Holland today is probably the worst country in Europe, a sinkhole of social pathologies that would make Berkeley blush. And yet, at every step, the decisions the Dutch took to liberalize their formerly straitlaced Calvinist society seemed to make sense at the time, at least to some
Today, with crime rampant, social tensions brought on by enormous, apparently unassimilable migration from the Muslim world, and the collapse of its social cohesion and cultural self-confidence, the Netherlands is the Sick Man of Europe.
I originally wrote this story for the now-defunct Mirabella Magazine, to answer the editorial question: why are the Dutch so tolerant. “Tolerant” seemed like the right word at the time; today, nearly 18 years later, “suicidal” might be a better choice.
This is what I found.

The smoke is overpowering as I climb the steep stairs and enter the tiny second-floor room at a neighborhood joint called “Balou.” A group of young men are sitting at a handful of tables, talking, listening to loud rock music, looking out the window at the street below or watching a Detroit Pistons – Cleveland Cavaliers basketball game on the television perched mutely in the corner, each puffing away contentedly. The 25-year-old owner, Jerry, is standing behind the bar and gabbing affably to some of the regulars, displaying upon request a menu of the evening’s offerings. This might be anywhere, in any bar USA. Except it’s not.
Jerry shows me the menu. Compared with competing locals like “The Grasshopper” and “The Bull Dog,” it’s rather small. This is what it says:
Hashish
_____________________________
Moroccan — 6.50
7.50
Ketema –12.50
Grass
______________________________
Sensimillia — 12.50
Skunk — 13.50
I am in a typical Amsterdam “coffeeshop,” where the coffee is sold downstairs, but the real action takes you one floor higher. You pays your money — in Dutch guilders — and you takes your choice: with an expert hand, Jerry measures out precise quantities of the drug of choice into a small scale, right in front of the customer, then bags it. (A gram of powerful “skunk” marijuana would cost about $8.) Whether tobacco or grass, many Dutchmen prefer to roll their own, but fumble-fingered Americans unskilled with cigarette paper can buy Jerry’s ready-made joints for five guilders (about $3) apiece. Just apply a lighted match to the joint’s tip and, voila! It’s the sixties all over again. And all perfectly legal (well, decriminalized, at least) to boot.
Under an informal agreement between police and drug-sellers, shops like Jerry’s are supposed to have no more than 30 grams of marijuana or hash on hand, but no one pays much attention to that. What is strictly enforced, however, is the ban on hard drugs like cocaine; the night before, in a citywide sweep, police raided and closed 18 coffeeshops (out of an estimated 350) where hard drugs and weapons had been found. Jerry rejects any notion that the ultra-mellow, laid-back coffeeshops contribute to street violence: “When you come in here you are safe, and it’s my responsibility to keep it that way. What happens to you once you go out into the street is the responsibility of the police or the government.”
Welcome to the Netherlands, the original laissez-faire capitalist society where doing well by doing good and winking at venial sins has kept the country healthy, wealthy and relatively wise since the 16th century. When the Huguenots fled France, it was the Dutch who took them in and turned a profit by outfitting them for their long sea journey to South Africa. When the Jews were made unwelcome in Spain and Portugal, they found a refuge in the Lowlands, setting up thriving diamond-cutting business in Rotterdam and in Belgium. Although their record of resistance to Hitler was not as exemplary as, say, that of the Danes, the Dutch quickly regained their place as Europe’s most open, broad-minded society, where the principle of live and let live has been raised to a fine art. Indeed, Article One of the Dutch constitution forbids discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or anything else. Where else would you find unions that represent both heroin-addicted junkies and prostitutes?

By any measure, Dutch society has long been among the most liberal and tolerant in the world. Soft drugs a problem? Then stop the harrassment of pot smokers and concentrate on blocking the influx of hard drugs instead. Prostitution flourishing? Legalize it. Want to block the spread of AIDS and venereal diseases? Put condom vending machines in the high schools and hand out needles and methadone to IV drug users. Unwanted pregnancies unacceptable? Make the Pill free. Want to terminate your pregnancy? State-sponsored insurance will pay for an abortion up to the 20th week.
There’s more. Are you sexually dysfunctional? Insurance will pay for visits to a surrogate, as long as you have a doctor’s prescription. Don’t like the equipment you were born with? Then get the government, after proper psychological evaluation, to pay for your sex-change operation. Resistant to turning over your life’s savings to a doctor so he can keep you alive for a last few miserable years? Make euthanasia possible, under strict but merciful controls. Bored on a business trip? Check into a hotel room and find hard-core porno movies on the pay-TV, or check out the signs for escort agencies with names like “Call Girls” that hang from every streetlamp.
The “family values” crowd in the United States would have a heart attack here.
The Dutch don’t care.
“People always say we Dutch are tolerant,” observes Annemarie Grewel, one of the 45 members of the Amsterdam city council and a prominent leader of the Dutch Labor Party. The truth is we’re simply not interested, and that makes us tolerant.”

Grewel, 57, and a former professor of educational psychology and chairman of the University of Amsterdam, has been active on drug-related issues and is considered the leading Dutch expert on the subject. “We tolerate soft drugs for personal use, as well as the sale of a little bit of soft drugs. But we feel it is very important to draw the line at hard drugs; as soon as hard drugs appear you get concentrations of criminals. So we tolerate, but we have not legalized. With the advent of the European Community, it would be very difficult to legalize marijuana and hashish.”
The biggest problem is with Germany. Dutch towns along the German border are frequented by “drug tourists,” mostly German, who are given stiff prison sentences if they are caught with grass when they return home. The Dutch, however, have successfully lobbied the Germans to show some leniency, and have told the EC that they will not accept any interference with current Dutch soft-drug policy.
It is impossible to win a war against drugs without setting any priorities,” said Amsterdam mayor Eduard van Thijn a few years ago. “We have a pragmatic policy. On the one hand, we reject legalization of hard drugs very strongly, because that is surrender. But we also reject a policy of total war, which is overkill.
The Dutch take a similar see-no-evil approach to euthanasia. Passive mercy-killing — the removal of life-support systems to allow for natural death — has long been acceptable. But over the past two decades, active medical euthanasia has become informally allowed under certain conditions: a mentally competent patient must request it; a doctor must confirm that he or she is suffering from terminal illness; a second medical opinion must concur; and the death must be reported to the authorities. The Royal Dutch Pharmacists’ Association has even drawn up a list of the most efficient drugs in order to guide doctors; one preferred method is a shot of barbiturates followed by a second injection of curare. A 1987 movement to legalize the practice fell short of approval, but the Dutch seem content to keep euthanasia, like soft drugs and pornography, in a legal gray area.
If I could sum up the difference,” says Maria Schopman, “it is that the Dutch are pragmatic in their approach to social problems, and the Americans are antagonistic.

Schopman, the director of one of Holland’s leading sex-therapy clinics and for the past seven years the co-host of a Sunday afternoon radio call-in show, Radio Romantica, is sometimes referred to as the Dutch Dr. Ruth.
For example, in Holland it is traditional to leave your shutters open at night and the curtains undrawn. Anyone can look in and see what you are doing, but to us it signifies that we have nothing to hide. And this symbolizes the Dutch attitude toward things like sex and drugs; we don’t hide the problems, we look at them.
Sipping her tea in an Amsterdam private club, Schopman could be in appearance Gertrude Stein’s first cousin, but with a bright twinkle in her eyes; there’s a there there. Like almost everyone in the Netherlands, she speaks nearly perfect English, and on the rare occasions when she fishes for a word, her friend Judith Weingarten, an American-born archaeologist, supplies it for her. She is, in her reserved yet warm way, the archetypal Hollander.
“Our figures shows that 25 percent of the Dutch are dissatisfied with their sex lives, that they’ve become dull, unimaginative and predictable,” says Schopman who, along with co-host Alfred Lagarde, did one weekly broadcast from a bordello. Her quarter-million listeners (the population of the Netherlands is about 14 million) are feel free to discuss nearly every aspect of human sexual response, including male and female homosexuality and sado-masochism; “about the only thing we haven’t discussed on the air yet is necrophilia,” she says, only half-jokingly.
At her Amsterdam clinic, the services offered include birth-control related issues such as prevention and abortion; voluntary sterilization; artificial insemination; and sex therapy. American advocates of unlimited abortion on demand, however, may be surprised to learn that Dutch abortion law more closely resembles Pennsylvania’s: a woman seeking an abortion in the sixth to 18th week of her pregnancy must undergo a five-day waiting period to make sure she really wants to go through with it. (After 18 weeks, procedures are decided on a case-by-case basis.) “From a professional point of view,” says Schopman, who is not an M.D., “I think that the waiting period is a bad idea. By the time a woman comes to our clinic, she’s already made up her mind. But it’s the law.”
It is perhaps indicative of how the Dutch handle their personal freedom that both the abortion and AIDS rates remains low in a country where the age of sexual consent, whether hetero or homo, is 16 — for a time, the Dutch debated lowering it to twelve — and where more than half the women between the ages of 15 and 48 are on the Pill. (Since 1987 it also has been possible for wives to sue their husbands for rape within marriage.) When AIDS first struck, Dutch doctors went into gay bars to hand out information on preventing the deadly disease, and across the country, identity-protected AIDS tests are given for free.
A good example of Dutch pragmatism at work is the current movement to legalize the brothels, which range from cheap cat-houses to elegant, gilded palaces of sin. While Amsterdam’s notorious Red Light District, where the girls set up shop in individual windows from which to entice passers-by with their product lines, has long enjoyed de facto legal protection (much like its sister act along the Reeperbahn in Hamburg), bordellos were technically forbidden on the grounds that the women who worked in them could be exploited. Councilwoman Grewel is voting for legalization — which will allow the government both to regulate the industry and to tax it — but is determined to protect the poor, often drug-addicted streetwalkers as well. “I don’t like them,” says Grewel, speaking of the brothels, “but they exist. They’re a reality.”

Just how real can be gleaned on a visit to Yab Yum, the most luxurious and famous of Amsterdam’s bordellos. Located on one of the inner canals at Singel 295, the five-storied, turtle-doved-logoed, Asian-art-decorated whorehouse — fittingly, built in 1680 as a merchant’s mattress warehouse — is an Amsterdam landmark, an opulent, expensive sexual fantasy whose appeal is less sexual than sybaritic. A 150 guilder (about $88) entrance fee, which also covers the client’s drinks at the bar, discourages casual callers, as does the obligatory 350-550 guilder house champagne charge (of which the girls get about half) and the 400 guilder an hour ($240) charge for sexual services.
No one is more in favor of the legalization of the bordellos that Yab Yum’s proprietor, Theo Hueft, a former cosmetics salesman. “You ask for criminals if you put prostitution under a blanket,” says Hueft, echoing the traditional Dutch rationale. “If it’s legal, you can better control the whole process. It’s better for us, better for the government. Twenty years ago, a place like Yab Yum” — the name comes from the Kama Sutra — “was absolutely illegal. Today, Amsterdam without a club like Yab Yum is unthinkable.”
Hueft, 58 and a fixture on Dutch TV talk shows, has long been active in improving the image of Amsterdam’s brothels. Each of his 60 girls — on any given night, 25 are on duty to service 30 to 35 clients — is medically checked once a week and, with the advent of AIDS, condoms are strictly required for all customers; each one of the eleven rooms at Yab Yum is furnished in Chinese antiques and comes equipped with its own Jacuzzi whirlpool bath, which is also an compulsory part of the foreplay. Except for a short Christmas break, the club is open all year from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m., seven days a week. “We have no real competition,” says the bespectacled Hueft, professorily attired in a dark business suit, polka dot tie. “When you go out to eat, you can have a hamburger or you can go the finest restaurant in town. That is the difference between us and the other houses in Amsterdam.”
The women who apply to work at Yab Yum, most of whom have never before been prostitutes — an international collection of university students, secretaries and housewives — are screened by Hueft’s Swiss girlfriend, Monica, to whom they apply. They must be at least 18 years old, and the determining factor is less their physical beauty (taken for granted) than their language skills (about half of them are Dutch, and nearly all speak English), their ability to carry on a conversation and their general comportment; Miss Congeniality does well here.

If the Netherlands seems the land of enlightenment to long-suffering American liberals, it has not become so without paying a price. Even today, American visitors who arrive in Holland expecting the neat, orderly Dutch landscapes of Cuyp and van Ruisdael are in for a disappointment; the area around the city’s Centraal Station is notorious for its drug addicts and cheap prostitutes, and dirt and graffiti adorn many public streets and buildings. In fact, for a time conditions got to be too much even for the Dutch, who realized their hard-won social freedoms were being threatened; in 1988, under van Thijn, the Dutch started to clean up their act and today Amsterdam is notably more salubrious, if not as squeaky-clean as the German cities across the Rhine.
Further, it would be wrong to think that Amsterdam is Holland, just as New York City is not the United States. Parts of the Netherlands remain almost preternaturally neat, and are as politically conservative as anything in the American heartland. The Protestant farming village of Staphorst, 80 miles northeast of Amsterdam is synonymous with Dutch reactionary conservatism, representing the views of about 300,000 members of the Dutch Reformed Church scattered across the country; this “Staphorst factor” rejects most of the Dutch welfare-state trappings and consistently polls about five percent of the vote in national elections.
But it is not just the Dutch equivalent of the Amish who are starting to react against some of the social extremes. Martha Hawley, an American expatriate who works at Radio Netherlands and whose 14-year-old daughter was born in Holland, is beginning to have second thoughts. Hardly a Pat Robertson type, the unmarried Hawley is nevertheless concerned — concerned about her personal safety in Amsterdam and concerned about the effects of Dutch license on her teenager. “By the time kids reach puberty here,” she says as we stroll to a restaurant on the fringes of the Red Light District, “they’ve seen everything.”
It’s true. Walk into, or even past, any Amsterdam pornography shop and you will see, openly displayed, images of almost every conceivable sexual situation and perversion, including water sports and animal acts (but no child pornography, which lies beyond the pale even here). Despite the government’s ban on hard drugs, dealers walk the streets, chanting their list of wares, New York City-style: cocaine, ecstasy, cocaine, ecstasy. If the atmosphere is not as threatening as, say, the South Bronx, it is inimical enough to keep even an experienced journalist like Hawley out of the area.
Later that night, boarding a tram at the Centraal Station, I am accosted by a fellow passenger holding a bouquet of Christmas-tree cuttings and humming to himself. He seems friendly enough, but there is something unusual about him.
“A girl gave me these at the station,” he says in a British working-class accent, although he is clearly Dutch. “I told her I just got out of jail today.”
I remark on the quality of the arrangement, but he is intent on telling me his story. “I was in jail for 16 years. I sure hope I still have a place to live. I’ve got the key, but who knows what I’ll find when I get home.” He laughs loudly, bringing stares from the other passengers.
“I shot a policeman,” he explains without being asked. “I shot him in the head.” Again, the laugh and a shake of the head, as if he can’t quite believe it himself.
As I step to the door to get off at my stop, he calls out to me: “Good luck mister, and be careful on the streets. The crime has really gone up around here.”
As I make my way back to my hotel, I think of something Martha Hawley had told me, a famous Dutch aphorism that every first-year student of the language learns, and which admirably sums up the whole social ethos here: Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg.
Which, translated, means: “Just be normal, that’s crazy enough.” It seems an apt, pragmatic symbol.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
241 Comments
Michael,
You wrote an excellent article, and nailed it. I have traveled to Amsterdam, and seen the elephant. Doing what every red blooded American male needs to do wearing a cowboy hat, clean jeans and carrying a camera,no trip abroad would not becomplete with out a tour of the red light district. The phenomenon you described in the article was not limited to Amsterdam either. Copenhagen had a similar version, albeit a bit toned down.
I was never so glad to get back to Texas, where things were more normal, safe, and sane.
"Which, translated, means: “Just be normal, that’s crazy enough.” It seems an apt, pragmatic symbol."
I remember telling myself at the time, that the liberalism affecting them then, would make its way here. It has.
The way the libs are destroying this country – I say go for it here – at least people can tune their shrill rhetoric out and get some lovin and a good buzz – hopefully long enough to wake up from the nightmare that Barry & his band of socialist mo-rons are putting us through now. No wonder booze sales are doing so well.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: via @BigJournalism Sex, Drugs and Cultural Euthanasia: Amsterdam, 1992 http://bit.ly/cflQ50 #tcot…
Is this where libertarianism leads? Because if it does, I want no part of it.
"but to us it signifies that we have nothing to hide."
When I was there, they had rear-view mirrors just outside the houses so you could see who was coming and going. Yup. Now that's open, at least for spying on the passers by.
I should also mention that Amsterdam was the first place where I had to protect a young lady (an American) from street thugs. I didn't have to do this in Italy or Denmark or Greece. But in Holland? Yes I did.
Couldn't we just send Hillary, Bill, Obama and his wife, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all the card carrying members of the ACLU, Robert Gibbs and the entire Obama administrative staff , and most of the members of the Supreme Court over to Amersterdam, ONE WAY, first class, with some money to set up their lives? It would cost SO much less than what they are trying to do here as they try to bring Amersterdam liberalism and cram it down our throats.
This article makes it all sound like a bad thing.
This is on point about Amsterdam. I made my first trip to Amsterdam during Thanksgiving in the late '90s. Big Mistake. It was Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam, which I was unaware of. I knew about the soft drugs laws but didn't give it a thought as to why my flight over was full of hippies, '60's rejects and the like. Not being a marijuana smoker I ignored it. Even when the check points into Schipol were pulling people deemed questiomable, i.e. the hippies, etc… over and denying some of them entry. Once in Amsterdam I became concerned about my safety. As I walked around Dam Square, I was constantly accosted by Moroccan or Turks whispering "do you want any cocaine? heroin?" I ignored them. At night the streets had prostitutes advertising their trade everywhere one turned. Plus every Dutch I talked to thought San Fran was the city they would most want to visit in the US. Thinking it was just my being a first time tourist, I went back a couple of years later and it was worse. I have not, nor nor do I plan, to go back.
Pretty soon there will be no crime in Holland..
When isomething gets out of control, they simplly leagilize it, or overlook it.
Then justify their lenient attitude with, "people will just do it anyway", plus we can tax it.
That makes it OK…A Gov'ment Seal of Approval on anything out of control, topped off with the obligatory EU tax…
You can have my weed when you come get my guns.
there is a way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof is the way of death
The Dutch will be gone in a few generations, driven into burqas by their soon to be Muslim overlords demographically. It couldn't happen to a more pathetic specimen of what's left of western culture in Europe – pathetic sniveling self-loathing lefty toadies that they are.
The Geert Wilders' trial with the Dutch nuking of the most important western political concept, free speech, pretty much sums up their degradation.
Tolerance of intolerance isn't a virture and in the Dutch case it's cultural suicide. They won't be missed.
I too, an intrepid Texan – have wandered around Amsterdam slightly agog at the antics of the "natives" , whom are generally more "international" looking than local.
I passed by a "coffee shop" with a Jamacian theme, and low and behold some very "Jamacian" looking black guys with dreads and the whole Rastifarian look were imbibing on herbal delights. This place was at street level and not being discreet in anyway.
Interesting, if it hadn't been near daylight but midnight and very cool, I would have thought I was in Jamaica.
Now, I'm no prude but man, the whole place "reeks" (pardon the pun) of an under lying criminality. I was only there for a few days on my tour around that part of Europe but dang, I went to museums by day and stayed out of sight both nights after about 11:00 pm or so. No drug/sex "tourism" for me!
Hysterical. I bet everyone on here keeps shouting "small government." I concept I agree with completely.
Yet, you want the government to tell you what you can put into your body. And if you don't agree, put you in jail.
More hypocrisy. Time to move on…
[...] more from the original source: » Sex, Drugs and Cultural Euthanasia: Amsterdam, 1992 – Big Journalism Share [...]
First job I took when I got my undergraduate degree was as a roadie for a rock act that toured Europe. We spent a lot of time in Amsterdam. And hey, we were musicians, so we spent a lot of time in the coffee houses, but not drinking coffee. I have to admit, that even the uber-libertarin that I am found the openness of the prostitution jarring – seems to me most societal laws ought to be designed to protect the innocence of children – but the hash houses were GREAT.
Succinctly put, the Dutch on their present course are doomed culturally.
[...] from: » Sex, Drugs and Cultural Euthanasia: Amsterdam, 1992 – Big Journalism Post a [...]
The one merit of legalizing marijuana would be depriving the criminal gangs of what is thought to be ~50% of their profits.
Two merits to legalizing prostitution:
The "ladies" would be safer.
More people would understand their elected officials.
Uh, okay, legalizing (not decriminalizing) weed may be an alright idea if done right, but I am joking about the ho's… 'case anyone was wonderin'… And NO, I don't use ANY drugs, just beer…
Ironic that theft and petty crime is a major problem in Amsterdam. An example is that most people use TWO locks on their bicycle. If you leave it unlocked it WILL be stolen, often within a few minutes. Why do these uber-"tolerant" European states have these problems ? Doesn't leftist theory declare that the welfare state will end crime (by ending poverty)?
That blonde in the "showcase" window looked like your type, Jb
[...] ik het goed begrijp is dit artikel geschreven in 1992 door de Amerikaan Michael Walsh en is de introductie van nu. We krijgen er flink van langs in dit stuk. Of juist niet? JdeW komt er [...]
GF
Here on the Plains of L.A. where pot is ostenstively legal, with 800 outlets, just bring your prescription !, you can buy it for $300-$400 an oz..plus tax……
Of course, most buy a gram for approx $30.00 plus tax…… do the math*, just cause it's legal does not mean the price is down…Kind of surprising….
*28 G= oz
hee hee…after enough fine German beer it wouldn't matter! …add in a Svedka shots and I might break out the window and "climb in".
This article is nonsense. The sick man of Europe claim is blatantly false.
Rampant crime? Really? Let's try the murder rate: countries in Europe with higher murder rates include France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Portugal, Finland, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. Only Norway, Ireland and Switzerland do better than the Netherlands.
How about rape? Here the claim is a little better but still wrong. Rates are higher in the UK, Spain, France, Norway and Finland.
Freedom of Speech: We tend to forget that the US is the ONLY country in the world that has an absolute protection of speech in its constitution. It isn't always observed, but in practice the US is far, far freer than any country in Europe where "hate speech" laws have stripped most European citizens of the ability to speak freely.
The Dutch have come under fire lately (and rightfully so) for their utterly craven behavior involving the murderer of Theo Van Gogh and their refusal to provide protection for Ayaan Hirsi Ali but on the whole their actions are no worse than any other European country.
Red light districts are nothing new in Europe, Germany has had them for years. They may not be centers of cultural excellence but the rape rate in the Netherlands is 1/3 of that in the US and 1/7 of that in Canada (yes, our brothers to the North are far more violent with women than Americans are, something that is rarely mentioned). I think it is safe to say that open prostitution has not made the Netherlands into some kind of violent porno land.
I don't particularly like the Dutch culture, nor any other Old Europe culture. They are doomed, not because of drugs and hookers, but because the welfare states have drained whatever initiative the Dutch still had that wasn't already destroyed by centuries of despotism.
However, stupid and obviously false arguments about Europe have to be challenged especially when they are used to justify government policies in the US.
I smoked a boatload of cannabis in my day, and quit twenty years ago. I had no legal issues, no health problems — I just decided to quit, and I did.____Even though it's not for me (any longer), I wonder if our federal, state or local governments actually have a valid constitutional right to criminalize pot-smoking among adult citizens.
An old girlfriend of mine was a long time member of Willie Nelson's entourage. She had pictures of a stop in Amsterdam…let's just say they indulged mightily.
I went to a show Willie played in Austin (actually just outside of Austin) and after the show we spent some time afrter the show in the second tour bus, not Willie's and whew, those boys know how to party, holy guacamole`.
Stiffy
Where did you say you lived??
The Dutch legalizing (or legal protection) of nearly all forms of sex and most drugs, with brothels that employ housewives and secretaries, coffee houses that sell hash, and TV shows where sex is debated like a serious subject, all of this accompanied by government regulation and involvement in these aspects of life … rather than being titillating, it all sounds rather boring and tired. I can imagine that some tourists would get sick of this pretty quickly and rush headlong over to Germany and France where what is still forbidden and illegal is probably much more exciting.
HiPD
Good to see the familiar avatar is back.
My point is not price, but profitability. If American farmers are allowed to openly cultivate (and yeah, I know, a lot of other people too) and sell the crap, it would massively undercut the profitability of the drug gangs. Plus, much as it pains me, it could be regulated and taxed. Penalties could still exist for any number of "offenses" related to cultivation, distribution and consumption. Add in real immigration/border control, along with more serious enforcement against hard drugs and we might make a dent after all.
Another benefit would be to threaten deadbeat hippies with a special tax increase for their "sin". But only to help "the children". Might make 'em think twice about taxation (assuming they CAN think). And who could oppose that?
Special exemption for Spliff Menendez though…
$300-$400 an oz..plus tax..
Geez remember when a Lid was 10 bucks. Did I say that LOL. Yes back in the day I had some fun. But then I grew up. But $400;00 an Oz damn…..
Even though it's not for me (any longer), I wonder if our federal, state or local governments actually have a valid constitutional right to criminalize pot-smoking among adult citizens.
What has the Constitution have to do with it. The current people in power don't even think it exists. Just saying….Sad
Never mind guys I won't post anymore. Obviously i must have done something wrong. I guess the first amendment does not exist here either Bye….
GF
I have it on good authority that the pot outlets here grow some 6-10 lbs a year themselves and parcel it out to the "sick" for the above stated gram price..
.Beats real work when you can make $50-100K clean before you have to invest in more "Product"…It's a good racket without the violence…Just pay the sales tax..
.I'm sure they'll all do that esp "for the children"…
After about 11:00 pm or so the TV cable channels are down right almost XXX rated. They sell commercials for phone sex stuff and what not, it's all in Dutch (or German). After a while I guess it makes it all as seem routine and "normal"
How do the Islamists influence Holland since your report?
I can vouch for Italy as well. Suffering from jet lag and reverse sleep scheduling, I found myself walking through Venice and Florence at about 2 am when I was in Italy. It was awesome and I was never bothered by anyone.
It might sound surprising, but Holland and Greece are odd twins with similar destinies, and their decadence shows how destructive socialism is. While the last few centuries' history of the two nations is very different (Holland, a prosperous and enterprising sea kingdom with solid democratic sinews, and Greece a backward, somnolent, sometimes violent Turkish province), both have entered in the second half of the XX century under the protective umbrella of the US, situation which has removed from their daily concerns the conservation instinct, and has unleashed the sense of entitlement and lack of responsibility.
Holland – laid back, take it easy, tommorrow is another day, why're so uptight, the City Hall will handle this, it's vacation time, tommorrow will be another fine day, you Americans don't know how to live your lives, take things so seriously –
Greece – more tense, yet everything that I said about Holland applies to them, too –
It's over baby – someone's got to pick up the tab -
Their open-mindedness and tolerance has been slipping in favor of political correctness as of late. Their prosecution of Geert Wilders is a travesty of justice and a threat to freedom of speech. And recently, they outlawed smoking tobacco products in bars and restaurants. I guess you can smoke weed and hash, but not tobacco in these "coffee houses". Couple that with the growing Muslim influence/threat, and you have bizarro-land.
And I imagine there are no thugs in Italy, Norway, Greece or Ireland? Come now, I am sure that criminals come in all nationalities (even American).
I hopped on his old bus, the Honey Suckle Rose
The party was Vegas it was after the show.
Alone in the front lounge with just me and him,
With one parting puff grim creeper set in.
I'll never smoke weed with Willie again
My parties all over before it begins
You can pour me some old whiskey river my friend
But I'll never smoke weed with Willie again
Now we're passing the guitar and telling good jokes
I know ones a-comin' cause I'm smelling smoke
No I do not partake, I just let it pass by
With a smile on my face and a great contact high
I'll never smoke weed with Willie again
My parties all over before it begins
You can pour me some old whiskey river my friend
But I'll never smoke weed with Willie again
In the fetal position with drool on my chin
I messed up and smoked weed with Willie again
LOL
Galtfan, on this point I tend to differ sharply from many of my conservative friends. A look at at the history of the Drug War shows, it is a waste of time, lives, and treasure. Other countries who legalize drugs avoid much of the down side.
I don't need a nanny sate mentality period…
Michael,
It would be interesting to do a Redux on Amsterdam as it is now. From what I'm told, the rising influx of Islamists is in the process of replacing the Dutch Laissez Faire with Sharia. Gay bars are being conveted to mosques, and the pimps are all Muslim.
No GACE, they only got half the equation right-the legalization of drugs and prositution part. Libertarian philosophy is that the govt should not subsidize their screw ups. Amsterdam is just a childish liberal "I wanna do whatever I want and not have to worry about any consequences" utopia that subsidizes stupidty and pnishes common sense.
wldbil,
This is one reason I went from Conservative to Objectivist. Objectivist is pretty black-and-white, and actually is fairly similar to what most "conservatives" I know believe anyway (anecdotal).
I believe in God, but have no use for religion. You do what you want, don't impose on me, and I will respect/tolerate your beliefs. (Freedom of conscience, 1st amendment).
I own far too few guns, but I am working on it. Who the hell has any right to tell me whether I can own some inanimate object or not? Guns are neutral, it is the user and application that defines their morality. (somewhere else in the Constitution, I think…).
The right to privacy is just that, a right. If I am not infringing on the rights of others, if I am am not causing harm to anybody but myself, if what I am doing is within the realm of my own being, bugger off pest! MY business! Alcohol, tobacco, trans-fats, salt… NOT DUI/DWI or any other public endangerment… AND, since I am self-reliant/responsible for my own well being, there is NO need for the government to worry what my impact on the budget will be… I don't expect any stranger to be responsible for my well being. I don't accept being imposed upon. Charity and coerced obligation are a world apart…
"Liberals", Leftists, Commies, Religious Right wing-nuts can all go to hell. In our poor economy, and with my gross under-employment I am CERTAIN I qualify for more than one form of "government" aid/welfare. I refuse. I know that that money comes from the pocket of another productive citizen, or from the future earnings of a child I may know. It's MY problem and I will solve it or suffer the consequences. I will not put my hand out. If I get desperate I will lean on family. Those who can't can turn to charity. How much better off would private charity be if we were taxed far less?
Jesus Christ had it just about right:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
He just needed to be more explicit in the "leave me the hell alone" aspect of it.
Wilson and both Roosevelt's were Progressives. Teddy did some major land grabs out West and set a precedent that haunts us to this day. I won't insult you by reviewing the record of the other one…
Rambling rant over, thank you for your time…
Yep, and there are places in America that most of these "delights" can be had now.
Why am I always moderated on this site but none of the other "Big" sites?
well, looks like I'm not gonna be around at Bigjournalism.com any more, haven't had a post go through in days so I must be banned
Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St Paul
Give me Christ
or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby:
it is murder.
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant.
~~ Leonard Cohen (The Future)
'Is this where libertarianism leads?'
Let's see:
1) condom vending machines in high schools? NO. Libertarians oppose taxpayer-financed schools. One of the reasons why is because it's a lot harder to enforce moral standards in a public institution.
2) taxpayer-financed: abortions, contraceptive devices, sex-change operations and euthanasia? NO. Libertarians oppose socialized medicine in all forms. We support your right to purchase these services or products, but you have to find a way to pay for them yourself.
3) legalized prostitution: YES. At least with legalized prostitution people are checked for diseases. Also, it's a lot more difficult to exploit someone engaging in a legal activity. Not many people want to admit to a crime, even if they're in danger because of their participation in the crime.
[...] » Sex, Drugs and Cultural Euthanasia: Amsterdam, 1992 – Big Journalism [...]
Point 3 is the real issue, and depending on your interpretation of libertarianism, you're simply wrong. The fact that something is legal doesn't mean those engaging in it will be 'checked for diseases' or that it will be 'more difficult to exploit someone'. That assumes some regulatory authority, which is abolished with pure libertarianism. In a completely free and unregulated system there will most definitely be a race to the bottom.
Again, this is why I am not a libertarian. In its pure form it fatally ignores externalities. This isn't too surprising given that most of libertarianism's biggest fans are frightfully ignorant of economic theory (one of the reasons libertarianism irritates me is that this is the same flaw that blights progressivism: adherence to an impractical idea).
You need some external regulatory authority. This makes Government is a necessity. It should be as small as possible, but it will need to have some control, And, as it is the product of the individuals in a society, it will reflect that society's majority moral code. The acceptance of that is the definition of Conservatism, as I know it.
It should come as no surprise that the Dutch are being consumed by Islam. Cultural impotence invites conversion, be it forced or voluntary.
The way the libs are destroying this country – I say go for it here – at least people can tune their shrill rhetoric out and get some lovin and a good buzz – hopefully long enough to wake up from the nightmare that Barry & his band of socialist mo-rons are putting us through now.
