Prohibition defined

Prohibition: a set of laws that harm everybody based on the false assumption that they’ll prevent a small minority from harming themselves.

And this, of course, identifies the hole in the policy approach of S.A.M. and Kevin Sabet that is big enough to drive a truck through. But since Kevin is so good at baffling with bullshit, few people notice that the question is never answered.

After the second of his recent interview articles at PolicyMic, I tweeted the writer:

.@gabethegrand Oh, so close! The one question that Kevin has not yet answered: “What do you do with non-problematic marijuana users?”

Gabe responded:

@DrugWarRant … All I can say is … to stay tuned for part 3 on Monday…

Monday came and part 3 came, but the question wasn’t there, so I asked:

.@gabethegrand So was the question not asked? Or not answered?

Gabe replied:

@DrugWarRant Not trying to put words in Kevin’s mouth, so I’ll quote him (from Part 2): “Legalization is not about the quirky uncle or the artsy neighbor smoking pot once in a while in the privacy of their own home. So those people are not going to be targeted.” Not sure if that answer satisfies you, but I think it’s at least a response to your question.

Um, no.

.@gabethegrand It’s his usual non-response. How can you have policy that’s vague about how it applies to majority of users?

Of course, Kevin isn’t going to answer that question when I put it to him, because either he’s going to have to say that there is no such thing as non-problematic users, and that’s going to make him unpopular, or he’s going to have to say that non-problematic users should have their life ruined in some way and that’s going to make him unpopular. I was hoping that a journalist would at least have the balls to make him answer the question.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *