I hate Michael Gerson for making me defend Ron Paul
posted at 11:02 am on May 10, 2011 by MadisonConservative
Really, I do. I have little enough patience for pseudo-conservatives like Brooks and Parker to begin with, but this is the limit. Considering that Paul is an anti-Israel isolationist foreign policy nutjob, there’s plenty of his ideas I’ve given him grief for over the years. Calling for drug legalization on the grounds that addicts will get the drugs and overdose anyway, however, is not one of them.
Even by this permissive standard, drug legalization fails. The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods — say, in Washington, D.C. — has encouraged widespread addiction. Children, freed from the care of their addicted parents, have the liberty to play in parks decorated by used needles. Addicts are liberated into lives of prostitution and homelessness. Welcome to Paulsville, where people are free to take soul-destroying substances and debase their bodies to support their “personal habits.”
But Paul had an answer to this criticism. “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said to applause and laughter. Paul was claiming that good people — people like the Republicans in the room — would not abuse their freedom, unlike those others who don’t deserve our sympathy.
Basically, yes. What is wrong with this outlook? Is it not legal to smoke yourself to the point of nicotine poisoning? Is it not legal to drink yourself into an involuntary personal protein spill? Is it not legal to eat nothing but McDonald’s and put your life in peril? I’m sure many here have seen the inane documentary Super Size Me, where Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but McDonald’s every day(and also turns into a sedentary moronic lump), to demonstrate that McDonald’s(and certainly not inactivity) is killing America. Am I really the only one that hoped he had a heart attack and learned his lesson for being so foolish with his liberty? However, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have the liberty to be so foolish, and that we shouldn’t have the liberty to say that he’s an idiot. Both of those things, however, seem to bother Gerson quite a bit.
Paul is not content to condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction; he must mock them in their decline. Such are the manners found in Paulsville.
Right. Gerson really cares about manners. That’s why he claims that the Tea Party hates immigrants, and refers to their opinions as childish. He’s just such a polite gentleman.
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
Meh. I wouldn’t even go so far as to defend Ron Paul over something like this. But I guess that’s just me. Your mileage may vary.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM
We need more prisons to incarcerate all those dangerous felons caught with a couple ounces of marijuana in their cars during a routine traffic stop.
WHY DO YOU LOVE ANARCHY, MISTER!?
Jeddite on May 10, 2011 at 11:27 AM
I’m certainly pro-pot legalization, but not sure if I can agree that other drugs should be legalized. The risk of harm to others greatly increases with harder substances and they’re nearly impossible to moderate once you’ve begun using.
Bee on May 10, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Get a German judge on this and criminalize whatever we need to, to prevent what Gerson doesn’t like.
J.E. Dyer on May 10, 2011 at 1:05 PM
One would think that Leftards like Gerson who claim to believe in Evolution would be all in favor of the freedom to be stupid that makes it a working proposition rather than a philosophy.
SDN on May 10, 2011 at 1:16 PM
I am an anti-christ
I am an anarchist
Don’t know what I want but
I know how to get it
MadisonConservative on May 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM
And there’s the rub. The pro-drug legalization crowd will tell you that individuals own their own bodies. That much is certainly true from a natural law perspective, but drug use isn’t a private issue when it means hurting friends and family, or costing society, which it almost always does.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 1:55 PM
No more than alcohol use, which destroys many families and costs society. Prohibition failed, and we recognized it. Alcohol hasn’t destroyed society, as the temperance criers so claimed it would.
I think the key is realizing that most libertarians and other pro-legalization people don’t think that everyone who uses drugs should go through it on their own. Family and friends, if they care, will help them with whatever struggles they’re dealing with…and that’s a good thing. Government should not be playing the part of family and friends.
MadisonConservative on May 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM
Thanks for the piece, MadCon. We may disagree on some things, but you’re honest and consistent and I enjoy reading your posts! Well done.
Firefly_76 on May 10, 2011 at 2:45 PM
Woefully ill-informed. Let’s just hope you never have to experience the effects of drug addiction in your family.
And hey, as long as it doesn’t effect you, right?
BKeyser on May 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM
That’s a big problem with this whole debate. Citing personal experience as if it should be a standard by which the rest of the populace should be judged.
Suppose I’ve dealt with an alcoholic in my family. Is that sufficient reason to keep you from getting a six-pack whenever you feel like it?
MadisonConservative on May 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Indeed. I don’t understand why it is preferable to criminalize and permanently ruin one’s life from drug abuse, when it should be treated as a health/personal addiction.
Until a person is ready to face & tackle an addition, all the laws in the world won’t help and the potential criminal punishment only increases the odds of being both an addict & criminal. Meanwhile we blow money to incarcerate the majority of people who have no business being in jail due to CSA and what have you.
Bottomline, those who support criminalization of drugs are just as much in favor of the nanny-state as those who want to ban trans fat, sugar, alcohol etc: “x is not good for you, therefore it must be illegal, even if your use of it personally does not harm me.
AH_C on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM
You chose alcohol as a convenient comparison, but alcohol is already legal; if you want to choose a comparison in this debate you need to consider something that is truly on par.
Secondly, personal experience is valid if you’ve been educated beyond that of the typical advocate. Your uncle’s problem with whiskey (of course I’m making up the examples here since I don’t know your uncle or if he has a problem with whiskey
) is not the same as my 14 year old daughter’s addiction to heroin. And yes, I know that that people will always say that those against legalization always jump to heroin like those against gay marriage always jump to goats. The difference is that almost all heroin addicts began their drug use by smoking pot; I have no statistics relative to goat lovers, but I can hypothesize that they don’t all start out as gay marriage supporters. There is no denying that teenagers who smoke pot are much more susceptible to increased drug use than teenagers who don’t smoke pot. Legalizing pot will increase the number of teens who use simply by increasing availability.
Another fallacy often cited by legalization advocates are crime statistics. You can find statistics that show the approximate number of inmates incarcerated on marijuana charges, though what you need to also look for is how many of those marijuana charges are secondary rather than primary, and of the primary, how many are for simple possession? The answer is very, very few. Most possession charges are the result of a search and seizure on other probable cause; be it a traffic violation, gun charges, possession of other CDS’s, etc. No police force is breaking down doors on a tip that the otherwise law-bidding neighbor might be smoking pot in their living room. It just doesn’t happen and I challenge anyone to cite these types of raids. (Raids for cocaine in which a dime bag of weed was also found is not an example of police raiding homes for marijuana possession. Probable cause on distribution also is not the same as simple possession.)
Finally, the biggest fallacy argument is the “get government off my back and out of people’s lives, and tax it to help with revenues while your at it argument.” Currently, the guy down the street who we all know occasionally smokes a joint on the weekend is not being targeted by any federal, state or local department, provided he doesn’t commit other crimes. Same as the guy who drinks beer and doesn’t drive. But the minute it’s legalized, this guy has to buy his weed from a government-approved seller with a tax stamp. His weed has to be approved by the FDA and Commerce must regulate how it’s distributed. If his 16 year old kid steals a bag and gets caught driving under the influence by the new instant testing equipment use by the local police force and paid for by the local taxpayer, then dad might be cited as well for endangerment or negligence. Every guy fired by his employer for failing a urinalysis will be in court, suing for his job back. Unemployment departments will have to start testing in order to issue unemployment checks. Some businesses will see their liability insurance increase and those costs will be passed on to the taxpayer. Healthcare costs will have to rise as new studies will surely indicate that breathing fire into your lungs is not as healthy as a 17 year old stoner might have you believe. So on top of local law enforcement and the DEA (which concentrates on large scale distribution, not simple possession), you’ll have the IRS, Commerce, Interior, FDA, EPA, and a greater involvement by the DoJ.
Not exactly an exercise in personal freedom or a windfall in “revenues” for big-government.
BKeyser on May 10, 2011 at 7:26 PM
The legality is irrelevant. I thought we were discussing why heroin should not be legal. You cited addiction, I pointed out another substance that causes widespread addiction, yet is legal. Hence my argument: because something is addictive, should it be illegal? If that is your argument for heroin, it should also be the same for alcohol.
Neither I nor Paul nor any sane pro-legalization people arguing for children to be able to use the substances we’re talking about any more than we are arguing for children to be able to use alcohol or cigarettes or any of those other substances. If they were to be legalized, we would expect the same age restrictions currently on the latter items. Therefore, citing age as an argument doesn’t hold water.
