Monday, March 09, 2009

Pat Buchanan - Legalize Drugs

My friends when Pat Buchanan says legalize drugs, political support for the drug war has collapsed.

How does one win a drug war when millions of Americans who use recreational drugs are financing the cartels bribing, murdering and beheading to win the war and keep self-indulgent Americans supplied with drugs?

There are two sure ways to end this war swiftly: Milton's way and Mao's way. Mao Zedong's communists killed users and suppliers alike, as social parasites. Milton Friedman's way is to decriminalize drugs and call off the war.

When Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1972, Milton, writing in Newsweek, objected on ethical grounds:

"On ethical grounds, do we have the right to use the machinery of government to prevent an individual from becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict? For children, almost everyone would answer at least a qualified yes. But for responsible adults, I, for one, would answer no. Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But I believe that we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs."

"Am I my brother's keeper?'" asked Milton, answering, "No."

Americans are never going to adopt the Maoist solution. For the users of drugs are all too often classmates, colleagues, friends, even family. Indeed, our last three presidents did not deny using drugs.
Is Pat happy about it? No. But he says we have to make the best of some bad choices.
Which is the greater evil? Legalized narcotics for America's young or a failed state of 110,000 million on our southern border?
I have to admit that Pat Buchanan is the last person I thought would come out in favor of legalizing drugs.

Now I saw the Mexico situation coming twenty years ago when narco States started their inexorable march north. People said I was crazy. Well here we are. What Pat fails to get is that the march of the narco States does not end with Mexico. Guess what country is North of Mexico? In any case glad to have you aboard Pat. Better late than never.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

9 comments:

RavingDave said...

People (media) have demonized Pat Buchanan for years, but the man from time to time says things that are quite sensible. I might not always agree with Pat's thinking or judgment, but it is apparent to me that he has at least done some thinking on a subject before he talks about it.


David

Neil said...

Huh. I never thought I'd see the day. What else might yet be possible?

Churchill is proven right yet again: "America will always do the right thing - but only after having exhausted all other possibilities"

JCPennylegion said...

Mr. Simon:
Mr. Buchanan's column is the original source for the error, but couldn't you have at least marked his mind-boggling spurious count of "110,000 million" as "questionable"?

"110,000 million" is 110 BILLION and there are not 110,000,000,000 people cumulative total in the entire history of the universe, much less that many massed on our southern border!

M. Simon said...

JC Penny,

What are you talking about?

I copied the bits from the article directly from the link provided. You can look it up.

Where did the 110 billion come from?

I am on Pat's e-mail list and the article as sent also said 110 million.

Now it is more than possible that some where out there the article was posted with a typo. So what does that prove?

BTW do you have something substantive to say about Pat's policy suggestion? Or is being a member in good standing of the grammar, spelling, and typo police the best you can do?

M. Simon said...

According to the CIA Factbook the population of Mexico is: 109,955,400 (July 2008 est.).

That sure looks rather close to 110 million to me.

99% said...

Glad to see your putting your monthly Socialism Security payments to good use Mikey....

Maybe Patty Boy can ride along with the Big Fat Drug Addict and I can provide him some rope as well...

JCPennylegion said...

Dear Mr. Simon:

Thank you for your kind reply at 7:37 pm. Please permit me to address your comments in order.

M. Simon said…
JC Penny, what are you talking about?

I’m talking about the numerical error originally published in Mr. Buchanan’s online column which uses the phrase “110,000 million” (one-one-zero-comma-zero-zero-zero million) when the number that I believe was intended should have been written “110 million” (one-one-zero million). I’m talking about the presence of a comma and three additional zeros which make the number read (as it would be written on a check) “one hundred ten thousand million” which is 110 billion.

Perhaps if I write the numbers on top of each other you can see it more clearly:
110 million = the intended number
110,000 million = the literal text of numbers and letters as printed, first in Mr. Buchanan's column, then repeated in yours.

M. Simon said…
I copied the bits from the article directly from the link provided.
You can look it up.

The accuracy with which you quoted Mr. Buchanan was not questioned. I’m certain you copied the bits absolutely correctly because I DID look it up, and that’s why I began my comment by explicitly stating that “Mr. Buchanan's column is the original source for the error.”

M. Simon said…
Where did the 110 billion come from?

As stated in my original first sentence, the error comes from Mr. Buchanan’s column as originally published online, in which the number 110 million was literally written, not as “110 million” but as “110,000 million” which is exactly and precisely the way you very accurately repeated it in your column.

M. Simon said…
I am on Pat’s e-mail list and the article as sent also said 110 million.

I am not favored with the privilege of corresponding with Mr. Buchanan and I accept without question your statement of the contents of his e-mail to you. May I respectfully point out however that when you quoted Mr. Buchanan’s comments in your column, you did not cite your personal e-mail from him as being the source of those comments, instead the source citation you gave is a link to his online column, here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30966 When I noticed that glaring discrepancy in the number, I followed the link you provided and read Mr. Buchanan’s column online. That’s when I discovered that his online column is the “originator” of the bogus number, just as I said in my first sentence.

M. Simon said…
Now it is more than possible that some where out there the article was posted with a typo. So what does that prove?

My only sources for any of this information are your column as it is posted online, and Mr. Buchanan’s column as it is posted online. What other means should I have employed to compare what is published in your column with what is published in Mr. Buchanan’s column? What other source should I have checked? It only proves that simple mistakes can happen. And I was taught that simple mistakes should be simply corrected. Hence, I called to your attention that you repeated Mr. Buchanan's erroneous number.


M. Simon said…
BTW do you have something substantive to say about Pat's policy suggestion? Or is being a member in good standing of the grammar, spelling, and typo police the best you can do?

Well, perhaps I do have something substantive to say. I am not a member (“good standing” or otherwise), of the grammar, spelling and typo police, although I do thank you for the compliment. I am, however, a member in very good standing of the Regular Readers of “Power And Control”. So high a level of membership in that august group do I occupy that I read your column daily and frequently cite your information as an “authoritative” source. On many occasions I confidently and unhesitatingly provide to my friends a url link to your column when I believe that your digests can enlighten or inform those with whom I correspond.

But, perhaps my confidence in the authoritativeness of your column is misplaced. I regret that we do not agree that a comma and three zeroes can distort the value of a significant number. I regret we do not agree that multiplying a million by one thousand to make it a billion is a significant error that is worthy of note and correction. I regret we do not share a concern for the integrity of your column when someone else’s egregious error creeps in under your byline.

Since our concerns for accuracy are so divergent, I assure you I will cease immediately to occupy you with my observations. And I will cease to consume your internet bandwidth by no longer reading your column and no longer referring it to others. That’s all the “substantive comment” I have.

Yours very truly,
J.C. Pennylegion

M. Simon said...

Ah. I see your point.

Still. It is an awful lot of time to waste on a typo.

Whatever floats your boat.

USpace said...

.
There is nothing positive about the 'War on Drugs', absolutely nothing. It just makes all drug related problems worse. It only exists mainly to feed the Law Enforcement and Prison construction industries and Unions. Everything else is a total lie.
.
here's an absurd thought -
our Supreme God says
never use alcohol...

or any other drug
which may influence your mind

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
marijuana is evil

especially to stop pain
must use costly chemicals

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
disregard states' drug laws

the Federal Government
must protect the drug war

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never create more addicts

if it makes less criminals
and leads to less prisons

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
outlaw all alcohol

make cigarettes illegal
organized crime takes over
.
USpace
.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech there can be no real freedom.
.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
Visit: HaltTerrorism.com
.

:)
.