FRNCC - "Diversity, Drugs, and a Racist Bake Sale..." By Jonathan David Morris

Free Republic Network ^ | 10-6-03 | Jonathan David Morris

[robertpaulsen]

"Would you also vote to ban overeating---and alcohol, whose abuse also costs you money---if given the opportunity? If not, why not? "

No. Would you?

Since these activities are already legal, I would much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by these activities, rather than trying to make them illegal.

I believe they tried that once with alcohol, only to reverse themselves 13 short years later.

[MrLeRoy]

I would much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by these activities, rather than trying to make them illegal.

Why would you not also much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, rather than trying to keep (some) drugs illegal?

[robertpaulsen]

"Why would you not also much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, rather than trying to keep (some) drugs illegal?"

I would vote to keep the financial burden placed on you, only because you support it's legalization. But I doubt that piece of legislation would pass constitutional muster.

Now, if you're asking if I'd much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, then the answer is yes I would.

Why can't I do that, yet keep those drugs illegal? Why must I also vote to make them legal?

Let me summarize. I would be more inclined to hear your argument for drug legalization if I didn't have to support the drug user. Not that I would necessarily agree with legalization, but I would be more receptive to hearing about all the positive effects of across the board drug legalization.

[MrLeRoy]

if you're asking if I'd much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, then the answer is yes I would.

Why can't I do that, yet keep those drugs illegal?

You can---but why would you?

I would be more inclined to hear your argument for drug legalization if I didn't have to support the drug user.

Are you likewise less inclined to support alcohol's legality because you have to support the alcohol user?

[robertpaulsen]

"Why can't I do that, yet keep those drugs illegal?" "You can---but why would you?"

Did you think that my only objection to legalizing drugs was the fact that they are a financial burden on the rest of us?

This question has been answered my me in numerous other posts over the years. That's where you'll find my answer.

[MrLeRoy]

This question has been answered my me in numerous other posts over the years.

Have any reasons that I haven't already shown to be invalid in other threads?

[robertpaulsen]

"Have any reasons that I haven't already shown to be invalid in other threads?"

I must, since I'm still against the legalization of drugs.

BTW, it's not necessary to invalidate my reason -- we agree, for example, that there is a financial burden placed on us by recreational drug users.

But just because you point out that a similar burden exists for alcohol and overeating doesn't make me slap my forehead and proclaim that it's not fair that drugs aren't similarly burdening me.

Or did you think that your arguments were so clever and compelling that I'd stupidly vote to legalize drugs despite the fact that it would cost me more money?

Is this an example of you invalidating one of my objections? No wonder I'm still against drugs.

[Read JDM]

I wrote the article.

The way I see it, other people's drug use shouldn't be costing us money at all. Yet, because it's illegal, we pay for incarceration. We pay for treatment. We pay for the additional cops needed to enforce the laws. We pay for the war that results when terrorists gain power through the drug trade. We pay for the state colleges that socially engineer their student populations based on race, to make up for all the poor kids who aren't making it to college because their dads aren't around to help them with math homework all their lives.

My take is that we shouldn't be paying for any of this stuff. Whether drugs are legal, whether they're illegal -- we shouldn't be paying for other people's crappy decisions with our own hard-earned money. I know it sounds callous, but maybe people will stop screwing up when they realize the system's not going to save them every time around.

[robertpaulsen]

"we shouldn't be paying for other people's crappy decisions with our own hard-earned money."

I agree.

But you can't unleash legal drugs on a nanny state like ours without expecting to increase costs to the taxpayer. As Ann Coulter states in an excellent piece, "It's not as if we live in the perfect Libertarian state of nature, with the tiny exception of those pesky drug laws."

This country of ours has a ways to go in the areas of personal responsibility, tort reform, and the dismantling of our socialist-leaning government before I'm comfortable with supporting a relaxation of our current drug laws.

[Read JDM]

But, then, what's the plan? Where do we start?

[robertpaulsen]

"But, then, what's the plan? Where do we start?"

I'm a better critic than creator. But I've got some ideas I'll put together.

Took 40 years to get here -- probably another 40 to get where we should be.

[MrLeRoy]

Have any reasons that I haven't already shown to be invalid in other threads?

I must, since I'm still against the legalization of drugs.

Non sequitur.

But just because you point out that a similar burden exists for alcohol and overeating doesn't make me slap my forehead and proclaim that it's not fair that drugs aren't similarly burdening me.

Straw man. My point was simply to note that you don't really believe your that-which-costs-me-money-should-be-banned argument---so why should anyone else?