If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Morning in America: Even CPAC is rejecting the drug warriors   (theatlantic.com) divider line 77
    More: Spiffy, CPAC, conservative coalition, drug prohibition, ethical values, United States  
•       •       •

2612 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2014 at 8:11 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-09 05:26:29 AM
it's time to take MJ off schedule 1. Let the states decide for themselves.
 
2014-03-09 08:20:11 AM
When Beach insisted the drug war has not been a complete failure, laughter rippled through the crowd.

Whatever your position on marijuana: legalize it, keep it illegal, legal only for medical purposes, it's a gateway drug, it'll give you reefer madness, or it'll turn you into a face-eating zombie - it doesn't matter, whatever it is - if you think that the war on drugs has not been a complete failure, then you just proved that it is.

Because if you can believe that, then you have obviously been taking way too many drugs.  And shiat a lot stronger than a little bud.
 
2014-03-09 08:29:44 AM
Do you really want an army of stoned Hoverrounders, America?! Think of the danger to the Nation's Strategic Buffet Reserve!
 
2014-03-09 08:33:05 AM
Legislating morality does have a track record of success. Drug laws just don't happen to be a part of it.
 
2014-03-09 08:35:25 AM

Hobodeluxe: it's time to take MJ off schedule 1. Let the states decide for themselves.


Screw that, it's time to eliminate schedules completely.

ALL drugs, from the worst (PCP, etc) all the way down to activated charcoal and homeopathy's water have some potential medicinal use. Many drugs have terrible side effects, (PCP, etc) while others are panaceas (morphine, aspirin) so it's unlikely that all drugs will be useful, but they should all be legal ultimately.

If you have a gallon of PCP and you're handing out Dixie cups of it school kids.... that will of course remain illegal for a variety of reasons. But if you're just a guy who happens to think it's a nice day for a bit of angel dust and you go to the local opium den and check out as responsible on the records, you try it in a locked room with medical staff on hand, it's logged, and then you go on with your life... where's the harm?

Yes, this stuff is all potentially harmful, but so are matches and they give those away free in bars. (or they used to before the same people who declared war on drugs declared tobacco a drug)
 
2014-03-09 08:35:57 AM
Teabaggers have gone into full on black helicopter mode. That means they now have to look at the DEA as an ebil gubmint agency. This is not a surprise.

As for my opinion, Legalize it so stoners will finally shut the fark up about it.
 
2014-03-09 08:36:51 AM

rzrwiresunrise: Legislating morality does have a track record of success. Drug laws just don't happen to be a part of it.


*citation needed*
 
2014-03-09 08:40:01 AM

Karac: When Beach insisted the drug war has not been a complete failure, laughter rippled through the crowd.

Whatever your position on marijuana: legalize it, keep it illegal, legal only for medical purposes, it's a gateway drug, it'll give you reefer madness, or it'll turn you into a face-eating zombie - it doesn't matter, whatever it is - if you think that the war on drugs has not been a complete failure, then you just proved that it is.

Because if you can believe that, then you have obviously been taking way too many drugs.  And shiat a lot stronger than a little bud.


The guy was Bush 1's drug czar, so of course he's going to hold on to that ghost. He's wrong, but it's more likely a matter of faith and pride at this point.
 
2014-03-09 08:41:13 AM

stoli n coke: Teabaggers have gone into full on black helicopter mode. That means they now have to look at the DEA as an ebil gubmint agency. This is not a surprise.


Actually, it is a surprise, because the DEA actually does use helicopters, and is kind of evil, so the 'baggers aren't completely and utterly wrong about something for a change.

I'm sure they'll fark that up somehow, though.
 
2014-03-09 08:46:08 AM

doglover: rzrwiresunrise: Legislating morality does have a track record of success. Drug laws just don't happen to be a part of it.

*citation needed*


Look at all the places the evil homosexuals don't exist because of morality laws.

There are no more witches turning your milk sour or causing babies to die in their sleep because they were all burned up.

Hitler almost got rid of the scourge of evil Jews.

Alcohol was completely wiped out by prohibition.

Christianity was destroyed by feeding its followers to lions.

I could go on and on about successfully enforcing laws based on standards of behavior, or beliefs, concerning what is and is not acceptable to do.
 
2014-03-09 08:47:28 AM

incendi: stoli n coke: Teabaggers have gone into full on black helicopter mode. That means they now have to look at the DEA as an ebil gubmint agency. This is not a surprise.

