Posted on 06/24/2010 9:12:15 PM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
The central conceit of the Left is their regard for outcome above principle, results above rights. “Progressivism” repackages the age-old idea that society has a collective right superior to the individual’s. We saw this in the argument for universal health care, where the Left regarded the outcome of “universal coverage” above the principle of personal liberty.
Unfortunately, this conceit is not limited to the Left. Social conservatives are willing to borrow à la carte from statist arguments when the results suit their taste. No issue evokes this phenomenon more than drug control policy.
NewsRealBlog hosted much debate on the legalization of marijuana over the weekend. The discussion was prompted by Sarah Palin’s recent statement that private in-home consumption is a negligible concern. Calvin Freiburger objected to the characterization of prohibition as a liberty issue, citing among his supporters Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and John Locke. Though Calvin is clearly not a statist, his argument depends upon a fundamentally statist belief.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
LOL Apparently your pickled brain doesn't comprehend the meaning of the word "analogy."
If we are unwilling to exercise our right to keep and bear arms in defense of our homes and families, and instead demand the government provide use with a risk-free environment so we don't have to, then we will surely lose that right.
You just proved my point. Look carefully. Was I comparing RWR to booze or comparing your argument to another argument that contained the word Reagan? Think it through. I know you can do it.
I think you should go with the Reagan/booze comparison rather than the two-arguments comparison just to save yourself a little self-humiliation. Some people just can’t accept a favor. lol
I know that’s alot to grasp. Keep trying
Yes, in this long exchange you made one valid point about my mistaken comprehension of your lame analogy. You can pat yourself on the back and feel very proud about that as it increases the lucidity of your entire posting history by several percentiles.
I don’t think outlawing recreational drug abuse is equivalent to demanding that the government provide for a risk-free environment.
“why leave out the many other causes of psychosis?”
Mild alcohol use does not make psychosis. Alcohol abuse does. I have consistently advocated against getting drunk, and think it should be prosecutable just like any other high. Actually it pretty much is. Public drunkenness is a crime, operating machinery under the influence is a crime, being drunk while watching kids etc. is a crime.
We are talking about physical substances here, so I won’t get into Islam.
Prescription drug abuse and steroid abuse is already illegal, I think it should stay so, for the same reasons.
The reason I pointed out that it was just benign marijuana that was making my neighbor a paranoid nut case is, that most like to characterize as a harmless drug similar to a glass of wine. It most emphatically is not.
My neighbor jerk would not have attacked us like that if he’d had 3-4 glasses of wine a day.
“Did you unlock and open the door, and why did you not have access to a gun?”
Yes, my husband opened the door. The neighbor was pounding on it and screaming incoherently. We thought he was having some sort of emergency. We never dreamed he would attack us for any reason.
We did not have access to a gun because we did not own a gun. This was not for any anti-gun sentiment. It was similar to the first couple years of our married lives, when we did not have a smoke detector. It may be hard to believe, but it did not occur to us that we might need one.
We have plenty now. This particular incident caused us to arm up considerably.
Mild marijuana use does not make psychosis. Marinuana abuse doesn’t either.
Here is a hypothetical for you, not at all far-fetched. I am interested in how you would deal with the following:
Your son (I don’t even know if you have one, just play along) marries a cute girl and they have a baby. Your daughter-in-law stays home with baby while your son works full time. You begin to notice an odor when you visit, the occasional glassy eye, and since you were not born yesterday you quickly realize she is a regular marijuana smoker in the home.
You ask your son about it - yep, she uses her bong first thing in the morning, and occasionally during the day when she can. After dinner it’s smoke and watch movies time. She is just a regular heavy marijuana user.
Is that ok with you? Would you really not be concerned about your infant/toddler/little granddaughter growing up with that “supervision,” that influence, that example? You think nothing should be done with your daughter in law until and if something bad happens to your grandkid due to her neglect/paranoia?
Would you hire a baby sitter or nanny who used recreational drugs?
MJ leads to some weird b.s. sessions.
That sentiment is in contradiction with your previous explanation that you suspected the use of a gun to defend yourselves might have caused you more trouble than it was worth. You don't seem to have a consistent rationale about that.
“Mild marijuana use does not make psychosis. Marinuana abuse doesn’t either.”
It depends on what you mean by “mild.”
If you smoked it once at a party, once in Cancun, and once at your sister’s wedding - I don’t think you’re going to get paranoid. I think at the moment that you’re stoned you are badly affected, but I think the bad affects go away.
If you smoke it every weekend for a year - I think it will definitely affect your mind.
How badly probably depends on how strong it is, how much you smoke, and how vulnerable you are to psychosis in the first place.
So is marijuana and that didn't stop the attack.
My neighbor jerk would not have attacked us like that if he’d had 3-4 glasses of wine a day.
Neither reasonable would marijuana usage. I doubt that heavy usage would cause that behavior either.
Smoking it every day several times a day doesn’t cause paranoia either.
“That sentiment is in contradiction with your previous explanation that you suspected the use of a gun to defend yourselves might have caused you more trouble than it was worth. You don’t seem to have a consistent rationale about that.”
I don’t think it’s more trouble than it’s worth. I’d rather kill somebody than be killed by him.
He was unarmed. We opened the door. I am afraid it may have ended badly for us, if we shot him. I don’t think that would have been fair to us, but we could have been in trouble.
A friend of mine ran over an illegal (no joke) on a rainy freeway in Texas. Killed him, instantly. It was not his fault. He didn’t hit and run. He was never charged. He still can’t talk about it without being really upset. He killed a man. It is a terrible thing to deal with, even if you are “in the right.”
“Smoking it every day several times a day doesn’t cause paranoia either.”
You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t believe that.
Friends of mine have raised some of the finest, most honest, most hard working kids (now adults) while smoking daily. That’s not a hypothetical that’s a fact. If I had had children I don’t know why I would have done any differently. I certainly wouldn’t presume to tell my adult children how they should live. If I had any problem with them I would tell them how I felt about it and let them make their own choices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.