Replies

"No, I meant what I said, in reference to prohibition"

Oh, you're asking me if I thought Prohibition was unjust? Of course it wasn't unjust. The people actually voted for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to implement it. Please tell me why you think that action was unjust. Can you? Can you really?

No, you can't. Prohibition was a mistake -- an unpopular law that lasted a mere 13 years. The people recognized their mistake and corrected it. For you to look back on that decision and call it an overturning of an injustice is totally unfounded and just plain wrong.

"But to automatically equate the two is folly."

I did this?

"And I submit that controlling someone's lift to the extent that drug (and other) laws do is profoundly wrong and unjust."

Nobody is "controlling" anybody's life. Nice try. If you choose to use drugs, there's a penalty.

What's wrong and unjust is a minority of the people attempting to force the rest of us to protect their supposed "right" to immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destuctive behavior. How is that "just", forcing me and my family to live next to drug addicts and drug dealers?

" Please tell me why you think that action was unjust. Can you? Can you really?

No, you can't..."

Not s'fast, kid... It was unjust, because it, like (many) drug laws sought to control/limit behavior for the sake of controlling/limiting behavior. There's a difference between punishing behavior that results in harm (either to people or property) and restricting behavior for the sake of restricting behavior. The former is justice. The latter represents government intrusion into the life of the individual. And that is inherently unjust.

And by the way, if prohibition was "a mistake", as you so correctly pointed out, why, then, do you sanction penalizing pot smokers? Can you list any tangible differences between the two drugs, in terms of their effects and/or addictive qualities?

"'But to automatically equate the two is folly.'

I did this?"

Refer to your own post (#60). In response to my question about why you thought prohibition was just, you responded that alcohol was legal, implying that legal = just.

"'And I submit that controlling someone's lift to the extent that drug (and other) laws do is profoundly wrong and unjust.'

Nobody is "controlling" anybody's life. Nice try. If you choose to use drugs, there's a penalty."

Once again, by this reasoning, you blindly equate the law with justice. And once again, limiting behavior for the sake of limiting behavior isn't the proper function of government.

"What's wrong and unjust is a minority of the people attempting to force the rest of us to protect their supposed "right" to immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destuctive behavior."

Wait just a second here... You posit that limiting behavior is NOT tantamount to "controlling" someone's life, yet you believe that someone else's drug use is forcing you to protect their rights? And if drinking alcohol socially isn't "immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive", how does someone smoking pot with the same or similar frequency deserve those labels?

"How is that "just", forcing me and my family to live next to drug addicts and drug dealers?"

This is my fav... How the heck does legalizing pot "force" you to live next to junkies or drug dealers, any more than legalizing alcohol force you to live next to Ted Kennedy???? And I find it particularly interesting that you don't take behavior-modification laws as "controlling", but you think the lack of them is.

And by the way, it's very likely that legalizing pot would pretty much do away with pot dealers, and I doubt seriously that the number of users/abusers would increase significantly. I don't avoid pot because it's illegal. I avoid it because it has no place in my life, just as I limit my drinking to social occasions because drinking to excess holds no fascination for me.