Replies

Using your logic, we’d not enforce any laws. After all, people break laws. You say you used to break the pot laws. You say that kids break them now. You say it’s a good thing that pot is stronger since people can get stoned faster. People often speed while driving. Would you favor not enforcing those laws? People break other drug laws. Would you favor legalizing all dope? People routinely break those laws. Using your logic, it’s not any else’s business. How about driving while stoned on pot? Is that okay? In your view, the republican values and virtues of sobriety and good health needed for self-government are trumped by the dippy pro-pot views of the 1960’s. Addiction, and its increase in the last thirty years, is a social problem that is the self-evident trade off for libertine and lawless approaches to all drugs. You just believe the enforcement of the laws is worse than allowing legal dope use. Yet you don’t even acknowledge there is a self-evident trade off. Instead, you copy and paste everthing written as if your trite old arguments are somehow novel and profound.

And finally getting back to one of the issues you're struggling to evade: if, as you falsely suppose, I were a "pothead" who had made tradeoffs in his own life, how is that any of your or government's business?

Using your logic, we’d not enforce any laws. After all, people break laws.

Nowhere did I argue or imply that pot laws shouldn't be enforced for the reason that people break them ... certainly not in my text above, which is about how pot laws are invalid because they try to prevent a pothead "tradeoff" whose prevention is none of government's business.

My only reference to the number of pot-law-breakers was in the context of rebutting the claim that legalization would lead to zombies standing in the rain: "For decades now, pot has been used by tens of millions of Americans every year - how many zombies standing in the rain have you seen? Me, none."

You say you used to break the pot laws.

Yes - what's your point? Have you never broken a law - never, say, exceeded the legal speed limit?

You say that kids break them now.

Do you deny it?

Neither of those observations add up to, 'don't enforce pot laws because people break them.'

You say it’s a good thing that pot is stronger since people can get stoned faster.

Wrong as usual; I said nothing about how fast anyone got stoned but about how much lung damage they sustained along the way.

People often speed while driving. Would you favor not enforcing those laws? People break other drug laws. Would you favor legalizing all dope? People routinely break those laws. Using your logic, it’s not any else’s business. How about driving while stoned on pot? Is that okay?

Acts that neither violate the rights of other nor pose a clear and present danger of such violation are not anyone else’s business (regardless of the frequency with which laws against those acts are broken); speeding is a clear and present danger, drug use is not.

In your view, the republican values and virtues of sobriety and good health needed for self-government are trumped by the dippy pro-pot views of the 1960’s.

The republican values and virtues of sobriety and good health needed for self-government are not creatable by government, and none of the Founders ever said they were.

Addiction, and its increase in the last thirty years,

Have any evidence for that claim?

is a social problem that is the self-evident trade off for libertine and lawless approaches to all drugs.

You claim addiction has increased in the last thirty years and is a consequence of libertine and lawless approaches to all drugs - so it follows that libertine and lawless approaches to all drugs have increased in the last thirty years. How can this be, since a sharp escalation in the War on Drugs was declared thirty years ago and anti-drug spending and imprisonment have risen for most if not all of those thirty years?

You just believe the enforcement of the laws is worse than allowing legal dope use.

You finally got something right.

Yet you don’t even acknowledge there is a self-evident trade off.

The only trade-off you've bothered to identify, I haven't denied but have identified as none of government's business to make the opposite trade-off: namely, Joe and John's liberty for John's employability.

Instead, you copy and paste everthing written as if your trite old arguments are somehow novel and profound.

I copy and paste to preserve context, since you flit from one failed argument to another. If you don't find my posts novel, it's because all your tired rationalizations for pot criminalization have been rebutted many times before.