Zo’s Argument Against Legalizing Drugs
You know, it says something about us that is not good when — well, if someone immigrated to our country and asked for an explanation about conservatives, liberals and libertarians, and the task fell to me to explain it to them, and someone put me on a strict limit as far as the number of words to use for my answer (and come to think of it, not a one among those three things is implausible)…I would have to say…
Alright, looking at it from a distant birds-eye view so I can put it in a single paragraph, let’s start with the conservatives and liberals, both of which believe in the sanctity of individual rights and that the government should not be able to interfere with those rights no matter how badly it wants to. But both sides have picked what kind of individual rights enjoy that durability, that level of protection, that the individual rights triumph over the calling for law and order. Conservatives, generally speaking, favor the individual rights that, by being exercised, help to make a society stronger and liberals generally favor the individual rights that make a society weaker. (A list optionally follows, which includes starting a business, employing people, home-schooling your kids, packing heat to protect your family in case someone attacks you…versus…getting acquitted during a criminal trial when you’re guilty as hell because the evidence is inadmissible.) Now, the libertarians generally side with the conservatives in all this, except they labor under the notion that using contraband recreational drugs falls into the “make society stronger” side…or, at least, their use does not make society any weaker.
There. That skips over a lot, like for example the liberals’ fondness for selective enforceability…you’ll notice there aren’t too many liberals campaigning, for example, for illegal things to be made legal, lately they offer a whole bunch of excuses about why some law should not be enforced. Don’t make it alright to break into a family’s house and steal their stuff, just ban guns because, aw gee, someone might get hurt. Don’t make a law requiring everyone to have the same share of assets or the same level of income…just reform the tax code SoThatMillionairesAndBillionairesPayTheirFairShare. Don’t legalize illegal immigration, just have a whole bunch of oopsies, darn we couldn’t keep ‘em out…oh well, now that they’re here, don’t legalize voting by illegal aliens, just…oopsie…we can’t ask for identification at the polling place because that would be racist. Oh my look at that, we have a whole bunch of brand-new votes for democrat politicians, how nice. So the conservatives and libertarians are arguing, by & large, about what laws we should and should not have. The liberals, on the other hand, expend their political energy toward reforming our culture, as opposed to our statutes…since they stand alone in doing this, they generally prevail here…and their arguments go toward what laws we should and should not bother to enforce. You’ll notice just about every time they argue for a new law to be placed on the books, that law has the effect of making some other law, already on the books, much harder to enforce. But, obviously, that gets into a second paragraph and thus would not be under discussion at that first dinner-table meeting. Which is a pity. But, priorities. The first paragraph gives us plenty enough to discuss before the cheesecake.
Well. Let us turn to the legalization of drugs, because with all the other stuff that’s going on, nobody says too much about it except the people who are all fired up about it, and the people who are all fired up about it are these libertarians who want them legalized. By and large, they don’t have opinions about too many other things, or at least they don’t have opinions that are equally passionate about too many other things. If I want a blog post to really catch fire, all I have to do is make it about 1) Sarah Palin, 2) Abortion or 3) legalizing drugs, and that’s not in order…it’s somewhat backwards…the legalize-drug crowd always has to have the last word, and the first one as well. So by now, we’ve all heard their arguments.
Time to hear the other side. Take it away Zo:
I live in a state where “assault weapons” are selected for illegalization by politicians who have no idea whatsoever what an assault weapon really is. I heard through the grapevine our senior Senator worked with the Clinton administration to ban selected firearms, at the federal level, by going through some gun catalogues and picking out what was most scary-looking. This, in spite of the fact that we have a constitutional amendment clearly spelling out that this should not be happening…
If someone has the time and passion to put together a response to Zo, and I consider this an inevitability, I expect them to spare an equal share of time and passion in defense of gun rights, if they want to keep a shred of conservative credibility with me. A gun, after all, is the ultimate device to be implemented in this always-unfinished task of ensuring good prevails over evil, and law and order prevail over chaos.
A bag of grass doesn’t do that.
Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.
It has taken me two days to respond to: this: Ever committed to preserving the dignity of Black men in a
Question: “I’ve been a reader of this blog for a few years now, and I typically think you have a
Desperately seeking something they can: do right? Finish? Get some positive press for? Whichever. All of them. None of the