Haven't used my "other Althouses" tag in a long time.
- If a child sees a parent consume alcohol, Protective Services may remove the child from the home.
- If a parent has one drink, it will cause loss of custody of children in a divorce case.
- No alcohol may be served by the drink anywhere in Colorado.
- All publicly viewable consumption at sporting events, backyards , political rallies, fraternal organizations, breweries, vineyards, farmers markets, and picnics, even if the alcohol is free, is a crime.
- Alcohol consumption outside a private home is a crime.
- No alcohol advertising is allowed except for adult only publications.
- All alcohol production and sales must be a monopoly selected by the State.
- All craft beer is illegal, only large brewers may be licensed as retailers
- All alcohol sales are package sales only, must be in child proof containers and placed in plain dark paper exit packaging stapled shut before leaving the store.
- Non Colorado citizens will be limited to one bottle of beer per purchase.
- Colorado citizens will be limited to a six pack per purchase.
- Home brewers must grow their hops under artificial lights in a separate locked space and brewing must also occur in that locked space. Using sunshine is a crime.
- Alcohol retailers must only sell alcohol and nothing else.
- Outside investment in beer production or hops growing is illegal.
Remember: I am not responsible for the sayings and doings of other Althouses.
Posts
90 comments:
Excellent use of snark for political purposes.
You mean the government is arbitrary and capricious? You are killing my unicorns! :(
Hooray!
Also: the opposite of disingenuous, despite the snark component. (Or maybe because of? Or maybe both? Who knows or can tell? *Shrug* I guess.)
Moron.
You don't necessarily take a drink to get drunk.
You do smoke a joint to get high.
But, then, this idiot comes from CO and they've been producing people that prove the thin air affects your brain for many years.
Onion!
But it makes a well designed a government monopoly for those empowered by the few issued permits. And as we know from Prohibition, it will also create a better black market than any Mafia thinker could ever dream of having back again.
Yes you are too responsible because this guy sounds just like you.
Onion!
But it makes a well designed a government monopoly for those empowered by the few issued permits. And as we know from Prohibition, it will also create a better black market than any Mafia thinker could ever dream of having back again.
This guy is an attention whore.
You can drink a beer and not get blasted; you can't smoke a joint and not get farked up.
His 'moral equivalency' of alcohol to pot is lazy thinking and I bet he knows it too.
You do smoke a joint to get high.
My brother smokes to counter the effects of chemo.
You can drink a beer and not get blasted; you can't smoke a joint and not get farked up.
That's a dumb comparison, so naturally at least two Althouse commenters have made it so far.
Sure, if you smoke an entire joint you'll be intoxicated, but -- gasp! -- it turns out you don't have to smoke the whole thing. Indeed, one of the most common complaints about THC pills is that there is no way to avoid intoxication, whereas smoked marijuana can be inhaled in controlled doses that allow relaxation and nausea suppression without the intoxicating effects.
Which seems to kill the point of smoking it in the first place.
Yeah, whatever. Fucking dopers.
Baseball season begins soon.
My Giants will be playing for their third ring in four seasons.
Play Ball!!
MadisonMan said...
"You do smoke a joint to get high.
My brother smokes to counter the effects of chemo."
I am sorry. I hope he gets well, soon.
Medical marijuana is a whole different matter.
edutcher said...
"Moron.
You don't necessarily take a drink to get drunk.
You do smoke a joint to get high.
But, then, this idiot comes from CO and they've been producing people that prove the thin air affects your brain for many years."
Sorry edutcher. You are wrong and stunningly ignorant as you fling pejoratives at others. There are many reasons people use marijuana. There are body highs and mental highs. Some stoners do indeed take BHO "dabs" and get blazed out of their minds. Some people use products that are high in CBD's and lower in THC to relax their body and alleviate a variety of chronic illnesses. Others use products that produce a "functional" high with less of the body relaxants similar to getting a good "buzz" from alcohol. Some only use it to go to sleep.
If you want to debate the social costs of alcohol and marijuana I will crush you. Nobody gets "stoned" and goes on to beat their wife. Stoned people don't jump in their car to get more weed to keep the night going. At that point they usually just eat some chips and pass out. And the whole "gateway" drug myth is a joke. People who use other drugs almost invariably start with alcohol. Getting high is almost always the last thing a stoner does at night.
I think drinking and smoking are both stupid and participate in neither activity. But I know drunks and I know stoners and they are who they are. I am not going to tell them how to live. But stoners are far less costly to society than drunks.
One Althouse is enough for me.
Which seems to kill the point of smoking it in the first place.
Yes, you said that already.
You don't necessarily take a drink to get drunk.
You do smoke a joint to get high.
***
You don't necessarily take several drinks to get high.
You do smoke half a joint to just relax.
Just one of many alternatives that could be posed.
You're not actually a moron, edutcher, are you?
Hey. Sounds like a way to increase State revenue and reduce highway deaths; probably reduce domestic violence also. A clear Win-Win. What's not to like?
Tim said...
"Yeah, whatever. Fucking dopers."
Next post...
"I am sorry. I hope he gets well, soon."
Doh!
edutcher:
What's your take on the difference between having a light beer and a fine scotch, for example, while we're at it? Or a glass of blush wine and a snifter of cognac?
I will have missed the boat if I don't fully understand, not to mention appreciate, your position
Achilles said...
Sorry edutcher. You are wrong and stunningly ignorant as you fling pejoratives at others. There are many reasons people use marijuana. There are body highs and mental highs. Some stoners do indeed take BHO "dabs" and get blazed out of their minds. Some people use products that are high in CBD's and lower in THC to relax their body and alleviate a variety of chronic illnesses. Others use products that produce a "functional" high with less of the body relaxants similar to getting a good "buzz" from alcohol. Some only use it to go to sleep.
blah, blah. This knowledge wouldn't be the result of years of first person research, would it?
If you want to debate the social costs of alcohol and marijuana I will crush you.
Now I'm frightened.
Nobody gets "stoned" and goes on to beat their wife. Stoned people don't jump in their car to get more weed to keep the night going. At that point they usually just eat some chips and pass out.
You're sure of that?
Nobody gets in a car?
Nobody operates something that might be dangerous if they weren't in their right mind?
Nobody neglects their kids or allows them to put themselves in a dangerous situation?
And the whole "gateway" drug myth is a joke. People who use other drugs almost invariably start with alcohol. Getting high is almost always the last thing a stoner does at night.
Sounds like someone who knows intimately what it is to be a stoner.
And a lot of cops will tell you differently about marijuana.
rcommal said...
You don't necessarily take a drink to get drunk.
You do smoke a joint to get high.
You don't necessarily take several drinks to get high.
Really?
One, maybe two, but, after that, yeah, you want to anesthetize.
You do smoke half a joint to just relax.
In other words, get whacked.
Just one of many alternatives that could be posed.
You're not actually a moron, edutcher, are you?
No, but you're sounding like one.
Better educated minds can appreciate distinctions.
Others?
They just stumble through life dazed and confused, wondering why their Democrat president can't get the unemployment rate below 7% and when are the talking points going to come how on the looming health care premium rate spikes.
You'd almost think they were high...
And now that I think about it, here's another, given than you've been around so long and all. What's your take on the difference between the three-martini lunch of old and a few bong hits in a dorm room back in the day? From a chemical standpoint and an intent standpoint, of course. Weigh in, please.
I am sorry. I hope he gets well, soon.
Appreciate that. Won't happen though. Sucks.
edutcher, you are flailing. Step back a minute and look at your posts.
You have no basis for your position. No personal experience. No real knowledge. You are falling back on ad-hominem. You sound like Garage or Ritmo.
You didn't really post anything to respond to. This is more of an intervention...
Never mind, edutcher. You have so much anesthetized yourself against any thoughts or ideas or insights other than your own that it doesn't matter.
And I'm not implying any sort of alternation on your part. Let me state that plainly: I specifically am NOT saying that you drink too much, that you take drugs, that you ever drank too much, that you ever smoked dope in any amount whatsoever.
In fact, I am perfectly comfortable in stipulating that that you are the soul of moderation, if not teetotaler, in every way and medium imaginable.
***
All that said:
You, sir, are the moron. You just have less excuse according to your own worldview.
For the truly progressive the way to achieve equality is always to take away never to add.
They just stumble through life dazed and confused, wondering why their Democrat president can't get the unemployment rate below 7% and when are the talking points going to come how on the looming health care premium rate spikes. You'd almost think they were high...
Part of me wants to point out that plenty of non-Democrats favor legalization of drugs.
The other part just wants to quip "... so you're saying you guys were SOBER when you decided McCain and Romney were the best choices to represent your party?" :)
Achilles said...
edutcher, you are flailing. Step back a minute and look at your posts.
You have no basis for your position. No personal experience. No real knowledge. You are falling back on ad-hominem. You sound like Garage or Ritmo.
Really?
You mean the time the husband of one of The Blonde's nieces was supposed to be watching his son and was so whacked he let the kid pour a can of cooking oil on his head (which he could have aspirated and suffocated) didn't happen?
Or the time he took his wife's car and smashed it into a million pieces when he was stoned didn't happen?
No ad hominem, and a really feeble try at trying to make one.
I never knew Thetis held Achilles by his head when she dipped him in the river Styx, but it must be.
rcommal said...
Never mind, edutcher. You have so much anesthetized yourself against any thoughts or ideas or insights other than your own that it doesn't matter.
All that said:
You, sir, are the moron. You just have less excuse according to your own worldview.
My God, you must need all the chemically-induced reality you can get.
You guys have built up quite a litany of excuses for what you do, just as the drunks tell everybody (and themselves), "I can handle it. I can quit any time I want. I know my limit".
I've heard it all. And I room with somebody that worked rehab for 7 years, so I've heard all the stories.
"Revenant said:
Part of me wants to point out that plenty of non-Democrats favor legalization of drugs.
The other part just wants to quip "... so you're saying you guys were SOBER when you decided McCain and Romney were the best choices to represent your party?" :)"
Whether they want to take your financial freedom or take your personal freedom a statist is a statist. People who think the government is an effective answer to most problems come from both left and right, and they are both just as bad at supporting their belief that government will provide an effective solution.
Some might think this was a clear equal protection case...some might.
Part of me wants to point out that plenty of non-Democrats favor legalization of drugs.
Guilty as charged. Voted to legalize marijuana in the last election, and that was my only winning vote.
Referee: "Capt'n Inch, this is Capt'n Mile. Capt'n Mile, Capt'n Inch."
Inch and Mile shake hands.
Ref tosses coin. "Call it in the air, Capt'n Inch."
Inch: "Heads."
Ref examines coin. "Heads it is."
Ref: "Capt'n Inch called heads and it is heads. Capt'n Mile, would you like to kick off or receive?"
Mile: "Receive. And we would like to defend the North goal."
Ref: "Capt'n Mile's team will receive and defend the North goal."
Inch: "Hey, wait a minute."
Ref throws flag. "Penalty against Inch's team for unsportsmanlike conduct!! They will be penalized 15 yards, fined $250,000 and they lose the game."
Inch: "Hey!"
Ref: "Off the field, Inch, or its off with your head."
So smoking dope is good but smoking cigarettes is bad. Of course.
"edutcher said:
"You mean the time the husband of one of The Blonde's nieces was supposed to be watching his son and was so whacked he let the kid pour a can of cooking oil on his head (which he could have aspirated and suffocated) didn't happen?"
This is exactly the kind of argument gun grabbers are using after Newtown to take AR-15's from us. It is for the children!
"Or the time he took his wife's car and smashed it into a million pieces when he was stoned didn't happen?"
So we should be banning alcohol now right? And anyone owning a cell phone shouldn't be allowed to drive at all because one person made a poor choice. A million pieces!
"No ad hominem, and a really feeble try at trying to make one."
Seriously?
"I never knew Thetis held Achilles by his head when she dipped him in the river Styx, but it must be."
