Oh well, to answer your question. When it comes to the issue of drug legalization, yes, I get the sense that the pro-dope crowd does not want the government involved at all. That government is evil (knocking down doors, confiscating property, mandatory sentencing, etc.), that drugs are none of government's interest or business, and that government should get out of the way. Do I read the responses correctly? Is that not the definition of anarchy?
But to call those on the opposite side of the argument statists, that's perfectly fine with you. I have seen more reasoned responses from that side of the argument than I'll ever see from the pro-dope side. Things like support of medical marijuana, decriminalization, support of the tenth amendment and states rights, etc.
What do I hear from the pro-dope side? "Get the government out of my life". Read the responses yourself, that's where I get my info.
Not unless you think we live in anarchy right now. After all, everything from beer to candy bars to Big Macs are currently legal and none of the government's buisness. Is this anarchy?
You keep using that phrase. It misleads. Is it intentional?
Many people here who oppose the WOD also oppose the misuse of intoxicants.
Yes, because I tend to agree with him, perhaps not in magnitude but at least in the direction of the vector. I'll explain why:
Oh well, to answer your question. When it comes to the issue of drug legalization, yes, I get the sense that the pro-dope crowd does not want the government involved at all. That government is evil (knocking down doors, confiscating property, mandatory sentencing, etc.), that drugs are none of government's interest or business, and that government should get out of the way. Do I read the responses correctly? Is that not the definition of anarchy?
Why, part 1: look at how you framed the argument---pro-dope. Clearly you did this to demonize your opponent, which, to some, will then justify anything you do to further your case against him. I've been fighting on the "pro-dope" side of this argument for years, and I can say without a shred of slight-of-hand that while many of the people on my side have no problem with marijuana use, most would not recommend it as a cure-all panacea, a substitute for manna or water or anything else that's good. Most of us see marijuana like booze: a substance that can be both used responsibly and irresponsibly. Nobody actively promotes with any degree of seriousness a drug lifestyle. None. If they did, I'd have an issue with it.Why, part 2: Knocking down doors on warrantless searches (and often killing people in the process) and confiscating property without due process violate the societal contract we have with our federal government according to the Bill of Rights. There is no manufactored "ill" in society bad enough to warrant such government misbehavoir. Speaking out against that sort of behavior is the inverse of anarchy (no laws)---it is arguing and petitioning for a return to lawfulness---government lawfulness.
Why, part 3: Turning a blind eye to state lawlessness because, in your opinion, the ends justifies the means, is certainly statist in flavor. What other portions of the Constitution, including the Amendments, do you think the government can ignore to further its own agenda?
What do I hear from the pro-dope side? "Get the government out of my life". Read the responses yourself, that's where I get my info.
Quite frankly, I don't think you read the responses at all. I think you've made your mind up already and you're frantically searching for any scrap of theory you can to back up your already-formed opinion. Or perhaps you could be the one Pro-W.o.D. person who can tell me how supporting a New Deal-era interpretation of the Commerce Clause is conservative? Dane's passed on it, so has Kevin Curry, Destructor, and even Roscoe, who, otherwise, put up a mighty impressive constitutional fight.