Weekend Idiot-Bashing

Over at Human Events , conservative blogger John Hawkins clenches real hard, and craps out a tedious defense of the drug war.

Hawkins has never been the brightest bulb in the conservative blogosphere. But wow. I think I'll keep the three hours of my life it'd take me to give it the thorough debunking it begs for. But feel free to fire away in the comments.

Comments

gregtmills | January 27, 2007, 4:33pm | #

How many crimes are committed using guns? How many gun owners have killed their kids accidently? How many people are in jail today because they used a gun in committing a crime? How many lives have been wrecked in some form or fashion by guns?


//Just saying, using emotional manipulation in argument is supposed to be a liberal trait.

Single Issue Voter | January 27, 2007, 4:34pm | #

I'll give it 30 seconds.........

That is mighty Progressive thinking for a Conservative.

( I bet he thinks Cockfighting is against "Our Moral Code" too)

Single Issue Voter | January 27, 2007, 4:42pm | #

One more.........


I think only "liberaltarians" want the Federal Government to be the "drug pusher"

If I wanted those drugs I would prefer to buy them from the hippie farmer at the local greenmarket, CVS Eckerds or Walgreens

steveintheknow | January 27, 2007, 4:59pm | #

I think I'll keep the three hours of my life it'd take me to give it the thorough debunking

3 hours? You underestimate yourself Radley. But it is saturday, have a beer and enjoy a game of Halo, or something.

jf | January 27, 2007, 5:01pm | #

John Hawkins is the master of begging the question.

Jim Walsh | January 27, 2007, 5:07pm | #

I read it - well, there's three minutes of my life I'll never get back...

Pete Guither | January 27, 2007, 5:22pm | #

I've got a piece up at at Drug WarRant on this and several similar recent pieces of junk that came out this week. Like Radley, I felt that it was just too foul to be worth the bother of debunking, but I did talk about the prohibitionists' annoying and intellectually dishonest technique of equating marijuana legalization with murder legalization.

shecky | January 27, 2007, 5:25pm | #

My God, prohibition works! How could I have been so wrong?

Colin | January 27, 2007, 5:28pm | #

Wow... He basically said prohibition worked. Awesome. I don't know why it was ever repealed, what with the better health everyone had and the lower crime ra... oh yeah...

The funny thing is that because of all the limits the states have put on cigarettes, it's actually easier for a high school kid to buy some weed than it is to get a pack of smokes. Obviously the Drug War is working.

taktix | January 27, 2007, 5:30pm | #

I like how Ann Coulter's opinion/unfunny-comedy book is cited as a source.

Since I can't get those three minutes back, I'm going to now burn the article from my memory with a nice, fat doobie.

steveintheknow | January 27, 2007, 5:37pm | #

"easier for a high school kid to buy some weed than it is to get a pack of smokes"

Colin

You know, the funny thing is that my friends and I used to smoke pot, and drop ecstasy all the time way back when (in the 90's). Going to a party that had booze was rare cause the shit was harder to get!

Speaking of which, The wife has a cold so I finally had my first experience of trying to by Nyquil with sudafed in it today. They had to swipe my ID.

highnumber | January 27, 2007, 5:38pm | #

Ironically, Hawkins, on his blog, lists The Agitator as one of the "right-of-center" blogs he emailed for his presidential poll.

Lonely Libertarian | January 27, 2007, 5:39pm | #

Here's the money passage:

If we legalized drugs, we'd be able to tax them and bring in more revenue for the state. But, how is that working out with alcohol and cigarettes? In 2004 and 2005, 39% of all traffic-related deaths was related to alcohol consumption and 36% of convicted offenders "had been drinking alcohol when they committed their conviction offense." When it comes to cigarettes, adult smokers "die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers." But, will we ever get rid of tobacco or alcohol? No, both products are too societally accepted for that and perhaps more importantly, the government makes enormous amounts of revenue from their sale. Do we really want to be sitting around 10 or 15 years from now saying, "Gee, we'd like to get rid of heroin, but how could we replace the revenue we make from taxing it at an exorbitant rate?"

Just in case you didn't get all that, alcohol and cigarettes are bad too, but we can't make them illegal because 1) they are socially acceptable and 2) the government makes a lot of money off of them. Only, that second reason, it's not a very good reason. So that leaves us with the first reason which is social acceptability. So there you have it, some drugs are legal because they are socially acceptable and other drugs are illegal because they are socially unacceptable. How can we ever win, going up against logic like that.

J | January 27, 2007, 5:48pm | #

I just love how he switches from talking about Holland in one sentence to whining about socialized health care in the next. Health insurance in The Netherlands is mandatory, subsidized, and heavily regulated, though nominally privately provided. There are other reasons to dislike such a system, of course, although it is actually a better in some subtle ways than the one we had until a few years ago. The reason that subsidized health care hasn't kept the Dutch from legalizing pot is simply that the burden on the subsidized health care system from a couple of kids smoking pot is negligible. The major source of medical problems is associated with tourists, and the health care they consume is paid for out of pocket (or in some cases by their respective governments.)

But what bothers me way more than this particular not so bright blogger's whining is the DEA site he links to. This is not anything remotely like a legitimate public service announcement, it's hard propaganda for particular controversial policies. For instance, it states in a big yellow box: "In 2006, voters in three states strongly rejected efforts to legalize marijuana: Colorado, Nevada and South Dakota."

http://www.justthinktwice.com/factfiction/LegalizationWorks.cfm

jb | January 27, 2007, 5:49pm | #

It seems to me that "legalizing drugs" is a different issue from "stopping the drug war."

If drugs were still illegal, and people found with drugs were still sent to jail, but the government no longer funded paramilitary activity in Colombia and no-knock SWAT raids in the USA, that would be a better outcome than what we have, if not as good as full legalization. In fact, I'd say it'd be closer to the latter than the former, in terms of utility.

Colin | January 27, 2007, 5:57pm | #

Steveintheknow:

Yeah, the same thing was pretty much the case with me. I remember that my younger brother didn't touch cigarettes until he was in the Army because pot was easier to get and "had a better kick anyway."

When I lived in San Francisco, over 18 by then, it was *still* easier to get an eigth than my daily pack of Camels. In New York, now, it's almost cheaper.

RSDavis | January 27, 2007, 6:02pm | #

I read it, it made me mad, and then I moved on. It's one of those rants there is so much wrong with, it's almost impossible to begin.

- R

steveintheknow | January 27, 2007, 6:06pm | #

-Colin

No shit on the New York part! As for me, I didn't start smoking cigarettes until I was 18. In retrospect, it was definately the worst decision (in terms of drug use) I ever made. Cocaine, ex, acid, pot, you name it, no harm done. Cigarettes on the other hand could kill me, if I can't find a way to quit. But I do take responsibility for that, and don't support bans in private places.

jkp | January 27, 2007, 6:08pm | #

Jesus tapdancing Christ, what wouldn't be okay to ban according to this guy's "argument"?

