I’d like to see each and every person who attends a tea party and see what their reaction would be to the government getting out of the Social Security and Medicare business? Government run welfare programs to be sure, but I bet you’d hear a lot of protest against getting rid of those.

I finally thought of a much more concise response to why your argument is ridiculous.

Godwins Law.

There seems to be widespread understanding that the first person to compare their opponent to Hitler automatically loses an argument.

I think the same can be said for comparing parking tickets to Stalinism.

To be sure, school zones and residential zones make sense

So why can’t I drive 60 MPH past a school or in a residential area?

Based on your logic, however, had you been shot, you’d also be advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment.

No Nick, had I been shot, I’d be arguing the same as I am now, that I wouldn’t have been assaulted at ALL if that man had not been a drug user. You’re not using logic at all, let alone mine.

And far from giving him a pass, I am arguing that he should be held responsible for both his drug use AND his violence, BOTH of which are illegal, and the former or which is proven to lead to higher rates of the latter.

But, he will not be held accountable for his actions period because the Seattle police department refuses to do anything about arresting him, despite telling them I can identify him and know where he is likely to be, unless I see him first, call 911, and keep in close vicinity to him until police arrive, which I am not going to do for my own safety. Even then, they tell me it would be very difficult to prosecute if he comes up with an alibi or any other number of reasons. In other words I spent about 15 minutes on the phone with a police sergeant rattling off a thousand reasons why they couldnt arrest the man who broke my teeth gave me a concussion, bruises, scrapes, screwed up my balance and robbed me.

And actually, its funny you should mention it, Seattle is one of the cities that has instructed police to basically ignore people breaking pot laws. I’ve seen this guy lighting up a joint in public so many times I lost count. Good thing no one prosecuted him for his “victimless” crimes! I wonder how many other people have been victims to his victimless crimes?

Speed limit laws, just as drug laws, are anathema to personal liberty.

No, they really aren’t. Because we live in a world where we interact with other people, not in separate universes where our actions affect no one but us. There are behaviors we can engage in that put OTHER people at greater risk, not just ourselves. Most people agree that the government has every right in the world to regulate such behaviors….drug use and speeding being a prime examples.

If you want to buy a large piece of property and build a private track, then you can hop in your car and drive as fast as you want, Until then, you will be driving on public roads that must be used by other people, and we know irrefutably that driving at higher speeds causes more and deadlier accidents, just as we know irrefutably that drug use leads to more crime — even when they are legal drugs like alcohol. We also know that once drugs are made legal, that usage, and the subsequent crime, skyrockets.

Benjamin Franklin spoke of what he called “essential liberty”, liberals and libertarians often misquote him as speaking of “liberty” in general, but he was not. He knew what you apparently do not, that government is, by its very nature, the restriction of liberty. He qualified his statement because he recognized that we sacrifice liberty for safety and the general welfare all the time.

You are defending very non-essential liberty (drug use) at the expense of very real, sustained, and demonstrable public safety. Indeed, you are defending non-essential liberty of drug use OVER the essential liberty of being able to move about without increased danger.

And yes, I am far too lazy to explain the ideological spectrum, and how at one end you have complete liberty, and the other complete tyranny, and that conservatism, Republicanism, Liberalism, Democratism, progressivism all lie in between.

That does not, however, make your argument that anything short of anarchy is the same as Stalinism any less ridiculous. It makes it more so.

Based on your logic, however, had you been shot, you’d also be advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. What this loser did to you was illegal, drugs or not. Frankly, by blaming the drugs (or his access to them, or demonizing his liberties to attain them), you are actually giving him a pass on his own choices by not holding him responsible for his own actions. It’s shocking to see this come from someone who normally is so adamant about personal responsibility and liberty as you. Frankly, I’m disappointed.

And YES!, the speed limit example…NOW you’re getting it. Speed limit laws, just as drug laws, are anathema to personal liberty. How funny…your attempt to call out my point with (what you assert to be) a silly analogy actually helps make my point precisely. To be sure, school zones and residential zones make sense (I’d also suggest proper locality-based zoning for ‘drug-stores’ are fair). But a federal law dictating speed limits? Hm…where have I seen that before? If only you could see how easy your example just made my whole argument!

Still, by the way, hoping you’ll actually answer the question I posed in my last comment: “Please point out how all aspects of that parallel are “ridiculous”.” I still stand by them, and (as gillie often does), your resistance to addressing them constitutes either intellectual dishonesty in your dismissal of them, or laziness in your lack of capability to counter them.

Hope you’re feeling better soon from that awful attack. Yikes. Wouldn’t wish that on anybody.

I got physically assaulted less than three weeks ago by a man who first asked me for money, then drugs and whom I see getting stoned all the time. I was knocked unconscious, robbed, have broken teeth and problems with my equilibrium. I have a copy of the police report, and ER release papers and a pile of bills from both doctors and dentists I can show you if you dont believe me.

PLEASE dont tell me that drug use causes “tertiary” problems. It causes very real crime that affects millions of people very directly every day — crime that would not happen if people werent high, and werent addicted to drugs they cant pay for.

And yes, your argument that passing a law against anti-social behavior is akin to Stalinism remains ridiculous and retarded. Every word you typed could be used to argue against the speed limit just as well as it could against drug criminalization. And yes, comparing the speed limit or drug laws to Stalinism is deeply, DEEPLY ridiculous.

Exhibit A: The Left in America wants to Stalinize health care because a) it’s moral to do so, and b) it’ll be good for society, c) as Americans, we should invite ourselves into the well-being of others’ lives, and d) if we don’t, we’ll tertiaraly pay for it when the poor choices of others affect us. This, in spite of the fact that in order to do such a thing, all Americans’ rights will be curtailed.

Exhibit B: Part of the argument you (and others) make for the continued criminalization of drugs is that a) it’s moral to do so, and b) it’ll be good for society, c) as Americans, we should invite ourselves into the well-being of others’ lives, and d) if we don’t, we’ll tertiaraly pay for it when the poor choices of others affect us. This, in spite of the fact that in order to do such a thing, all Americans’ rights will be curtailed.

Please point out how all aspects of that parallel are “ridiculous”.

I dont know what else to call the idea that proposing SOME laws means one might as well support “Stalinist” health care as you call it.

It is a blatantly ridiculous argument on its face as though there is nothing between anarchy and tyranny.

And just to show how retarded the argument is, Gilltard makes the same one!

If you dont want your arguments dismissed, don’t make ridiculous ones.

Or will they fight for your right to blast away wherever you want?

Wait, I’m stating the obvious.

Which is it? Do you want a Nanny state, or not?

Or is there a grey area that might exist? And if you can find that grey area when it comes to drugs, why can’t you on other issues?

The problem with a libertarian arguement in modern society, is it requires a government that isn’t willing to nanny people.

AE: I wasn’t correcting your grammar. I was deliniating your choice of the word “admits”, which may have suggested there was some sort of guilt involved with my choice of argument, which in fact there is none. I am unabashed in my choice of design, rhetoric, and position. And furthermore, I find your choice to simply dismiss my argument vis a vis healthcare as “silly” sadly reminiscant of techniques I usually expect from the Lefties who usually troll this site who have no actual arguments and instead resort to dismissiveness rather than an engaged debate, and therefore, disappointing.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that your argument was dishonest, just pointing out that most who argue for medical marijuana are not doing so honestly. They pretend to support medical marijuana out of feigned concern for people who supposedly need it, when all they really care about is getting pot legalized so they can get high.

I am arguing that if we wish to remain a nation of laws, we cannot have executives at any level deciding which laws they want to enforce and which they do not any more than we can have a judiciary making law from the bench. The legislative branch is elected to write law, not the executive, and not the judicial.

Also, if you’re gonna try to correct my grammar, you should choose a sentence that is actually grammatically incorrect, not one that is correct, as you did. It works better that way.

And lastly, your argument comparing the criminalization of drug use to the nationalization of health care is bordering on silly. As though there is no difference between criminalizing specific antisocial recreational behaviors that are demonstrably damaging to society as a whole, and seizing complete authority over the person and their very right to life.

“If you’re going to make social laws, you might as well resurrect Stalin right here and now, cus its all the same thing!”

Pulease. You might as well argue for anarchy.