No, it doesn't. Why should it be treated as a nuisance? What is wrong with simply letting people pursue their own ends? You say legalization "encourages use," and "is a minefield they don't want to go down," but I don't understand why. Even assuming marijuana is extremely harmful, it is less harmful than the penalty imposed by the government right now--and the people using it are only harming themselves.

You're making two assumptions here--that "legalization encourages use" and that it's an activity that's worth discouraging at all. I agree with neither. People use it regardless of whether it is legal or not, and it's not particularly destructive (even if it is, it's just destructive to the individual, unless you embrace "social responsibility" or somesuch.

I see your point about taxation, but that's hard to avoid in the "mixed economy" we have. Too bad. Being capitalist, I'd expect most people here to rally against taxation of all kinds of goods. But even then, I don't see how any of it is endorsement, relative to the other taxed goods.

So what you're saying is that if the state does not punish pot smokers in some way, they are advocating marijuana use?

So anything that's legal is advocated. Sharing explicitly racist and/or violent opinions is not simply LEGAL, but those opinions are tacitly endorsed by the state since you're not fined or imprisoned for them. Same with communism. So the solution is to offer at the very least "small fines" for everything immoral so the state does not tacitly endorse the activity?

If you wouldn't hire someone like that, that is your own affair. No one's telling you that you must hire that pot smoker.

On the other hand, whether an individual decides to smoke in his spare time is HIS own affair. He gets to do the cost-benefit analysis; you can't do it for him.

Face it. The justifications for disallowing pot-smoking are pretty similar to, though even less sound than, the justifications for excessive environmental regulation. Someone else thinks they can make better decisions than you can about personal virtue.

Great article. It's a simple fact that the Democrats' agenda under Obama is entirely unsustainable to the American public, and we ought to be thankful for it. Now, the GOP must embrace the "teabaggers" and assume its place as the "more sane" of the two parties. The underlying principles ain't so bad, and America's listening.

Right, so here's the thing.

Obama's shown that he's keen on Bush's flawed foreign policy. And why shouldn't he be? The Democrats have traditionally been all for an aggressive foreign policy--it fits in comfortably with their aggressive domestic policy, trampling on the rights of individuals and the sovereignty of the states.

What I don't understand is how a site about the problems with big government can so freely offer praise to a big-government president and his wasteful policies. It wasn't good when Bush was preemptively wasting American resources, and it won't be good when Obama does the same thing (hell, he already has, domestically). It wasn't good when the Bush administration was taking morally dubious measures in detaining suspected terrorists without transparency or a trial, and it's no better or worse when Obama does the same thing.

I've no doubt Obama's worse overall as things stand right now (at least Bush's supreme court appointments were better), but Bush was no hero. In fact, I think he stood tall with Lincoln, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt...as a bad, big-government president who was indifferent to the text of the Constitution.

Just pointing out: if a person is convinced that the fetus isn't human life--or rather, a full-fledged human being--then it's not really an issue of guilt or innocence. It's an issue of destroying cells which never had any moral status.

Now, you can disagree about the moral status of the fetus (I certainly do, being anti-abortion), but the question of guilt here is nothing more than a straw man argument.

MovieBob--if you're who I think you are, I've been watching your videos for some time now. Good stuff.

That said, I disagree with you in part about abortion. I fall safely under the "anti-abortion" label, simply because I am convinced that the fetus is life all the way from conception; the point I think many so-called "pro-lifers" miss is that the very FACT of the woman's body being involved also lends significant weight to her own decision. This is why I think one's position on abortion presents a real dilemma: can we honestly require people to supply nutrition, etc. to another against their will? With the selective libertarian tendencies I have, I find the potential outcome reprehensible.

Yet far more reprehensible is the continuous taking of human life for strictly trivial reasons. The difference between me and some others here is that I accept that you simply won't agree with me about what the fetus is. That is why all I can ever advocate on this issue is that Roe be overturned and my own state outlaw it. At the very least, I hope we can agree that Roe was an inane decision.

So the question comes down to this--do you see the inherent difference between taking the life of a violent felon and an infant, or an innocent child, or an innocent adult? If so, I have no questions about your moral position--you simply hold a different view on abortion itself.

For the record, I myself am against the death penalty, but not because I think it's unjustified. I simply don't trust the state, or a jury of my own peers, etc., to make a decision that ends a human life (they have made a number of mistakes, so I feel tragically vindicated in that position).

Also, regarding just war: I agree with you, and find it ironic that many "pro-lifers" would support not only pre-emptive war but measures such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which have strictly utilitarian justifications. That's internally inconsistent.

Fortunately, I also know a LOT of pro-lifers who do not support either preemptive war or deliberate targeting of civilians, so that's hardly a sweeping claim, nor a "rule." But it's true that "pro-life" is a misnomer, if only because it's too broad to be properly applied to anything. I may be against the death penalty and preemptive war, but I am not pro-life. I'd have no qualms about putting a bullet in someone's skull if they threaten my own, or more importantly my family's, right to life. I'm perfectly comfortable with an alternative, anti-abortion label.

I've had to edit this a couple times to get all my thoughts in, but I think I'm done now.