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 ...
It is not an opinion it is my experience. Both personal and observed of dozens of friends and acquaintances.
How about we make a decision on whether alcohol should be legal using that as our baseline example?
You don't have any way to know that the marijuana use is what made the guy go off. You've decided that's what it had to be without considering any other possibility. He could have been drunk, or using prescription meds in combination with alcohol or he may have been borderline bipolar or psychotic and off his meds.
What would you say to someone who's family was injured or killed by a drunk drive who said they don't think they should have to take the risk of that happening just so people can enjoy drinking alcohol?
“You don’t have any way to know that the marijuana use is what made the guy go off. “
Yes, I do. I know what drugs do to people.
I further know that people who tend towards mental problems get a lot worse with drug abuse.
Would you hire a drug abuser to baby sit your child?
If not, why not?
As for the drunk driver, I have consistently argued against drunkenness. A person can have a certain amount of alcohol and not be impaired. So, to say I would advocate against all drinking to be consistent is incorrect. I advocate against drunkenness, and I always have.
“’d be as concerned about that as I would to learn that she was having bloody maries for breakfast every day, walking around with a glass of wine in her hand all day, and sitting in front of the tv drinking beer every night.
Yes, I would be concerned, too, because that would be alcohol ABUSE. And you are apparently willing to admit that alcohol ABUSE endangers those who are dependent on alcohol abusers.
But for some reason I guess you are giving the drug abusers the night off.
Ok. I am glad I am not your grandchild - I think you would be really letting me down if I was. But if you think a regular marijuana smoker is a perfectly good caretaker for a dependent child, I don’t know what else I can say.
When I see my friend’s children become more honorable upstanding hard working adults by the time they reached the age of 16 than 99% of the adults I have ever known I don’t know what else to say about it.
” SALINAS, Calif. (AP) — Jail officials in California say a father accused of trying to sell his baby for $25 outside a Walmart is recovering after other inmates beat him.
Thirty-eight-year-old Patrick Fousek and 20-year-old Samantha Tomasini, of Salinas, pleaded not guilty to child endangerment and drug charges Friday.”
Too bad the inmates didn't finish the job.
What does that irrelevant anecdote have to do with anything? That’s as meaningless as saying “I know what drugs do.”
It was one of the first stories under the thread we are writing on here on FR.
It was just one sample of the things drug addicts do to children in their custody every day.
I do not understand how this can be ok with you.
There is a REASON why drug addicts lose custody of their kids. There is a REASON why CPS removes them from their homes.
They abuse and neglect children far disproportionately to sober people. The courts don’t remove kids from abusing parents’s custody just for fun.
Saying that child abuse is ok with me is a pathetic and juvenile way to try to win a point. Leave the kind of lame character assassination attempt to liberal Sarah Palin haters.
Did you forget that I suggested that you should have shot the one that was in your house?
Okay. We can save a boatload of money replacing clinical trials with your opinion.
OK. We can let drug abusers and drug addicts raise children with your opinion.
No, I know you are ok with my shooting him while he is in the midst of attack.
Should I be concerned about the fact that you didn't shoot him?
And I'm pretty sure they would do it.
OK. My opinion is that if you're going to take on the responsibility of raising children that should includes being able to protect them, with deadly force if necessary.
“OK. My opinion is that if you’re going to take on the responsibility of raising children that should includes being able to protect them, with deadly force if necessary. “
I agree with you. We did not decide against gun ownership. It has simply not occurred to us before then. We were not raised in gun owning households.
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.