President Theodore Roosevelt on June 30, 1906, long long before the New Deal. Do you want to try your hand at challenging the Constitutional reasoning of a pre-New Deal Supreme Court?

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:09 AM

You’ll get damned short shrift from me citing Roosevelt, Teddy or Franklin. And SCOTUS got things wrong before the New Deal. Just not as often.

And we both know damned well that if that 1906 SCOTUS saw what FDA had become today, they would have stopped it in its tracks.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM

go sleep under the watchful eyes of your beloved Big Government

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Straw man.

I just bet you can’t wait for me to leave, because you can’t answer even one point I’ve made. Just one diversion after another is all you are capabke of.

Your tears of failure taste sweet.

See you in my dreams!

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Yup. They always seem to vote their liberalism before their fiscal conservatism. They seem incapable of understanding that societies don’t just spring from whole cloth. That’s a liberal notion which doesn’t correspond to reality. If you want certain rights protected then you must have a civil society that promotes and respects those same rights. The Soviet constitution can say anything it wants but if the society doesn’t respect human rights then its just meaningless drivel. You cannot attack and destroy traditional society and expect that traditional rights will survive.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

.
What of their simple minded ideology of individual autonomy?
.
Sound?
Unsound?

or disconnected human reality?

.

There are no true autonomous individuals. We are all inextricably inter-connected. The Ancients were far wiser. They knew that there were no autonomous individuals. For the Ancients there were members of tribes or clans or families. Those without tribal allies and tribal obligations were either dead men or very soon to be dead men.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:21 AM

And I’m sure the TSA can point to a long line of airlines that haven’t been bombed. Are we now to defend the existence of the TSA? An agency, that BTW, actually has the benefit of at leat being tangentially related to Constitutional duties.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Above one can find an example of a red herring.

.

BTW: The statute creating the FDA was signed by President Theodore Roosevelt on June 30, 1906, long long before the New Deal. Do you want to try your hand at challenging the Constitutional reasoning of a pre-New Deal Supreme Court?

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:22 AM

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:18 AM

don’t flatter yourself – you’ve not made one point.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:22 AM

???????

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Yup. They always seem to vote their liberalism before their fiscal conservatism. They seem incapable of understanding that societies don’t just spring from whole cloth. That’s a liberal notion which doesn’t correspond to reality. If you want certain rights protected then you must have a civil society that promotes and respects those same rights. The Soviet constitution can say anything it wants but if the society doesn’t respect human rights then its just meaningless drivel. You cannot attack and destroy traditional society and expect that traditional rights will survive.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

.
What of their simple minded ideology of individual autonomy?
.
Sound?
Unsound?

or disconnected human reality?

.

There are no true autonomous individuals. We are all inextricably inter-connected. The Ancients were far wiser. They knew that there were no autonomous individuals. For the Ancients there were members of tribes or clans or families. Those without tribal, clan and/or family allies and without reciprocal tribal obligation were either dead men or hunted prey who were very soon to be dead men.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:26 AM

I think you’ve confused him silly JohnGalt23.

youse a bad mammajamma. remind me not to get on your bad side

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:27 AM

There are no true autonomous individuals. We are all inextricably inter-connected. The Ancients were far wiser. They knew that there were no autonomous individuals. For the Ancients there were members of tribes or clans or families. Those without tribal allies and tribal obligations were either dead men or very soon to be dead men.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:21 AM

The collectivist is strong with this one…

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:27 AM

There are no true autonomous individuals. We are all inextricably inter-connected. The Ancients were far wiser. They knew that there were no autonomous individuals. For the Ancients there were members of tribes or clans or families. Those without tribal allies and tribal obligations were either dead men or very soon to be dead men.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:21 AM

And the founding fathers knew that and accepted it as part of the assumptions in the founding documents. If you read what they wrote they made it very clear that certain public virtues were a prerequisite for a republic to function. The liberal idea of ‘do your own thing’ would have been repellent to them because it had nothing to do with liberty or freedom, but was simply a lack of moral restraint.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:27 AM

everything’s connected man!

I think he’s putting us on…this guy is stoned!

