The Right Scoop- Anonymous
There’s no easy answers!
- Bsm138
Yeah, there is. Just like Scalia saying the Constitution doesn’t prohibit discrimination based on gender, that its up to current society and legislatures to determine it.
This is where libertarians go off the deep end in their libertarianism because the Constitution doesn’t require legal maryjane, NOR prohibit it, and since maryjane is not an enumerated power it ultimately rests upon each State to decide for itself whether or not to legalize it.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590 Chris G.
Yes, this is one of dozens of issues that should be given back to the States. They should be free to be as prohibitive or as lenient on the in-State production, sale & use of drugs as The People choose to be. If one State chooses to use the death penalty for posession of a joint, thenso be it. If another State decides to legalize everything, then that’s their choice.
IMHO, the only role the feds should play here is protecting our borders from the influx of drugs from abroad & regulating interstate commerce. NOTHING ELSE!
- Idahoser
it was never legally taken from the states.
- Anonymous
How is it “off the deep end,” to not want death threats and violence to be issued/used against people for actions which have no victim other than themselves?
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590 Chris G.
Besides, who says thaose of us who use marijuana responsibly are “VICTIMS”????? I’m not a victim of anything, I haven’t been victimized by anything, & I use on my own free will & choice.
- Anonymous
“No victim, no crime.”
Even if grass was self-destructive in anyway, the only harm it would ever do is to the user who cannot be called a victim since it was his choice.
I don’t personally drink or smoke, but it’s not my business if someone else does until they drink and drive into me or raid my fridge for their munchies. lol
- las
That’s the specious argument of the radical feminist: “Its my body and I can do anything I like with it including killing that nasty mess of cell growing in my uterus… such an inconvenience… I’ll just kill “it”. There’s still a victim. And drug use, even marijuana produces victims. Families are destroyed because of it… yes like alcohol. It’s just not true that marijuana is benign.
I’ll admit… I’m somewhat torn on this issue, but recent studies from the UK, long overdue, show the very serious deleterious effects of pot smoking particularly in the area of triggering psychosis, even after one encounter with the drug. And of course marijuana is also a “gatekeeper” for other stuff.
I do like your observation that the user is not a victim. Conscience choices engender accepting responsibility.
- Anonymous
I should have clarified what I count as a victim, which will likely cause another contentious exchange, lol.
I consider a crime that which has a victim, and a victim to me is someone who has been aggressed upon. Families destroyed is horrible, I’ve seen it, but if it gets to the point where a meth-head beats up family for money to get a fix, it’s the beating which is reprehensible, not the high or withdrawals.
People help and break away from addict relatives all the time, if they chose to enable someone’s self-destruction and let themselves get taken down with them, that was their choice as well.
I’ll have to look up some clips of Stossel’s response to the “gateway drug” claims, something along the line of it being nonsense. Time to go hunting.
- Anonymous
Extra: I hate Sartre’s politics but I love his position on free will and Existentialism in general. Part of the latter is recognizing your choices matter in a real way and taking responsibility for them.
If you have sex, you have to except the responsibility of that, be it STD or pregnancy. I do not accept the the “famous violinist” arguments attempt to shift the discussion. Nor do I buy into the nonsense “right of eviction,” crap in response to it.
A child, once it is physically capable of expressing or feeling self-ownership is a person to not be aggressed against, the same as anyone else. Prior to the necessary development to make that recognition or claim (pre-self awareness) I’m not certain I can consider it an individual. That is why my personal conscience can only accept 1st trimester abortions.
- las
Wrote this last night…quickly, only posting it now, not a lot of time, and only catching up on the shooting in AZ.
You said: “People help and break away from addict relatives all the time, if they chose to enable someone’s self-destruction and let themselves get taken down with them, that was their choice as well.”
Couldn’t agree more, yet again, there’s that trifling matter of children. I’ve been involved with counseling groups of addicts, all sorts of addicts, … bigtime victims all around.Regarding Sartre… that Che thing… hmmm… His rejection of literature as a bourgeois dainty… this nonsense was stock in trade for the stripping of identity of the Russians after the Bolsheviks seized control and brought the wrecking of Russian culture. All bourgeois literature was banned. Some lionized “philosophes” can be big time freaks. For me this illustrates something about philosophy. It is truly a two edged thing is it not. I also like Ayn Rand’s assertion that the people who eschew philosophy are the people most in need of it. She was a political philosopher steeped in reality.. I am a relative newcomer to it, but I cut my teeth in University being taught by old Soviet defectors. They had this “reality” in common with Rand. I skimmed philosophy in college, but only within the last few years have begun to broaden my interest in it. All of human development has its roots in philosophy… great civilizations dance on it… victims of atrocities like the Soviet Union and China are weighed down under it. That’s what happens when guys like Sartre dabble into critical theory… civilizations are engineered to crash. Anyway… more later.
Cheers Dan. - Anonymous
Ironically with Sartre, his position on free will caused problems with his Marxism. Communists put too much weight on the a person’s class’s (facticity) ability to determine their lives, which does not square at all with Sartre’s radical free will Libertarianism. He seemed (to me) like a very bad fit for Marxism considering Existentialism can crudely be described as a type of radical Individualism.
Sartre isn’t the only noteworthy Existentialist, just one of those who gave it a name. Nietzsche was as well, and he had a contempt for socialism, Camus was another but he established Absurdism.
My problem with Rand is how cultist Objectivism became, her fetish with big business (imho it can be good market entrepreneurship or lobbying scum), and the fact that she apparently failed to grasp Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. I’ve heard she claimed Kant rejected Reason all together, which is absurd, he was a Constructivist. Oh, and I’m not a fan of Egoism, which is foundational to her Objectivism.
Peace, back to preparing for next semester.
- Anonymous
Extra: I hate Sartre’s politics but I love his position on free will and Existentialism in general. Part of the latter is recognizing your choices matter in a real way and taking responsibility for them.
If you have sex, you have to except the responsibility of that, be it STD or pregnancy. I do not accept the the “famous violinist” arguments attempt to shift the discussion. Nor do I buy into the nonsense “right of eviction,” crap in response to it.
A child, once it is physically capable of expressing or feeling self-ownership is a person to not be aggressed against, the same as anyone else. Prior to the necessary development to make that recognition or claim (pre-self awareness) I’m not certain I can consider it an individual. That is why my personal conscience can only accept 1st trimester abortions.
- http://twitter.com/MooseOfReason MooseOfReason
I’m off the deep end? Read the Federalist Papers, buddy. Either you take the 10th Amendment seriously, or you don’t.
- Anonymous
I agree, it was bringing the answers to a conclusion which I was referring too.
Poor wording on my part! - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590 Chris G.
Yes there are: return to respecting the 9th & 10th Amendment Rights of The People is one answer. A return to Christian values would help a lot, too.
- KeninMontana
Just curious, when you advocate for a return to Christian values, which values and from which sect of Christianity?
- ReAnimator727
Respecting the Amendments and Christian values have literally nothing to do with each other. Please, keep your religion to yourself.
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient
Sure there is, Either your own your body and has an adult can choose what to consume, including Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana, Meth, Gasoline, McDonolds, Sugar etc
Or the government chooses for you. If accept they can choose the any of the above items are “bad for you” and thus make it illegal to consume, you conceed that they can deem ALL of them bad for you and make ALL of the illegal to consume as well.
The premise of “they must be banned because people commit XX crime while one drugs” is also a FALSE one, People rob, steal, and murder for COUNTLESS reasons, drugs, xboxs, food, etc etc etc. You must punish CRIMINAL or ABUSE of others, not the use for drugs.
You agree with that, or your a Big Government Nanny State Supporter, There is no 3rd option
- Anonymous
I would like to explain my statement: I saw two people who both advocate for small government, who support “we the people”, and believe in a person’s inalienable rights and were struggling to agree. Now multiply that by all of congress sitting and debating and you get to the point of my statement, getting to the answer is difficult.
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient
No you saw 1 person that supports “we the people” and 1 person that supports “moral big government laws”
- Tyler
The answer on this one is a heck of a lot easier than stopping some of the larger wastes of taxpayer money.
- Sebaneau
Ann Coulter’s first argument is the clever one and should be broadened; the problem actually comes from the centralization of police power, which makes it necessary for people to extend prohibition to everyone if they want to have drugs banned in their own neighborhood.
- Johnschaffran
I had a conversation with a gentleman who was a cop in the 50s. He pulled over a guy who had pot and was sentenced to 4 years in prison for pot possession. Here in lies the problem. Those who possess this or other drugs are not held accountable anymore. What does this have to do with legalization? The idea for legalization is to rid of the black market. Why not enforce the law to a point where those with the drugs pay the price!
- Anonymous
To rid the black market is not the only point and has never been, it is just one of many.
The other point is answering the question of who owns you and your body. Is it you? Or is it some Federal/State/Local government? If YOU own your body, then it should require only your consent to put some substance in your body, no one or nothing else has a rightful say. If the government owns your body, then they have a say, and there’s no meaningful private property ownership in this country at all.
The drug laws are enforced all the time, marijuana busts are taped all the time and run on local news so the DEA can justify their existence and the war on drugs.
- las
But for argument’s sake, what if the drug is prevented from entering said body. Then the body’s owner would not have an issue… n’est pas?
- Anonymous
That would resolve the issue regarding the illegality of use, but would require measures be taken in order to prevent it, which like everything else government does brings up more problems.
Will it confiscate the property of people in order to prevent use and dodge the self-ownership quagmire? Will it insert itself into the private exchange of good(s)/value for good(s)/value between two individuals?
As Rothbard said, “all rights are property rights,” when you get right down to it, and this whole issue requires several infringements on them.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590 Chris G.
‘Cuz you can’t arrest all of us, & the only way to make serious inroads into ending the drug “problem” would be to have a massive Police/Security State. Are you seriously willing to have government expand its powers that broadly over this issue?
The “idea for legalization” is FREEDOM & LIBERTY. The Black Market exists when there is a lack of them, just like there are secret house churches in China & N Korea.
- sadpanda
You are talking about a police state. Stossel just said 19 million people used drugs this past month. So what you are saying is that we should throw 19 million people in prison for i dont know how many years (especially if you think 4 years is okay for marijuana possession) and that wont cause any problems. People like you just need to wake up, accept that you cant stop other people from harming themselves and move on!!! And if were just talking about marijuana, trust me, no one would be paying extra health care for them because weed does more treatment than harm. Dont be one who talks about how people should be partisan and not be bias and then talk about how marijuana is bad even though “ive never tried it” (words of Bill O’riely. I am 20 years old and i have been smoking marijuana everyday for the past 4 years, i feel no different health wise than i did 4 years ago end of story.
- Anonymous
Don’t forget Three Strike laws hen you’re thinking about all those people and how long they could be thrown in a cage one of the most egregious things a government in the US has done recently.
- sadpanda
Currently in California there are over 80 people doing life in prison for only non violent marijuana offenses. Victimless?? The judiciary system is the offender, law enforcement is the accessory, and the user is the victim. Its a sad sad world we live in
- Anonymous
Given enough time and the State will do all the work for me, I won’t have to convince anyone that it’s an unjust institution predicated on fiat land claims and monopoly violence directed upon arbitrary whim.
The notion that it protects us is a sham, its mystical ideology like the old cult of Mithras.
The fact that the nonsense involving those 80 people is considered a Constitutional deal at the moment should tell you all you need to know about the document.
- sadpanda
If it was up to the State, marijuana would have never been illegal. Marijuana to California would be like tobacco to the United States, we would perfected it, manufacture it, and sell it at the best rate in the world, plus produce jobs and profit, i mean, isn’t that America’s number one issue at the moment??
- sadpanda
BTW dont bad mouth the Constitution. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with why drugs are illegal. And honestly if you feel the constitution is holding you back from something, go live in communist China
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient
I think what he is saying, and I agree, the constitution is only a peice of paper, unless we the people DEFEND IT in ever aspect of life it will be meaningless.
The Assault on the Constitution began, depend on how far you want to take state rights, began in either 1863 or 1935. Either way, there has been a unrelenting assault since 1935 and the constitution has been on the LOSING end as soo,soooooooooo much has been read in to areas of the Constitution that were, per the federalist papers, meant to be narrowly interpreted and restricted by the numerated powers. Ever Since FDR’s assault on the supreme court it has all been down hill with very few “wins” for the people and a whole lot of wins for the government
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient
I think what he is saying, and I agree, the constitution is only a peice of paper, unless we the people DEFEND IT in ever aspect of life it will be meaningless.
