Replies

You seem to be ignoring the points I'm trying to make and bring the argument over to something it's not. And you continue the fallacy of assuming that a person who advocates against prohibition does so because they want to be able to consume the prohibited. If I wanted to smoke pot, I know I could, the laws and your opinion notwithstanding. I choose not to because of the ill effects we both agree exist associated with pot smoking (or smoking anything else, for that matter). I don’t even drink alcohol anymore.

The discussion here (and, dare I say, the point of F.R. in general) is to get concerned people talking about these issues. I said in my previous post, no one is arguing whether Congress can pass laws. We're talking about the legitimacy (and effectiveness) of this law. It's very easy when your opinion is in the majority to blithely say "Well, that's just the way it is, and you can try to change it if you want". The idea that the majority opinion is the right one simply because it is the majority is a fallacy as well. Plenty of things we consider wrong today were once approved by the majority. I’d give you an example, but what good would that do? It’s simple enough to (again, blithely) declare any valid comparison as invalid, because the very nature of analogy is to compare DISIMILAR things.

“One can argue in the abstract that smoking pot is a personal issue, but legal issues are not argued in the abstract.” Who’s being abstract? You’re trying to justify making something that a MAJORITY of Americans engage in (taking drugs – ANY drugs) selectively legal without being able to cite as proof ANY of these “public health concerns”. The argument that pot poses some large-scale societal problem above and beyond the personal health issue is simply not proven! Any ill effects you could cite (again, beyond the personal health effects which I’m not arguing against) are either due to the PROHIBITION ITSELF or the NON-POT-SPECIFIC EFFECTS of engaging in any kind of obsessive, family-detrimental behavior, like a gambler who loses his (and his family's) house. In other words, there are PLENTY of things a person can legally do that I could argue have an impact outside the individual. We don’t outlaw everything that’s bad for people, and the reasons we don’t are self-evident (to the objective person, anyway).

Here is the basis of your argument (finally, you’re addressing the point: SHOULD pot be illegal?):

"Pot should be illegal because the consensus of medical opinion is that it is harmful to human health."

Lots of legal things fall into that category, not the least of which are cigarettes and alcohol. What's so special about pot? You also said:

“To compare the legislation banning pot with the actions of the Soviet Union involves a stretch of the imagination so great as to stagger the mind. The Soviet Union acted to protect the interests of the ruling elite. And even a Communist government may take actions that are beneficial. The Chinese Communist government closed down opium dens; surely, you cannot condemn such a decision.”

So, my comparing the legislation banning pot to the Soviets involves some staggering stretch of the imagination, but one sentence after your melodramatic declaration, YOU MENTION THE COMMUNIST CHINESE BANNING OPIUM!!!! This is what makes this issue so frustrating for those of us who are thinking with clear heads. You can’t even see how ironic you become when trying to apply a double standard; trying to be liberal AND conservative.

Liberal? Yes, the prohibition position is the liberal one:

1) The GOVERNMENT should tell people how to behave in the privacy of their own home.

2) If something is dangerous, it needs to be outlawed.

3) The WELFARE of the COMMUNity is always more important than individual liberty.

4) The best way to handle this issue is at the FEDERAL, rather than the state or local level.

5) The citizens of the country should be MOLDED into better people (social engineering), and the instrument of that molding should be Nanny Government.

“It is foolish to argue the legality of Congress' legislation banning pot. To fixate on such a closed question is the act of a child.” – To continue manufacturing points that are not even being argued (by me anyway) is the act of a child who has no ground to stand on.

I congratulate you on your decision not to smoke pot.

On what basis would you challenge the "legitimacy" (as opposed to the wisdom or effectiveness)of the laws against pot? The statues were passed by a majority in both houses of Congress, were signed by the President, and upheld as valid by the Supreme Court. The majority of Congress may be wrong but it is elected. If we are going to start ignoring laws, we will become like say Colombia - country of great violence where the government has little power outside the large cities.
Like it or not Congress has a mandate from the people. What mandate do you have?

Of course, we now consider as wrong things that were once considered normal. Such is the nature of society. But we have processes to deal with change of this sort. Yet those who advocate legalization of pot have made little if any efforts to change the laws in Washington. They have changed the laws in several states, but given our history and federal system, it is the laws made by Congress that count.
All the referenda in California and elsewhere don't mean a thing.

You're equating the taking of drugs with the illicit use of pot. The two are not the same. One may "take drugs" legally. One may legally smoke tobacco. One may legally consume alcohol. One may gamble legally. But all these activities are regulated; one cannot do all these things everywhere and at all times.
However, except under very rigid controls one may not legally smoke pot.
There is a reason for this. Congress, acting in the name of the American people, has chosen to ban this activity.
If the prohibitions against pot were so oppressive to a majority of Americans - as were prohibitions forbidding the consumption of alcohol before repeal of the 18th Amendment -the political pressure to change the law would be strong enough to force a change. The pressure is not, so one can but conclude that the consensus is to keep the laws as they are.

I prefer to handle issues at the local/state level rather than the federal level. My reasons for this are personal. I spent most of my formative years in South Carolina, the origin of the Doctrine of Interposition and Nullification and the first state to secede from the union. States rights remains an article of public faith in the Palmetto State. Yet I cannot recall any serious politician of either political party in South Carolina ever questioning the right of the federal government to ban the consumption of pot or any other drug.

I may not have any grounds to stand on except the law, but that is enough. I suggest you view A Man For All Seasons. In one of the most moving passages of the film, Thomas More states that he obeys the law for his own protection; and that when you chop down all the laws, you won't be able to stand upright in the winds that will blow.