That is more witty than calling me a Heel. You are one up on Inga there.
"My God, you must need all the chemically-induced reality you can get."
No ad-hom's there.
"You guys have built up quite a litany of excuses for what you do, just as the drunks tell everybody (and themselves), "I can handle it. I can quit any time I want. I know my limit"."
You are supporting my argument in better words than I used myself. No ad-homs here either.
"I've heard it all. And I room with somebody that worked rehab for 7 years, so I've heard all the stories."
So your position is that we should have the government step in and stop marijuana use but allow alcohol use? You are making my argument for me. Based off a couple anecdotes you think the government should step in and arbitrarily involve itself? How effective has prohibition been for either alcohol or marijuana? Do you think there might be a better way than government intervention? Maybe stronger communities and churches? Are you seriously saying this is your best argument for prohibition?
I think most people who smoke pot are foolish. I tell them that and try to get them to limit and reduce their use. Some have good reasons for their use. The point is I think the government is a poor tool to use in this situation. It is arbitrary and without reason. Criminalizing something and interfering with lives using fines and incarceration has never worked. Faith, positive relationships and local community oriented solutions work much better.
Unfortunately, the Campaign to Regulate Guns Like Marijuana may not get the snark.
"... so you're saying you guys were SOBER when you decided McCain and Romney were the best choices to represent your party?"
Thanks, Revenant. I knew there had to be some explanation for it. I had writ it down to prizing Seniority over Sanity - along with the Bob Dole thing.
But I guess it was just wanting to get out of the convention hall and hit the bars.
I'm conservative as hell and haven't smoked pot in 30 years but I absolutely agree that pot should be legalized. Given the staggering costs of alcohol in lives, money, crime, and every kind of social misery what lunatic could justify the criminalization of a relatively benign narcotic and still say alcohol should be legal? Moronic government overreach in the 20's or 30's (whenever it was) is still moronic government overreach today. I spit on the graves of the clowns that passed those laws.
His 'moral equivalency' of alcohol to pot is lazy thinking and I bet he knows it too.
Um? Whether or not they're morally equivalent, the fact is that Colorado's voters just voted into law a proposition to make them legally equivalent.
That the task force in charge of implementing that initiative is busy undermining that as hard as it can is a blatant usurpation of the rule of law. There's noting "conservative" about usurping the rule of law to restrict marijuana, unless your vision of "conservative" is government bureaucrats having the arbitrary power to impose whatever rules they think should be imposed.
Somebody needs to tell the kid from Troy alcohol is an acculturated drug for a reason and, last I looked, it was also heavily regulated.
There was a time when there were no drug laws, Coca-Cola was made with cocaine.
There was a reason that changed.
And he needs to learn the difference between ad hominem and sarcasm.
Mad Man,
I'm sorry to read that. I hope it isn't too painful for him, and that your memories of him will be good ones.
hawkeyedjb said...
You do smoke a joint to get high.
And that's your fucking business... why?
Maybe I drink Scotch to get drunk. That's your fucking business... why?
It's my fucking business because some day, when you're high and you screw up, it might adversely affect me or mine (I've had enough drunken screwups to last me a lifetime), so spare me the Libertarian high dudgeon.
"There was a time when there were no drug laws, Coca-Cola was made with cocaine."
Add up all the misery that legal drugs caused. Now compare that to all the misery, and the astounding financial cost, of the drug laws we've lived under for nearly a half-century. It's not even remotely close. Today's is an order of magnitude worse.
edutcher, I see a fundamental difference in your worldview and mine. I don't give a fuck what you do in your life. You want to control my life. No room for conversation or compromise there. Stay the fuck away from me.
Revenant -
Have you toked recently?? This ain't 1979. Today, It's one toke and you're DONE!!
There was a time when there were no drug laws, Coca-Cola was made with cocaine.
There was a time there were no sugar laws.
There was a reason that changed.
Marketing, mainly.
hawkeyedjb said...
edutcher, I see a fundamental difference in your worldview and mine. I don't give a fuck what you do in your life. You want to control my life. No room for conversation or compromise there. Stay the fuck away from me.
Riight.
Nice try at trying to make me look like Bloomie, but what you do is your business.
Until it affects me and then it is my business.
And, as for staying the fuck away from you, I don't recall speaking to you. You spoke to me.
Just like those other 2 guys, so who is trying to control whom?
The guy's a regular Oliver Cralmwell.
CO
used to be fantastic, until all the morons from Ca arrived. (disclaimer: not everyone is CA is a moron)
Only 50 something comments so far - the low number is surprising. The internet draws pot-heads and atheists like flies to shit.
Alcohol is acculturated and heavily regulated? What a relief! No more drunken drivers, no murderous bar fights, no abused wives, no mayhem in the streets, no homeless folks sucking down Thunderbird.
I'd rather be in the company of the stoned than the company of the drunk any day.
edutcher said...
And he needs to learn the difference between ad hominem and sarcasm.
Is it possible to be less self-aware that dear old Ed.
At least Ann doesn't have to worry about getting the "Nanny Althouse" moniker with this guy around!
People that are going to be irresponsible and abuse shit are going to be irresponsible and abuse some kind of shit. That's Dave's First Law of Senseless Prohibition. The bottom line is that abuse of marijuana is, on average, less likely to be devastating than the abuse of alcohol
And Grow Your Own Booze!
El Douche del Mangina
"Until it affects me and then it is my business."
That's the excuse for Obama care, gun control, welfare, the entire EPA and every stinking municipal permit required.
Have you toked recently?
No, I prefer alcohol.
His 'moral equivalency' of alcohol to pot
I wouldn't say they're morally equivalent... alcohol's a lot more likely to kill you and/or cause you to kill someone else. :)
Who the hell has just one beer? And why does he never bring a six pack to my house?
"Have you toked recently?"
I can't remember, I always black out from the alcohol, and it makes me do all kind of things I shouldn't, so probably I'd guess - yes.
This thread is an object lesson in the failure of reason amongst statist thinkers. There are some arguments to be made for regulation. But the statists on this thread can't even present them cogently.
The problem with all of the statist arguments is that they almost invariably hinge on some common good theme. "Because retard x made a bad decision while inebriated/high we must limit everyone's use including responsible law abiding persons." This applies to guns, drugs, driving, health care, obesity, etc.
The concepts of personal responsibility and individual virtue are impugned and the statist, as edutcher so ably demonstrated, impugns the motives of those the statist disagrees with in full "you don't care about teh childrens!!1!" mode. It takes a complete lack of self awareness and/or tyrannical impulse to make these arguments.
Next up the accusation that we want total anarchy, a completely amoral society, and how we shouldn't use the roads and police shouldn't protect us because we don't support government!
I am surprised by all of the intimate knowledge of the effects of marijuana and alcohol among Althouse readers. Consuming those baddies together in excess must result in instant death if done while rock climbing.
Way long time ago I tried both.1)alcohol is heavily regulated in both its manufacture and use-an it is heavily taxed.It is also easy to establish standards based upon % of alcohol in the breath to easily determine intoxicated levels.2)marijuana is neither easily regulated due to its easy ability to be grown anywhere nor easy to establish standards for intoxication without invasive testing.Also despite what some claim the marijuana intoxicated person shows just as much loss of fine motor control and behavior as the alcohol intoxicated person.I am reminded of this every week where I work seeing both types exhibit all sorts of wondrous behaviors.And yes this includes stoners fighting.Several years back we had a crane accident in my town where a construction worker died.The crane operator was positive for recent marijuana use.What are the real number? hard to know-but they do exist.
Jeff Teal said:
"Way long time ago I tried both.1)alcohol is heavily regulated in both its manufacture and use-an it is heavily taxed.It is also easy to establish standards based upon % of alcohol in the breath to easily determine intoxicated levels.2)marijuana is neither easily regulated due to its easy ability to be grown anywhere nor easy to establish standards for intoxication without invasive testing.Also despite what some claim the marijuana intoxicated person shows just as much loss of fine motor control and behavior as the alcohol intoxicated person.I am reminded of this every week where I work seeing both types exhibit all sorts of wondrous behaviors.And yes this includes stoners fighting.Several years back we had a crane accident in my town where a construction worker died.The crane operator was positive for recent marijuana use.What are the real number? hard to know-but they do exist."
