And here, for your enjoyment, two people try to win the award for the most creative way to completely destroy the definition of something.
1. Mary Grabar over at Pajamas Media attempts to re-define libertarianism. Libertarians Need to Rethink Support for Drug Legalization
In abandoning the duty to enforce social order, todayâ€™s libertarians have made a devilâ€™s pact with the pro-drug forces of George Soros and company. […]
[Marijuana’s] legalization is supported by the same forces that promote Kevin Jennings, one-world government, Gaia worship, and legalized prostitution. All these elements work against the traditional libertarian values of initiative, freedom, and honor. Libertarians need to rethink their position on drug legalization.
Wow. There’s no way you can re-define libertarianism and have it legitimately support drug prohibition, but she sure tries.
She also takes a walk on the wild side with her comparisons of alcohol and tobacco…
But I would argue that tradition should be a reason for [alcohol’s] continued legal status and for denying legal status to marijuana.
The sanction for alcohol use goes back to the Bible. In the New Testament, references to its use in ceremonies like the Last Supper and the wedding at Cana appear. But Jesus also warns about excessive use. In the Old Testament, alcohol is shown to cloud the judgment of Lot. The Bible, in this way, tells us when and how we can use alcohol.
This means very little, though, in the arid moral climate of todayâ€™s libertarianism.
But I would argue that it should, not only from my position as a Christian, but from my position as a citizen of a country whose foundational values spring from the Judeo-Christian heritage. The sanction for alcohol use has lasted for millennia. It has become part of our rituals at meals, celebrations, and religious services. That is a large part of why Prohibition failed.
Marijuana, in contrast, has always been counter-cultural in the West. Every toke symbolizes a thumb in the eye of Western values. So it follows that in order to maintain our culture, we need to criminalize this drug.
Ah, now we get to it. It’s the fact that marijuana has been counter-cultural that really gets her. Bingo.
2. Linda Taylor. Oh, my… our old friend Linda Taylor. Drugs Violate My Pursuit Of Happiness
Yep. She went there. She’s actually trying to claim that attempting to legalize marijuana is a violation of Constitutional rights.
I believe that Assemblyman Ammiano is violating the Constitutional rights of millions of Californians, and his own oath of office by introducing legislation to legalize marijuana. […]
While drug legalization advocates may portray themselves as victims, often espousing that they have a constitutional right to use marijuana. Our constitutionally protected right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is blatantly violated by marijuana legalization. Drug users can not insinuate that their right to use somehow trumps our right to live our lives, and bring up our children without exposing them to the shady underworld of drug use. In this instance the majority rules. I am stating that marijuana use, sales and legalization violates our constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness, under the 14th amendment.
Now, this is derangement, pure and simple.
I showed this letter to my friend George. He said:
You know, Pete, she has a point. I, for one, feel that we have the right to live our lives, and bring up our children without exposing them to the shady deranged letters of Linda Taylor. How does she insinuate that she has a right to write these letters that trumps our right to live free of her lunacy? Additionally, I find that as I think about my pursuit of happiness, it currently involves seeing Linda Taylor buried to her neck in a vat of cole slaw. Every day that the State of California fails to place Ms. Taylor in a vat of cole slaw is a violation of my Constitutional Right to my Pursuit of Happiness. At least that’s the way I understand it now that she’s so eloquently explained how the Constitution works.