TheAgitator.com
NY Times Columnist Weighs Legalization
Monday, June 1st, 2009My friend Ryan Grim reports
Nicholas Kristof wants to know: Should the U.S. legalize drugs?
The influential New York Times columnist posted the question, which is being asked in mainstream circles with increasing frequency, on his Facebook page Saturday evening. Opinions have come pouring in.
“I’m thinking of writing this coming week about whether legalization of drugs makes sense. Any thoughts out there or good resources?”
If you’d like to help him out, go here.
I don’t care whether legalizing drugs “makes sense”, as if it’s merely a matter of weighing the pros and cons.
Drugs should be legalized because government has no legitimate authority to outlaw them.
The influential New York Times columnist posted the question, which is being asked in mainstream circles with increasing frequency…
It’s stunning to look back on the progress that has been made in understanding science, medicine, government, and economics over the last couple hundred years. We’ve literally doubled life expectancy, created so much wealth that even poor people measure their poverty in terms of luxuries, and have forged a country where people who in times past couldn’t imagine not being at war with each other now easily live side-by-side.
And after all that, we still have the kind of vacuous thinking that gives us laws which can only be characterized as being irrefutably ineffective and massively destructive. That there are still so many interested in repeating the prohibition of the 30s is a taint that dulls the shine of everything else accomplished in this country. It’s a sign that, among all those who move the human race forward there are the still plenty of parasites whose only contribution is their ability to manipulate people into perpetually repeating mistakes of the past because they simply have no other talent.
It isn’t just that drug prohibition is a bad idea. It’s that it’s so astonishingly obvious that it’s a bad idea. That the “mainstream circles” are only now waking up to that fact (and may very well still drop the ball), doesn’t bode for the U.S., given the number of other serious problems facing the country that are one hell of a lot more complicated.
um, it’s great that everyone is coming to terms with the “drug war”. i’ve always thought that it was odd for society to endlessly, mercilessly, declare war preemptively on a non-threatening opponent. especially one that is too stoned to fight back. but i am really sad that after YEARS and YEARS of trying, we are finally gaining traction. not because i was persuasive. or that the warriors got moral. or even because the warriors got pragmatic … no, the warriors finally lost interest in their fight due to greed.
it’s either, “damn, this fight is expensive” or “hey, if we legalized it we could reduce expenditures (war) and increase revenue (taxes)?”
have at it Caesar, it’s yours
I got stuck at a bbq getting lectured about the actual definition of debate by a lawyer last monday. Turns out that in an actual debate, the person with the most bullet points that can talk the longest is the winner. And the only thing i did to deserve it was mention that a propane cylinder has 1/4 of the pressure at 90 degrees F as it does at 30 degrees F. And that i was debating on if i wanted a second brat. Cons(pros): people will stop smoking pot illegally, and good and bad things will happen. Pros(cons): People will still smoke pot illegally, and bad and good things will happen. It all offsets. But the first two words in lincoln’s “of the people, by the people, for the people” will always be remembered as 4 score. Even honest abe couldn’t tell a lie about rolling a fattie and rambling on about prohibition being against the principles by which our government was founded. Some time in the past sesquicentennial of smoke, lawyers stopped being cool and everything had to degenerate into a drawn out and protracted state of being billed by the minute like a 1-900 adult phone service.
Will Obama please show some leadership on legalizing marijuana.
But if they down that road first pot, then mushrooms then opium. Peace might break out
With legalization, I’m not sure if we would get more or less of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K7anSAw0II&feature=related
Doesn’t matter how many times reporters ask the question. Until their is solid voter support, no politician is going to stick his neck out to change the laws.
Things will not change even with overwhelming voter approval, look at the numbers for medical marijuana. Overwhelming, yet a governor can veto legislation with no price. It is not until a politician is trounced at the polls because of bad drug policy will things change and quick.
Here is what I posted on the Facebook page:
“We don’t have to legalize all drugs. We can start with marijuana. I read an article about a year back that stated that marijuana accounted for over 75% of all illegally-imported drugs.
By legalizing the weed, we would hit the drug cartels where it hurts them the most (in the wallet) and cut down on a huge amount of violence. Not to mention the income generated by taxing it.
I think that not legalizing weed is a national security threat!”
That, of course, is geared more towards those who would rather keep drugs illegal. It is so blatantly obvious to me that all drugs should be legal that I find I’m dumbing my argument down just to get them to see my point. Anywho, happy toking!
Will Obama please show some leadership on legalizing marijuana.
He won’t. He’s a follower, of public opinion polls. If he ever decided to reverse course on marijuana, it would be because a solid majority of likely voters want him to do so. A slight plurality wouldn’t do it, since so many bureaucrats and politicians are intimately tied to perpetuating the madness.
Propaganda isn’t the art of shaping public opinion, but of following the shifting sentiments and making people believe you’re leading the way.
Well said Steve.
I think you might have that backwards. Sorry, but the engineer in me made me have to say something.
Seems Mr. Grim hit a nerve. Not suprisingly, the comments are 9:1 in favor of decrim and/or legalization. Even a couple against the idea seem to be sarcastic (or ought to be, anyway). This further proves to me that the old hippie who once told me “there are 2 types of people: those who admit they smoke pot and those who don’t” was right on the money. The trick will be to create an atmosphere where everyone who uses pot will admit it and stand up for the right to do so with their votes. When that happens, things will change rather quickly, imho.
Thanks for linking this, Radley. You’re a gentleman and a scholar.
It’s really whether the government should retract laws that it never had the authority to pass in the first place. Only the blind cannot see that the 18th amendment proves beyond any doubt that the government has no authority whatsoever to ban ANYTHING. If the feds truly had the legitimate authority to ban anything they deem “undesirable” as occurs today, then the entire 18th AND 21st amendments were unnecessary and provide evidence that the government that passed those amendments was filled with ignorant wretches.
“I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time. ”
H. L. Mencken
Tiochfaidh ar la!