Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Need to Rethink Support for Drug Legalization
Pajamas Media ^ | Dec. 22 | Mary Grabar

Posted on 12/22/2009 1:47:42 PM PST by AJKauf

A truly sad story about a 23-year-old Panama City man dying while being subdued by Bay County sheriff’s deputies has reawakened the debate about the legalization of marijuana. On December 11, 2009, Andrew Grande choked on a plastic bag full of marijuana as police attempted to arrest him on a violence charge. A video shows police valiantly trying to save his life once it became apparent that he was having difficulty breathing.

Two talk show hosts in Panama City have been discussing the case in the early morning hours — and revealing a divide on the right. Burnie Thompson of WYOO, the libertarian, has called Grande “a casualty of the war on drugs” and contended that because marijuana is illegal, Grande felt “compelled” to swallow a bag of it to avoid punishment.

Nonsense, says Doc Washburn on station WFLF. He invited former Congressman Ernest Istook from the Heritage Foundation and Tina Trent, who blogs on crime, to speak about the dangers of marijuana to the user and to society. Trent indicated that Grande had faced probably only a misdemeanor charge; she pointed to studies showing that the illegal drug trade flourishes despite the legality of marijuana in certain states and other countries. And legalizing marijuana will remove the freedom employers now have to test for the judgment-impairing drug.

The position on the legalization of marijuana provides the point of departure from the traditional libertarianism of Barry Goldwater. In abandoning the duty to enforce social order, today’s libertarians have made a devil’s pact with the pro-drug forces of George Soros and company.

(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: legalization; lping; marijuana; pot; warondrugs; wod; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 last
To: thefactor

I take note that your post had absolutely nothing to do with mine and you didn’t even bother to attempt a refutation of what I posted.


101 posted on 12/23/2009 8:20:24 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: steveo

It’s the Vice Squad that busts perverts in the park.

Be seeing you.


102 posted on 12/23/2009 8:28:44 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Question authority!Who is the University of East Anglia to drive the 'Global Climate Change' agenda?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The crime is delt with by the Vice Squad.


103 posted on 12/23/2009 8:30:15 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Question authority!Who is the University of East Anglia to drive the 'Global Climate Change' agenda?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
It warranted no such response. Plus, if you had follwed the responses I posted throughout this thread, you would be able to clearly see what my thoughts are on this subject.

Equating booze to hard-core narcotics is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

104 posted on 12/23/2009 9:47:25 AM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

You posted idiocy, IMHO. This is a thread about drugs. You posted about booze. Do you see them as the same?


105 posted on 12/23/2009 9:49:15 AM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: AJKauf

Drug warriors should rethink their support of statism.


106 posted on 12/23/2009 9:53:22 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
You posted idiocy, IMHO. This is a thread about drugs. You posted about booze. Do you see them as the same?

No. I posted about associated crime. A poster claimed that making drugs legal would not eliminate the crime associated with the drug trade in the US.

Well, when prohibition was repealed, 99.9% of the crime associated with its domestic production, importation, distribution, and sale instantly vanished.

To claim that the crime associated with those things in regardes to drugs would remain as they are today if legalization would occur is nonsense.

Care to try and prove me wrong?

107 posted on 12/23/2009 9:55:33 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
“Just so we're clear: You want to legalize pot, coke, meth, crack, heroine, Ecstasy, and all the rest. Right?”

I'll be happy to answer that question!

YES!!!

First, it is none of my business nor the Gov’t’s business what you consume, whether it is bad for you, or not. I do believe people should be informed of possible health consequences, but certainly not arrested. But, if you want to kill yourself sniffing glue, guzzling vodka, pigging on Big Macs, or using Meth, that is your business. I am not your nanny, & neither should be the Gov’t. Just don't expect me to subsidize that behavior with my tax dollars thru welfare, housing, & health care.

