Happy Repeal Day
You would have thought we as a nation would have learned from Prohibition that using the govt to regulate good behavior is a recipe for disaster. Yet instead of allowing our social structures (i.e. churches, civic orgs, temples) to set an example and guide the people to socially responsible behavior, we continue to outsource this task to an inept bureaucracy. I know its hard for many to grasp that we are better served by a govt that governs less but laws to prevent drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc have done little to prevent it and often have put the citizens at greater risk. We should let the govt focus on protecting our property and let neighbors, friends and charity help each other out.
On a side note, atleast we got NASCAR out of Prohibition!
Category: Catch-All
Loading ...
First off I am happy I can tip my bottle of beer.
But, next, should we have no limitations on freedom? OK, then it should be OK for one guy to murder the next guy? Have a problem with that? OK, then you agree lines must be drawn. The debate is about just where should these lines be.
I draw the line at recreational drug use and legalized prostitution, unlike Amit evidently. Amit must be from the Libertarian branch of the Republican Party.
I couldn’t agree more. I do believe most people in this country are fiscally conservative while socially liberal… I do define myself in such a manner. To that regard, the vices should not yield a jail sentence. Legalize and tax the bajeezus ouf of them (ie: like we do for alcohol/tobacco).
I believe the government has the responsibility to do what the preamble of the Constitution states, and outside of that they should hold little sway.
We’re at a sticky point in history where we’re going to see things move far more socialist.. if handled properly (which can be done) this will work to our advantage, but no change should be allowed to remain permanent. We the people shouid be allowed to dictate our own course in life without the government supplying the means to do it even if, for right now, that may not be completely an option.
When one person murders another, it is not an action among consenting adults and to compare that to prostitution or recreational drug use is nonsensical. Would you draw the line at exotic dancers is a better question.
Personally, I do not want kids to smoke pot and women to enter into prostitution but I know the govt policies are hurting us and making us less safe. If legalized we would have better anti-drug programs run by people who really care and will give the personal attention required versus billions of dollars dumped into ineffective drug programs and trite slogans like “Just Say No”. Legalization would also protect many women from abuse and extortion.
“Limited Govt” is not just a catch phrase to use when convenient but rather a way for the govt to behave more effectively while allowing people to be free to live and help one another.
Amit,
But what about the none-consenting adult hurt by legalized prostitution?
An example? Mommy stays faithful to Daddy. But Daddy stops by at the local legal brothel and comes down with AIDS which he then passes on to Mommy.
Was Mommy a consenting adult?
first, if brothels were legal the chances of Daddy catching an STD are greatly reduced because without having to operate in secret the brothels can openly perform safety measures and advertise “clean” girls. (don’t you love how Free Market principles play into this
second, if Daddy wants to sleep with someone other than Mommy then he’s probably going to do it either through an affair or prostitute. so what are you going to do if Mommy gets AIDS via Daddy’s affair? or get physically abused by drunk Daddy after he’s been to the local legal bar?
my basic point is that we are never going to regulate the perfect solution and we should let Society at large put a stigma on Daddy for not being faithful to Mommy. Perhaps then people would not think of Marriage as a temporary arrangement and more of a lifetime commitment.
Amit,
Even if you mandate medical examination for prostitutes every 30 days, the prostitute can be infected by the first customer after the examination and then spread disease for the next 29 days.
Just how many customers did the prostitute get in those 29 days? She was motivated by profit to get as many customers as she could.
There is still something wrong with prostitution even in a sexually permissive society.
don’t you think brothels in the public eye would employ more safe sex policies than our current situation?
and I agree with you that I consider prostitution morally wrong but the GOVERNMENT is not the solution to our moral problems. (the premise of this post).
