Free Republic

Wow, I'm surprised that you could write for such a sustained period of time. Has the Ritalin helped you any?

Calm down. I don't exercise vigilante justice nor do I wear Jackboots. Sorry to blow your little fantasy about my opposition to legalized drugs. But I do walk down the street in my neighborhood and where I work. I am confronted on a daily basis by dopers and others in their own little self centered world. Some are violently aggressive and others are just public charges. Straw dog indeed. And no I don't feel that I should have to move or change my job to allow for someone else's concept of freedom.

Maybe in your peaceful neighborhood and work location all of the people are Stepford citizens. But where's my right to a peaceful existence, while I mind my own damn business? I really don't give a damn what you or anyone else does to themselves until I have to make personal adjustments to maintain a peaceful life. But I guess I just have to put with the crap because your concept of freedom is more important than mine. That's some concept of equal protection under the law. Where do you get the authority to sanction such interference with MY freedom? Your ideas are fine if everyone acts as you probably would, but that isn't the reality I see on a daily basis.

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.

Your accusation is misdirected because you wouldn't know an ad hominem attack from an adenoid. Try looking up ad hominem sometime in the dictionary and find out what it really means before you use the term. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest to rely on the overused ad hominem rhetorical defense as your argument in chief.

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. But unlike you, I provided several reasons for my position. So if you could, please come up with any remotely viable arguments whenever you disagree with me. Your accusation is itself a "sleazy" ad hominem attack.

You also said that "...most courts wouldn't know the Constitution..." Well, apparently neither do you. Your Tenth Amendment "argument" in favor of marijuana is as overreaching as the so-called "penumbra doctrine" used to justify abortion as a "right." If you're an "originalist" as you seem to me to be representing yourself, do you reasonably believe that Founding Fathers understood and intended a "right" to get stoned? It would be reasonable to conclude such an implicit understanding and intent as far as alcohol is concerned.

From ancient times, alcohol has almost always been legal and accepted in most cultures, religions, and nations. It has also been widely accepted and used by the general public for reasons other than the purely recreational use that you have advocated thus far. Apart from some Native American religious use, most hallucinogens are not condoned in this country or most other countries. In this broad context, your pro-legalization "arguments" seem too frivolous to rise to the level of a fundamental "constitutional right" like free speech or due process.

As I said, most state legislatures, federal and state courts, and public opinion, for now, do not support your pot legalization position. If the public truly supported it, then it would be legal, e.g., public sentiment ended Prohibition. So why don't you go and do something constructive and become an activist if this issue is of such burning "Constitutional" importance to you?

Whatever "Professor" Churchill turns out to be, he is also facing charges of academic plagiarism. Not exactly the crime of the century, but certainly very unacceptable for a university professor to engage in. If Churchill were not a faux professor, he'd either be an Enron accountant, a CBS or Newsweak journalist, or a three card monte dealer.

The prisons are full of natural born con men like Churchill. He just found easier and spineless marks in the academic community. Nonetheless, this academic charlatan must be terminated as a start in fixing a higher education system nearly destroyed in the 1960s by worthless baby boomers.

Your accusation of a sleazy ad hominem attack is misdirected and somewhat defensive. You are in the best position to know if the "sleazy ad hominems" fit you or not. If you are sincere in your beliefs that dope smoking is implicitly or explicitly a constitutionally protected activity, then more power to you. Otherwise, you are, so to speak, blowing smoke.

BTW, most courts and state jurisdictions have disagreed with your position on the basis that drug regulation is a part of governmental police powers concerning health and safety issues. My suggestion to you is to work to change the drug laws through political action. That approach seems to be working for gay activists.

I have been chastised! You're right about the principled approach. Even as we read and write these words, there are many principled legalization arguments being discussed by erudite stoned individuals over gourmet "munchies." And damned if they wouldn't change the world if they could just get up off their stoned asses to do something about it! If the ad hominem fits then its probably true.

Clinton is the absolute worst US president in history and that's saying a lot when you consider that Harding, Carter, FDR, and LBJ are in the running for that "honor."

All those fights and big purses and hardly a dime to show for it. This last purse will be gone in the ring of a bell.

[errata] It is also a logical inferencethat this book review is a compendium of the partisan ravings of a literary lunatic driven insane after hour upon hour of uncritical listening to Airhead America.

This is a puff piece of a book review of the John F. Harris book, The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House. Harris was the the Washington Post White House correspondent from 1995-2000, a fact which assures all FR readers of unbiased analysis. Here's a snippet of the reviewer's opinion of the book:

...over the course of 500 pages, Harris also documents the history of a president who, however frustrating he may have been in style and method, usually made the right choices in the end -- even when he felt that he was hurting himself politically. The 1993 spending cuts and tax increases, over which he agonized for months, ultimately reduced the federal deficit, reassured financial markets and set in motion the prosperity that marked the second half of the decade. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which Clinton signed against the advice of his closest Democratic allies, turned out to be the most successful domestic policy initiative of the 1990's...

This is spin beyond call of duty to political party. It is a also logical inference that this book review is a compendium of the partisan ravings of a literary lunatic driven insane after hour upon hour of uncritical listening to Airhead America.

Because they are still crazy after all these years, the left is trying to create a legacy for this do-nothing president. Why, you might ask? It's simple, Clinton II: The Abomination will opening soon at a political theater near you. The left's well organized and connected neo-communist pundits are cleaning up the reviews of the first installment of the franchise, a.k.a. Bill Clinton's eight year abomination fronting as a serious presidency. This clean-up also would ensure that Hillary would not have any road blocks to impede her "Long March" to the White House and the eventual Stalinization of America.

