Why Paul is Wrong, except for the connection to Fontana

This would have been just a comment – but it was too long and too good to be held back. Just like Das Kapital.

Paul’s argument has several fatal flaws, but I will limit myself to talking about two (yes, it is hard to be this condescending)

1. The drug example was set up with the sole purpose of illustrating the dangers of addiction, and therefore why a substance should be banned. However, one could easily argue that heroin and angel dust are not illegal due to their causing addictions, but because it drives up the price, uh, I mean because of the negative effects they cause the body.

2. No where, not even in the conundrums of the big C, is it stated that we have the right to choose our addictions, or rather, that we have the right not to have addictions inflicted upon us. Do you think I chose to be addicted to the idea that having and eight-hour workday, two vehicles, a TV big enough to watch American Idol, and a worthless piece of land is all I need to not want to rise up in revolution? As Paul must be well aware, the connection between speech and pornography is tenuous even though it has thus far been used to uphold the “rights” of dirty capitalists. But the connection between speech and addiction is just too much.

Going down the road of “X is bad because it hurts me against my will and therefore invades my rights” is fine if X is randomly if X is randomly throwing needles, but what if X is randomly inviting people to play Alpha Centari at portable kiosks (addiction), or singing “La Macarena” on a bus (speech, addiction, and causing people to commit suicide)?

Attack the porno = speech side. Try passing an amendment defining porno and saying it isn’t speech. Good luck with that definition and good luck keeping what is outside the U.S. from coming in. Heroin, anyone? FICA!