This example obviously means we need to ban construction cranes. They kill people. It is up to the government to save us.
I don't see people claim that marijuana or alcohol improve motor function. But I do see a bunch of people claiming the government is the best solution to pretty much every problem that exists despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Was that your point?
Wow, the pot heads are really insecure about all this.
(or is it the Libertarians?)
Not unlike the same sex marriage crowd - you not only have to let us do it, you have to be overjoyed about it, as well.
As I say, you guys must need it.
This guy is an attention whore.
You can drink a beer and not get blasted; you can't smoke a joint and not get farked up.
not if you don't inhale.... Just ask Cliton.
I see a fundamental difference in your worldview and mine. I don't give a fuck what you do in your life. You want to control my life. No room for conversation or compromise there.
"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." - Robert Heinlein
rcocean,
Only 50 something comments so far - the low number is surprising. The internet draws pot-heads and atheists like flies to shit.
So which are you?
I've never in my life smoked a joint, or used any illegal drug.
But because I'm one of Heinlein's latter sort I believe that people should be free to smoke (or drink) whatever they wish. If they screw up and harm others while under the influence punish them for harming others.
The War on Drugs has been a War on our Constitution, and it serves as good an excuse as any other for government agents to jerk other citizens around.
This thread is an object lesson in the failure of reason amongst statist thinkers. There are some arguments to be made for regulation. But the statists on this thread can't even present them cogently.
The problem with all of the statist arguments is that they almost invariably hinge on some common good theme. "Because retard x made a bad decision while inebriated/high we must limit everyone's use including responsible law abiding persons." This applies to guns, drugs, driving, health care, obesity, etc.
the problem with the statist argument is, frankly, there are things that should be regulated. And just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean that all drugs should be legal.
Take bath salts. Bath salts are a product sold to people who have gone out and eaten people's faces off or had a psychotic reaction then almost immediately died. So, as a seller of bath salts, should you not be held liable for the reaction that consumers have to your product? Should you have the ability to make someone an addict, simply for your profit. Doctors can prescribe legitimate medication and you can get addicted to it, but doctors are supposed to not prescribe medication to simply make someone a slave. Rather, they are supposed to do so because it will alleviate symptoms that someone is suffering from. Hence the potential for making medicinal marijuana legal.
Can you think of any legitimate reason, other than make people addicts to justify bath salts? If you put out a product in this country, you can be held liable for people getting poisoned by your product.
Now, if someone in their house concocts the next bath salts and gets high, that can't be stopped. It's when it gets into the selling of said drugs that it becomes an issue.
Not all drugs are the same. And thus the statist argument shouldn't be used for pot use, if you won't also use it for bath salts use. Now, on the question of pot, of all the drugs that are currently illegal its probably the one that could most afford to be legalized.
But even if that were so, it doesn't mean that all drugs should be legalized.
jr565,
I agree with a lot of your comment, but your perspective seems to be that whatever isn't "legalized" is or should be forbidden.
Mine is that the substances (or at least most of them) in question should never have been made illegal nationwide in the first place.
I see nothing wrong with communities forbidding certain behavior; that is consistent with self-government with maximum individual liberty.
Making something illegal all over the country because people in some parts of the country disapprove is not self-government, it's using the Federal government to rule over others.
And I'm dismayed at the number of people who approve of using government power to enforce their will on others, but don't understand that the same mechanism can serve to enforce others' will on them.
That proposal is perfect. The pot prohibitionists and drug warriors are all wet on this issue, all due to collosal ignorance of the subject, fed by a Federal propaganda campaign that is simply Reefer Madness, The Sequel. People who are normally skeptical of government completely buy into the anti-pot propaganda for some reason.
Cheech and Chong movies aren't documentaries.
