Your analogy of the man whose fortune is wasted at the slot machine having no right to talk about the evils of gambling fails. Just because a man can not control the demons that are destroying him, does not mean he can not accurately see that destruction and realize the root cause of it.
You have unreasonably latched on to a minor clause in his statement and tried to use it to discredit the major thesis. Perhaps RLK comes from an environment where illicit drug use has had serious and devastating consequences to the surrounding community. Crack houses in the hood, are nothing like suburbanites having a joint on the patio. I am surprised at your approach on this thread, having read your comments in other places.
Dude, my whole argument addressed ONLY that one paragraph.
Put down the scotch. Now. While you can still get up when you've fallen.
Your analogy of the man whose fortune is wasted at the slot machine having no right to talk about the evils of gambling fails. Just because a man can not control the demons that are destroying him, does not mean he can not accurately see that destruction and realize the root cause of it.
No, there is not an addict or alcoholic alive who, while in the throws of their addiction, can see accurately the destruction and realize the root cause. That's why they call it bottoming out, and while it takes a long time to identify the real root cause for the alcoholism/addiction.
There is use and there is abuse. And there are the significant and devastating consequences to society from the CRIMINALIZATION of substances.
Thousands upon thousands of people are killed annually, dozens from your own community, by alcohol and by drunk drivers. There is far less outrage over that than the neighborhood crack house bringing down property values, and making mugging/robbery targets of all the residents.
Face it, if no substance was criminalized, then we could designate appropriate parts of town for the equivalent of opium dens, and drugs would be very, very cheap indeed, reducing the crime rate.
You have unreasonably latched on to a minor clause in his statement and tried to use it to discredit the major thesis.
No, I haven't. I haven't discredited anything but the paragraph where the author engages in the same psychotic Dadaism he is railing against.
Perhaps RLK comes from an environment where illicit drug use has had serious and devastating consequences to the surrounding community. Crack houses in the hood, are nothing like suburbanites having a joint on the patio.
Those are the consequences of criminalizing a substance. If RLK "The Bloviator" doesn't like the consequences of his laws, then he should work to change them, and stop whining like one of Clinton's tossed trollops.