We must prevent you from doing this in order to protect your freedom

This is a little old, but I happened to (re-)stumble upon a link to it today and thought I’d mention it because, aside from being flat-out ridiculous, it provides a perfect illustration of why a lot of conservatives, in spite of any rhetoric to the contrary, have no interest in defending personal freedom (actually, not only have no interest in defending personal freedom, but are actually hostile to the notion).

Here’s the comment I left there which pretty much sums up my feelings on both the silliness of the author’s argument and on the broader issue of policing personal behavior:

I think what libertarians really need to do is reconsider their association with conservatives (at least the kind who hold views like the ones expressed here). There’s so much wrong with this article it’s almost mind-boggling, but I’ll just start by echoing Dan Patrick’s comment about whether tradition provides moral validation for an activity. Slavery had a rich tradition in western “civilization” for millennia. Should we bring that back? How about torture? Oh, wait, nevermind. (Also, you might want to rethink how this argument applies to marijuana, since it’s only been illegal in the U.S. since 1937.)

But of all the ridiculous ideas expressed here, perhaps the most absurd is the notion that in order to protect our freedoms the government must “enforce social order”—by preventing people from smoking a plant that makes them inclined to sit around, laugh, and eat junk food. Do I need to point out the irony here? You talk about the left’s dream of a nation of zombies, so drug-addled that they’re unable to resist indoctrination. But what’s the right’s dream? A nation of bright-eyed, enthusiastic drones eager to put the shackles on themselves?

The latter scenario sounds a bit scarier to me. Almost enough to make me want to roll up a doob and take a few tokes of the daemon weed.

(Via Rad Geek.)