(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Constructing Inconsistency
05/08/2003

Jonah Goldberg admits an "indirect hit" on his argument in support of Bill Bennett in a column by Radley Balko. I'm sorry to see him do that.

Balko constructs his piece well, snapping the ends into a taught "gotcha" with this:

But if conservatives are going to toe the "No Guardrails" line, it seems to me that they ought to be consistent about it. It's preposterous to argue on the one hand that two adults engaging in nontraditional sex behind a closed door will lead to a breakdown in heterosexual marriages across the country, but that America's foremost spokesperson for virtue and morality spending millions at casinos across the country bears no influence on the 5.5 million people his own organization has identified as "problem gamblers."

The problem is that Balko misrepresents an argument by Stanley Kurtz in such a way as to fabricate this supposed contradiction. Furthermore, to the extent that he did "hit" Goldberg, it is because Jonah was incorrect — or expressed himself incorrectly.

Balko builds his framework from a column called "No Guardrails," by Daniel Henninger, which I haven't read, so I'll give you Balko's summary:

"No Guardrails" basically blamed society's elite — and the leftist elite in particular — for adopting the ever-sliding mores, values and morals that cultural conservatives blame for most of modern society's maladies.

Elitists can afford to lack values, "No Guardrails" thinking says, but the underclass can't. So single motherhood may be fine for Murphy Brown, who is wealthy, well-connected, and educated (not to mention fictional), but fatherless child rearing is a devastating example to set for low-income communities.

Perhaps elites can afford to flirt with drugs, with indiscriminate sex, and with excess personal liberty, the editorial explained, "but for a lot of other people it hasn't been such an easy life to sustain. Not exceedingly sophisticated, neither thinkers nor leaders, never interviewed for their views, they're held together by faith, friends, fun and, at the margins, by fanaticism."

"These weaker or more vulnerable people, who in different ways must try to live along life's margins, are among the reasons that a society erects rules. They're guardrails."

I take a less objective view of elite iniquity, but I do believe that the guardrails idea rightly enables us to carry moral arguments even into our free and open society. In other words, if Hollywooden stars kept their party lives to themselves, I wouldn't care much to attack them for it. That they flaunt it and promote it is the problem.

Getting back to Balko, Kurtz's argument, about gay marriage, was only tangentially related, and that only because Kurtz referred to Senator Santorum's comments about sodomy that were in the news at the time. Here's Balko:

Writing in National Review, Stanley Kurtz went to great lengths to explain how acceptance of gay and other non-traditional lifestyles at the elite level would, in the end, destroy the institutions of marriage and family Kurtz and others believe are vital to a healthy, functioning society.

The problem is that Kurtz didn't say a thing about elites. And, to relate it to Balko's closing shot, Kurtz isn't talking about "adults engaging in nontraditional sex behind a closed door." Rather, he's talking about the public institution of marriage's requirement of monogamy and the effects that gay marriage and the polygamy (again, marriage) that will likely follow in its path will have on that public institution. Indeed, I'm baffled as to how Balko didn't see this, considering that he quotes Kurtz's line about the "married commune next door," which doesn't suggest a difference of class.

In the case of Jonah Goldberg, I think Balko has a more valid point, although I think it amounts to a misstatement on Goldberg's part, rather than an actual belief that he holds. Perhaps because he's got his eyes on another portion of the larger issue (as indicated by his admission of only to an indirect hit), Goldberg doesn't seem to realize this himself, which is why he responds in the affirmative to Balko's characterization of his Bennett argument:

In other words, Bennett — as a rich man and an elite — is subject to a different set of rules than are the common folk. He can gamble all he likes, because he's rich, so long as he doesn't recommend the practice to those less fortunate.

The factor that Balko isn't seeing is that the "guardrails" are for behaviors that have consequences that only the elite can afford to address. It isn't an argument for moderation. It isn't that elites can afford the cocaine to support their habits, but poor people can't; rather, it's that elites can afford to address the consequences that come with the behavior (e.g., lost employment, legal fees, and so on). This is where the actual differences between the "vices" of drugs and gambling become important: gambling is legal and acceptable up until the point at which it extends beyond one's individual finances and ability to control himself, even for poor folks. Going in the other direction, the gambling corollary to elite druggies would be a rich guy who bankrupted his family, but whose rich friends bailed him out or whose elite position created a solution not available to most (e.g., a best-selling book about the ordeal).

In Bennett's case, that threshold is just much, much higher. The same could be said of any other legal activity that can be taken to excess — car collecting, for example. Balko can't possibly believe that conservatives would argue that rich people shouldn't buy Mercedes because those with less money can't afford them. (Indeed, the motivation to be able to afford such amenities is a central gear in the conservative socioeconomic strategy.) This perspective draws out another sleight of argument in Balko's zinger: a gambler for whom the pastime is not a problem can still advise against "problem gambling," just as having a beer or two during dinner does not disqualify one from speaking out against binge drinking.

Attention Instapundit Readers:
I'm always thrilled when somebody, particularly Glenn Reynolds, thinks enough of a point that I've made to offer a link. In this case, however, I want to clarify something: I don't disagree with the proposition that "gambling is probably more socially destructive than... sodomy." I'd even take that "probably" right out of the sentence. Moreover, I'd include gay marriage, of itself, in a different — perhaps even a future — society than America is at present.

As a matter of fact, my argument against those who've jumped on Senator Santorum as well as those who are intent on pushing gay marriage through the courts is that I think such cultural decisions ought to be made at the state level — a position that I also hold on the topic of gambling.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 01:49 PM EST

22 comments

Your position seems a little muddled at the end-maybe it's me though. Saying gambling is ok as its legal but drugs aren't because they're illegal just begs the question. Let's assume we're in America in 1905. Drugs are legal.
You say: "This is where the actual differences between the "vices" of drugs and gambling become important: gambling is legal and acceptable up until the point at which it extends beyond one's individual finances and ability to control himself, even for poor folks."
So what are the actual differences between the vices? To me drug use (should be) legal and is acceptable until self-control is lost-rich or poor. The real problem is the neuropharmacology of the gambling addict is really no different than the drug addict. The same pleasure pathways are activated. I'll defend benett's right to get a gambling buzz-why can't he and other conservatives concede my right to get a cocaine buzz?

martin @ 05/08/2003 03:42 PM EST

Martin,

For the purposes of my point here, it might be enough that it isn't currently 1905 — that the legality and social opinion on the two topics are different — particularly if the charge is hypocrisy.

While I'm open to the possibility that the internal mechanics of those who form addictions are the same, I'd be skeptical about claims that the two are equally addictive. In other words: what percentage of gamblers have addictions versus cocaine users? What percentage of those with addictions, in each case, take the behavior to dangerous levels?

I'd also point out that there are differences between the two practices that are more important to the question of legality and acceptability than the neuropharmacology of their individual buzzes. (For one thing, you don't seem to think that pulling a few slots would substitute for snorting a few lines.)

Justin Katz @ 05/08/2003 04:23 PM EST

A minor point: gambling is illegal in certain jurisdictions, e.g. Utah. Would you absolve Bennett of all hypocrisy if he consorted with prostitutes-but in Lyon County Nevada (where's its perfectly legal) or smoked pot in Amsterdam? So he gambled where its legal, his church says its not a sin, etc. etc. etc. But Bennett's hypocrisy is neither here nor there. The larger point is who controls morality in America? It's all up for grabs now. Was it Bayle who said- commenting on medieval fanaticism-"you have to be really convinced of your faith to burn somebody at the stake." Bennett, Santorum and the rest of the drug warriors must be really convinced of their morality to advocate imprisoning people for smoking pot or having consensual sex. That's why it's a little disconcerting to see little chinks in Bennett's moral armor. If he only wanted to decry vices-that's fine-but he actually wants to jail people like Martin and I. I say let's all cut each other a little moral slack.

