Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Two more nuggets I think are needed to make this truly complete:
Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, on the usefulness of a crisis…
How do you feel about salesmen who want desperation injected into the situation before they start the sales pitch? Emmanuel makes reference to “things you couldn’t do before.” Why can’t you do those things pre-crisis? People would’ve been thinking too clearly?
I just can’t see any other way to read that. If there is another way, you’re welcome to put it in the comments.
And, a link to Keynesian economics, the notion that money can be spent more efficiently when it’s taxed by a government and put into one big pot, compared to what would’ve happened otherwise if people were allowed to keep it and spend as they see fit.
What our government just got done doing, is predicated on the notion that this works.
We didn’t really discuss that. Not to my knowledge. We just kinda skirted straight past that whole discourse and got the money spent, because hey, ya gotta do something, can’t let a crisis go to waste, government can’t stand by and twiddle its thumbs.
Well you know what? Out of all the times Keynesian theory has been implemented, it’s never been shown to work. Ever. Not once. I would argue such proof is impossible, because the benefits to a Keynesian plan would have to be measured against what would’ve happened were it not implemented.
It’s a pig-in-a-poke, folks. And watch what Stossel is saying about inflation; think it’s only the rich folks that’ll be picking up the tab for this? Nine dollars for a gallon of milk, six dollars for a loaf of plain white bread, twelve dollars a gallon for gas…they’ll getcha. You can run but you can’t hide.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I watched Stossel’s show last Fri. While he makes some good points, (privatizing government controlled infatructure), I think he’s way off on others. For one he trashed the fence on our southern border as if we shouldn’t have one. Yea, brilliant John, let’s let in everyone.
Also, he was Hannity’s show right before his aired. During the round table discussion segment Sean went to him for his input and he kept wimping out with some line -“Well I haven’t reported on that so I can’t comment”. The questions weren’t about the missile codes for our nuclear arsenal. I lost a lot of respect for the guy. Why the hell did he go on the show then, just to promote his show?
He also said that crackheads don’t bother anyone; they just sit home and get high. Again, just brilliant John; yea, crackheads don’t go around perpetrating crime to fuel their addiction. The dude needs to do some reporting on crime and drug addiction which would give him a dose of reality.
BTW, are you for legalizing drugs Morgan? I do recall a post a few months ago where you basically theorized that anyone who had ever smoked pot could never be trusted to make an intelligent decision again. Do I remember that correctly or not?
Not that those tow points necessarily collide, I mean you could be in favor of legalizing drugs and hold your theory. I just want to understand where you’re at.
- tim | 03/17/2009 @ 13:07I’m opposed to federal control in such matters. And it’s not just because the tenth amendment prohibits it (which I think it does), it’s because I see American history as a rich tapestry of disasters that begin with populist micromanagement of what goes on in other regions. To my way of thinking people should be stepping into the voting booth thinking more about what’s going on around the corner and less about what goes on three time zones away. You want to decide how things work in your state, or even better in your neighborhood, then I think you have much more authority to make rules, including cultural rules. Like gay marriage, drugs, et cetera.
Now having said that, I think the whole drug thing is overblown. A lot of folks have a great passion for legalizing pot, and some of the points they make are pretty good. But why so much priority for this? Is it really such a huge disaster if drugs are kept illegal? They talk about the wasted human potential involved in “otherwise law-abiding” people in prison…well yeah, the same is true of all crimes.
I see, and have commented on, a consistency in the way pot makes people think about things, and the way liberals think. I see it in the AIG bonus thing. Contract says X, law says X, guy who’s tasked with making the decision about X, says X…but I got it in my head the answer is Y, somehow, so if it goes any other way it’s the violation of a basic human right, man! (Insert shaken fist here.) It’s the way immature little children think — how do I stir up enough phony outrage to get things to work out the way I want them to?
What’s the caricature of a pothead? He doesn’t bathe too often, spends lots of time on a beat-up old mattress smoking his wares, eating Cheetos, griping about “the man”…a lazy revolutionary, seeing a violation of human rights everywhere he looks but he’s too lazy to stand on his own pudgy legs let alone hold a real revolution. Now look how the elections turned out. A revolution, utterly devoid of definition or meaning, by & for those who are too lazy to fight unless it’s all-but-assured that they’re going to win. So do we really need more people smoking pot? Seems to me the potheads are making enough decisions as it is. You engage them, tell them how & why their ideas might not be well-thought-out — in direct response to their own questions, in fact — and the point doesn’t quite sink in. Why? Because their attention span isn’t there. It’s been shot away.
None of this looks like something for which we have much need, or for which we are lately lacking.
- mkfreeberg | 03/17/2009 @ 13:32On the AIG thing, my girlfriend (a former liberal) and I were discussing Obama’s outrage over the executive bonuses.
I said to her, “Here’s an idea. How about we stop giving tax dollars to failing companies, and then whatever internal decisions they make are their own business?” It’s like with the banks and their bailouts. Ahh, the credit still isn’t flowing! The banks are using the bailout money to reward their execs and buy out other banks!
See, this is the problem with the federal government handing out money. There are always strings attached. (Bothers me the most when you’re talking about money given to state governments, whose taxpayers generated this cash in the first place.) Stop handing out money and forfeit the claim to get all high and mighty about how corporations spend it.
And on that note, aren’t liberals the ones who purport to dislike big business, preferring instead to help out “the little guy?” I don’t see a bunch of bailout money going to family-run burger joints and Mom-and-Pop grocery stores, do you?
On the pot thing, I’m with Morgan. You legalize something – you get more of it. Period. A lot of people look to the government to help them determine right and wrong…on top of the fact that making something legal makes it a lot easier to get ahold of. You’re going to tell me it’s not easier to buy beer today than it was during Prohibition?
- cylarz | 03/17/2009 @ 14:33Morgan,
I think your taking liberty that potheads are now making the decisions in D.C. Unless of course you classify anyone who has ever smoked a joint as a pothead, which I believe you and Savage agree on but not anyone else I’m aware of. And certainly no one I’ve ever come across, even folks who have never smoked.
Besides Pres. Obama I’m not sure you can cover everyone in his administration with your blanket statement.
Personally, I’ve known and now know people who smoke AND make decisions that are consistent with the philosophies you agree with.
As far as “Is it really such a huge disaster if drugs are kept illegal?”
Not unless you don’t care about the drug cartels taking over Mexico, the opium profits fueling the Taliban in Afghanistan, the violence plaguing our cities, the wasted millions or billions of money we’ve spent on the FAILED war on drugs…
If we keep doing things that are proven to be a failure, like the very things you, and I, rail against in regards to the liberals, than what is it we expect to gain?
~~~~~
cylarz,
“on top of the fact that making something legal makes it a lot easier to get ahold of”
There are restrictions on buying alcohol which certainly makes it difficult for minors to buy.
And drugs are illegal but readily available to anyone willing to buy.
My personal experiences as a youth backs up my statements. We had to work hard to get alcohol, yet buying drugs was as easy as going to school, literally. I don’t think that has changed.
Secondly, the theory that more people will do drugs if they are legal I don’t believe to be based on anything other than opinions.
- tim | 03/18/2009 @ 11:17With regards to the contention that Keynesian economics work, it is a perfect time to embrace Keynes, if you are in power. Keynes says consolidate power, by government spending writ large, and power-hungry folks embrace it (surprise, surprise).
