Officer, Arrest That Dopehead

Posted on | June 7, 2010 | 93 Comments

When a guy thinks he can dictate to the Tea Party movement . . . Well, obviously, Jeffrey Miron is on drugs:

[D]rug prohibition is hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free markets, regardless of the level of government. Free markets should mean both that businesses can operate as they please and that individuals can purchase and consume whatever they want, so long as these actions do not harm others, even when such decisions seem unwise. Drug prohibition interferes with precisely these activities.
Thus, if the tea-party believes in its principles, it must choose the libertarian path on drug prohibition.

He’s on the faculty of Harvard, so he is an expert, who is qualified to tell you mouth-breathing morons in the Tea Party what to think.

Yeah. That’s what we need. Because it’s worked so well in the past.

UPDATE: Miron’s article was Tweeted to me by Joe Marier, who got it from Brian Lehman — who lives in Philadelphia, just in case any narcotics detectives are looking to make a bust. But seriously . . .

My Libertarian Argument
for The War on Drugs

If drugs are legal, they will be taxed, which will provide more revenue for government. More revenue for government is a bad thing.
If drugs are legal, they will be regulated, which will provide more jobs for bureaucrats — also a bad thing.
If drugs are legal, Big Business will take it over and squeeze out the small entrepreneur, lobbying government to create regulatory “barriers to entry.” As an example, consider how legalized gambling has killed the floating crap game, backroom poker, and the numbers racket. Used to be, somebody who wanted to play the numbers just dealt with their neighborhood hoodlum. Now, they’re standing in front of me in line at the convenience store, buying lottery tickets. This is not “progress.”
The black market for illegal drugs is one of the last bastions of genuinely free enterprise in which young poor people can become entrepreneurs. The ghetto homie hustling dime bags on the corner? That dude is a stone-cold capitalist, and yet “libertarian” intellectuals like Jeffrey Miron want to eliminate the only structure (i.e., illegality) under which ghetto dudes can practice unlicensed, unregulated, untaxed capitalism.
The War on Drugs serves a valuable social purpose, by ensuring that lots of stupid people go to prison. There are some people so stupid that they don’t need to be on the street. And if you’re a dopehead who can’t outsmart a narc, that’s an intense kind of stupid.

Back in the day, when I was a young Democrat — which is to say, a hellbound fool — I dealt dope in what we used to call “felony weight” and never once got busted. And yet all these so-called libertarians want me to sing the blues about stupid crackheads doing time for minor possession because they got pulled over for a broken turn signal and had a couple of rocks in their pocket?

Screw those losers. They’re in prison because they’re stupid. I’d rather have them in prison than standing in line for lottery tickets in front of me at the convenience store.

And we certainly don’t have a shortage of stupid people in the world, as I’m reminded every time I have to drive in D.C. traffic. Crackheads should take the bus.

UPDATE II: A dopehead libertarian in the comments — if you guys at the FBI want his ISP, just hit the tip jar, OK? — cites the alleged “failure” of Prohibition as an argument for legalizing drugs.

Prohibition was not repealed because it failed. Prohibition was repealed because the feds wanted whiskey tax revenue to pay for the New Deal. Compare and contrast:

Prohibition — Speakeasies, jazz, flappers, Calvin Coolidge, gangsters in cool pinstriped suits wih fedoras driving V-8 roadsters.
New Deal — Alger Hiss.

Any questions? Pay attention, class — this stuff might be on the final.

UPDATE III: Will Cain vs. Jacob Sullum:

Is Jacob Sullum on drugs? I’m not sure. But he must be a smart dopehead, otherwise he’d be in prison. Or buying lottery tickets.

Any narcotics officers in D.C. ever want to make an easy bust, I think you’d have no trouble arguing “probable cause” to frisk everyone at the Connecticut Avenue offices of Reason magazine. I mean, really, Matt Welch might be clean and Mike Moynihan is usually sober — at least during working hours — but any trained narc would spot Nick Gillespie for a stoner:

The glazed eyes? The slurred speech? The sideburns, the hipster mannerisms, the omnipresent leather jacket?

Your honor, I rest my case.

Where’s Sergeant Stadanko, now that we really need him?

