Jim Henley has a complaint, or two, about the Democrats:
Bill Clinton's stalwart guardianship of his own low pleasure rights drove conservatives nuts, but it also obscured how willing Clinton was to throw lesser beings to the lifestyle police - V-chips, drug prosecutions, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and a whole range of minor-to-major paternalisms Clinton either fostered, coopted or just couldn't be bothered fighting. (Remember school uniforms?) If it didn't involve terminating a pregnancy, your right to just about anything was, in Bill Clinton's view, negotiable.
It makes it harder, in these troubled times, for libertarians to work up much enthusiasm for cooperating with liberals. When, time after time, I have liberals complain that, since libertarians oppose affirmative action we lack "compassion" for African-Americans, I respond, "When you stop voting to keep locking up every seventh black guy for the crime of selling something other people want to buy, then come back and talk to me about my compassion deficit." And what I typically get is some mumble about, "Well, most liberals I know are against the war on drugs as currently practiced."
Great. And you and your friends have done what about that? Made it a litmus test for a nomination? Refused to vote for an enthusiastic drug warrior just because he or she bears the Democratic Party stamp of approval in the general election? Worked to elevate anti-prohibition candidates to office?
The advantage of being the minority party is the freedom to espouse reformist policy. Libertarian votes are up for grabs, and I'd consider voting for a Democrat with a reasonable drug policy. What are they waiting for?
TO: Walter
RE: Oxymoron Time
"Refused to vote for an enthusiastic drug warrior just because he or she bears the Democratic Party stamp of approval in the general election?" -- Jim Henley, as cited by Walter
An "enthusiastic drug warrior" who has the Democratic Party 'stamp' of approval?
I guess it all depends on how you define "enthusiastic" or maybe "drug" or perhaps "is". But from the reasonably prudent individual's perspective, until they change, dramatically, the Democrats would hardly nominate an "enthusiastic drug warrior", unless he was a runner for the cartel armed with an uzi. Well...strike the uzi and make him a trained ninja.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
I have no qualms about saying that any Democrat who is not for some form of drug legalization or, at least, decriminalization is, in my book, pandering, whether consciously or unconsciously.
The War on Some Drugs has been one of the most destructive forces in our country since its real start in the Thirties, and particularly since the Sixties.
Posted by: Gary Farber at March 14, 2004 11:55 AMOf course, the same needs to be said of the Republicans. Truly this is one issue where both major parties have been almost identical in the broad scheme of things.
Next on this axis should be penal reform and judicial reform; the issues are all closely linked, and lack of addressing them has had horrific effects.
Posted by: Gary Farber at March 14, 2004 11:57 AMTO: Gary Farber
RE: Did I Miss Something?
"The War on Some Drugs has been one of the most destructive forces in our country since its real start in the Thirties, and particularly since the Sixties." -- Gary Farber
I don't recall the War on Drugs killing 3000 people and destroying the tallest buildings in New York in the span of hours.
What particular event(s) are you referring to that caused that much destruction and mayham?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at March 14, 2004 12:43 PMIf you look at the elevated crime rates associated with first alcohol prohibition efforts and later drug control efforts you can see that many more people have been killed by the drug war than terrorism in this country.
Posted by: Walter at March 14, 2004 02:05 PMChuck, first of all, I said "one of." I'm not sure what part of those two words you're not clear on.
Second, I said "forces in our country." I don't consider al Queda primarily a "force in our country," meaning a domestically created threat. I could have been even clearer in using the words "one of the most destructive self-inflicted forces."
Three, what on earth makes you bring the anti-Islamofascist/anti-terror war into this?
But, since you ask, I'd say that wasting hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, putting hundreds of thousands of people into jail unnecessarily and destroying their lives, and damaging the lives of their relatives, particularly their children, putting 7 out of 10 black men in jail, diverting all those police, prosecutorial, judicial, and penal resources from fighting real crime, and missing out on the hundreds of billions of dollars of potential tax revenue, has been pretty darn destructive. Just for starters.
You may, of course, disagree. What September 11th has to do with it, I don't know.
Posted by: Gary Farber at March 14, 2004 11:10 PMTO: Gary Farber
RE: Equivocation
"...first of all, I said "one of." -- Gary Farber
I could say the same for any of a number of other activities, ranging from abortion, which has killed millions in this country, albeit perfectly legal, to eco-terrorism. As you suggest later, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
" What September 11th has to do with it, I don't know." -- Gary Farber
Just that an act of war has resulted in how many deaths so far? Not to mention the invasion of two countries, and possibly more. And, if you want to compare bucks, this war has cost more than the War on Drugs has, bottom line.
Just a matter of perspective. Or maybe hyperbole....
RE: The War on Drugs
I'm not a big fan of it, myself. All too often it is used as an excuse to cause mischief and mayham in the lives of innocent people. [Note: All too often meaning even once, in my book.]
As for drugs themselves. If it grows naturally, God intended it for use. But not for abuse. If a job or activity has a potential for causing harm then the use of such drugs and performance of such activity should land you in a pot of hot water. And tests should be performed to insure that people are fully capable of performing their job where any impairment could result in severe injuries or loss of property, e.g., nuclear power plant engineer, airplane pilot, 18-wheel operator on the interstate, etc., etc.
But, it seems to me that the people espousing liberalizing drug usage also complain about violations of their privacy by such tests. I find such whinning 'offensive'. If they want to play fine. But if they want to play, they have to antie-up.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at March 15, 2004 08:54 AMIf you want to play you have to antie-up? [sic] That doesn't make sense, because you're advocating drug testing for those who don't "play" as well as those who do (obviously you can't just test the ones who use drugs to find out who is using drugs). So what's the ante?
As far as whining about drug testing, most of our whining has to do with suspicionless testing of school kids and Wal-Mart employees that has nothing to do with our safety. As far as the safety issues for certain occupations, I'd be happy with an "impairment" test, but nobody is doing "impairment" drug testing. Impairment testing would disqualify you if you were too tired to work safely, but not disqualify you if you smoked a joint two days ago and were fine now.
It used to be we used human supervision to detect impairment. Somebody shows up drunk, stoned, or asleep, you send them home or fire them. That's impairment testing.
I may have missed something on this original post, but I never associated liberals with wanting to change the drug laws. As far as I am concerned there is absolutely no difference between the ass and the elephant. Since when are Democrats associated with repealing the drug laws?
Posted by: severin at March 15, 2004 01:07 PMTO: Pete Guither
RE: Ante, Anybody?
"If you want to play you have to antie-up? [sic] That doesn't make sense, because you're advocating drug testing for those who don't "play" as well as those who do (obviously you can't just test the ones who use drugs to find out who is using drugs). So what's the ante?" -- Pete Guither
So how does anyone know someone is not using drugs?
Please explain the process you propose.
And, please, do avoid whinning.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at March 19, 2004 05:16 PM