What most folks would nod their head in agreement over is “What economic plan were we on?”, because people truly believe that we just witnessed the worst plan imaginable. They want to completely refute what we were doing because it was such a massive screw-up. The message that (in areas where socialism and political tinkering is where the problem came from) is not getting through, and there’s two reasons why: one, these mistakes came from folks we elected (or our parents did), and we have a hard time pointing the finger at ourselves, and two, if capitalism was so special you’d think the bankers, CEO’s and Wall Street types would have run away screaming from the cheap benefits derived from ignoring it, and yet they embraced it and dropped capitalism like a hot potato. It’s hard to defend capitalism when so many CEO’s think it sucks. There is a shame/blame element to our grasp of the US economy that will forever haunt the electorate (i.e. – we’re not smart enough, or rich enough to hold onto the theories of capitalism when we’re pressured).
The people saw a collapse and they think it couldn’t get any worse. They saw a collapse and saw somebody throw a sh**load of money at it. What they didn’t see is a politician play the fiddle while Rome burned, and they didn’t see a politician battle Congress to force the overhaul of thirty-year-old problems (real estate bubbles and low interest rates). They didn’t know any better way (or provable way) to fix the problem. So they can be fooled into thinking that BHO is doing the best he can.
- wch | 03/18/2009 @ 12:17Tim,
“Not unless you don’t care about the drug cartels taking over Mexico, the opium profits fueling the Taliban in Afghanistan, the violence plaguing our cities, the wasted millions or billions of money we’ve spent on the FAILED war on drugs…”
Is legalizing pot, in your opinion, going to fix these things? I might just be misunderstanding your point, but I doubt very much that if we legalize pot the Mexican colleges will suddenly be overflowing with former cartel members who no longer have any choice but to get a real job.
As far as Morgan’s point about potheads making the decisions in D.C.: I think he is saying that the folks in D.C. are making decisions the same way potheads would do it, not necessarily that they are actively stoned out there. Wait, just read it again,and it does sound like Morgan means actual potheads are making decisions, though he doesn’t say D.C. outright.
Morgan, what say you?
- Andy | 03/18/2009 @ 13:52Andy,
These problems are caused by America’s appetite for drugs. Though not wanting to go on and on about it, but part of legalizing drugs would be to take away the cultivating and distributions from the crime syndicates that control it now.
Think of Capone and the rest during prohibition when they flourished and prospered. Then realize what happened to them after prohibition, they no longer existed. Same, same with the drug cartels.
Look I’m not saying I have all the answers, it’s not a simple problem nor a simple solution. But is staying with the (failed) status quo good enough, (is it isn’t and that’s the fact and not just my opinion), does it satisfy you?
Could we at least have a trial run somewhere in the U.S. ?
I think everyone should realize that Man since the begging of time has felt the need to alter his sense of reality, to get high. Somehow because we’ve legalized a drug, alcohol, it’s perfectly acceptable in our society to get drunk. Or take a pill or…But watch out if someone gets high, then holly shit, their evil bastards. Sorry, I don’t feel that way, in that regard I’m not going to tell people what they can and cannot do, as long as it doesn’t interfere in society’s well being. Don’t start with the legal aspect, booze was illegal once too so…
Now if you want to sit around all day and be pothead, (which is not the overwhelming majority of pot smokers by the way), heroin addict, crackhead, meth user and contribute nothing to society then yes, I think we can agree on that being wrong.
But let’s stop pretending the war on drugs is working or that it is a worthwhile endeavor. How many more years, billions of dollars and lives of DEA agents, etc. or you willing to see wasted? For what? The problem has only gotten worse since Nixon started what was probably a good idea at the time. But now, can we start talking about a different direction or solution?
Only Liberals would keep doing the wrong thing over and over and over…and consider it the correct approach to continue doing The very last thing I want to be compared to is one of them.
We can always go back, like reverse prohibition, so to speak.
- tim | 03/18/2009 @ 14:27As far as Morgan’s point about potheads making the decisions in D.C.: I think he is saying that the folks in D.C. are making decisions the same way potheads would do it, not necessarily that they are actively stoned out there. Wait, just read it again,and it does sound like Morgan means actual potheads are making decisions, though he doesn’t say D.C. outright. Morgan, what say you?
Well, this does create a whole menagerie of temptations to wonder down this bunny trail or that one and get horribly off-point…but to just make a note of that and dismiss it wouldn’t be fair to your question, so I’ll give it a go.
We have to delve somewhat down into the guts of the human brain and how it makes decisions. It really functions very much like a computer running a well-designed object-oriented software application. It creates these classes of thought, and we don’t discuss too much what these classes are, but you have to reconize the differences between them in order for your mind to treat each idea with maximum effectiveness.
Here we veer off into what’s described in the House of Eratosthenes Glossary as the Pillars of Persuasion, the nine different identified classes of ideas. The first four are numbered according to the sequence in which they are grappled by a competent mind during a simple exercise. Let’s just run through those four…
There’s the fact. Things you know.
The opinion, or more precisely, the inference. What you figure out is going on, from the things you know.
There’s the thing you’re going to do, or not do, about what’s going on.
There’s the consequence of the thing you’re going to do. How this is supposed to help you achieve your goals.
What follows next comes from my personal experiences with people who’ve smoked pot, and someone else’s experience might be different…but mine has been pretty consistent.
They can manage these ideas just as capably as the next fellow. But they are inhibited from competently evolving an idea from one class to another. They tend to become bellicose about that Pillar III stuff, demanding things be done or not done, and then when you ask them the basic questions about what they want done…what’s the best that’ll happen if we do it, what’s the worst that’ll happen if we don’t…they can’t answer it reasonably. Or if they can provide an answer, they can’t make a compelling case about it.
Classic example: This popular sound bite that if we legalize drugs and tax them, we can pay off the public debt “overnight.” Of course it’s an exaggeration. But when the argument is advanced, it isn’t treated that way. It isn’t treated logically.
Now, look at the folks who are in charge now. What are they saying.
• We’ll pay for all these new programs by rolling back the Bush tax cuts but “ninety five percent” of all households will see their taxes go down;
• We’ll negotiate without preconditions with the “moderate” factions within the Taliban;
• The planet is dying, and you’d better do your part to save it by unplugging your cell phone when it’s done charging;
• We’re all out of money, therefore it is urgent that we spent lots and lots of it.
Okay a lot of this is just campaign rhetoric. But some of these policies represent real planning which, to all appearances, enjoys the genuine confidence of the high-ranking public officials who affix their good names to them. In other words, those officials aren’t merely laboring under the belief they can get these nonsensical policies sold, they’re laboring further under the delusion that they will actually work.
These ideas demonstrate a competence and enthusiasm for creating an idea, cherishing an idea, articulating an idea, believing an idea — but a weakness in the attempt to evolve an idea from one class to another, so that one common theme can take a variety of different forms, and still make sense.
And, in my experience, that’s what pot does to a person. It does nothing to diminish the brain’s power to use an idea or communicate an idea, but it acts powerfully in diminishing that brain’s ability to move an idea through the various stages involved in a competent, trustworthy and necessarily complex thinking process.
That’s exactly the weakness I see in positions of authority now. By “now,” I don’t mean since January 20 of this year, I’m talking about since 1992 or thereabouts. When the baby-boomers took charge of things. Clinton “it depends on the meaning of ‘is’,” and all that. To me, this is pot talking. I don’t have the knowledge to state for certain that the drug has decades-long residual effects, or if we have a lot of people in our positions of trust who “used to smoke it back in the day” but who are in fact indulging in it on a daily basis in the here-and-now. My own Pillar-II thinking compels me toward the latter of those two.
It is kind of funny that as far as those prestigious, Senate-confirmed positions, you’re hearing a lot about illegal alien nannies, tax problems, et al…and not a single word about urine tests. Ain’t it?
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2009 @ 15:01Come on down, Morgan, and let’s talk.