Is death in nursing hone good choice?
Hollan is a beautiful country, i especially like the architecture in Amsterdam. Tolerance is one of the countries virtues. They let their citizens choose how to live their lives and this is Freedom! If you don't like it dont visit.
According to WIki, Yab Yum is no longer in business. It seems it was owned by either the mafia or Hells Angels, depending on whom you wish be believe. Note the article refers to its "proprietor" not its owner. This, plus Sharia law is where Dutch tolerance leads.
don't ya just love people who moralize how others live their lives then claim to be lovers of freedom, they get on my damn nerves
In my opinion alcohol is a hard drug compared to the soft drug, as they call it in Amsterdam, weed. Radio host Dr. Dean Adel considers Alcohol a more harmful drug than heroin.
Pretty much scares the hell out of you…..doesn't it. Wonder if this is a blueprint for America……….
Save the airfare. Visit a rehab facility…….
When Government highly regulated your vices this is called Serfdom, not Freedom.
Personally speaking I find flaccid dicks addicted to porn and pot to be an intolerable experince because all they ever do is sweat like pigs as they hump like jellied porkers.
Common in many countries, they're for safety- both for drivers and pedestrians- for cming around blind corners or out of driveways. C'mon, there's enough substantive areas for discussion here without total ignorance getting in the way.
Libertarians don't believe in PAYING for your sins, vices, or perversions, and fully believe in you suffering the consequences of them.
It's only freedom if it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others, otherwise it's just a perverse sort of anarchy.
Last thing I heard, this Muslim thing is not going well at all. The Dutch are very tolerant, the Muslims, well they kill the dutch critics they don't like (VanGogh). Then there is the Geert Wilders affair, where he really takes Islam to task for its Koranic scriptural sanctioning of violence. It seems that Dutch tolerance has finally met its outer limits. Because of this, there has a definite shift in the Dutch politic. Ironically, Mr. Wilders is speaking against what he bevlieves to be a very real threat Islamic threat, while Paris burns with Ismlac rage, while most other European leaders dare not speak at all concerning this volitile subject. Mr. Wilders is the only one who has the courage to speak out.
One need not travel to China to find indigenous cultures lacking human rights. America leads the world in percentile behind bars, thanks to the ongoing open season on hippies, commies, and non-whites in the war on drugs. Cops get good performance reviews for shooting fish in a barrel. If we’re all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance global credibility.
The drug czar’s Rx for prison fodder costs dearly, as lives are flushed down expensive tubes. My shaman’s second opinion is that psychoactive plants are God’s gift. Behold, it’s all good. When Eve ate the apple, she knew a good apple, and an evil prohibition. Canadian Marc Emery is being extradited to prison for helping American farmers reduce U. S. demand for Mexican pot.
The CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) reincarnates Al Capone, endangers homeland security, and throws good money after bad. Fiscal policy burns tax dollars to root out the number-one cash crop in the land, instead of taxing sales. Society rejected the plague of prohibition, but it mutated. Apparently, SWAT teams don’t need no stinking amendment.
Nixon passed the CSA on the false assurance that the Schafer Commission would later justify criminalizing his enemies, but he underestimated Schafer’s integrity. No amendments can assure due process under an anti-science law without due process itself. Psychology hailed the breakthrough potential of LSD, until the CSA shut down research, and pronounced that marijuana has no medical use. Former U.K. chief drugs advisor Prof. Nutt was sacked for revealing that non-smoked cannabis intake is scientifically healthy.
The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. Americans shouldn’t need a specific church membership or an act of Congress to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. God’s children’s free exercise of religious liberty may include entheogen sacraments to mediate communion with their maker.
Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate any governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? The Mayflower sailed to escape coerced conformity. Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.
Common-law holds that adults are the legal owners of their own bodies. The Founding Fathers undersigned that the right to the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. Socrates said to know your self. Mortal lawmakers should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Persons who appreciate their own free choice of path in life should tolerate seekers’ self-exploration. Liberty is prerequisite for tracking drug-use intentions and outcomes.
Freedom is just another word for nothing else to lose (credit Janis Joplin) Society sets norms condusive to social order. When a society abandons all sense of restriction, anarchy prevails. Nature abhors a void. The net result for the abandonment in Holland is a influx of Islamists(seperate from Muslim) who see what they percieve as pure evil and therefor justifiably to be destroyed. Hence, when the uber-liberal artists depict their Prophet Mohammed as an insame bomber or a dog, they feel it is their personal duty to kill the infidel. And what is the societal response to such threats, debate sex, smoke cannabis, pot and just tune out. Well, the Dutch have nothing else to lose, so I guess they are free. Sad.
Bingo. But I just wanted to float the question and stir the hornets nest.
As I see it, libertarianism in its purest form, leads to anarchy. And anarchy leads to tyranny.
From what I have seen from many who espouse libertarianism is that they are really the same as liberals/progressives, except for their economic theory.
At the root, as you said, our government will be a reflection of the people. And right now, looking in the mirror isn't too pretty.
Do you really want me making your pathetic monkey life a living hell around here? I have the time to dog you to till you unplug your junk pile and toss that 1999 computer out the window.
You really want me exposing your ignorance? The asshole Rasta's were STONED OUTTA of there minds. They looked like skinny f-ed up morons like you.
Get the truck fired and get to scouring the dump.
Not for nothing, but… that chick is HOT.
When's the last time you were in Amsterdam moron? Paroled felons can't travel out of the county. TravelChannel doesn't count. You couldn't get out of sight of Maw anyway, she might do the whole town. Clown.
You're a stoner on top of being natural born loser? Anarchy isn't freedom, fool – lines need to be drawn here and there. What little you know about Amsterdam is that problems with their brand of "freedom" are getting worse and the people are calling for things to tighten up a bit.
You can still take my bong out of my cold dead hands.
Amsterdam is not my problem.
But regardless, Amersterdam's problem isn't drugs, it's immigration and political correctness.
Hey, cool. Stay stoned, I could care less, and yes drugs are a problem in Amsterdam. Add in Muslim youth gangs and the apparent inability of the Dutch to face their problems and we have – a mess.
Please bear with us. We have been having problems with the Intense Debate filters.
Apologize for the troubles we have been having with our filters. Correcting them now.
Totally disgusting!
The rear view mirrors were for the canal area hookers posing in the windows, so that they could see when/if a potential client was approaching and adjust their position accordingly – sit up straight/no slouching/smile, etc.
Looking at the Dutch is a front row seat to the fall of the Roman Empire, and America isn't far behind with their own brand of pseudo intellectualism…just read the posts here for legalization. More seems like a good idea at the time thinking, which is what the Dutch themselves suffer from.
The reason the drug wars in this country are not won is due to political power. Who wants to win that war when it means expansion of government, political appointments, etc. Don't forget moral relativism, as well as moral equivalence are two things people fall for the easiest. The 'it's your body' argument always seems to rule the day, right up until someone wants to commit suicide, and yet the effects of drugs are suicide, so it won't be long before we turn a blind eye to that.
I'm always amazed that people insist on repeating the failures of other people.
Isn't that what I just said? Thanks for clarifying since I'm so stoned I can't even understand the very words I just wrote.
Not exactly Spliffo. Benign immigration and roving Muslim youth gangs bashing non-Muslims aren't exactly the same thing. Context and syntax. Soooo, ya – Hit it again Spliffo, hit it again.
She's a sex slave, moron. You think she's standing in a glass booth holding a dildo because she wants to?
Go see "Taken". Then apologize.
Whenever I see a sex slave like that poor girl in the window, I have an almost overwhelming desire to go to the gun range.
Libertarians want to legalize prostitution, which will remove the last legal barriers against sex slavery. We already have a huge sex trafficking problem in every country as well as America. It is rampant in Holland. Oh, I hear the libertarians squeal (behind a cloud of pot smoke) that sex slavery isn't legal and legalizing prostitution will help stop it. Of course not, morons. Girls who are trafficked are usually drugged out of their minds (oh, there's that drug legalization problem again) and once they're raped sufficiently and hooked on enough drugs, they don't know how to free themselves.
I just sat through a sex trafficking seminar given by a Denver vice cop. He doesn't want drugs or prostitution legalized because that will deny him the only tools he has to get pimps off the street, and get girls out of this horror.
Oh, and any man who says prostitution is just fine and/or admits they visited a prostitute better not do it within ball crushing range of me. That is all.
Seem there are far more intrusive Government regulations when vices such as drugs and prostitution are legalized than when not.
Go ahead legalize the vices however at the end of the day all that will occur is an ever expanding Big Government; plus these vices will become the new tobacco TAX, TAX, TAX and more TAX along side regulation,regulation regulation.
Another funny note is that these vices will treated like gasoline; after pot and prostitution are legalized the Government will TAX to encourage the users to reduce their usage.
Like the moron Dr Krauthammer's premise 'high tax on gasoline to force consumers into reduce their consumption".
If you want your vices then keeping them illegal reduces opportunity for Big Government to seize your new found 'freedoms'.
Yes Joe Leftists ARE hypocrites. Maroons like you try to smear others while New York liberals try to ban salt ! Pot meet kettle. Why are the Red-trolls always the lowest in IQ and lacking even the most basic knowledge ? Sigh…
This guy is a great example of the idea that Liberalism is a mental disorder isn't he ?
I know, they even let an ever-growing Muslim population enact Sharia Law within communities!
That freedom will be going down the pisshole soon.
how strange that a peaceful lib would advocate violence.
You have it spot on Bob. Mr. Walsh should have written the article about the drug problems of the U.S. and Mexico. Violent crime in the U.S. is higher than that of the Netherlands. While I don't doubt crime in Holland, I visted quite often, it's far less of a problem than the drug cartels of Mexico & the U.S. Besides, we have a much larger problem here in the States; perscription drugs and methamphetamine abuse.
too bad they didnt whip your a$$
*claps* BRAVA!! Im joining you at the gun range…
I smoke marijuana. Why that gets under your skin I will never know. Must be the socialist inside you, you know, you have got to make people do what YOU believe is right. Screw liberty. You are just going to have to live with the fact that someone who is stoned all day long can be just as knowledgable as you are on whatever topic, and flatten you in a debate.
You sould like a fool while trying to talk down to me. I'm right. You know I'm right. I'm saying the same things you are, but you can't admit it. You have to spin words and such while throwing around terms like "context" and "syntax" because you believe I should be stupid and not understand reality and must bow down to the all knowing non-weed smoker. Get over yourself.
Robert Gibbs? Is that you?
P.S. How do you think those roving Muslim youth gangs got there?
Well said. I do not believe the government has a right to tell me what I can do with my body, as long as I'm not harming another in the process. Seems to me that is the essence of what it means to be free. Smoking pot may not be the best thing someone can do, but neither is having a beer or smoking a cigarette or eating a Big Mac… it goes on and on. As long as you don't harm another or violate someone's rights, I just don't believe the government has any right telling me how I can live my life.