How in the world is the govt supposed to regulate morality? is it okay to go to a strip club? what about one with touching allowed? is it okay for a guy to meet a girl at the bar, buy her a few drinks, promise to buy her some new shoes and take her home?
in all seriousness, we both want the same thing but the difference seems to be how we believe to best achieve it. I believe that without outsourcing it to the govt, we as a society will take more personal responsibility and help each other out, while I believe you think that the by creating moral laws the public will follow them. (don’t mean to speak for you, just trying to guess what you think)
It’s not the government’s responsibility to make sure husbands remain faithful to their wives. It is the government’s responsibility to make sure the wife gets a fair trial after murdering said husband.
Amit,
Thank you being a voice of reason within the Republican Party. I just wish you were local so I could vote you into office.
I am unwilling to accept that sex sold for profit is acceptable. Throughout history this has been identified as being a problem and our long standing morality preaches against it.
With the advent of drug treatments for sexually transmitted diseases, sexual promiscuity was less of a problem. However recently drug resistant STDs have been starting to take hold. In fact chances are they are going to overwhelm our ability to treat them.
I’m curious just how many gals Amit got to go home with him for the promise of a new pair of shoes. I would have thought they’d insist upon cash.
LittleDavid, I will assume by resorting to personal attacks you either have succumbed to my arguments or just don’t get it.
the purpose of this post is not to say I want everyone screwing for money but rather the Govt should let Society dictate morals. perhaps this is too nuanced for some who cannot comprehend beyond a black and white level.
Amit,
You object to a “personal attack” and then you throw one in yourself.
OK, society is dictating morals through the government. Society (not the government) says sex for money should be illegal. Are you happy now?
As for my (and society’s) position being either black or white I think there is some gray in there. For example we are no longer resorting to the scarlet letter A and actually quite tolerant of sexual promiscuity.
But mark my words. If sexually transmitted diseases continue their march towards drug resistance, you are going to see increasing calls for less permissiveness towards sex outside of marriage. When people continue to catch and spread STDs even though the risk is well known, while leaving others to pick up the pieces for them after them become disabled or die, some of us are going to start screaming about it.
I hardly think your specific accusation of me paying for sex is on par with my suggestion of some folk’s black and white attitudes. regardless, this isn’t a personal blog so let’s move on and we can discuss it over a beer if you drive through Arlington.
——
no, I’m not happy with your statement because Society should say sex for money is wrong and both help women and men get out of those situations and shun those who refuse to. And we all should be worried about the spread of STDs which further makes my point that making prostitution illegal makes it more dangerous.
If morality laws worked then I would be in favor of them but either they don’t or Eliot Spitzer didn’t get the memo.
OK, you kill somebody and I (and the rest of society) screamed shame.
You said “So what?” The only thing that keeps you from killing everyone (like me) that pisses you off is that most of us are going to say you need to be punished for having done so.
Your typical Libertarian argument falls short.
I love how so-called conservatives take the “legalize it and tax it” argument, when they know they’d oppose the taxes the second it was legalized.
Amit, your opposition to “morality laws” because they “don’t work” could apply to any law. Someone was murdered this weekend. Obviously, the laws against murder didn’t stop it from happening. Ditch the law?
That’s silly.
However, I think government outlaws prostitution because they don’t like the competition.
Hi Brian,
Welcome to the conversation. But I thought you were going to take the weekend off.
my goodness! what part of “murder” is equivalent to “consenting actions between two adults“?!?!?!?! if you can’t make that distinction then this is a waste of time.
the government has one major function, which is to protect our private property. Private property includes our land, our bodies, our contracts, etc. By taking on more responsibilities such as the economy, health care, education, morality etc. the govt is diluted from their primary function and provide a lesser service than would alternatively be available through other means (i.e. charity, free market)
ask yourself if you truly think the “War on Drugs” is working and if it’s worth the billions pumped into it? If it does, then why not bring back Prohibition (genesis of this post) because it was also so wildly successful.
Alcohol abuse kills over 100,000 Americans per year.
Tobacco kills over 400,000 Americans per year.
Poor diet kills over 300,000 Americans per year.
These numbers eclipse deaths from illicit drugs, prostitution, and terrorist attacks. Based on the statistics, why not ban alcohol, tobacco and trans fats nationwide? Is it because you think its okay to eat a twinkie? or enjoy the smell of a pipe? or need a whiskey when you watch UVA lose another game?
Why should my judgment of what I think is wrong be imposed on you?
How about “consenting actions between two adults” being the action that includes the transfer of wealth for sexual acts.
You are right. You are continuing to bark up the wrong tree.
You are obviously a Libertarian and the proof that most of us disagree with you is in how little support Ron Paul got with his putting forth your ideas in his run for the Presidency.
I can’t speak for everyone. But everyone spoke in rejecting Ron Paul.
I understand why Amit supports the legalizing of mind-altering drugs. It’s the only way his logic makes sense.
Government’s only function is to protect private property? Bet the writers of the Constitution would be surprised to learn that.
littleDave, transfer of wealth for sexual acts is an action among consenting adults. and I am a libertarian because I believe in the freedom of the people and not in the tyranny of the govt. perhaps America is becoming (or already has become) a socialist country. and if I remember correctly, I don’t think to many folks agreed with McCain either as he was trounced by Obama.
kirwin, I’m sorry you think an indicted democrat losing an election is a GOP rebound and Democrats hate voters. When you find in the US Constitution where it states the Federal govt should handle healthcare, morality, centralized banking and education let me know.
Amit, when you find in the US Constitution that the Federal Government only exists to protect property, let me know.
Seems to me there are a lot more words that that in there.
David, Amit loves those wealth transfers. Insider trading on wall street? Fine with him. That’s just freedom. Stockpiling machineguns in your attic? Freedom to Amit. Want to develop a new medicine and say it cures cancer but cripples 50% of the people who take it? Freedom to Amit. The federal government should only protect property according to him. They should have no involvement in health care.
No banking either. That FDIC insurance? Gone. Protection against fraud? Gone.
Oh, and all those interstate highways? Never would’ve been built if Amit had his way. I’m sure Amit purposely never drives on an Interstate highway because of his firm belief that they should never have been built by government.
This is why libertarians never win. They have some good ideas, but when they get talking, people hear some pretty whacked out ideas that are so far out of step with 95% of people that they never can be considered credible.
Kirwin, you really live up to your reputation.
Why don’t you start by reading those words in the Constitution. You may find it very peculiar that the Bill of Rights (i.e. first 10 amendments if you didn’t know) does not grant but rather restricts the power of the Federal govt.
FDA? You really feel safer because a bunch of bureaucrats give it an incompetent seal of approval? And never mind they keep helpful drugs out of the hands of millions of people who could benefit from them.
FDIC?!?!? Are you kidding me? Maybe you’ve heard of some recent problems due to the banking industry largely driven by Big Govt programs designed to get home ownership to everyone even though they didn’t qualify. Do you use a community bank? You know the guys that didn’t get involved with subprime lending and actually have personal relationships with their customers and work through problems at the local level.
fyi, interstate highways are a part of regulating commerce among the states.
Libertarians won this country for us thank you. And they don’t win many elections today because those in power become corrupt and care more about power than principle, in turn using scare tactics to take away more power from the people and giving it to themselves through taxes and regulation. Remember when your friends said we had to give the banking industry $700B or else all hell would break loose but when they got the money they didn’t know how to spend it?
Its no wonder that Republican political consultants like yourself who are pro-socialized medicine, increased regulation, higher taxes and anti-2nd amendment have turn the GOP into a party of Democrat-wannabes. Thanks a lot! We all owe you one.
Amit, I’m just reading what you write and following your logic. If it causes you such conundrums that you shift the debate to attacking me, that’s your problem.
You wrote that the federal government should only protect property. Now you admit something about “regulating commerce” – so, were you wrong, or did you just discover that the Constitution does more than protect property?
