My friend Boris Karpa is fond of Tim Moen’s campaign slogan: “I want gay people to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns.” I don’t think he is thinking far enough into the bright future.
If pot was legal, we’d no more need to protect a pot patch than a row of tomato stakes or a small plot of dill. For one, legal remedies would be available in case of trespass or theft, for another, the value of the plants would be insufficient to warrant depredation. Bootleggers sometimes fought each other or law enforcement during the Prohibition, but the thought of two liquor or grocery stores selling wine getting into a shootout over turf is laughable today. Chocolate, coffee and sugar aren’t evil, but try prohibiting them and you will see raids on neonatal wards of hospitals for their store of medical caffeine, and cops would imprison people over a sugar cube. Government prohibitions enable and promote rational criminal behavior by enforcing arbitrary laws and creating perverse incentives. Reduce the number and scope of prohibitions and you will see a massive reduction in crime.
Exactamundo, my brother!
I still think the gay/pot/gun quote is kind of cute though.
Progressives, at least the really evil ones at the top (or is it the bottom when you’re the leader of evil forces?), they understand all of this perfectly well, and exploit it for all it’s worth to the detriment of everyone.
” The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” –Tacitus, Roman statesman and historian
Your “government” doesn’t WANT less crime , They want MORE crime, because it was never about guns, or liquor ,or drugs, or “hate crimes”. It was ALWAYS about CONTROL. America is an Imperial dictatorship, and the ruling junta is weary of their property(us) thinking it can protest the arbitrary rulings of their betters , and things are about to get a whole lot worse.
No, no, it’s, “I want to see a gay pot farmer couple married on the steps of the LDS Cathedral in Salt Lake City, carrying matching AR15s.”
That’s confusing the picture a bit by bringing in private organizations (LDS) in what is otherwise an argument about liberty (i.e., no government interference in private choices).