The Best Part? Reading Hysterical NRO SoCon Commenters and Their Predicitions of the Imminent End of the World
Bill Quick

Sensible on Weed | National Review Online

Regardless of whether one accepts the individual-liberty case for legalizing marijuana, the consequentialist case is convincing. That is because the history of marijuana prohibition is a catalogue of unprofitable tradeoffs: billions in enforcement costs, and hundreds of thousands of arrests each year, in a fruitless attempt to control a mostly benign drug the use of which remains widespread despite our energetic attempts at prohibition. We make a lot of criminals while preventing very little crime, and do a great deal of harm in the course of trying to prevent an activity that presents little if any harm in and of itself.

Of course I find the consequentialist case attractive, for the simple reason that it is a rational case. That said, though, the individual-liberty case trumps all for me.

The US government simply has no constitutional power to ban substances like marijuana absent a constitutional amendment permitting it to do so.

We understood that once upon a time. But progressives – who had to settle for just such an amendment to prohibit booze, finally figured out a way to end-run the constitution and impose their insane infringements on individual liberty by simply agreeing to ignore our founding documents – for our own good, of course.

This entry was posted in Socons, War On Some Drugs by Bill Quick. Bookmark the permalink.
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments are closed.

Return to main page →
At this post →