Secondly, have you got any evidence to back up your rather bold statement that almost all teen heroin users started with pot, rather than ecstasy, cocaine, or other drugs increasingly used by teenagers today?
I made no such citation, but considering that you just claimed pot leads to heroin when teenagers smoke it, I would say you should live by your standards that you demand of those with whom you debate. Additionally, if possession of marijuana tacks on time behind bars, isn’t that indicative of the very effect you are claiming to be nonexistent? If someone stays in prison longer because of additional charges involving marijuana of negligible amounts, then yes, the war on marijuana is contributing to the overcrowding of places of incarceration.
Yeah…and? Better products, less money in the hands of drug cartels since they are no longer the big game in town, and less chance of additives that may threaten the lives of anyone who uses it.
Same could go for alcohol. Again…if it’s okay for that mind-altering substance to be in the parent’s possession, why not another? Or what if the 16 year old takes the father’s gun, screws around, and blows his head off? It seems like your concern is with the teenager stealing something from his parents, which no law is going to prevent…and given that marijuana can already be had, that’s not going to prevent marijuana from being available for the kid to steal. The only difference is an additional charge against the father for the marijuana possession.
Really. How many drunks successfully sue to get their jobs back every year in this country?
If they’re not doing it for alcohol, why should they for pot?
Again…so you’re arguing against alcohol and cigarettes, which contribute to the very same things you’re worried about.
So what you’re against is taking law enforcement and the DEA out of that equation, the FDA, um, doing its job and keeping bad product out of the hands of whoever ends up with it(including teens who, as we’ve covered, won’t be allowed to have it by law anyway…not that the law would make a difference then any more than it does now), and the IRS collecting more taxes as a result of a new industry that provides more jobs and takes a venue away from organized crime.
Not sure where you’ve demonstrated that.
MadisonConservative on May 10, 2011 at 9:15 PM
Weed should not be legal. The claim that alcohol is, so weed should be too, is proof of braindeath. I mean, you use one harmful drug that is legal to say another harmful drug (or drugs) should be legal too? Nice…logic.
Mad con, your post above is a good example of you using strawmen, unproven assertions, and dismissal of proven facts.
Marijuana isn’t a gateway drug? Riiiiight.
What proof do you have that legalization will mean less money for drug cartels? Drugs are quite cheap now so govt involvement would hurt them how much? How many addicts will stand in line, fill out paperwork, or jump thru other hoops to get their drugs? As for those in prison primarily on other charges, I am all for keeping them there longer thru the possession of pot/drugs. The fact you aren’t is just sad. You also just happen to ignore the crimes comitted by drug users while high. Shocked I am not.
Also as was stated, who will be out there enforcing the sale of “government approved drugs” and tax collection, hmmmm? State and federal agents, that’s who. In fact, they’ll have to expand their numbers and perhaps specialize for such a mission. That isn’t even debatable so I see you ignored it altogether.
Just admit it, you like your weed and want to get high without going to jail potentially. I’ve yet to meet a libertarian/ pro drug legalization advocate that didn’t at least smoke weed. In short their battle cry is, “GIMMIE”!
To Anger a liberal, take away their political power
To Anger a Conservative, take away their freedeom
To anger a Libertarian, take away their weed.
Hard Right on May 10, 2011 at 9:51 PM
Weak, offensive generalization. I don’t smoke weed at all and am pro-legalization (prefer decriminalization rather than any further regulation, actually). Care to categorize me?
Bee on May 10, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Hi, how you doin’? I’ve stated in other threads on the topic my not having smoked weed. So you’re as wrong and fallacious and full of red herrings and generalizations on this point as you are on the rest, while simultaneously claiming all those things on anyone who disagrees with you. Your statements are all too common, and get no more valid or useful with each reproduction of them.
MadisonConservative on May 10, 2011 at 10:51 PM
Madison- Can’t tell by your last comment but hopefully you’re not taking offense to my comments, nor taking them personally.
As to legality- sure it’s relevant. Pot is currently illegal so all attitudes, studies, and statistics are based on that premise. Plus, once you legalize something, it’s awfully hard to retract it.
