Skip to comments.Libertarians Need to Rethink Support for Drug Legalization
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 sheriffs 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, todays libertarians have made a devils pact with the pro-drug forces of George Soros and company.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
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.
It’s the Vice Squad that busts perverts in the park.
Be seeing you.
The crime is delt with by the Vice Squad.
Equating booze to hard-core narcotics is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.
You posted idiocy, IMHO. This is a thread about drugs. You posted about booze. Do you see them as the same?
Drug warriors should rethink their support of statism.
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Well, when prohibition was repealed, 99.9% of the crime associated with its domestic production, importation, distribution, and sale instantly vanished.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?
I'll be happy to answer that question!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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...
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.
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?
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!
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.
“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.
“using her dogs urine as her own”
I don’t know what this means. She pees out her dog’s urine? How does that work?
Ok, lets stick your nuts in a vice and squeeze...
No crime intended... :)”
Thanks for not participating constructively in the conversation.
“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.
“It is impossible to prove a negative.”
No, it’s not. Take a class on logic, please.
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.
So what is it then? Health Inspector isn’t enforcing it.
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.
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.
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.”
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
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
“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.
“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.”
“... crack and meth and cocaine and ecstacy. Legalize them all! Wonderful.”
I agree entirely.
“Do Budweiser and Coors delivery men shoot each up on a daily basis in your neighborhood?”
They used to—when it was outlawed.
You got that right.
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.