Actually, it is a surprise, because the DEA actually does use helicopters, and is kind of evil, so the 'baggers aren't completely and utterly wrong about something for a change.

I'm sure they'll fark that up somehow, though.


You know, you could REALLY fark up a helicopter with a giant piece of flypaper.
 
2014-03-09 08:52:05 AM

doglover: rzrwiresunrise: Legislating morality does have a track record of success. Drug laws just don't happen to be a part of it.

*citation needed*


Voting Rights Act
Civil Rights Act

It's not a long track record, but there are successes.
 
2014-03-09 08:54:39 AM
He argued that legalization would not eliminate the black market for drugs but would empower dangerous drug cartels.

Because removing prohibition totally kept the bootleggers in business.
 
2014-03-09 08:57:52 AM
I have a feeling that there is just a over representation of the very active libertarian wing at CPAC, the TeaBaggers are the real base of the party, they are the holy rolling culture warriors who will support the drug war.
 
2014-03-09 09:01:54 AM

rzrwiresunrise: Voting Rights Act
Civil Rights Act


Neither of those are morality per se, but actually just enforcing the letter of the law drafted previous.

That law may have been based on morality, but the fact that they NEEDED to make those acts should tell you how successful that was.

Also, when people speak of legislating morality, what they mean is legislating vice. And that's never been successful. When coffee first came to what is now Turkey, Muslims used it to stay awake during 5 AM prayer. The imams didn't like it, so they made it illegal. And that's why they never drank coffee in Turkey again.
 
2014-03-09 09:03:37 AM
Can the party avoid being on the losing side of another culture war?

That the reason the Republican party exists. To fight cultural changes.
 
2014-03-09 09:04:18 AM

Yakk: I have a feeling that there is just a over representation of the very active libertarian wing at CPAC, the TeaBaggers are the real base of the party, they are the holy rolling culture warriors who will support the drug war.


The article's author asked Beach (the guy defending the drug war) if this was unique of CPAC, and he said no, it's everywhere he goes. 70% of people who call into his right winger radio show are pro-pot.
 
2014-03-09 09:09:34 AM

doglover: rzrwiresunrise: Voting Rights Act
Civil Rights Act

Neither of those are morality per se, but actually just enforcing the letter of the law drafted previous.

That law may have been based on morality, but the fact that they NEEDED to make those acts should tell you how successful that was.

Also, when people speak of legislating morality, what they mean is legislating vice. And that's never been successful. When coffee first came to what is now Turkey, Muslims used it to stay awake during 5 AM prayer. The imams didn't like it, so they made it illegal. And that's why they never drank coffee in Turkey again.


We are effective in legislating away polygamy, public smoking, littering, pissing in public, and indecent exposure. So there's that.
 
2014-03-09 09:10:40 AM

Lackofname: He argued that legalization would not eliminate the black market for drugs but would empower dangerous drug cartels.

Because removing prohibition totally kept the bootleggers in business.


There are still moonshiners. However, they're few and far between, which is about the level of black market drug activity I would expect if full legalization was put into effect.

My point is that that phrase "eliminate" suggests a standard that these "keep pot illegal" folks are going to push for, and ultimately use against any legalization effort. They'll say legalization failed for the entire nation if one person is found making a black market for drugs. And they'll do that KNOWING that total elimination is an impossible standard, but the few cases that remain will be used to browbeat those who are on the fence about it into supporting their side.
 
2014-03-09 09:12:19 AM
The real debate for the republicans is how to react to the sweet sweet tax revenue legalization brings.  It's a new tax, so it goes against their stated mantra.  On the other hand, it's an alignment, bringing a section of the underground economy into the main stream while reducing government expenditures down on the failed war on drugs.
 
2014-03-09 09:12:34 AM

super_grass: We are effective in legislating awaydriving underground polygamy, public smoking, littering, pissing in public, and indecent exposure. So there's that.


It still happens. There's just no paper trail, except with littering.
 
2014-03-09 09:16:31 AM

Lackofname: He argued that legalization would not eliminate the black market for drugs but would empower dangerous drug cartels.

Because removing prohibition totally kept the bootleggers in business.


Seriously - if you can get quality, controlled drugs legally, why would anyone buy them from the street? It's as logical as me making gin in my bathtub instead of just going to the store and buying a bottle.
 
2014-03-09 09:16:59 AM

doglover: Neither of those are morality per se, but actually just enforcing the letter of the law drafted previous.

That law may have been based on morality, but the fact that they NEEDED to make those acts should tell you how successful that was.


Discrimination against folks for their race, creed, color, ethnic origin, sex-- this is widely held as immoral. There are more people today who believe denying someone access to the ballot for their skin color or sex is immoral as a direct result of the Voting Rights Act. There are more people today that believe discrimination against someone based on the color of their skin is immoral as a direct result of the Civil Rights Act. The success of those acts is undeniable.

doglover: Also, when people speak of legislating morality, what they mean is legislating vice. And that's never been successful. When coffee first came to what is now Turkey, Muslims used it to stay awake during 5 AM prayer. The imams didn't like it, so they made it illegal. And that's why they never drank coffee in Turkey again.


img.fark.net

You did read the part where I said drug laws weren't a part of the successful legislation of morality, didn't you? You had to have, or we wouldn't be having this conversation, so I'll just let you yell at that cloud over there.
 
2014-03-09 09:21:47 AM
It's nice to see that Rand Paul won the straw poll. There's a glint of hope here.

Yes: Eliminate the schedules. Failing that, leave it to the states.
 
2014-03-09 09:30:56 AM
When Beach insisted the drug war has not been a complete failure, laughter rippled through the crowd.

I guess conservatives actually can tell a funny joke.
 
2014-03-09 09:40:47 AM

doglover: Hobodeluxe: it's time to take MJ off schedule 1. Let the states decide for themselves.

Screw that, it's time to eliminate schedules completely.

ALL drugs, from the worst (PCP, etc) all the way down to activated charcoal and homeopathy's water have some potential medicinal use. Many drugs have terrible side effects, (PCP, etc) while others are panaceas (morphine, aspirin) so it's unlikely that all drugs will be useful, but they should all be legal ultimately.

If you have a gallon of PCP and you're handing out Dixie cups of it school kids.... that will of course remain illegal for a variety of reasons. But if you're just a guy who happens to think it's a nice day for a bit of angel dust and you go to the local opium den and check out as responsible on the records, you try it in a locked room with medical staff on hand, it's logged, and then you go on with your life... where's the harm?

Yes, this stuff is all potentially harmful, but so are matches and they give those away free in bars. (or they used to before the same people who declared war on drugs declared tobacco a drug)


The only medical use of homeopathy is to cure dehydration.
 
2014-03-09 09:44:25 AM

doglover: super_grass: We are effective in legislating awaydriving underground polygamy, public smoking, littering, pissing in public, and indecent exposure. So there's that.

It still happens. There's just no paper trail, except with littering.


And creating a nuisance.
 
2014-03-09 09:44:57 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: The only medical use of homeopathy is to cure dehydration.


The placebo effect is real and well-documented, you know.
 
2014-03-09 09:55:59 AM
Have you people forgotten about the crazed jazz musicians? All the raping of the white wimmins will be on your heads.
 
2014-03-09 10:03:40 AM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Have you people forgotten about the crazed jazz musicians? All the raping of the white wimmins will be on your heads.


Not on my head!
 
2014-03-09 10:14:09 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: doglover: super_grass: We are effective in legislating awaydriving underground polygamy, public smoking, littering, pissing in public, and indecent exposure. So there's that.

It still happens. There's just no paper trail, except with littering.

And creating a nuisance.


Go over and sit down on that bench that says Group W.

Now, kid!

/Gonna need your wallet and belt too
 
2014-03-09 10:17:23 AM

doglover: super_grass: We are effective in legislating awaydriving underground polygamy, public smoking, littering, pissing in public, and indecent exposure. So there's that.

It still happens. There's just no paper trail, except with littering.


You're sort of missing the point. Those things have been severely reduced over time - unless you've got some citations that show they exist just as much as they did, but in super secret.

The Drug War, however, has not negatively affected the drug markets, and has openly created new problems.

Do not confuse "effective" with "100% effective."
 
2014-03-09 10:29:12 AM

OdradekRex: The real debate for the republicans is how to react to the sweet sweet tax revenue legalization brings.  It's a new tax, so it goes against their stated mantra.  On the other hand, it's an alignment, bringing a section of the underground economy into the main stream while reducing government expenditures down on the failed war on drugs.


They're not opposed to new taxes. Just new income, property, inheritance, capital gains, or corporate taxes.

Sales and vice taxes are nifty.
 
2014-03-09 10:35:11 AM
Well okay. If they want to be reasonable about this issue then hopefully they will be on other issues.
/pffffffft
 
2014-03-09 10:52:48 AM
> "But I am afraid of the effects it's going to have on society"

Yes, mr scaredycat, better the devil you know, even if everybody agrees the current bastard's gotta go.
 
2014-03-09 11:04:21 AM

rzrwiresunrise: doglover: Neither of those are morality per se, but actually just enforcing the letter of the law drafted previous.

That law may have been based on morality, but the fact that they NEEDED to make those acts should tell you how successful that was.

Discrimination against folks for their race, creed, color, ethnic origin, sex-- this is widely held as immoral. There are more people today who believe denying someone access to the ballot for their skin color or sex is immoral as a direct result of the Voting Rights Act. There are more people today that believe discrimination against someone based on the color of their skin is immoral as a direct result of the Civil Rights Act. The success of those acts is undeniable.

doglover: Also, when people speak of legislating morality, what they mean is legislating vice. And that's never been successful. When coffee first came to what is now Turkey, Muslims used it to stay awake during 5 AM prayer. The imams didn't like it, so they made it illegal. And that's why they never drank coffee in Turkey again.

[img.fark.net image 390x259]

You did read the part where I said drug laws weren't a part of the successful legislation of morality, didn't you? You had to have, or we wouldn't be having this conversation, so I'll just let you yell at that cloud over there.


Your use of the phrase "legislating morality" is too expansive and conflates two different ideas; this was his point.  If you consider civil rights laws to be "legislating morality" then you might as well consider having laws prohibiting murder to be "legislating morality" or laws against stealing to be "legislating morality." Under your use of the phrase, all laws are legislating morality and that is simply not the meaning of that phrase. Using the phrase in that way dilutes its meaning.
 
2014-03-09 11:28:38 AM

Hobodeluxe: it's time to take MJ off schedule 1. Let the states decide for themselves.

And the GOP is always in favor of state's rights. Except for gay marriage. And abortion. And gun control. And marijuana. Ok, I'm starting to think they are only in favor of state's rights when it suits them.


FTA: Can the party avoid being on the losing side of another culture war?

Their platform involves only things of interest to old white bigots. Now those people did start a little culture war with the Tea Party, but other than that they're on the losing side of pretty much every other cultural idea out there. And as time passes they are getting older and older and are dying off, and everyone else is getting less and less bigotty.
 
2014-03-09 11:52:06 AM
The drug warriors live in a fantasy world where making something illegal means it is no longer available.  When in fact quite the opposite is true.  If you want drugs sold to children, making them illegal is the best way to accomplish that.
 
2014-03-09 11:53:32 AM

Sczi: > "But I am afraid of the effects it's going to have on society"

Yes, mr scaredycat, better the devil you know, even if everybody agrees the current bastard's gotta go.


Only a person that believes pot isn't already widely distributed and consumed could say these words without choking.

They're delusional.
 
2014-03-09 11:59:27 AM

insano: Your use of the phrase "legislating morality" is too expansive and conflates two different ideas; this was his point.  If you consider civil rights laws to be "legislating morality" then you might as well consider having laws prohibiting murder to be "legislating morality" or laws against stealing to be "legislating morality." Under your use of the phrase, all laws are legislating morality and that is simply not the meaning of that phrase. Using the phrase in that way dilutes its meaning.


"My" use isn't "too expansive" at all, and it's quite clear that we do legislate morals, even if not all laws do so. Your example is strange: is murder therefore not an immoral act? If a society legislates against it, you believe that is not legislation of morality? What would you call it exactly?

Additionally, it's generally those who support conservative causes-- like Beach, the speaker in the article-- that try to "legislate morality", if we're going to insist on the traditional metonym. So "my" use of the phrase is a parry to their argument that society can try to legislate morality, by noting that it is done with some success. It's no coincidence that the successes I chose are not generally supported by Conservatives who try to "legislate morality" via laws affecting reproductive rights, criminal sentencing, religious entanglement, etc.
 
2014-03-09 12:27:18 PM
Warms my heart to hear a drug warrior soundly spanked by the people he THINKS are on his side.

Poor Prohibitionist Pants-Wetters, their funding for their phony-baloney jerbs is going to go away and the will have to find a job that makes a POSITIVE contribution to society.