Push my hot-button yet again, Morgan. Your caricatures of pot-smokers, past and present, are just that: caricatures. I’m with tim… the war on (some) drugs is a gigantic waste of time, effort and money. But it DOES serve the self-righteous in their ignorance, making them oh-so-smug while feeling superior to the “other.” (sarcasm) Lord knows we NEED more of that. (/sarcasm)
While we’re on about it, why don’t we repeal the 21st amendment? Makes good sense, doesn’t it?
- bpenni | 03/18/2009 @ 19:36Ah, my friend! I was afraid you’d be late!
Please read the above, and reconcile with Mr. Jillette’s rant you’ve linked there. On stripping the federal government of its power to adjudicate, legislate and prosecute, you get no argument from me. My crusading, such as it is, is for the benefit of localities. To allow pot-smoking in broad daylight in the middle of the parks the kids play in, or to crack down on it, throw the offenders in the darkest dungeons, bamboo shoots under the fingernails, the works — to my way of thinking this is a cultural issue. Just like to allow prostitution or not, or to criminalize thong bathing suits or let the ladies roam around topless. These are cultural issues.
Once it is allowed onto the ballot as a local referendum, however, I am voting yea let’s keep it illegal. For the same reason I don’t want streetwalkers prancing around by my front door. If the rules are different somewhere else, because of popular demand over there, you’ll not hear one peep of protest out of me. To me this is what the libertarian spirit is all about. It’s not about allowing all things, or allowing things by default, for then libertarianism would be indistinguishable from anarchy. It’s about respecting the ownership of decisions even if you personally don’t like the decisions made.
Thing I Know #5. It takes a lot of maturity to keep your silence on an important decision, simply because you recognize it belongs to someone else.
But on the question of — does pot enhance one’s ability to think rationally, injure it, or render a neutral effect? As I said, it depends on my own personal experience (I was thinking of saying “YMMV” but you might’ve taken that as a personal slap, perhaps). My personal experience has spoken. It injures it; no question. I’m thinking if you met some of the kind folks I have in mind, you’d be inclined to agree, or at least to understand where I’m coming from.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2009 @ 21:05Ah, my friend! I was afraid you’d be late!
I’ve been a bit indisposed of late. And on drugs of the legal sort out of necessity.
But yeah… I DO take your POV personally. I’ll take the Fifth on citing specific instances and circumstances due to the fact I still fall under the kind auspices of the UCMJ… but your anecdotal observations about “some people” cuts NO ice with me, m’friend. I’ve known both losers and winners where this subject is concerned. Care to hazard a guess as to where I put myownself?
And the 21st amendment? Are we just ignoring that out of convenience? Or is it just too close to home? 😉
- bpenni | 03/18/2009 @ 21:44As the Brits say… Fookin ‘Ell! Moderation!
Why don’t you just shit-can this registration thing and be DONE with it?
- bpenni | 03/18/2009 @ 21:45I don’t see how we disagree here. Yes, the 21st amendment was right, and the 18th amendment was wrong. But if some township in Michigan wants to go dry, or if some county within Georgia wants to allow pot, all fine & good. Let North Dakota become an officially Presbyterian state, let the five boroughs of New York require men to cover their nipples, let Oklahoma switch to Spanish as the official lingo, let Florida outlaw porn. If your girlfriend likes it up the butt, and they don’t allow it in your state…move. The tyranny begins with the federal control over cultural matters.
You agree, right?
Consider the alternative. Penn and Buck find the war on drugs to be an awful thing, and because they argue the point eloquently, and have logic and reason on their side, they persuade enough people to agree with them — and so now you can’t outlaw pot anywhere. Even if everyone in your neighborhood wants it outlawed. They’re not allowed to. It’s like allowing slavery.
That would be trading one brand of tyranny for another.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2009 @ 23:11Even if everyone in your neighborhood wants it outlawed. They’re not allowed to. It’s like allowing slavery.
Well, you put it quite eloquently with your “move” argument, didn’t ya? NM still has Blue Laws (no liquor sales in certain municipal and county jurisdictions), in spite of the 21st amendment. I don’t agree with the laws, but I don’t see them as slavery, either. Besides that, I can still buy beer out at the base on Sunday (those damned Federales!!) … in spite of Portales’ Blue Laws. 😉 There’s always an out, of sorts.
I think CA tried to legalize marijuana, after a fashion, with the “medical marijuana” thing… which is essentially available to anyone with three interconnected synapses and the sense to go pay the going rate for a scrip. But the Feds continue to harass and prosecute, don’t they? Is that right? Yeah, the Supreme Court says it is… so it must be. Oops… sarcasm, yet again.
What I’m on about is the massive waste of resources and lives, Morgan. Not much else. We’re on the same page, kinda-sorta.
- bpenni | 03/19/2009 @ 02:07OK, not to pulverize the dead horse to a bloody pulp but…
So your answer to my original question, way up there, is yes you’re for legalization by states but believe smoking pot, even once, makes a person unable to make rational decisions for the rest of their lives. Did I get that right?
I would think that if you truly believe that than you would very much opposed to something that has such an affect on your fellow citizens. That’s the dilemma for me. If your right, than we should have the death penalty for pot. I’m serious, if it’s that dangerous, and what you described can’t be taken any other way, than the penalty for possessing such a dangerous drug should fit the crime.
BTW Morgan, how do you know the people who make decisions that you feel are intelligent, thought out and which you agree with have never, or are not now smoking the weed?
I don’t necessarily disagree with SOME of what your describing in relationship to some of the people you’ve meet. I think we’ve all meet the type. But I think it’s fair to say those people are the quintessential “potheads”, stoned all the time, everyday of the year.
But to place anyone who has ever used in the same category as them is the same as classifying anyone who has a couple beers on a Friday night with an alcoholic.
OK, I’ve said my peace (or is it piece?).
- tim | 03/19/2009 @ 09:25So your answer to my original question, way up there, is yes you’re for legalization by states but believe smoking pot, even once, makes a person unable to make rational decisions for the rest of their lives. Did I get that right?
No, I’m afraid not. On the longer-lasting effects of pot, I don’t know and I don’t have any way of finding out. I would imagine after a few weeks or months you’d piss out even the stickiest, pitchiest substances…I would guess. I just don’t know. This falls into the Clint Eastwood territory of A Man’s Gotta Know His Limitations.
Some folks, it’s true, make rational decisions and form opinions that are highly respectable. And they could very well be smoking pot, even if they insist that they aren’t. But the same is true of the people making the stupid decisions isn’t it?
And there is certainly something going on lately that makes a wide assortment of stupid, nonsensical decisions appealing to a majority among us. That can’t be denied. They’re appealing to an overwhelming majority…and they’re appealing to the point of developing some kind of cult following. Frankly, tim, I find it rather incredible that a clean-and-articulate Senator, however dazzling His teleprompter skills may be, however much of a novelty the color of His skin may be, can pull this off. I have all-but-dismissed the possibility that hallucinogenic drugs are not involved. And that goes for His compatriots at the capitol, as well as for his immediate subordinates in the executive mansion. I don’t see that crowd as people who think clearly. I don’t see drug-free people. Something is inhibiting them from carrying a thought from one realm to the next, the way intellectually honest people do, the way I see you do here and at Rick’s place. All I see them doing is insisting on things. Something seems to be clogging the synapses. If it isn’t pot, then what is it? Pure arrogance perhaps? I could buy that. I’m not insisting I have proof of what I’m saying is so; I’m just forming theories about what’s going on, and in response to my readers’ specific questions, saying what those theories are.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2009 @ 10:05Thanks for answering Morgan, appreciate it.
We have a difference of opinion, oh well.
I just think blaming the Obamagasmification and what is taking place in the WH on drugs is rather simplistic. But nonetheless…who knows maybe your right. It would explain His need to use a teleprompter ALL the friggin’ time, Biden’s foot & mouth disease and Geithner’s inability to …well…do anything.
