Free Republic

I have a confession to make: I _love_ listening to Ray Taliafero, when the opportunity presents itself; usually, that's sometime when I come home after working really late, the wife has already gone to bed, and I kick back to decompresss a bit before joining her. I disagree with pretty much everything he says, and his positions often annoy me, but there is something about sitting alone late in the night, with a good whiskey and a last smoke, listening to Ray sounding like a fire and brimstone preacher, that I just really enjoy. Bernie just makes me ill, though.

Thraka

IME, Savage is one of those things that grow on some people over time. Some people simply don't like his style, and you may be in that category. But some people I know who have objected mightily to him at first have eventually come to really dig his show. He has warts, no doubt. But that, IMO, is part of his appeal. He's very human, he's very alive, he's very flawed, but IMO, those are positives.

Thraka

You are correct. My own personal view is that the war on drugs is an abyssmal failure, and that we quite simply cannot protect people from ruining their own lives if they choose to do so. However, my position is simply not the norm, and I recognize that. I do not think progress can be made toward a more satisfactory goal unless it is taken in small steps. The simple truth is that there are many who believe that wholesale legalization will lead to the destruction of society. I, personally, do not believe this, but I think that the only way the opposition might come to see things my way is for them to observe the effects of an incremental change.

If I don't grow my own, how do I, and maybe a million others, obtain some really good pot? Sounds like an excellent business opportunity for some entrepreneur (this being America and all). I see lots of licenses, are you kidding me? And of course, there will be a 'modest' fee for the license, and perhaps a small federal, state, and local tax on the product. For treatment and rehab purposes only. Maybe some for education. And just a little for AIDS research.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. But I do not think it can be sold without first laying the groundwork to demonstrate that the fears of some are misplaced.

Hmmm. Can't just give out licenses willy-nilly, can we? Pretty embarrassing to give one to a street gang. Also, we need to collect those all-important taxes -- can't have unlicensed dealers cutting in on the government action, can we? The government monitors nicotine content (remember the trial?), surely they'll monitor THC content. Sounds like a brand new big bureaucracy, doesn't it? Sounds like the DEA would get even bigger, doesn't it?

Not at all. There would be plenty of people who could be shifted from interdiction efforts to overseeing efforts. The net cost, IMO, would change little. What _would_ happen would be the removal of the criminal element, and along with it, the corruption that impedes any progress toward more sensable positions. My proposal does not, by a long shot, solve all the problems. Itwas not intended to do so. It is merely a step towards a solution.

But you don't really care about that, do you? As long as people will just get off your back, you'll vote for anything.

This comment is simply a veiled accusation that I am a drug user. I do believe you said you wanted a reasoned discussion, so I shall presume this is simply an aberration and resist the temptation to respond in kind.

Not fair to cut down your proposal without offering one of my own. Decriminalization. This does not mean legalization. Change mere possession of a personal use amount from a felony to a misdemeanor with a fine. Let's say, $2000 first offense, $5000 second offense, three strikes you're in jail. Something along that line, maybe you lose your drivers license, I don't know. First offense, arresting officer has the discretion to ignore, based on the circumstances. This solution is loosely based on DUI laws, yet does not involve driving a car.

Like my own proposal, it is a step in the right direction. Both proposals address the issue of society paying money to incarcerate drug users, but yours does nothing to remove the criminal element. I consider removing the crimnal element to be paramount to any realistic proposal on the matter.

Now, maybe you don't think this if fair, but at least it's sensible. There would be far fewer arrests (seeds in the ashtray), fewer court appearances, and less jail time. We save time and money, focus on the dealers and "hard" drugs, yet still maintain illegality. And this is not a first step towards legalization, just a sensible one.

If, however, we do not really believe that casual use of marijuana merits prison, why then maintain laws against it at all? As I note above, it doesn't seem to solve the issue of the criminal element. It doesn't get to the money matter, which is the driving factor behind much of the violence and corruption associated with drugs (or any other banned but popular vice, for that matter). I would presume, though I am perhaps mistaken, that the criminal element is an issue for you, as well? How would you ammend your proposal to address the problem?

Thraka

I, for one, have grave reservations about simply ignoring laws. It seems to me that your proposal would send a message that we have optional laws, or laws for 'them, but not for me', i.e. enforced against people who are disliked, and ignored for others. This would seem to go against one of the cornerstones of our society, that all men should be equal before the law, that the law must be enforced equally or not at all. Whatever the law is, it _must_ be clear, and applicable to everyone.

That being said, what you really want to accomplish, it would seem, is to allow a low level of marijuana use in society for a while and observe the results. The solution seems to take one step further than you suggest: pass a law affirming the legality of private citizens to posess, use, and grow small ammounts of marijuana, and treat it as we do alcohol. One may not sell alcohol without a license, and so, likewise, people could not set up shops unless licensed. I see no compelling reason to issue such licenses, frankly, at least not until there had been enough time to observe the results of the initial steps.

This leaves us with a situation where those who wish to use marijuana could do so, and even trade it amongst themselves, but could not legally have large distribution centers. The law should define how much 'traffic' would constitute a business that would require a license, and, again, make this clear to the people. Those violating this would be punished as would someone distributing alcohol without a license. Those providing marijuana to minors would be treated similarly to those who provide minors with alcohol or tobacco.

The key point, in my mind, is to cut out the criminal element, and to demand responsible use of _all_ intoxicants. Irresponsible use should lead to fines, community service, escalating to prison for the incorrigable. Prison should be our last resort; it costs us money to house inmates, and to administer to any responsibilities that they may have, such as children. It also takes them out of the tax pool.

The results are predictable, honestly, though some will require proof. I think anyone who has known marijuana users understands that nothing will really change, save that we'll stop throwing money down a rat hole and violating people's constitutional rights because they 'fit a profile', etc. There will, IMO, be little change in the number of hard core stoners, which, IME, is about the same as hard core drunks. Some people just choose to piss their lives away; they do it whether we have laws against it or not.

There will also be fanatics who will scream how such a plan as madness, the world will end, cats will lie down with dogs, etc. In the spirit of Modest Proposals, I suggest the following:

Modest Proposal mode engaged:

I suggest that we criminalize such wild eyed raving, due to the damage it is obviously doing to society. I suppose some will be unhappy and complain their rights are being violated, but, honestly, we must think of _society_, rather than individuals. We simply can't have these sorts running about frightening people, can we? They're irrational; we don't know what they might do. They could even become violent. Free speech be damned, as damned as rights to be free from illegal search and siezure. We have to protect our children from such influences!

Modest Proposal mode disengaged

Thraka

This is just as hostile and unreasoning as the stance taken by the prohibitionists. You presume that, because they disagree with you, they _must_ be idiots. Perhaps someone close to them died due to drug abuse; perhaps they simply find drug abuse so horrible that they are willing to endure _great_ sacrifice to get rid of it; perhaps, God forbid, they are actually _right_, and they have some insight that is not obvious at first glance.

You cannot reason with a man if, knowing nothing of his argument, you brand him a fool. If his argument is foolish, point it out, and if he refuses to acknowledge it, _then_ it is fair to conclude he is a fool or a disruptor.

The point of having a reasoned debate is to reason with someone, if they are receptive to it, after all. Even if they are not receptive, many lurkers _are_; your words, if fair and rational, can influence many others besides your opponants in debate, after all.

Thraka

That's a tough thing to have occur when the prohibitionists most often take the stance that anyone who opposes the war on drugs is a drug user, or otherwise is somehow advocating the use of drugs, i.e. with poisoning-the-well propaganda.

IME, many of the more vocal prohibitionists here are not, in fact, rational. They do not accept the premise that others might simultaneously want what is best for the country _and_ disagree with the prohibitionists' methods of achiving that goal. They do not enter the discussion with the rational stance of "My opposition genuinely believes he is advocating the best solution, but his reasoning is flawed, and I will point out why." They enter the discussion with the emotional stance of "Drugs are _evil_, and anyone who disagrees with me on this matter wants to use drugs and get kids hooked on drugs." In other words, they have already proceeded past the point of the debate to begin with, and wish to draw conclusions based on the very points in dispute. It is not _possible_ to have a rational discussion with someone of such a mindset.

To have a rational discussion, the prohibitionists would have to at least concede that a review of the current method of dealing with the nation's drug problem was in order. IME, they do not. In that respect, they are much like the emotional communists defending Affirmative Action: they refuse to acknowledge a problem; they accuse those who point out problems as being (druggies/racists), and in the process delay, deny, and derail any effort to even discuss the merits of other solutions.

Thraka

So you claim. My poor grasp of the English language and obviously inferior layman's sense of judgement notwithstanding, it would apear that every source in the nation other than you _also_ believes that this is what the ruling means. The press, the president, congress, all seem to think that the ruling effectively bars the recitation of the pledge in classrooms. Pray tell, what is it that makes you believe them all wrong? Are you, for example, privy to some special knowledge, such as that the judges in question had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they made the ruling?

Considering the credentials of those who disagree with you (congress, which has quite a number of lawyers in its ranks), I really do believe the bar for your counter argument must be placed a bit higher than 'Because I say so.'

Honestly, do you really believe that the ruling means that anyone who recited the pledge with the "under god" insertion would be locked up? Under what crime would they be charged? What would be the penalty? What in the wording of the ruling suggests any such thing?

Are you not aware that violating someone's civil rights is a Federal Crime? It's been used in several very famous cases, so it's not as if you can easily claim ignorance; it was the charge levied against the LA cops who beat Rodney King, after they were acquitted on the original state charges over the beating.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

US Code, Title 18, Section 1, Chapter 13, Civil Rights. It contains the answers to all of your questions, including the penalties involved. I wonder, though, why you did not educate yourself on this matter _before_ you argued the point.

Thraka

We must resort to educating you as we would a child? How is it not obvious that the ruling bars reciting the pledge? Perhaps you would like to debate the meaning of 'is', for an encore?

Thraka

By this rationale, then, you would have us believe the majority is _never_ in the right, eh? That those who 'think' can only demonstrate having done so by voting against the majority?

Perhaps you might try this 'thinking' thing, too....

Thraka

The flaw in your reasoning is that you are presuming the judge in question is acting properly; furthermore, you ignore the very real, legitimate abiltity of other, elected branches to impeach judges. Would you suggest that a judge can declare night to be day, and that he not be held to account for such a blatant disregard for facts? That is unacceptable.

The simple truth is that this judge and many others are willing to ignore the clear meaning of the Constitution. It does not take a genius to understand that the government does not, under the Constituion , have the authority to restrict religeous speech. If this conflicts with government schools, then the _schools_ are unconstitutional, because the right to free speech is protected, whereas the right to attend a government school is _not_.

I suggest it is _your_ understanding of the Constitution that is shallow: in the end, _all_ branches derive their authority from the people. To suggest that the people are wrong to punish blatant malfeasance such as this is to suggest that the government exists as an entity unto itself, with no controls whatsoever on its behavior. We are a nation of free men. Free men have the right to criticize the government, and to work toward impeaching those who refuse to do their duties.

What is _vital_ to our form of government is that our representatives be held accountable for their behavior. You stance is anathema to a nation of laws.

Thraka

Tex, why be so short with me? Pour yourself a whiskey and talk with me a bit. I'm _trying_ to understand where you're coming from, but I can't do that if you don't _tell_ me.

I'm in agreement with you, in regard to federal government, but that's a horse of a different color with regard to states rights. That's really beside the point for me, though. I am _firmly_ behind the initiative process, not to circumvent the Feds (though I do think they need circumventing at times, too), but to circumvent the corrupt _state_ governments. The initiative process is the only real answer to gerrymandering. Here, in California, it's really bad; a conservative man _has_ no voice in the state government, save through initiatives, because the state is gerrmandered to keep the Communists in power. Initiatives are a direct response to a corrupt state government cheating a large segment of the population out of any representation at all. 209 would never have cleared the stae legislature, because it's a stacked deck, but when put to the people of the state, it passed by a landslide. That should tell you something about how crooked the people who run this state really are, eh?

I think it's a _completely_ legitimate means of overruling a corrupt state government. Why do you disagree?

Thraka

How is it an 'end run'? It's clearly not a granted power of the Feds to police drugs. Just because they usurp the authority doesn't make it right, anymore than a man putting a gun in your face has a right to your money. Are you saying the Feds _should_ be allowed to just grab up any old power they figure they have the right to, and damn the Constitution? If not, then explain, if you would, how you figure the Feds have any business in it?

No state referenda have ever survived a federal court challenge . That is why you have never seen any of the 8 medical pot laws challenged by the states that held referenda on the issue.

That sounds a lot like the line of reasoning Commies use to argue against gun rights. Come on Tex, I know you are very anti-drug, but surely you're not going to let that trump an issue as important as states powers? Think about your position: you're telling the people in all those yellow dog Commie coastal cities that they can tell you and yours how things will be in Texas. I cannot believe you would subscribe to that!

Thraka

That's not really a fair comparison, Texas. Gun ownership is Constitutionally protected. The Constitution says nothing about drug laws, so it's a state matter.

Thraka

As a Marin resident, I must say, this is the best line I have seen in a long time, CJ; it's so visual, I had to laugh out loud, and it captures a lot of the Marin mood: The Birkenstock campus, the BMW's with 'Visualize World Peace' bumper stickers, the covens, the IJ, and let's not forget Johnny Taliban; basically, we're stuck with Boxer and Woolsey because of all those morons. It's peaceful enough, though. The weed smokers are plenty happy to go up to Mount Tam and get stoned; they don't bother us 'normals', except for the very occasional 'Hey, dude, could I bum a ride with you to Novato?'.

If Repubs would just drop the drug plank, those guys would just tune out completely and not vote. Then we could get rid of the Commie witches and get some real representation.

Thraka

There is no offense, there is only simple truth: in WWII germany, if you were Jewish, you would have wished you had a gun, plain and simple. Those people suffered and died, as you note, in large degree because by the time they realized what was happenning to them, they were defenseless. They listened to Hitler and his toadys who told them they had no need for weapons, and thought to themselves, "Well, yes, it is true. Why _do_ we need weapons? The government will protect us if we need protection." The idea that the government would be herding them into death camps was ludicrous to them, as ludicrous as you find the 'government coming into your home and attacking you' thought. And yet it happened then, and it has happened in _many_ places where citizens have been disarmed. The simple, inescapable truth is that the very mentality that allows one to justify disarming men goes hand in hand with dispising them as lesser creatures. It is not the great leap you would suggest to go from protector to predator.

Read your history, and spare us the feigned outrage. We are not fools, and are unlikely to be swayed by your 'how dare you' or 'you're not supposed to talk about that' stances. That sort of emotional hand wringing is more appropriate to other forums, hmm?

Thraka

My thoughts exactly. A government with a monopoly on force has no need to actually brutalize its citizenry, save simple meanness, or perhaps, occasionally, to demostrate its will to do so. It would be counterproductive to slaughter the cattle on any sort of large scale or regular basis. The existance of the monopoly alone is enough to make the citizenry slaves.

I am ever amused at the bleating sheep's use the lack of such tactics as evidence that all is well. Such occurances need only happen often enough, to the right people, to demonstrate what will happen to those who defy the system. We have seen several such in the last decade....

Thraka

What I find more sad is a man who feels so strongly about controlling others. That is what it comes down to, you know: controlling your fellow man. I believe the difference in our positions really comes down to this simple point: I believe in allowing others to live as they will, and take precautions to defend myself if I they choose to live outside the law. You choose to second guess others, to steal a bit of their humanity, for the illusion of safety.

As for your statistics, two points: the study you refer to is one of those silly bits of data which have been refuted, and the study roundly criticized as poor science, but yet somehow manages to stay alive, passed on by those who want to believe it so as to justify their tyrannical impulses. Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay were the parties responsible for the study. Use the tools at your fingertips to find reliable sources, and you'll see what I mean.

Secondly, statistics are largely meaningless on matters of human rights. You and I can, for example, both certainly agree that violent crime would go down enormously if we were to, say, imprison everyone who matches the profile of a likely criminal; surely, in such a dragnet, we would indeed catch many real criminals, but we would also deprive many people of their liberty who were _not_ criminals. Statistically, it is incontrovertable that such action would reduce crime. And yet it is also entirely unacceptable.

In one hundred years, you and I will both be dead. There is no true 'safety'. It seems to me that regardless of all other factors involved, the human mortality rate hovers at one hundred percent. The important factor, I think, is how we live our lives, and what sort of life we leave for our heirs. The men who founded this country believed that liberty was to be cherished above all else; they took steps to ensure that liberty would be preserved from the various tyrannical impulses that all men harbor by drafting certain rights into the document that founded the nation, such that it could never deny those rights without denying its own legitimacy, as well. Do you not find it compelling that two hundred years before you were born, men who faught a war to birth a nation were already familiar with the arguments you those who side with you raise? Does that not, at least, give you pause to wonder if perhaps you _are_ making decisions on base impulses?

Put another way, if you use force to disarm men who have done you no harm, because you believe it in your best interest, how are you better than a thug who uses force to seperate a man from his wallet? The thug believes it is best, because he believes he is best served by having what belongs to another man. Is that how you believe, too?

Thraka

Indeed. Libertarian in government, conservative in education and behavior.

It is sad to see the inroads the Communists have made into both 'Conservative' and 'Libertarian' camps, and they continue to do so with the same sort of rabble rousing, emotional drek that has been their modus operandi for decades: propaganda and "let's you and him fight" scenarios.

They rouse the conservatives against Libertarians by claims that the Libertarians want an immoral society. The argument is patently Communist; is it not the philosophy of Communists that men must be controlled, or they will behave as animals and bring society to ruin? It is, in fact, the basis of almost every position they take.

Similarly, they rouse the Libertarians against Conservatives with the suggestion that any moral education, even the speaking of the word 'God' in a school, is somehow treason against the Constitution. Again, we can see the insidious hand of the Communist mentality at work: morality must be determined by the group, and individuals who do no conform, who speak heresies against the state, or suggest that higher powers exist, must be silenced. How is it not the height of Communist thought that free men are unqualified to determine how their children should be educated?

It is the position of the Communists that men cannot be trusted with liberty, that they will always descend to immorality. This is only true because the Communists have had great success in destroying any moral education we might seek to give our youth. They engineered the situation that sparks so much animousity between Libertarians and Conservatives. We aught, by all rights, to be one another's consciences; we aught, by all rights, pay heed when someone from the other camp cries 'have a care, you go too far'. We have, in short, been manipulated into opposition, when we are simply two sides of the same coin.

In my mind, the Libertarians should be heeded when we contemplate how we will treat men, and the Conservatives should be heeded when we contemplate how we will raise our children. Our children must be taught morality, or they will be unfit to accept the responsibilities that fall upon free men. Our citizens must be free, and trusted to behave morally, or we concede that the Communists are right, and that men cannot rule themselves.

Thraka

I beg to differ. Others have noted the idea of seperation of powers, but it seems the obvious has been neglected: the Constitution specifically grants the Chief Executive the right to pardon. The AG serves at the Chief Executive's pleasure, so he obviously cannot institute a 'no prosecute' policy without it being approved of by his superior. The executive branch does indeed have the explicit power to give the legislative branch the finger over any law they choose and refuse to enforce it. 'Checks and balances', after all, is not a banking phrase.

To suggest that the executive branch is _compelled_ to enforce all laws is to ignore the power of pardon, and futhermore, it is to make the executive branch superfluous: such would have the effect of all laws written by congress being automatically enforced, i.e. with the executive branch as a subsidiary of the legislative. Clearly, if the framers had intended this to be the case, there would exist only the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. The executive branch is not compelled to enforce laws that it believes are wrong. The Legislative branch can impeach, but it cannot compel the executive branch to do anything.

Note, however, that it may not be in the best ineterests of an AG to ignore the unconstitutional law, at any rate. He might well be serving the Constitution better by getting the matter before the Supreme Court and having it declared unconstitutional. If disaster occurs, and the court rules differently, again, there is nothing that prevents the executive branch from pardoning the offender.

It _does_ work that way.

Thraka