MICHAEL MEDVED: Losertarians Choose Porcupine for Mascot

Michael Medved Radio Show

[dirtboy]

Because buying the services of another human and smoking a vegetable that grows wild around the world and, for that matter, whatever two adults wish to do in their bedroom, have no victims.

Unless the parents become such raving potheads that they neglect their kids, or someone driving a train the next day is affected by what they smoked the night before. Not all pot smoking is victimless, dude. So we need a balanced approach that recognizes a point where there is a societal interest to stop the action but doesn't act against a casual user - something that neither sides seems willing to pursue, as they are instead more interested in their respective intellectual purity as they shout the other side down.

That's why I don't bother posting on drug threads much any more - it's a complete waste of time, because precious few folks are actually interested in honestly looking at the matter.

[LizardQueen]

I made some minor adjustments:

Unless the parents become such raving (alcoholics) that they neglect their kids, or someone driving a train the next day is affected by what they(drank) the night before. Not all (alcohol drinking) is victimless, dude.

Not only is booze legal, but it's taxed, too.

LQ

[dirtboy]

Unless the parents become such raving (alcoholics) that they neglect their kids, or someone driving a train the next day is affected by what they(drank) the night before. Not all (alcohol drinking) is victimless, dude. Not only is booze legal, but it's taxed, too.

And my point is, drinking booze is often times not a victimless activity - my objection is to the term "victimless crime" - booze actually has FAR worse social impacts than pot or drugs - and to some extent that is precisely because it is legal and widely available. Calling for legalization of drugs while denying the SERIOUS downside of such an action bleeds proponents of any credibility.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Unless the parents become such raving potheads that they neglect their kids, or someone driving a train the next day is affected by what they smoked the night before.

We have laws against child neglect. Use them. We have laws (and certainly corporate regulations) against operating dangerous machinery while impaired. Use them, also. Your examples of "victims" of drug abuse seem to me to be victims of activities already illegal. If the law against the egregious activity we seek to discourage didn't work, do you really think prior restraint laws have ANY net positive effect on society?

[dirtboy]

see my post #43.

[jodorowsky]

Probably similar to the equally right on snake thing.

[LizardQueen]

I agree that sometimes actions cause other bad actions (too much pot smoking results in child neglect, etc). But what I'd like to see is drugs (mostly marijuana, I'm undecided on the harder ones) treated like alcohol is - the use of the substance isn't regulated much except for age and hours sold, but bad actions stemming from it are punished.

We don't tell people they can't drink, we tell them they can't drive after doing so. Fine. And child neglect is child neglect, no matter if the person was a teetotaller or a hard core drunk or pothead.

To me, this is where the line is drawn between casual use and abuse. If your use of Substance X results in you doing crimes, you get punished for the crimes. If you can use it and still keep your life together, great, no jail time.

The harder drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc) I have more reservations about, namely because they are addictive, and because they are addictive they make it harder for people to casually use yet still keep their life together. In the case of heroin, in particular, there may be enough of a "no possibility of casual controlled use" and a large enough negative social impact to warrant keeping it illegal.

That's my $.02, anyway.

LQ

[theFIRMbss]

>Can't we just arrest all the Libertarians and throw them in jail?

If we jail them, then
we've got to feed them. And they
would still get on-line...

Hmmm. I'm sure something
could be figured out. Now what
could we do with them...

[Redcloak]

...to pretend that drug use, prostitution and other social matters are "victimless" is asinine.

Just curious, but how are you harmed when someone else smokes some weed with a hooker in the privacy of their own home?

[Liberal Classic]

You know know how long I've wanted to hear someone say that. Thank you.

[Trailerpark Badass]

see my post #43.

Why? It doesn't answer my question. You claim that drug use (not merely abuse) is not a "victimless crime," and then you proceed to list crimes OTHER than drug use. Child neglect is already a crime; is it worse if the parent in question is a drug user? Or if they're clear-headed and in good health?

[Liberal Classic]

I think someone has initiated farce.

[ThinkDifferent]

To me, this is where the line is drawn between casual use and abuse. If your use of Substance X results in you doing crimes, you get punished for the crimes. If you can use it and still keep your life together, great, no jail time.

Well said. And I share your indecision on the harder stuff.

[LizardQueen]

It sounds like you're arguing for the outlawing of alcohol.
If alcohol has worse social impacts than drugs, and drugs are illegal then why not outlaw alcohol or restrict it's availability as sharply down to the level of drugs?

This is what bothers me most about the whole marijuana/alcohol issue -the inconsistency. There are a number of substances that, if used improperly, can wreck your life or the lives of others. Yet some are illegal and some are not only legal, but the government makes money off of them. Why?

LQ

[headsonpikes]

"Can any Libertarians explain the porcupine thing?"

I've had a porcupine t-shirt for a decade, so the symbol goes way back.

I think the idea is that when either the elephant or the donkey sit on the porcupine, they get a scrotum full of quills.

[Tempest]

I sense a lot bitter religous fanatics in this thread.

That's a good thing.

I guess name calling in a vain attempt to quite down a political group that does walk in lock-step with your beliefs isn't exclusive to Democrats. . .

[Man_of_Reason]

shhhhh! I'm enjoying the show. You should be too.

[rattrap]

It is an animal that never initiates force, but expresses a 'don't tread on me' attitude.

[Xenalyte]

Didn't I meet you at a Ron Paul BBQ? Is he your ringleader?

Wasn't me. I've never attended a Ron Paul event.

And if it's so easy to round us all up, you'd best get crackin'. There are more of us than you think.