Lastly, it is incredibly ironic that a Private in the Marine Corps is subjected to regular urine tests but not the very people who make this country’s most important decisions, including the significant choice of sending that Private off to war and potentially his death.
BTW, thanks for the compliment.
- tim | 03/19/2009 @ 18:34Sorry guys (Buck and Tim). I disagree with most of what you both have written.
Here are the facts. Alcohol can alter judgment, ruin health, ruin careers, ruin marriages, empty bank accounts, and in short, ruin lives at least part of the time. There’s no beneficial use of these substances whatsoever. None at all, unless you consider putting people in a festive mood to be a “beneficial use.”
Is this supposed to be an argument for legalizing another drug like them?
Tim (and Buck), I’m sure it was easy to get illegal drugs when you were in school. That’s not a compelling argument for extending that ease to all of your fellow students. Are you saying that your classmates being on crack during math class is somehow a good thing? The mere fact that it was possible to circumvent the law (specifically, the law making it harder to obtain a mind-altering, behavior-altering substance outside of medical supervision) isn’t an argument for doing away with the law to start with.
As it stands now, when people buy controlled substances, they’re severely punished if they are caught. When people buy, possess, and use certain substances, their judgment is impaired, meaning they have trouble making good decisions while, say, driving a car or doing any number of other things. In the case of some of the harder drugs, there is also the potential for violence directed toward innocent bystanders. Removing the legal penalties for possession and use won’t change any of this.
Ah, the futility of it, you say. No, sorry, that does not hold water. Unless you’re prepared to advance the argument that unrestricted use of pot (and by extension, harder drugs) is somehow beneficial to society, the user, or both…and a benefit that we’re currently missing out on because of the drug laws…you lose the debate. It’s not good enough to say, “People are able to buy drugs anyway; it’s time to throw up our hands and allow them to do so unmolested by the police.” This isn’t mere opinion as you claim, this is empirical observation and analysis.
And how do we know that legalization will stop with pot? If pot, then why not crystal meth, cocaine, and heroin? What’s the difference, really?
Oh, you ask…so what’s the difference between what we’ve got now and Prohibition? Good question. Actually, I kind of wonder if that experiment might have turned out a little better had there been actual enforcement of the laws, to say nothing of a real change in cultural attitudes. You’ll also recall that it isn’t true the Al Capone’s criminal enterprise dried up with the passage of the 21st Amendment. Capone’s business dried up when the feds locked him up at Alcatraz for tax evasion. Nice try.
I suggest you take a good hard look at some of the countries where this has been tried (Holland comes to mind) and ask yourself how well this experiment has worked out for them. You will find that Amsterdam has become a cesspool. Far from the crime-free utopia that the Dutch envisioned, you will find parks littered with needles and the cities littered with people unable to do much of anything except eat, shit, and sleep. Like newborns, actually.
And this gets me to my final point. The Libertarian philosophy for some time now, has told us that it’s nobody else’s business what people put in their own bodies, as long as they aren’t harming anyone else. Sorry, but this is bunk. You see, back on Earth, we live in a country that doesn’t allow people to take responsibility for their actions, thus only harming themselves when they make bad decisions. Instead, ever since the late 1960’s (decades after the repeal of Prohibition), people who use drugs and then become incapable of holding jobs, caring for their families, (and in some cases, caring for themselves)….wind up on the public dole. Which is supported with MY tax dollars. Which means they are hurting other people with their bad personal decisions to use drugs.
So no, this is yet another argument from the legalization crowd which, pardon the expression, goes up in smoke.
Try again, gentlemen.
PS: If this “people will do it anyway, illegally if they have to” argument works for pot and other drugs…why is it nobody sees fit to apply it to the possession and use of assault weapons? Hmm?
- cylarz | 03/20/2009 @ 00:49It’s also worth pointing out that the repeal of Prohibition didn’t mean that alcohol suddenly became unrestricted in its possession, sale, or use. It’s not “legal” by any stretch; it’s a controlled substance which is strictly regulated. Here are just some of the laws applying to it in California:
– You may not purchase it if you are under 21, or appear to be under 21 w/o proper ID.
– You may not purchase it if you appear to the seller to already be under its effects.
– You may not purchase it between the hours of 2AM and 6AM.
– If you want to sell it, you must apply for a liquor license and be certified by the state Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
– You may not operate a motor vehicle with more than a certain level of alcohol in your system.
– You may not consume it in public or be in public while under its effects.
– You may not transport an open container of it.
Other states have many of these same restrictions; in some states, like Utah, you can’t even buy the stuff on Sundays unless you’ve got “connections.” I believe Buck actually conceded this point.
Frankly, I’d like to see some hard proof for the contention that because something-or-other is suddenly legal, that the bottom is going to drop out of the market on all these criminal enterprises that are providing the stuff. Why wouldn’t they just go legit and continue to do business as they did before in the black market? Why would this suddenly mean that the price comes down, or that it is no longer necessary to fund addiction through criminal activity? Changing the rules doesn’t change the addictive nature of the substances themselves, especially the harder drugs.
I’ll never forget the inane conversations I had as a college student with a campus group called the Cannabis Coalition. They campaigned hard for anything coming down the pike which would make inroads against the illegality of pot. Even if they could make a compelling argument, I never understood what the distinction was supposed to be between pot and some other drug. And so while I’m on the topic, I’ve got a question for everyone who voted for California’s Proposition 15…and anyone else who thinks that cannabis has some wonderful medicinal benefit:
If smoking grass is really so great for glaucoma patients and others (and some alleged doctors seem to be willing to prescribe it), then why hasn’t some pharmaceutical company figured out a way to extract the THC (the active ingredient of our friend mary jane) and started selling it in a pill, capsule, liquid, inhalant, or injection form like any other prescription drug?
If this is impossible for some reason I’m not aware of..why are there still no commercial medical pot farms which operate “above the radar” in the United States? Are you going to sit there and tell me that nobody, nobody in the entire US of A has been able to put together a coherent, compelling argument as to why the DEA and its handlers should allow this? (If not, then maybe it’s because there isn’t a compelling argument to be made other than “why not?” A bit like gay marriage, actually.)
I’m not going to defend everything that law enforcement has done in the name of fighting the war on drugs. We can talk at length about how serious of an offense it should be, whether asset forfeiture laws are really necessary, etc etc etc.
But I’m supposed to believe that politicians really don’t care about all this wonderful tax money they’re supposedly missing out on by not allowing a regulated, commercially-grown source of cannabis for glaucoma patients? Come on. Don’t insult my intelligence.
I suspected that the whole initiative of getting pot legalized for medical purposes is, pardon the expression, just a smokescreen for full-blown, recreational legalization. I doubted very much that my good friends at the Cannabis Coalition back at the university, cared a whit about dying cancer patients or glaucoma sufferers. They just wanted to be able to buy pot on the street in broad daylight…and toke up without worrying about the cops.
And I’ve got one final question for Buck and Tim. I apologize in advance for this question, and maybe it is my Christian morality kicking in, but here it is. I’ve managed to get through life without using any drug outside of a doctor’s supervision. I’m 34 years old, and I’ve never even had a bottle of beer or glass of wine. I’ve never smoked a cigarette, or lit a joint, or popped a pill for fun. I’ve never snorted or shot up. If I can get through the day without having to alter my perceptions through self-medication…what the hell is wrong with all the people who can’t?
- cylarz | 03/20/2009 @ 01:31Cylarz,
You’re the poster child why we continue to wage a LOSING war on drugs. Your self righteousness is staggering and such a great example of the closed minded attitude that stalls any attempt to move forward.
Your last paragraph speaks volumes of your position and nothing else you wrote really needs to be said, though I will attempt to address them.
But first, let me say that I find it more than a little interesting that you offer NO, nada, zilch, not one solution to the LOST war on drugs. We should just continue doing what we’re doing even if it’s a failure? That’s great, just great. Your solution is that YOU don’t drink or take drugs (unless your doctor prescribed them, conveniently) so you can’t understand why anyone would want to drink or take drugs, even if thousands of years of history from all over the world contradicts you?
“Tim (and Buck), I’m sure it was easy to get illegal drugs when you were in school. That’s not a compelling argument for extending that ease to all of your fellow students.”
I didn’t say that Cylarz, go back and look, I was debating YOUR comment about “something legal makes it a lot easier to get ahold of”. IT ALREADY is easy to get in schools, or anywhere else for that matter, so legal or not it’s already available, which is and was my ORIGINAL point.
“Removing the legal penalties for possession and use won’t change any of this” –“their judgment is impaired, meaning they have trouble making good decisions”, ‘violence directed toward innocent bystanders.” No shit, really? Thanks I was so confused on that.
“Ah, the futility of it, you say. No, sorry, that does not hold water.”
The futility of it all is my argument that it is NOT working, something you don’t seem to either be aware of or are not willing to admit. This country is not serious about ending drug usage. Other countries have extremely strict laws for drug possession and have little to no drug usage. We just continue doing what we’re doing, a mere dog and pony show to make it look like we are serious about enforcing the drug laws.
Hence, the position we are in now, losing.
“And how do we know that legalization will stop with pot? If pot, then why not crystal meth, cocaine, and heroin?”
I specifically focused on pot since John Stossel in the video of this post and Morgan had previously posted about it. Again, see my original comment.
As I said, it’s a complicated issue therefore complicated answers are needed and I certainly don’t have them all nor am I going to attempt to bang my keyboard for hours to explain them. Hard drugs need to be restricted, that we can agree on, I think.
For some reason, whenever legalizing drugs comes up people naturally assume that drugs will be readily available to anyone with the cash, conveniently forgetting that legal drugs have restrictions. To keep it short, certainly we could restrict hard drugs in the same manner. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out how we could do this. Think of pharmacies, drug stores, liquor stores…we’ve managed to restrict prescription drugs and alcohol but we couldn’t figure out a way for drugs…that are now sold on everywhere?
“You’ll also recall that it isn’t true the Al Capone’s criminal enterprise dried up with the passage of the 21st Amendment. Capone’s business dried up when the feds locked him up at Alcatraz for tax evasion.”
Yea, you’re right if it wasn’t for the tax evasion conviction we’d still have people like Capone dominating the liquor trade. Where are they?
We have crime syndicates and gangs controlling the illegal drug trade BECAUSE they are illegal, period. Making drugs legal takes it out of their hands.
“I suggest you take a good hard look at some of the countries where this has been tried (Holland comes to mind) and ask yourself how well this experiment has worked out for them.”
So we can’t do it better than them? America certainly wasn’t built on that philosophy. Maybe we could use their example of NOT how to it.
BTW, Holland’s percentage of Heroin addicts has NOT increased in the last twenty years which I don’t believe is the case with ours.
“…ever since the late 1960’s (decades after the repeal of Prohibition), people who use drugs and then become incapable of holding jobs, caring for their families, (and in some cases, caring for themselves)….wind up on the public dole. Which is supported with MY tax dollars. Which means they are hurting other people with their bad personal decisions to use drugs.”
This only proves my position. We need to change what we’re doing. How is continuing the war on drugs going to change the fact the people you describe? I agree, this should not be happening but what you site is a very SMALL percentage of drug users. You’ve described drug addicts. Just look up how many tons of drugs come into this country and realize who’s using them. The drug addicts are not consuming all those drugs, that’s statistically impossible. Do you know who the average pot smoker is? A man, around 30 yrs. old and employed.
“If this “people will do it anyway, illegally if they have to” argument works for pot and other drugs…why is it nobody sees fit to apply it to the possession and use of assault weapons? Hmm?”
Not sure what your point is, assault weapons are legal. The 2nd amendment helps with this.
“It’s also worth pointing out that the repeal of Prohibition didn’t mean that alcohol suddenly became unrestricted in its possession, sale, or use. It’s not “legal” by any stretch; it’s a controlled substance which is strictly regulated.”
And it works for most part. Strictly regulate drugs, it’s simple. Who argued that drugs shouldn’t be restricted?
“Frankly, I’d like to see some hard proof for the contention that because something-or-other is suddenly legal, that the bottom is going to drop out of the market on all these criminal enterprises that are providing the stuff.”
Frankly, I’d like to see some hard proof for the contention that when alcohol was made legal again that
the bottom DIDN’T drop out of the market on all those criminal enterprises that were providing the stuff.
“Why wouldn’t they just go legit and continue to do business as they did before in the black market?”
Control, government control. Black markets exist for things that illegal.
“…then why hasn’t some pharmaceutical company figured out a way to extract the THC (the active ingredient of our friend mary jane) and started selling it in a pill, capsule, liquid, inhalant, or injection form like any other prescription drug?”
They have, but people claim that the pill form doesn’t have the same effect.
The Israeli’s have done some extensive research on the medicinal effects of cannabis, but people like you would rather not believe what they have to say. And certainly our government, and especially any legislator who wants to be reelected, won’t touch this hot potato and admit that they’ve been fighting a war for over thirty years against something that may actually have some benefits.
“Are you going to sit there and tell me that nobody, nobody in the entire US of A has been able to put together a coherent, compelling argument as to why the DEA and its handlers should allow this?”
They have, the evidence is out there. You not trying to tell me that the government is always right about things are you?
“I suspected that the whole initiative of getting pot legalized for medical purposes is, pardon the expression, just a smokescreen for full-blown recreational legalization”
We actually agree on this. They are hurting their own cause. But since you brought it up, why don’t we let the “dying cancer patients or glaucoma sufferers” speak for themselves. If they say it works and from what I’ve seen and read it works.
Look, sometimes hard decisions need to be made, the solutions are bad but the status quo is worse. Take for example, war. Sending young men to die for a cause is hard and the consequences suck. But leaving someone in power like Saddam or Hitler is even worse.
The same goes for the war on drugs. Are you telling me this is the best we can do? We should continue doing what we’re doing, even though it’s not working? That’s insanity.
We’ve ended wars, if that was wrong or whether we should have gotten into them in the first place is debatable, yes. But that’s my point, should we at least not have a debate about this? Wouldn’t ending the war on drugs, finding another solution be better?
But sorry, refusing to admit that people like to drink beer, smoke pot or snort cocaine is not much of debate.
- tim | 03/20/2009 @ 10:58Cylarz,
Broadly, I am with you here, and I do not want to see pot legalized either. However, tim is right in his assessment of your last paragraph, and I will go out on a limb here and suggest that you not try using that one in drug debates in the future. There is no case in which it will solidify your position, seriously.
“If I can get through the day without having to alter my perceptions through self-medication…what the hell is wrong with all the people who can’t? ”
The very simple answer is nothing is wrong with ALL the people who can’t (and to say “can’t” instead of “don’t” or “choose not to” is a bit myopic, to boot). There is plenty wrong with some of them, and in some cases it has to do with the drugs, some cases it has nothing to do with the drugs. Just like there is plenty wrong with plenty of the people who have never used drugs.
- Andy | 03/20/2009 @ 13:34You’re the poster child why we continue to wage a LOSING war on drugs. Your self righteousness is staggering and such a great example of the closed minded attitude that stalls any attempt to move forward.
Quit being a damn whiny liberal and argue like a man.
Your last paragraph speaks volumes of your position and nothing else you wrote really needs to be said, though I will attempt to address them.
