Skip to main content

Post Prop 19 arguments

By
There simply aren't any good arguments in favor of prohibition. But people keep trying. Fortunately, there are smart people like Andrew Sullivan publicly destroying these bad arguments. A snippet:

This is a core freedom for human beings and requires an insane apparatus of state control and police power to prevent it from occurring. All you have to do is burn a plant and inhale the smoke. If humans are not free to do this in the natural world in which they were born, what on earth are they free to do? My premise is freedom; Josh's is not.

Should we ban roses because they give us pleasure with their beauty and their scent? Should we ban herbs, like rosemary or thyme, because they give us pleasure and encourage us to eat more? Should we ban lawn-grass because maintaining it consumes too many people's weekend afternoons? Should we cut down trees because the beauty of them can sometimes distract someone from the road? I could go on.

The point is the government has no business regulating how its citizens derive pleasure from a naturally occurring plant. Period. The whole idea is preposterous. And yet it is taken for granted.

I hope the prohibitionists continue to roll out their "best" arguments between now and the next time legalization comes up for a vote.
Labels:

Comments

diabolical_mdog said…
Opium poppies are plants...shouldn't the criteria be whether it is something that humans are generally capable of using in moderation?
November 6, 2010 at 1:47 PM
JohnJohn said…
Mdog! Good to hear from you!

Nope, I don't agree with that criterion at all, for several reasons:

1) Alcohol is made from plants, many people can't use alcohol in moderation, and alcohol prohibition was a tremendous failure. A failure that sadly we haven't learned from. Should we outlaw alcohol again? Should we outlaw tobacco? If not, then we shouldn't outlaw cannabis, even *if* people can't use it in moderation.

2) People can't eat fast food in moderation. By your criterion we should outlaw Big Macs. This wouldn't work any better than alcohol prohibition. People are gonna put bad stuff in their bodies if they want to, no matter what the law says.

3) Implicit in your argument is the idea that outlawing poppy seeds has helped prevent people from being addicted to heroine. This is dubious. I don't use heroine, but not because it is illegal---I've used illegal substances with little fear of arrest. I don't use heroine because I make the decision not to.

4) Anyone not convinced that drug legalization works to reduce drug use, addiction and crime, check out this Cato Institute report on drug decriminalization in Portugal...which started 9 years ago and resulted in far more good than bad.

Drug prohibition is a monumental failure. Why should we waste money, prison space and human lives to continue it?
November 6, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A view from your shut down

By
The Daily Dish has been posting reader emails reporting on their " view from the shutdown ." If you think this doesn't affect you, or if you know all too well how bad this is, take a look at the growing collection of poignant stories. No one is in this alone except for the nutjobs in the House. I decided to email Andrew with my own view. I plan to send a similar letter to my congressperson. Dear Andrew, I am a professor of astronomy at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). The CfA houses one of the largest, if not the largest collection of PhD astronomers in the United States, with over 300 professional astronomers and roughly 100 doctoral and predoctoral students on a small campus a few blocks west of Harvard Yard. Under the umbrella of the CfA are about 20 Harvard astronomy professors, and 50 tenure-track Smithsonian researchers. A large fraction of the latter are civil servants currently on furlough and unable to come to work. In total, 147 FTEs...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Long Con

By
Hiding in Plain Sight ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke  which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims. I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to d...
8 comments
Read more

back-talk begins

By
me: "owen, come here. it's time to get a new diaper" him, sprinting down the hall with no pants on: "forget about it!" he's quoting benny the rabbit, a short-lived sesame street character who happens to be in his favorite "count with me" video. i'm turning my head, trying not to let him see me laugh, because his use and tone with the phrase are so spot-on.
4 comments
Read more