OFF: "musicians made drug use look tempting?" ^_~ =koff=

[M Holmes]

Ted Jackson jr. s2h2 writes:

> > From:          M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK>
> > There ya go. Sorry, I just bridle atbeing labelled a conservative. As a
> > liberty advocate, I include the right of reasonable adults to have the
> > freedom to defend themselves with the most convenient and effective
> > technology should they so choose.
>
> But you have to remember that over here, the political Right has
> adopted the pro gun stance, lured by the money of the gun lobbies.
> And, the Right is also the party that is against all the other
> liberties that you [and I] advocate.

Is that fairly commonly the case? Here in the UK many on the right have
libertarian tendencies on at least some of these issues, though as with
Iain Duncan-Smith, who cp-wrote a book "Saturn's Children" which
advocated drug legalisation and medicalisation, they can get slapped
down if they make this too public (in the UK, writing something in a
hardback isn't considered "public").

Of course we don't really have a libertarian party (well, not one that
currently has more than eight members) as opposed to think-tanks, so
maybe there's nowhere else for them to go.

> And of course, the extreme
> Right over here is the party that advocates school prayer etc.

That would be uncontroversial here, and indeed considered a bit old
fashioned and fuddy-duddy.

> So,
> it's almost impossible for a liberal person to come out pro-gun over
> here, as there's too much accompanying baggage...

Perhaps it's best not to make assumptions about people based on one
single stance. That certainly appears more common in the US than here,
possibly because of the libertarian/puritan polarisation of many debates.

> > > Worst thing about prohibition was that it actually became a
> > > constitutional amendment!
> >
> > Yeah, Jefferson saw early on the danger of giving the Federal government
> > power. That amendment was as much an abuse of the Constitution as the
> > Marijuana Stamp Tax. Bluenoses and racists basically trod all over a
> > noble experiment in liberty.
>
> Yet the pro-gun people hide behind that very constitution

It's not hiding behind it simply to read what it says.

> and hold
> it to be some sort of sacred document.

Up to a limit, I see that as a healthy attitude. Would that politicians
would be infected by some of it.

> Yet Jefferson envisioned the
> constitution as an evolving document that should be reviewed and
> revised on a regular basis.

Let's not forget that HJefferson is on record as believing that armed
revolution every 20 years would be necessary to keep governments in
line.

I suspect that would be a bit difficult if attempted with sticks.

> > > And it took another amendment to repeal
> > > it.
> >
> > Not quite my reading of the situation. A more or less conspiracy amongst
> > the States had effectively repealed Prohibition almost nationwide before
> > the 18th Amendment was repealed. I believe they planned a States
> > Congress to force the issue if necessary?
>
> Not exactly.  Most states were unable to enforce it.  Hell, my
> mother's family were farmers and owned groves of apple trees.  They
> made a shitload of cider back then, and shared it with their friends.
>  Anyone with a bit of knowhow can make their own wine or cider.  The
> states were reluctant to go after people and make criminals out of
> decent citizens...sound familiar?

Indeed. Many of the bureaucracies involved in alcohol Prohibition became
fervent anti-drug advocates during repeal. It safeguarded their wages
and powerbases.

> Yet nowadays they are only to
> happy to make criminals out of people over weed.  I live in a state
> with pretty much the harshest drug laws in the US!

My sympathies. It's worst effects are the repeal of liberties on a
casual basis in order to "win" the Drug War. I have in mind stuff like
confiscation without conviction - something that's now being hawked by
New Nanny drug warriors in Scotland.

However, I think that it's true that Prohibitions are meant to affect
"them" (the folks on the wrong side of the tracks). When zealotry begins
to force an effect on the middle classes (such as confiscating their
houses, cars and boats because their student son grew some pot) then
it's on its way out, just as with alcohol. Unfortunately I believe that
the US has some sort of Prohibition virus and it'll simply be replaced
by another one that's more guaranteed to affect "them".

What's listed as a killer on every packet and used almost solely by the
lower orders? Watch this space...

> But beyond the above, prohibition was killed when FDR took office.
> He wisely realized that repeal would give the gov't some much-needed
> income from regulation and taxation of alcohol, and he knew that a
> country hard hit by the depression could use a little alcoholic
> relief.  And, of course, the bars and liquor stores would generate
> income and allow for further income taxes.  It really was a
> no-brainer...

Drugs are now an industry bigger than oil. They're also a damn site
politically easier to tax at punitive 90% rates than is petrol. You
could almost abolish income tax and still put every drug dealer in the
land out of business overnight.

> > Indeed so. You guys were founded by libertarians and colonised by
> > puritans. They're still slugging it out in the abortion wars, the gun
> > rights battles, and the War On Some Drugs.
>
> But, as I said above, the pro-gun people also embrace the trashing of
> just about every other liberty in favor of some sort of biblical
> agenda that only they can comprehend...

Take 'em on regarding their hypocrisy: ask 'em what sort of freedom is
worth defending by gun ownership if it's not the freedom to eat what you
want, smoke what you want, gamble if you want, read and watch what you
want and have sex with whoever you want, however you want, and in trade
for whatever they want if they're agreeable.

I don't think all these are good ideas, and some are certainly very bad
ideas for at least some people, but they sure as hell have the right to
go to hell in a manner of their own choosing. Even the Bible was in
favour of free will regarding sin.

> >  We can only root from the
> > sidelines but I believe that your Constitution was one of the most
> > important documents ever penned and if push came to shove, then I'd
> > probably fight for it even if the US isn't my birthplace. Eris help us
> > all if the puritans finally manage to trash it.
>
> But remember, it's only a document, and was intended to be
> flexible...

Sure, but when push comes to shove, I doubt that an amendment that meant
we'd have to defend the Constitution with sticks would really be in its
long term interest.

> theo

FoFP