The Assault on the Constitution began, depend on how far you want to take state rights, began in either 1863 or 1935. Either way, there has been a unrelenting assault since 1935 and the constitution has been on the LOSING end as soo,soooooooooo much has been read in to areas of the Constitution that were, per the federalist papers, meant to be narrowly interpreted and restricted by the numerated powers. Ever Since FDR’s assault on the supreme court it has all been down hill with very few “wins” for the people and a whole lot of wins for the government
- sadpanda
If thats what he meant i would have to agree with that, well said Ancient.
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient
I think what he is saying, and I agree, the constitution is only a peice of paper, unless we the people DEFEND IT in ever aspect of life it will be meaningless.
The Assault on the Constitution began, depend on how far you want to take state rights, began in either 1863 or 1935. Either way, there has been a unrelenting assault since 1935 and the constitution has been on the LOSING end as soo,soooooooooo much has been read in to areas of the Constitution that were, per the federalist papers, meant to be narrowly interpreted and restricted by the numerated powers. Ever Since FDR’s assault on the supreme court it has all been down hill with very few “wins” for the people and a whole lot of wins for the government
- Anonymous
I don’t mean “State” in the sense of California or Florida, but in the sense of the “government,” a group of people who magically claim the authority to exercise coercive violence against others to arbitrary ends. At ever step of the process it is a violent intrusion into the free will of individuals by series of death threats, an immoral institution operating off of plunder and sustained by an ideology of mysticism.
The Constitution allows for these absurd laws, the means to enforce them, and expressly allows for the process they are funded by. 80 people in Cali, according to you, are caged up for life for the “heinous” crime of carrying a plant product, a victimless crime and good for private exchange. Free market and “protecting freedom,” my ***. Considering the nature of the cages people are kidnapped and thrown into, that sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me because it doesn’t fit the “crime” even if it wasn’t a non-crime.
So sorry for bad mouthing your golden calf, chum, but you really should try to avoid the nonsense of “America = love it or leave it.” I’m pro-freedom, and the system established by the Constitution restricts it. It also makes 0 sense at all to conclude that because I’m opposed to the less blatant tyranny implicit in the Constitution that I want to live in a communist nation, opposition to tyranny does not translate into support for total tyranny. The idea that I should be forced to leave the land I was born to, and my family simply because I don’t want some ivory tower dwelling third party deciding by fiat my choices or YOUR choices is ridiculous.
Drug laws, eminent domain, and prostitution laws carry with them the same precedent which is the most objectionable basis for all socialism. That is the denial of even self-ownership. The State claims authority to trump YOU over what YOU do with your body and with whom and the deals surrounding it, that means the State does not feel you have even majority ownership over your own body. Don’t agree with the State? That’s fine, just get ready to be kidnapped by thugs in blue costumes for it, and shot if you refuse to be kidnapped.
That is allowed by the Constitution, drug laws which implicitly establishes that people do not have ownership over their own bodies. The hallowed document allowed prohibition after all and still allows eminent domain.
- sadpanda
Oh i am so so sorry that America is holding you back from all the things you could be doing that you cant because of the Constitution. More than half the literature you posted was written with an altered judgement, that you are some great humanitarian and that without the Constitution we would be so better off. Since you have so much free time, explain what government would be like if you were in charge, of course you would view that as a tyrant society, but really, tell me of any other government that has a better document to base laws for society other than the Constitution. TELL ME
- sadpanda
Oh i am so so sorry that America is holding you back from all the things you could be doing that you cant because of the Constitution. More than half the literature you posted was written with an altered judgement, that you are some great humanitarian and that without the Constitution we would be so better off. Since you have so much free time, explain what government would be like if you were in charge, of course you would view that as a tyrant society, but really, tell me of any other government that has a better document to base laws for society other than the Constitution. TELL ME
- sadpanda
Thanks for proving my point.
- Anonymous
“. . .explain what government would be like if you were in charge. . .”
I would be satisfied with a government which followed the Non-Aggression Axiom. Although, since the state must necessarily be above such basic moral laws in order to effectively function or have any chance to last, the Axiom would wither/collapse the state which is a-okay with me. I would prefer the absence of a state, actually, meaning NO ONE would be in charge, including me.
I’ve said this more times than I can count on here, and it’s clearly explained in several of the books or essays I’ve posted on here, which is why I think your questions are rhetorical. That’s okay, though, go right back to genuflecting to the aged document attributed with more power or beneficence it deserves, will you sacrifice a goat to it?
- Anonymous
Next week Coulter will be on the other side of the argument! She just likes to argue!
- sadpanda
Who uses alcohol in their argument against drug legalization? Last time i checked alcohol causes 80% of violent crimes in America. As long as there is a demand for something people will find a way to buy it. Prohibition is how organized crime becomes more organized, because prohibition equals profit, and that profit can only be defended by more violence because who can call the cops when your getting robbed for drugs. Prohibition has and will always be another way for the government to create public sector jobs so them and theyre buddies can take the money we pay to protect our welfare and they use it to arrest non violent drug offenders and allow violence in the streets.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590 Chris G.
Alcohol IS a drug — & it’s an addictive one that oftentimes causes violent behavior in its users on top of that.
- Tyler
I think that was the point sadpanda was making. I like your other posts here by the way.
- Tpixidust
Man… there’s a lot going on here. Not to advocate the legalizing of drugs at this late stage of the problem; may I point out a couple of things. One of relevant substance; one of anecdotal inference.
1. I think opposite of Coulter, on her last point this way; people will tend to DO exactly the opposite of what they are told they must not do… as a matter of our human condition. See: Genesis Ch.3.
Forget dangerous narcotics and pharmaceuticals for a moment; with respect to marijuana, the government germinated the seed (pun intended) of the entire drug problem in 1933 with passage of the Harrison Act. The passage of this law was the springboard for the growth in the illegal use of dangerous narcotics and pharmaceuticals!!! At least as I see it, as follows:
In spite of people’s natural rebellious tendencies, the Progressives of the very early 1930′s created a national propaganda campaign that cast a completely unrealistic and alarmist representation of the effects of marijuana. See: Reefer Madness – the only thing one may say, is that the film is pure lying propaganda; exaggerating the real effects of the drug into absurdity.
So what, you say?
First let’s tell people that they cant’ do something… Well, why not, they ask? Because your eyeballs will begin to shoot jets of fire out of their sockets…
Then, when the people find that they have been, not only lied to; but with an exaggeration that is so outlandish as to make people wonder about the other threats of danger. It’s no wonder they call marijuana the stepping stone to harder drug use. Clear cut case of nanny state interference backfiring. Unintended??? I’m not so sure.
If it were left well enough alone (on a state-level enforcement basis, per Coulter), we would not have the drug problem we have today (per Stossel’s reference to the Dutch children, etc.)
As a sidebar note:
(There is a school of thought that this original push to criminalize pot was an effort to subdue/eliminate as economically viable the farming of hemp products that were in direct competition with the new fangled chemical products; like nylon, rayon, etc. There is considerable evidence available to show that Dow chemical lobbied Congress for the legislation.)2. Although a famous conservative, and not too shabby on the eyes either… one my be interested to find that Ann Coulter is an ardent Grateful Dead fan and has claimed to have been to numerous Dead concerts (you know, back in the day) all around the country.
I have been myself to two Dead shows… you know there show is a 6-7 hour long marathon of craziness; in which it was (R.I.P.-J.G.) easier to find a hit of LSD than it was to get out of your seat to go get a beer.
I’ll just leave at that.
Was a great debate. Would not have happened were Stossel still with abc. - sadpanda
Dont forget, after the end of the prohibition of alcohol, there were a lot of federal officials who were going to be laid off, so they started the DEA. Just an easy way to “create” jobs… make something illegal
- tpixidust
Actually it was the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) headed by notorious lier and progressive Harry J. Anslinger which was created on August 12, 1930. The DEA was created during Nixon administration and his war on drugs.
- Onema
Just an easy way to keep stealing MORE money from the people (TAXES). Just a way to create unnecessary violence. Just a way to arrest people that are not aggressors. The state creates its own problems. And unfortunately those problems get spread to the individual that has nothing to do with them. Those ”jobs” are nothing more than stolen jobs from the private sector, and people that are actually productive. Not like DEA agents, chasing innocent, non aggressive individuals.