Second, it is as impossible to stop substance abuse as it is to control the climate via cap & trade. If people want to get high, they will find a way. A check of drug literature shows a long list of “abusable” substances that the Gov’t does not prohibit. Wouldn't it be easier if the Gov’t posted a list of things we CAN consume or own or possess? Is that what you want? I should also point out that half your drug list didn't even exist when the Drug War started 70+ years ago. I wonder what substances will be abused 70 years from now? Or do you figure the DEA will have eradicated substance abuse by then? How long do we continue this very unsuccessful war before we declare defeat & give up? Never?

Third, people who ABUSE anything have a MENTAL HEALTH problem. They need help, not a lawyer. People who USE drugs, including alcohol, responsibly for recreation are harming no one, & do not deserve to be vilified or criminalized.

Lastly, the MOST dangerous drug - alcohol - is legal & taxed by the Gov’t, a tacit approval. How hypocritical is that, & what kind of “equal treatment” is that? What kind of choice is the Gov’t giving us - get cross-eyed or go to jail? Use the drug that has caused more misery than all the others together, or go to jail. A Gov’t that truly was concerned about substance abuse would outlaw alcohol & tobacco immediately & place them at the top of the DEA list. Oh yeah, Prohibition didn't work, & only enriched & empowered the worst elements of our society. Sound familiar?

Anyone who knows just a little about the Drug War history, knows that it was/is a jobs program for out of work prohibitionists & racists. Doesn't it seem strange that alcohol prohibition & repeal required Constitutional Amendments, yet all further prohibitions have been instituted in Congress? Where in the constitution is Congress given this power? Could it be the same place that the Health care takeover is authorized?

Well, you asked for & supported tyranny. Enjoy.

(Please see my other replies, #73 & #84, so I don't repeat myself.)

108 posted on 12/23/2009 10:01:25 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
It is impossible to prove a negative.

As I have said many times on this thread, if you think the street level drug dealers are going to go out and get real jobs because you legalize all drugs, then you're nuts.

People will always find new, cheap ways to get high and criminals will commit profitable crimes that have a low risk/reward ratio. Let's say all drugs are legalized. The price will go up. Then there will be markets for black market legalized drugs or new, cheaper illegal drugs.

If you wanna equate booze with marijuana I'll give you that. Weed has been decriminalized. But you lose me when you say that the end of prohibition would look the same as if you legalized heroin, crack, and meth.

109 posted on 12/23/2009 10:14:17 AM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
Alcohol is the most dangerous drug? Wow. Where do you get that from?

And don't say it's because more people die from alcohol related accidents/complications because that is laughable.

That is merely a product of the sheer number of people who use/abuse alcohol as opposed to the number of people who use/abuse narcotics.

Who do you think will have more health complications? Someone who drinks every night or someone who smokes crack every night? If the number of people who did heavy drug regularly approached the number of people who drink regularly in this country, we'd have a HUGE problem.

110 posted on 12/23/2009 10:22:03 AM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
Equating booze to hard-core narcotics is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

Which is one of the silliest things I've heard in a while. You are drawing an arbitrary line based on nothing but personal bias.

111 posted on 12/23/2009 10:36:00 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
No, it's more of a professional observation from being a New York City cop for the last 6.5 years.

I have always said that booze is the largest scourge we face as a society due to the sheer number of people who abuse it. But at least some of those people can hold a job!

However, there is nothing more worthless, pitiful, destitute, and horrid than a crackhead. At least alcoholics can function when they are sober. Crackheads are either high, on their way to get high, or sleeping. And they don't sleep much.

Thank the good Lord there are relatively few crackheads compared to alcoholics.

112 posted on 12/23/2009 10:40:42 AM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
As I have said many times on this thread, if you think the street level drug dealers are going to go out and get real jobs because you legalize all drugs, then you're nuts.

I didn't say they would.

But lets say I am a drug user. Why would I continue to purchase a perfectly legal product from a kid on a street corner when I can just pop into the Gas n Sip on the way home for what I want?

Why are there no Al Capones around today bootlegging? Did he and his minions continue what they were doing? Or did they find other jobs, both legit and illegal?

From a freedom and liberty stand point, along with a constitutional stand point, there is no inherent power granted to the US Government to make it illegal for me to put anything into my body I want to.

If my actions or activity do not deprive another of their life, liberty, or property through fraud or force, then it should be legal.

