Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Jacob Sullum :: Townhall.com Columnist
Palin's Pot Problem
by Jacob Sullum
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


When it comes to questions about youthful marijuana use, Sarah Palin is no Slick Willie. "I can't claim a Bill Clinton and say that I never inhaled," the Republican vice presidential candidate told the Anchorage Daily News in 2006, before she was elected governor of Alaska.

Although Palin's handling of the issue scores higher on the candor meter than Clinton's, she has the same difficulty reconciling her personal experience with her policy positions, a problem also shared by former pot smoker Barack Obama. None of them has a persuasive answer to the question of why other Americans should be arrested for something they did with impunity.

Pot smokers who are arrested do not typically spend much time in jail. But as a 2007 report from the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics noted, they pay a substantial cost that includes not only public humiliation and legal expenses but collateral sanctions such as "revocation or suspension of professional licenses, barriers to employment or promotion, loss of educational aid, driver's license suspension, and bars on adoption, voting and jury service."

According to figures released by the FBI this week, about 873,000 people were arrested on marijuana charges in the United States last year, a new record. Pot busts accounted for nearly half of the 1.8 million drug arrests; as usual, the vast majority, about 775,000, were for simple possession, as opposed to cultivation or sale.

This is the fifth year in a row that marijuana arrests have increased, but the upward trend began in the early 1990s. Three times as many people were arrested on marijuana charges last year as in 1991.

The increase in arrests does not correspond to an increase in use; instead, the chance that any given pot smoker will be busted (though still small) is much higher than it was two decades ago. It is also higher than when Palin attended college in the '80s, which is presumably when she tried marijuana.

By way of extenuation, the Anchorage Daily News reported, Palin noted that marijuana "was legal under state law," although "illegal under U.S. law." In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution, which says the "right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed," prohibits the government from punishing people for possessing small amounts of marijuana in their homes.

A 1990 ballot initiative ostensibly recriminalized all marijuana possession, but in 2003, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled that "a statute which purports to attach criminal penalties to constitutionally protected conduct is void." The following year, the Alaska Supreme Court declined to hear the state's appeal of that decision.

In 2006, the state legislature, at the urging of Palin's predecessor, Frank Murkowski, passed another law that supposedly made private possession of marijuana for personal use a crime. A judge found that law unconstitutional as well, and the Alaska Supreme Court is considering an appeal of her ruling.

The upshot is that smoking marijuana in the privacy of one's home is just as legal in Alaska today as it was when Palin did it. Evidently, she regrets this situation.

As mayor of Wasilla in 2000, Palin championed a city council resolution opposing a ballot initiative that would have legalized marijuana for adults. In March her administration asked the Alaska Supreme Court to reverse its 1975 decision shielding private marijuana use, arguing that the drug is more dangerous than it used to be.

In other words, Palin got to smoke pot without worrying about legal consequences and now wants to deny that assurance to fellow Alaskans doing exactly the same thing. "Palin doesn't support legalizing marijuana," the Anchorage Daily News reported in 2006, because she worries about "the message it would send to her four kids."

It's Palin's job to teach her children that certain pleasures are reserved for grownups. The government should not continue to arrest adults who are harming no one simply because her children are easily confused.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Problem?
She smoked pot years ago. Now she believes that people should not smoke pot because it is harmful. Mmmmm k. So she matured, this is a problem? I feel the same way as she does. I used to smoke pot, I don't any more and I don't think people should smoke it because as a nurse I am better educated about the harm it does. Now, it should not be treated the same as the opioids or meth, it simply is not in the same league as those drugs. I'm actually fairly libertarian (small 'l') and am on the fence concerning decriminalization of pot.


"It's Palin's job to teach her children that certain pleasures are reserved for grownups. The government should not continue to arrest adults who are harming no one simply because her children are easily confused." I can't parse any meaning out of this paragraph at all.

No Problem
I agree with Screwtape. It's the responsibility of adults to help the youngsters from repeating their mistakes, if at all possible. If I committed armed robbery in my youth and somehow managed to get away with it, am I a responsible adult in teaching my offspring how they too can get away with armed robbery? Of course not.

Legalized marijuana is a bad idea. Grown ups can see this with the wisdom that comes with maturity.

"It's Palin's job to teach her children that certain pleasures are reserved for grownups."

Do as I say, not as I do? That never works, buddy. Kids do what their parents DO, not what they SAY. Sometimes they do what their parents never did. You need to rethink your argument, because I don't think any responsible parent is going to listen to this advice.

Children do not have the same rights
and privileges as adults, I disagree that everyone should be punished and personal rights violated, just because kids shouldn't be doing something, and it's up to parents to teach them responsible and moderate behavior. The same reasoning could be applied to alcohol and sex. Both parties are in this up to their necks, but I have other issues I'm voting on and the MAIN one is to reform Washington.

Marijuana Bogeyman!
Enough is enough with this damn witch hunt!

Kinky Friedman on legalizing pot

"We've got to clear some of the room out of the prisons so we can put the bad guys in there, like the pedophiles and the politicians".

Hey Doofus!
It's not the use that you have a problem with, it's the getting caught part. Barack and Sarah didn't get caught. And appairently neither have you.

Silly Argument
There are some huge underlying assumptions in this column: Sarah Palin smoked pot when she was younger, therefore she feels smoking pot is okay for adults.

I don't know about you, but I have done a few things when I was younger that I would not do now. There's no implication that I endorse that behavior for myself but not for others.

If you want to argue why you feel legalizing pot is a good idea, go ahead. But this column makes a broad, baseless assumption that defeats the whole point if it's wrong.

Joe Biden Drunk?
Govenor Palin's a heat-seeking missile pitbull; Biden's the old dog on the porch--startled with any noise and responds by yapping and snapping at anything.

I also noticed the video of Joe Biden DRUNK, but the media is not running it. BUT if that would've been Palin it'd be all over the news.

WATCH JOE BIDEN DRUNK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ&feature=related

And lest we forget REV. WRIGHT, AKA REV. RANT - Obama's 20-year longtime "PASTOR"

This independant says NoBama, NoWay, NoHow, NO THANKS!

Obama prefers COCAINE
and picks an alcoholic running mate.

No thanks!

Palin
is just being Christian: do what I say, not what I do.

Like the successes she had with abstinence only education... or how she was for bridge to nowhere before she was against it. Or how she "fights" cronyism by hiring incompetent schoolmates to government positions.

Or she talks about "truth" and lies while doing it. Typical representative of christian conservative.

OBAMA-CANT PASS A DRUG TEST!
NO ONE CAN VOTE TO KILL A BABY AFTER IT SURVIVES A ATEMPTED ABORTION AND SHINE AND SMILE LIKE OBAMA NO ONE UNLESS THEY ARE ON DRUGS THEY WERE GIVEN TO BY SOME DUDE FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO!OBAMAS FAKE SMILE!!HE VOTES BABY DIES!!

WHILE ON CRACK-
HE WROTE THIS WIERD BOOK DREAMS OF MY FATHERS,WHILE ON CAT-NIP CHICAGO STYLE.

Leo spews lots
and shows suitability for lawyering or politics--lots of hot air, no substance!

good column
Good column. The sad thing is how many politicians it applies to. In this case Palin is simple the peg on which to hang this rather general argument.

Palin wants people today to run the risk of losing their right to vote for doing what she herself did. She, of course, does not believe that she should be stripped of the vote.

The idea that saying that it is a mistake to smoke pot means that one should endorse criminal punishment for it is precisely the kind of big government nonsense that conservatives pretend they are against, except they aren't.

Common Sense
On this issue I'm with the late Bill Buckley among other highly intelligent thinkers, e.g., George Schulz--if I'm not mistaken: Illegal drugs should be legalized. Period.

Think of the positive side of this, at first glance, insane approach. No more black market; no more unnecessary slaughters; no more expensive and futile policing on that issue; more and more money for rehab and Twelve Step Programs that really work; more peer pressure to do the right thing with more money for EDUCATION (but not top-down federal bucks).

As John Lennon sang: Imagine...

Mike
No babies have died because of Obama's vote to kill a symbolic measure in committee. Don't you have any arguments against Obama that are actually true? If one opposes a candidate, it should be based on true things rather than nonsense.

Don't you know how to use the caps lock on your computer? You simply push it once and it stop captitalizing every letter in your post. Although you do then have to use the shift key to capitalize the letters that should be capitalized. But given your apparent aversion to marijuania it is hard to see why you would be too lazy to push the shift key occassionally.