- John
Interesting discussion. I think everyone can agree, however, that the primary task is to tackle the welfare state. When people become responsible for themselves and don’t have the government to take care of them when they do something stupid, I should imagine people will be less inclined to do stupid things.
- Tyler
The welfare state is the one I hear all the time from the Rs and I agree completely. Get rid of the welfare state…but those who are leeching off the government and getting high…well…they’re still getting high and leeching off the government despite it being legal. One might say, “What’s a few billion more dollars in our budget to require those who receive government money to take a piss test to include those on welfare and especially social security?” Well…it’s exactly that…a few billion more dollars wasted when we can legalize the drugs and not only save, but increase our money supply as a nation.
Examples have shown in other places in the world which are ahead of us in this that legalizing drugs reduces the crime rate, reduces the incarceration rate (our’s is kind of ironic in the “land of the free” I think as Stossel pointed out…heck…we BEAT CHINA in this category), and it actually brings revenue by allowing the government to tax the products. You wanna reduce your stupid deficit? Marijuana’s an easy answer I think since despite its illicit status is still the number one cash crop in America and as others have already pointed out on here despite the “Schedule 1″ status (why the heck it is will always be beyond me) that it has greater medicinal value than other drugs which are considered okay for medical purposes. I mean…even cocaine is considered “healthier” in this respect by our out-of-touch government.
Now, I also believe in legalizing everything to include the hard stuff for very similar reasons really. We waste billions…probably hundreds of billions of dollars each year on this so-called “War on Drugs.” It’s just another failed “war” that we’ve had. “War on Poverty” ring a bell? How did that work out for us? “War on Drugs?” Also a really bad joke. C’mon now. Get rid of this ridiculous DEA altogether and you’ll fulfill the Rs so-called “pledge” immediately and our country will be more free and prosperous.
Fiscal conservatism is great, but this social conservatism crap has held us back long enough. Knock it off already.
- sadpanda
Remember it may be a failing war for us, but the government, now thats another story. I find it so misleading when people say, “well it costs the government…” Nothing costs the government anything, the government never pays anything, it is tax dollars. We are the ones on the bad end of this, the government wants as much of your money as possible so if drugs are illegal, you have to pay to help enforce those laws. The government does not lose any money, they make the money because drugs are illegal. The only thing the government does not understand about this is how many jobs it would create, the amount of profit from taxation, and the time and effort saved for our courts from not prosecuting non violent drug offenders.
Great article tyler
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com The Ancient
Ann Coulter is a classic Big Government Conservative that is in the closet about it. She support big government in ever aspect of life with the exception of economic activity, She does not want the government to tell you how to spend your money or to take your money, but she has no problems with the government controlling all aspects of your behavior as long as it fits with in her “moral values”.
So deny or state “I dont believe you” about the murder rate increases during prohibition is just …. well I cant come up with a word that properly conveys the density and utter stupidity of such a statement, Prohibition created the MOB, if was the father of organized crime, the grand daddy for all gangs today, for crying out loud. Many of the most powerful political families today got their start and money from boot legging (and most of them are democrats).
Someone needs to post Nick Gillespie’s reply during a debate on Stossel about food choices where someone brought up the Heath care and Welfare laws, he basically replied “Instead of focusing on choosing what I can or cant consume why dont to put your efforts in to changes the welfare state”
Ann Also needs to learn a couple of universal truths.
1> 2 wrongs do not make a right. So Stealing my money to fund a welfare state is wrong, but taking my liberty and using the theft as an excuse to do so is just as, if not more wrong.
2> More liberty is always better than less liberty. - Mediaaccess
Well, do it like alcohol, but I’m a smoker – some. Here in Hungary fines are more, quality is more harmful because they put it in tobacco but it mostly kills your throat. The answer is freedom. The more freedom you have, people will tend to use their choices more wisely if they are happier and more successful. Then again, there are problems in Holland and they are trying to move it out of the cities.
- Mediaaccess
Well, do it like alcohol, but I’m a smoker – some. Here in Hungary fines are more, quality is more harmful because they put it in tobacco but it mostly kills your throat. The answer is freedom. The more freedom you have, people will tend to use their choices more wisely if they are happier and more successful. Then again, there are problems in Holland and they are trying to move it out of the cities.