Why? (And this question is also directed at Andy.) Aren’t my opponents the ones who spent the run-up to the Iraq war telling me that I shouldn’t come out for or against something unless I were willing to go and put my money where my mouth is? Same deal. Nice deflection attempt, by the way.
But first, let me say that I find it more than a little interesting that you offer NO, nada, zilch, not one solution to the LOST war on drugs. We should just continue doing what we’re doing even if it’s a failure?
Physician, heal thyself. Apparently your answer is to throw our hands up in the air and give up, like the Dutch have. Oh, wait, you say. We need to regulate them. Ok, great. So we can spend another 30 years arguing about how much? I have a better idea. Why not state the obvious – that most of this stuff is destructive and evil, and doesn’t offer any constructive benefit either to the user or to society.
Sorry, I don’t compromise with potheads. I have them thrown in jail.
That’s great, just great. Your solution is that YOU don’t drink or take drugs (unless your doctor prescribed them, conveniently) so you can’t understand why anyone would want to drink or take drugs, even if thousands of years of history from all over the world contradicts you?
…contrasted to the millions of people like me, alive today, right here in the USA. Your point?
I didn’t say that Cylarz, go back and look, I was debating YOUR comment about “something legal makes it a lot easier to get ahold of”. IT ALREADY is easy to get in schools, or anywhere else for that matter, so legal or not it’s already available, which is and was my ORIGINAL point.
Geesh Tim, are you listening to yourself? MY original point was – does legalizing something make it easier or harder to obtain? It’s easy to get drugs now? Wait until we’re at the point where the police aren’t able to do anything about it. Why would it be any harder to bypass all those “strict regulations” that you propose…than it is to get around an outright ban? Riddle me that.
“Removing the legal penalties for possession and use won’t change any of this” –“their judgment is impaired, meaning they have trouble making good decisions”, ‘violence directed toward innocent bystanders.” No shit, really? Thanks I was so confused on that.
Hey man, you’re the one who thinks we need to allow “strictly regulated” pot, PCP, LSD, heroin, and who knows what else, for recreational purposes. You think that legalizing that stuff is going to change these crackheads snapping like a twig when the high wears off?
The futility of it all is my argument that it is NOT working, something you don’t seem to either be aware of or are not willing to admit. This country is not serious about ending drug usage.
And yet you propose opening the floodgates a crack, instead of welding them shut.
By your reasoning, we’re “not serious” about getting rid of forest fires, either. I can hear you now: ‘Despite massive resources thrown at firefighting efforts, the loss of thousands of brave firefighters over the years, and a 40-year Smokey-the-Bear campaign aimed at fire prevention, we still have these massive conflagations breaking out on forest land every year, destroying millions of dollars of timber and private property. It’s time to legalize forest fires.
Tell me Tim…if you think we have fires now, what do you think it will be like when our government stops trying to put them out?
Other countries have extremely strict laws for drug possession and have little to no drug usage. We just continue doing what we’re doing, a mere dog and pony show to make it look like we are serious about enforcing the drug laws.
Hence, the position we are in now, losing.
Fine. 50 years in the slammer for a bag of pot in someone’s coat pocket. Next.
I specifically focused on pot since John Stossel in the video of this post and Morgan had previously posted about it. Again, see my original comment.
Are you incapable of answering a simple question? If pot today, why not coke and PCP tomorrow? What’s the difference?
As I said, it’s a complicated issue therefore complicated answers are needed and I certainly don’t have them all nor am I going to attempt to bang my keyboard for hours to explain them.
Then maybe it’s time to admit defeat and move on to the next thread.
Hard drugs need to be restricted, that we can agree on, I think.
In other news, the sun sets in the west, water is wet, and the Pope is indeed Catholic.
For some reason, whenever legalizing drugs comes up people naturally assume that drugs will be readily available to anyone with the cash, conveniently forgetting that legal drugs have restrictions.
Excuse me, but haven’t you spent 2 long-winded posts telling me that’s the status quo, even with an outright ban already in place?
To keep it short, certainly we could restrict hard drugs in the same manner. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out how we could do this.
No, just plenty of imagination trying to picture what color the sky must be on your planet. Meanwhile, back on this one, we’ve got legions of people who go out and wreck their lives with the drugs that are already legal, and Big Government comes galloping along to feed and clothe them after they become incapable of providing for themselves. Your solution to this train wreck is to expand the smorgasbord of available poisons.
Think of pharmacies, drug stores, liquor stores…we’ve managed to restrict prescription drugs and alcohol but we couldn’t figure out a way for drugs…that are now sold on everywhere?
Ok Tim, I’m getting dizzy. Explain to me, slowly, why illegal drugs are easy to obtain NOW, but difficult to obtain outside of legit channels, when they can be bought on a store shelf? And while you’re at it, explain to me how we’re going to get LESS overall drug use in Tim-Land, a magical place where your meth and cannibis are available in a pharmacologically pure, “safe” form with a familiar brand name on the package.
Yea, you’re right if it wasn’t for the tax evasion conviction we’d still have people like Capone dominating the liquor trade. Where are they?
My point (which you seem to have missed) was that Prohibition had nothing to do with Capone’s fall from power. It was a criminal conviction that brought about.
We have crime syndicates and gangs controlling the illegal drug trade BECAUSE they are illegal, period. Making drugs legal takes it out of their hands.
Oh, I see. So the cartels will say, “Oh, RATS! It appears that coke is now available from Wal-Mart. I guess we’re out of business, boys.” Nothing to stop the cartels from selling it cheaper, in higher quantities, or to whomever isn’t supposed to buy it under your proposed regulations. Right? RIGHT?
So we can’t do it better than them? America certainly wasn’t built on that philosophy. Maybe we could use their example of NOT how to it.
Hey, I’m all for that. This country ought to be able to do ANYTHING better than the freaky Dutch. What I’m trying to explain is that it didn’t quite pan out for them the way they thought….and it won’t for us, either. You’re like the guy who says that the reason Communism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried, is because the wrong people have been in charge. In Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Angola, Cuba….
BTW, Holland’s percentage of Heroin addicts has NOT increased in the last twenty years which I don’t believe is the case with ours.
You sure? In any case, I thought legalizing something was supposed to RID us of addiction, not maintain the status quo. Which is it?
This only proves my position. We need to change what we’re doing. How is continuing the war on drugs going to change the fact the people you describe?
No, it proves mine. When I mentioned that addicts f**k up their lives and have to go on welfare which is funded by my tax dollars, I was too kind. I should also have pointed out the irreparable damage that addiction does to their families, employers, and every other relationship these people try to maintain. What I’ve done is annihilate the lamebrain idea that addicts only harm themselves. That’s a lie put forth by the Libertarians and I’m sick of it.
Not sure what your point is, assault weapons are legal. The 2nd amendment helps with this.
Not in my state they aren’t…yet somehow the Crips and the Bloods seem to have no trouble getting ahold of them. I was merely asking, “If your argument works for drug legalization, it ought to work for gun laws, too.” You think it’s that much harder to get ahold of an AK-47 than it is a joint?
And it works for most part. Strictly regulate drugs, it’s simple. Who argued that drugs shouldn’t be restricted?
Actually, I’d be fine with going back to Prohibition, personally. Hey, maybe we can “do it better” this time! Better than Holland, even! I suspect the only reason it was repealed in the first place is because a few million people had just lost their jobs, homes and entire net worth following the stock market crash, and wanted to go get smashed without winding up in jail, too.
Frankly, I’d like to see some hard proof for the contention that when alcohol was made legal again that
the bottom DIDN’T drop out of the market on all those criminal enterprises that were providing the stuff.
As I tell people arguing in favor of gay marriage, “YOU are the reformer. I’m defending the status quo. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why a change is needed. I don’t owe you any explanation as to why we need to stick with the current model.”