Tom T. @ 05/08/2003 04:57 PM EST

Tom T.,

A minor point: gambling is illegal in certain jurisdictions, e.g. Utah. Would you absolve Bennett of all hypocrisy if he consorted with prostitutes-but in Lyon County Nevada (where's its perfectly legal) or smoked pot in Amsterdam?
— Well, you answer this question after posing it. But beyond what you've already said, I'd suggest that even the most moral person couldn't follow every law around the world (indeed, doing so would be immoral, in some cases). My point wasn't essentially legalistic — only relying on legality as an indication that, as a people, we approach the issues differently and, as I mentioned in response to Martin, for good reason, I believe.

The larger point is who controls morality in America? It's all up for grabs now.
— I'm not sure what you mean by morality being up for grabs. Taken one way, I'd say that's the problem that social conservatives are fighting against. As a general rule, I think different moral matters ought to be controlled differently. I'm Catholic, and I believe that morality is ultimately up to the individual, but I also believe that immorality has social effects that society ought to be able to address, whether at the municipal, state, or federal level.

Bennett, Santorum and the rest of the drug warriors must be really convinced of their morality to advocate imprisoning people for smoking pot or having consensual sex.
— I think your "burned at the stake" quotation points to a general problem that I've noticed in addressing these issues: nobody sane is advocating the death penalty for smoking pot or having consensual adult sex of any form. In the case of drugs, whatever you individually feel about them, there would be real social effects to their legalization (pot's a hard-case-bad-law situation, which is why I chose cocaine for my example), not just moral implications. In the case of Santorum, he was speaking about a law that imposed a $200 fine. I don't agree with that law, but it wasn't a sentence to Siberian prison, and on the line between states' rights and civil rights deserving of national protection, I think it falls on the states' rights side. (Of course, one might argue that [some] drugs would, as well, and I would be sympathetic to that argument.)

Justin Katz @ 05/08/2003 06:13 PM EST

"Rather, he's talking about the public institution of marriage's requirement of monogamy and the effects that gay marriage and the polygamy (again, marriage) that will likely follow in its path will have on that public institution."

How exactly will polygamy "likely follow" gay marriage?
I've heard that incidentally mentioned several times when talking about this type of subject. I have never heard of a causal relationship between the two and have yet to see any sort of research of or even explination for this point.
I'd love for you to clear it up for me.

Brad B. @ 05/08/2003 06:30 PM EST

Brad,

How will it not?

Stanley Kurtz at NRO has been the most prolific on the topic, so I suggest you head over there to have the issue "cleared up."

The central problem is that the definition of marriage will be changed, and there really isn't anything to stop polygamy if that is done through the courts, as is currently in the works in Massachusetts. This might not happen if the argument is made to the people of each state and enacted through their legislatures, but that doesn't seem to be the intention of any advocates of the change.

Justin Katz @ 05/08/2003 07:15 PM EST

I went ahead and read through some of what Stanley Kurtz wrote over at NRO (thanks for the link). While he does have a well thought out argument I think that he fails to cover a couple of points. I bring these up here because you effectively bowed to Stanley’s reasoning on this as your own.

1) He refers to a case where the plaintiffs (two women) want to bring in a third party (the biological father) as a legally appointed parent. He points out that this will weaken the focus on two people only being the parents for a child. When did this become a solely gay couple/biological father issue? If I were to have a child with a woman and she were to divorce me (or to never have married me) and marry some other person, would it then threaten American Family Values if the person she married adopted the child? I am still considered the child’s father. So would that not mean that this child now has three parents?
2) Is marriage not defined at its base as a contract between TWO people? Not 3 or 4 or what have you. I suppose you could use this argument against gay marriage considering the contract is also defined as held between a man and a woman.