Category: Crime, Tea Party

Comments

93 Responses to “Officer, Arrest That Dopehead”

Grimcargo
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

Hey Jeff.Get outta heah!
Grimcargo
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

Hey Jeff.Get outta heah!
Grimcargo
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:23 am

Hey Jeff.Get outta heah!
Andrea Harris
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

Because the inability to buy pot at the local Rite-Aid is The Most Important Issue Of Our Times. I mean, we’ve fixed everything else, right?
Andrea Harris
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

Because the inability to buy pot at the local Rite-Aid is The Most Important Issue Of Our Times. I mean, we’ve fixed everything else, right?
Andrea Harris
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:24 am

Because the inability to buy pot at the local Rite-Aid is The Most Important Issue Of Our Times. I mean, we’ve fixed everything else, right?
Joe
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

Flash Back!
Joe
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

Flash Back!
Joe
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:30 am

Flash Back!
Daniel
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

I support the Tea Party and I support Jeffrey Miron on this issue. I would go into why but it would not change your mind but I will say that when it comes to drugs so many have not learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017
Daniel
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:39 am

I support the Tea Party and I support Jeffrey Miron on this issue. I would go into why but it would not change your mind but I will say that when it comes to drugs so many have not learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017
CrustyB
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

I didn’t know the patriots in the original Tea Party actually dumped crack cocaine into the Boston Harbor to protest unjust drug laws. I thought it was tea and unfair taxation. Who knew. Thanks for defining my movement for me.
CrustyB
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

I didn’t know the patriots in the original Tea Party actually dumped crack cocaine into the Boston Harbor to protest unjust drug laws. I thought it was tea and unfair taxation. Who knew. Thanks for defining my movement for me.
CrustyB
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:41 am

I didn’t know the patriots in the original Tea Party actually dumped crack cocaine into the Boston Harbor to protest unjust drug laws. I thought it was tea and unfair taxation. Who knew. Thanks for defining my movement for me.
Daniel
June 7th, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

I will say that when it comes to drugs so many have not learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition.
Daniel
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:50 am

I will say that when it comes to drugs so many have not learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition.
theCL
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

Fiscal responsibility means limiting government expenditures to programs that can be convincingly said to generate benefits in excess of their costs.

Well, isn’t that true?

And prohibition has unintended consequences that push its cost-benefit ratio even farther in the wrong direction.

Econ 101.

Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley Jr., et. al. all made the same argument. There’s nothing uniquely “libertarian” about this, nor anything uniquely immoral about libertarianism. And we haven’t even touched the natural rights and constitutional arguments …

I don’t know who Miron is, but he’s right on this issue.
theCL
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:03 pm

Fiscal responsibility means limiting government expenditures to programs that can be convincingly said to generate benefits in excess of their costs.

Well, isn’t that true?

And prohibition has unintended consequences that push its cost-benefit ratio even farther in the wrong direction.

Econ 101.

Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley Jr., et. al. all made the same argument. There’s nothing uniquely “libertarian” about this, nor anything uniquely immoral about libertarianism. And we haven’t even touched the natural rights and constitutional arguments …

I don’t know who Miron is, but he’s right on this issue.
Joe
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

Legalize drugs and criminalize tobacco.
Joe
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

Legalize drugs and criminalize tobacco.
Joe
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

Legalize drugs and criminalize tobacco.
KG
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

So he considers the drug cartels and their helper gangs in America to be just some regular ol’ businesses?

so long as these actions do not harm others

Notice how they always feel the need to add this qualifier.

Meh, libertarians always talk about the need to repeal the drug prohibition, but I rarely hear about what happens afterwards. Usually I hear about some sort of licensing scheme. Heh, good luck enforcing that on the cartels.
KG
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

So he considers the drug cartels and their helper gangs in America to be just some regular ol’ businesses?

so long as these actions do not harm others

Notice how they always feel the need to add this qualifier.

Meh, libertarians always talk about the need to repeal the drug prohibition, but I rarely hear about what happens afterwards. Usually I hear about some sort of licensing scheme. Heh, good luck enforcing that on the cartels.
KG
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:24 pm

So he considers the drug cartels and their helper gangs in America to be just some regular ol’ businesses?

so long as these actions do not harm others

Notice how they always feel the need to add this qualifier.

