ext_209521 ([identity profile] kinvore.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2011-06-23 07:14 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Wow they actually did it

I never thought I'd see anyone put their name behind a bill like this anytime soon:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/ap_on_go_co/us_pot_bill

It's a proposal to decriminalize marijuana. While technically bipartisan (Ron Paul is a co-sponsor) there is virtually no chance of it passing a Republican-controlled House. It's not all the GOP's fault, though. Few Democrats will go on the record as being opposed to marijuana prohibition, including our President.

We shouldn't be sending people to jail for smoking a damned plant. Anyone who claims to want less government in our lives is a hypocrite if they oppose this bill.

I know, I know. Hypocrisy in politics, color us surprised.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] kinvore.livejournal.com 2011-06-24 03:24 am (UTC)(link)
Or maybe people shouldn't make claims to such absolutes if they believe in such varied nuances. That's why I have problems with some of these labels, pro-life, pro-choice, etc. It's about getting an emotional reaction. It may not be the same as a vegetarian eating meat but it's not far off either.

"The solution is less government" really means "the solution is less government for me, not necessarily for others." It's intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

[identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com 2011-06-24 03:31 am (UTC)(link)
Or maybe people shouldn't make claims to such absolutes if they believe in such varied nuances.

Maybe. And maybe one can a more effective and credible argument in favor of the decrimimalization of marijuana by avoiding demonstrably false assertions about other people's "hypocrisy."

[identity profile] kinvore.livejournal.com 2011-06-24 03:35 am (UTC)(link)
Not sure where you actually demonstrated falsehood but okies.

[identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com 2011-06-24 03:49 am (UTC)(link)
By 1) demonstrating that belief in a principle generally does not of necessity require adherence in every particular to the greatest conceivable extreme (compulsory public education being offered as one counter-example) and 2) pointing out that even if logical inconsistency could be argued, it would still not constitute "hypocrisy" -- which is something else entirely.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only