There are more issues that I believe he has not covered but these I suppose are the most salient. I realize that the second point (the way I phrased it) is weak as an argument. I promise to do more homework on this though to make sure my points are put forth more eloquently in the future as I am at work and do not have all the time in the world. Still, I think that it is a much broader and more important change to open marriage to more people than to another sex (in a contractual sense, not moral).

You disagree?

Brad B. @ 05/08/2003 08:01 PM EST

Brad B., your adoptive argument in 1) is incorrect. If your ex-wife's new husband adopts your child you would be required to give up all rights and responsibilities to the child. No right to visit, no responsibility to support, etc. And IIRC adoption is more binding on the adoptive parent than natural children, you cannot cut them out of wills and the like. I do not believe there is any room in current state or federal law to have more than two legal parents. But I could be wrong.....

John P @ 05/08/2003 09:13 PM EST

Brad,

If I were to have a child with a woman and she were to divorce me (or to never have married me) and marry some other person, would it then threaten American Family Values if the person she married adopted the child? I am still considered the child’s father.
— I'm neither lawyer nor legal scholar, but I'm pretty sure that the different roles of the three parents in your scenario would be explicitly different as a matter of law. Apart from law, there is also the situational difference that the "third parent" is the newcomer — a non-biological parent. Moreover, this newcomer is displacing the father in many ways, while at the same time, the biological father presumably has emotional ties to the child. It's a complex situation, but not the same as going to court to say, "we three are all the parents."

Still, I think that it is a much broader and more important change to open marriage to more people than to another sex (in a contractual sense, not moral).
— Since the Santorum thing, I've been hearing this argument all over the place as part of pro–gay marriage advocacy and will likely get around to addressing it at more length soon. The upshot is that nobody against gay marriage is arguing that the situations are equivalent — in fact, the argument inherently draws the distinction in "danger level." That's why I wouldn't have a problem (in my capacity as a citizen), ultimately, with gay marriage if it were A) merely a recognition of relationships being widely pursued independent of that recognition (with emphasis on monogamy), and B) granted legal status through the appropriate channel: state-by-state legislatures. If these are not pursued, then there's no firewall between changing the gender definition of marriage and changing the number definition. Consider this, from a great Jeff Jacoby column, coming from the legal case now before the courts in Massachusetts:

"Because marriage is so centrally about an individual's love and commitment," their brief argues, "it is embraced within the sphere of privacy and self-determination protected by the liberty and due process clauses of the Massachusetets Constitution."

Justin Katz @ 05/08/2003 09:26 PM EST

Unfortunately I will not have time (as you probably won't) to persue this arguement to conclusion. I dislike however, people who put up an arguement to discuss, then never come back after it has been "shot down" so to speak. I will admit that my position on this issue is perhaps not as well thought out as I had first assumed. I'll have to do more research on this subject to really bring myself abreast of all the relavent stuff. Thanks for bringing some of this info to my attention and, though I do still disagree, I think your arguement has some merit.
Again, I think I'll have to do some more looking around.

