Replies

And on what basis do you found that belief that tens of millions of people who have no interest in doing drugs right now will suddenly decide that they do, and ruin their lives as a result?

"Suddenly"? No, I didn't say "suddenly".

I'm arguing that law has a restraining effect that goes beyond the fear of punishment, insofar as it reflects and reinforces public opinion. This is why I dislike federal laws even when they're constitutional. The "punishment effect" might be the same whether the law is local or federal, but the "non-punishment effect" is clearly greater when the law is made by a smaller group of people - because the smaller group is more obviously making the law to govern themselves, having decided for themselves that they themselves need it. - As opposed to some distant congress of rulers making decisions about "what's good for the masses."

It's my opinion - which I came to after reading the founders - that this is not only the most just way for free people to govern themselves, but also the best way for free people to retain their freedom. It's not perfect, and liberty may from time to time be a casualty. But mistakes can be corrected with this system, as the people learn from their mistakes.

And isn't this what made the United States such a unique nation? - Each state can test out its own ideas, and so learn from one another's experiments, adopting others' good ideas and avoiding their mistakes. (After all, haven't we discussed here the Netherlands, Mexico, etc. to see what works and what doesn't?) But I digress.

Look at divorce. We've seen the laws change radically in recent decades, and we've seen the incidence skyrocket behind it. Is one the horse and the other the cart? Do the laws affect public opinion, and thus encourage (or at least no longer discourage) divorce? Or was it public opinion that prompted a change in the laws?

The fact is that small groups agitated for a change in the laws (starting in California, big surprise), and that public opinion about marriage and divorce followed, to be followed in turn by an increase in divorce. (And no, that didn't happen "suddenly" either.)

People hardly want to smoke tobacco anymore...

That's a good point. That's not because tobacco is any less enjoyable or addictive, is it? Isn't it because public opinion has been changed? And what brought about that change?

Here in New Hampshire...

I didn't know that - and am surprised, since your state is often touted as "the free state". But of course it's up to you folks to create the community you want. I'm a Texan, so I have no say in what you do up there. If your policies work out well, I'll suggest we adopt them down here. That's one reason why I wish the Raich decision had gone the other way: We would all have been able to watch California to see whether legalized pot were a good or a bad idea, instead of trying to predict from imperfect data and theoretical conjecture.

All I'm doing here is trying to distill from imperfect data some principles we can use to make a wise decision.