LatexSolarBeef | January 27, 2007, 6:24pm | #

does the author really believe his own pap?

or does he just believe that he oughta believe?

go team!

uncle sam | January 27, 2007, 6:27pm | #

This is your John on drug prohibition.

TH | January 27, 2007, 6:40pm | #

I'm going to go off on a limb and guess the answer to his "How many crack babies have been born?" question is 0.

JohnHawkins | January 27, 2007, 6:52pm | #

You libertarians crack me up. Nothing more than America-Hating hedonists in patriot clothing. Do some research and get back to me.

JHawk

Joshua C. | January 27, 2007, 7:26pm | #

"JHawk"

HA! You should drop the "J." It's getting between you and your fans.

Pi Guy | January 27, 2007, 7:31pm | #

Mr. Hawkins,

That was so pathetic that it doesn't even merit being called wrong.

PS: Referencing Coulter as an authority on anything pretty much invalidates any argument you present.

PPS: Look up "non-sequitor". In the future, you might want to avoid using more than, say, 11 of them in any given article where you wish to convince people that you have a clue.

Ken Shultz | January 27, 2007, 7:35pm | #

"Libertarians often attack the war on drugs as a waste of tax dollars and an infringement on personal liberties. That is misguided thinking that comes from trying to apply unworkable theoretical concepts in the real world."

Funny, The Drug War seems to me like a perfect example of a theoretical concept that's unworkable when applied to the real world. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

There are no theoretical people and somebody should clue Hawkins in. There's nothing "workable" about throwing real people in prison for no apparent reason.

Ruthless | January 27, 2007, 7:41pm | #

My computer is like a refrigerator bulb compared to everyone else's searchlight, so I was unable to download the article from Human Events. Nevertheless I can share the recent response I got from my old friend, Peter Bronson, columnist for the Cincinnati Enquirer about ending the war on drugs. Peter and I have been jousting for years.
If I see some good responses here, I'll use them on him. But I won't hold my breath that he'll change his mind.
.....
Thanks for the note. I try to keep an open mind on the topic, but everytime I have reviewed it, often with every intention of supporting your position, I come away with deep misgivings about the unintended consequences of good intentions. I’m not sure I want to live (or my children to live) in a world where “anything goes.” I think our culture is already eroding fast from that philosophy in so many other ways. Decriminalizing drugs might reduce drug crimes (or maybe not – we still have illegal betting despite casinos and lotteries). But I think it would certainly accelerate the decline of our society. The invisible fences of “permission” don’t need another break in the circuit that says drug use is OK.

Pro Libertate | January 27, 2007, 7:50pm | #

Ken,

I, too, am frequently amazed at the usage of words like "reality" and "real world" on both sides of the aisle to describe things that are not real but are reflections of the way they want things to be. Honestly, as much as libertarians are dismissed as idealists, I think we tend to accept the world as it is--warts and all--and don't try to make people something they aren't.

Ken Shultz | January 27, 2007, 7:58pm | #

"I’m not sure I want to live (or my children to live) in a world where “anything goes.” I think our culture is already eroding fast from that philosophy in so many other ways. Decriminalizing drugs might reduce drug crimes (or maybe not – we still have illegal betting despite casinos and lotteries). But I think it would certainly accelerate the decline of our society. The invisible fences of “permission” don’t need another break in the circuit that says drug use is OK."

Freedom scares the shit out of an awful lot of people, and an awful lot of people really do hate us for our freedom.

Ken Shultz | January 27, 2007, 7:59pm | #

oops.

b-psycho | January 27, 2007, 8:05pm | #

When you realize the true nut of the point being claimed by drug warriors -- "without the State telling people what they can and cannot do, they'd just go bonkers and try everything!" -- you find yourself wondering how the hell self-described "conservatives" ever bought that crap. Doesn't that directly contradict their whole "traditional values as guidance" bit?

Ken Shultz | January 27, 2007, 8:07pm | #

Pro Liberate,

Yeah, I get into debates about that even with other libertarians sometimes.

Freedom isn't necessarily the solution to every problem. Freedom won't put an end to spousal abuse or alcoholism and it won't stop people from cussing or looking at pictures of scantily clad women. It won't make people be nice to their moms and it may not raise awareness of AIDS. With more freedom, there will still be unwanted pregnancies and armed robberies and people may still curb their dog on your front lawn. Kids 'll probably still get funny hair cuts and listen to loud obnoxious music. Freedom probably won't make rich people pay for poor people's health care...

...but it has its points. Among other things, you get freedom.

Matt Moore | January 27, 2007, 8:09pm | #

PS: Referencing Coulter as an authority on anything pretty much invalidates any argument you present.

While this is true, you might get some credit if, in the reference you use, she was actually correct (hey, it could happen). But in this case it's the old "Prohibition worked because alcohol consumption fell" canard. Alcohol consumption fell initially (and known consumption fell for the entirety of Prohibition, but only because true data on use of an illicit substance is hard to come by) but arrests for drunkenness were essentially back to pre-Prohibition levels by 1925.

And even if Prohibition had lowered drinking levels significantly you'd still have to ignore all the peripheral crime problems to call it a success.

Matt Moore | January 27, 2007, 8:11pm | #

Doesn't that directly contradict their whole "traditional values as guidance" bit?

The bedrock of American conservatism is Christianity, and the bedrock of Christianity is original sin. Man is unredeemably sinful, so therefore the state must force him to act correctly.

Ruthless | January 27, 2007, 8:13pm | #

"I think we tend to accept the world as it is--warts and all--and don't try to make people something they aren't."
Pro Libertate,
No one knows what the world will be. Very few know what it was. Here's the nut. Very few know what it is.
The Sante Fe Institute is on the cutting edge of answering "what it is," but who the hell ever heard of the Sante Fe Institute?
From what I can tell about the Sante Fe Institute from a distance, even they don't realize how significant their thinking is, much less how supportive it is of peaceful anarchy.

Pro Libertate | January 27, 2007, 8:21pm | #

Reports of the West's decline due to moral reasons are greatly exaggerated. Exactly which society in human history collapsed because it had too much freedom? Again, political liberty and libertine behavior are not at all the same thing.

I'm actually fairly traditional in my personal morals, and I've never used recreational drugs, but I'm not worried about "letting" other people do such things. Maybe a moral decline is happening, and maybe it really is a problem. But I'm willing to weather a period of wantonness much more than I'm willing to resort to tyranny to stop it.

Ken,

I agree. Freedom is a valid end in and of itself. A free society also works better, in my opinion. Look, humanity is obviously screwed up, but handing our individual decision-making over to other members of the same species, members who are likely to be corrupted by power, makes no sense. Enlightened robot overlords are another story, as is rule by Jesus or superbeings from outer space.

Ken Shultz | January 27, 2007, 8:25pm | #

The bedrock of American conservatism is Christianity, and the bedrock of Christianity is original sin. Man is unredeemably sinful, so therefore the state must force him to act correctly.