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:31 AM

The collectivist is strong with this one…

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:27 AM

.
Collectivist? Why not at all. I chose however not to living is an Objectivist fantasy world.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Mike, why can’t you seem to form a coherent sentence?

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:33 AM

People abuse alcohol every day like a drug, legally.

Either outlaw alcohol or legalize drugs.

We already tried the first, by the way.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2012 at 1:34 AM

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” – Samuel Adams

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:35 AM

My neighbor’s son smokes pot drinks alcohol. He’s got an OK job and is finally going to college to further his education. He doesn’t have enough money to buy a house. What does he spend his money on? Pot Alcohol and cigarettes. I once read a book about 100s of former pot smokers booze drinkers. Everyone of them talked about how much time they had wasted. I’ve tried to tell him, but he is just absolutely sure he’s doing just fine. Meanwwhile I take care of his 3 children and wait for him to finally figure it out. I’m so angry and people keep talking about legalizing it. I’m glad I’m 51 and won’t be around to see the destruction of this great country when you get your way.

LL1960 LL1880 on February 17, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on February 18, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Oops that should have been “My neighbor’s son…”

Bizarro No. 1 on February 18, 2012 at 1:36 AM

excellent Bizarro. excellent

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:40 AM

And the founding fathers knew that and accepted it as part of the assumptions in the founding documents. If you read what they wrote they made it very clear that certain public virtues were a prerequisite for a republic to function. The liberal idea of ‘do your own thing’ would have been repellent to them because it had nothing to do with liberty or freedom, but was simply a lack of moral restraint.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:27 AM

.
That’s why the Founders so struggled with dis-establishment. They found Establishment of Religion to be inconsistent with self-evident liberty endowed by their Creator. Yet they knew that religion and religions inculcation of virtue were prerequisite for a functioning self-sustaining democratic civil society.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Geez Mike…flirting with four syllable words doesn’t negate your previous jibber jabber.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:44 AM

That’s why the Founders so struggled with dis-establishment. They found Establishment of Religion to be inconsistent with self-evident liberty endowed by their Creator. Yet they knew that religion and religions inculcation of virtue were prerequisite for a functioning self-sustaining democratic civil society.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Interesting point. I wonder what we would have found in the constitution if they had been written ten years later following the events of the French Revolut!on and the savagery and anti-clerical frenzy of the socialists during the Reign of Terror?

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:45 AM

Mike, why can’t you seem to form a coherent sentence?

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Because I’m dyslexic and because you are unacquainted with my writing style or with my frame of thought.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:45 AM

The collectivist is strong with this one…

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:27 AM

.
Collectivist? Why not at all. I chose however not to live in an Objectivist fantasy world.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Geez Mike…flirting with four syllable words doesn’t negate your previous jibber jabber.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Ruff ruff.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Either outlaw alcohol or legalize drugs.

We already tried the first, by the way.

The war on drugs is having exactly the same corrosive and destructive effect on our society as alcohol prohibition did. It’s also having the same level of success.
As with Prohibition, the drug war is more destructive to society than the drugs.
It’s a shame we didn’t learn the first time.

single stack on February 18, 2012 at 1:47 AM

Collectivist? Why not at all. I chose however not to live in an Objectivist fantasy world.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Somalia isn’t a fantasy world man. You too can live in the libertarian dream world with free drugs and no parents, but don’t forget to bring some extra ammo. /

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Because I’m dyslexic and because you are unacquainted with my writing style or with my frame of thought.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:45 AM

Mike’s writing syle – otherwise known as improper grammar.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:50 AM

syle – otherwise know as style!

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:50 AM

single stack on February 18, 2012 at 1:47 AM

learnin’ is hard

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Interesting point. I wonder what we would have found in the constitution if they had been written ten years later following the events of the French Revolut!on and the savagery and anti-clerical frenzy of the socialists during the Reign of Terror?

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:45 AM

.
hmmmm …

Of course one can not know, but the French Revolution and the Terror had powerful affect in the USA. It seems no accident that our Civil War was ignited in the very city that had hosted the hideous Citizen Genêt. The Terror gave an anti-science cast to our Second Great Awakening.