Leave it to a liberal
to say maturity=hypocrisy. Of course many of them have never matured.

Does BO advocate legalizing coke since he did that?

Not just Palin
It's not just Palin that are wrong on the subject of marijuana, it's about 95% of politicians, of both parties. So, while this writer is pinning this particular thing on Palin, this is not new. Both parties have been "liberal fascists" on the policy of marijuana criminalization, for decades. Let's face it, something that grows in the wild, in the ground, ought not to be illegal for personal use. It's a simple case of either you're for personal freedom or you're against personal freedom. The conservative viewpoint (and I'm a conservative) is that this plant, should not be illegal. The liberal fascist viewpoint, is that the plant should be banned so that we don't hurt ourselves with it. Two very strikingly differnt viewpoints...the problem is that liberal fasicsm has invaded virtually every aspect of our lives. Let's face it though, it boils down to the fact we need to support the conservative candidate. We now have a very flamboyant liberal fascist (Obama), in a virtually dead-heat with the conservative candidate. We need to support the conservative candidate (and v.p.) even if we disagree on this one point, as a majority of our views are shared by the conservative candidate.

Sarah and Pot
Look's like the digging continues...how shocking.

Decriminalize drugs...
Use the prison space for real criminals. Have the police do real police work.

Take the profits from black marketeers. Tax the daylights out of the stuff and use the monies for treatment/education.

Your Obedient Servant,

GW

Sullum has a "P. Problem" all right...
...but the P stands for Palin rather than pot. The last paragraph is both dismissive of her role as Alaska's leader and a condemnation of her role as a parent.

The Real Question
The real question is this. If elected, would Palin support the current conservative stance on state regulation of marijuana use?

Currently, the federal government avidly pursues pot smokers, as shown by the data included in this article. But, it also prevents states from making their own laws on the subject. This includes preventing states from allowing the use of medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor.

So, Will Palin support a change in government policy on the issue? Does she support he use of medical marijuana.

Or is suggsting that she explain her position asking too much of her?

pot smoking


I don't know what the big deal with pot smoking is. I smoked every day for 13 years and never got hooked.

And I turned out to be a good conservative hard working adult who raised two fine children. Of course having a sense of humor helped.

Sarah smoked pot.
So what! Obama used cocaine! Where's the outrage from the left about that?

At least Palin admitted her use when asked. What did scumbag Clinton say. "Yes, but I didn't inhale." What a wimp. I would have had some respect for Clinton had his answer have been, "Yes, I smoked marijuana. So what!" But, no, he wimped out. The left thought it was a non-issue back then but they are villifying Palin over it. But there's no double standard. Of course not.

For every chicken sh-- thing the left finds out about Palin they can find considerably worse things out about that Marxist Moslim Obama, if they tried.

Keep it up lefties. I have not been planning on voting for McCain this year because I don't like him. But keep up your chicken sh-- attacks on Palin and you'll do what McCain is unable to do: get me to vote for him. Either way there's no way I will vote for a Democrat--the party that claims compassion and tolerance but are really the party of hatred, hatred of anyone who is different and does not agree with them.

A bright line
The pot issue draws a bright line between traditional (social, religious) conservatives and libertarians. For the former, it's self-evident (that means that no proof is needed) that pot is bad and evil and awful, etc. For the libertarian, this is an area in which government intervention is wrong. As a liberal (and thus in favor of decriminalizing pot), I love to see you guys rip each other up on this. So, let me hold your jackets while you punch each other silly.

So ...
... Sullum thinks people should be able to smoke pot, but scolds people that have smoked pot.

What has Sullum been smoking?

The difference is......
When Sarah Palin smoked it was legal in the state she resided in, but not in all of the U.S.

When Barack Obama did pot (and more) he was in Chicago Illinois and I don't ever recall it being legal there.

Besides - I think it should be legalized. I needed to smoke something just to try and understand the point.

The last paragraph
Do people really have difficulty following the last paragraph above?

Palin's explanation for why she is supporting the idea of making smoking marijuana illegal is that it sends a bad message to children. I suppose that on the same grounds people who think that children should not have sex could support a law making sex illegal for everyone.

