Wednesday, March 07, 2012

The Point: You keep missing it.

In a comment at Sebastian's is repeated the hoary old meme "libertarians just want to get stoned." Rather than snap back with the easy cheap shot of "...and if they did, what business is it of yours, anyway? Who died and made you Commisar?" I will take the time to give a serious answer.

Personally, I don’t care about the dope. Hell, for all I care, you can leave the dope illegal as long you undo all the constitutional damage you’ve done to stamp it out in the last fifty years or so.

All the probulating, door-kicking, snooping and spying, asset forfeiting, and armored personnel carriering has done more damage to this country than a hundred Woodstocks worth of stoners, to say nothing of the obscene profits we have basically legislated into existence for vicious criminal scum south of our borders and in our own cities.

I’d rather my neighbors smoked a bong every day than run the risk of a dyslexic SWAT team taking a battering ram to my front door at oh-dark-thirty. We need to stop burning the village to save it.

26 comments:

John S said...

"We need to stop burning the village to save it."

Beautiful. I'm going to steal that.

John said...

We have likker after Prohibition, and a legacy of rich organized crime built on it's supply and demand while outlawed.

figure out a way to legally regulate the sale of it, and all the drug money could turn to becoming respectable andf getting their sons elected as President.

OTOH, just dump it on truck loads on street corners and let Darwin go to work.

And yeah, the militarization of civil police does not bode well in the US of Dystopia.

rremington said...

Amen Sister!

BobG said...

First sensible thing I've read this morning.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

I'm all for ending the depradations the War on Drugs have caused. I hear ya there.

Heck I could even get on board for legalization as long as the stoners promise to hide in their basement, still, after. Only thing more annoying to me than a drunken idjit is a stoner at any time. But annoying or not...

Shrimp said...

If you haven't stopped to take a bow after writing that, you really should, because I actually stood up after reading it and applauded.


This post needs to be etched onto the forehead of every politician (of every persuasion) in sight. Preferably with something dull and rusty, so they don't forget it.

Bob said...

Well said.

Anonymous said...

"I’d rather my neighbors smoked a bong every day than run the risk of a dyslexic SWAT team taking a battering ram to my front door at oh-dark-thirty."

Heck, our police chief has told me that he'd trade drunks for pot smokers in a heartbeat. Less trouble for him and everyone else.

Bram said...

Never smoked it even once - but I don't care what my neighbors do. And the enforcement has reached the point of being far worse than any drug.

Ben said...

Beautifully said.

Bram said...

I think the tipping point is here. Even Pat Robertson is done with Prohibition.

http://copssaylegalize.blogspot.com/2012/03/pat-robertson-blames-liberals-for-drug.html

Anomalous said...

Excellent post. Well said Ma'am.

Mikael said...

Never having partaken of illegal pharmacuticals myself, I'm still all for legalizing some drugs(pot being a prime example). I can't say the same for all drugs though(pcp, crystal meth, crack, and a few others), drugs that make people go on berzerk rages and such seem like they should probably stay illegal.

I'm all for ditching/repairing all the damage the war on drugs has done to though.

SGB said...

Bravo! The pubes and Demoncrats just can't fathom why their rigged system is not beloved by all.

The Club Above said...

When I tried Weed, it did nothing for me. That's why I'm a lush, not a stoner. Having said that, brava for the post!

Anonymous said...

Most dopers want the good stuff, but settle for the cheap stuff. PCP, crank and crack are all cheap replacements for "better" more expensive drugs (comparitively speaking).
-Steve_in_CA

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"I’d rather my neighbors smoked a bong every day than run the risk of a dyslexic SWAT team taking a battering ram to my front door at oh-dark-thirty. We need to stop burning the village to save it."

Quote of the Week.

Blackwing1 said...

Speaking of comparative social damage caused by (some) drugs as opposed to others (like alcohol), I remember this joke from the 70's about the relative merits of their users:

A drunk, an acid freak and a stoner approach the gates of a walled city late at night. The sign next to the gates clearly states that they won't be opened until morning.
The acid freak says, "Hey, no problem, man. We'll just float in through the keyhole."
The alcoholic, in a drunken rage, yells, "Let's bash down the gate."
The pot head whips out his stash, sits down and rolls a joint, and says to the other two, "Let's sit down, smoke a couple of doobies, and enjoy the wait until dawn."

Being an alcohol user myself (my waistline reflects my usage of home-brew) I can laugh at the portrayal of alcohol users, while still acknowledging its inherent truthfulness. My personal experience is that dope-smokers tend to be pretty mellow.

Which is great in the competitive market of the workplace, too. As Drew Carey once said, "Go ahead, smoke dope, and it's that much easier for everybody else to compete."

The damage that has been done by arbitrary and capricious laws against (some) drugs to our society and to our Constitution probably cannot be assessed. At least the original Prohibitionists took the time to actually get an Amendment passed. Not so for our current drug warriors.

Seerak said...

Notwithstanding Thomas Sowell's observation that one can render any term meaningless by appending the adjective "social" to it, I think it's time that we address the "social damage" of meddling busybodies.

James Nelson said...

For those who are for only "legalizing " some drugs, exactly which drugs are unavailable anywhere in any city, town or suburb because of their present illegality?
No law prevents the even mildly determined from any stupidity that flits across their little minds. All the law does is permit the punishment of those who get caught, which is a discouragingly small proportion of the whole.
Legalize 'em or not you won't change anybodies behavior.

Grumpyunk said...

Very well stated, Girl. Once again you manage to condense it down to a nice concise thought.

Will said...

@Blackwing1:

Which is great in the competitive market of the workplace, too. As Drew Carey once said, "Go ahead, smoke dope, and it's that much easier for everybody else to compete."

It would appear that you and Drew are not familiar with Silicon Valley. (and probably that place up in Redlands, WA I suspect is similar.)

The software/programming arena is awash in weed users. There is such a correlation between users and success, I suspect this place would be a bit less notable without it.

Justthisguy said...

Actually, I think there is a good excuse to keep a (sealed, to be opened only in emergency) vial of cocaine next to the arms. I write of the occasion of home invasion by said swat team. You may well die anyway; the Bolivian Nasal Salts might help you give a good account of yourself.

Windy Wilson said...

The problem with "collateral damage" due to law enforcement errors is nothing new, it's just reached national awareness. 17 years ago in law school I was dismayed on at least a weekly basis over how powerful government had become due to the requirements of the drug laws. As I told my Admin law professor it's disheartening. I read cases, and say, "they can't do that!" By the end of the case, I'm saying "sonofa*****, they can!

Epsilon Given said...

"For those who are for only "legalizing " some drugs, exactly which drugs are unavailable anywhere in any city, town or suburb because of their present illegality?"

Oh, that's easy: Pseudoepherine (aka Sudafed), to some degree. Asthma drugs that can only be administered via freon. A certain drug that helps arthritis sufferers, but increases the risk of heart attack.

That is, drugs that actually help people are banned, sometimes by the FDA, sometimes by some other agencies. And, because they aren't "recreational", and have small, targeted markets, no one is interested in producing these things illegally.

Our drug laws are really messed up, aren't they?

Anonymous said...

Tam, can you define "probulating"? It is proving resistant to dictionary searches both online ind in the real world. Unfortuantely, I do not have an Oxford English Dictionary at hand. I get the context but the definition eludes me.

Thanks,

Russ