I just don't feel any pity for the DEA and their police complex minions, but I do think we should give them therapy to help them break their addiction to drug money.  It's the compassionate alternative to locking them up for the rest of their lives lest their antisocial behavior cause problems for our country.
 
2014-03-09 12:43:09 PM

super_grass: doglover: rzrwiresunrise: Voting Rights Act
Civil Rights Act

Neither of those are morality per se, but actually just enforcing the letter of the law drafted previous.

That law may have been based on morality, but the fact that they NEEDED to make those acts should tell you how successful that was.

Also, when people speak of legislating morality, what they mean is legislating vice. And that's never been successful. When coffee first came to what is now Turkey, Muslims used it to stay awake during 5 AM prayer. The imams didn't like it, so they made it illegal. And that's why they never drank coffee in Turkey again.

We are effective in legislating away polygamy, public smoking, littering, pissing in public, and indecent exposure. So there's that.


Public health does not = morality.
 
2014-03-09 12:55:11 PM
I like this vague fear of "unintended consequences" this drug warrior and others like him keep lamely citing in relation to legalizing marijuana. I'm pretty sure they have a very specific fear in mind - that once people stop listening to them, and nothing bad happens, that we will start to question what else they've been wrong about. And that will mainly (though not entirely) be a Republican problem.
 
2014-03-09 01:02:52 PM

mongbiohazard: I like this vague fear of "unintended consequences" this drug warrior and others like him keep lamely citing in relation to legalizing marijuana. I'm pretty sure they have a very specific fear in mind - that once people stop listening to them, and nothing bad happens, that we will start to question what else they've been wrong about. And that will mainly (though not entirely) be a Republican problem.


Hasn't this happened with every person who's ever smoked pot in the history of forever?

That's the only way the whole "gateway drug" myth has any cachet. You realize that getting stoned doesn't turn you into a face-eating zombie, then you wonder what the hell else they were lying about...
 
2014-03-09 01:03:22 PM

houstondragon: Tyrone Slothrop: doglover: super_grass: We are effective in legislating awaydriving underground polygamy, public smoking, littering, pissing in public, and indecent exposure. So there's that.

It still happens. There's just no paper trail, except with littering.

And creating a nuisance.

Go over and sit down on that bench that says Group W.

Now, kid!

/Gonna need your wallet and belt too


Father rapers
 
2014-03-09 01:18:31 PM
I appreciate the irony that people who often use violent rhetoric whenever their freedom is perceived to be threatened are perfectly fine with taking freedom away from others.
 
2014-03-09 01:23:29 PM
insano:

Your use of the phrase "legislating morality" is too expansive and conflates two different ideas; this was his point.  If you consider civil rights laws to be "legislating morality" then you might as well consider having laws prohibiting murder to be "legislating morality" or laws against stealing to be "legislating morality." Under your use of the phrase, all laws are legislating morality and that is simply not the meaning of that phrase. Using the phrase in that way dilutes its meaning.

This.  "Legislating morality" is a phrase generally meaning to make laws regarding victimless crimes such as drug use, prostitution, gambling, blue laws, etc.  There are no success stories in that meaning of the phrase.  It always turns out to be foolish and futile, and causes more damage than the original practice.
 
2014-03-09 01:58:21 PM

Lackofname: He argued that legalization would not eliminate the black market for drugs but would empower dangerous drug cartels.

Because removing prohibition totally kept the bootleggers in business.


Legalization is not inconveniencing illegal marijuana dealers in Colorado.  It just means their customers aren't getting busted.

The state took that whole "It it were legal, we could tax it" thing a little too much to heart.
 
2014-03-09 02:02:37 PM

flondrix: Lackofname: He argued that legalization would not eliminate the black market for drugs but would empower dangerous drug cartels.

Because removing prohibition totally kept the bootleggers in business.

Legalization is not inconveniencing illegal marijuana dealers in Colorado.  It just means their customers aren't getting busted.

The state took that whole "It it were legal, we could tax it" thing a little too much to heart.


I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather deal with a nice, clean storefront with great service and selection rather than getting anywhere near the criminal element. It's worth the cost, IMAO.
 
2014-03-09 02:03:51 PM

serpent_sky: Seriously - if you can get quality, controlled drugs legally, why would anyone buy them from the street?


Because the street price is a fraction of the dispensary price.  Market forces at work and all that.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report