|Dumb Lamer - 2014-01-16 |
It was fun to watch this at the airport with everyone sitting opened mouthed and laughing.
|The God of Biscuits - 2014-01-16 |
"Hotboxing with Grandma"
|Old_Zircon - 2014-01-16 |
That's no contact high, they were hotboxing that limo for an hour or two.
|TheOtherCapnS - 2014-01-16 |
No Anderson, they are still standing after smoking all that because some of us can handle our shit.
|chumbucket - 2014-01-16 |
Pink Floyd t-shirt. check.
"Barbara Harvey is not a stereotype" (???) So what exactly IS the stereotype
|infinite zest - 2014-01-16 |
Mr. Cooper sounds higher than she does.
|EvilHomer - 2014-01-16 |
Anderson Cooper is such an uptight old fart.
Also, who cares if "the public" thinks pot is less dangerous than booze? How dangerous a substance is for it's user should be irrelevant to the question of legality, and unless the classic paternalist argument is addressed and laid to rest for good, we'll have learned nothing, and gained nothing, from the repeal of marijuana prohibition. Furthermore, public perception is to a large degree dictated by the media itself - particularly in the 1970s, when there really wasn't much in the way of alternative sources of information, and you either listened to what your TV told you, or you listened to nothing at all. Echo chamber bullshit.
I agree with you to a certain extent; we ought to respect people's autonomy, and that includes letting them put crap in their bodies even if it might give them cancer or something.
The problem is that people's decision making process is entirely instantiated in the organic crap in their heads, and drugs can seriously fuck with this organic crap. Someone deciding to smoke a joint or get drunk should be respected because that's a free and autonomous decision. A meth head deciding to smoke more meth to boost his mind powers and get an edge over the demons stalking him–not so much. And if smoking meth almost always leads to the demon stalking scenario, then it should be illegal.
Drugs should not be illegal based on how bad they are for your health. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead. We should respect people's autonomy. But, if certain substances tend to undermine the autonomy that we're trying to preserve in the first place, then yeah, prohibition is justified.
What? Of course it matters how the public perceives pot. Substances are illegal for many reasons, and every support for illegalization that you can knock away matters.
I agree that ultimately it doesn't matter if a substance is harmful or not; I support legalizing all drugs with the possible exception of heroin. (Even for that drug I would prefer, at worst, a harm reduction approach.) But that argument doesn't sway everybody, so the other stuff matters too.
BTW, it's bullshit to say that until that nothing is gained if we don't directly attack the paternalistic argument. Fact is, the need for paternalistic government is actively disproven with every formely illegal substance that's made illegal. Every single step weakens paternalism, thus making subsequent legalizations a little bit easier.
Ashtar - as long as the meth-head isn't killing his neighbors thinking they're demons, I say it's fair ball. And even then, the problem isn't the meth, it's the murder - and murder is already a crime. Criminalizing substances on the grounds that they MIGHT lead to a "real" crime somewhere down the road is pure precrime reasoning. *At the very most*, individuals under the effects of meth should be restricted to private residences or specially licensed meth-houses, similar to the way we treat alcohol and, increasingly, tobacco use. If they come outside or try and drive a car, bust them for public intoxication or DUI.
Anaxagoras - If every step weakened paternalism, then how did we go from the spectacular failure of Prohibition, to the even more spectacular failure of the War on Drugs? If the twentieth century taught us anything, it's that history is not a process of small steps towards an enlightened utopia, but rather, it's a great big epileptic seizure that leaves us spasming haphazardly about on the floor. Unless the flawed logic of paternalism is addressed *directly*, it will never go away; we'll simply trade our current irrational drug laws for something else, equally irrational and illiberal.
I take similar issue to the way the media (and to a lesser degree, academia) has been treating the gay marriage "debate". More and more, the focus seems to be on persuading "normal folks" that gay people are "just like them". But this is beside the point! It doesn't matter whether the general public approves of gay marriages or not - it's not up to anybody else to decide how a couple chooses to live their lives. That's why gay marriage should be "legal". Period. By shifting the focus away from the real argument and towards rote conditioning and "normalization" of a favored body-identity-politic, all they're doing is undermining any genuine progress towards sexual liberation. The end result will be that we're still saddled with a system that relies on "community moral consensus" to determine who should and should not be granted the basic right to pursue happinesss; we'd really be no better off than we were before.
It's sophistry, plain and simple. All this focus on making it look like one side of argument is shouting louder than the other, it's nothing more than a cheap attempt to score a win. And the cost of using tactics like this, instead of sticking to cold, solid reason, will be pretty everything good that might have come from the whole mess.
* This should probably go without saying, but I am NOT suggesting anyone should be smoking meth. Obviously, it's a very bad life choice. But it's a life choice that should be handled on an individual level, and people who make a "bad" choice in that respect should not be turned into criminals. And yes, I'm wiling to concede that the state MIGHT play a role in "combating drugs"... but if the government is to do anything, it should be setting up purely voluntary treatment services for addicts who want help. We could have free meth clinics in every city, for a fraction the cost of what we spend busting meth heads and harassing the enterprising Walter Whites of this world!
>>Anderson Cooper is the son of Gloria Vanderbilt.
Is he really?! Holy crap!
Well, at least he's working. Sort of.
I checked Wikipedia, and he's only 46??? Guess those Illuminati child sacrifices didn't do much for his hair.
Any drug is a potentially dangerous drug. I was dating a girl who had (probably still has) a taste for heroin; it was rough for me at first because I'd crack open a beer while she was finding a vein. But as time went on I came to realize that she knew exactly what she was doing. "Clean" heroin is actually easier to come by than the shit weed that I was dealing with back in the midwest, which was often laced with other substances like PCP or meth, making it akin to Moonshine back in prohibition days.
Cooper sounds like he's either drunk or sleep-deprived in the first minute or two. Is that because he's gay? Was he just having gay sex and had to stop having gay sex to do a segment on CNN? Will he go back to having gay sex immediately after he's done interviewing someone who might have smoked marijuana?
|Jet Bin Fever - 2014-01-21 |
High quality reporting.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|