Not to get off point, but I was raised in a Christian fundamentalist tradition that, actually, rejected original sin as a point of doctrine. Actually, many fundamentalists are quite terrified of government overstepping its bounds. There's one branch of fundamentalism that makes a lot of noise and gets a lot of press, but in terms of their numbers and the influence they have, that's often blown way out of proportion.

Christianity ain't the problem. ...those who would inflict their will on the rest of us--fundamentalist or otherwise--they're the problem. People who think there are "invisible fences of "permission", people who think they should have some say in how other people conduct their lives--they're the problem. People who think an individual's rights and freedoms are a fungible thing, something to be manipulated for the good of society--they're the problem.

...and that lion's share of that last bunch, me thinks, hails from the agnostic left.

Cola | January 27, 2007, 8:34pm | #

Doesn't that directly contradict their whole "traditional values as guidance" bit?

Hell no. If anything, it's much more traditional to conflate moral rules, tradition, and criminal law into a single entity, even to the point of including the laws of nature. It wasn't that long ago, after all, that people stopped believing masturbation caused actual physical illness.

thoreau | January 27, 2007, 8:45pm | #

Here's my question: Why do people bother to compose articles and blog posts against legalization? I've never gotten the impression that legalization is a proposal with any serious prospects at the moment. So why would anybody feel threatened enough by us legalization advocates to go out of his way and pick a fight?

I would think that ignoring us would be a much better strategy for them. What is it that they're afraid of?

Seriously, I'd like to know what they're afraid of, because then I might feel hopeful about legalization.

Ken Shultz | January 27, 2007, 8:47pm | #

"It wasn't that long ago, after all, that people stopped believing masturbation caused actual physical illness."

You mean it doesn't? ...and here I thought I could go blind.

Hallelujah!

Well that's it for me, guys--I gotta go do somethin' important!

The Real Bill | January 27, 2007, 9:16pm | #

It comes down to this:

At the root of all evil is the desire to control others.

At the root of all good is the desire to control oneself.

(Or something like that...)

Single Issue Voter | January 27, 2007, 9:19pm | #

MR. Shultz,

You could do a lot of good spreading that truth about fundamentalist Christianity. I was born and raised Heathen and it took me a while to realise that "Christianity ain't the problem".Quite a few of those fundies hold views perfectly consistent with libertarianism. Uphill battle though, I hear/read that every anti-freedom notion of secular progressivism attributed to "Right Wing Christians".The transference is pretty popular right here.

Ruthless | January 27, 2007, 9:23pm | #

thoreau,
Paul H. Rubin has an article in the Winter issue of Regulation (of the Cato Institute) that talks of the prehistoric fear tribes have that the "braves," whose job is supposed to be protecting the tribe, would weaken themselves (by drug usage).
But, then, there is the other characteristic of "braves," which is called engaging in "handicap competition."
See why the Sante Fe Institute is so necessary in sorting out human and tribe and societal behavior?

Freedom is so mental. Reality is so primal.

sINGLE iSSUE vOTER | January 27, 2007, 9:26pm | #

Well most people should be forgiven for thinking
masturbation caused insanity as that was the "scientific concensus" at the time. To have questioned science would have made them "masturbation insanity DENIERS".

The Wine Commonsewer | January 27, 2007, 9:34pm | #

Well, I guess we should just make alcohol illegal again and solve all our problems.

BTW, there 377 comments on Hawkins blog. Read a few and you'll know why drugs will never be legalized.

Big Sigh. There really is no hope.

Now I'm going back to my drudgery.

P Brooks | January 27, 2007, 10:14pm | #

"...in the sort of welfare state that we have in this country, the rest of us would end up paying a significant share of the bills of people who don't hold jobs or end up strung out in the hospital without jobs...."

And how do those costs compare with what we currently spend on enforcement and imprisonment?

The Wine Commonsewer | January 27, 2007, 10:17pm | #

Yes, but Ken, that DOES explain the zits and the fur on your palms.

plunge | January 27, 2007, 10:19pm | #

Actually, Prohibition did work to some extent: it drastically reduced alcohol consumption, and it stayed low for decades after before slowly climbing back up. And this in itself is pretty amazing given how underfunded and undermanned the effort was from start to finish: with very little effort and expense, the consumption of booze was basically chopped in half. That's nothing to sneeze at as far as social hacking goes.

The reason Prohibition was bad was not because it's impossible that it could work, but because it was wrong, it put people who were harming no one under legal suspicion, and it created a huge and violent black market.

Akira MacKenzie | January 27, 2007, 10:31pm | #

Quite a few of those fundies hold views perfectly consistent with libertarianism.

Riiight, tell that anyone who wants a same-sex marriage, or a woman who needs an abortion.

For all Single Issue's tendency to blame all American authoritarianism on "progressives," I'm yet to find a high-profile fundie give the Drug War anything but their jack-booted, theocratic praise.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 27, 2007, 10:34pm | #

...huge and violent black market.

My grandmother's finance was gunned down at the Canadian border by the feds when he tried to smuggle hooch in from Canada.

When I was a youngun I knew an old guy who was once a Texas Ranger. Fargin Democrat too. As a misguided yoot he made a lot of money smuggling alcohol from Mexico to Texas. The local sheriff looked the other way but did warn him that if the feds caught him he was dead meat.

joe | January 27, 2007, 10:52pm | #

"Do some research and get back to me."

*Slaps forehead*

Why didn't I think of that? RESEARCH! Oh, if only any libertarians had ever thought to do research on the effects of drug prohibition!

That's a great idea "JHawk!" *snicker* Maybe you should suggest it to Jacob Sullum, or CATO!

thoreau,

People write anti-legalization screeds for the same reason they call people "America-haters" - because something is wrong with their brains, and spewing condemnation of those who don't agree with them alleviates the symptoms momentarily.

Karen | January 27, 2007, 11:10pm | #

Slightly off-topic, but I was struck in his article, and not for the first time, about how hard it is to get accurate information about drug use. That includes effects, by the way. My son broke his arm this Thursday, an overlaying break of his upper arm, where the ends of the two parts of the bone actually overlap. (The ER techs told me more than once, "I wouldn't be as calm as he is if I had that break.") I mention this both for sympathy and because it's been an adventure getting painkillers for an eight-year-old. Nobody makes 'em. Now, I'm willing to believe that part of this is the dangers inherent in testing drugs on kids, but I have to wonder if part if it is the fear that kids will get addicted, or just that they'll enjoy the sensation. Honestly, I really don't care if Andy gets a little stoned for the next few days so long as he doesn't hurt. (Note: they gave him a full syringe of morphine in the ER. It didn't knock him out. Woozy, but definitely concious, and with an adult-sized opiate shot.) Seriously, though, our pain-relief technology is hampered by the fear that someone, somewhere, will use a painkiller without having a debilitating injury to earn it. Thus, we're willing to allow thousands of people to hurt just so some people won't have fun.