Control, government control. Black markets exist for things that illegal.
…like drugs that would still be sold outside of the regulated channels.
They have, but people claim that the pill form doesn’t have the same effect.
Or maybe the whole “medical benefit” is a crock of s**t, and they can’t get high unless the stuff is rolled up, lit on fire and inhaled. Which was the entire point to begin with.
The Israeli’s have done some extensive research on the medicinal effects of cannabis, but people like you would rather not believe what they have to say.
Contrasted with open-minded folks like YOU, who are apparently unwilling to face the possibility that it’s worthless as anything other than a good buzz to take your mind off the pain. Tell me Tim, is pot legal for any reason in Israel? Tell me…I really want to know.
And certainly our government, and especially any legislator who wants to be reelected, won’t touch this hot potato and admit that they’ve been fighting a war for over thirty years against something that may actually have some benefits.
BULLS**T! You’re talking here about politicians who’ve got no problem with mortgaging our great-grandchildren’s future, taking away all the guns, nationalizing the banks, nationalizing the healthcare system, and all of JugEars’ other little fantasies. Puhleaze.
Besides, several states (including Colorado and my own state of California, plus others) have already started moving in that direction. It’s the federal government that won’t play ball. Clinton’s DOJ pointedly informed us back in the 90s that anyone attempting to comply with the medical pot laws would be imprisoned as a trafficker.
They have, the evidence is out there. You not trying to tell me that the government is always right about things are you?
Hell no, but I’m also willing to entertain the possibility that the DEA (and the people it works for) knows something about the drug trade that I don’t…and yet they still agree with me.
Look, sometimes hard decisions need to be made, the solutions are bad but the status quo is worse. Take for example, war. Sending young men to die for a cause is hard and the consequences suck. But leaving someone in power like Saddam or Hitler is even worse.
That sounds to me like an argument for lowering the boom on addicts and buyers, not letting them off the hook. You said other countries have strict drug laws like ours, yet have lower rates of use. And I’m asking you a serious question – why is that? Is it because their law enforcement takes the problem more seriously?
The same goes for the war on drugs. Are you telling me this is the best we can do? We should continue doing what we’re doing, even though it’s not working? That’s insanity.
Course not. There always remains the option of fighting the War on Drugs even harder. We could make possession of alcohol a capital offense if you like. Summary execution for a bottle of beer in your hand. Oh wait, that’s the kind of thing the Taliban do. (Sorry, bad example. I know those guys traffic opium.)
We’ve ended wars, if that was wrong or whether we should have gotten into them in the first place is debatable, yes. But that’s my point, should we at least not have a debate about this? Wouldn’t ending the war on drugs, finding another solution be better?
Sure. I rather like Morgan’s option of allowing the states to decide the matter individually instead of a one-sized-fits-all solution from Big Brother. I am just saying that it’s not gonna work well in the states that do decide to experiment with it. Meanwhile, I’d prefer to live in one of the ones that decides against decriminalization.
But sorry, refusing to admit that people like to drink beer, smoke pot or snort cocaine is not much of debate.
Them “liking it” was never the point. The point was why the hell they need to, when I know of at least one person who finds it unnecessary (me).
- cylarz | 03/20/2009 @ 22:56Andy,
Broadly, I am with you here, and I do not want to see pot legalized either.
Thanks Andy…so why didn’t you stop there?
However, tim is right in his assessment of your last paragraph, and I will go out on a limb here and suggest that you not try using that one in drug debates in the future. There is no case in which it will solidify your position, seriously.
Tim isn’t right about diddly or squat. Are addicts any different from me biologically? Do they need cannabis or liquor the way my body needs water or oxygen? My entire point (which, gah, you BOTH missed) is that if I can do without it, why can’t they?
I’m sorry if that makes you or someone you know feel “judged” or if you think my pointing out something so simple makes me appear “self-righteous.” Actually, no, I’m not sorry. I couldn’t care less how I come across; unless you’re a liberal, focus on the facts.
If the likes of Tim’s argument is the best that the pro-legalization crowd has to offer, then I don’t see a lot of incentive to change my tone. He spent an entire post accusing me of being closed-minded, intolerant….and now your word “myopic.” I’m supposed to apologize to such people for living a sober life?
The very simple answer is nothing is wrong with ALL the people who can’t (and to say “can’t” instead of “don’t” or “choose not to” is a bit myopic, to boot).
…except for a compulsive behavioral problem and/or chemical dependency that they are unwilling to deal with.
Oh trust me, I know there is such a thing as a “functional alcoholic.” I’m also sure, as Tim excoriated me to see, that there’s such a thing as “functional pot smoker.” Funny thing is that these people’s family and friends, still always seem to want them to put the bottle down and snuff out the joint.
I’m involved in a ministry that deals with chemical abuse and compulsive behavior issues. You guys act like I’ve never seen, heard from, or dealt with an addict in my life. Again and again, these people tell me that chemicals do nothing but cause problems in their lives.
The fact remains that these substances….from liquor to pot to crack…at best, represent something that has to be monitored closely and used carefully, usually while it’s slowly doing damage to the body of one kind or another. At worst, it enslaves you from the very first hit and you think of nothing else, usually right up to the day you’re arrested for possession or while in the act of some drug-related criminal act.
There is plenty wrong with some of them, and in some cases it has to do with the drugs, some cases it has nothing to do with the drugs.
Then maybe it’s time for them to get some competent psychiatric help in dealing with their inner demons, eh? At least have the decency to use drugs under medical supervision, instead of trying to self-medicate. Trust me, that bag of weed isn’t going to make you permanently forget what happened to you in the jungles of Vietnam or at the hands of your stepfather when you were four. You just THINK it will.
Just like there is plenty wrong with plenty of the people who have never used drugs.
Right. I guess it makes them self-righteous, arrogant, condescending, and incapable of using their own lives as a testimony why mind-altering, perception-altering substances are unnecessary to the living of a full life. Isn’t that what you and Tim have just told me?
- cylarz | 03/20/2009 @ 23:19You know, Tim, I think what bothers me the most about your posts is this.
You might recall a guy who ran for President last year. His name was Barack Obama.
Anyway, Candidate Obama ran his entire campaign on a theme of “change.” You might recall his podium, whose banner proudly proclaimed, “Change We Can Believe In.” He offered few specifics as to what changes he had in mind, to what degree anything would be changed, or how these degreed changes would represent an improvement over the policies of the Bush Administration.
On the rare occasion that he did offer specifics, conservatives scrutinized the numbers and noted that the math didn’t add up. They also looked at world history and quickly concluded that “change” of this sort would likely make the economy worse, not better.
All the American people knew (over 50 million of them, in fact) is that the economy was in the toilet and there was positively no way things could get any worse under this guy than they were under Bush.
Weeeeeellllll……we know how that turned out. The Dow tanked, the housing markets continued to slide, the credit still isn’t flowing, and we’ve got a Cabinet full of moronic buffoons who think the answer to a financial crises is to rob Peter to subsidize Paul.
Sir…you spent two long posts raking me over the coals, calling me every name in the book (interestingly, using the very terms that liberals generally throw at conservatives when the former are dead-wrong), arguing that any change at all in the way this nation prosecutes the War on Drugs would be a step in the right direction.
What you and the Obamatons seem to forget is that there’s also such a thing as negative change. That while the issue of drug addiction and the issue of the economy could go from bad to to better, it could also go from bad to worse. Much worse. From a comparatively small criminal problem to a gigantic social one. There are a lot of people who shrug and figure that if Uncle Sam says it’s OK, that it must be OK. People like me who answer to a Higher Power and take their guidance thereof, seem to be in a shrinking minority these days.
