Comments on: Hanging out with the ‘legalize it’ crowd

By: Matthew Piccolo

Matthew Piccolo — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:00:00 +0000

I’m guessing no one here supports crime, death, brain-deadness, the mafia, or drug cartels, whether they support criminalization or not, which is why Brennan’s assertion is faulty.

By: Connor Boyack

Connor Boyack — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:46:00 +0000

Because we don’t have crime, death, and brain-deadness with criminalized drugs, right, Matthew?

By: Jeremy Nicoll

Jeremy Nicoll — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:39:00 +0000

I can respect the view viewpoints on all of this except for one: if you criminalize a behavior, isn’t anyone who practices that behavior a criminal? How does one possibly make that distinction without disregarding the law?

The “leave it to the judges” attitude from lawmakers is one of the things that has our court systems horribly clogged today. It is my experience and view that judges do not give objective rulings very much partially because they are slammed with having to judge so many cases. Mental and physical fatigue make it difficult. So, how about instead of making laws and expecting judges to have some sort of supernatural power to discern whether a person is a “good citizen” or a “criminal” that we remove laws that deal with personal behavior? We don’t need more people in the court system, we need fewer so that those who are legitimate victims from a crime can be served.

By: Matthew Piccolo

Matthew Piccolo — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:32:00 +0000

And those who advocate for decriminalization support all the crime, death, and brain-deadness that result from drug use?

That’s some pretty faulty logic.

By: Brennan

Brennan — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:24:00 +0000

“I’m a “Prohibition” guy on this stuff and on alcohol.”

So it can be said you support the mafia and drug cartels, as the prohibition keeps them in business, and keeps their products price high so they make more money.

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:47:00 +0000

Thank you.

By: Ross Collier

Ross Collier — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:31:00 +0000

I was afraid the links would be lost in transition. Here they are.

http://old.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/if-by-whiskey

By: Ross Collier

Ross Collier — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:26:00 +0000

Paul, I applaud your willingness and am impressed by your ability “to flip the switch” and see things from another’s point of view. In my view, if we all made the effort to see why things make sense to someone we disagree with we’d all be better off. Best of luck to you on developing a more informed perspective.

I assume you agree that a historical perspective is often instructive. You may remember that William F. Buckley, Jr. was critical of the War on Drugs. In 1996, National Review took a stand and published a symposium on the topic. Included is a piece by Ethan Nadelmann. I would bet he is the same Ethan Nadelmann you mention in your essay.

This symposium may be worth another look today, with one eye on the assessment of the situation in ‘96 by these bright and concerned men, and another eye toward what has changed in the past fifteen years, what hasn’t, and why.

The War on Drugs is Lost

Since you brought up liquor, I couldn’t resist adding an amusing “principled position” taken from a 1952 speech by Mississippi lawmaker Noah “Soggy” Sweat.

If-by-whiskey – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia