Authoritarian* Bushista on Leafy Plants and Beheading
By Mona
.
Pete Guither tears his hair out examining a Human Events piece by Bush-worshipper and ardent drug warrior John Hawkins, a truly imbecilic rant (Hawkins relies on that outstanding authority for all things, Ann Coulter) in defense of criminalizing substances the state dislikes. Hawkins attacks libertarians, and declares that then-”Drug Czar” Bill Bennett was righteous when Bennett announced we should “behead the damn drug dealers.”
.
Concludes Pete about Hawkins’ “argument”:
Marijuana. Murder. Not the same. One is the premeditated killing of another human being, and the other is a leafy plant.
My only criticism of Pete’s post is that he approached Hawkins’ drivel in this posture: “At first I was interested because I thought ‘Hey, maybe this will be an actual thoughtful attempt to be pro-drug war that will be interesting to debunk.’”. Pete, my pal, when has a drug warrior ever written anything thoughtful, or even honest, about drug prohibition? One virtually always ends up having to point out that inhaling plant product is, like, morally distinguishable from slaughtering a human being.
.
*I know — is there any other kind?
Comment by Thoreau —
January 28, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Here’s what gets me about drug prohibition:
Every single American learns in grade school (even PUBLIC grade school!) that alcohol prohibition failed because it fueled a violent black market.
Yet nobody makes the obvious leap. It’s not like this is some secret that the state has suppressed. It’s an openly acknowledged fact that alcohol prohibition failed.
Yet nobody draws the obvious conclusion.
AARRGGHH!!
Comment by Mona —
January 28, 2007 @ 10:05 am
There is so much wrong with Hawkins screed it is hard to know where to begin. But if I had to choose, what struck me most is the bloodthirstiness, the beheading Bennett and Hawkins scream for. And Mark Noonan wants to lash, and thereby scar, those who advocate or make films about extreme sexual habits.
Let’s see, we are in a Global War to Save Western Civilization from the Barbarians Who Want to Impose A Sharia -Based Caliphate, and those who understand that think beheading and torture are the bee’s knees.
Alrighty, then.
Comment by Barry —
January 28, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
The hard-right in the USA really doesn’t think that the ideas of actual islamofascists are bad; they just want the steering wheel themselves.
Comment by Pete Guither —
January 28, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
I know, Mona — I was deluded to think there might be something interesting there…
When you learn enough about the drug war, you find yourself itching for a debate because your position against the “war” is so logically and factually strong. And then you realize that the extraordinary weakness of your opponent’s position makes the debate uninteresting.
The sad part is the number of commenters at Right Wing News that seem not to have the capacity for logical thought.
Comment by c-cipher —
January 28, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
James Q. Wilson comes as close as possible to making a case for drug prohibition that’s not morally nauseating.
He seems to be under the impression that if drugs were legal, people would use them. (Shocker!) And that when they ended up addicted, we’d be forced to pay out of pocket.
Of course, he neglects (1) the enormous expense of the current drug war (2) the countervailing substitution effects as people choose milder drugs (3) the historical record (4) the moral case that non-violent, non-threatening people should be able to engage in consensual self-regarding acts, so he should consider FUCKING OFF.
Comment by sglover —
January 28, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
It’s very bizarre that a drug warrior would cite legalized tobacco and alcohol as an argument for his side, when the biggest lesson to draw from those examples is how, over time, usage of harmful substance is likely to decline in response to social opprobrium. I guess the guy must be another one of those self-described “conservatives” who has zero faith in things like custom, tradition, community mores, etc. (No slam intended against “real” conservatives — whoever they are, lately. Nowadays I only use the word in ironic quotes, to emphasize how far right-wingers have strayed from what they claim are their moorings.)
Comment by sglover —
January 28, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Welp, leading right-wing “scholar” Dinesh D’Souza seems to think that a kind of Grand Entente between his crowd and bin Laden’s would be just the thing to set America right. The Washington Post thinks his views merit attention, so he must be one of the most important people in the country today, right?
Trackback by Drug WarRant —
January 29, 2007 @ 2:01 am
More responses to the John Hawkins piece…
…
Comment by Chuck Divine —
January 29, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Here’s a really damning link on the drug war:
The War on Drugs is Lost from the National Review.
Yes, people, the National Review, a bastion of political and social conservatism, came out against the drug war eleven years ago! I only found out about this via a link posted to Slashdot. If I was a true conservative, I’d be too embarrassed to defend the drug war anymore. Why National Review’s opposition to the drug war has not been more widely reported I do not know. People local to Washington, DC, might wonder why the Washington Post hasn’t reported this. Or did they and I missed it?
Comment by Mona —
January 29, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Yes, I recall it well. But that is when Buckely was semi-officially still running the show, and he has a pragmatic streak, and was also friendly with Pete McWilliams. Further, Rick Brookhiser had just gone through a bout of testicular cancer, and guess how he medicated the chemo-induced nausea?
You would not see an entire issue like that today from the current authoritarian crew at NR.
Comment by Mary Mcd —
January 29, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
You could write a book about how wrong that article was. I have a question for y’all. I never know how to describe myself in political discussions, and you guys seem good at the labels. I think I’m a conservative libertarian. Small federal gov’t; regulation for health & safety: good, prohibition: bad. Separation of church & state: the further the better! Guns, abortion, gay marriage (adoption, etc.), drugs, alcohol, skydiving: Make your own choice. Terrorism/war: I believe peace is great, if you can get everyone to go along with it, until then kill them before they kill you. If you go to war, take the gloves off & win. I believe Hemp is our only hope for survival of humanity. I believe in capitalism, but I also believe in fair wages & assistance for the elderly, disabled, and disadvantaged. I hate the IRS and love the FairTax. I believe in state’s rights. I shop at Walmart, but I check labels and try not to buy things made in China. I love my country but I fear my government. I have no party affiliation, but I always vote. What am I?
Comment by Chuck Divine —
January 29, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Mona,
I only occasionally glance at The National Review anymore. Yes, it has gotten more authoritarian. Still, though, it makes one wonder just how far out of touch with reality our country has gotten. and how little real discussion there is of the drug war anymore.
Comment by matthew hogan —
January 29, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Mary mcD –
A secular paleoconservative.
Comment by matthew hogan —
January 29, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
I take that back, a moderate secular paleolibertarian.
Comment by Mary Mcd —
February 1, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Thanks, Matthew! I never would’ve thought of that! You can see why I always have trouble voting for a democrat or a republican. I hate ‘em both!