It is amusing how you seem insulted by my comments, and then proceed, point by point, to demonstrate how right I was about your views.
yes, “the government has one major function, which is to protect our private property.” it also has minor functions of setting up post offices, coining money and some others. and notice the chronological order of comment and realize who started the attacks. anyway, when you’re ready to have a logical and sensible debate on big vs limited govt let me know.
OK. When you continue to list 90% of the things government does that you’d want to repeal, I’ll just cross my arms and let the voters decide how right you are.
fair enough. I didn’t realize we are not supposed to promote and exchange ideas on how to make our country better but rather let the largely uninformed masses continue to drive our country towards socialism and communism. I get it now.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” – Benjamin Franklin
Amit,
Getting back to your comment to me. McCain was only soundly beaten (not trounced) by Obama. Trouncing is a word that could be applied to Ron Paul’s unsuccessful run for the nomination. In fact trouncing is not descript enough, slaughter would be a better word.
Brian,
Yes, I too find the broad definition of a Libertarian appealing. It just when you start getting into the specifics on what that means that they quickly lose their luster.
So the fatalities resulting from poor but legal personal choices far exceed those of poor and illegal choices. Oh yeah, there’s an argument for legalizing drugs and prostitution if i ever saw one…
Most libertarians (seeiming including you Amit), seem to view the role of government strictly through the lens of personal rights – ie “consent between adults” – If I’m not infringing on someone elses rights, then govt should have no authority over my actions. The thing is, in the complex interactions of society, a “consenting adults” model is vastly incomplete, and ignores many relationships outside that direct model.
Objectivism and the religion of rational self interest breaks down at the societal scale. Just look at the Prisoners Dilemma as a model of a simple interaction that shows the weakness of that idealogy.
Some object object to the legalization of drugs and prostitution on moral grounds. Personally, i object on societal grounds. I believe that the legalization of these activities would result in greater harm to individuals and society as a whole than the current banning of them does.
Thanks Jeremy. A discussion on societal impacts is important to this discussion. While we can probably all agree that prostitution and drugs are morally wrong, we will probably continue to disagree on whether the govt (specifically at Federal level) is the appropriate instrument to address it.
So going back to drinking, smoking and obesity stats, it’s no doubt they harm far more Americans and cost billions of dollars a year in healthcare costs. You could easily make an argument that banning alcohol , tobacco and trans fats would benefit society, but would that make America a free country?
When Mike Huckabee was pushing for a nationwide smoking ban I was completely against it because I think it should be handled at the local level. For example, DC has banned smoking in public restaurants and I’m okay with that because the residents of DC who disagree with that policy can easily go to neighboring localities to enjoy a cigarette with their meal. Also, the DC residents have better access to their local politicians than to Federal ones (despite the irony).
As far as the societal impact, Prohibition gave Organized Crime a major incentive and we still suffer from the remnants of that today. Likewise, the War on Drugs inadvertently encourages gang warfare which in turn promotes a devastating culture among many segments of our society. The unintended consequences of broad and blunt actions are very real. I wouldn’t recommend driving through Southeast DC but if you do you will see neighborhoods paralyzed by the black market for drugs. So while those who are going to use drugs whether they are legal or not, many of our inner city youth are easily enticed (and sometimes forced) to join gangs for the money and “prestige”. Also the billions spent every year on the War on Drugs would have a more positive impact on our society if it were returned to the people to give them more opportunities and live a better life.
I respect your views Jeremy, specifically when you mention how we need to examine the complex interactions of a society. So I would be interested to hear your views on the unintended consequences of banning immoral behavior.
Amit,
I disagree with your comparison to Prohibition. Prohibition took what was already an accepted, widespread, and addictive vice and made it illegal. To think that the “Alcoholic Republic” denounced by Adams and Washington a hundred years prior would instantly abandon liquor is ludicrous, despite the beliefs of the temperance movement. A public citizenry accustomed to alcohol was a ready and willing clientele for organized crime. Drugs and prostitution are in a very different situation.