Make no mistake, that in order to disguise Hillary's intentions, Bill Clinton's image must be cleaned up and reinvented as a centrist compromiser extraordinaire. He was nothing of the sort. Instead Bill Clinton's legacy is correctly that of a do-nothing wastrel, except where it came to satiating his personal hedonistic desires. Bill Clinton, was never proactive in foreign or domestic policy with three exceptions. The domestic exceptions were the aborted attempt to foist socialist health care on Americans and the largest single confiscatory tax act in U.S. history. In foreign policy, we are still mired in Euro-politics with no exit strategy in Bosnia. Clinton was simply reacting to the request of spineless Europeans that always seems to ask America to clean-up their messes. Except when forced upon him, such as welfare reform, Clinton never took any initiatives that contributed to the good governance of the republic.

Therein lies the true legacy of Bill Clinton, that of a Pavlovian dog who only reacted to the stimuli around him.

This crooked, effete little SOB has a lot of nerve. When is the Senate ethics complaint against this bitchy little fruitcake for revealing confidential FBI files going to be heard?

This is why the liberals are anti-death penalty. They are protecting the various traitors within the democrat party. Especially the one that took campaign contributions from Chi-com generals and gave critical missile guidance technology to the Red Chinese.

Send Kofi Kup and the UN to Europe. They'll like the hookers and the political climate there a lot better, but probably not the stinginess of old and useless Europe. I guess only then will this turd world idiot will learn who pays the freight

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and early 1930s was a tough concept to sell to the American people. Because unlike most drugs, alcohol was previously legal. Alcohol is also generally legal in most cultures and countries. Moreover, alcohol has some nutritional value, e.g., beer was used by the ancient Sumerians to preserve grain and, in moderation, wine has been shown to have positive health benefits.

Yes, I know that there is a medicinal use for marijuana. However, it is still considered a Schedule I, D., (Hallucinogenic) drug. I posted previously, and it was ignored, that the feds should either make it a Schedule III drug (controlled use) and let the pharmaceutical companies make it for those who need it. Alternatively, let the tobacco companies make marijuana cigarettes, get the tax revenues and the so-called quality control that comes with standardization. We could even do both, so long as the plan of action for legalization is well thought out. This is hardly a "do-gooder" position. Because with legalization comes positive and negative consequences. Think about the dumb ass Mass judges that okayed gay marriage and forgot to consider the negative consequences of a gay divorce, e.g., who gets the adopted kids in a divorce? There's a case in Virginia about that issue now.

BTW, the poster-poseur was calling me a "do-gooder" without knowing the basis for my beliefs. S/he adamantly defended drug use, while piously and emphatically maintaining that s/he was not a drug user. My main gripe with the laissez-faire, pro-legalization libertarian argument is that it is an unreasoned, primarily emotional and self-centered approach, "My personal freedom, yadda, yadda, yadda." These arguments are much like those used by an adolescent when he tries to tell his parents to treat him like an adult without assuming the responsibilities.

Finally, Dr. Friedman's economic argument for legalization is based on a false assumption that government will save or wisely spend the money that would have gone to a wasteful program. Liberal-Marxists argued in the same vein in the 1970s about the space program and the Vietnam War. Did you see an end to poverty or any tax cut (until 1982) when we stopped "wasting money" on those budget items? Eliminating crime by simply making it an non-crime is doublethink at its worst. It also reminds one of a crooked Enron accountant cooking the books by creating phantom profits.

What an arrogant presumptuous person you are. And I might add unjustifiably so. You call me a do-gooder because I don't like or agree with your point of view. You're the one adamantly defending drug usage while at the same time piously claiming to be drug-free. I am clear about who I am, which is a person that lost a family member to one of your spiritual brethren who was also exercising his freedom to use drugs. Jail time for the perpetrator did not bring my relative back. So I guess your solution didn't or doesn't really do the trick for me. But I'm truly sorry that you mistakenly think that I'm harming you with my beliefs. It was never my intent to commit such a heinous act on another human being such as your esteemed self.

That's rich. I'm a do-gooder that's totally responsible for the actions of others like Al Capone and Bin Laden. Your argument sounds like a liberal blaming someone else besides the criminal for their destructive acts. Typical Libertarian logic. But Libertarians, I now realize, are on a lifelong rebellion against Mommy and Daddy. Why? Because Libertarians don't want anybody that reminds them of Mommy and Daddy to tell then what to do and because Libertarians are BIG people now! Ritalin for everyone!

OK, so weed has some therapeutic value. Either make it a Schedule III drug for the drug companies to make or let RJ Reynolds and other tobacco companies recoup their losses from the dumb ass tobacco litigation and sell weed commercially. I'm guessing that your opposition to the WOD is limited to your personal (dare I say selfish) desire to enjoy weed. And I know that you wouldn't do anything dumb while stoned!

But would you also deny your brother heroin junkie or sister tweaker their desire to enjoy their "harmless" drug of choice. Of course, you'll always forgive them if they do something personally destructive to you or otherwise lets you down. Or will you become just another do-gooder when you get personally affected or hurt by someone that thinks they aren't hurting anyone else?

Often times terrorists and dope growers and dealers are the same, e.g. the Kosovo Liberation Army, the Ayatollah Khomeni, or the Taliban. I can imagine the legalized slogans for terrorist dope. "Toke one for the Taliban!" "Kosovo Krack for a Kick!" "Snort Teheran Toot!"

Because I had a family member killed by a driver under the influence of a controlled substance.

I agree with your point about alcoholics, so why add another player to the milieu of substance abuse problems? As for racial misogyny being responsible for the passage of drug laws, that's food for thought. In my home state of Texas, hemp used to grow freely and many took advantage of it until they sprayed the plants with a deadly weedkiller in the mid 1960s. I have no problem with social toking or drinking. I just don't want to have drunks and stoners driving 1500+ pound cars.