Oh, and just so's you know, our doctor gave him a Vicodin prescription with instructions to cut the pills in half. The work like a charm.

Aresen | January 27, 2007, 11:12pm | #

Plunge

"Prohibition did work to some extent: it drastically reduced alcohol consumption, and it stayed low for decades after before slowly climbing back up."

I'd like to see stats on that. I was under the impression that per capita alcohol consumption in the US, Canada and Western Europe was actually trending down. It is certainly far down from two centuries ago, but I have no information either way on the trend since 1918.

thoreau | January 27, 2007, 11:15pm | #

If somebody wants to know why drugs should be legal, I can answer that question with one word:

Taliban.

If it weren't for drug prohibition, opium wouldn't be terribly profitable, and you'd see dudes at the freeway off ramp with signs that read "Will hijack for food."

Single Issue Voter | January 27, 2007, 11:23pm | #

Akira,

I've yet to see a prominent Democrat call for drug legalization.George Schultz and James Baker have (albeit after their elevation to "elder statesman".I keep asking you Progressive/Socialist Authoritarians to name ONE
libertarian leaning Democrat at the National level.

I still don't see anything libertarian about the State sanctioning/recognising private domestic/sexual partnerships-marriage if you will-Gay or Straight.Gay marriage is one of those positive rights y'all are always whining about- like freedom from income inequality.I don't see your "Constitutional Right to Abortion" in any danger at the Federal level.
Perhaps you should lobby for legislation to protect it in case the SCOTUS finds any legal problems with that air tight R vs W decision.
You seem to have a strange conception of what libertarianism is.
However as a Single Issue Voter I could be persuaded to some of your views. What is your opinion on legal cockfighting?

MikeT | January 27, 2007, 11:24pm | #

I took the time to rebut some of it. The guy is not one for taking on others in debates. I have challenged him to a debate over the issue of the "North American Union" which he has said can never happen, and that only tin foil hat-wearing idiots would buy into. Some of my pings to his entries have even been deleted, even though I have presented historic evidence to counter his claims, and none of my posts were the stuff of conspiracy mongering.

He's a well meaning guy, which is more than can be said for a lot of conservative commentators, but it's always been a mystery to me why he's gotten so much attention. His writing for Human Events is as conversational in writing style as your average blog post. It's not even close to "serious writing" and generally barely qualifies as fluff. Hell, I rebutted on his blog that claim he posted from Ann Coulter's book that alcohol prohibition worked, by citing Cato stats that showed that it barely touched consumption rates and there was a marked increase in murder rates during that period, and he still didn't respond.

I have for a while thought a blog sparring match between him and Vox Day would be hilarious. It would not even qualify as a baby seal clubbing by the time Vox was through with him.

MikeT | January 27, 2007, 11:26pm | #

Aresen,

Here are Cato's stats. They show that prohibition did initially work, but that's to be expected when the source of the alcohol has to transition from open market to black market.

MikeT | January 27, 2007, 11:28pm | #

Heh, I should have finished that last thought. The reason that alcohol prohibition got consumption rates back down really low is simple. Prohibition killed all of the legal distribution channels and a robust black market didn't exist yet. The initial enforcements destroyed the existing open, legal market which ended all competition to the black market. Thus, markets being markets, the black market exploded in size to meet the same old consumption needs.

uncle sam | January 27, 2007, 11:49pm | #

Conservvatives, some of them at least, really don't know what it is that accounts for civilizations and what brings them down.

Did Rome fall because of decadence? Or did Rome become decadent because it was falling?

Political power corrupts not only those who rule, but those who are ruled as well.

dhex | January 28, 2007, 12:40am | #

"If it weren't for drug prohibition, opium wouldn't be terribly profitable, and you'd see dudes at the freeway off ramp with signs that read "Will hijack for food.""

thoreau, that's not the point. the point is that they're frightened and dope fiends are scary. if we don't look tuff on drugs then the talibans and the al kaedas and the soviet union will come out of retirement and then we're up shit creek without a paddle.

you're either for the children or you're against them.

THartill | January 28, 2007, 12:43am | #

Hey at least something good came out of reading his blog. According to the poll Republicans prefer Ron Paul over McCain by 40 points! Although RP is still 40 points behind Newt.

Akira MacKenzie | January 28, 2007, 1:04am | #

I still don't see anything libertarian about the State sanctioning/recognising private domestic/sexual partnerships-marriage if you will-Gay or Straight.Gay marriage is one of those positive rights y'all are always whining about- like freedom from income inequality.

First Your comment on "income equality," is a strawman fallacy. How the Hell did you come o the assumption that I'm some sort of socialist because I think same-sex couples should be allowed to get hitched? Who formulates your...ahem... logic? Bill Orally?

Second, gay marriage is--or should be--covered under the First Amendment: Under the Establishment Clause (i.e. the state shouldn't be making the Christian notion of marriage law), the Free Exercise Clause (i.e. Churches should have the right to marry whoever they want, gays and lesbians included) and the Free Association Clause (i.e. If the sexual practices of consenting adults do not count as "association," then I don't know what does.)

I don't see your "Constitutional Right to Abortion" in any danger at the Federal level.

Why should we have to have every human practice imaginable enumerated in the Constitution in order to protect it? Hmmm?

Perhaps you should lobby for legislation to protect it in case the SCOTUS finds any legal problems with that air tight R vs W decision.

Which is about as likely to happen as Pat Robertson inviting Richard Dawkins to dinner, unless we continue to pack the courts with Bible-beaters. Besides, isn't putting freedom up to a vote by the knuckle dragging mob just as "statist" as you allowing it be defined by so-called "judical activists?"

The Wine Commonsewer | January 28, 2007, 1:18am | #

Karen, bummer. God Speed.

Tyrone Slothrop | January 28, 2007, 1:34am | #

Just a quick, vague, and general response:

It is interesting how nobody who argues against "moral degeneration" seems to have a coherent non-tautological conception of morality. At its skeleton, the argument seems to be this:

"Busybody: If we allow people to do drugs (allow gay people to get married, etc.), then we are going to contribute to the moral decay of the U.S.

Libertarian: Well, what exactly would the moral decay of america entail?

Busybody: Gay people having sex and people doing drugs you America hater!"

Too bad nobody cares about rationality anymore.

highnumber | January 28, 2007, 3:33am | #

Karen,

Keep us posted and please tell the story - how did he break it? I would like to start a serial...
Really, let him know that there are people who, although he has never met them, that his mother has never met them, but she has occasionally communicated with them via the internet, but not in real time, are still concerned and wish him the best.
It's kind of awe-inspiring if you think about it.

steveintheknow | January 28, 2007, 3:42am | #

You libertarians crack me up. Nothing more than America-Hating hedonists in patriot clothing. Do some research and get back to me.

Woh!!!

(cliche coming)

Best. Troll. Evar!!

Well, I guess its better then being a LIBERTY and FREEDOM hating dipshit!!!