To Europe the French Revolution and the Terror gave a new god of war and a desperate hunger for the old religion of the Archaic world.

In this line of thought I’ll recommend: Achever Clausewitz, by René Girard, I read the English translation: Battling to the End: Conversations with BenoîT Chantre

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=battling+to+the+end+rene+girard

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:04 AM

450 Wow, who’d da thunk it?

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Somalia isn’t a fantasy world man. You too can live in the libertarian dream world with free drugs and no parents, but don’t forget to bring some extra ammo. /

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Free drugs for me in Somalia? Not for me, instead I’d get that once in a life time choice: convert or die.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:08 AM

In this line of thought I’ll recommend: Achever Clausewitz, by René Girard, I read the English translation: Battling to the End: Conversations with BenoîT Chantre

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=battling+to+the+end+rene+girard

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:04 AM

That looks very interesting. I will take a look at that and thank you.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Not for me, instead I’d get that once in a life time choice: convert or die.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Don’t judge them. They are just doing their own thing and you can do yours if you are a really good shot.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 2:14 AM

two peas in a Big ol’ Government pod ya’ll are

it’s adorable

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 2:18 AM

Thanks Mr. Sharrukin.

If you can’t get that Uncommon Knowledge link to work you should be able to find a working one over at National Review Online.

That interview makes a great introduction to one of the most innovative and profound theoretical anthologists since perhaps Augustine.

I’m going top sign-off thanks for some very effective and interesting posts. :-)

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Thanks Mr. Sharrukin.

If you can’t get that Uncommon Knowledge link to work you should be able to find a working one over at National Review Online.

That interview makes a great introduction to one of the most innovative and profound theoretical anthologists since perhaps Augustine.

I’m going to sign-off now. thanks for some very effective and interesting posts. :-)

.

dyslexia … ;-)

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:22 AM

A country can not win any kind of war with open borders.

dunce on February 18, 2012 at 2:31 AM

That interview makes a great introduction to one of the most innovative and profound theoretical anthologists since perhaps Augustine.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Quite an introduction. Interesting that he respects even as he disagrees with Nietzsche. I have always thought Nietzsche a very interesting thinker despite a profound disagreement with much of what he says. Far too many of the philosophers try to describe the nature of reality rather than the nature of man.

Night and thanks again.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 2:32 AM

Am I hurting anyone if I shoot up?

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

Yeah. Drug users aren’t cheap. The hospital costs when you OD or hurt yourself while impaired. The costs associated with policing when you commit a crime to make money for your fix, as, of course, you don’t have a job. Welfare. The costs to those affected by your crimes. The costs to maintain the areas where you and your buddies hang out – have you seen how clean and tidy drug addicts are? The costs associated with dealing with your issues – methadone clinics if you are so inclined, mental health societies when you bug out, etc, etc, etc.

Double this if you hurt someone when impaired.

All those resources taken away from people who need it and for other services because YOU want to get your groove on. Ask them and the people paying the freight above whether you are hurting them.

kim roy on February 18, 2012 at 2:53 AM

I’ve been saying for over 30 years, for longer than many readers have been alive, that the War On (some) Drugs cannot be won and furthermore is not and never was designed to be won. It is an excuse for a police state. It fosters an ever escalating war between the narcotics agents and the drug dealers with ever heavier weapons and we the people in the middle getting hurt. For every million dollars of drugs stopped by agents how many millions of dollars of US productivity is lost and how much damage is done to the persons and property of innocents?

That war is lost. It was never designed to be won, because it cannot be. Prohibition proved that. It was lost from day one. And it cannot be won.

That this is even being debated is a monument to the lack of the common sense God seems to have granted humanity. It’s the same lack of simple common sense that leads to creatures line Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Debbie, and others getting elected and reelected ad nauseum.

{+_+}

herself on February 18, 2012 at 3:57 AM

Shep Smith doesn’t realize that, from the government’s perspective, the “War on Drugs” has been very, very successful. It has allowed it to build the legal and logistical framework for martial law.

We have, for example, the Federal Gov’t handing out “free” military vehicles to local police forces to help fight the “War on Drugs”. We have police shooting a young man through his bathroom door, killing him, because they are afraid he is flushing marijuana down his toilet, and they need that evidence badly enough to use lethal force. Police can stop you and search your car without a warrant if they “suspect drugs”.

Yeah, nothing can possibly go wrong with handing the gov’t so much power to keep us safe from ourselves with regard to narcotics use.

cavalier973 on February 18, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Yes, anything less than complete agreement with you is fascism. I get it.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Obviously you don’t know the definition of “fascism”. How is believing in legalization the same as believing the government should control all aspects of our lives?

In my world (America) you have the right to pursue happiness in whatever way you choose, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon my rights. I don’t want to infringe on your rights. You want to infringe on mine. You want to tell me what I can and can’t do. You are the fascist.

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Dirtbag? Drunken moron? I’m still waiting for you to tell me what your “big question” is? Make all the assumptions you want, pal. It doesn’t help your case at all. And say hello to Laverne, Shirley and, of course, the Big Ragu, okay? Thanks.

cicerone on February 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I asked the question, you ignored it. I asked it again, and you say you’re still waiting for me to ask it. Naaah, you don’t sound like a ‘drunken moron’.

For the third time, the question is: You use an example of a scumbag teen beating his mother to death as a reason to keep all people from smoking pot. Then I tell you about the drunken woman driver who killed my 19-year-old daughter back in 1995. By your logic, all drinkers are responsible for her death, and alcohol should be made into a schedule one narcotic (which it basically is,anyway, since it kills thousands of times as many as all other drugs combined.) When you come out for banning alcohol, your argument might hold water. Until then, you’re just another drunken moron who wants to impose his will on me.

And just for your info, my handle didn’t come from Laverne and Shirley. I’d tell you to look it up, but you won’t find it on DU or DK.

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Obviously you don’t know the definition of “fascism”. How is believing in legalization the same as believing the government should control all aspects of our lives?

In my world (America) you have the right to pursue happiness in whatever way you choose, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon my rights. I don’t want to infringe on your rights. You want to infringe on mine. You want to tell me what I can and can’t do. You are the fascist.

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I did not say believing in legalization was fascism. The opposite was said about me. Your reading comprehension leaves a great deal to be desired.

Because I don’t believe in unlimited personal liberty, that makes me a fascist. DH admitted that, and then later accused me of erecting a straw man, when I said he wants anarchy.

DH also made claims he didn’t back up, and when they were refuted, he ignored the information given, and rather than address it, he focused on simply repeating his assertions about how I am a fascist if I disagree with him. He has no point, and neither do you, because these drugs are already illegal, and it is YOU and DH who want to impose your (lack of) morals on me and the rest of society. Drug abuse infringes on the rights of other people, and a very good case has been made for that here, but you ignore it.

There is no arguing with druggies, obviously. They believe what they want, regardless of what evidence they are presented with to the contrary. DH continually proved my point about that on this thread, but he was too dim to realize it.

The obvious truth is that legalizing all drugs for “recreational use,” will cause a number of problems, which the majority of the advocates refuse to even acknowledge, much less consider solutions to. Because I believe that those problems would far outweigh any possible advantages, that allows you to label me a fascist and pretend you don’t have to listen to my arguments. How convenient for you. And dishonest. VERY dishonest.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

In my experience, it’s commentators like you who come from left-wing websites. Name-calling is not a substitute for an actual argument. Just an FYI.

Have a nice day!

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Sorry “Jenny”, but I’m a Christian, so I very much believe in morality.

Who said anything about “unlimited personal liberty”? There can be no such thing, unless you’re alone on an island.

I said you want to infringe upon my right to pursue happiness in the way I choose (which I notice you didn’t deny.) Who’s the one that’s pretending they are listening to the other persons arguments? Telling me to go “smoke another fat one” (when I don’t smoke, since you would have them smash my door down and put me in prison) is about as straw-man an argument as you can get.

Fascists, communists, and democrats all love to enforce their wills on everyone else, since they’re soooooo much smarter than those evil conservatives. Well I’ve got news for you sweetie – You don’t know better than me what is best for me.