Brad B. @ 05/09/2003 01:32 PM EST

TomT said morality was up for grabs-here's what I think he meant:
People, like you, say Bennett- as moral champion- isn't a fat hypocrite because gambling is legal. We'll have to assume Bennett also regarded it as moral (or else-why do it-right?) Bennett has now said he will no longer gamble-now his hypocrisy is exposed. Why would he quit a legal moral behavior he clearly enjoys.
Why won't he defend his own behavior? The only answer- he really does see it as a vice-albeit a legal one. Legal vices are allowed. Fine. The key point is if the ground has switched now from questioning behavior on solely legal grounds rather than additional moral grounds-e.g. what's that behavior you're engaging in? oh-it's legal-ok no problem-proceed-then MORALITY can be changed by MAJORITY VOTE. If sodomy laws are constitutional, i.e. the people in a state can vote to enact them-then clearly they can vote to abolish them. Sodomy is then something less than immoral by its very nature-its no longer "malum in se" merely a prohibited act-just like jaywalking. Whether its legal or not depends on the jurisdiction you happen to be in-just like-ahem-gambling. Santorum has already lost the game by not protesting a state's ability to legalize sodomy rather than just fighting a rearguard action to keep the last few left on the books. Any morality that transcends laws comes from religion. We don't have a strong religious tradition. Basically-the only source of morality left is law. Even "murder" can be legalized-be it abortion, or anti-carjacking laws. Everything is circumstantial-there are no absolutes. Bennett's defense that gambling is "legal" just reaffirms that.His own defenders are hepling to bury what he stands for: a non-relative morality. Therefore-since the laws on drugs or sex are always up for grabs by majoriy vote-morality on drugs and sex is now up for grabs.
Assume you think potsmoking is immoral and should be a crime.
Pot smoking has been somewhat legalized by California voters. Is potsmoking in California no longer immoral as well? No-because the voters said so.

martin @ 05/09/2003 05:16 PM EST

that last line should be "Yes. It's no longer immoral because the voters have spoken." Point being-on these questions-illegal versus immoral is losing its distinction, and that process is being aided by Bill Bennett.

martin @ 05/09/2003 05:24 PM EST

Martin,

Unless I misspoke somewhere that I don't see now, I don't think I've been making the argument that you've suggested that I have.

In my view, the legality of gambling is mostly significant, in this case, as an indication of our social view of its morality. But morality and legality don't line up perfectly — shouldn't line up perfectly because most moral issues aren't best resolved through the law (although, in most cases, I would leave the determination of which are which as close to individual communities as possible... state level, for the most part, in our country). I personally don't consider gambling within limits any less moral than drinking beer within limits. It can become immoral when it either disrupts a person's life or affects others. The latter circumstance came to pass when Bennett was found out, leading him to quit. (Personally, I think I'd have continued to argue the point, although I'm not sure who would be the more moral/responsible.)

Why won't he defend his own behavior?
— Don't know. Perhaps, realizing that plenty of people are coming to his defense, it is best for him to say his piece and move on.

The key point is if the ground has switched now from questioning behavior on solely legal grounds rather than additional moral grounds... then MORALITY can be changed by MAJORITY VOTE.
— Again, I don't concede this equivalency. In many cases (e.g., sodomy), I'd prefer morality be addressed through other institutions than the government.

Santorum has already lost the game by not protesting a state's ability to legalize sodomy rather than just fighting a rearguard action to keep the last few left on the books.
— I think this is a mischaracterization of what he's said as well as where and how he said it. Santorum mentioned his view in an interview and (going further than I would, with abortion) stated that his main disagreement was with the Supreme Court declaring a Constitutional right that states could then not decide, within their own jurisdiction, to curb.

Any morality that transcends laws comes from religion.
— Define religion. You'd have to do so pretty broadly for this to be true.

Point being-on these questions-illegal versus immoral is losing its distinction, and that process is being aided by Bill Bennett.
— I see what you're saying, here, and there's the danger and the perception of it, but my impression is that the blurring is being done by those who wish to tar Bennett. I doubt you'd find many of his defenders supporting him in the case of adultery, which is legal. Their case, as I've seen it presented, is mainly that it isn't an immoral behavior if pursued within limits and it isn't even immoral in the way that engaging in illegal activity can be immoral.

Justin Katz @ 05/09/2003 05:56 PM EST

Man-you guys don't just get it-here's what Kurtz just posted on the corner:

"Indeed, even if Bennett’s personal gambling skirts the edge of what’s excessive, it doesn’t change the principles at stake. It is not hypocritical to believe that recreational gambling is OK but recreational drugs are not."

