Gravel had me until....the weed part

Gravel is quite entertaining. Recently, I heard his interpretation of why the Spartans were a successful military force. I can't quite bring myself to type it out, but it is very entertaining. If he were correct, it would cast "Don't ask, don't tell" in a whole new light!

Great answer by a Dem. Probably is a Libertarian and doesn't realize it.

He was our Senator for a while, but absolutely none of the old folks will admit to voting for him.

Silver tongue and gravel for brains, was what people used to say. He missed so many votes that I think they used to sub-let out his chair on the Senate floor. We were so desperate to get rid of him we voted in Frank Murkowski, who was sort of inept (thank goodness Stevens was around to help him find the Senate floor), but was a huge improvement over Gravel.

I'm not surprised that he made this ludicrous remark about marijuana -- he really is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I AM amazed that there are people who would seriously consider him for President. Yeah, he's cute (he always has been), but he's not bright! The fact that he uses his time as Senator for Alaska as his experience in governance ought to tell you something. My folks voted him out in the 1970s. What has he done since?

Except his support of H.R. 25, The Fair Tax Act. His National Initiative for Democracy, The National Ballot Initiative has potential for plausible promise.
However, this, that you see as a gaffe, is a third reason to see Mike Gravel might actually be more than just another putrid, party line political putz.

You mean he wants drug policy to be consistent? You mean he thinks it doesn't make sense for one mind-altering drug to be sold legally (alcohol, rated the riskiest drug by the FDA ahead of marijuana and cocaine) but not another?

As Ludwig von Mises said:

"Even those who otherwise generally have misgivings about extending the area of governmental activity consider it quite proper that the freedom of the individual should be curtailed in this respect [drug prohibition], and they think that only a benighted doctrinairism could oppose such prohibitions."

Pity too. It's this sort of argument exactly that betrays the fact that modern "conservatives" care little for small government.

The last time I drank too much (somewhere in my mid-20's) I realized that doing so resulted in a severe headache, dehydration, diarrhea, and vomiting followed by dry heaving for two days. I cursed the government for doing nothing to protect me from myself. I curse my elected representatives for not protecting me from imbibing too much fat and sugar, and my local, state and national government does nothing to contol my intake of salt, meat, coffee and chocolate. Curses upon those purveyors of personal sovereignty who think I should be intelligent enough to control and modulate my own behavior! Thank goodness for those brave officials who are willing to decide for me what I can eat, drink, inhale, bathe in and rub on- without them, where might we be?!?!?

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's the government's job to control our every move....that may be the main reason I'm a republican. We try to blame the government for not having more strict laws on alcohol and even food consumption, but why can't we control ourselves?! The government should be making laws about not allowing dangerous actions. One example is alcohol. Notice there's no law about "you can't get drunk." The government doesn't want to baby you and say to something don't drink too much alcohol. What is illegal is getting drunk AND getting behind the wheel of a car, or even public intoxication which could result in hurting someone else or having yourself get hurt by someone else.

I need to dedicate this to a new blog post soon - Why do Americans want to take no responsiblity for ANYTHING???

Look forward to seeing the slightly (ok more than slightly compared to me :)) younger adults take on personal responsibility. Especially to see another take from someone that is near in age to my children (ok adults 23 & 20).

Persephone's satirical post demonstrated exactly why we do not need government intervention into our personal lives. For some reason, you decided to take her post seriously and attack her (and other Americans) for "tak[ing] no responsibility for ANYTHING." All this occurred in the context of a post you made attacking for Gravel for suggesting the same thing you just did. Make up your mind, please.

I'm sorry but I see two totally different issues here:

1. The blog post was regarding how might Gravel wants to legalize marijuana, which I think would be bad....

2. My response to persephone was a general annoyance with the way Americans don't want to take responsibility for things --- people scream for independence and freedoms but then they need their hand held like children....I think we ALL need to grow up, and I think you need to calm down

The very fact that you can post your two points there and see no contradiction boggles my mind. Persephone's post was satirical. Meaning, she does actually think that the government should protect her from herself.

Now, my general point is (and I think hers was as well), that marijuana use falls under the same category as all those other personal behaviors. Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol -- there are relatively few limits on our consumption of these products (though that is changing as well). Why not the same for marijuana. What is different about marijuana? For one, it is safer to use than alcohol.

Let me provide you with a quote: "I'm sorry, but I don't think it's the government's job to control our every move..."

Ah, wait! That's yours. Well put. Now, how you square the quoted sentiment with your desire to keep marijuana illegal? That's where you need to make up your mind.

It's not the government's job to control our every move.....

Marijuana is a drug -- it is a drug that is produced in people's basement and sold on the street - You could smoke 20lbs of it and be fine, OR you could take one puff and it could kill you because you have NO IDEA how much someone packed in there or what else they used to make that....IT CAN KILL YOU! From taking one puff! Can alcohol kill you? Of course - people die from alochol poisoning all the time because they are stupid......but does someone take one sip and die? Do they still make liquor in bathtubs in someone's house? No - they make them under standards by law......so someone is aware what they are drinking and if they aren't paying attention then shame on them.

I can still say now and 100 times that the government shouldn't control our every move, but I don't think I said in there we shouldn't have laws.....do you want marijuana legalized or smoke it without feeling guilty? Then go to The Phillipines or whereever it already is legal - and take Mike Gravel with you. I personally think smoking cigarettes should be illegal too because it is TOTALLY POINTLESS! That doesn't make me a hypocrite. That makes me hate drugs and cigarettes - is that a crime? Maybe you should write your congressmen and suggest a law that prohibits someone from having an opinion so you won't have to disagree with me so much.

http://tinyurl.com/369z9y

It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana. So your one-puff dead idea is complete garbage.

And yes, it's illegal to make liquor in bathtubs, but it's not illegal to brew beer at your house, which is another inconsistency in the law. Of course, why would you want the state involved in any of this. If you are a conservative as you claim to be, wouldn't it make more sense to scale back state interventionism completely and let market competition push out shoddy products?

The opposite of market competition is either nationalization or prohibition. I highly doubt you favor nationalization of drug production. Do you remember how prohibition went? (Badly) And yet you want to continue marijuana prohibition and add to that other drugs.

No, it does make you a hypocrite to say that you believe the government should let us lead our own lives, and then calling for certain nonviolent activities to be banned. In reality, what you're saying is, the government should let us lead our lives as long as they all conform to my idea of what is good, otherwise the state should step it. If you truly respect personal liberty, you must respect the liberty of others, however much you may disagree with their individual choices. So long as the activity does not infringe on someone else's life or property, there is no justification for state action. It's not enough to say something is dangerous or pointless and that you hate it, and therefore it should be banned. I hate lots of things, but that is certainly not grounds for banning them.

Finally, I don't appreciate your implications about me and my beliefs. For one, I have never smoked marijuana, nor do I plan on it. Secondly, why would you think that, given my shpiel on individual liberty, I would want a law passed that suppressed people's opinions (as if that were even possible)? You are free to give your opinion and I am free to critique it.

you're free to critque it but it doesn't mean you are right

Because you haven't responded to a single point I've made. Except, of course, to say that you hate smoking and marijuana, and therefore there should be laws against them.

In either case, once you start legislating personal behavior that is non-aggressive, you are on the road to fascism.

Am I required to respond to every point? You've heard my side -- I've heard yours....nothing else I can say will convince you that I'm right...and nothing more you can say can make me disagree with you more.....I didn't think I needed to continue the meaningless circles

You are free to ignore everything I say. I should inform you, however, that it looks ridiculous to ignore me and still hold that I am not right. If my views are so ill-informed, they would be easy to refute. Your inability to do so speaks volumes.

It has nothing to do with an inability to refute...is has everything to do with having no desire to do so...I don't need to prove anything to you just as you don't have to prove anything to me....please read my blog as much as you like and I appreciate you doing so, but your readership and comments do not always need to follow with a response from me.....if I did that 24/7 then I'd fail out of school and have a lot more time on my hands as a result.