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Left wing? Me? Ask Captain Ed (assuming you know who Captain Ed is).

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Question: Is negligent homicide regulated on the State level or the Federal level?

I ask because the main issue I have with narcotics is that they typically significantly endanger bystanders, as most mind altering substances cause severe loss of judgement, and in some cases extreme violent tendencies, that can persist far after exposure to the substances in question.

PCP, for an extreme example, has a strong risk of turning the user into a homicidal schizophrenic. While I firmly believe that people have the right to ruin themselves however they want, I don’t think that right extends to turning yourself into a human time bomb.

Voyager on February 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Yes, about 2 years ago, Shep Smith “changed” and for the better part of a year now has been reading the nightly script Media Matters hands to him just like all the commie journalistas do on MSNBC.

I fully expect Shep to quit Fox and move to MSNBC shortly after the November elections so he can either loudly champion Obama’s totalitarian takeover of America, or so he can spew vile, hate-filled, rhetoric at the Republican in the White House without having to worry about getting fired.

Further, I suspect Shep’s “change” is due to his newfound sexuality and the drug fueled sex life that always seems to come with the homosexual lifestyle.

Mahdi on February 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM

That interview makes a great introduction to one of the most innovative and profound theoretical anthologists since perhaps Augustine.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Quite an introduction. Interesting that he respects even as he disagrees with Nietzsche. I have always thought Nietzsche a very interesting thinker despite a profound disagreement with much of what he says. Far too many of the philosophers try to describe the nature of reality rather than the nature of man.

Night and thanks again.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 2:32 AM

.
Thank you Mr. Sharrukin. Your reaction to René Girard is welcome.
.

If there is a modern secularist philosopher who had some true grasp of the dark side of human nature, of the dark side of the human predicament, it was Nietzsche. Nietzsche grasped some of what Sophocles, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Paul and Augustine knew, what modern secularists seem too often unable to apprehend. One might say that Nietzsche is the premier secularist prophet, if you will, of our dark post-Judea/Christian future. Ayn Rand is but vapor before Nietzsche

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM

A country can not win any kind of war with open borders.

dunce on February 18, 2012 at 2:31 AM

you mean a country cannot win a war against its own people with open borders. is that more accurate for ya?

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Drug abuse infringes on the rights of other people, and a very good case has been made for that here,
JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM

by whom? control freaks?

this from the liberal leftist Justice Thomas:
it would have been unthinkable that congress could prohibit the local cultivation,possession and consumption of marijuana.

this from the leftist Justice Scalia:
drug test are going off the deep end a little.Scalia called the Constitution ”not only the token but indeed the substanceof what continues to bind us together as a people.” But he said the document will last ” only as long as it endures in the hearts and minds of the people.” he warned that OPPOSITION TO DRUGS could erode peoples rights.

damn liberals!!!!

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

As powerful as the cartels are, they are simply no match for the combined law enforcement power of the US, operating over rigorously enforced contracts between US corporations, given the drop in price that can be expected upon legalization. What is far more likely is more respectable members of families that operate these cartels will go into some element of the industry, such as providing raw materials for finished production in the US.

JohnGalt23 on February 17, 2012 at 11:53 PM

The cartels wouldn’t be competing with law enforcement, they’d be competing with, say, Pfizer. whose enthusiasm for the game would be dampened once their Vice President for Recreational Pharmaceuticals was kidnapped and beheaded.

Doing business in the US is expensive and it’s just sense that if you can protect market share and keep prices high with a little inexpensive violence instead – and you’re nothing loathe to use violence – then that’s what you’ll do. Mind you, I’m in favor of ending the WOD: but I expect the main benefit will be to stop enforcement abuses, not the drug cartels.

PersonFromPorlock on February 18, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Drug abuse infringes on the rights of other people, and a very good case has been made for that here,
JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM

by whom? control freaks?…

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Ms. Janny Mae, you may note the ever present ad hominem.

Like the Progressive left some strains of Libertarians seem disincline toward rational informed democratic discourse. Instead among their weapons of choice seem to be ad hominem, straw men and red herring argument.

.

this from the leftist Justice Scalia:
drug test are going off the deep end a little.’

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

“So drug test are going off the deep end a little“?

It is hard to understand that as a sweeping Constitutional repudiation of American law prohibiting drugs! Justice Scalia accepts the Constitutional legitimacy of Federal anti-drug law. Scalia was voicing concerns about confiscation of property under some drug law.

.

this from the leftist Justice Scalia: … Scalia called the Constitution ”not only the token but indeed the substanceo f what continues to bind us together as a people.” But he said the document will last ” only as long as it endures in the hearts and minds of the people.” …

damn liberals!!!!

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

So where is your opposition to Wade vs. Row. Scalia has been quite critical of the blatantly unconstitutional Wade vs. Row. If one wishes to locate a primary judicial corruption and delegitimization of the US Constitution one need look no further than Wade vs Row.

.

this from the leftist Justice Scalia: … Scalia …warned that OPPOSITION TO DRUGS could erode peoples rights.

damn liberals!!!!

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

.
Don’t be silly. He said no such thing.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:47 PM

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Only one problem with your post. We were talking about legalizing all drugs, not just marijuana.

Eroding people’s rights is certainly a concern, but you partially quoted Thomas and Scalia in order to make your argument from authority points.

Thomas was making a statement about the commerce clause.

Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

So, in other words, it would be acceptable for the states to regulate this. Fail number one.

You also parsed the passage about Scalia that you posted, which was from 1989.

And Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who voted with the majority on the railway case but dissented in the Customs Service case, indicated recently that the high court remains divided on the issue of random testing in the workplace.

In a speech at the University of Georgia Law School, Scalia characterized random drug testing as “going off the deep end a little bit” to solve the nation’s drug abuse crisis.

Scalia was talking about drug testing, not drug use, and he voted with the majority on this railway case:

In Skinner vs. Railway Labor Executives, which contested a 1985 DOT regulation subjecting all train crew members to urine and blood tests after serious accidents, the court found on a 7-2 vote that the government’s interest in “safeguarding the borders of public safety” outweighed the workers’ right to privacy. The court ruled that the government could test all members of the crew, without having to show “individualized suspicion.”

The ruling overturned a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which found that without requiring “particularized suspicion” the regulation violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.

In its opinion, the high court agreed that drug tests were “searches” under the Fourth Amendment but found the government’s “compelling” interest in detecting drug abuse on the railways outweighed the “diminished” privacy interests of workers.

If you are trying to use this as an “erosion of rights” argument, you’ve failed.

I have no idea where you even got your other supposed quotes from Scalia, but if you had to parse this one to this degree, I doubt there is any legitimacy to them, and strongly suspect they are taken WAY out of context, like this one. Fail number two.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Yes, Mr. O’Malley, they certainly love their insults.

Sorry, I messed up my formatting on that last post, but I’m not going to waste time correcting it. My point stands. Scalia was talking about drug testing, and he had no problem with it when it comes to professions where employees under the influence of drugs could become a hazard to people.

Surely our friend, svs22422, wasn’t trying to make the case that drug testing is a violation of the constitution and erodes our rights. Or was he?

I’d rather not have to worry about the person driving the train I am on, or flying the plane I am in, killing me and all his other passengers because he’s under the influence and impaired. I want steps taken to assure that doesn’t happen, and if that makes me a fascist, then I’m in good company with Scalia, because he agrees with me.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I’d rather not have to worry about the person driving the train I am on, or flying the plane I am in, killing me and all his other passengers because he’s under the influence and impaired. I want steps taken to assure that doesn’t happen, and if that makes me a fascist, then I’m in good company with Scalia, because he agrees with me.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM

.
And it is not just the pilot or the driver one need worry about. Some years ago I was down in DC when I met a recently retired Washington Metro Area Transit Authority supervisor who after 20 some years on the job had been very quietly forced into early retirement (with a very generous gov’t pension mind you). Why was he forced out? The former manager had been a long time drug user. His drug use was well known to upper management, and well known for years, but either upper management and/or the HR disciplinary process in DC in effect tolerated drug use among WMATA employees. Well one night as usual that former manager was stoned on the job and he got a trainman killed. That former manager refused repeatedly to allow the trainman to take prudent safety precautions in a highly dangerous situation. The trainman was crushed to death on a concrete wall and the drug using supervisor got rewarded with 25 to 30 years of generous pension benefits on the taxpayers’ dime. Oh yes, the taxpayer had to pick up the cost of the settlement paid to the dead trainman’s family too.
.

[sarc]Yes-sirree consuming illegal drugs is a personal choice and a victimless crime. Yes sirree![/sarc]
.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:15 PM

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM

So, in your mind, someone was arguing that driving a train under the influence is okay? Or is this another straw-man argument?

Please end this argument by telling me what part of the Constitution prohibits drug consumption? And which founding father would think this was a federal issue?

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Care to provide any proof of this? Call me crazy, but your word just ain’t enough.

And I ask again – who is saying it’s okay to ‘smoke and drive?

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 2:28 PM

. Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, and . The Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution: Article I Section 8, clause 18. . If you don’t like that answer … take it up with the Supreme Court.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM

You agree with this? That would make you a ‘progressive. Or do you pick and choose your ‘principles’?

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM

. Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, and . The Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution: Article I Section 8, clause 18. . If you don’t like that answer … take it up with the Supreme Court.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM

You agree with this? That would make you a ‘progressive. Or do you pick and choose your ‘principles’?

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM

.
You don’t say!

So I’m a “Progressive” because a pre-New Deal US Supreme Court found that the FDA met constitutional muster under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 and Clause 18! You don’t say!
.

Just what you be smokin’ bro?

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 3:11 PM

No Mike, I didn’t call you anything – I asked you a question. And if you actually read anything I wrote you would see I’m not smoking anything.

I always look to the constitution first – and your views on federal government super-powers aren’t there. If a state wants to ban something, that’s totally different. Giving the feds this kind of power leads to Obamacare and death panels – i.e. the power to control every aspect of your life. And anyone who agrees with that is a leftist/progressive.

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Don’t be silly. He said no such thing.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:47 PM

yea,he did.

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I’d rather not have to worry about the person driving the train I am on, or flying the plane I am in, killing me and all his other passengers because he’s under the influence and impaired.

sorry to ruin your day, but drug testing isnt impairment testing. also your statement is implying that train and plane crashes only happen if a person is on drugs.your just another big government statist who think they have a right telling other people how to live,while rasing hell about liberals telling you how to live yours.

as for OMally,page 399 Reagan in his own hand.” its their own business.” do yourself a favor,statist,MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 4:40 PM

svs22422 on February 18, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Some people aren’t happy unless they’re forcing their wills on others. But they’re not “progressives” (they think). Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. One thing ALL progressives, and libs believe is that they are the smartest person in the room, and only a moron (or someone ‘under the influence) could possibly disagree.

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 4:53 PM

But left unattended, the detrimental societal impact of illegal drugs is hard to deny.

Is it? Portugal provides actual evidence to the contrary, but conservatives certainly don’t care for evidence in this case.

ernesto on February 18, 2012 at 5:02 PM

No Mike, I didn’t call you anything – I asked you a question. And if you actually read anything I wrote you would see I’m not smoking anything.

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Thank you for you civil response.

Mr. Squiggy your insinuation that based upon my prior answer I was either a Progressive or I was unprincipled seems unavoidable even now. If that was not your intent you would be well advise to use more care in the future when you formulate argument.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I always look to the constitution first – and your views on federal government super-powers aren’t there. If a state wants to ban something, that’s totally different. Giving the feds this kind of power leads to Obamacare and death panels – i.e. the power to control every aspect of your life. And anyone who agrees with that is a leftist/progressive.

Squiggy on February 18, 2012 at 3:26 PM

That is a reasonable start, to look to the Constitution first. I expect we would agree that the New Deal Supreme Court, as packed by FDR, dangerously over expanded the application of the Commerce Clause. However as the FDA was formed in 1906 it seems reasonable to presume that a pre-New Deal Supreme Court would be able to bring a necessary degree of competence to is decisions regarding the Commerce Clause.

I applaud your Federalism, but need I remind you the none of the Founders was a modern libertarian. The British, Scottish and American Enlightenment libertarians (Classical Liberals) were economic and political libertarians and would not likely view modern social/moral libertarians/anarchists favorably.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 5:27 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

That one judge that upheld the use of the commerce clause in Obamacare wrote in his opinion that if the commerce clause allowed for this, he can’t think of anything that couldn’t think of any limitations left.

I guess these days Congress could roll back Griswold v. Connecticut simply citing that selling condoms is commerce and commerce is how they rule the world.

I think we need amendments these days if we’re ever going to roll back the government overreach.

Axeman on February 18, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Oh, come on, libTs! Your obfuscation really is not convincing anyone. Of all the ways that I can think that would most easily incapacitate me and all the ways that I have been incapacitated to operate a vehicle carrying others, alcohol and drugs is the most common way.

So you can’t solve 80% of the problem because it doesn’t solve 100% of the problem? How I pray for an end to pedantic politics!

Axeman on February 18, 2012 at 5:44 PM

There are no true autonomous individuals. We are all inextricably inter-connected. The Ancients were far wiser. They knew that there were no autonomous individuals. For the Ancients there were members of tribes or clans or families. Those without tribal allies and tribal obligations were either dead men or very soon to be dead men.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:21 AM

And then Sam Colt was born.

Gods bless the man, his inventions, and the Second Amendment.

Asurea on February 18, 2012 at 5:48 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

I don’t “have a link”, but I heard he has AIDS.

williamg on February 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I think I am leaning strongly now to the belief that drugs should be legalized.

JellyToast on February 18, 2012 at 6:34 PM

The Ancients were far wiser.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Indeed. They had, you know, slavery. Very wise.

Kenosha Kid on February 18, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I was curious about the history of drug criminalization in America. All I did, full disclosure, was some quick reading in Wiki.
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 seems to be the first time in America that certain drugs became regulated. This act was the beginning of the FDA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

One of the leading advocates of this bill was a social activist named Florence Kelly. She co-founded the NAACP and was a follower of Karl Marx. Here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Kelley

Another advocate of this bill was Upton Sinclair, a socialist.

I didn’t spend all day reading this but I read enough. I will read more, though.

I am a Christian. A conservative. The criminalization of drugs has done nothing to stop their use. It really may be time to rethink this whole thing.

JellyToast on February 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM

I apologize for another comment.. I forgot one other thing I was going to mention… the criminalization of drugs has done nothing to stop their use… but it has done a great deal in not only enriching mobsters and drug lords but also in expanding our government and trashing our liberty by growing the police state mentality.
The government has used the war on drugs as an excuse to seize property, break down doors, invade homes, expand their numbers, grow their arsenals and transform from community servants into mini armies.

I think we’ve been duped.

JellyToast on February 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM

The war on murder is also lost. Why, people just keep killing other people, no matter what we do! We should give up on that, too.

CanofSand on February 18, 2012 at 7:13 PM

SUPPORT THE MOB: keep drugs illegal.

profitsbeard on February 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I was curious about the history of drug criminalization in America. All I did, full disclosure, was some quick reading in Wiki.
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 seems to be the first time in America that certain drugs became regulated. This act was the beginning of the FDA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

One of the leading advocates of this bill was a social activist named Florence Kelly. She co-founded the NAACP and was a follower of Karl Marx. Here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Kelley

Another advocate of this bill was Upton Sinclair, a socialist.

I didn’t spend all day reading this but I read enough. I will read more, though.

I am a Christian. A conservative. The criminalization of drugs has done nothing to stop their use. It really may be time to rethink this whole thing.

JellyToast on February 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Hopefully you’re mindful of the abuse you’ll now receive from the control-freaking, willfully inconsistent, operate-with-no-overarching-principle, alcohol-should-be-the-only-legal-intoxicant-because-we-like-it-that-way nanny-statists for taking a step away from their groupthink – they don’t like it when someone like you leaves their reservation any more than Leftists do when people like Herman Cain leave their plantation, and they’ll treat you accordingly.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 18, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6