You know dude, you should try gauging your audience a little better. When you are talking to a bunch of folks who value actual PEOPLE more then some GOVERNMENT, the whole “I’m more patriotic then you” spiel reads a bit like, I don't know, “my dad can beat up your dad”. Anyway, I could be wrong but I always remember being taught back in the secondary schoolin’ days and all, that criticizing the government, especially when they act like a bunch of dumb asses, that you know, it was like what’s the word?....oh yeah, PATRIOTIC!

Anyway, I’m going to watch Federer bitch slap some dude now. Kind of like when some moron starts saying shit like “prohibition actually did work and ……”. Oh what’s the point (sigh)…

steveintheknow | January 28, 2007, 5:50am | #

Alright, I must apologize for my rudeness and crass language. I’m not doing any libertarians, or anti-drug war folks any favors by showing so little class. I just get upset sometimes, and like with most of my comments on H&R, I really wish I had let myself cool down before saying something stupid. I usually feel that way when I respond to joe. ;)

Anyway, as a former (illegal) drug user, and pretty heavy at times, I get pretty angry when drug-warriors question my values and ethics, especially when they play the patriotic card on a domestic issue. I eventually graduated college, recently got married and am looking to starting a family. I could have gone to jail several times if weren’t for some very gracious police officers. I can only imagine what would have happened if I had gone to jail and gotten a felony. My life would be screwed, not to mention that I would have never become a positive contributor to society. Anyway, drugs are bad, but throwing people in jail for it is worse.

Karen

As a fellow Austinite, best wishes. And hopefully I will never need your services (all smiles).

BTW, Fderer is up two sets!!! Switzerland vs. Chile, a pretty damn fine libertarian match-up, if I do say so myself.

Single Issue Voter | January 28, 2007, 9:30am | #

Akira,

You are casting marriage as a positive right.
Why should the State sanction/recognize any marriage at all?

The non-sequitor attacks on media personalitites of cable news and publisihing taint your State Socialist trolling. What the hell do O'Reilly and Coulter have to do with anything discussed in the blog's comments?
These new "liberaltarians" seem to skip over Friedman and Hayek for Al Franken.

thoreau | January 28, 2007, 9:31am | #

I'm a single-issue commenter: I hate trolls.

And I just got comment #69!

Clay H | January 28, 2007, 9:34am | #

"Our moral code" Is this clown really trying to make smoking a joint the moral equivalent of murder. While I certainly agree that murder is immoral, I am unable to make the giant leap regarding ANY drug use. The crime and human degradation he speaks of are a result of the drug war and not drug use.
I'm not a utopian. I don't pretend for even a second that liberty will result in a society without any ugliness. But this so called adherence to "morality" forces addicts (a medical condition and not a moral failing btw) to conduct their business with the most amoral elements of society (next to government), they are forced to deal with filty, overpriced product. They are barred from getting help by the stigma and legal exposure by admitting to use.
Conclusion: Drug wars are immoral.

Karen | January 28, 2007, 10:19am | #

Thanks for all the good wishes. It really does mean a lot and helps enormously. Andy is doing really well, considering. We went to see Night at the Museum last night and he enjoyed it immensely, (it is actually a pretty cute movie, and I loved getting to see Mickey Rooney and Dick Van Dyke in action again.) The movie wasn't nearly as much fun, however, as gloating to his little brother about being able to eat pizza in the den because the only place he can prop up his sling comfortably is one of the recliners. Oh, and steveintheknow, Seton Southwest has a nice and rather uncrowded ER, but I hope you never need to use that information.

Thanks again, guys, and I'll report anything else.

ktc2 | January 28, 2007, 10:25am | #

Seems the usual. OMG! If we legalize drugs the world will collapse, the sky will fall, we will have dogs living with cats, nazis riding dinosaurs, etc.

Plus added some really bizarre BS about alcohol prohibition being good. It's really scary that I hear that more and more from "conservatives".

Aresen | January 28, 2007, 10:31am | #

MikeT

Thanks for the link. It covers about what I would have expected for the prohibition era itself. However, I took Plunge's note to mean that consumption was increasing. He didn't say per capita consumption was increasing, though.

I just googled "per capita alcohol consumption" and came up with this link:
http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/bestprice/alcoholdrinkconsumptionpriceseurope.htm

For most countries in the OECD, including the US, it looks like per capita consumption is declining over the long term, although the measure seems to be just the volume of the beverages, not the ethanol content.

[I'm still trying to figure out how to post html, sorry.]

Single Issue Voter | January 28, 2007, 10:39am | #

"a medical condition and not a moral failing btw"

re "Addiction"
I totally disagree

That is the argument for continuing drug prohibition-the Public Health argument.

Addiction as moral failure is much more supportive of drug legalization. Legislating public health has more voter appeal than legislating morality.

Jackson Kuhl | January 28, 2007, 11:07am | #

MikeT,

The reason that alcohol prohibition got consumption rates back down really low is simple. Prohibition killed all of the legal distribution channels and a robust black market didn't exist yet. The initial enforcements destroyed the existing open, legal market which ended all competition to the black market. Thus, markets being markets, the black market exploded in size to meet the same old consumption needs.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I would point out that it's amazing how fast the black market did take shape immediately after the Volstead Act became reality. But yes, it wasn't until 1924 or so when the big organized syndicates had smuggling and cutting down to a science that the market networks became so large and intractable as to duplicate or surpass anything that existed before Prohibition.

That said, I would suggest that the cause of the downturn in consumption around 1920-1921 had more to do with public attitude than with enforcement. Remember that Prohibition had its roots in the temperence movement dating back to the mid-19th century and only became law due to a sense of solidarity and self-sacrifice brought on by the World War. Been-there historians like Frederick Lewis Allen noted that the coming Prohibition was widely felt to be a good thing during the war years but that a gradual sea-change took place after the Treaty of Versailles -- people wanted to relax and enjoy the good life. As the 20s progressed, consumption of cars, refrigerators, and Florida real-estate went hand-in-hand with that of beer and formaldehyde-laced whiskey.

Ruthless | January 28, 2007, 11:28am | #

Has anyone seen a quote from any Iraqi politician acknowledging that Baghdad is in the midst of a civil war? I'm thinking most there are blind to what's happening under their noses.
In the same way, metropolitan politicians here in the US are blind to the fact that the War on Drugs has evolved into a civil war between whites and young, black men.
That is how the greatest damage of the War on Drugs is being done. Thoreau, it is creating a Taliban in all US cities. (As a reminder, the Little Woman and I live in the inner killing fields of Sinincincinnati.)

Akira MacKenzie | January 28, 2007, 11:56am | #

It is interesting how nobody who argues against "moral degeneration" seems to have a coherent non-tautological conception of morality.

One man's "moral decay" is another man's progress. Oh... I used the "P" word, I guess that's yet more evidence for Single Brain Cell that I'm a "socialist."

Akira MacKenzie | January 28, 2007, 12:26pm | #

You are casting marriage as a positive right.

