Skip to main content

When your ideas are bankrupt, resort to saying something really stupid, like Drug Czar John P. Walters


I simply cannot improve on this, from Drug War Rant:

We have our drug czar with the old smoke-a-joint-assassinate-a-Mexican nonsense.

"The largest single source of their revenue is marijuana," said John P. Walters, Office of National Drug Control Policy director. "These killers (cartel bosses) pay assassins with dollars from marijuana users in the United States and it needs to stop.
"It's not a victimless activity. It's blood money. And every time somebody buys a joint, they need to remember they're contributing to the assassination and murder in Mexico."


Now the author of the article points out that there are some of us with an actual idea.

An alternate solution proposed by some critics of the drug war is to legalize drugs -- marijuana in particular. They say the demand for the illegal supply would drop dramatically. The drug could be regulated to keep it out of the hands of youth, they say, and taxed to fund prevention and treatment.
Yep. That's right. And how do you counter such a reasoned, logical, and evidence-supported argument? With nonsensical ridicule, of course.


The country's top counter-drug officials sneer at the idea.

"It's a silly argument put forth by people who have a hidden agenda to legalize drugs," said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington, D.C. "It's not a responsible health policy to make marijuana more available in society."


Let me see if I can get this straight -- People who call for legalization of drugs have a hidden agenda to... legalize drugs.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The sad part is if we allowed domestic growing and regulated it like tobacco, we would stop these problems. It is the government policy which causes this. Even sadder is that I feel like I can discuss any issue but this one openly.
Anonymous said…
Look, once we regulate drugs and decriminalize them, we can go after the black market producers in Colombia and Mexico with the help of every single other country in the hemipshere.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...