The left claims to believe in this, being pro-choice means the government keeps their hands off your body. Yet they have no problem with the government running every OTHER aspect of your life. The right is of course against the concept of the government coddling you from cradle to grave, yet when it comes to the simple personal rights of body and bedroom, the social conservatives have plenty to say and can't wait to cast aspersions on your lifestyle and create a "War" on drugs that has done nothing other than guarantee that there will always be a good living to be made by selling drugs (because if they were legal, there would be no drug dealers.)
Just think back to Al Capone. Do you see anyone like him now? When's the last time you heard of a shootout between the police and someone trying to smuggle a case of Corona?
As a college kid, Amsterdam was…oh, sweet Amsterdam. Ah, but I digress.
Being for consensual sex between two adults is not the same thing as endorsing sex slavery.
Very good. Moralists want us to straighten up and do right. We would all cease to decline if we would just stop sinnin'. What BS.
The moral decline in this country has it's roots in the policies of our rulers in Washington. You can challenge morality but until an unjust Federal Government stops making unjust laws and stealing from it's citizens you are laughing in the wind.
Give me liberty or give me death. But now the cry is to give me more rules to moralize others with. My rules are good, yours are bad. I drink a legal drug that kills me and others, your drug is bad. People have given so much power to unjust laws and then have been educated for two generations by the government that they believe in and just have no clue.
Only a reaction to "make things right," by more rules of course…
Yes it is hypocritical. But not everyone here that is for small government believes it is a "case by case" basis. I believe in small government, across the board. That includes the legalization of drugs, the privatization of the school system, and getting rid of the income tax, among other things.
You may differ from your conservative friends on this issue, but you are in tune with your Libertarian friends.
The War on Drugs does nothing more than overprice a commodity that is not particularly valuable, and make people who might otherwise not be, unbelievably rich and powerful. Everytime you try to legislate morality, it backfires.
Yeah, having a problem with marijuana makes you a socialist and a twin of Robert Gibbs. And you accuse other people of talking down to others.
"When it comes to my art, I went my own way and didn't follow the trends." — Frank Frazetta
Funny you would have that quote when you don't mind telling others what is good for them. If only we had more rules…
You talk of Libertarians in cliches, like some '70's holdout. It may be a waste since you don't understand, but Libertarians are for LIBERTY and defending others rights, not for doing whatever you want. The original meaning of Liberal, before the 1900's, was about Liberty, but now look at it.
The Denver cop cares about his JOB first, just like every other civil servant.
"The Law has been perverted through the influence of two very different causes-naked greed and misconceived philanthropy." -Frederic Bastiat "The Law" 1840
Loving freedom often means that you "tolerate" (not to be confused with moral acceptance) the actions of others. The idea being that there is a high threshold for government intrusion into one's personal life, and if you don't keep that threshold high, you are on a slippery slope to government intrusion into just about everything. The Obama administration is a good example of this philosophy that the government should be involved in everything. I do not believe it is a conservative stance to be against individual liberty (although it IS a socially conservative stance, the religious stance if you will. But when I think conservative, I usually think small government).
Name calling and flaming… just like a liberal, lol. Insulted at the prospect of someone living their life on their own terms without asking you for your input. Are you sure you shouldn't be at the HuffPo?
Spliff, one thing I've noticed about these Big Sites is that we agree with most things but when it comes to the issues of religion or morality, many conservatives switch and put on their "Pro Big Government" hats, on a case-by-case basis. It's unsettling. What is even weirder is you can have never voted for a democrat in your entire life, yet saying that you smoke pot makes you a "liberal". Lol.
Fortunately for us, the Tea Party movement (which is in the process of taking over the GOP) is not putting a focus on these social issues, which is good for the right, and good for people in general who love freedom. There will always be a place for the more religious, dogmatic types, but they are on the fringe, and not the mainstream.
This is the legacy of Libertarianism. John Stossel relentlessly promotes the idea of legalizing every vice known to humanity. He wants to transform us into Amsterdam American, with a brothel and a crackhouse on every street corner. Great place to raise a family, huh?
I dropped pot 30 yrs ago, no problems. I agree that getting uptight about pot is a bit silly.
We've been silenced too long. Those "compassionate conservatives" are spinning in their seats as they lose their grip on control. They don't understand their drift into social issues is why they are out of power now, and it will be why the Democrats are out of power in 2010.
Make sure nobody blows me up, and makes sure I get my mail. That's all I really ask. Is that too much?
The Dutch are not really a group a wise person incites to violence. Not nearly as bad as the Japanese, but not harmless, either.
I agree. Seems to be a generational shift going on, long past due. I'm sorry but as much as I respect an individual's right to worship, the religion of Christianity and the GOP are two separate institutions. It's time more people on the right stop being afraid to actually state this obvious truth.
This is going to go over well I can already feel it.
Who would categorize the Dutch as libertarian? So you take some libertarian ideas and mix them with socialism/far-left liberalism/progressivism and what's the result for everyone here? Oh that's where libertarianism gets you down with the libertarians!!!
That's like saying that the problems we're facing economically in this country are due to capitalism or the free market. We don't live in a fully capitalistic society and we don't have a free market (you can't have a free market when the Fed controls interest rates and the supply of money nor can it be free when the Government regulates everything). It's this mutant amalgamation of capitalism and socialism and it doesn't work but would any of you accuse capitalism of ruining everything? I kinda doubt it.
What has worked? We had a mostly capitalist society at one time and we were once a lot more free than we are now. Where are we now? Aren't we at the threshold of Socialism/Communism? Does that show that capitalism doesn't work? That it leads to socialism then communism?
One ideology will lead to some other ideology only if the people don't pay attention to where things are headed in their lifetime. Whatever "ism" we want to have will take the will of the people to keep…there is no ideology that we can put in place and then just forget about like some sort of auto-pilot. There's no one size fits all "ism", but if we want people to eventually regulate themselves and do the right thing because it's the right thing shouldn't we move away from making a law and regulation for every little thing?
No I'm sure that's not the way to do it. I'm sure it's making everything illegal so that it all goes underground and creates some other problem that we then have to make new rules for and when those rules don't work we'll have to make more. That sounds like a lot of fun sign me up…oh and I'm sure that won't lead to any tyranny in any way whatsoever.
That is why my Dutch ancestors emigrated to America in 1630. They knew what was coming. But what has happened there is still happening all across Europe, and happened in Rome.
Get over yourself. I know 50 year ols burn outs who waste all day everyday getting stoned in a spare froom at Mom's house. I don't give a shit what they do. If that's your kind of freedom that's fine.
There is misconception that being a pot head is totally behign. Bllsh!t, ask the two Mothers if having a gray haired waste case living in the house is no biggie.I know fools from high school who are still emotionally 17 years old from being a stoner but are 40+ years old chronologically.
Eventually Mom will die or move without telling Jr. where they went and these morons will wind up on wefare and unemployement and food stamos and WE have to pay for it.
I've forgotten more about drugs and drug addiction than you'll ever know -so keep fooling yorself that being a burned out stoner is "cool".
If people were addicted to crosswords the impact on society would be slight, drugs – that cost us all.
Aren't you sure you cdon't need to to know a little bit more about the negative impact of drugs "soft" and hard on society?
Being called a "stoner" is an insult. What do pothead burnouts "prefer" to be called? hmm?
Spliff, Some Arabs cursed my back as i walked by them on the streets of Amsterdam cause i was wearing red, white and blue, and i turned around and said "you got a problem?" and they scurried off like rats, lol
Jamesb is a propellerhead, hes like a fly just swat him off, lol
folks like James are inconsistent in their ideology and they pay the price in that it must suck being them. lol
lol, coming from someone whos still in school, what a joke you are, its frustrating isnt it, lol
You're both full of shit. I palyed in long hair heavy metal bands for a long time from my teens into my earlty twenties and nobody I played with (who was worth a crap) got stoned (or drunk) and went on stage. You have to have you shit together to get the job done. You've got a hundered things to remember and braks to be at, and backing vocals to remember and tons of details to attend to, like not not standing like a zombie in front of a mic that's turned off. I takes concentration.
Why do employers drug test? Just to torture you two burnouts?
NO, They drug test so they don't get sued when a stoned pothead cuts his fingers off in a machine or runs over somebody with a fork lift.
What you two are doinng is call rationalizing. You're constructing a world that agrees with you even though existing stoned in a clear minded world requires discipline and effort.
Grow up.
It's none of your business but I worked for years in the car business (first as a salesman then as a manager) and finally EARNED my way into a position where I can travel and attend grad school on MY terms.
Must be frustration putting on your smock and heading to Wal -Mart to restock every night, right?
Ha, after I punked you into silence? lol!
His Mom's basement scraping the resin out of his bongs and stealing change for beer.
i believe you, you ooze success. you got issues boy, you need a tissue for your issue?
Truth.Try to deal clown.
Being a stoned drain on society is not being free, it's being a stoned burnout welfare queen. Get a clue.
I'm consistant because I don't want my government subsidizing a bunch of lazy pot heads hanging out watching "Gilligan's Island" and eating peanut butter and crackers I PAY FOR.
Oh ya, "internet tough guy"! lol! Sure sign of a pu$$y.
I assume you don't drink.
Libertarian druggies are a joke. You want the world changed to fit your particular addiction. Be illegal about it, be a "man".
Deal with being out-of-step with larger society and no rationalize your problems into a wider problem like the Dutch have done.
Everyday the list of "open coffee shops" gets samller and samaller. The Dutch have gotten tired of druggies and the social pressures caused by their drug laws. There are only a few hash houses left and if a pot business get's in legal trouble they take their license and close the shop. Ther are half as many "coffee shopa\\s as there used to be.
In Amsterdam they are all in the "tourist areas".
So, if a ultra-liberal place like Amsterdam is cracking down on 'soft drugs" (and they are extremely tough on hard drugs) what does that tell you?
I know the impact of people like you on society. You can shout out your insults behind a computer screen, but in person it would be a different story. Wannabe tough guy who would run away like a dog with his tail between his legs if ever confronted in the "real world".
ABUSING alcohol causes major problems. One beer, which I drink here and there does not. That's why states have MINIMUM blood alcohol level laws. Get it?
I'm making points and if you can't debate the issue sanely, you take the "projection" tack.
Stay on subject here, or —— are we stoned? Can't co ncen tra er,… trate?
You obviously know nothing about the tragedy and pain that drug addiction causes.
There's nothing wrong with you exercising your free choice to not smoke. However, it's about as much your right to tell me what I can do with my body, as it is mine to tell you what you can do with yours.
You might not see yourself as a socialist, but if you agree the government has the right to tell you what you can smoke (or eat, or drink, etc) then you are not on the side of freedom and personal liberty, but on big government.
You assume everyone who smokes pot is a stoner. Sounds like you are the one doing the projecting. Some people smoke now and then, not all day and night like a full-blown alcoholic.
You actually aren't making any points to respond to. Just a bunch of insults and name calling.
Hey, break drugs laws all you want, just don't assume your "normal' is the rest of the country's normal.
At best pot causes a bunch of adult zombies to spend all day playing X-Box and getting nothing done, at worst you have people robbing or stealing when being to lazy to work makes them "improvise" to keep the party going.
I smoked pot for years, I know what I'm talikg about. I quit because it'sm immature and a waste of time. I went on witth my life, you should too.
