Posted on 09/08/2002 9:22:43 PM PDT by doug from upland
The evening started innocently enough for Brian Whitman, Sunday evening talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles.
He had on his show four minor candidates running for governor of California. Three were on the phone and the fourth, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland, was in studio.
The conversation eventually turned to illegal immigration. Copeland did not like Whitman's position and called him a racist. Although Whitman kept trying to answer, Copeland kept talking over him and would not let him speak.
Just as Whitman puts callers in "timeout" on his show when they won't let him have his say, he told the engineer to cut off Copeland's microphone. Copeland became incensed and started packing his things to leave the studio.
Then, in great FReeper tradition, Whitman told Copeland not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. He also called Copeland a lunatic.
Then the rain came. Copeland walked over to Whitman and spit in his face. Whitman couldn't believe it. Two others on the KABC staff couldn't believe it.
Whitman had the station call the police and is considering filing assault charges.
Poor Copeland. He may no longer be the Libertarian candidate for governor. An official high ranking representative of the party called in to Whitman and told him that Copeland would be receiving no more backing and they were going to see what they could do to take him off the ballot.
Now that was classic talk radio. The unbelievable happened. A candidate for governor actually showed himself to be a bigger jackass than Gray Davis. Davis has spit on the law but never on Whitman, at least not yet. Brian, get him in studio.
You are correct that the "authorities" do not recognize property rights in commodities that have been legally defined as "contraband", and that is the real problem: By forcibly preventing normal markets for these commodities to develop, ostensibly to protect us from their harmful effects, the drug warriors have ironically caused waves of serious crime. Foolish as one may think pot-smokers are, they tend to be rather placid and harmless. That does not mean that all is well, because the dealers can and do engage in turf-wars, enticing ever younger children to carry their products, and where possible, concentrating and "enhancing" their products to generate a larger customer base. They also engage in bribery and subornation to protect themselves from law enforcement.
This is as opposed to open market merchants who carefully follow the relevant laws in order to minimize extraneous costs arising from violations, since they operate openly and with intense scrutiny from watchdog organizations, customers, and competitors.
The difficult truth here is that in a market environment, attempts to interdict supply generally fail and result in drastically negative unintended consequences. A better approach would be to attempt to reduce demand, possibly via education and restrictions on distribution to minors. This approach will peacefully minimize problems with the commodity in question, but cannot be expected to completely eliminate demand.
To restate the point, if current prohibitions are constitutional, why did our great-grandfathers think it necessary to enact a Constitutional amendment in order to prohibit the possession, sale, and use of alcohol?
Thanks for the compliment, but that is not my intent. I (perhaps naively) hope to engage and communicate. I've spent some time over in the About.com forums, and some of those folks are rabid by comparison to what I see here.
Unfortunately, it is you who has it backwards. Tell me, did the rise of the mafia gangs (Al Capone, etc.) occur before, or after the enactment of the XVIII Amendment? And did the violence end and the gangs find more peaceful pursuits before or after the enactment of the XXI Amendment? Are you aware of the chronology of the rise of the Asian and South American gangs in the latter part of the 20th Century?
In the end, I think that's what we all hope to do. However, some just cannot except that fact that people should be, for the most part, left to themselves. I don't want to force anyone to use drugs or even be around drugs. I just want to be able to load a bowl in my own home, order a pizza, and watch cartoons without being considered a criminal for not harming anyone in the first place. In this instance, my freedom harms them not one bit. Unfortunately this is not good enough for the woddies. While I want to leave them alone, they insist on bothering me. I've never quite figured out as to why.
And who exactly is stopping this arrested development you wish to luxuriate in?
No one is particularly stopping me from doing this. However, I think it's quite silly for me to be called a criminal when I have not hurt society not one bit. I don't want to bother you, and I don't want you to bother me. However, I think you'd be more than happy to "bother me" if you had actually knowledge that I was, in fact, smoking a bowl in my own home. This is my problem - the fact that I am made into a criminal by the puritans when I have done nothing to harm the puritans.
You could always move to a third world facist country where any immoral action is subject to stoning. :-)
You know I'd be MORE than happy to let the states and communities decide this issue, but the Fed's have no say here. Can we agree here? Probably not.
What dat?! A nation with a nose and eyebrows? I know Italy is kinda like a footist country in a way. Would Portugal qualify as a facist country?
A Constitutional Amendment was the end goal of their "great crusade" and they believed it would put the matter beyond repeal. Further, dope isn't alcohol, just as it isn't the right to keep and bear arms.
I think jaywalking, especially on busy roads, is not safe for those walking the street nor those who are driving, although if I run across a street without cars nor traffic, I would find it extremely silly to be issue a citation, considering I did nothing to harm anyone else.
I also have no problem with having to have insurance for a vehicle. It "insures" the fact that if I damage your property, I will pay for it.
These rules make sense. However, if I'm minding my own business, I don't see the morality in making me a criminal when I have done nothing to you or yours.
Am I really that out of line here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.