Sorry-but when you continually exercise a right to a particular socially destructive vice but want to jail people for other such vices-I see that as hypocrisy.
Jesus is constantly referring to hypocrites in my Testament-what was that "mote in thy neighbor's eye-beam in your own" thing about anyway?

But let's give Bennett the last word (saw this quote at Alterman's blog)

“Approximately 2.5 million adult Americans are pathological gamblers; another 3 million have been classified as problem gamblers. … According to the American Psychiatric Association, ‘pathological gambling is persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior … that disrupts personal, family, or vocational pursuits.’ From The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators 2001, Introduction authored by William Bennett.

martin @ 05/09/2003 07:44 PM EST

Actually-let's give Jesus the final word:

"Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Matthew 7:5

martin @ 05/09/2003 07:48 PM EST

Man, you guys just will take any dirt that smudges from an entire public career!

But let's give Bennett the last word.

— That's not Bennett — it's not from the introduction, but from the body of a statistical index, just after statistics about television and movies. Moreover, the elipses carry you, without noting it, right into a footnote. Talk about looking for splinters in other people's eyes!

As for Kurtz, you haven't argued against him, merely asserted a conflicting claim. But to return to a Biblical note, here are some relevant passages (the first two from the Catholic Catechism, which applies to Bennett and myself):

2413: Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others.

2291: The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Here's St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:19,20: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

Justin Katz @ 05/10/2003 12:08 AM EST

FYI-The Washington Monthly is sticking by its $8 million net loss figure. The author told Goldberg the $1 million revision was an error. That would seem to violate 2290's prohibition on excess-don't you think? Not to mention general christian charity-$8 million could relieve a lot of suffering-a real shame to give it to a casino. Furthermore-How is "drugs" defined in 2291? Only Clintonian parsing could not count alcohol as a drug. Do Catholics really believe consuming alcohol, except for therapeutic purposes, is a grave offense? Not by what I saw last St. Patrick's day.

peter @ 05/10/2003 12:59 PM EST

Peter,

I'm not sure I'd believe that the majority of revelers on St. Patrick's Day are practicing Christians.

That would seem to violate 2290's prohibition on excess-don't you think?
— Not if you actually read 2290:

The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

It's clear what type of excess is meant here. Particularly given that this is in the "Respect for Health" section. Some parsing is necessary to include gambling in this rule.

Not to mention general christian charity-$8 million could relieve a lot of suffering-a real shame to give it to a casino.

— Do you have the figures for Bennett's charitable giving and charitable activities? Only the apostles were called upon to give up everything. (A lot of good could have been done for the cost of your computer and Internet connection [and I certainly blog in excess].)

Only Clintonian parsing could not count alcohol as a drug.

— Yes, the very Clintonian parsing that leads to countless departments and studies to have the title "Drug and Alcohol [Whatever]." All that redundancy.

Come on, now.

Justin Katz @ 05/10/2003 01:20 PM EST

Your argument re: 2290 is vitiated by the fact that it includes "OR love of speed" as an excess. Obviously driving too fast is dangerous even if you're sober. So its moderation injunction obviously goes beyond alcohol, food, and tobacco. But it doesn't matter-obviously Bennett agrees with me-he has since quit gambling (or so he says publicly). Don't come back at me re: christian giving. I haven't written a book extolling virtue and bemoaning its absence in te culture. Bennett has. So in what chapter is giving $8 million to a casino from gambling losses included? Furthermore I'll bet you a $20 on paypal right now he hasn't given $8 million to charity in the last 10 years. Gambling addicts like to use all their excess cash for their favorite thing.
You also avoided the question. Do catholics condemn alcohol consumption? If not-why not? And if not - why can't one smoke pot (an invention of God's btw) as long as you don't smoke it to excess?
Agiain-you avoided the question. Define "drug" so that alcohol is not included (if you can).

peter @ 05/10/2003 02:39 PM EST

Your argument re: 2290 is vitiated by the fact that it includes "OR love of speed" as an excess.
— Yes, 2290 specifies "safety on the road, at sea, or in the air." We're talking health, here, not just general excess. Anyway, if you want to continue along this path, I'd ask that you define where the line is for spending money on entertainment to become excess.

Don't come back at me... charity in the last 10 years.
— Nobody says that charitable giving has to exceed any one of a person's expenditures. Neither of us knows how much Bennett gives to charity, but the fact that his family is hardly hurting for cash suggests that you're being a bit extreme in your characterization of his addiction.

Do catholics condemn alcohol consumption? If not-why not?
— Well, as I recall, Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine for a wedding party.

And if not - why can't one smoke pot (an invention of God's btw) as long as you don't smoke it to excess?
— It's illegal, for one thing. I'm not personally against the legalization of marijuana (btw), but I understand the prudential arguments for maintaining its illegality. Until it is made legal, however, this from the Catechism applies: "Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices."

Define "drug" so that alcohol is not included (if you can).
— How about: "substances, besides food and alcohol, that affect the functioning of the body." Sound foolish? Not in a world in which so many people and organizations use the phrase "drug and alcohol" without thinking it redundant. You're being obtuse; if you say you're for the legalization of drugs, people know what you mean. Essentially, it's the definition of "controlled substance" in the Controlled Substances Act:

(6) The term "controlled substance" means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this title [21 USCS Section 812]. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [26 USCS Sections 5001 et seq.].

Justin Katz @ 05/10/2003 03:37 PM EST

"Well, as I recall, Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine for a wedding party"

Ok -if that's the rationale- Genesis 1:29: "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth."

Unless you're being obtuse-"every herb bearing seed" would include marijuana. I never understood how Bill Bennett could justify taking away from me that which God gave me-but since you said you're for legalization-good for you. Doesn't save Bennett from my contempt, however.

So drugs are "substances, besides food and alcohol, that affect the functioning of the body." So, just to take two substances- oxygen and bullets are drugs-wow-hope they dont illegalize bullets.

You're right-"drug" means whatever the government says it means. Of course, 70 years ago alcohol was regarded as such a socially evil "drug" that the constitution was amended to illegalize it-but social attitudes have since changed. You'd think that would give some pause to people who like jailing drugusers (i.e. people are currently serving life sentences for what might well be legal in 2070)-but i guess not.
I don't know how old you are-but XTC was only defined as a "drug" and made illegal in 1986. I used to take XTC from 1982-1985-never to excess-never hurt myself or anyone else-basically the same rationale Bennett uses to justify his gambling. Then the government declared my particular "vice" illegal. Bennett then made it his job to imprison me for my vice, and was a particularly zealous "drug czar." Now I find he was taking the profits from "the Book of Virtues" and putting them into slot machines. Yep a moral giant alright. Anyway-I think you see why some of us regard him as a foul hypocrite- even if you don't agree.

peter @ 05/10/2003 05:35 PM EST

Well, of course, some of the drug sentencing guidelines are ridiculous. Certain drugs (pot) could be legalized in a regulated fashion. Others (and I'm not so sure about XTC, but I really don't make the topic of drugs one of my major concerns) ought to remain illegal, perhaps on a state-by-state basis. On the whole, I'm more inclined to suggest the pursuit of moral influence through other conduits than the government (e.g., churches) — in part because leaving it up to the government increases the perception of "legality is morality," which absolves individuals of the responsibility of making moral decisions.

I guess my bottom line with the entire Bennett discussion is that the glee with which many have approached this smudge on his résumé, so to speak, have done so in such a way as to put themselves in an unattractive light as well as to seek to undermine (it seems) some of the very legitimate arguments made by Bennett on certain topics.

I for one care not a bit whether it is Bennett making those arguments on O'Reilly, but this burning of social conservatives at the media stake for any perceived "offense" is getting out of hand.

Justin Katz @ 05/10/2003 06:17 PM EST