Actually, I thought we were discussing your advocacy for legalizing pot. My reference to heroin is a real-life condition that exists for many drug users; they begin by smoking pot then move on to harder drugs. This is undeniable. Personal knowledge of one’s own child and the struggles they endure as a result of drug use can be a life-changing experience whereas the knowledge of a distant relative’s battle with alcohol is a little less painful. Nothing earth-shatteringly profound about that statement, I was just trying to illustrate that personal knowledge can be very enlightening and should not be summarily dismissed. It’s not different than any other life-threatening disease.
As for evidence of teen drug procession you simply need to attend one NA meeting and ask them. Sure they use other drugs often on the way to heroin- in fact, heroin isn’t the point. The point is that teen drug use almost always starts with pot and it often progresses as the teen becomes more involved in the culture. This is not a black and white issue- there are no absolutes. Not every teen does X, but a significant portion do. If you add a NO2 system to a group of teens’ Honda Civics, a significant portion of them will get speeding tickets. It’s not rocket science- it’s part human nature and part chemical dependence.
Do you think that if pot is legalized, drug cartels will disappear?
Again, the alcohol argument. Why not just say, “Hey, we got lots of stuff available that’s harmful to kids, lets add some more!” Remember, most kids don’t functionally mature until their early twenties, so it’s not fair to suggest that kids will make the same decisions as adults.
The difference between a drunk failing a urinalysis and a pot smoker is night and day- THC can remain in the body for weeks, alcohol for hours. Someone who fails an employee urinalysis can rightfully claim they were not impaired at the time of the test. Same for DUI -until, that is, we spend enough money to invent a reliable procedure to measure concurrent impairment for weed.
The alcohol and cigarette issue is once again comparing apples and oranges. Personally, I wouldn’t care if both were made illegal provided the result wouldn’t be increased crime (though it surely would) but the fact is they are legal, pot is not. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that alcohol and cigarettes don’t add to healthcare costs; you’re not arguing that pot won’t, are you?
What I’m suggesting is that government agencies will take on regulatory duties not currently under their purview. By definition, this increases the size and scope of government. As a Conservative, I’m not for this and I’m pointing out how the notion of greater personal freedom is contradicted by the fact that under their plan, government will necessarily grow. And I know you wouldn’t argue that more government jobs is good for our economy.
Please note: I didn’t intend to attribute some of these arguments to you- I said advocates often make these claims. I understand and respect your side of the argument but I have been personally effected by a family member who is struggling with addiction. It does hurt others. It started with pot. It almost resulted in death. I have been involved in the recovery process as a family member and learned more about this issue through that experience. These facts certainly effect my view on the matter.
BKeyser on May 10, 2011 at 10:58 PM
Strawmen vs straw fields.,,,
To whit, alcohol is quite cheap now. How many drinkers will stand in line, fill out paperwork, or jump thru other hoops to get their drink? As for those in prison on other charges, I am all for keeping them there longer thru possession of alcohol/dui (a la prohibition)… You also ignore the crimes comitted by drinkers while drunk.
While I was initially all for WOD back in the 80s, I’ve since come around to the fact, not opinion, that the WOD has been a total waste of money.
Why are the cartels fighting so hard at and within our borders? It was not always this way. The harder WOD presses on, the bloodier our streets. Gee was that any different than the Revenuers chasing the moonshiners and rum-runners?
More people in jail as a consequence of WOD. We can’t even take people actually convicted of DUI, negligent homicide etc off the street long term, because of cell space taken up by “druggies” convicted of drug crimes which have stiffer sentences attached. Joe Pothead gets 5 – 10 on something that would otherwise be a misdemeanor but for the baggie, while a repeat DUI gets a suspended sentence or if they actually hurt (not kill) an innocent victim, they might get 90 or 180 days. Is this justice?
Then begins the ridiculous downward spiral of people not respecting the law because they see and sense the unfairness of Lady Justice. As I’ve said it before, the problem is many people really don’t thing things thru, rather they get led by their emotions. For you, you want the nanny-state to stop people from doing drugs and for another, they want to ban transfat, or force you to wear seatbelts, or wear a helmet, or force you to not pray in school, or not offend, or to tolerate, or, or, or … and the list goes on.
True conservatism would say, don’t tread on me and never mind what I do on my person/property if it doesn’t directly affect you personally.