But Sullom's point is that a better view would be to make clear that there are things that children should not do, which adults can be trusted to do because they are adults.

Are Conservatives now of the view that there should be no distinction between children and adults anymore?

84rules
Sullom does not criticize anyone for smoking pot. He criticizes for smoking pot and then trying to put other people in jail for smoking pot. That is not really that subtle or illusive a distinction.

Legalize pot!
Haven't any of you seen "Reefer Madness?" Blood in the streets!

Shaking My Head
When I was younger in late teens, 2o's and 30's I drank a lot. A lot.

But when I became a man, I gave it up. Because it can lead to too many problems. Both of my brothers are alcoholics and I thought I might be on my way so before I got there, I stopped.

20+ years later I might drink a couple of glasses of wine a month but that is all.

Said that, to say this. I can't fault anyone too much for having done something when they were young and as they grew older saying: "know what, that is dumb, wrong, whatever."

Even B.O. deserves a little credit if cocaine was a 1 time thing. And I might not quibble too much at a couple of times except for the fact that cocaine was, is, and always will be extremely illegal, not to speak of life changing and life threatening. More so than M. And I don't cut extreme lib B.O. too much slack for anything because he is so far out.

Anybody who has truly changed [such as my FORMER EXTREME liberalism] cannot be faulted for seeing the error of their ways & simply growing up. All liberals should experience what I experienced.

Recovering Liberal




A mental health perspective
I work for community mental health and have been to a lot of trainings on the pot issue. Fact is, pot usage is linked to a variety of mental health issues -- depression, eating disorders, ADD, and schizophrenia. The psychiatrists here at work say the research lags behind their experience, which is that pot is a key element in the INCREASE in delusional disorders over the last 30 years. It's simply NOT a good idea to make it legal, even for medical use -- so far, it's not been proven to have any sort of medical benefit. It distorts perception; that is rarely a good thing.

Yes, it's legal in Alaska to possess pot in your home. Technically, it's not legal to transport it, ingest it, or grow it, but these are minor details to our local pot purveyors. Our state has had enough experience with this mistake for a majority of voters in 1993 to vote to recriminalize it. We've seen what uncontrolled pot smoking does to a population and it's not a good thing.

Sarah, like many Alaskans, tried it and found it wasn't a healthy choice. Our Troopers believe (again, research is needed) that many of our road fatalities are due to pot rather than alcohol. So, learning from bad experience can be considered hypocritical or intelligent. You choose for yourself, I suppose, but I consider it a sign of intelligence to recognize when something you did as a young adult is too dangerous for the next generation.

The answer is the libertarian
legalize drugs, let people get prescriptions from drs., who'll make more gadzillions, let druggists fill the scripts, and open the jails and prisons of drug offenders, 3/4's of them minorities.

Let the peasants of Columbia and Afghanistan grow whatever commercial crop than can get money for, bring the Delta Forces home from S. Am., disband the DEA and its bureaucracy, and free law enforcement to go after the violent criminals.

I'not excusing drug lords and cartel runners with murder and mayhem on their hands, but the average schmuck who got caught with a couple ounces of something should not be in the criminal justice system.

I don't do dope, never have, but Prohibition didn't work when applies to liquor and doesn't work applied to drugs. I was opposed to this idea myself until a few years ago when researching the high numbers of people incarserated in the US and learn most of them are convicted of drug-related offenses.

But if we want to assign blame for the burgeoning of the drug culture: IT'S THE MOST SUCCESSFUL LIBERAL PROGRAM THEY HAVE EVER INVENTGED.

If you think it was a cons. or Rep. idea, you need to soak your head and clean out your frontal lobe.

No Hypocrisy in Palin's Position
So, let me restate the argument Mr. Sullum proposes and follow it to its logical conclusion. If you have ever done a particular act, you are forever prohibited from criticizing that act or advocating that it is wrong and should be criminalized? Mr. Sullum argues that since Palin smoked marijuana in the past she should not advocate today that it is wrong and should be criminal. Let's apply that to other acts. If you have ever exceeded the speed limit you should not ever support speed limits? If you have ever been drunk in public you should not support laws against public drunkenness? If you ever stolen you should not support laws against thievery? I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

In fact, implied in this argument, you should for consistency sake, forever advocate every act you have ever done. After all, you don't want to be a hypocrite. To carry the argument to its logical conclusion, if you have ever killed someone you should not repent, but rather continue to advocate for your right to kill. No, just because you have once done something does not mean you cannot later recall the act as a mistake that should not be tolerated.