No, said that a certain human activity was protected by established rights(i.e. freedom of religion and freedom of association). Unless you want to claim that the First Amendment is a "positive right" that Madison just pulled out of his ass, I'd suggest you learn some reading comprehension.

Why should the State sanction/recognize any marriage at all?

Maybe it shouldn't. I would have no problem if the state got out of the marriage business completely. But this isn't libertopia and the fact of the matter is that the states DOES sanction/recognize marriage. As long as it does, it should recognize that right for all Americans no matter who they like to fuck.

The non-sequitor attacks on media personalitites of cable news and publisihing taint your State Socialist trolling. What the hell do O'Reilly and Coulter have to do with anything discussed in the blog's comments?

1) My Bill O'Reilly comment as no more a non sequiter than your obsessive accusation that I, or anyone else who disagrees with you in the slightest, is a "socialist."

2) I'm a troll? I've been commenting on his blog for about three years. Where the fuck have you been all this time? As for any socialist taint in my posts, your inability to see that statism is a result of both the Left and the Right betrays your own conservative biases.

Stop lying to us, you're about as "libertarian" as Pat Buchanan. Come clean!

These new "liberaltarians" seem to skip over Friedman and Hayek for Al Franken.

Versus the "conservatarians" who hide out in their Montana shacks, stock up on nitrogen-based fertilizer and fuel oil, rant about the end of the gold standard, and keep a constant eye out for black helicopters from the UN.

For all Franken's ideological faults, I'd rather mix my capitalism with his social views than with fucking Timothy McVeigh.

Karen | January 28, 2007, 12:29pm | #

Lots of interesting points here. I agree that alcohol consumption is going down, but I think that has more to do with refrigeration and clean water supplies than improved morality. Sodas, milk, and fruit juice are entirely products of refrigeration. Fruit juice, for example, turns into booze pretty much automatically if it's not refrigerated. It's not good booze, but it'll get you quite drunk. Milk curdles. Water becomes contaminated with really nasty stuff if it's allowed to become stagnant or if there's a large settlement upstream. (I read somewhere that typhoid fever, which is water-borne, is still largely incurable. It's just that because of treated water, no one gets it anymore.) We can afford now to drink less because we have other safe alternatives. Take away water treatment and refrigerators, and we'd be as big boozehounds as our ancestors.

Also, I agree that the black market ginned up (pun definitely intentional) very quickly after the passage of the Volstead Act. Booze is one of the easiest things in the world to make -- see above about unrefrigerated fruit juice -- and most people in the past made their own. That, by the way, is why I mistrust alcohol consumption stats from the early 20th C. My ancestors clung to their tradition of homebrew well past WWII; Prohibition didn't make any difference. They just didn't connect their hard cider and corn squeezin' to What Those Nasty Yankees And Icky Brown People Got Drunk On. Look up the origins of stock car racing sometime for grins. There's lots of dog-whistle racism in drug laws, by the way. Why else would crack carry harsher penalties than powder?

Sadly, pointing out that the drug war is expensive and ineffective, the original laws were racist, enforcement is either crooked or dangerous, and that we really don't know what the actual health effects of moderate recreational drug use are or whether withdrawal produces terrible phsyical symptoms, has pretty much zero effect. Drug prohibition is, in my opinion, a modern version of ancient contamination superstitions. We don't stone people to death anymore for eating pork; we just lock them up for smoking marijuana.

dhex | January 28, 2007, 12:49pm | #

"Why else would crack carry harsher penalties than powder? "

ironically, a lot of black leaders helped lead the call for these penalties, under the mistaken impression it would reduce participation in the drug market in their communities.

Single Issue Voter | January 28, 2007, 1:01pm | #

Akira,

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I referred to your posts as socialist. You are removing all doubt. You betray yourself with the FAUX NEWs crap-save it for Democratic Underground and Think Progress.
Demanding State recognition of gay marriage and state funding of embryonic stem cell research are not "libertarian" causes -they are Statist. Since this isn't "libertopia" and we don't have truly free markets Protectionism and Central State Planning of the economy are OK?

Enough with your ad hominem/strawman/ logical fallacy attacks when you use them all yourself. Get to the point.
How is libertarianism compatible-in any way-
with liberal democratic progressivism?

I am arguing it is at least somewhat compatible with modern conservatism as they at least acknowlege individual liberty, private property rights and free markets rhetorically and ideologically even if they fail in practical governing.

Single Issue Voter | January 28, 2007, 1:05pm | #

What is with the sex thing here?

Ken is all about bestiality and Akira is "fucking Timothy McVeigh" ?

Single Issue Voter | January 28, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Karen,

We may be locking them up for eating foies gras(if not pork) soon.

dhex | January 28, 2007, 1:09pm | #

i have a drug problem...i can't stay away from the comments thread!

i like pretending everyone's laughing as they write things like

"And the true Socialists are counting on the selfish drives of pleasure addicts to help them destroy America, so they can turn it into the USSR, Jr. - the original worked so well! sic."

Mad Max | January 28, 2007, 1:20pm | #

I'm sure someone has come up with this idea before:

So many people want drugs to be illegal because annoying aging hippies and punk kids use drugs. What we need is for the aging hippies and punk kids to make a sacrifice for their country, and turn into drug prohibitionists.

After the conservatives attend a couple of prohibitionist rallies with smarmy, self-righteous hippies and undereducated, backwards-baseball-cap-wearing kids make lectures about the perils of legalization, conservatives will switch over to supporting legalization.

Isaac Bartram | January 28, 2007, 1:26pm | #

What we need is for the aging hippies and punk kids to make a sacrifice for their country, and turn into drug prohibitionists.

Sorry, but it is the aging hippies that have turned into drug prohibitionists. Once those sons of bitches got haircuts and jobs and had children they turned into the worst authoritarians of all.

Cola | January 28, 2007, 1:35pm | #

How is libertarianism compatible-in any way-
with liberal democratic progressivism?

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.
-Whitman

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
-Emerson

Tom | January 28, 2007, 1:44pm | #

I think this is just sour grapes over the fact the Republicans cannot rely on the Libertarian vote anymore.

And it further proves that the modern Republican party no longer stands for republican (ie a republic) values of personal liberty and Federalism.

Isaac Bartram | January 28, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Why didn't I think of that? RESEARCH! Oh, if only any libertarians had ever thought to do research on the effects of drug prohibition!

That's a great idea "JHawk!" *snicker* Maybe you should suggest it to Jacob Sullum, or CATO!

This, to my mind, is an example why joe is a respected member of the H&R commentariat.

See, joe, thinks that we're intelligent enough that with the right impetus we'd just become New Deal Liberals. And there are some of of us here who think that with the right impetus joe'd just become a libertarian. :) Well, maybe not, but you know what I mean.

You see when we know we agree over some issues and disagree over others we can discuss those issues.

Yes, sometimes some people take things too personally and insults are traded (and they are sometimes bad enough to shock a jaded old cynic like me) but for the most part this an exceedingly civil place to pass time.

JohnCjackson3 | January 28, 2007, 3:32pm | #

"You libertarians crack me up. Nothing more than America-Hating hedonists in patriot clothing. Do some research and get back to me.

JHawk"

If that really IS John Hawkins ( that has to be satire, right?), that is the funniest/stupidest shit I have read in awhile.

Why do YOU hate America, J-Ho?

uncle sam | January 28, 2007, 3:38pm | #

Prohibitionists are unable to see the beams in their own eyes.

It is the corrupting effects of political power that eventually brings about the decline of a civilization..., and prohibition requires expanded political power.

Evan! | January 28, 2007, 4:13pm | #

Single Issue Voter says:

"Demanding State recognition of gay marriage and state funding of embryonic stem cell research are not "libertarian" causes -they are Statist. Since this isn't "libertopia" and we don't have truly free markets Protectionism and Central State Planning of the economy are OK?"

First off, your mention of stem cells is the first I've seen in all these comments. IOW, it's a strawman. Second, what part of "I don't agree with the government doing X, but if they MUST do X, then they should apply it fairly."? You aren't really so dense as to not understand how someone could be against something in principle, but also against it being applied unfairly...are you?

I don't agree with the government funding public schools---but demanding that, if the government DOES fund public schools, it doesn't discriminate on race, creed, etc., does NOT make me a socialist, nor does Akira demanding that if the state is going to recognize marriage, it should apply it fairly. One CAN disagree with something in principle, and at the same time, believe that if that something must be applied, then it should be applied fairly. You obviously never took a logic course.

"How is libertarianism compatible-in any way-with liberal democratic progressivism?"

Just about the same as it is compatible with conservatism. The basic jist is (if you wanna get really basic) conservatives value economic freedom more than social freedom, while liberals value social freedom more than economic freedom. Libertarianism values both. So libertarianism is, roughly, equally compatible with either side of the aisle---depending largely on whether economic or social concerns are the bigger issues of the day at that particular point in time.

"I am arguing it is at least somewhat compatible with modern conservatism as they at least acknowlege individual liberty, private property rights and free markets rhetorically and ideologically even if they fail in practical governing."

As I said above. Modern conservatism might jive, in theory, with libertarianism on the above points, but it fails horribly when it comes to social freedoms. Just like liberalism fails horribly when it comes to the above freedoms. It's two sides of the same coin, and conservatism isn't any better than liberalism in theory. In practice, it's much worse, given the statist political crimes of the so-called republicans as of late.

It's time to get off your high horse. Your theoretical "conservatives can be better friends with libertarians than liberals" schtick is tired and empty.

uncle sam | January 28, 2007, 4:46pm | #

When the desire of people to control their circumstances grows in the desire to control others, the seeds of eventual chaos are planted.

ZappaCrappa | January 28, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Though I agree, in theory, that there should be legalization, I personally don't want it. Just imagine what good, god-fearing americans such as the author would want to put in my nice clean, natural pot. No thanks...considering I don't trust my government to tell me much of the truth about anything or to do anything that is REALLY right or without ulterior motives...I'll prefer to keep getting my "smoke" from the friendly guy down the street who does wonders in his basement....with no "government approved" additives : )

BTW there JHawk...though you might WANT to lable me as whatever...I am a 10 year USMC gulf-war vet...so where did your patriotic ass serve? I bet I can guess the answer to that...probably about the same service that GWB had...IF that..."unpatriotic"...LMAO at a lame ass.

Single Issue Voter | January 28, 2007, 5:18pm | #

I don't see liberals/progressives as so supportive of social freedom. There seems to be an assumption among some here (and elsewhere) that they are. The Nanny State tendencies of big government are either transferred as ostensibly conservative ideology (Progressive Prohibition) or embraced as "fairness" in our less than utopian society.
If you read any utilitarian political philosophy, particularly Amitai Etzioni's Communitarian stuff you will see "they" specifically identify libertarianism and the very notion of individual rights as the dangerous ideology. The American Democratic Left is opposed to individualism.
A more practical example is in the Supreme Court Kelo decision.The judges recognised as left/liberal in their philosophy all supported
The State taking property for non-public purposes-they were quite shocked at the outcry.
Who would appoint more like-minded judges?
The liberal riff on tax policy is one of how much taxpayers are allowed to keep-of Society's money, not how much The State needs to take of individuals money.Of course taxpayers are not even individuals we are "working families" or Corporations.

The only future of a leftist-libertarian alliance is the hope that they take us on as an aggrieved group constituency and throw a bone as payback for political support. I'm not a group I am an individual.

Despite their practices, the American Right talks the talk. Their philosophy incorporates individualism and private property rights.

I am arguing that libertarianism is somewhat consistent with one political philosophy while it is opposed to the other.

That does not mean Republicans "deserve" our vote- they don't usually get mine.

A left/libertarian fusion based on a percieved agreement on an issue is unworkable as the two political philosophies are diametrically opposed.

As for prohibition,it is far easier to find anti -pornography and anti-free speech leftists than it is to find the anti-drug prohibition ones some people think are out there.As I've pointed out elsewhere-they invented Prohibition.

Pierre Proudhon | January 28, 2007, 5:34pm | #

SIV

"Since the two principles, Authority and Liberty, which underlie all forms organized society, are on the one hand contrary to each other, in a perpetual state of conflict, and on the other can neither eliminate each other nor be resolved, some kind of compromise between the two is necessary. Whatever the system favored, whether it be monarchical, democratic, communist or anarchist, its length of life will depend to the extent to which it has taken the contrary principle into account."

"...that monarchy and democracy, communism and anarchy, all of them unable to realize themselves in the purity of their concepts, are obliged to complement one another by mutual borrowings. There is surely something here to dampen the intolerance of fanatics who cannot listen to a contrary opinion... They should learn, then, poor wretches, that they are themselves necessarily disloyal to their principles, that their political creeds are tissues of inconsistencies... contradiction lies at the root of all programs."

Props to Evan!

grumpy realist | January 28, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Morality: the desire to punish others for doing stuff you are secretly obsessed with doing.

No one thinks so much about Hot Gay Sex as the fundies, I bet.

My own view on drug liberalization: anything you can grow in your back yard is legit. Cooking up in a chemical lab? Not so legit (mainly because most people out there are lousy chemists and have a tendency to blow up things. And they don't know how to dispose of the side products correctly.)

No one ever caused an explosion by growing opium poppies.

mediageek | January 28, 2007, 6:57pm | #

"No one thinks so much about Hot Gay Sex as the fundies, I bet. "

Just ask Ted Haggard.

SteveInClearwater | January 28, 2007, 7:46pm | #

FRIENDS...Please file this away for future use anytime you read or hear someone saying that "Legalizing drugs is bad...."

99.5% of drugs are LEGAL in North America.

Why?

Because we cannot regulate production and commercial distribution unless they are legal.

If we wish to have a discussion on the merits of drug use, the health benefits/risks of drug use, let's do it.

