Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 06/24/2010 9:12:15 PM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
The central conceit of the Left is their regard for outcome above principle, results above rights. “Progressivism” repackages the age-old idea that society has a collective right superior to the individual’s. We saw this in the argument for universal health care, where the Left regarded the outcome of “universal coverage” above the principle of personal liberty.
Unfortunately, this conceit is not limited to the Left. Social conservatives are willing to borrow à la carte from statist arguments when the results suit their taste. No issue evokes this phenomenon more than drug control policy.
NewsRealBlog hosted much debate on the legalization of marijuana over the weekend. The discussion was prompted by Sarah Palin’s recent statement that private in-home consumption is a negligible concern. Calvin Freiburger objected to the characterization of prohibition as a liberty issue, citing among his supporters Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and John Locke. Though Calvin is clearly not a statist, his argument depends upon a fundamentally statist belief.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
I can’t think of a bigger crock of sh*t than to label opposition to legalizing drugs as progressivism.
Legalizing pot would at least carve a big hole in the income stream of Mexico’s drug cartels. And it would save our national forests which have become infested with the cartel’s marijuana farms. Other than that I’m not all that keen on having a society filled with potheads. Been there, done that, lived through the 60s.
Statism??? You must be high...
I can.
Demonizing/criticizing anyone who questions the effectiveness or the legitimacy of drug laws.
Let me give you a hypothetical example:
You are a young high-school teacher and one day, as you’re leaving, you find in the hallway you find a small bag of drugs that someone dropped.
Trying to be responsible you pick it up and turn it in to the police, who write a report and let you go.
A week or so after this incident you are arrested, on drug possession charges.
The drugs turned out to be heroin and the mere possession thereof is a felony-offense.
I hope that you didn’t enjoy voting or owning firearms.
Calling all Liberaltarian Potheads!
Hope your zoning law repeals puts a whorehouse, abortion & pot stand right next to where your children play.
I guess the libertarian in me sides with making marijuana legal. Regulate it, tax it and ticket it if driving under the influence. Take the money out of the traffickers and dealers hands and reduce the crime associated with it.
Question all you want. Argue all you want. But it ain’t gonna happen. There are plenty of folks that think kiddie porn is fine and dandy too.
I expect it would be sold in the same store that sells booze, beer and lotto.
I guess it takes all kinds. Even fanatical lunatic types that would think to equate use of a mild intoxicant with the rape of children.
Wouldn’t matter with Liberaltarians in charge. They are against zoning laws so anything goes.
>Question all you want. Argue all you want. But it ain’t gonna happen. There are plenty of folks that think kiddie porn is fine and dandy too.
Funny you should mention that. There was a case wherein a church fired an employee for kiddie-porn which they found on his church-issued laptop. So, they took the laptop to their lawyer, who then erased all the porn because it is illegal to have in ANY circumstance. Unbeknownst to them, there was a case against the [former] church-employee that opened up a couple of days prior to the discovery, firing, & taking the laptop to their lawyer. The prosecution then slapped an “obstruction of justice” charge on the Lawyer for deleting the porn, which was illegal to possess, from his client’s computer and thereby destroying evidence.
There’s a no-win situation for you:
1) Keep the porn-ridden PC as evidence, and you’re in violation of the law.
2) Delete the porn from the PC so that it may then be handled by its proper users, and you’re in violation of the law.
Funny. Who said anything about rape. All kinds of 12 year olds would be willing to give a show for a price.
And that mild intoxicant has these kind of consequences, ace.
Terrace man charged in heroin overdose death
http://heraldnet.com/article/20100624/NEWS01/706249892
Trial ordered for man tied to Bangor teacher’s heroin overdose
http://articles.mcall.com/2010-06-23/news/mc-bethlehem-heroin-teacher-20100623_1_death-of-gina-riso-heroin-overdose-paraphernalia
Mom spreads support after son’s heroin overdose
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2386838,4_1_JO13_HEROIN_S1-100613.article
There are no liquor stores in residential neighborhoods now. (sarc) Only there are street dealers outside selling dime bags and the gov’t doesn’t get a cut. The price of pot could drop a few bucks, the govt could make a killing and the cartels that pocket the money will be SOOL. ($h!T out of luck.)
How are kids going to be adversely affected. Think the “only buzzed” commercials.
You have mischaracterized the author's position.
He equates opposition to legalizing MARIJUANA to STATISM, which it clearly is. And, socons share that common propensity with lefties...just on different issues.
“The 60’s were more about chemicals”
Not in my experience. I mean you did see all kinds of stuff floating around but the major drug of choice was pot in my part of SoCal.
Marijuana will be legal in Calif come Nov 2010.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.