This isn't a liberty issue it's a symptom of bigger problems. About two miles from where I'm I'm posting from two Americans were shot DEAD in their car in front of their baby. Drug cartels killed them. The U.S. demand for drugs is causing control wars in Mexico and thousands of people are dying.
A freind of mine I grew up with, went the dealer route, from here to Chicago and New York. He got rich and had a place in Manhattan.
He's dead, killed in the street here in El Paso over drug money.
This is actually the entire point of our country. Being free even though your freedom gives permission for the freedom of others–others you may not agree with.
Grillsargeant, remember. Ball crushing distance. The Denver Vice cop has trouble sleeping at night, particularly since he has two daughters. He showed us a picture of a guy talking to a young girl for "consensual sex" in Thailand. Her four year old daughter was clinging to her arm. The man was negotiating for sex with the four year old. He got it, by the way. Everything is legal there. Just like prostitution, which is legal in Holland, has seen an influx of sex slaves from the Russian states. They think they're coming for jobs, and then they get to Amsterdam and are drugged, raped, and end up in a window like the one above. It's all consensual though. Just keep telling yourself that.
The Vice cop I listened to wants to catch people like you and rjcylon and make sure you don't have "consensual sex" with drugged out, abused women. He wants to handcuff you, throw you in prison, and put your picture on a "Johns" list so everyone knows your filthy, shameful behavior.
You both make me sick.
There's nothing wrong with having a personal aversion to anything. The problem is when you take it upon yourself to enforce your values on me.
You need to be really sure that you know what you're talking about before you start casting aspersions. Where have I said that I even smoke pot to begin with? Just because I support the right of others to have responsibility for their bodies doesn't mean that I myself partake of those activities.
Being a libertarian is not just about being a "stoner". It means you support freedom of choice for others, that may be unpopular, because eventually, something you choose to do will be unpopular–and you're going to want that freedom.
You clearly do not understand the values and the spirit that this country was founded on.
More projection. I make strong points and you hide and cry. I stand up in university clases and make simular points everyday. I have youinger students thank me for speaking up – daily.
I'm secure with myself and my place in society. I'm not a bully, you just don't agree and you can't make a decent argument why people should agree with you.
I've posted on Breitbart and the "Bigs" since before they grew into a phenonenom. (see the 128) I'm not going anywhere no matter how many potheads cry and complain about "personal liberty" and other blather that is inconsistant with reality.
Stop comparing your drug habit with "values".
People like you ignore the ancillary issues and "just party on Garth".
Grow up.
Got it, you're letting your personal experiences with drugs not only blind you to the experiences that others have, but have taken it upon yourself to put yourself on a soap box and preach to others how they should live their lives, and if they don't agree, they are a loser, or a burnout, or a clown, or (etc).
You have obviously lived a life of extremes. That's unfortunate, but your experience is not typical and it also does not give you any sort of moral authority to preach to others.
As far as breaking laws, I actually do not smoke pot. I did years ago, I decided I didn't like it anymore. But that doesn't mean it's my right to tell others they can't do it. There are many laws that are unjust. There's a big one I am against and it's called "The Income Tax", yet it's a "law". Therefore being against it, must mean I am in the wrong.
A few times I have mentioned that I do not smoke pot. Clearly you aren't able to fathom someone being for the freedom of others to make their own choices, even if I personally would choose to not make those choices.
And that's because it's the principle that I care about. You can denigrate principle as much as you want by building up strawmen arguments, and trying to lump me in with your somewhat disturbing obsession with cheesy stoner movies and out of date catchphrases, but the point is that I defend someone's right to choice because I know someday my own choice may be between the crosshairs.
And my arguments are consistently more mature (and full of actual content) than your depressing forays into memory lane that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Everytime you try to legislate morality, it backfires.
Pretty much every law on the books is "legislated morality," just gotta decide who's morality.
Fair enough. I don't smoke pot, but I'm a pot-head. Since you aren't even reading my posts where I continually point that out, makes no sense in discussing things with you. The amount of name calling you engage in, especially towards people who are actually innocent of what you're saying (for example, I don't smoke pot, but you keep calling me a pot-head) is very consistent with the left's strategy of calling people who don't like Obama a racist. The actual facts don't matter, just the amount of personal harm you can do to one's reputation.
You may think you are not in agreement with them, but you are definitely of the same character.
Either you're trying to miss the point or you don't "get" the point. Many behaviors have no real consequenses on society. Chasing butterflys with a net year round hasn't any real consequenses for society.
It would be goofy, but not deadly (except for the butterflies)
Drug addiction has CONSEQUENSES. I just described to you that TWO AMERICANS government offiicals were killed by the drug cartels waging a drug war – which is specifically about the flow of drugs (i.e. marijuana) into the U.S.
Are you following me here?
Ergo – even seemingly benign pot smoking has consequenses. The drug is a deadly commodity. Now if the pot the Californians are smoking is all domestic and taxed and "regulated' that has less,but not zero, consequenses on society.
At least those burnouts are directly contributing to the tax base.
Tell what part you either don't understand or don't want to understand.
So how is me growing a plant in my closet and smoking it destroying the fabric of America?
Besides, I'm probably one of the 8 people left in America that don't get some kind of Gov't assistance. You're welcome.
Don't run away! I like cornering "Libertarians" an squashing their misconceptions. You don't smoke pot. I get it. You defend the pot smokers right (though now illegal in most places) to smoke. I get that.
I'm telling you that there are serious real world consequenses to the drug business and people who engage in the drug trade.
How many funerals have you been to that are a direct result of a drug war? one, two?
Zero? I have. That dead body iin that coffin accepted the consequenses and knew the dangers of being in the drug trade and that it might kill him young. He lived BIG and died young.
That has little impact on the everyday stoner. They have their low level dealer and he's cool and drives a nic eold El; Camino and that's fine.
Big picture, big picture…that's my point.
Do you not comprehend that the harm from drugs comes from the the fact that they are illegal? Do you not understand that when you try to legislate human behavior, that people will still find ways to get what they want, even if it means that they have to break a law to do so?
People are killed over drugs because the government creates the very scenario that creates those killings. If it were regulated and taxed, drug violence would end overnight. Just think back to prohibition–when is the last time that you heard of police in a huge shootout with alcohol bootleggers?
The blood of those killings are on the hands of the government that makes drugs illegal. If they weren't illegal, the profits would fall drastically, along with the violence. Just like with prohibition. History is there to teach us.
And besides all this, you are not being intellectually consistent with regards to alcohol. Someone who drinks a bottle of Vodka every day is more of a harm to themselves and others than someone who takes a few hits off a joint every once in a while. Yet you do not seem to have the mental courage to realize this, and keep your position that alcohol is ok and that pot should be illegal, when it's clearly an issue of personal responsibility and the degree that one impairs their judgment with substances.
Nice talking to you. I know you can't wait to make a reference to Wayne's World or Dazed and Confused. I'm more interested in references to the Declaration of Independence.
Please, stop with the "Founding Fathers would have been pot heads" argument.
Personal responsibility and being a pothead in the basement have ZERO relation to each other.
It's an excuse to break laws and accomplish nothing. Like unicorns, I here all these stories about the uber successful potheads running around the world. Name one.
The Founders would have flipped their powdered wigs if they knew that plain old everyday pot heads would be holding themselves up as the championms of freedom and freewill. Please, give me a break.
I just mentioned the California "hydro" situation, try to keep up. If were going to have burnouts wandering around or working their 9-5, or pulling a shift at Subway and coming home and hitting their bong, for "medicinal" uses, thats much less of a negative impact.
Grow your own, it's still illegal but at least I don't have to go to more funerals.
Actually I agree with you that the legal/illegal situation IS causing big problems. It's a valuable commodity and YES just like prohibition people will find a way to get illegal drugs.
But instead of just stopping there I know that even pot, like any other pleasurable sensation, causes a yearning for more. Then more. Ten way more.
Have you ever done cocaine? I have. A lot. I;ve taken ounces on jetliners to Miami and Vegas and I actually took cocaine into Cancun. (It's evreywhere for sale) Once you have some, you want more. Then you want even more.
Then you run out of money and then what?
You don't want to get up at 7:00 because you went to sleep at 4:00. But you have to, youn need the money. Then just a few lines and you're back in the swing, until the next morning…it's a deadly treadmill.
I made on Garth reference, stop crying and make a case.
Not only will I stop with the "Founding Fathers would have been pot heads" argument, I'll do you one better: I never said that to begin with.
But, by your logic, the Founding Fathers were all alcoholics because alcohol is still legal in this country, and they did drink a bit of ale back then. Clearly, they were all stumbling, bumbling lushes who puked themselves awake every morning from their massive hangovers. I mean, when a substance is legal, everyone who touches it abuses it, right?
Good luck with life.
Just like alcohol. That's why people get addicted and come down with something called ALCOHOLISM. Because it ruins their lives and the lives of others. Yet you think it should be legal. You have zero credibility on this issue because you refuse to be intellectually consistent.
I'm not surprised that you were a big drug user. It explains why your posts are so evangelical. It's just like a when someone quits smoking cigarettes, all of the sudden they are in every smoker's face, telling them how stupid they are for lighting up. It was ok for them to do it, but now that they've changed their minds, now they think they can tell YOU what to do.
The appropriate response to people like that is "get out of my face, mind your own business, and don't take your guilt for being a former drug addict out on me".
Case closed. You're unstable and I don't want to get caught up in your dark universe. I made my point. Drugs should be legalized.
I explained that your alcohol agrument is intellectual vapid. A 6'00" 200lb man can drink two or three berrs and not be legally drunk.
One hit of decent pot and you stoned. It's different. Therefore your argument doesn't wash. Of all the drugs around pot is mostly harmless but not totally benign. You won't admit it, but that's your idea of "consistent".
Blather, pure naive blather.
Grow up.
Working yet?
Don't runaway! take a hit and tell us allabout freedom and being a druggie. They go together like peanut and chocolate. right?
You haven't come CLOSE to making your point. Your ignoring the consequeses of long term drug use.
You can try to shut down the debate like my little sister whern she was ten but it just makes you lookm small and narrow minded.
Mr. Walsh exemplifies the problem with people who identify themselves as 'conservative'. They are against freedom. Truly. They are blind to the fact that the red light districts in Amsterdam, Hamburg, etc have been institutionalized for centuries? Is he really offended that the people of Nevada have legalized brothels? Why should we care? Every city has escort services. So what. No one is forced to use them.
Weed is legal here in many states as 'medicine'. Is he willing to incarcerate his son or daughter for smoking pot? Why? Is not the idea of freedom to have the privacy to do what pleasures you?
People used to be incarcerated for having oral sex. What right does the State have over a free man in this matter?
This is why we need a large threshold for what becomes illegal, so as to not get on a slippery slope. It's not that hard. If it's not violating my rights, and doesn't harm someone, or steal from them (the common sense stuff) leave it alone.
it would suck to be you
hey there JB
I do so enjoy reading your posts
you defiantly kick ass with words
You're confusing social issues with the issues that actually matter in life. This is why someone like Stupak is pro-life but still a liberal. Because that "economic theory" is sort of the thing that makes the world work and gives you the freedoms that you cherish so much. But you take all that for granted and put all your focus on abortion, drugs, and gay marriage why the people who are in charge of current "economic theory" are taking our country over a cliff. Our country won't exist anymore, but hey–at least drugs will be illegal.