But it's a separate discussion from the question of which is better:

a) A multi-billion dollar drug market that is legal and therefore able to be regulated

or

b) A multi-billion dollar drug market that is illegal and left 100% uncontrolled.

"A" is not a perfect system. We can make a list of flaws and problems associated with "A".

But there is no question that "A" is preferable to "B" when we're talking about drugs.

That's why our society has chosen to place 99.5% of drugs into a legal market.

It's not an endorsement for "drugs".

It's an endorsement for sensible regulation.

And that regulation need not solely be a government oversight. A combination of local, state, federal and private business oversight is what we apply towards 99.5% of currently in-demand drugs.

Only the Prohibitionist attempts to make a case for leaving a short list of in-demand drugs on the street and 100% uncontrolled.

Pat | January 28, 2007, 8:07pm | #

Radley:

Thanks for posting this bit of stupidity by Hawkins. I contributed an ample put down on my LeftIndependent blog. Its too big to post it all here.

Dear Human Events Editors:

Mr. Hawkins prefers the drug war status quo of addict drug dealers, gangsters and other social predators controlling the morals and ethics of drug sales in our communities (and to our children) to the drug policy reform community alternative of regulating and licensing responsible members of the community to sell drugs. Citizens who would better respect and reflect the values of America in a controlled drug market. Absurd!

As to the comparison to alcohol prohibition I will cite a conservative of the day for argument.

"Horrified by the violence and corruption that alcohol prohibition fostered, lifelong Republican Pauline Morton Sabin told Congress in 1930, "...women played a large part in the enactment [of prohibition]... They are now realizing with heart burning and heart aching that if the spirit is not within, legislation can be of no avail. They thought they could make prohibition as strong as the Constitution, but instead have made the Constitution as weak as prohibition..." She went on to say that before prohibition, her children had no access to alcohol. During prohibition they could get it anywhere." October, 1998 Brainstorm Magazine, Cascade Policy Institute

When addicts, gangsters and social predators are the only people selling drugs drugs are sold according to the morals and ethics of addicts, gangsters and social predators. That is the economic reality of the drug war.

MORE: Defending the right-wing drug war

Single Issue Voter | January 28, 2007, 8:14pm | #

Thanks Pat,

Funniest link I've seen all day!
Kucinich will end the drug war!

And from a confederate flag-free website!
(click on his profile for that bit o' fun)

Milt | January 28, 2007, 8:26pm | #

There's a detailed response to Hawkins' post here.

Karen | January 28, 2007, 8:44pm | #

I like Pat's argument about a regulated market. With a regulated market, you not only have the government attempting to control the market, you have the legal dealers ratting on each other and the illegal ones.

I see no reason drug sales wouldn't work the same way. With an illegal market, every participant has an equally strong interest in keeping the cops OUT. The only way to divide and conquer is to be, well, corrupt, because the authorities have to ignore some violations in order to secure deals with witnesses to testify against bigger fish. (In theory. In reality, mid-level mules get jail time and the actual big guns live in palaces in South America.) In a regulated market, by contrast, the ones who go to the trouble of getting the ticket are going to be fifty times harsher on the fly-by-night sorts than any jury would. The associations form committees to go out and look for violators. I've never seen a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of booze that didn't have a tax stamp on it, and I promise you that's not because the Treasury Department or the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission are so very efficient. It's because Phillip Morris and Seagrams and Fortune Brands have a strong interest in making sure everyone plays by their rules. It may not be ideal, but it does assure basic quality of the products, and keeps the mob out of it.

thoreau | January 28, 2007, 9:11pm | #

Karen-

I have to disagree. In the drug trade, dealers sometimes use the cops to go after rivals.

Jim Walsh | January 28, 2007, 9:32pm | #

Anyone who cites Coulter as a source can be dismissed out of hand.

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga | January 28, 2007, 9:52pm | #

Your so right Jim after all she appears on Faux News!

There is a story over on Wired that says Hilary Clinton is the strongest candidate on electronic privacy.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72549-0.html?tw=rss.index

Robert | January 29, 2007, 12:36am | #

"Left" and "right" agree on the wrongness of using certain drugs non-medically, and in the rightness of criminalizing wrongness. However, the "left" is soft on crime, so they happen to wind up better for us on some drug-related matters.

Guy Montag | January 29, 2007, 1:56am | #

So, does the backlash against this guy bring us any closer to being able to smoke tobacco at the next Reasonid gathering in DC?

Russell | January 29, 2007, 4:12am | #

This is your mind on drugs ~O~
This is the bell curve on Human Events .:

Guy Montag | January 29, 2007, 5:10am | #

Russell,

Nice to see someone else up at this hour. The rest of this lot are a bunch of slackers!

I.Self.Divine. | January 29, 2007, 8:25am | #

Somewhat OT...what ever happened with that Nadelman-Barr throwdown? Was it cancelled?

dhex | January 29, 2007, 10:13am | #

my mind on right wing news:_____________________

Pat | January 29, 2007, 10:37am | #

TO: Robert | January 29, 2007, 12:36am |

True, most of America, left, right and center are all deluded about what the drug war is and what it is doing TO them. Your post is a textbook example of this ignorance.

Prohibition of free markets does not stop the markets it simply gives the market over to the criminals and predators in the community. They thrive on illegal markets. America has created a $ 322 billion annual retail black market for drugs and this black market inspires entire criminal industries dedicated to circumventing America's best criminal laws in order to get a piece of that pie.

America learned this with the alcohol prohibition. America is re-learning this economic lesson today. Deprogramming ignorant folks like you is a big part of the job of saving America and the world from the crime fostering and terrorism funding drug prohibition.


TO: Single Issue Voter | January 28, 2007, 8:14pm |

Grow up. Or grow a brain.

Either way you are not contributing to a civil and intelligent discourse.

Pat | January 29, 2007, 10:44am | #

Conservative free market economists tell us that regulation stifles the growth of profitable free markets.

The prohibition created black market for drugs is a totally unregulated free market and is growing exponentially as a result.

This is why democratic society regulates the excesses of anarchy out of free markets.

de stijl | January 29, 2007, 11:03am | #

"As for any socialist taint in my posts, your inability to see that statism is a result of both the Left and the Right betrays your own conservative biases."

It's insane, this guy's taint!

uncle sam | January 29, 2007, 12:55pm | #

Hawkins is the proud owner of an opinion guard.

Pat | January 29, 2007, 1:35pm | #

TO: uncle sam | January 29, 2007, 12:55pm |

LOL! The original, defective, test modal was sewn onto Bush's head back in the 1970's. Pat Robertson and Dick (for brains) Cheney shove a new battery into it one every election cycle.

The drug war is like one huge intellectual condom that will not allow the smallest germ of an alternative get out into the world.

Bob Dobalina | January 30, 2007, 1:35am | #

The prohibition created black market for drugs is a totally unregulated free market and is growing exponentially as a result.

Wha?