Behind The Neo-Prohibition Campaign

The Center for Consumer Freedom ^ | April 17, 2003 | Dan Mindus

[MrLeRoy]

Senate and Congress were to be considered separately.

The Congress comprises the Senate and the House of Representatives. How ironic that you were accusing another FReeper of ignorance of our government.

[MrLeRoy]

I have a beef with libertarians that ally with NORML/Soros and his gun grabbing agenda.

Do you have a beef with pro-WODders that ally with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and its gun grabbing agenda?

[robertpaulsen]

"By what standard do you judge the use of a plant selfish, irresponsible and immoral?"

A plant? A harmless plant? Which plant is that? Are you talking about tulips? Roses?

Maybe you can be a little more specific.

[robertpaulsen]

Well, bassmaner did a pretty good impression of one in post #241.

[MrLeRoy]

Can you provide evidence of anyone initially proclaiming themself a big-L Libertarian but then changing their proclaimed status to small-l libertarians---or anyone saying they're a small-l libertarian "except for that issue"?

Well, bassmaner did a pretty good impression of one in post #241.

A pretty good impression of which?

[robertpaulsen]

"Well...what would you think about making ALL drugs illegal?"

How about a compromise then? Let's make some drugs legal, but make it where you have to be 21 to purchase them. Then, make some drugs legal, but only available by prescription. The remaining drugs we'll keep illegal.

Is that OK with you? A good compromise between making all drugs legal and making all drugs illegal?

What? You're not happy with that?

[robertpaulsen]

Don't forget to add:

"Although marijuana smoke delivers THC and other cannabinoids to the body, it also delivers harmful substances, including most of those found in tobacco smoke. In addition, plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect. For those reasons there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication. If there is any future in cannabinoid drugs, it lies with agents of more certain, not less certain, composition."
--Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine

We wouldn't want people to think that the IOM approves smoking marijuana, would we?

[robertpaulsen]

"A pretty good impression of which?"

Oh pick one, MrLeRoy. You asked for one I gave you one. Move on or get to the point. If you even have a point.

[MrLeRoy]

"For those reasons there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication."

The future can take care of itself---sick people are suffering today.

[MrLeRoy]

Oh pick one, MrLeRoy.

What a petulant, childish reply.

[robertpaulsen]

"The future can take care of itself"

Live for today -- screw tomorrow. Now there's responsible, mature thinking.

[robertpaulsen]

What's your friggin' point?

You gots to know? You can't go on without knowing? Fine, bassmaner did a good impression of both.

He's a big-L Libertarian with a link to the Libertarian website on his homepage (not even you have this). His post #130 is the Party line.

In post #139 and 161, he starts to temper his position about minors and drugs. In post #187, he's down to small-l libertarian.

Finally, in #241, he emphasizes his support for drug legalization, except not for children. The LP platform makes no distinction.

Now, what of it? What's the point of this?

[tacticalogic]

The remaining drugs we'll keep illegal.

Who's "we"?

[robertpaulsen]

"Who's "we"?"

The same people in "Let's make some drugs legal".

Sound like a good compromise to you? Not all drugs legal or illegal, but a balance between the two extreme positions.

[tacticalogic]

Depends on who's making the decision. Who's "we"? - The UN? A roomful of bureaucrats and HMO managers? The voters?

[robertpaulsen]

Oh, lets say that "we" are the dutifully elected United States representatives in Congress carrying out the will of their constituents.

Sound like a good compromise to you? Not all drugs legal or illegal, but a balance between the two extreme positions.

[tacticalogic]

Well, it sounds good in theory. Now are you sure it will be the duly elected representatives in Congress carrying out the will of their constituents, and not handed off to some unelected bureaucrats who are more concerned about their job security and keeping the lobbyist they play golf with happy?

[tacticalogic]

BTW - any particular reason it should be our duly elected federal representatives, rather than our duly elected state representatives, or our duly elected county representatives?

[robertpaulsen]

I think I answered enough of your questions. Care to answer mine?

Sound like a good compromise to you? Not all drugs legal or illegal, but a balance between the two extreme positions.

[MrLeRoy]

The future can take care of itself---sick people are suffering today. [italicized text deleted by rp]

Live for today -- screw tomorrow. Now there's responsible, mature thinking.

Yeah, being sick and suffering is a real bacchanal.