Special exemptions


Why are some substances illegal and others legal?
Most of this article at Frontpagemag.com is a push for further anti-drug laws, while of course making special exemptions for people like Rush Limbaugh. More on that in a minute.

This was the paragraph that leapt out at me. Emphasis added.

Yet this has not satisfied the Left. These are the same leftists who for decades have told us that illegal drug use is a "victimless crime," despite the numerous crimes committed by dope addicts, or the general social harm caused by those under the influence of intoxicants, legal or otherwise. (Some partisans may wish to compare Limbaugh's fate to that of Sen. Edward Kennedy who in 1969, after using copious amounts of a legal drug -- alcohol -- left a young woman to die at Chappaquiddick.)

I don't think they noticed that they undid their entire case with one phrase.

If intoxicants, "legal or otherwise," cause "general social harm," then what is the point in making them illegal?

Why are some intoxicants socially acceptable and others are not?

There's the rub. Alcohol is acceptable because Prohibition taught the American people that that alcohol control doesn't work on the wide scale. The immediate result was more expensive alcohol with less quality, and criminals fighting over distribution.

The immediate result of the Drug Was was expensive drugs with less quality, and criminals fighting over distribution. Not to mention gods knows how many nations politically destabilized to feed America's drug habits.

Since the law allows alcohol, it is cheap, good quality, almost without any criminals in the distribution, and pays taxes.

Exactly the opposite of what happens when a substance is banned.

Limbaugh's crime was that the drugs he used were almost acceptable.

Now I do not agree (obviously) with Rush Limbaugh when it comes to the Drug War.

Drugs should be legal and cheap.

Government should not try to protect people from themselves.

I can use the contents of any grocery store and mix up poisons a thousand times more deadly than then any illegal drug. And I don't have to register or sign anything to do it.

Oh, and about the special exemptions. That is part of what got us here in the first place. This stuff is legal, that stuff is not. It's okay if this man does it, but not that woman. What's the point? Making the law flexible? Isn't that the sure sign of a bad law?

— NeoWayland

Posted: Wed - May 3, 2006 at 04:27 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved