Well, you know me — I'm one of those libertarians who isn't a flaked-out hippie. I don't see social constraints on dysfunctional behavior as a bad thing. On the contrary, I see them as the very thing a libertarian society needs, lest government take over the constraints business. And if you've noticed, for the last fifty years, the more idiotic behavior becomes socially acceptable, the more government seems to be stepping in to regulate moral behavior of all kinds, with speech codes and affirmative action and the whole liberal ball of wax. To riff off John Derbyshire's quote above, if we have a lot of social constraints against, say, public intoxication, we'll still have pubic intoxication, but it'll be limited by those constraints to a bearable level. If everybody thinks it's cool, we'll have a lot more of it, whether it's legal or not, and we'll have a heap more public expenditures trying to prevent it, and a lot less of cops doing other, more necessary things. This is a libertarian argument that a lot of neo-hippie libertarians seem to have forgotten.
Before I hand you off to the Derb, one of the more idiotic arguments I've heard about why pot should be legal — and I've even heard it from the otherwise reasonable Ron Paul — is that minorities get punished for violating marijuana laws more than Whites. That's a piss-poor argument, because minorities violate more laws, against marijuana and everything else, practically, than Whites do, so of course they're going to get punished more. That argument would serve just as well to legalize assault, murder, and rape. Let's leave the "disparate impact" crap to the liberals, okay? Now, here's the Derb:
The talk is all of pot. Not “pot” the utensil, as in Confucius’s fine aphorism “A man is not a pot,” but cannabis sativa, AKA grass, tea, weed, bud, ganja, Mary Jane, bhang, wacky baccy. States are legalizing the stuff all over, although, since pot remains federally proscribed, there are some tricky matters of jurisdiction to be sorted out.
The president himself has declared his support for general legalization, although of course he put an anti-white spin on the issue: “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do. And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor….”
In fact, nobody gets locked up for smoking pot. You get locked up for dealing in it, especially in the street, and for being in possession of it, usually when the peelers go through your pockets after arresting you for something else. Blacks and Hispanics do far more street dealing than middle-class white kids and also commit much more general crime. The result, as mathematicians say, follows.
Or as Neil Munro observes in The Daily Caller:
[The 2013 ACLU report “The War on Marijuana in Black and White”] shows that some of the most disproportionate arrest rates occur in jurisdictions run by Democrats or African Americans, such as Washington D.C., New York, Maryland and Illinois, Baltimore and Prince George’s county in Maryland, as well as the cities of Memphis and Philadelphia.
The high ranking for jurisdictions where African Americans are politically influential or dominant suggests that the data merely shows that different behavior by different groups may yield different consequences, not that the nation’s laws are unfair or racist.
One of the best reasons to support legalization, in fact, for those of us at the fascist-hyena end of the opinion spectrum, is the prospect that we may never again have to listen to a Cultural Marxist tell us that the disproportionate jailing of NAMs for pot-related offenses proves that society is racist. The charge is easily refuted—see above—but it’s tiresome to have to keep repeating yourself. (Read the rest HERE.)