tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post488099727012578482..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Vox on Civil Asset ForfeitureGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-54305240463134262662016-04-26T13:45:17.352-06:002016-04-26T13:45:17.352-06:00Kyle,
I have to again admit that you are correct....Kyle,<br /><br />I have to again admit that you are correct. At best, we might have the opportunity to make the broader case you mention, given the more relaxed attitude about marijuana.<br /><br />But even then, we're going to have a tough time convincing many that tobacco should remain legal. <br /><br />And thinking further, many of the people becoming upset about civil asset forfeiture are probably similarly inconsistent regarding property -- and so have no qualms about the routine forfeiture of large amounts of money (e.g., via taxes) for their favorite government handout.<br /><br />Thank for taking the time to comment.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-42578916579009455462016-04-26T12:40:41.075-06:002016-04-26T12:40:41.075-06:00Sadly, I have to question your statement that publ...Sadly, I have to question your statement that public belief on drug legalization is shifting. To my mind the essence of a proper view on drug legalization is that individuals have a right to take recreational chemicals even if they are addictive and personally harmful. I don't think views on that have changed significantly.<br /><br />What has shifted is the public view on whether marijuana specifically is personally harmful. But legalizing weed on the grounds that it isn't personally harmful doesn't constitute progress on the intellectual foundation of drug prohibition. As is, we're likely to wind up with marijuana legal and tobacco banned.Kyle Haighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608497826478356055noreply@blogger.com