What are the Best reasons/arguments to keep marijuana illegal?

National Review ^ | July 29, 2008 | me_a_republic

[mysterio]

If health problems are not your basis for banning it, than what is?

[Mr. Silverback]

I couldn't give a flying flip what other people did. What if I judged you by some of the pot users I've known who were clueless morons?

Are you going to make excuses, or change your behavior? Both are your right, but I don't want to hear from you anymore if you're going to tell me why you get to assume I want to take people's guns away and have the government raise their kids for them.

[jmc813]

Both are your right, but I don't want to hear from you anymore if you're going to tell me why you get to assume I want to take people's guns away and have the government raise their kids for them.

Bro, I'm willing to take your word that you're not a gun-grabber. Calm down. I just pointed out that often the same authoritarian leanings which cause one to be anti-RKBA also manifest themselves in a pro-drug war manner.

[jmc813]

If health problems are not your basis for banning it, than what is?

[fr_freak]

Yes, yes, I'm sure you have just read my mind. Even though the thoughts I think about the nature and role of government have no resemblance to what you've written, I'm sure you know my mind better over an Internet connection than I do. And I'm sure, for instance, that the reason I'm on the Nanny State Ping List here at FR is so I can cheer on the Nanny State, even though I do the opposite. Truly, you have shown me my true self, O Great Prophet.

I can't read your mind. I can only go by what you have written here, and what you have written on this thread is essentially support for a nanny state. I honestly don't see how you can reconcile your alleged anti-nanny state beliefs with support for the War on Drugs. Isn't outlawing the ingestion of a substance in one's own home the ultimate in nanny-statism? How is that different from banning trans-fats or cigarettes? If, every time someone got high, somebody else, somewhere, dropped dead, I could understand outlawing drug use in the home, but the reality is that most people get high in their own homes, or drunk, and it affects nobody else but themselves. If they choose to run out in public and cause trouble afterwards, that is a different story, but we're talking about someone using or cultivating in their own home.

Most supporters of the War on Drugs cite various crime statistics, such as gangland murders, drug deals gone bad, etc. without realizing that outlawing drugs creates that crime, just as Prohibition created a windfall for the Mob, and thus increased gang crime. It has also encouraged Law Enforcement to escalate tactics to the point of becoming fully militarized, and tossing the Constitution (no-knock raids, pre-trial asset seizures, etc.). It has also turned otherwise good citizens into criminals. Why would good citizens violate drug laws? Because good citizens in the USA tend to think of themselves as free, and it is very difficult to see yourself as a free man when you let government tell you what you can eat, or smoke, or grow in your backyard. So, good citizens do that sort of thing anyway, in a sort of denial that our "free" society will attempt to jail them for it.

I would encourage everyone to stay drug and alcohol free for their entire lives, but I would never consider using the deadly power of the government to force that choice on people, because I do not believe it is the governments place to run people's lives for them. That is nanny-statism, a position which, despite your protestations, seems to be one that you embrace.

[Force of Truth]

The federal government needs to get bigger. Or maybe, government is not corrupt enough at this point.

[SmithL]

Newbie with a Vanity