Some folk chug whiskey. Some folk socially drink. We don't ban whiskey because there's still moonshiners and drunks living in alleys. We hold people individually accountable. We leave people in bars alone and go after truly drunk people, while respecting the responsible exercise of liberty.
Smoking pot is the same thing, functionally. You have some that smoke a bit, much like having a beer or 2. There are some that get blasted on it. There is no difference in inebriation between the two, because there will be lightweights that can get drunk off of 1 or 2 beers, just like there's lightweights that get really high off of one or 2 tokes.
The alcohol model is the perfect model to use in the legalization of pot. You lock up the idiots and you leave the other non-harmful folk alone.
I don't smoke dope because it makes me really hungry, If I did I would get really fat. Someone in my family is really fat. She also has had her house robbed several times. I think it is because she has criminals in her house, from whom she buys dope. It's a multifarious problem.
The concepts of personal responsibility and individual virtue are impugned and the statist...impugns the motives of those the statist disagrees with in full "you don't care about teh childrens!!1!" mode.
Slightly off-topic: This is the problem I have with modern liberalism and feminism: they claim to want personal freedom, but what they really seem to want is freedom from personal responsibility. Modern liberals have turned the notion of freedom on its head by denigrating the virtues of individual accountability and self-discipline; we become less free if we require more laws and regulations to protect us from the bad decisions from a growing number of irresponsible individuals.
Ironically, today's liberalism calls for a society that is far less free than the traditional conservative society which emphasizes personal accountability. We need to emphasize the need for MORE personal responsibility in a completely free society, not less.
Getting back on topic: Punish the pot smoker when he gets behind the wheel of a car while high and becomes a danger to others; not when he's in the privacy of his home. Increasing the number of laws that attempt to protect us from the possible bad decisions made by individuals exercising their free will, results in a less free society.
Research tells us that few people eat shit solely to get high. There are legions of social shit eaters for every problematic shit eater. While I myself do not eat shit I encourage others to do so merely to "mellow" our society. I'm not sure if Colorado law prohibits the eating of shit, especially in a public place, but if so that sort of draconian overreach must not stand. Referring to the earlier issues, shit can be eaten while smoking marijuana. It's great when the munchies strike and it's easily digestible what with its previous processing. The only form of alcohol suitable to accompany shit is wine, particularly an insouciant, rather forward and even impudent Merlot. I'm sure that many shit eaters that read this blog already know these facts but for the benefit of those new to shit eating -judging by the previous comments few of you- one hopes that this is a public service.
At least edutcher just admitted failure. We will accept you to our side with open arms man.
jr565 went full all drugs or no drugs on us right on cue just as I predicted while committing to alcohol somehow being better. As soon as a pot head chews someone's face off let me know and we can start comparing marijuana to bath salts. Pot heads are clearly the least likely population to chew people's faces off.
Don't worry jr, I fully expect you to come around too.
ken in sc:
Yes that one of the dangers of prohibition; that regular users are forced to deal with the criminal elements to find their product.
Here in Humboldt County CA, I can go to the store with my cannabis prescription. I don't have to deal with criminals. I am even paying sales tax on it, unlike going through dealer.
Same if it is legalized. The corner drug dealer will lose his business to the pot store and prices will plummet.
Achilles wrote:
jr565 went full all drugs or no drugs on us right on cue just as I predicted while committing to alcohol somehow being better. As soon as a pot head chews someone's face off let me know and we can start comparing marijuana to bath salts. Pot heads are clearly the least likely population to chew people's faces off.
I went full on all drugs because many on this board are libertarians and want to legalize all drugs. And at any rate, even you are using the "statism is bad" argument as if it were an absolute. Which suggests that you are for legalization of all drugs.
For example achilles, you wrote:
The problem with all of the statist arguments is that they almost invariably hinge on some common good theme. "Because retard x made a bad decision while inebriated/high we must limit everyone's use including responsible law abiding persons." This applies to guns, drugs, driving, health care, obesity, etc.
Which sounds an awful lot like you are saying All drugs when you say "Drugs".
Wouldn't the argument you are raising here apply to both pot AND bath salts? The issue is, would you have a problem with society outlawing bath salts? Just because retard x bit off someones face using bath salts does that mean we must limit everyone else's use of a drug? Again, if you are ONLY arguing for pot, thats one conversation. only if that's true you shouldn't argue it as if you are arguing for legalization of drugs in toto.
Sgt Ted wrote:
Here in Humboldt County CA, I can go to the store with my cannabis prescription. I don't have to deal with criminals. I am even paying sales tax on it, unlike going through dealer.
Same if it is legalized. The corner drug dealer will lose his business to the pot store and prices will plummet.
I'm not sure it would work out the way you say it would. Why couldn't drug dealers simply run the pot stores? Just because you aren't dealing with the dealer directly doesn't mean that the dealers aren't profiting from the enterprise.
It's my fucking business because some day, when you're high and you screw up, it might adversely affect me or mine (I've had enough drunken screwups to last me a lifetime), so spare me the Libertarian high dudgeon.
Says every gun-grabber, prohibitionist, and statist quack.
Oh my, you have stuff that may adversely affect my life! Time to ban it! At the very least, let's make sure that such people are considered morally suspect!
You've had enough drunken screw-ups to last a lifetime-- are you willing to ban liquor based on your own admission? Is it okay if you screw up on liquor, but not okay if someone else screws up on pot? What exactly is your standard?
I'm always amused by folks who call themselves "conservative" and talk about "freedom" and "liberty," but go from 0-to-Authoritarianism as soon as they see something they don't like. No self-awareness at all, amazing.
Blue9 wrote:
'm always amused by folks who call themselves "conservative" and talk about "freedom" and "liberty," but go from 0-to-Authoritarianism as soon as they see something they don't like. No self-awareness at all, amazing.
Except your freedom was never as absolute as you think. You are free to be free so long as you don't violate the dictates of society. That has always been the case, and there has never been a libertarian time where it wasn't so.
Are you free to walk around naked. Yes, in your house no walking down the street in most cases. Why not? THe better question is, why?
Why is the voting age the voting age? Why is the age of consent the age of consent?
LIbertarians, largely do not believe in the concept of a shared society, and so don't get how a society could regulate the behavior of its' people to any degree.
That's a defect of libertarians. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with any and every regulatory prohibition, only that it would be absurd to argue that someone society can't do that.
We're all statists to some degree or other. Where we differ is what we think should be regulated. So, I'm there with libertarians on Bloomberg, but if someone somewhere were suggesting we legalize meth or crack, I'd have to decline.
jr565,
There are- and have always been- lots of differences between libertarians who are fundamentally "anarchists" and those who are fundamentally "minarchists." Historically, this difference has helped explain why the Libertarian Party has never really been able to organize effectively (it's difficult for those who want to decorate the house with as little furniture as possible to reach consensus with those who want to burn down the house). In any case, you're falsely asserting that all libertarians are essentially anarchists when that has never really been the case.
I'd recommend Nick Gillespie's The Declaration of Independents (probably available through the Althouse link to Amazon) if you're interested in understanding the difference.
--b
The intro to my article was alcohol facts-
Alcohol is the leading cause of all violent crimes in Colorado. Alcohol is the major factor in 75% of domestic violence, in 50% of all traffic fatalities, 60% of rapes, 57% of murders, and 60% of assaults. 70% of all teens have had alcohol, and alcohol is the major factor in over 50% of all teen fatalities from suicide, murder, traffic and drowning. When public safety is the issue, controlling alcohol is the answer. Constitutionally, marijuana must be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol. Instead of giving marijuana producers and users the equal rights of current alcohol users, we should regulate alcohol like we intend to regulate marijuana and save our children from the most dangerous drug of all, alcohol.
Lastly, Ann, you have the right to vote because of a single issue campaign in the early part of this century. Women took the right to vote solely to eliminate alcohol that had left them beaten, raped, and destitute by their drunken husbands. The tempereance movement was originally called the Home protection league.
Post a Comment