- Mediaaccess
Now that I’ve finished the videos, just legalize! Good to tax. That’s what we did with alcohol. First time I saw Anne tongue tied.
- Tyler
That’s Stossel for ya. It’s hard to argue with sound logic.
- Anonymous
That was amusing.
- Anonymous
That was amusing.
- Mediaaccess
Now that I’ve finished the videos, just legalize! Good to tax. That’s what we did with alcohol. First time I saw Anne tongue tied.
- Llmitchellb
she’s just freaking blathering.
- http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo
I didn’t think it would be her first point, but she nailed it right away. Get rid of welfare or entitlements (to use a better description “forced redistribution of property), then we can afford to let people do as they please. Kind of makes you wonder if government’s intent was to intrude to exert control over people by hamstringing them.
- Brifry
Libertarians will not be satisfied until they can have gay sex on a street corner while injecting heroin. They oppose obscenity laws and drug laws and are taking over the repub party.
- KeninMontana
Jerry Falwell, is that you?
- Anonymous
Lol you’re my hero for that, wanna go have gay sex while injecting heroin?
- KeninMontana
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s backside if you ,as an adult want to ingest the somewhat refined contents of a dry cell battery. The time worn arguments many have presented here for and against legalization are just that,worn-out,tired and threadbare. The way I see it, if by your actions or choices, bring harm or place in danger, myself or loved ones I will exercise my own “property rights” and save society and the state beaucoup bucks. That is my easy answer.
- Guest
#1 – When Palin used marijuana, it was legal in her state.
#2 – Bush never admitted to having used drugs. Whenever the question was brought up by reporters in the 2000 campaign, his answer was consistent. He stated that he refused to play their gotcha game and that when he was young and stupid he was young and stupid.
Stossel will never win converts if he keeps making false and misleading statements.
- Michael
It’s not all that “false” and “misleading,” and certainly not material to his point.
If Bush had never used drugs then he would have taken every opportunity to so state. He didn’t want to play the “gotcha game” for a reason..
- Dinkydot
How can anyone conservative say the war on drugs is a good idea? I mean if its war that hole in the defenses is pretty huge when you have Mexicans walking bails of it across our boarders every hour on the hour. So it’s not a war on drugs it’s a war one the American people. If you don’t own your own body and cant make simple choices on what to put in it or not, you don’t own a thing or have any freedoms at all. And that includes weed, salt. Cigarettes, Trans fats or whatever. And let be honest here smoking a little weed never hurt anyone, but it’s a good way to take control of the blacks and the poor.
- Anonymous
ann coulter is batshit crazy. its so nice to see her be called out directly on the murders went down during prohobition and then its a graph showing the direct opposite. stupid stupid woman.
- Picopallasi
Ann Coulter is a god damn idiot. All of her arguments were as shallow as a teenage republicans. This is why Republicans are just as stupid as democrats.
- Mainely Steve
Wow! if you’re dumping on both Repubs and Demos, then you must be an Independent. Where are you going to get a postion now that you can’t suck onto someone elses??
- Michael
Why not just take the correct position from each side? That’s what we’d call libertarianism..
- Anonymous
Watch out, we’re seen as cooky moral nihilists with a strange fixation on our wallets or sexual/substance libertines left over from Roman orgies by some Conservatives.
- ReAnimator727
Coulter’s welfare state argument is negated by the amount of tax money spent enforcing unjust drug laws. She should go back to Nazi camp and try to think of something that at least has the appearance of being a valid argument.
This is an interesting and lively discussion where Stossell takes the side of legalizing drugs and Coulter the opposing view. Coulter does concede that given a certain condition she would be ok with allowing states to determine the legality of drugs, but I’ll make you watch to figure out what the condition is.
Enjoy!
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590
- http://twitter.com/MooseOfReason
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590
- http://www.cyclonesoftwaresolutions.com
- http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s backside if you ,as an adult want to ingest the somewhat refined contents of a dry cell battery. The time worn arguments many have presented here for and against legalization are just that,worn-out,tired and threadbare. The way I see it, if by your actions or choices, bring harm or place in danger, myself or loved ones I will exercise my own “property rights” and save society and the state beaucoup bucks. That is my easy answer.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.