Meh, libertarians always talk about the need to repeal the drug prohibition, but I rarely hear about what happens afterwards. Usually I hear about some sort of licensing scheme. Heh, good luck enforcing that on the cartels.
Dan
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

But the War on Drugs has worked so well, just like the War on Poverty, which has been eliminated. And we need a War on Healthcare, because it would just be a matter of time before we had unofficial “health-care dealers” flourishing in a black market. Sure, there will be drawbacks, e.g., “healthcare” SWAT teams in every municipality of 5,000+, and expanded civil asset forfeiture laws applied against “offending” assets which might be associated with illicit health care conduct, but such would be mere annoyances.
Dan
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

But the War on Drugs has worked so well, just like the War on Poverty, which has been eliminated. And we need a War on Healthcare, because it would just be a matter of time before we had unofficial “health-care dealers” flourishing in a black market. Sure, there will be drawbacks, e.g., “healthcare” SWAT teams in every municipality of 5,000+, and expanded civil asset forfeiture laws applied against “offending” assets which might be associated with illicit health care conduct, but such would be mere annoyances.
Dan
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

But the War on Drugs has worked so well, just like the War on Poverty, which has been eliminated. And we need a War on Healthcare, because it would just be a matter of time before we had unofficial “health-care dealers” flourishing in a black market. Sure, there will be drawbacks, e.g., “healthcare” SWAT teams in every municipality of 5,000+, and expanded civil asset forfeiture laws applied against “offending” assets which might be associated with illicit health care conduct, but such would be mere annoyances.
Aaron Gardner
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

I checked my Libertarian Dictionary … By “Drug Prohibition” he means pot.

I wish they had the stones to just argue that and leave all the crap about narcotics alone.

But they don’t, and so their message just sounds like warmed over libertine bull.
Aaron Gardner
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

I checked my Libertarian Dictionary … By “Drug Prohibition” he means pot.

I wish they had the stones to just argue that and leave all the crap about narcotics alone.

But they don’t, and so their message just sounds like warmed over libertine bull.
Aaron Gardner
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

I checked my Libertarian Dictionary … By “Drug Prohibition” he means pot.

I wish they had the stones to just argue that and leave all the crap about narcotics alone.

But they don’t, and so their message just sounds like warmed over libertine bull.
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

Maybe if people answered his points with counterpoints, rather than childish snark…..

And I’m sorry, but he has a point. We tried prohibition before. We abandoned it because it didn’t work, and because it did nothing but provide government an excuse for ever-larger violations of law and justice in the name of “fighting the war on alcohol.”

At least our predecessors had the wisdom to acknowledge such a broad enroachment on personal self-determination required a constitutional amendment to justify, and another to undo.

This time around, they didn’t even bother with a constitutional amendment. They just stood up and proclaimed an entire class of natural substances illegal– criminalizing tens of thousands of people overnight, giving the criminal class yet another high-profit monopoly, and greasing the skids on asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, and other desecrations of the Bill of Rights….why? Because we wanted the secular government to do what was solely the duty of family and church— chastising personal behavior and pushing temperance.

All hail the triumph of the drug war! We have successfully demonized natural substances, enriched criminals with a government enforced monopoly, trampled the bill of rights underfoot, given free rein to masked, gun-happy law enforcement agents, empowered and funded the expansion of the police state, denied sick people medicine and the populace at large the control of their own bodies, bloated the power of the State and filled a river with human blood. But hey! Winners Don’t Use Drugs ™. Right?
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

Maybe if people answered his points with counterpoints, rather than childish snark…..

And I’m sorry, but he has a point. We tried prohibition before. We abandoned it because it didn’t work, and because it did nothing but provide government an excuse for ever-larger violations of law and justice in the name of “fighting the war on alcohol.”

At least our predecessors had the wisdom to acknowledge such a broad enroachment on personal self-determination required a constitutional amendment to justify, and another to undo.

This time around, they didn’t even bother with a constitutional amendment. They just stood up and proclaimed an entire class of natural substances illegal– criminalizing tens of thousands of people overnight, giving the criminal class yet another high-profit monopoly, and greasing the skids on asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, and other desecrations of the Bill of Rights….why? Because we wanted the secular government to do what was solely the duty of family and church— chastising personal behavior and pushing temperance.

All hail the triumph of the drug war! We have successfully demonized natural substances, enriched criminals with a government enforced monopoly, trampled the bill of rights underfoot, given free rein to masked, gun-happy law enforcement agents, empowered and funded the expansion of the police state, denied sick people medicine and the populace at large the control of their own bodies, bloated the power of the State and filled a river with human blood. But hey! Winners Don’t Use Drugs ™. Right?
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

Maybe if people answered his points with counterpoints, rather than childish snark…..

And I’m sorry, but he has a point. We tried prohibition before. We abandoned it because it didn’t work, and because it did nothing but provide government an excuse for ever-larger violations of law and justice in the name of “fighting the war on alcohol.”

At least our predecessors had the wisdom to acknowledge such a broad enroachment on personal self-determination required a constitutional amendment to justify, and another to undo.

This time around, they didn’t even bother with a constitutional amendment. They just stood up and proclaimed an entire class of natural substances illegal– criminalizing tens of thousands of people overnight, giving the criminal class yet another high-profit monopoly, and greasing the skids on asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, and other desecrations of the Bill of Rights….why? Because we wanted the secular government to do what was solely the duty of family and church— chastising personal behavior and pushing temperance.

All hail the triumph of the drug war! We have successfully demonized natural substances, enriched criminals with a government enforced monopoly, trampled the bill of rights underfoot, given free rein to masked, gun-happy law enforcement agents, empowered and funded the expansion of the police state, denied sick people medicine and the populace at large the control of their own bodies, bloated the power of the State and filled a river with human blood. But hey! Winners Don’t Use Drugs ™. Right?
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:58 pm

You want to know what happens after the repeal of prohibition?

To judge by history, the criminal enterprises built on selling the stuff at an outrageous markup go out of business. When’s the last time you heard about a fatal shooting over a cargo of bootleg whiskey or bathtub gin?

Legalizing drugs, the same as re-legalizing alcohol, will have negative consequences. But after many years of painful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the negative consequences of ending prohibition are vastly outweighed by the negative consequences of sustaining it. In the former, you have people who will abuse their personal liberty and cause such social woes as alcoholism, public drunkenness and driving while intoxicated. In the latter, you have the exact same problems— and you also have the expansion of criminal empires, and worse, the expansion of the illicit power of the state.

Are you fools and children? They came for marijuana first. Then they went after tobacco. Now they are coming for fats and sugars.
You think their ever-greater power to go delving into your pockets, or their ever-greater efforts to federalize healthcare, is unrelated? Just as all human rights are intertangled, JUST SO THE NANNY STATE WILL NOT LIMIT ITSELF TO ONLY THE FACETS OF SOCIETY YOU PERSONALLY DISLIKE. You gave them a shiny new Prohibition yesterday, and today they are turning the economy inside out— to fund public health care programs so they can make sure we don’t drink or smoke or put any naughty sugars or fats in our tummies.

You can’t fight for HALF a human right.
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:58 pm

You want to know what happens after the repeal of prohibition?

To judge by history, the criminal enterprises built on selling the stuff at an outrageous markup go out of business. When’s the last time you heard about a fatal shooting over a cargo of bootleg whiskey or bathtub gin?

Legalizing drugs, the same as re-legalizing alcohol, will have negative consequences. But after many years of painful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the negative consequences of ending prohibition are vastly outweighed by the negative consequences of sustaining it. In the former, you have people who will abuse their personal liberty and cause such social woes as alcoholism, public drunkenness and driving while intoxicated. In the latter, you have the exact same problems— and you also have the expansion of criminal empires, and worse, the expansion of the illicit power of the state.

Are you fools and children? They came for marijuana first. Then they went after tobacco. Now they are coming for fats and sugars.
You think their ever-greater power to go delving into your pockets, or their ever-greater efforts to federalize healthcare, is unrelated? Just as all human rights are intertangled, JUST SO THE NANNY STATE WILL NOT LIMIT ITSELF TO ONLY THE FACETS OF SOCIETY YOU PERSONALLY DISLIKE. You gave them a shiny new Prohibition yesterday, and today they are turning the economy inside out— to fund public health care programs so they can make sure we don’t drink or smoke or put any naughty sugars or fats in our tummies.