There are certain behaviors we decide are so deleterious to society that we should make them criminal. Just because Palin has smoked marijuana in the past does not mean she cannot believe now that personal marijuana use should be considered as such. Argue the libertarian position that marijuana should be legalized if you will. I admit this argument has even appealed to me at times, but don't make the silly argument that just because you've done something in the past, you cannot now think it is wrong.

Not a problem
I don't view gov. Palin as a hypocrite for her stance, regardless of what she has done in the past. I understand her position, even though I don't agree with it.

Let the people choose. This shouldn't be a federal issue, but a state issue. I would argue that it should be an individual's decision, but thats for another place.

I'm a staunch conservative, but I don't fault Palin or Obama for using marijuana. I wouldn't want them to be using while in office, but as youngsters, I don't think it shows poor judgment. People grow and learn. Furthermore, I'm not surprised that they used, and I credit them for publicly admitting it.

McCain/Palin '08!

Will never be legal
Pot will never be legal as the government makes too much money on legal slavery(Prison Industrial Complex)and Big Pharma knows they's lose 80% of their market share. 80% of drugs sold at a pharmacy are narcotic pain killers. Being a conservative libertarian, I personally don't see the government as having a right to tell anyone what they can put into their own bodies, or what kind of plants they can grow at home. It's supposed to be the land of the free. It's become Land of "How else can we take these stupid moron's money, and have them believe we have a right to their money and tell them how to live" I was born in 1963, and this country is not the same one I was born in. Oh well. I'll just do a couple of bong hits and forget about how controlled we are all becoming...Puff, puff, puff, ahhhhhhh.

AW

You write:

"It's simply NOT a good idea to make it legal, even for medical use -- so far, it's not been proven to have any sort of medical benefit. It distorts perception; that is rarely a good thing."

Isn't it funny that when people who agree with you rely on thier experience, you support thier thinking. But, when people like the doctors and patients who have experience with marijuana in a medical context tell you taht, you say " It's
not been proven."

We could answer the questions we need to answer about marijuana anytime we want to, except for one thing. The paranoia about pot was so great that it was classified as a schedule one drug, meaning it is too dangerous even to do research on.

Tell me seriously, do you think pot is so dangerous we can't even study it medically?





silliness
So what? She either feels differently now as someone (or the friend/relative of someone) whose life may have been negatively affected by smoking weed, or she has sense enough to realize that politically, this is as poisonous an issue as social security and medicare. This is not to say that I don't recognize S.S. as a Ponzi scheme that would best be eliminated entirely, or that medicare is healthy for the country. It is simply, and unfortunately a political reality.

Frankly, I think the prohibition of marijuana is idiotic. It ranks no higher on the list of "gateway" drugs than alcohol and tobacco. It can certainly rob people of their ambition; but if anything, that is a good reason to tax it and legislate an age limit for it's use. Legalizing it would completely dry up the black market for it, and would make it easier to keep it out of the hands of minors. If it were legal, anyone could grow it in their garden, and law enforcement could be used for actual criminal restraint. Nevertheless, Palin is simply being pragmatic. If she weren't, there is no doubt that the left, typically supportive of drug use, would excoriate her mercilessly for her position.

Gestell’s “biography” statement says:

Gestell’s bio says: “I'm a liberal academic in Massachusetts who's interested in conservatism. I spend much more time reading conservative journals, blogs, etc than I do liberal ones.”


Why? Because dissenting opinions are deleted from Leftist forums, and the “offending parties” are banned? What does that say about "liberal" appreciation for dissent and freedom of speech (or even freedom of thought)?


~~~


Gestell’s bio: “There is need for a responsible liberal opposition, but I find many of my fellow liberals irresponsible.”


How do you distinguish yourself from your “fellow liberals” in this regard?!?


~~~


Gestell’s bio says: “I will try to engage in reasonable political argument and raise questions I think conservatives should consider.”


You mean by saying things like “For the former, it's self-evident (that means that no proof is needed) that pot is bad and evil and awful, etc.” ?