So Leonard Cohen is pro life? Huh. Who would've guessed.
Bonnie–no one likes a frigid man-hater.
You make a good point. The Founding Fathers were not at all concerned with the social issues of their day.
I found Amsterdam pretty horrifying. Anyone with any savvy knows criminal enterprise is behind all the legal vice. What is left out of stories is the number of young children whose parent are addicts, and the kids you see there are just lost. A society ios measured by who it protects. In Amsterdam, it's partiers. Pretty gross.
rjcylon, You make a good point. The Founding Fathers were not at all concerned with the social issues of their day.
"Make sure nobody blows me up, and makes sure I get my mail. That's all I really ask. Is that too much?"
They need to keep the roads paved as well.
They were, but they did their best to make sure their concern didn't end up interfering with the rights of others. Slavery, for instance–Jefferson wanted to outright abolish it at the beginning, and most of the other founders were against slavery, yet they couldn't afford to abolish it and actually have the Union hold together. So that's a good example of a social issue they were concerned about but did not interfere with.
Depends on what one means by "conservative". The social conservatives tend to give the real conservatives (the small government ones) like me a bad name. For years the left has tried to make it seem that their fringe, religious extremism is the same thing as the typical small government, freedom loving conservative. But they aren't the same thing.
"Have you ever done cocaine? I have. A lot. I've taken ounces on jetliners to Miami and Vegas and I actually took cocaine into Cancun. (It's everywhere for sale) Once you have some, you want more. Then you want even more."
There it is. Jamesb is the guy who goes down the hard road, realizes he's made a complete mess of his life, turns it around and concludes that everyone has as little self control as he has. You wouldn't happen to be one of those "born-again" folks, would you, Jamesb?
You also must know from having a drug problem that marijuana and cocaine are very, very different from one another, Jamesb.
I have to disagree with your assertion that slavery was a social issue. I see it as a human rights issue for sure and in the context of the times, possibly a commerce issue.
When I think of social issues I think of things people do socially or recreationally. I don't think anyone ever owned a slave for the social benefits.
But I'm right with you on the other arguments you've made.
I think what I was trying to say is many people thought it was their right to own slaves and the government had no business getting involved at all, and any interference into slavery by the government was considered as intrusion into the rights of the people (in the ridiculous rationalization of the time). Realizing this was too sensitive of an issue that would most likely destroy the Union right at the beginning, they decided to postpone any tackling of Slavery by the government for at least 20 years, and a few years later, they washed their hands of it completely.
So, in the context of that day, it was perceived more as a social issue, than human rights issue. Made sense in my head when I posted it, in retrospect not so much.
Yet, taking drugs is "a" moral, meaning, it is not right or wrong, it needs someone to cast a judgement for it to be right or wrong.
Although I don't do drugs, I think you would probably say that me taking a hit of a joint every once in a while to relax is much different than me being a murderous drug kingpin. Yet your inability to distinguish between the two would lump me in with those people. But one can see from this example that it is truly a question of degree. Being a libertarian means that you realize it is usually down to the person who has not sinned casting the first stone, and in the mean time, as long as you are not physically harming another, or violating their rights, you should be left in peace.
That is about as diametrically opposed to the liberal/progressive ideology as you can imagine. Their entire life philosophy is based on the idea that the government is Big Brother and makes ALL your choices for you.
Liberals MAY be for legalization of drugs, gay marriage, and abortion rights, but those "liberties" are far outweighed by the amount of government control they advocate into your every waking moment. So please do not associate Libertarians with them simply because there may be slight overlap here or there. Libertarians believe in small, limited government–PERIOD. That means, even at the times where limited government may be considered unpopular by the morally righteous among us. It's fine for you to have personal convictions that you don't like drugs. However, I do not believe it is your right to enforce those ideas on me. That is the very essence of being a libertarian and it runs the full gamut from no income tax, no federal school system, to no government intrusion into the bedroom.
Any superficial similarities to progressives should be treated as such: superficial.
I'm married with four beautiful kids and a husband that I treat like a king, baby, the king. He is a real man. You obviously have no idea what a real man is — you certainly aren't one.
I suppose you can't attract the attention of a real woman and feel you have to pay for sex from drugged, abused women. Rationalizing your behavior is revolting, and the fact you keep coming back trying to justify yourself is even more pitiful.
Give it up, loser.
Hey, at least I'm honest about how I've arrived at my opinions. I'm no hypocrite. I've walked down the road and sometimes it was a blast.
I don't regret some of it. That Miami trip was a blast.
My lovely girlfriend driving a Mustang convertible to Key West down the Key's highway while I drink voldka, soda and lemon and enjoy the sun?
It juast doesn't last forever and people who want others to excuse the bad parts of drugs by hiding behind a "Libertarian' label is just folling themselves.
I lived (luckily) and I learned. I've been there. I have no regrets. I'm warning others.
Take it or leave it.
I have never had a prostitute, for your information. I was originally responding to your comparison between two consenting adults being the same thing as engaging in the slave trade. You are about as feminine as Rosie O'Donnel, and probably not as good looking.
It's a real b-t-h when the piper demands his due for the tune he played.
One of the things that has most eroded in this country is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Like night and day.
No one needs your warnings. You should know that the very act that something illegal and illicit becomes more attractive and tempting to people–the more you tell a teenager for example to not do drugs, the more likely they ARE GOING TO DO DRUGS.
It's good you kicked the habit, but you're too caught up with the past. Everything you say is in the context of who you USED to be. That's great, but unless the drugs have completely destroyed the pleasure receptors in your brain, why don't you focus on the here and now and the future instead of the "bad old days"? You sound like the old grandmother at Thanksgiving who won't shut up about the type of music they used to play a hundred years ago where you could understand the words–no one cares man about your glory days. You keep railing against drugs but it appears what you really want to do is impress us with how crazy and wild and "rock n' roll" you were back the day. No. One. Cares.
And I bet you a thousand dollars (in internet money) that you hit the bottle HARD.
Never been a big drinker, not even when I was doing alot of coke. You talk about me being angry but read your own posts, you are one angry troll.
i clearly stating that I've been there and done that. I'm no kid, I just turned 50.
I've made mistakes but I've admitted them and worked my way back.
You may be small and insignificant and that's OK, take a bong hit and chill. What I speak is the truth and YOU. CAN'T. HANDLE. IT.
I'm just being honest. Calm down.
..and sometimes nice together. Or not. Calm down.
Who appointed you the editor of this page or these sites? If you don't like it don't read it.
Censor yourself, not everybody else. Talk about a closed minded troll.
I'm laughing at how pathetic you are, trust me, there are no hard feelings on this side of the computer, only pity. You have done nothing but call me names, in every single post, yet in one post I give you a taste of your own medicine and all of the sudden I am a troll?
50 is old but it's not too old to start acting like a man and not a little punk who tells people how to live their lives. You keep saying "grow up" over and over, it's pretty obvious that you are having a dialogue with yourself.
I'm not going to enable you anymore, keep fighting the good fight of the bitter old victim who keeps bitching about "kids these days".
Talk about pathetic. You've been a whiny little bi!tch since this started. Go smoke POT, I don't care. Don't misslead other people about how benign it is. It's not. Except in the minds of druggies.
Even you hero Obama has NIXED legalizing pot. Why?
I have credibilty and you hold on to a single flimsy thread of some personal issue of being a self proclaimed druggie, or casual druggie? You can't even be honest about what level your particular addiction is?
You say your a casual user? Like sometimes?
Is your boyfriend watching you? Trying to keep your drug history in "the closet"? Now your being "ageist". What a sorry little puke.
Again – Grow up. Geta job and a haircut.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to speak your peace. I extend to you the courtesy you won't extend to those who choose to take a toke.
No, please babble away. My point was that no one CARES about your sad, pathetic E! True Hollywood Story of a life, and how much of a cliche you are.
But I will defend with my life your right to make a complete ass out of yourself, because I'm not big on the government taking away freedom.
Anyway, I'm done responding to your bait. Have a nice life.
No peace little man. Watch for me to watch for you and make sure I expose you insipid little whing posts. One day you'll wonder why you've been nowher, accomplished nothing and why you're still stcuk in 2nd gear.
If lashing out at me gives you a couple of needed inches in height or some needed inches in lenghth, hey – keep on fooling yourself.
I've dome more in a few years and seen more in a life time than angry little troll like you will ever see in a lifetime.
So, go screw yourself (as usual) and remember, I'm a "Big" regular, I'll be on your dumbass every time you stick your head up.
My hero Obama–right. You're obviously just trying to fool people who read that post into thinking I have ever had a single positive thought about Obama in my life. Well, I voted for McCain, before that I voted for Bush two times, and before that, I voted for Dole. In 2012 I will be voting for Sarah Palin, and to top that off, I have a gifts business where I sell pro-Palin t-shirts and gifts, and other pro-conservative items.
http://www.zazzle.com/stateofliberty
If anything YOU are the Obama supporter because you actually found something to agree with him on–I of course, have not had that breakthrough in my own life.
"Although I don't do drugs, I think you would probably say that me taking a hit of a joint every once in a while to relax is much different than me being a murderous drug kingpin. Yet your choice to not distinguish between the two would lump me in with those people. "
Um, actually I didn't comment on drugs, so I'm glad you said that "I think you would probably say…"
Again, as I said before, I do not think you can legislate a person's heart. But I also agree with the founders that our form of government (a constitutional representative republic) works best with a moral and religious people. That is, people who are self-governed according to the moral code found in the 10 commandments (whether or not you are a Christian or not).
A moral people will select moral representatives. The government that we have right now is a reflection of a people who cannot be self-governed. (I'm talking about society as a whole, not those of us who are capable of self-governing.) The government is a reflection of who we are as a people. And so the quotes I mentioned from our Founders carry much wisdom indeed.
I was just reading today about the arguments for and against a religious test in our Constitution. Of course that is precisely what we ran away from in Britain so the delegates were overwhelming in support of NOT having a religious test. In fact, from the comments of one of the delegates, he basically said that a religious test (implying episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational) would disenfranchise up to 3/4 of the population. That tells me that a smaller number were Protestant than were not; however, there is no doubt that society as a whole embraced the morality of a Judeo-Christian ethic.
Thanks for the threat. I've just reported your post. We'll see if the mods condone threats and e-stalking.
LOL!!! You are a whiny little girl b!tch! LOL!!!
"Thanks for the threat, whaaaaa". lol!!!!
You post your widdle brain out kiddy. I'll be reading along. You be a moron based on your tiny minded posts today and I'll have some fun at your expense. Fun, fun, fun…
Zazzle is where I get my anti-Che` and Marxism (with Groucho) shirts. Cool.
Be a good conservative, just stop pimping drug use if you don't understand the consequenses. That is not a tough concept. It's ok to reconsider your postion and accept some experienced "been there" advice.