You can’t fight for HALF a human right.
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

You want to know what happens after the repeal of prohibition?

To judge by history, the criminal enterprises built on selling the stuff at an outrageous markup go out of business. When’s the last time you heard about a fatal shooting over a cargo of bootleg whiskey or bathtub gin?

Legalizing drugs, the same as re-legalizing alcohol, will have negative consequences. But after many years of painful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the negative consequences of ending prohibition are vastly outweighed by the negative consequences of sustaining it. In the former, you have people who will abuse their personal liberty and cause such social woes as alcoholism, public drunkenness and driving while intoxicated. In the latter, you have the exact same problems— and you also have the expansion of criminal empires, and worse, the expansion of the illicit power of the state.

Are you fools and children? They came for marijuana first. Then they went after tobacco. Now they are coming for fats and sugars.
You think their ever-greater power to go delving into your pockets, or their ever-greater efforts to federalize healthcare, is unrelated? Just as all human rights are intertangled, JUST SO THE NANNY STATE WILL NOT LIMIT ITSELF TO ONLY THE FACETS OF SOCIETY YOU PERSONALLY DISLIKE. You gave them a shiny new Prohibition yesterday, and today they are turning the economy inside out— to fund public health care programs so they can make sure we don’t drink or smoke or put any naughty sugars or fats in our tummies.

You can’t fight for HALF a human right.
The Javelineer
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

I’d rather have them in prison than standing in line for lottery tickets in front of me at the convenience store.

ROFLMAO

But seriously, drugs were legal until the nineteen twenties. The Prohibition-era alcohol cartels made a lot of money. When Prohibition was rescinded, they lobbied Congress for drug laws. They maintained their illegal logistics networks, and replaced illicit alcohol with heroine and marijuana.

Some of the riches families in the US made their money this way.

Both alcohol and drugs were legal for most of US history. During that time, the US industrialized. 7% of the world’s population generated 25% of the world’s wealth.

Drugs should be legalized, or at least decriminalized.

It is interesting to note that US banks are the largest launderers of drug money. Drug money is essential to the survival of US banks.

Drugs are now a form of currency for international banks.

Drugs are used as an illegal, extra-congressional funding source for intelligence agency operations.

Illegal drugs are a tool of the statists and banksters. Good reasons for legalization or decriminalization.
The Javelineer
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

I’d rather have them in prison than standing in line for lottery tickets in front of me at the convenience store.

ROFLMAO

But seriously, drugs were legal until the nineteen twenties. The Prohibition-era alcohol cartels made a lot of money. When Prohibition was rescinded, they lobbied Congress for drug laws. They maintained their illegal logistics networks, and replaced illicit alcohol with heroine and marijuana.

Some of the riches families in the US made their money this way.

Both alcohol and drugs were legal for most of US history. During that time, the US industrialized. 7% of the world’s population generated 25% of the world’s wealth.

Drugs should be legalized, or at least decriminalized.

It is interesting to note that US banks are the largest launderers of drug money. Drug money is essential to the survival of US banks.

Drugs are now a form of currency for international banks.

Drugs are used as an illegal, extra-congressional funding source for intelligence agency operations.

Illegal drugs are a tool of the statists and banksters. Good reasons for legalization or decriminalization.
The Javelineer
June 7th, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

I’d rather have them in prison than standing in line for lottery tickets in front of me at the convenience store.

ROFLMAO

But seriously, drugs were legal until the nineteen twenties. The Prohibition-era alcohol cartels made a lot of money. When Prohibition was rescinded, they lobbied Congress for drug laws. They maintained their illegal logistics networks, and replaced illicit alcohol with heroine and marijuana.

Some of the riches families in the US made their money this way.

Both alcohol and drugs were legal for most of US history. During that time, the US industrialized. 7% of the world’s population generated 25% of the world’s wealth.

Drugs should be legalized, or at least decriminalized.

It is interesting to note that US banks are the largest launderers of drug money. Drug money is essential to the survival of US banks.

Drugs are now a form of currency for international banks.

Drugs are used as an illegal, extra-congressional funding source for intelligence agency operations.

Illegal drugs are a tool of the statists and banksters. Good reasons for legalization or decriminalization.
Drug Warrior
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

The post is correct. Anyone who is caught using/dealing/possessing drugs should be put in prison to make lines shorter at the convenience store.

In fact, all sentences for all crimes should be made even harsher, more prisons should be built to keep more people behind bars for longer periods of time to satisfy the corrections officers’ unions; more drugs should be made illegal and police should be empowered to detain and arrest anyone for any illicit drug use, police unions and affiliated groups would certainly agree.

Caffeine and coffee should be outlawed and punishable with fines, these are gateway drugs for harder stimulants like cocaine, and this would raise revenue to fund the crackdown measures. Improper use of any remaining legal drugs should be dealt with harshly, preferably with mandatory minimum sentences behind bars and excessive fines.

Doctors who prescribe drugs that are abused in any way should also be detained, arrested, fined and/or imprisoned. The same should be done to any pharmacists who deal those drugs. Over-the-counter drugs like cough medicine and aspirin should be highly regulated and available only with a background check, license and permission from government bureaucrats. Their misuse or abuse should be dealt with harshly.

This is all necessary to protect Americans from themselves and from the freedom to do as they please with their bodies. And also, the children, won’t somebody think of the children!
Drug Warrior
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

The post is correct. Anyone who is caught using/dealing/possessing drugs should be put in prison to make lines shorter at the convenience store.

In fact, all sentences for all crimes should be made even harsher, more prisons should be built to keep more people behind bars for longer periods of time to satisfy the corrections officers’ unions; more drugs should be made illegal and police should be empowered to detain and arrest anyone for any illicit drug use, police unions and affiliated groups would certainly agree.

Caffeine and coffee should be outlawed and punishable with fines, these are gateway drugs for harder stimulants like cocaine, and this would raise revenue to fund the crackdown measures. Improper use of any remaining legal drugs should be dealt with harshly, preferably with mandatory minimum sentences behind bars and excessive fines.

Doctors who prescribe drugs that are abused in any way should also be detained, arrested, fined and/or imprisoned. The same should be done to any pharmacists who deal those drugs. Over-the-counter drugs like cough medicine and aspirin should be highly regulated and available only with a background check, license and permission from government bureaucrats. Their misuse or abuse should be dealt with harshly.

This is all necessary to protect Americans from themselves and from the freedom to do as they please with their bodies. And also, the children, won’t somebody think of the children!
Drug Warrior
June 7th, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

The post is correct. Anyone who is caught using/dealing/possessing drugs should be put in prison to make lines shorter at the convenience store.

In fact, all sentences for all crimes should be made even harsher, more prisons should be built to keep more people behind bars for longer periods of time to satisfy the corrections officers’ unions; more drugs should be made illegal and police should be empowered to detain and arrest anyone for any illicit drug use, police unions and affiliated groups would certainly agree.

Caffeine and coffee should be outlawed and punishable with fines, these are gateway drugs for harder stimulants like cocaine, and this would raise revenue to fund the crackdown measures. Improper use of any remaining legal drugs should be dealt with harshly, preferably with mandatory minimum sentences behind bars and excessive fines.

Doctors who prescribe drugs that are abused in any way should also be detained, arrested, fined and/or imprisoned. The same should be done to any pharmacists who deal those drugs. Over-the-counter drugs like cough medicine and aspirin should be highly regulated and available only with a background check, license and permission from government bureaucrats. Their misuse or abuse should be dealt with harshly.

This is all necessary to protect Americans from themselves and from the freedom to do as they please with their bodies. And also, the children, won’t somebody think of the children!
David
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

I don’t think the Tea Party is about drugs, it seems to me the main message is to quit spending money.

But on the drug issue, I am a physician and was for the War on Drugs. Then I retired and started teaching at the local indigent hospital. There I saw first hand the effect of the “War on Drugs”. First, it does not work. There are just as many people dependent on drugs now as there would be without regulation. Second, the illegal products are causing an enormous strain on our economics. It cost a considerable amount to care for people with Hep C, AIDS and bacterial endocarditis, all caused by the illegal product and use. Third, people are going to do what they desire without the government telling them otherwise. Fourth, where is the logic in having to see the doctors for everything you need? Have you ever considered that you don’t need them? Lets say that you strain your back over the weekend. You go to the ER and get hit with a $2500 bill. Or you call your family doctor and get an appointment for one week later. You sit in his office for 3 or 4 hours in pain. You litterally beg him for narcotics which he is reluctant to give due to pressure from state organizations. You het a limited supply of drug and go to the pharmacy to fill said product. There you wait again and are checked frequently to make sure you are legal.

In a better world we would not concern ourselves with the 10% of people who will abuse the system no matter what. We should allow people to take care of themselves and see the doctor if they have continued trouble. Also, consider the price of the “war of drugs”, it is enormous. That alone would fund a first class health program.
David
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

I don’t think the Tea Party is about drugs, it seems to me the main message is to quit spending money.

But on the drug issue, I am a physician and was for the War on Drugs. Then I retired and started teaching at the local indigent hospital. There I saw first hand the effect of the “War on Drugs”. First, it does not work. There are just as many people dependent on drugs now as there would be without regulation. Second, the illegal products are causing an enormous strain on our economics. It cost a considerable amount to care for people with Hep C, AIDS and bacterial endocarditis, all caused by the illegal product and use. Third, people are going to do what they desire without the government telling them otherwise. Fourth, where is the logic in having to see the doctors for everything you need? Have you ever considered that you don’t need them? Lets say that you strain your back over the weekend. You go to the ER and get hit with a $2500 bill. Or you call your family doctor and get an appointment for one week later. You sit in his office for 3 or 4 hours in pain. You litterally beg him for narcotics which he is reluctant to give due to pressure from state organizations. You het a limited supply of drug and go to the pharmacy to fill said product. There you wait again and are checked frequently to make sure you are legal.

In a better world we would not concern ourselves with the 10% of people who will abuse the system no matter what. We should allow people to take care of themselves and see the doctor if they have continued trouble. Also, consider the price of the “war of drugs”, it is enormous. That alone would fund a first class health program.
David
June 7th, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

I don’t think the Tea Party is about drugs, it seems to me the main message is to quit spending money.

But on the drug issue, I am a physician and was for the War on Drugs. Then I retired and started teaching at the local indigent hospital. There I saw first hand the effect of the “War on Drugs”. First, it does not work. There are just as many people dependent on drugs now as there would be without regulation. Second, the illegal products are causing an enormous strain on our economics. It cost a considerable amount to care for people with Hep C, AIDS and bacterial endocarditis, all caused by the illegal product and use. Third, people are going to do what they desire without the government telling them otherwise. Fourth, where is the logic in having to see the doctors for everything you need? Have you ever considered that you don’t need them? Lets say that you strain your back over the weekend. You go to the ER and get hit with a $2500 bill. Or you call your family doctor and get an appointment for one week later. You sit in his office for 3 or 4 hours in pain. You litterally beg him for narcotics which he is reluctant to give due to pressure from state organizations. You het a limited supply of drug and go to the pharmacy to fill said product. There you wait again and are checked frequently to make sure you are legal.

In a better world we would not concern ourselves with the 10% of people who will abuse the system no matter what. We should allow people to take care of themselves and see the doctor if they have continued trouble. Also, consider the price of the “war of drugs”, it is enormous. That alone would fund a first class health program.
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

What I find kind of sad is that the only thing the Tea Partiers seem to care about is money.

If not, why did it take the government blowing through TEN TRILLION DOLLARS just to mobilize them?

Waco, Ruby Ridge, No-Knock Raids, assets forfeitures, forests being burned down rather than allowing lumber companies in, the energy infrastructure on its knees, overweening regulations for EVERYTHING— but nobody marched till a sufficient number of dollar bills was involved.

Make no mistake, that alone is a vital issue. It will mean the devastation of our nation if it isn’t dealt with NOW. But where were these people when federal snipers were putting bullets into peoples’ backs, or stealing people’s homes in the name of eminent domain, environmental PR, or the drug war?

Where were they when “values free” sex ed was being pumped into our kids’ skulls by their teachers, and gay lifestyle advocates were priming six-year-olds with alternate-lifestyle mantras?

Where were they when a sitting President committed sexual harassment and perjury and got away with it? When the government passed unconstitutional campaign finance laws, and then the ones responsible BROKE those laws themselves?

Where WERE they?

