Replies

That said, it puts me in the position of having to try to convince you (my neighbors, actually) that our community will be better off if we don't allow drugs here. (I'm also in the unenviable position of being a smoker, and having to convince my neighbors that banning tobacco is undesirable.)

It also puts you in the unenviable position of being a hypocrite. How can you convince us, your neighbors, that our community will be better off if we don't allow drugs you don't like and don't use, but do allow drugs you do like and do use?

United States Surgeon General Richard Carmona told a House subcommittee Wednesday he would support a ban on tobacco products. Carmona's comments marked the first time a surgeon general, the federal government's top public health advocate, had gone so far on the politically sensitive topic.
Asked if he would "support the abolition of all tobacco products," Carmona told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee investigating smokeless tobacco and other reduced risk tobacco products, "I would support banning or abolishing tobacco products." Carmona equivocated when asked if he would support a law to ban tobacco, saying "legislation is not my field," but then reiterated his support for criminalizing tobacco. "If Congress chose to go that way, that would be up to them," he said, "but I see no need for any tobacco products in society."

You see "no need" for pot or other illegal drugs, and General Carmona sees "no need" for tobacco.

Why is banning tobacco "undesirable," as you put it? How do you explain that? Do you use the same arguments we've been using with you here about other kinds of drugs?

You see "no need" for pot or other illegal drugs, and General Carmona sees "no need" for tobacco.

No sir, you misrepresent me there.

Where Carmona and I disagree is on the presumption of liberty. Just like with the presumption of innocence, the side of liberty wins by default unless the opposition can overcome it.

In the case of tobacco, it's up to my opponent to prove that my using it causes enough harm to society that my liberty interest is outweighed. I don't have to prove a "need" for tobacco. I don't have to prove a thing. He does.

It's the exact same with drugs. And what I've argued here is that allowing the use of drugs causes such harm to society that liberty interest is outweighed by society's interest. You don't have to prove a thing. I do.

This is exactly how the temperance movement handled the matter. They did it legitimately, following the Constitution. They made a mistake, clearly. And it's possible I'm making a mistake. (To my credit, though, I'm not advocating an amendment nor any other federal control.)

But where Carmona and I differ is that I proceed legitimately, giving liberty its due honor. You have to grant me that much, don't you?