Your entire thesis is predicated on the idea that what we’re doing now is “not working” (debatable at best) and that any veering from the status quo must by definition be a good thing (unproven). Funny, but why does this sound so familiar? Maybe because it’s the same horse-s**t I heard from Candidate Obama and his media worshipers last fall.
You haven’t even attempted to show me that drug use in the US has gotten worse of late, especially as a direct result of anything the government has tried to do about it. And your few specific regulatory proposals are long on unsupported conjecture…and short on evidence that they’d do anything besides make the problem of drug addiction worse.
In short, you’ve attempted to prove (and failed), that the price is going to fall enough to take all the incentive out of illegal production, trafficking, and use. You think there’s nobody in Alabama today who runs a still and makes a good living bootlegging the ol’ moonshine? Especially to people who can’t buy the regular stuff for whatever reason?
I think what I find the most amusing about the sum of your argument is your insistence that the nation is apparently awash in illegal drugs, despite prohibition of them and the best efforts of local, state, and federal law enforcement. That taxation and regulation is going to magically channel all this black-market activity (especially inside the murderous cartels south of the border) into something above-board. Without considering that the highly addictive natures of most illegal drugs puts them in a category by themselves. Far, far away from cold medicine or anything else that’s sold in drugstores.
If you have the police take a step backward, the drug runners will take a step forward. That’s all. They’re not going to lay down their arms or go broke.
Change we can believe in, my friend. Any change at all is a good thing, right? Think about it.
- cylarz | 03/21/2009 @ 00:15I just read all the latest in this thread. Well done, Tim. More “blah blah blah” fundamentalist/intolerant blathering, cylarz. The bottom line here is neither side is convinced by the other’s arguments and I didn’t expect any such accommodation… but I DO know who is more correct from both the moral and pragmatic points-of-view.
Full disclosure: I didn’t drop out of this conversation because I had nothing to add or because I lost heart. I’m simply recovering from a rather discomforting medical procedure and haven’t been out much of late.
Apropos of nothing, cylarz, I’m 64 years of age. As such, my age predates the ascendancy of the drug culture, and that would be in reply to your “get drugs in school” comment. I’ve watched this whole bullshit mess evolve in real-time and have a significantly larger breadth of experience in this space than you, my fine tee-totaling friend. I’ll leave you with a quote from my father who told me to “never trust a man who doesn’t drink.” There’s significant truth in that observation… even though I suspect the Ol’ Man was bastardizing something Churchill said.
- bpenni | 03/21/2009 @ 17:58I just read all the latest in this thread. Well done, Tim. More “blah blah blah” fundamentalist/intolerant blathering, cylarz.
Cute. I supported my points with logic and reasoning, Tim supported his with hypotheticals and name-calling. Yet I’m the one who’s guilty of “intolerant blathering.” Buck, aren’t you the one who suggested a little while ago that the way for the Republicans to get back into power, is run another McCain-styled moderate who bases his campaign on Democrat-lite ideas?
So I guess I’m inclined to take you with a grain of salt, so to speak. Moving on…
The bottom line here is neither side is convinced by the other’s arguments and I didn’t expect any such accommodation…
The guy spent two post talking out of both sides of his mouth and calling me a bunch of ugly names, accused me of standing in the way of “progress,” and yet I was supposed to find his argument “convincing.” For the record, my responses were intended to convince third-parties who might be reading the exchange, not Tim himself.
but I DO know who is more correct from both the moral and pragmatic points-of-view.
…and it ain’t Tim. Or you.
Full disclosure: I didn’t drop out of this conversation because I had nothing to add or because I lost heart. I’m simply recovering from a rather discomforting medical procedure and haven’t been out much of late.
Yes, thanks for mentioning that. I definitely missed your off-base comments and refusal to accept reality staring you in the face. Such as was the case with the exchange we had over moderation vs real conservatism.
Apropos of nothing, cylarz, I’m 64 years of age. As such, my age predates the ascendancy of the drug culture, and that would be in reply to your “get drugs in school” comment.
I can read, Buck. I also know how to use Google. One needn’t have to live through Soviet Communism to know that it was a disaster, or through the Reagan years to know that tax cuts work.
I’ve watched this whole bullshit mess evolve in real-time and have a significantly larger breadth of experience in this space than you, my fine tee-totaling friend. I’ll leave you with a quote from my father who told me to “never trust a man who doesn’t drink.”
Uh huh. There’s a saying, “There’s no fool like an old fool.” Your having been around a few years longer and living through the 60’s “drug culture” doesn’t automatically grant you greater credibility on this or any other issue. Anybody who knows how to use a mouse can get the truth about what’s going on out there.
Leaving that aside, I might mention that my father is the exact same age as you, and he doesn’t agree with you. By the way, he was in Vietnam serving our country around the same time you apparently were at Woodstock, coming up with these profound observations about 40 years’ of drug policy. I would take the word of a Vietnam vet over yours any day of the week, and not just because he’s my dad.
There’s significant truth in that observation… even though I suspect the Ol’ Man was bastardizing something Churchill said.
– bpenni | March 21, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Yes, I’m sure alcohol and cigars were the reason for the man’s ingenious leadership during World War II. Meanwhile, drunks and druggies littered the streets of the town where I went to college.
With all due respect, Buck, go pound sand. It seems like you and I don’t agree on much of anything, and I find your comments more annoying than insightful.
- cylarz | 03/25/2009 @ 00:53Hey Cy,
We don’t chisel away at these things with threats of censorship here, because it’s a treacherously short path between that and molding & shaping things into a decorum fit for an echo chamber…this ain’t no echo chamber. So as far as I’m concerned you guys can get off topic as much as you please and even start calling each other dirty names and resolve not to be BFFs anymore.
But I really think you need to go cool it and put some thought into what’s being said. Buck’s served, and his family has triple-served, with two sons of his still in active service. He’s a complicated gentleman, emphasis on the “gentleman” part. Your comment is out of line, partly because it disrespects those who’ve served the country, which I’m sure wasn’t your intention, and partly because it has lost fidelity to the truth in this regard.
I consider it a pivotal and unanswered question, whether or not the conservative movement has traitors, intentional or otherwise, in its midst. So if you guys are going to start tearing each other’s throats out, be my guest, so long as you’ve logically arrived at the conclusion you’ve got nothing in common with each other and that’s what you need to start doing. But if you’re going to get all snippy with each other when there’s a lingering possibility that you agree on more things than you disagree, aside from the regrettable loss of enlightening company for you, you’re engaging in a false depiction of where exactly the real point of contention is.
- mkfreeberg | 03/25/2009 @ 09:26Thanks, Morgan.
And cylarz… you’ve confirmed my suspicions, in part, about yourself… those being you’re almost completely devoid of any sort of intellectual curiosity. There’s a link associated with my account here at HoE, and someone who is as qualified with a mouse as you proclaim yourself to be just MIGHT want to click on it… if only for the knowledge that might be in it. You wouldn’t even have to read a single post of mine… a casual glance at my sidebar would reveal I’m the son of a retired USAF Lieutenant Colonel (deceased) and a retired USAF Master Sergeant in my own right… with 22 years of service… and (as Morgan notes) with two career officers… one USAF, one Navy… as sons. You can apologize at any point in time for your asinine Woodstock remark.
As to your father being a vet… I salute him. I also notice you make no such claim yourself, but I’m not at ALL surprised. That fact seems in character for those such as yourself, but I most certainly could be wrong. I’ll not jump to conclusions… but I have my suspicions, yet again, where you’re concerned. You’ve never let me down in this space before and I suspect you won’t on this small point.
“Pound sand,” indeed. I don’t like you at all, cylarz. You’re NOT my sort of “people.”
- bpenni | 03/25/2009 @ 17:10