Where were they when the banks were first being forced, at gunpoint, to give out loans to people who could never repay them— and accused of racism if there weren’t enough black people in the mix?

Where were they when the borders turned into sieves?

Where were they when Christian memorials were torn down, when prayer in public schools was abolished, when education turned into an anti-American, anti Christian joke, when the mass media committed libel, slander and forgery to attempt to discredit a president they didn’t like, when the government began disarming the people and left them helpless before naked aggression, when our press committed OUTRIGHT TREASON, giving out sensitive and even top secret military information to our enemies?

WHERE WERE THEY?
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

What I find kind of sad is that the only thing the Tea Partiers seem to care about is money.

If not, why did it take the government blowing through TEN TRILLION DOLLARS just to mobilize them?

Waco, Ruby Ridge, No-Knock Raids, assets forfeitures, forests being burned down rather than allowing lumber companies in, the energy infrastructure on its knees, overweening regulations for EVERYTHING— but nobody marched till a sufficient number of dollar bills was involved.

Make no mistake, that alone is a vital issue. It will mean the devastation of our nation if it isn’t dealt with NOW. But where were these people when federal snipers were putting bullets into peoples’ backs, or stealing people’s homes in the name of eminent domain, environmental PR, or the drug war?

Where were they when “values free” sex ed was being pumped into our kids’ skulls by their teachers, and gay lifestyle advocates were priming six-year-olds with alternate-lifestyle mantras?

Where were they when a sitting President committed sexual harassment and perjury and got away with it? When the government passed unconstitutional campaign finance laws, and then the ones responsible BROKE those laws themselves?

Where WERE they?

Where were they when the banks were first being forced, at gunpoint, to give out loans to people who could never repay them— and accused of racism if there weren’t enough black people in the mix?

Where were they when the borders turned into sieves?

Where were they when Christian memorials were torn down, when prayer in public schools was abolished, when education turned into an anti-American, anti Christian joke, when the mass media committed libel, slander and forgery to attempt to discredit a president they didn’t like, when the government began disarming the people and left them helpless before naked aggression, when our press committed OUTRIGHT TREASON, giving out sensitive and even top secret military information to our enemies?

WHERE WERE THEY?
RHJunior
June 7th, 2010 @ 1:49 pm

What I find kind of sad is that the only thing the Tea Partiers seem to care about is money.

If not, why did it take the government blowing through TEN TRILLION DOLLARS just to mobilize them?

Waco, Ruby Ridge, No-Knock Raids, assets forfeitures, forests being burned down rather than allowing lumber companies in, the energy infrastructure on its knees, overweening regulations for EVERYTHING— but nobody marched till a sufficient number of dollar bills was involved.

Make no mistake, that alone is a vital issue. It will mean the devastation of our nation if it isn’t dealt with NOW. But where were these people when federal snipers were putting bullets into peoples’ backs, or stealing people’s homes in the name of eminent domain, environmental PR, or the drug war?

Where were they when “values free” sex ed was being pumped into our kids’ skulls by their teachers, and gay lifestyle advocates were priming six-year-olds with alternate-lifestyle mantras?

Where were they when a sitting President committed sexual harassment and perjury and got away with it? When the government passed unconstitutional campaign finance laws, and then the ones responsible BROKE those laws themselves?

Where WERE they?

Where were they when the banks were first being forced, at gunpoint, to give out loans to people who could never repay them— and accused of racism if there weren’t enough black people in the mix?

Where were they when the borders turned into sieves?

Where were they when Christian memorials were torn down, when prayer in public schools was abolished, when education turned into an anti-American, anti Christian joke, when the mass media committed libel, slander and forgery to attempt to discredit a president they didn’t like, when the government began disarming the people and left them helpless before naked aggression, when our press committed OUTRIGHT TREASON, giving out sensitive and even top secret military information to our enemies?

WHERE WERE THEY?
Helen Thomas Retires : The Other McCain
June 7th, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

[…] not be immediately confirmed.Meanwhile, Reason magazine editor Matt Welch — who is not a stupid dopehead — notes that Helen Thomas certainly isn’t the only “objective” reporter […]
Corrindium
June 7th, 2010 @ 6:33 pm

Stacy. Dude. That was hilarious. Thanks.