No honest question is posed, no honest answer is sought... just denigration of those with whom you disagree, and mocking delight at the prospect of hoped-for conflict… is this the “reasonable political argument” you claim to seek in your bio statement, Gestell?


~~~


Gestell’s bio: “I also think a lot of conservatives don't understand their own principles and arguments particularly well.”


That’s the kind of elitist arrogance I expect from a Leftist academic...


~~~


Gestell’s bio says: “Unlike many liberals, I consider myself both a Christian and a patriot,”


You are free to consider yourself whatever you like, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.

“For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.” (2 Cor 10:18, KJV)


~~~


Gestell’s bio: “…and disagree deeply with conservatives who think such beliefs are not possible for liberals.”


Any disagreement you have about whether you are a Christian (or not) is not with conservatives, it is with God, and with His Word.


No votes for this article
I sure don't like the tone or wording of this article. The use of marijuana should continue to remain a private matter- legalizing it would be giving the ok for it to be extremely altered by the pharmaceutical companies- it just wouldn't be the same.
To persecute one for using it in the past should be more of an illegal action than the use of such a natural substance especially moderate use.

pot for a sick Mom
Thirty eight years ago, I would obtain grass for my mother - who was undergoing chemotherapy and was so nauseated without it, she couldn't keep the anti-nausea medication down. It also caused an uptick in her appetite. She was very reluctant in the beginning, but it did help and probably gave us some more time together. I didn't feel guilty about it.
Certainly nothing else was helping. If I was facing the same situation now, myself, I 'd be thinking of finding a source myself.

Outofthebox
So, what's your point? I DIDN'T smoke pot Or do any other illegal drugs while I raised my kids and one graduated with high grades and one graduated with honors. I didn't drink either. I'm always there if needed by my kids too, not that they ask much. While not doing this, I also raised a handicapped kid. Just imagine what might have happened to my other two if I had done them. I personally know of a lady that did drugs and not only was her kid born hooked, it was mentally handicapped because of it. I am personally glad I didn't do them as I don't think I could live with the knoledge that I caused my kid to be less than he could be. Get my drift?

Nice column...
Mr. Sullum. One of the few conservative commentators at TH who is more than a simple partisan hack. 5 stars.

Sullum is a Moral Relativist...
...in the fine tradition of self-justifying liberals everywhere.

Like Sullum, their morality is defined based on their desires. "If I engage in a behavior that behavior is by definition good."

Nowhere in their unexamined psyche do they countenance the possibility that someone could knowingly engage in a behavior they understand to be wrong. To these simple thinkers, an alcohol abuser is expected to either advocate for the acceptance of alcohol abuse, or stand guilty of being a hyprocrite.

Never mind the fact that many immature people have engaged in questionable behavior as a youth and come to regret it as an adult. Many adults engage in behavior they are fully aware should not become the acceptable norm.

It is articles like these that best explain why I am NOT a libertarian.


Uh ho ...
So Palin smoked marijuana...

I don't respect marijuana users a whole lot more than cocaine users, and my stomach is starting to cramp.

So here's the choice: A president who supports open borders with an
ex-pothead as his VP, or an ex-coke sniffer radical commie for president.

The choice is still easy, but the quality of our options is beginning to upset my stomach.

As for this drug question, I think the whole onus of drug use should be placed on the individual, rather than on the supply line, because we now see what happens otherwise:
Our leaders and most anybody who's anybody is or was a drug user, and probably all the comes with it.

It is because drugs are "illegal", the whole underworld drug trade exists. All that does is support organized crime syndicates, who in turn corrupt the world's governments, and all the world's people. And it often forces people to completely ruin their lives to find the money to fund their drug habits, and this money supports these crime syndicates.

Legalize the commercial production and sale of all drugs, but heavily regulate the use of drugs, actively finds ways to stigmatize its use, and
keep users as closely monitered as possible, such as when they purchase their precious stuff they get a few tests done and get education on where their habit will likely take them, and have them prescribed by doctors. But sure, repect their right to privacy as with any other medical patient's right to keep private their other prescriptions.

Leo
Leo writes:

"Palin is just being Christian: do what I say, not what I do."

Then you'd better not vote Democratic, Republican or Libertarian, because all of their Presidential and VP candidates are Christians, fyi.

How old are you? Do you live at home with your parent(s)?




Sluum's article eas hard to follow
Then I smoked a joint, and it made more sense.
It was still wrong, but it made more sense.

I'm a medical marijuana user.
After a near death experience with a 1999 car accident, I spent 2 years in perpetual agony as my doctor tried every form of pharmaceutical pain reliever there was. Most were ineffectual, some turned me into a useless zombie. After that time, she told me to try smoking pot.

With a few puffs, I got my life back.

Instead of being a drain on the economy, living as a drugged out zombie, I was able to start my own home based business, and now I Pay taxes instead of living on the govt teat.

I'm somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun on most things, but when it comes to the govt.'s war on Pot I'm still mad at Reagan.

This November, Michigan will become the 13th state with a medical marijuana law, and for the first time since 1999, I won't be a Criminal for trying to live a relatively normal life.

And for you lefties who hope Obama will legalize drugs, don't hold your breath, the DEA has too many govt. employees for Obama to kill it.

Want to make it harder for kids to get Pot?
Legalize and regulate it.

It's harder for a kid to get a pack of cigarettes than a bag of pot.

When pot is finally legalized in America, it'll be a republican's signature on the bill.

LMAO! ©2008 Hal Drunkahue - Used without permission


I guess
the fact that Obama admits to the use of "a little blow"(cocaine), in addition to pot is one of those acts of omission that any impartial journalist may make on occassion. Obama talks the talk and walks the walk when it comes to drug use. Check with your FBI data base on the number of arrests for lawyers use of cocaine; the number of professors arrested for cocaine, the number of Harvard graduates arrested for cocaine, include these states in your article. Then tell me why it is important that it's okay for democrats and elitist but not okay for republicans and people that actually work for a living

marijuana
Is an excellent alternative to liver destroying, addictive pain killers. Any unsupervised adult should not be prosecuted (or perscuted) for possessing or using it.

A Libertarian View....
As a libertarian, I have to agree with Sullum one hundred percent.

Adults should be free to consume whatever substance they want: marijuana, heroin, rat poison--you name it. This is just none of the government's business. You own your own body; what you choose to consume in the privacy and safety of your home is entirely your own business.

Conservatives, who claim to want to get the government off everyone's back, should support complete drug legalization. Actually, more and more of them are coming around on this.

Although I've never tried marijuana personally, it is obvious it is extremely valuable as a medicine, for high quality rope fibers, for clothing, and for high quality oil. Actually, it makes loads more sense to make biofuels out of marijuana than corn.




Cut the Bullsh*t - Legalize
There is a youtube clip of John McCain discussing medical marijuana in a town hall meeting. He was skeptical for no other reason than the lack of honesty of those trying to classify marijuana as medicine. This tends to confirm that regular marijuana smokers are not dealing in reality and are being less than forthright. If you want to make the case for using marijuana, be honest, be an adult, and argue that it is a reasonable, relatively safe alternative to drinking alcohol. Stop pretending. Make the case: You want to use it to get high!

Drug legalization?
So many people think we'd end crime with the legalization of drugs. Sure worked with alcohol. Statistical data shows a huge percentage of robberies, rapes and murders occur while under the influence of alcohol... but never mind that small fact. Legalized drugs will make millions of dollars. Look at legalized gambling. Organized crime loves legalized gambling. And don't worry about the affect on children and teens - why, they'll do it anyway... correct?

So... if you insist on legalizing drugs, you must first stop all welfare benefits, all food stamps, all medicare and so on. End disability for alcoholics and drug addicts. Make people responsible for their behavior. If they can't hold a job because they are high or stoned or drunk, let them go hungry until they learn better. That is the only way to be consistent in your legalize drugs arguement, and the only way to be fair to those of us who show up to work sober.

BTW - Palin is correct. The current strains of marijuana have a higher concentration of THC than marijuana once did... and that is the stuff not laced with any other drug.

Slippery Slopes
Laws created to protect people from themselves are anathema to freedom. They go against every principle this nation was founded upon.

Worse, they don't work.

And the right and left are equally culpable.

Look at the hell our "war on drugs" has wreaked on Mexico. There's so much money in the illegal drug trade, criminals are butchering each other (and innocents are often caught in the crossfire) to protect their enterprises.

Speaking of partisan hacks, jayhawk in aoteora, you're undoubtedly an expert. But you have apparently overlooked the fact that TH writers all feel free to speak their own minds, unlike your kindred socialists/fascists one-note party-liners on the left.

dc
"So... if you insist on legalizing drugs, you must first stop all welfare benefits, all food stamps, all medicare and so on. End disability for alcoholics and drug addicts. Make people responsible for their behavior. If they can't hold a job because they are high or stoned or drunk, let them go hungry until they learn better. That is the only way to be consistent in your legalize drugs arguement, and the only way to be fair to those of us who show up to work sober."

I don't have a problem with that. With you 100% on that.

DC
You might have the right answer, but you have the wrong rationale.

The data on drug use and abuse in America is crystal clear. Alcohol is by far the most costly, dangerous drug in America.

Your claim that "Statistical data shows a huge percentage of robberies, rapes and murders occur while under the influence of alcohol... but never mind that small fact." is accurate. You should add in partner and child abuse as well. But then you lose the point. It is not the legality of alcohol that causes these problems, it is the NATURE of alcohol.

By contrast, there is no correlation at all between any of those crimes and marijuana use. None. Nada. And that can't be due to the illegality of pot: there is plenty of pot being smoked. It is due to the NATURE of the drug.

Of all recreational drugs, marijuana causes by far the least amount of damage. Palin's point about the strenght of pot is irrelevant: all that means is that people smoke less to get the same effect.

It is impossible, in my view, to make a scientifically based argument for pot being illegal and alcohol being legal.

That said, I have no problem at all placing stringent requirements on government assistance. I think women on welfare should be required to utilize birth control. If there were a male pill, I would require that as well. Drug testing should be an expected part of the package.









Jack
As I recall from walking through my dorm in college, marijuana STINKS. It REEKS. A person just having to smell that crap you seedy low life losers smoke should have the right to call the cops just to keep the air clean.

If you want to talk about statistics, or offer any practical arguments to support your pot habit, tell me examples of how using it leads an otherwise healthy person to anything that is good. Since there are no examples, I suggest you recognize its dangers and speak accordingly.

Anyone who so much as touches marijuana, cocaine, or similar drugs will suffer as a consequence, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the problem. Sure, legalize them, if only to keep criminals from profiting and lessen the sufferuing of the users, but it is pointless to do that unless all possible measures are taken to discourage their abuse, and this can only be done if people are honest of the dangers of these substances and responsibly educate the public about them, and keep users under close medical supervision. Also, finding ways to still stigmatize them and their habit
will at least shelter them from having to resort to crime and associating with the wrong element to support their habit. So don't try to praise drugs or try to put them on moral equivalence to such things as alcohol.

Chip
Should we assume you have been drinking, or that you are just stupid. Any rational comparison of alcohol and marijuana use shows conclusively that marijuana is a far safer drug and is far less costly to society than alcohol could ever be.

Alcohol use and abuse is a significant cause of death. In fact, it is the third leading cause of preventable death in the US. To date, not one single death has ever been attriubuted to Marijuana use.

Source: Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, pp. 1238, 1241.


"In 2001, excessive alcohol use was responsible for approximately 75,000 preventable deaths."
And that doesn't include potential years of life lost.

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm)

Every year America suffers about 13,000 alcohol related auto deaths. Auto deaths attributed to Marijuana: ZERO

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5734a3.htm

The cost of alcohol abuse , in total, in any given year, is probably over 200 billion dollars.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa11.htm

In 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm



Marijuana
Ah yes, another column for the libertarians so that they may make fools of themselves.

First, when it comes to the drug cartels, it is absurd that the folks over here want to give into them. The drug cartels are *criminal* gangs, who use their money and weaponry to buy or threaten their way to political influence beyond the concerns of solely their product, and you want to give them a free pass? You want to give known murderers more political power? Brilliant.

Second, marijuana rots the mind and inhibits the senses, and unlike alcohol where it is fairly predictable as to how much needs to be ingested, with marijuana one's mind can be gone in an instant depending on how concentrated it is. If government has at its disposal the means to promote public virtue so that we live in a more civilized and decent society that does not devolve to a mindless, hedonistic barbarism, it should by all means exercise that ability.

Mental impairment and perceptual delusion are not human rights.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.