AH_C on May 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM
No, not taking your comments personally. Only those who claim only potheads are for legalizing pot. Falls under the same lame thinking that says only gay people are for gay marriage, only paranoid lunatics are for constitutional carry, etc.
Why should attitudes about pot be based on its legality? Its legality has absolutely nothing to do with the effects of the drug itself. Alcohol was once illegal. Why should the attitude change overnight because of its legal status? Should handguns be seen as detriments to society in Chicago since they’re illegal?
Again, you simply stating that people smoke pot and then move to heroin is not a source or fact. It’s an opinion, and saying that it is “undeniable” is both false and also merely your opinion. And frankly, your dismissal of the impact of alcoholism within a person’s family is really rather condescending and insulting, especially given how much more weight you seem to think your personal experience seems to give you over any facts, figures, or arguments someone would pose to you. So, with all due respect, I don’t think a continued discussion would get anywhere until you overcome that perspective.
MadisonConservative on May 10, 2011 at 11:40 PM
Well, I think you’re misreading that “perspective” regarding the alcohol vs. drugs angle. What I was speaking of was how personal knowledge of the effects should not be summarily dismissed, which you seemed to indicate with:
I could just as easily flip the scenario to say that my personal experience having been intensively involved in my father’s alcoholism is more relevant than someone else’s knowledge of a friend with a drug problem. See my point? And yes, my father is a “recovering” alcoholic, though to my knowledge he hasn’t had a drink since 1986. I can’t be sure as we’ve not spoken in more than a decade.
As for the gateway effect- I can offer ten links instantly that show pot is a gateway drug, and ten that say it’s not. What’s notable from the denier’s side is that they are most often studies commissioned by legalization advocates, while the for side is usually from psychological groups. The difference may be subtle but it involves the “culture” of the drug user and the social environment rather than a specific chemical link to dependency and progression.
One article I read says this:
It goes on to conclude that the gateway effects of pot are inconclusive at this time and more study is needed, though the author bases that finding on the fact that studies have not yet [and may never] find a link between the use of only marijuana and harder drugs. But that’s a pretty strong qualifier for proof. It’s the same one used by many advocates.
The typical teen addict -that is, someone who has been clinically diagnosed as an addict- follows a very consistent path to dependency. It starts with the first use and, when the teen begins to use often enough, he or she begins to withdraw from their “clean” friends in search of a more common peer group. This is not uncommon behavior for teens -and humans in general- as we all gravitate toward those we feel most comfortable. Often times “clean” teens shun those who use and a natural divide is formed. The user then finds himself or herself almost entirely surrounded by other users, socially. This leads to greater opportunity for both increased use and use of drugs that were previously unavailable to them. Don’t you remember the stoner cliques in high school?
In today’s society, the next step from pot is often ecstasy or opiates. The X is popular at teen parties, and opiates are often easily available in medicine cabinets all over the country. The Oxy craze used to be acne medicine, now it’s pain killers that teens don’t just pop with a glass of water, they crush them and snort them for an almost instant and intense euphoria. And they’re highly addictive. They’re also hell to come down from. Two of the major withdrawal symptoms from opiate use are headaches and nausea. Guess what the most popular remedy for treating these conditions are among drug users? Yep. Pot.
It happens to a lot of hard drug users that they do become dependent (not necessarily chemically dependent, but mentally dependent; it’s similar to a gambling addiction -there’s no chemical dependence to that either, but it is certainly addictive for some people) on pot to help them deal with the effects of more addictive drugs like oxycotin or heroin. It is not uncommon for a heroin addict to shoot up twice a day and smoke weed at least once or twice a day- doing both just to feel “well” (that’s the word most often used to describe their condition.) They are almost perpetually “high” as sober is incredibly painful. The heroin use is most often limited only by funds. Pot helps them get to the next fix.
Finally, if you read my last comment, I clearly stated that this is not a black and white issue, that all teens or pot smokers don’t do X, and I never stated that people who smoke pot move on to heroin. Most don’t -at least directly. I understand that you may be tiring of this subject, but you wrote the blog post, and you are advocating for legalized weed even though you, yourself admit to having no experience with the drug. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, and I don’t begrudge it one bit, but it’s presumptuous and bad form to challenge my perspective as unfairly weighted, which seems to be vastly more informed than your own. As I said, I’ve had personal involvement in the recovery of family members experiencing alcoholism and drug dependency. Your perspective seems to be similar to that of an AGW supporter.
BKeyser on May 11, 2011 at 9:54 AM
What I was stating was that personal experience should not constitute a valid argument regarding the rights of other citizens. In comparison, let us look at James Brady. Should his experience with the misuse of a gun be factored into the debate over gun rights of private citizens? In my opinion, no, because what affected Brady(assault with a deadly weapon) was, and still is, illegal. Further gun control would not solve that. In the same way, as I pointed out, legalization advocates are not in favor of kids using drugs. It’s already illegal for kids to use drugs, and it would remain so.
That’s your opinion, and entirely and only an opinion. Perhaps I am closer to the friend/cousin/co-worker/in-law/spouse/child than you are to your father or whoever else is suffering from addiction. The offense I take is in making an assertion that your struggle with one person’s addiction is somehow more painful or valid than another’s struggle with a different person’s addiction. It’s extremely presumptuous and rather arrogant. I do not make that assertion, nor would I. I don’t know you, I don’t know the persons struggling with addiction and the trials and tribulations that they, and you, endured…and I make no implication of knowing. I would expect you, or anyone else, to show that same respect.
MadisonConservative on May 11, 2011 at 10:10 AM
I can’t decide if I’m just too dense to explain myself properly, or if you’re being purposely obtuse; I’ll go with the former and try one more time.
I’m am not claiming that my experience is more significant than any other. What I’m saying that first hand or intimate knowledge is more significant than second hand, or slightly removed knowledge. Does that help? In the first example, I was making the assumption that a parent helping a child through recovery might be more intimate than an adult hearing about his older uncle. I assume that’s a reasonable inference. There was no disrespect because I was not making the argument you interpreted.
I don’t follow your Brady analogy. It seems to me that Brady was the victim of a crime. I’m not advocating that the action that paralyzed Brady suddenly be legalized. Conversely, I would say that a drug addict is also a victim to a certain extent and the actions that led to that addiction are also illegal- yet I propose they remain that way. It’s entirely possible that I’ missing your point, however.
While drug use is in fact illegal for children, legalizing it for adults will only complicate policing drug use among children as legality will increase availability. If there’s more of it, it follows that more people will have access to it. Take away half of the liquor stores in America and I guarantee you drinking will subside, both among adults and children. Double them and I guarantee drinking will increase among both demographics. Would you dispute that notion?
One more question relative to drug cartels: If pot is legalized and it’s contents are verified and monitored by the FDA -as I’m sure it would be- do you think it’s relative strength will increase, or decrease? Compare pot to cigarettes – are cigarettes more loosely controlled as time goes on or more tightly controlled? And -if as I suspect- pot is marginalized in it’s strength from it’s current non-regulated condition, do you think drug cartels might still produce and sell a higher grade of pot at a cheaper price? (After all, their network is already in place. It seems to make good business sense to me.) And if so, how would legalization help reduce crime? If not, why not? They’re illegal already, I don’t suspect guys like this to suddenly go legit. (Homage to Johnny Dangerously.)
BKeyser on May 11, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I never claimed or intimated secondhand knowledge. I intimated firsthand. You diminished that with this statement:
You have no idea whether it’s the same or not, or which is more traumatic, or which was deeper or caused more problems. My objection was based on what appeared to be a claimed position of omnipotence on your part. It is never a reasonable inference to assume that someone else’s relationship with someone going through addiction is somehow less important to the discussion than yours. As I said, it’s quite presumptuous and rather arrogant, in fact. I don’t claim to know the level of closeness between you and your daughter, nor should you claim to know the level of closeness between myself and whoever I cite that went through addiction. Plenty of people are not very involved with their children, but I would never dare to claim it was one way or another in your case. That’s my problem with your statements.
As to the Brady analogy, it’s very simple. Brady Bill proponents used the argument from authority fallacy on James Brady’s part in order to make their points, instead of arguing the actual merits of actual changes that would occur as a result of the bill. They cited the isolated case of Jim Brady as a logical argument to affect the rest of the citizens of the United States. So, too, do legalization opponents when they cite their personal experiences. Arguments either way should be based upon the impact on society, not based upon the impact the issue has had on one person.
