Replies

You wrote, "During the simple course of living, you probably break six or seven laws per day you don't even know about. Ever go more than 65 MPH on the highway? Ever make a rolling stop at a stop sign? Ever cut that yellow light just a little close? Ever cross the street against traffic? Ever rip the tag off your mattress? The world still spins on its axis, and I certainly won't call out the Gestapo if my son breaks a rule some bureaucrat cooked up somewhere in order to keep his fat ass employed."

The speed limit, yellow light statements are examples of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. There is a huge qualitative distinction between going a few miles over the speed limit and--unless you grow it yourself or have a horticulturally inclined dealer--buying drugs from a guy who buys his drugs from a guy who kills people, because that's the kind of business it is. Apples and oranges.

No, being a former leftist did not leave behind some collectivist residue. And no, I don't believe the state owns my--or anyone else's--body. I do believe, though, that legalization of mind-altering drugs is a profoundly bad idea--even your drug of choice. People--children especially--are, by and large, binary thinkers. If we--as a society, as a culture, as a representative government--don't spread a message that says 'Say no to drugs', then we are sending the message that says drug use is perfectly okay, and that simply isn't true.

You were the one who suggested the comparison:

Do you tell your kids it's okay to cherry-pick the rules by which we play? To ignore those laws with which they don't agree?

And yet now you insist there are rules and then there are rules. Lies and little white lies, in other words? Thank you for saving me from having to demonstrate the absurdity of this argument any further.

No, being a former leftist did not leave behind some collectivist residue. And no, I don't believe the state owns my--or anyone else's--body.

You can think whatever you want, but you've demonstrated on this thread, quite definitively, that you do. I'm still waiting for your common-sense explanation as to why it's proper to criminalize substance X while demonstrably more harmful substances Y and Z remain perfectly legal.

I do believe, though, that legalization of mind-altering drugs is a profoundly bad idea--even your drug of choice. People--children especially--are, by and large, binary thinkers.

Meaning what: all law should be formulated as though the government were a parent?

If we--as a society, as a culture, as a representative government--don't spread a message that says 'Say no to drugs', then we are sending the message that says drug use is perfectly okay, and that simply isn't true.

What bravo sierra. Substances do not need to be criminalized in order to "send a message" that using them is bad. What's the buzz around fast food: Bad, don't eat it, you'll become obese. Cigarettes? You'll destroy your lungs . . . you'll get cancer. Drinking too much? You'll destroy your liver, you'll kill someone in a drunken driving accident. Yet possession of a Big Mac, a Marlboro, or a Budweiser is not a crime---the latter for adults over the age of 21.
Amazing. How did we ever get this far without a War on Fast Food or a War on Tobacco?