I do agree with many of your points on the War on Drugs. From the Taliban to MS 13, the ravages of the drug trade are significant. What is greater though, the horrors of the trade or the impact of drugs on individual lives? By legalizing drugs, you trade one for the other. Not considering lung cancer often later in life, few lives are destroyed by cigarettes. Alcohol has a more dangerous record, but i would be willing the bet that, based on their respective user bases, alcohol has much less potential to destroy a life than drug use. Alcohol usually requires years of serious abuse to achieve the physical and psychological dependency that many drugs can inflict in a very short time span. I’ve not seen any real studies, but my own perception is that public sanctioning and acceptance of drug use would cause a greater toll on our society than that of the illicit trade.
I can see where you’re coming from on substances that have long term vs short term effects. would you put marijuana in that category? even though I have never smoked pot myself, I would consider it accepted and widespread and not being an expert I think it really only effects you with long term use. heck, I even heard it can help you get elected president
as far as trading the horrors of the trade vs the impact on individuals, I would argue the impact on individuals exists even with the drugs being illegal and I do not suspect it would be much higher because it was legalized. however, I think we could address the horrors of the trade by considering regulating drugs.
“the impact on individuals exists even with the drugs being illegal and I do not suspect it would be much higher because it was legalized”
Amit, are you seriously saying that legalizing an activity will have no impact on the pervasiveness of that activity?
Do you think if we legalized bankrobbing that banks would not see a sudden influx of new visitors?
The only way for the impact of drug use on individuals not to increase is for the legalizing drugs to have no impact on drug use, and I find that assertion silly on its face.
Amit,
You stated you have no experience with marijuana. Well you accept the life experiences from someone who does have the experience?
Experts say that the psychoactive elements of marijuana builds up in the fat tissues. From my personal experience this is probably true. It took me at least several weeks if not a few months to clear the mind fogging effects of marijuana out of my system once I decided to quit.
However alcohol does not have such long term debilitating psychoactive affects. Yeah, you might wake up with a hangover the next day, but you are no longer high. Not true with “harmless” marijuana.
Alcohol does not build up in the fat cells.
It is interesting that Amit will describe tobacco as harmful, but attempt to describe marijuana as harmless. Is marijuana smoke less harmful then tobacco smoke?
Dear Diary – Today i agreed with Brian Kirwin; he actually posted exactly what i was thinking. And no, the universe has not imploded.
Amit, do you serioulsy think that use will not spike with legalization? We are a nation of addicts – food, alcohol, gambling, spending. Open another door and we will pour through it. I’ve never done drugs, one of the major reasons being that it is illegal. Indulging in experimenting with an addicitve, illegal substance just didn’t appeal to me. And while I can probably count on one hand the number of times i drank before i was 21, one it was legal it became a habit. I now drink a glass of wine or a beer daily.
As for the whole “gateway drug” syndrome that most supporters decry as a fallacy – the Netherlands is pretty much acknowledged to be the largest source of Ecstacy to the US and the rest of the world. And while pot use is legal there, Ecstacy is not. I’m thinking there might be a causal relationship to that.
Jeremy, did it hurt?
Jeremy, I’m so sorry for having you agree with Kirwin. I’ll buy you a beer or wine at the GOP convention in May.
legalization of any activity will likely cause a spike at the beginning but I’m more worried about the long term trends. We are seeing many university presidents (over 100) pleading with the govt to lower the drinking age to 18 because due to the rebellious nature of people in general, it has increased alcohol consumption on campus. similarly, as there may be an initial jump in usage, I think overall there would be a societal backlash against it. sort of like New Coke.
you also mentioned you didn’t do drugs and alcohol because it was illegal. but what if you had peer pressure from your friends not to do it because they would call you a loser? or your family talked to you about the importance of not doing drugs (they may have, not sure) or even your pastor saying you would go to hell if you did drugs? I think these societal pressures combined with education are more effective in dealing with these complex social issues. but when it becomes law, I think most people take a backseat and say they’ll let the police handle it.
littleDavid, I hardly think marijuana is harmless. but what made you quit? did you “grow up” or did something bad happen?
Amit, now there’s a promise you wont have to worry about keeping. No offense, but I think I might dilute the GOP brand just a wee bit
.
The 18 drinking age is an interesting issue. It would push the frontier closer to high school, where kids would be even less equipped to make good decisions, but still more under their parents guidance.
As for drugs, all those societal pressures already exist, and yet drugs continue to be a major problem. And if you think that poor parents who abdicate the responsibility of raising their children will suddenly “man up”, and act responsibly if they can’t depend on the threat of incarceration to guide their kids choices, then you have greater faith in them than I. I’m more inclined to see those same parents thinking “hey, it won’t land johnny in jail now, so i can care even less” or “If the govt says its OK, then why should I care?”. It’s like a get-out-of-guilt free card.
Amit, now you’re saying that if the drinking age was lowered to 18, there’d be peer pressure not to drink in college?
What ARE you smoking?
Read a bit. Every study shows that drinking between ages of 18-21 declined after the passage of the 21 drinking age (passed by Ronald Reagan….surprised?).
Shock! Surprise! Something is made illegal, and people do it less. Why is it people who never agree on anything like Jeremy and me can understand that basic truism but you refuse to?
Jeremy, you mention the societal pressures exist today to discourage drug use but I think it is the opposite. More times than not, tv and movies show people using drugs and cool or funny. Movies like Blow and Basketball Diaries are less common than we think. And while I’m not going to pin the blame on Hollywood for causing the drug culture, I would say overall as a society we do not put all the pressures against bad behavior that we could.
kirwin, let’s go back to Prohibition for a sec. alcohol consumption was reduced by 30-70% during that time. So yes, the primary intent of making a substance illegal did reduce consumption. But was Prohibition good or bad for the country overall? that’s the discussion Jeremy and I are having. if simply banning a substance caused people to consume it less without any consequences, then would you be in favor of bringing back Prohibition? support Huckabee’s nationwide smoking ban? help the War on Obesity by eliminating trans fats? If the govt is so successful at controlling and improving our lives then why stop short?
while you’re controlling the movies, you mean?
what are you saying? I don’t control any movies. and I don’t want to either. the point was that in many movies the characters do drugs to be cool or funny and that is not the societal pressure against drugs I was talking to Jeremy about.
You brought up movies and named two (one that’s 13 years old and on that’s 7 years old, so I don’t know how much impact they’re having today). Basketball Diaries made a whopping 2 million at the box office. If you’re trying to show how pervasive drug use in movies is, you’re flopping worse than Basketball Diaries did.
Unless, of course, there’s a giant current wave of fans of 1995 films that I haven’t heard about.
kirwin, have you even watched those movies? they are the few examples of anti-drug movies and they are far and few between so thanks for unknowingly making my point. on the other hand you have shows like Entourage and a ton of movies like Role Models that show only the “positive” side of drugs.
I guess I’ll defer to your knowledge of drug movies.
that’s fine as it seems you don’t get out much.
so you avoided my earlier question. since Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption by 30-70% would you ban alcohol and make other harmful substances such as tobacco illegal?
Amit, I like the status quo on this issue. Fortunately, so does most of the country.
Amit,
To answer your question about when did I quit:
I quit both because I “grew up” and because I was forced to. That’s the best sentence I can come up with to explain it. Let me expound in a paragraph.
I had already come to the realization, if only through guilt, that my drug usage was not helping me achieve any of the lofty goals I had as an adolescent. The guilt alone was not enough to get me off the drugs while I was still under their influence. However the US Navy threw me in the brig for 120 days hard labor. That both caught my attention and gave me time to clear my system of the effects of the drugs. Not perfectly (I still used drugs a time or two while confined) but good enough that I started to appreciate the clarity of mind none drug use gave me.
After I got out of the brig I cleaned up my act and even made Chief. I’d be willing to bet I’m one of the few past or present Chief Petty Officers that ever served that much time in the brig.