I thought you weren't into "sharing history". But I'm glad for your voting hsitory. I voted for Regan in 1980 the first time and for every GOP candidate since. I admire Gov. Palin very much. None of these people you mention advocate drug use as a positive thing.
Freedom of personal responsibility yes, pimping a negative habit no.
I never cost the government a single dime going through my journey. Never been on unemployment, food stamps or anything. No free $$$$ at all.
"Um, actually I didn't comment on drugs, so I'm glad you said that "I think you would probably say…"
Yes, you read my sentence in the appropriate context. It was a hypothetical scenario, I think most reasonable people would say there is a difference between someone who smokes occasionally, and a violent druglord.
I am not a Christian, although I respect your right to worship. However, although it might be nice for everyone to have their own moral code, I don't think that the government is really the best institution to enforce those standards. I think government's role is to do what private citizens can't–namely, protect our borders and keep the peace. Every time it goes beyond that, whether well-meaning or not, it encroaches on our freedom. think the church, and the dinner table, is the best place to make those types of personal decisions that impact your personal life. But the key is that they are decisions that impact YOUR personal life, and not mine.
Also, I hope you would consider that morality is not tied to any specific religion. I think human nature is good deep down, and that is expressed in the different faiths (and even non-faiths) of the world.
What the difference between the $19.45 tee and the 25.00 version. I like the Revolution 2.0 I want one.
Enough of the personal attacks. Free and freewheeling discussion welcome, but provoking other posters relentlessly does not foster the kind of community we are looking for.
That is the best policy in this case,
I'm responding in like to attacks on me. This has been an all day thing. Libertarian drug users are a hard headed lot who don't want to hear another point of view. I get attacked, I attack back.
Agreed, I will attempt to keep my posts on topic, and non-personal, in the future.
I believe along the lines of Samuel Rutherford (Lex Rex), John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, and much of Montesquieu where law is concerned. I do believe that Natural law is written into the land as much as physical law by our Creator. I do not believe that man is innately good, in fact the opposite — man is depraved. Our depravity is the reason we need laws, and the reason why the American form of government has been so durable. The Founders also knew this about man and because they knew of man's sinfulness and quest for power, they created many checks and balance, plus separated powers to protect us from ourselves.
I also believe that the church and the state are two distinct kingdoms as Augustine first put forth (later expounded by some of the Reformers). However, that does not mean that as individuals, we are not free to influence society in whatever realm may be our occupation or involvement. Notice I said "influence" not "force."
I have actually done a lot of research on the Founders. There were some deists, but there were as many, if not more, from the various Protestant sects. But I am not trying to argue the Founder's faith though I can support many Biblical principles that found their way into our very form of government. (For instance Isaiah 33:22, He is our Lawmaker, our Judge, and our King. Moses chose representatives from the tribes. Moses father-in-law suggested a hierarchy of courts. Etc.)
No more debate on this tonight. I do appreciate your civility though I know we aren't on the same page.
Shouldn't you be cruising the showers at the YMCA right now?
No more debate–I just enjoy expressing my views, with the hopes that more libertarian minded people will read my posts and dare to speak up and not be shouted out of the conservative conversation. Frankly, I'm tired of conservatives saying that we are "liberals" simply because we see things slightly differently (not you of course, but it's why I write what I do). So read the rest if you like, otherwise, it's been fun talking with you.
It's sort of a Catch 22. If man were so depraved, then how on earth did we come up with a group of men who had the foresight to create this great nation in the first place. I guess we are fortunate that they weren't sidetracked by sin and depravity. Seems to me like a glass is half-full, or half empty perspective. I believe we are mostly good, and act against our best interests more rarely than not.
Although I am not religious I do have a spiritual life, and I think that man is the best that creation has ever had to offer. Whether or not people do things that are "bad" or "good" is really up to the individual who chooses to judge. Most of us here like to think though that the "good stuff" is to be left alone, and that the government should have as limited influence into our lives as possible. But in practice, not everyone actually holds to those principles.
For instance, I don't have a big stance against drugs. But something I do have a problem with is parents who berate their children at little league games for not "playing hard enough". Yet, I can't fathom how you would make something like that "illegal". In my heart, I am against it–but I can only imagine the sort of nightmare that would ensue from the government trying to actually make it so that kids don't get yelled at for stuff like that (although I don't put it past them to try).
So being libertarian is kind of like that. There are things that you don't like, or approve of, but the method of attempting to fix those problems is actually worse than the problems themselves.
Case in point: Drug war. Some people think drug use is bad, or sinful. Fair enough. But what is really distressing are the countless murders and corruption that all stem from the simple fact that drugs are illegal–none of that stuff would have happened if they would have been legalized. So, basically, the "Drug War" has nothing but blood on its hands (and it also hasn't done a damned thing to actually stop drugs–it's just made the problem infinitely worse.)
I am by no means a sexist, but Grewel and Schopman have: (This is multiple choice.)
1. Inbibed a bit too much of the Amsterdam Gold, during their research.
2. Led very hard lives.
3. Been on a long, long ride – bareback, in the rain, and on a horse with a bad gait.
Keep in mind marijuana use is less in the Netherlands than in the U.S. So is violent crime. America could learn a lot from the Dutch by watching carefully and following their example.
[...] » Sex, Drugs and Cultural Euthanasia: Amsterdam, 1992 – Big Journalism [...]
No, I am for small government. I am for the Founding principles. I don't want to end up a totalitarian state, but I don't want to end up like The Netherlands either. I am for balance. Some government is necessary.
I do not think you can legislate morality — that's a heart issue — but it also doesn't need to be promoted. For example, if two men want to live together, I am OK with that even though it personally offends me. But I also don't think government should have a role in promoting it.
And while no one can legislate morality, I also agree with Washington that religion and morality are the indispensable supports of a society. And with Adams who said that our form of government would only work with a religious and moral people. History is proving themselves as wise men in this way.
We're good to go. Thanks for hanging in there with us.
If man were so depraved, then how on earth did we come up with a group of men who had the foresight to create this great nation in the first place.
A combination of common grace and specific grace. If you are interested, you can look it up.
All done.
LOL @ weed kills.
Your ignorance is delicious.
If you have a drink…ever…
You are more of a druggie than me.
1 hit? Really?
You are just all knowing.
Your prejudice and ignorance are now on full display and I recommend you slow down.
Pot is just as benign as alcohol. If not more so.
I just hate being told that drinking is OK and smoking pot is not, even though I can smoke 50 joints and never be as impaired as someone who drinks 5 beers.
Being a fool IS a drain on society.
So educate yourself, learn some tolerance, or keep talking and accept the criticism that comes your way.
Well that's your own religious viewpoint, which is fine. I'm more in the "self-evident" camp myself.
and you are deluded pot head.
Biology proves that. Maybe you've already burned out too many brain cells.
The war to supply it to eager pot heads kills. Wake up.
Ignore reality, it's easier than thinking – burnout.
Bring on your high school pothead rantings. Most adults have grown up and moved on with their lives, not sitting around calling their buddies and to go score and get stoned.
Grow up. You and the other bonehead.
You a ridiculous fool..and you're being sold some really crappy pot.
Lie to yourself all you want, I'll keep correct you with facts.
Most states have a 0.8 blood alcohol level law.
50 joints would obviously exceed that level of intoxication.
Tippity tap some craziness that is closer to the truth.
You potheads are a pathetic lot.
Get your feet of Mom's coffee table and get a job.
True.
Oh, how I wish my alcoholic father had smoked pot instead. We kids would not have grown up as such abused nervous wrecks.
Whatever makes you sleep at night, I'll let you have it.
You are the one making up your own reality from what you learned in D.A.R.E. classes and scare programs.
lol you smoke resin and Eltons
doctors kill people…BAN…i think that would fix health care
i would suck to be your parents
I said she's hot. I didn't say I condoned what she's probably being forced to do.
Chill out.
rjcylon, your comments are a pleasure to read — evenhanded, reasonable and on point — with no ad hominem bs attacks thrown in.
(Of course, it doesn't hurt that I see things pretty much the same way you do.)
The most important question: Who owns me?
I want to be my owner. I'm twenty years drug free, and I quit because I was tired of it, not because of a legal or medical problem. I can't imagine going back to it, ever. Nor can I imagine myself trying to take away someone else's freedom to use the drugs I once used.
Please open your Holy Books to Confabulations II, verses 9-10, and follow along as I read those inspiring words:
"And he toiled not in the vineyards, nor labored he in the fields; And though he knew not his ass from a HOLE IN THE EARTH! yea, verily, though he couldst not find his own ass with both hands, he prospered might-eh-lehhhhh, for he could talk that shite-tuhhhhhhh."
A most excellent article!
Several of my friends seem to always fantasize about "moving to Amsterdam."
This piece shouts 'be careful what you wish for.'
Nice.
Yes, the Prohibition is killing people. Still doesn't explain how marijuana itself kills people.
Maybe we should outlaw guns too, since they kill people.
[...] Sex, Drugs and Cultural Euthanasia: Amsterdam, 1992 [...]
[...] Big Journalism – Sex, Drugs and Cultural Euthanasia: Amsterdam, 1992 [...]
[...] » Sex, Drugs and Cultural Euthanasia: Amsterdam, 1992 – Big Journalism [...]
amsterdam i a nice place but i cant get how they manage to get on with drugs and sex everywhere on the city
Pathetic article showing you really know know less about Amsterdam than even the most stoned hippy walking its streets. Whats all this reference to guilders, a currency that has been gone for almost 10 years? All you guys commenting about how scared you were of the thugs in Amsterdam are equally as pathetic. There is no risk of violence here, if someone is aggressive towards you, stand up for yourself and be aggressive back. They junkies will ALWAYS back down (don't try this in Johannesburg.) The (very low) level of violent crime in the Netherlands is all related to organized crime. If you are not involved in organized crime, than there is ZERO risk to your safety in Amsterdam, even in the Red Light District's back alleys at 4am. If you find yourself intimidated on the streets of Amsterdam, you are a wimp.
Nice propaganda article. Too bad Amsterdam is rated as having a higher quality of living than any American city according to the Mercer Quality of Living index, and the highest quality of life offered by any city in the lower 48 states is to be found in San Francisco, commonly thought to be the most evil city in the world by many conservatives.
http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idCont...
Just because some bad stuff happens doesn't mean that the place is not nice or that the people who live there aren't happy. There are terrible things far worse than anything you list here happening in every major American city, and our laws aren't making it any better than it is in Holland. Let's work on solutions and not just misinform and frighten people into action.
A great post, thanks I love how you you write.
Excelent read. Nice to discover websites like yours. And I am very happy that babelfish made the translation tool (and that I discovered it). This way I don’t care about the language. I’ll come back more times. Thank you
great post! I really love your nice blog! I also commented at your other post that I thought was awesome. oh and if you can also check out my nursing blog that would be really cool.
Hello could I reference some of the information from this blog if I reference you with a link back to your site?
Hi, good read. I just now came across your site and I am already a fan.
I am coming to amsterdam coming week for 8 days. Can anyone suggest me any escort service close to the airport?Thanks in advance.
You must be logged in to post a comment.