Replies

Try looking up ad hominem sometime in the dictionary [...] You would have been correct in your accusation, if for example, I had only argued that dope shouldn't be legalized because I once saw a dirty hippie smoking it.

ad hom·i·nem, adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

Nothing in the definition supports your claim that an ad hominem argument ceases to be one if uttered in conjunction with a non-ad hominem argument.

So if you could, please come up with any remotely viable arguments whenever you disagree with me.

Already done in my first post to you: "[the laissez-faire, pro-legalization libertarian argument] is a principled approach" and "Programs don't get more wasteful than those whose only "accomplishment" is imprisoning people who violated nobody's rights. I'd rather see the money go to food stamps or WIC; there are good arguments against them, but at least they put food in a belly instead of a person in prison."

do you reasonably believe that Founding Fathers understood and intended a "right" to get stoned?

It is clear that they intended no federal involvement in the question.

A common tactic used by those with a weak substantive position is to accuse their opponent of some rhetorical foul that they themselves are committing. While accusing me of the sin of uttering "ad hominems," you've done nothing but utter weak arguments laced with ad hominem attacks. Even without the "ad hominems," your arguments thus far are deplorably weak.

Your weakest argument by far, is that the Founding Fathers by their silence on the issue of dope smoking intended no Federal involvement. They were also silent on the issues of terrorism, employee pensions, broadcast radio and television regulation, kiddie porn, securities fraud, wire fraud, product liability, and the existence of organized crime. Does that mean they intended no Federal involvement with those issues either?

Although they were among smartest men of all time, the Founding Fathers weren't psychics. But being as smart as they were, a reasonable person, i.e., a non-Libertarian, could conclude that they wrote a dynamic document flexible enough to meet changing conditions.

Of course there are those that believe in the anarchy brought about by social and economic Darwinism. It is also an oxymoron to believe the Libertarian position that if drugs were legalized (a) people would use drugs responsibly, (b) the government would spend the money wisely on "cool" programs like those that put food in people's bellies, and (c) that crime will end simply because we play Enron accountant games and decide a crime doesn't exist because we say so. Like it or not, drugs, even the legal ones like alcohol and prescription drugs generate crime of various types. Fraudulent prescriptions, counterfeit drugs, and DUIs come to mind. Unless you plan to offer free drugs, some people will probably resort to crime to support their legalized drug habit.

As for "imprisoning people who violated nobody's rights." That is a total scam argument. However, here's a real ad hominem attack for you: While some people might drink alcohol or use drugs "responsibly," there's a whole lot that won't, like the jerk that killed my relative while stoned on a controlled substance. How's that for appealing to a personal prejudice? Or should I "love" the sin and "hate" the sinner? I bring this point up only because I've had enough of reading self serving and nebulous arguments in favor of irresponsible self indulgence.

The risk to society and to me personally of drug legalization is, and was not worth the high social and personal costs. This is especially true, if such drug legalization were to be based upon your dubious interpretation of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Smoke or self indulge in good health. But if you do so, please don't drive on taxpayer supported streets and highways. You'd violating our right to personal safety. The Tenth Amendment notwithstanding, the rest of us really can't afford the cost of a reckless self indulgent exercise of "personal" freedom.