I do dispute your notion about liquor stores. Liquor is already available all over the place. If you doubled it, I think you’d see a negligible impact. If it were true that liquor sales would double, don’t you think someone would take advantage of that fact? As to taking away half the liquor stores making drinking subside, I again think you are incorrect. If people want to drink, they’ll drive 10 miles instead of 5 to get it. Your propositions, especially as they relate to the argument of drugs, seem to ignore the fact that despite the illegality of drugs, people who want them get them.
Now, you’ve stated earlier that you would have no problem with alcohol and cigarettes being outlawed, and there we come to a clear impasse. I would have a serious problem, because that would mean we were moving closer to a nanny state, and as history has shown, the outlawing of more substances only creates an atmosphere more palatable to organized crime and other elements of society that end up creating more danger to society as a whole.
As to the potency of FDA-approved drugs, I think you’d seem multiple levels of potency available. Go the to liquor store. You can buy non-alcoholic beer, regular beer, beer with higher alcohol content, low-alcohol spirits, grain alcohol, and everything in between. If people want low-potency pot, the free market will provide it. If people want full-potency pot, the free market will provide it. That will only cease once the government prevents the free market from fulfilling those wants. Cigarettes, unfortunately, are more tightly controlled, not because of lack of consumer demand, because of increased interest by lawmakers to control the lives of citizens and the abilities of the free market.
Legalization will help reduce crime IF the government allows the free market to replace criminal organizations in fulfilling the wants of consumers. If the government, however, continues to decide that consumers are idiots and prevent companies from providing high-quality products to meet their desires, then yes…production will move back into the hands of criminals. Sort of like what happens when government decides citizens can’t be trusted with legal firearms; the only firearms end up in the hands of criminals.
MadisonConservative on May 11, 2011 at 1:36 PM
Glad to see I’m not the only one who got after Gerson about this, though for a bit of a different reason. Obviously, I’m on MadCon’s side on this one…
aic4ever on May 11, 2011 at 3:12 PM
Nope, I was wrong, it’s not me being dense, it’s you. One straw man after another.
I didn’t say my experience was more significant. This is twice now. I hope this time it sinks in. I said a first hand experience is more significant than second hand knowledge. I also said I was making up the examples so how the hell could I be suggesting my experience was more significant? Try to comprehend this- when I said “your” uncle, I wasn’t talking about “your uncle”. I don’t know “your uncle” or if he has an alcohol problem. I asked you not to take this personally. Get it? Not you, everyman. Not drugs or alcohol, any affliction. Knowledge as to it’s causes and effects varies among those effected by it- usually the less effect you feel, the less educated you chose to be about the problem.
It’s also asinine to delegitamize individual accounts. The sum total is made up of individual accounts. It’s also equally asinine to suggest that one person’s struggle with addiction -be it drugs, gambling, alcohol, sex, or any number of things- affects no one but the user. If the Brady issue was an isolated case, fine -I’m not arguing the merits of gun control. But there are thousands upon thousands of addicts in this country that you seem to consider invalid because it doesn’t suit your argument. “Hey, it’s just ten guys over there. And a few dozen in the town in the next county. Sure, the city’s got tons of addicts, but I don’t live in the city.” Brilliant analysis.
I also said that it would be impractical to criminalize drugs and alcohol- so I’m not advocating that, for exactly the reasons you seem to think only you are able to perceive.
I also didn’t say that doubling liquor stores would double sales. I said they would increase. Read my comments, not the ones you hear in your head.
I can only surmise at this point that this is an ideological position for you; one based upon the omission of facts or elements that you seem to discount only because you have either no personal knowledge thereof, or just find inconvenient to your argument. You go so far as to argue the merits of your position against someone not currently involved in this discussion- someone who seems to be interjecting comments I’m unable to see.
Again, the global warming folks should be calling on you soon.
BKeyser on May 11, 2011 at 3:57 PM
Sure. It’s clear you don’t want to make this personal:
Thanks for stopping by. Enjoy your argument from authority fallacies.
MadisonConservative on May 11, 2011 at 4:17 PM