Behind The Neo-Prohibition Campaign

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

[robertpaulsen]

Driving with .09BAC in a state that has .08BAC is a "clear" danger? You would take a man's liberty away and put him in jail for a .09?

You're hedging.

Drugs are dangerous. They pose a danger to those who use them and those around them. The danger can be soon. The danger can be later. Either you believe in proactive laws or you don't.

[robertpaulsen]

"RP's "theoretical" solution"

My "theoretical" solution is the current system we have in place.

(OHhhhhhhhhhhhh)

[tacticalogic]

stopped for wreckless driving

Sorry, I just couldn't pass that one up.

[tacticalogic]

My "theoretical" solution is the current system we have in place.

You like to think so. The questions you don't want to answer indicate you know better.

[tacticalogic]

Drugs are dangerous.

I'll be right back. I have to go lock up the coffee.

[okiesap]

I realize your comment wasn't directed at me so I hope you don't mind my response.

The advocates of gun control are proactive. But the guns don't pull their own triggers.

Prior to its criminalization based on fabrications and lies, how did marijuana use threaten the status quo?

[bassmaner]

The key points of the Libertarian Party, on which I happen to agree, -- individual liberty, personal responsibility, smaller government, states rights, etc. -- are being drowned out by the drug issue.

Perhaps. But the bottom line is that the WOD touches every single one of those issues in a negative way. That's probably why it seems that the LP focuses so much energy on opposing it -- because it is the most egregious example of deprivation of individual liberty and personal responsibility, bigger government, centralized federal power, etc.

Furthermore, and most importantly, legalizing drugs before we've reduced the size and scope of the federal government is pointless.

I disagree. Eliminating drug prohibition is just one of many steps needed in the overall reduction in size and scope of the federal government.

Notice the emphasis on "federal". Truthfully, I have much less of a problem with state laws - I believe that many states would liberalize their drug laws if the federal leviathan could be tamed. The California medipot issue (no matter what you may think about whether marijuana really is useful as medicine) is a stark example of the federal government overstepping its bounds in the pursuit of the Holy War on Drugs. And the hypocrisy of continuing to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify federal meddling in what is clearly an intra-state issue is breathtaking, despite the many "cut and pastes" of court decisions that drug war cheerleaders like Roscoe use to justify it.

IMO, ending the federal component of the WOD is one of the most essential steps towards reducing the size and scope of the federal government -- it can't be back-burnered.

[okiesap]

Wreckless driving is an indication of intoxication. Or stupidity. Or callous disregard. Was that humorous?

[robertpaulsen]

"I'd counter by saying God put that plant here for our use."

Maybe He put that plant here to test us?

You know, like He gave us the ability to build the hydrogen bomb? The knowledge to perform abortions? To clone?

Kind of dangerous to assume that if God gave us something we're expected to use it.

[MrLeRoy]

Nope, nothing moralistic about it; individual sovereignty does not extend to subjecting others to risk of serious infection.

Then there is a case to be made for controlling people's access to some drugs.

If by "some drugs" you mean antibiotics.

[realpatriot71]

Dear alcohol/toabbaco/cheesburger lovers,

Welcome to the party

love,
Marijuana Smokers

[robertpaulsen]

"The advocates of gun control are proactive."

You find me an amendment that says, "The right to keep and ingest drugs shall not be infringed" and we'll talk.

"Prior to its criminalization based on fabrications and lies, how did marijuana use threaten the status quo?"

Re-phrase without the propaganda and I'll answer.

[MrLeRoy]

Driving with .09BAC in a state that has .08BAC is a "clear" danger? You would take a man's liberty away and put him in jail for a .09?

Reasonable people can disagree on what "clear" is; I'd probably go with .10 rather than .08. What of it?

You're hedging.

Not at all.

Drugs [...] pose a danger to those who use them

Yes---a danger that is none of government's business.

and those around them.

False; any harm they later cause is harm they chose to cause---and that choice, not the drug use, is where the buck stops.

[MrLeRoy]

Wreckless driving is an indication of intoxication. Or stupidity. Or callous disregard. Was that humorous?

No, but spelling it with a "w" is.

[okiesap]

I didn't mean to imply God would EXPECT us to use it but since it grows naturally and no Biblical references are made regarding its use, your opinion is no more justified than mine.

Abortion can be tied to Christ's teaching regarding fornication. The hydrogen bomb and abortion are unauthorized by the Ten Commandments and the turning of the other cheek rules.

I can't speak for God, but I get the impression our feeble minds can't comprehend why he gave us the mental capacities to clone and split atoms. We have the capacities, therefore he gave us those capacities and He knew we would act on those capacities.

From His own mouth, "You will be judged as you judged others."

[robertpaulsen]

"to justify federal meddling in what is clearly an intra-state issue is breathtaking,"

When you make a statement like this, you give people the impression that federal "inter-state" drug regulation and prohibition would be just fine with you. It's that pesky "intra-state" that bothers you. Is that the case?

[tacticalogic]

Wreckless driving is an indication of intoxication. Or stupidity. Or callous disregard. Was that humorous?

That would be "reckless". "Wreckless" indicates driving without having a wreck, which did kind of strike me as humorous.

[okiesap]

A minimal amount of research will prove that the criminalization of pot was based on lies. The tactics used (and still used) are classic examples of propoganda. You've surely heard of the movie REEFER MADNESS. Its a comedy these days, but was meant to be taken seriously in its day.

Since the Constitution doesn't mention the the right to ingest drugs, since the framers of the Constitution had access to said drugs and some most likely used them,
I'd prefer the option of more freedom and less government. I doubt seizure of hard earned property was on the framers agenda.

[okiesap]

Could ot be my spelling error resulted from the wacky tobaccey?

[tacticalogic]

I'm not an expert on pharmacology. It was used as an example, and there may be more that fit that general criteria that I'm not familiar with. The point was to establish the criteria.