113 posted on 12/23/2009 10:58:51 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
“Who do you think will have more health complications? Someone who drinks every night or someone who smokes crack every night?”

I'd say there is an equal chance that either abuser will injure or kill himself or others on any given night. The idea that one leads a better life than the other is purely subjective. And their health complications are none of my business or the gov't's business - I don't believe in socialized medicine.

The neighbor kid killed himself huffing PAM. Perhaps it, too, should be a controlled substance. Or maybe he should be arrested & imprisoned, had he survived. Problem solved, right? No, the "problem" will never be solved, because the solution - prohibition - doesn't work, & because if effective solutions were actually implemented, a lot of bureaucrats would be out of a job. The drug war is about power & control, not about what is best for America.

114 posted on 12/23/2009 11:36:37 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
IOW... You have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Rather than let these people "Darwin out", you'd rather keep the power you don't rightfully have.

Got it.

115 posted on 12/23/2009 1:05:54 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

...Kitty, Do you think me that naive, that I would consider debating with you on this issue if I had no clue about the subject? Yes, I have dealt with family, friends, co-workers, and my own demons on this. I’m not trying to stir things up, especially not now. I do think forgiveness and compassion for those that are afflicted with addiction is a start toward the healing. We can cross this FR path some other time and argue the POV. I’ll be more than happy to debate this subject. For now, Merry Christmas, and all the seasons greetings to you and yer loved ones...


116 posted on 12/23/2009 4:37:28 PM PST by gargoyle (..."I have not yet begun to fight" John Paul Jones...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
So, you are actually in favor of legalizing drugs.

Welcome home.

117 posted on 12/23/2009 5:53:34 PM PST by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: AJKauf

Grabar is a tree-hugging Social(ist) Con who should go back to teaching in Millhunk country. I see her name, and I know what to expect.


118 posted on 12/23/2009 5:55:18 PM PST by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AJKauf

Wow. I’ve read some anti-pot/legalization articles and while I always disagree with them they sometimes make points that I can see as valid, or at least worthy.

This was maybe the worst argument I’ve ever heard. This actually makes the idiotic gateway theory look brilliant. Pot should remain illegal cause some idiot tried to swallow a plastic bag full of it? What’s next, Draino should be illegal if some idiot decides to drink it?


119 posted on 12/24/2009 8:45:18 AM PST by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

Yeah, it’s not like booze is addictive or can cause violent reactions in people or you can die from using too much of it!


120 posted on 12/24/2009 9:01:17 AM PST by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

The only idiot is one who doesn’t know that booze is a drug. That’s like saying that someone posted about rifles when a thread is about guns.


121 posted on 12/24/2009 9:04:39 AM PST by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

“But the motive is drugs.”

No, the motive is profit. Violence pays in drugs, as it does in all illicit rackets, because entering the field is too costly for peaceful businessmen. And it is too costly precisely because the authorities have outlawed it. When a commidity is outlawed, only outlaws sell it.


122 posted on 12/24/2009 11:41:43 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

“using her dog’s urine as her own”

I don’t know what this means. She pees out her dog’s urine? How does that work?


123 posted on 12/24/2009 11:43:36 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

“Ok, let’s stick your nuts in a vice and squeeze...

No crime intended... :)”

Thanks for not participating constructively in the conversation.


124 posted on 12/24/2009 11:45:46 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“The crime is delt with by the Vice Squad.”

Oh, boy, that’s brilliant. George Orwell would be proud.

I suppose that means that if Congress’ health care bill was executed by the Dept. of Fun and Good Times, that would mean everything they did was fun and a good time.


125 posted on 12/24/2009 11:49:50 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

“It is impossible to prove a negative.”

No, it’s not. Take a class on logic, please.


126 posted on 12/24/2009 11:51:06 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

What do you mean you don’t know? She put her dogs urine somewhere on her body and substituted it for her own. And yes, she could get away with it. They didn’t spy on you when you were in the bathroom; although you were not allowed to take anything in with you.

She did not get the job.


