Once again, thank you all for promoting this discussion. And especially thank you to those who either support me or at least sympathize with my position.
Someone asked me whether I would support "medicinal pot," my response is "Sure if Granny needs to smoke a bowl to help her out with her glocoma, I have no problem with it."
Here are my reservations with the drug issue.
1) Comparing drug legalization with prohibition is not helpful. Alcohol has been a part of our culture for literally thousands of years. Having a glass of wine with dinner, having a brewski at a ballgame, receiving Holy Communion; these activities are quite common and accepting within most cultures. Prohibition was a failure because the government was dictating that that part of our culture was unacceptable and years and years of tradition was counter-productive and morally reprehensible. Society, as a whole, rebelled against Prohibition and through the "democratic" process, the amendment was repealed. Remember that Prohibition was legally conceived via the Constitution. It was NOT unconstitutional; it followed the correct procedures (the amending process). We cannot decry it as criminal; even though in hindsight it was a bad idea. In other words, we (as Americans) did it to ourselves here, within the construct that the Framers gave us.
2) Comparing alcohol to drugs is a pseudo red harring. Why do I say this? Aren't both substances mind altering substances? Yep. But once again, culture comes to mind. There is not an "alcohol culture" as there is a "drug culture". Now some (if not most) of you probably disagree with me here, but my experiences have shown me that there is, within the legalization community, a "drug culture." I believe that this movement is counter-productive, divisive, and myopic. Trust me, I've been there, "Wu-Tang baby!". Ever see a kid with a Budwiser medallion hanging from his neck? I haven't, but I have seen a kid with a Bud medallion? With the notable exception of George Thorogood, (feel free to sing along), "If you don't start drinking, I'm gonna leave," some popular music (primarily hip-hop but not just hip-hop) has embraced drugs, Wu Tang and Cyprus Hill (which I kinda like actually) spring to mind.
2) Once again, democracies ought to represent the morals/values of the majority. The large majority of people I know use alcohol, a small minority use drugs. A substantial percentage of the non-drug using populace do not believe that drug legalization has any societal good. I understand the concept of respecting minority rights, but at the same time respecting minority rights does not mean capituation to them.
3) I would think that the offical stance of the FSP concering drug legalization would be NONE! Drugs are not mentioned in the Constitution. There should be no federal statutes for or against drugs. Individual communities ("states" in the US, I have no idea what the free state would call them) should set the standards. See the answer that would satisfy me is, "The FSP has no drug policy per se, localities would determine whether or not there is legalization in their communities." Let's say we take over Delaware; the people in Dover want legalization and the folks in Wilmington do not. What's wrong with that? The citizen has the the right to choose which community he wishes to be part of and can move accordingly.
Am I totally off base here?
Judah
as for whoever reminded me that the Kennedy forture was created through bootlegging, yes i know. whenever i hear that name, as an irish catholic, i cringe
