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 ...
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.
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.