Tony Bennett Gets One Right

Shout Bits Blog ^ | 3/5/2012 | Shout Bits

[Shout Bits]

Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse, Whitney Houston, Elvis Presley – dead. All from drugs, but not handshake black market drugs – the same prescription drugs found in many US bathroom cabinets. Upon Ms. Houston's death, singer Tony Bennett called for the legalization of all drugs. He did not explain himself very well, and he is known for some crackpot theories, so why does a death caused by prescription drugs argue for the legalization of all drugs? Ms. Houston's death proves that the government system of controlling street drugs' analogues does nothing to protect the public. The FDA and the DEA are a charade for drug users who need justification for their habits.

Nearly every street drug has a prescription analogue that if not chemically identical, is close enough for a hungry addict. Cough syrup has codeine, which on the street is called 'drank.' Oxycodone, recently repackaged to be less prone to abuse, was called 'hillbilly heroine.' Marinol has the same active ingredient as does cannabis. Adderall contains methamphetamine. The prescription world can provide the same high as the black market to those who prefer a reliable dose and a clean package. As many prescription drug tragedies demonstrate, however, the body does not care if the narcotic comes from Purdue Pharmaceuticals or the fields of Afghanistan.

The FDA and the DEA would argue that the prescription drug world is regulated; access is controlled to those in need. That may be the intent, but as with most things the government does, prescription drug control is a total failure. Anyone with moderate income can obtain multiple prescriptions as did Rush Limbaugh. Truly rich drug addicts like Mr. Jackson, Mr. Presley, or even Howard Hughes hire willing personal doctors at absurd salaries to provide whatever narcotics they desire. The government control of narcotics amounts to a class system where the well-off get their drugs from pharmacies and the poor get their drugs from the street corner.

The greater tragedy is that many patients, including Mr. Hughes, legitimately require huge doses of narcotics to tolerate their conditions. The DEA cracks down on these patients by harassing the doctors deemed to operate 'pill-mills.' As with any bureaucracy, the DEA is incapable of differentiating a compassionate doctor who rightly prescribes near-lethal doses of narcotics from a profiteering 'Dr. Robert.' The DEA keeps drugs from those who need them and fails to keep drugs from those who do not.

The FDA and DEA's failures are one example of the government's general intrusiveness. Once the government is tasked with knowing what is best for people, it knows no limits. Too much sugar, fat or salt in food, and the government is there. The government thinks pictures of cadavers on buses are appropriate to curb smoking. The government coerces people to drive its preferred style of automobile. Obamacare dictates both the lower and upper limits of health care consumption. Once bureaucrats become their brothers' keepers, there are no boundaries.

Before the FDA and DEA, heroin, cocaine, and many other drugs were sold in retail packages. If Mr. Bennett had his way, this would return, taking such drugs off the street corners and into pharmacies. They would still be dangerous and people would still hurt themselves through abuse, but allowing people to make their own choices has always proven to be better than putting an uncaring government in charge. If the only practical value of regulating drugs through prescriptions is to sanitize the stigma of either appropriate or harmful drug use, the price of these programs is far too high.

[ansel12]

Libertarians are deep like hard left intellectuals. They both live in childish fantasy worlds that they cherry-pick to create an delusional dream state, and they write out perfect worlds that dissolve in the face of reality.

[ansel12]

Libertarians fight for the same social destruction as the left.

America’s most libertarian Supreme Court? The widely described, and despised by conservatives, “Libertarian Earl Warren Court”.

[Gene Eric]

>> How many miscarriages?

Numerous. And they also kill canines with extreme prejudice.

>> I would like to make clear that there is nothing “conservative” about ...

The convergence of Conservatism and Statism is regrettably significant. I doubt the majority of self-described Conservatives would feel at home under the Liberty of original law.

[nathanbedford]

Ansell: I reacted to your post #9:

That guy never varies his song, he is always pushing liberalism. Now he want (sic) legal dope.

Because I wanted to stake out a position that "legal dope" is not necessarily a liberal position but a libertarian position and it should be a conservative position (at least on the federal level). In other words, I do not want to passively accede to definitions of liberalism, conservatism or libertarianism which I do not believe are true.

To that end, I try to draw our attention to the fundamental precepts which inspired conservatism rather than simply making ad hominem about how dreadful libertarians are.

In other words, name calling does not advance our understanding very far. One could as easily call the founding fathers libertarians as the Warren court.

[ansel12]

God this childish game playing is boring, the left and libertarians are on the same team, destroy social conservatism, and they have ruined our nation with their successes of the last 60 years.

The difference is that the libertarian social liberals are so incredibly preachy and superior acting as they promote the same goals as the rest of the left, as though they are preaching the Holy word of the social conservative God himself while they promote dope and homosexuality and porn, open borders and the rest of it.

The open leftist says let’s legalize drugs and have homosexual marriage, and porn because it is fun and kinky. The libertarian says let’s legalize drugs and have homosexual marriage, and porn because the people who founded this nation would want us to, it was their Holy Writ.

The founding generations would lynch all you guys for your nonsense.

[nathanbedford]

By your logic modern conservatism must advocate for the restoration of prohibition. I deny you the power to so define conservatism.

[ansel12]

LOL, no, you sound like my kid with that ridiculous prohibition argument.

The Middle East is cannabis based for thousands of years, they will be supporting the left and libertarians on the doper position as they keep immigrating here.

[nathanbedford]

Ansell:

Here are quotes from your last four posts. Resort to the ad hominem betrays a weakness of argument:

you sound like my kid with that ridiculous prohibition argument.

The founding generations would lynch all you guys for your nonsense.

Libertarians are deep like hard left intellectuals. They both live in childish fantasy worlds that they cherry-pick to create an delusional dream state, and they write out perfect worlds that dissolve in the face of reality.

With reasoning like that, it is no wonder that the left and libertarians have driven this nation into the ground.

[ansel12]

Lol, gee, I guess no one will pass me the joint now, or is it a needle.

[nathanbedford]

The difference is that the libertarian social liberals are so incredibly preachy and superior acting

… Ansell12

[FerociousRabbit]

At least politicians realized the Constitutional limits placed on the federal government at one point in our history. They actually felt it necessary to pass the 18th Amendment to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

That day, when the Constitution was seen as a limiting power upon the federal government, is now, unfortunately, behind us and politicians can dictate what extra-Constitutional limits upon the freedoms of individuals they will.

“Social conservatives” fully support ignoring the Constitution when it suits their purpose, no different from Progressives. They also try to equate libertarians with the far left which shows an incredible lack of knowledge about either.