127 posted on 12/24/2009 11:54:56 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

So what is it then? Health Inspector isn’t enforcing it.


128 posted on 12/24/2009 12:16:50 PM PST by a fool in paradise (Question authority!Who is the University of East Anglia to drive the 'Global Climate Change' agenda?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The Vice Squad exists because some vices are, by legislation, crimes. Should they be crimes?

1. It ought to be a crime to pass legislation that does not apply to the legislating body.
2. What a person does in his own home that harms no one, including himself, should not be a crime.
3. The FDA, FTC, ATF, IRS are criminal enterprises.

Others might want to add others of the three letter variety to the list.


129 posted on 12/24/2009 2:00:39 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Nate505

Of course alcohol is a drug. However, when any reasonable person says to another reasonable person, “I want to go take some drugs,” what would immediately come to mind? A shot of vodka? I think not. So let’s talk in layman’s terms, shall we? Stop with the semantics. But if that’s all you got, fine.


130 posted on 12/24/2009 4:17:12 PM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

The only reason that is the case is because alcohol isn’t viewed as a drug by people, mostly because of its cultural acceptance and legal status. That doesn’t make it any less of a drug. And why talk in layman’s terms? Laymen are idiots in many cases. Like this one. Laymen like my alcoholic step-mother who lectured me about the “evils” of drug abuse while picking up around 6 DUIs in her lifetime (so far). But she wasn’t as bad as my pot using step-sister because she wasn’t doing “drugs.”


131 posted on 12/25/2009 1:16:36 AM PST by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: AJKauf

the reason the drug trade still flourishes in places marijuana is legal is because private companies have not begun selling it....you have private companies sell it and you get rid of the street thug hustler who sells it


132 posted on 12/25/2009 8:59:14 AM PST by chevydude26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Thank you why can’t more people see this as common sense!

Remove the black market you remove the crime...i don’t see alcohol having a criminal subculture like it did in the 30’s and Al Capone and the Speakeasy’s


133 posted on 12/25/2009 9:01:19 AM PST by chevydude26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

“Vices have been criminalized since the founding of the nation.”

By the Federal Government? There might have been some local restrictions in a few places, but for the first 80-100 years anyone could grow, make, import, sell, or buy just about any substance you can think of, almost anywhere.

Hank


134 posted on 12/25/2009 9:15:59 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

“I am really not interested in talking or doing business with people who are too high to really understand what is going on.

“... or too dumb to really understand what is going on either—like all the idiots who think government control has any affect at all on the number of people who use drugs, or the quantity of drugs available. All it does is finance a huge bureaucracy of thugs and create another class of criminals both inside and outside the government. I don’t want to have to deal with such idiots either.”

Hank


135 posted on 12/25/2009 9:31:20 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

“... crack and meth and cocaine and ecstacy. Legalize them all! Wonderful.”

I agree entirely.

Hank


136 posted on 12/25/2009 9:43:02 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

“Do Budweiser and Coors delivery men shoot each up on a daily basis in your neighborhood?”

They used to—when it was outlawed.

Hank


137 posted on 12/25/2009 9:46:14 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

You got that right.


138 posted on 12/25/2009 10:51:33 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
You posted idiocy, IMHO. This is a thread about drugs. You posted about booze. Do you see them as the same?

...

Of course alcohol is a drug.

It seems then that a black market in a drug is an entirely apt comparison, after all.

However, when any reasonable person says to another reasonable person, “I want to go take some drugs,” what would immediately come to mind? A shot of vodka? I think not.

You're right, I don't think of alcohol, or nicotine, or caffeine, even though I know these things are drugs. I also don't think of marijuana. Marijuana, like the legal drugs, is common enough (and, I'll say it, mainstream enough) that we ordinarily call it by its own name, as distinct from other less popular activities. That's why we call marijuana and the legal drugs "soft", as opposed to other drugs which are called "hard". If we're going to follow common usage, why not that distinction? But we should remember that at least some hard drugs are only hard because they're chemically purified -- if we permitted the coca leaf and coca tea, it would be no different from permitting coffee beans and coffee.

139 posted on 12/26/2009 4:08:20 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson