And just to be clear, this applies to any and all substances one wishes to ingest, not just cannabis.

If you are looking for conservative arguments against this costly pointless (does not cut drug use but marginally) immoral violent drug war, a good source, with over 500 comments, is the hotair post on the news that Shepard Smith said on air that “the drug war is lost.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/17/video-shep-smith-the-drug-war-is-lost

kenashimame on May 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

To be fair, the stated goal of prohibition was to reduce alcohol consumption.

They achieved this and, even after prohibition ended, the rate of alcohol consumption did not return to its previous level until the 1970s.

We can certainly discuss whether or not the tradeoffs were worth it, but, it doesn’t seem fair to characterize it as a failure since it achieved it’s goals.

Cleombrotus on May 22, 2012 at 7:43 AM

I am sincerely sorry to hear that.
I sincerely hope you are okay.
A brother-in-law is one of the types I mentioned in my post.

;)

Just think about all those deaths when gangs started shooting each other over distribution when it was made illegal in the 1920′s.

What? That was alcohol prohibition in the ’20′s?

What? Pot was legal in the States ’til the ’30′s?

The Temperance crowd cited very legitimate reasons for making alcohol illegal. Reasons that are very similar to those cited by the people who want to keep marijuana illegal. That didn’t keep Prohibition from being a great failure. (How great a failure? Let’s just say prohibition gave us organized crime as we know it today.)

What was the quote from Santayana about failing to learn from the mistakes of the past?

It’s like children born out of wedlock…almost guaranteed they will be abused, poor and addicted, but Murphy Brown is a true hero of the left and feminism. Remember Calvin Klein and his old guy, underage guy sex commercial? Remember his all about sex girl jeans commercial (can’t remember the star’s name, but she’d already been established as a sex symbol by her mother when she was 13)? Hey, Hollywood. You send the message that sex as often as possible with whomever you wish, wherever you wish, while glorifying sodomy as merely an “alternate” lifestyle and now a civil right, should spend a weekend every month visiting those who followed your philosophy.
The athiest Democrat here is right.

dentarthurdent on May 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I’d imagine they would. I recognize an intellect when I see one, even if I disagree with it. Unfortunately, too many intellects in position of influence seem to confuse knowing what they can know with all that there is to know and, in this particular case, ignoring or forgetting to mention the negative effects on drug use both individually and societally is, in my opinion, a glaring omission and leaves the impression that the greater harm to society is found in its laws.

That’s just, to put it mildly, not helpful.

Perhaps I missed it, but did anyone call Obama a hypocrite when he had glowing remarks for Rahm after Rahm called in his militarized police to protect the ‘O’ and his NATO buddies from the well organized Chicago community.

It was a beautiful sight to see the President being protected from the same community that he had taught how to organize.

Suppose you have an assembly line running. Would you willingly hire a pot smoker to work on it? Or an alcoholic? I’ve worked with both types of afflicted, and could trust them to do the job ‘most of the time’. But if you can’t trust them to show up, or to do the job correctly, why should you hire them, or why should you keep them hired?

dahni on May 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Alcoholic or habitual pot-smoker – no. Someone who occasionally drinks or smokes pot – sure. I’ve had to deal with lazy and stupid people that did neither of them and they still couldn’t be trusted to get the job done – so I don’t consider “social” use of either as a deciding factor. I know recreational pot-smokers who are very succesful business people, and I have alcoholics and junkies in my (extended) family. But then I also work in the Defense industry where you lose your job for ANY illicit drug use.

Teller’s more interested in pushing his lack of intellectual self-control more than he is for states’ rights or any other common sense political positions.

Cleombrotus on May 22, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Have you seen much of their acts or shows? If you don’t know them, they started as a comedy magic act. Penn and Teller had a series on cable called Bullsh!t. They nailed a lot of BS PC issues like recycling, the wars against Walmart, the bottled water scams, and so on. Do a search on them – they’re worth watching – and IMHO they have a lot more common sense intelligence and logic than many people give them credit for.

Fair enough. Just a nitpick: it’s actually Penn (Teller is his literally silent partner).
RightOFLeft on May 22, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Shows how much I pay attention to an act once I pick up its spirit.

Potheads would be costing the economy a lot less than over-eaters and under-exercisers if it weren’t for the insane war on drugs.
RightOFLeft on May 22, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Take it for an experienced ex-pothead, Potheads don’t generally acquire either an impressive work ethic, ambitious economic discipline, or advanced technical or professional ambitions. You can’t begin to measure the negative effects on the economy even legal potsmoking would have.

Cleombrotus on May 22, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Fair enough. Just a nitpick: it’s actually Penn (Teller is his literally silent partner).

I keep re-reading the Constitution looking for the Drug Prohibition amendment granting the federal government exclusive authority to outlaw them in all states.

There is no better singular example of how far the concept of limited powers granted only in the Constitution than this one.

wildcat72 on May 22, 2012 at 6:46 AM

Yeah, well I can’t find anything about phones or automobiles either…it is is so “obvious” to you, it should be a slam dunk for you to challenge it in court and win…I mean a guy without a law degree, you, even can see it. Surely a judge will roll over and say “I never knew that, thanks for pointing that out”, and you would be a hero, you won’t even need an attorney, you can file it yourself.
I wonder why no one else has ever thought of that….hmmmmmm,

right2bright on May 22, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I agree with wildcat72, actually. Though I am not a lawyer, either. Why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw liquor, but not drugs?

Why can’t states outlaw them, if they so choose?

RightOFLeft on May 22, 2012 at 8:48 AM

There’s a certain amount of logic that’s hard to argue with contained in Libertarian sentiments, but what I find difficult to ignore is the subliminal implication contained in their advocacy that the behavior they are defending is somehow harmless to the society which has to deal with it.

I’d probably have a little more empathy for guys like Teller and their positions if their whole shtick wasn’t, at it’s core, an assault on the notion that a society has an interest in protecting its core values, particularly when it comes to its young.

I keep re-reading the Constitution looking for the Drug Prohibition amendment granting the federal government exclusive authority to outlaw them in all states.

There is no better singular example of how far the concept of limited powers granted only in the Constitution than this one.

wildcat72 on May 22, 2012 at 6:46 AM

Yeah, well I can’t find anything about phones or automobiles either…it is is so “obvious” to you, it should be a slam dunk for you to challenge it in court and win…I mean a guy without a law degree, you, even can see it. Surely a judge will roll over and say “I never knew that, thanks for pointing that out”, and you would be a hero, you won’t even need an attorney, you can file it yourself.
I wonder why no one else has ever thought of that….hmmmmmm,

How about on the individual?

Cleombrotus on May 22, 2012 at 8:35 AM

His whole point is that we shouldn’t put people in jail for doing harm to themselves. He’s taking anti-nanny state sentiment to its logical conclusion. It’s weird to me that conservatives freak out over salt bans in NYC or Michelle Obama’s anti-fat crusade, but they don’t see the absurdity giving potheads hard time. Potheads would be costing the economy a lot less than over-eaters and under-exercisers if it weren’t for the insane war on drugs.

Penn is right as usual.
NORUK on May 22, 2012 at 8:36 AM

How would one know that?