Discretion Ain't the Better Part of Nothin'

By -
A guy just passed me on Court Street, with dozens of other people around, talking loudly to a caller using a Bluetooth mic: "Yeah, I got weed; I got weed! I'll just make you some rollups. Meet me in front of my building in ten minutes."

The substance, the time, the place: all laid out for anyone within a quarter of a block or so.

Comments

  1. Josiah Neeley6:21 PM

    This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:29 PM

      Yeah, what's the time and place?

      Delete
    2. gcallah6:32 PM

      Well, the time was "in ten minutes." The place was his apartment building. True, I don't know where that is, but suppose I'm a cop: he must be going there *right now* in order to have time to make rollups and sell them in 10 minutes, so all I have to do is trail him by half a block until he goes into a building, and then wait outside. He'll be meeting the customer right in front, or so I've just heard.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:21 PM

      Of course, I was making a joke as if I want to meet him there. However, as Dr. Murphy can attest, blog comments aren't necessarily the best venue for picking up on intent, especially humorous intent.

      Well, there is no doubt that the guy isn't very aware of his actions; he could be "F'd up" or he could just be an idiot. However, what is the point? I mean, I can see that this guy is being pretty careless, but then, I've seen the same thing from city of Tijuana to the rurals of Ohio; no surprises there. It happens all of the time in the black market.

      To be honest, I've been pretty careless at times regarding such issues (especially marijuana). Of course, it is a much different thing to say that you have smoked pot vs you are holding some right now (availability/sale being a logical extension of this).

      I guess what I am getting at is that I wish to know what your opinion of this whole scenario is? What's you take?

      Delete
    4. gcallah7:22 PM

      Ah, a joke!

      Well, I think the guy was being pretty damn brazen for a dealer!

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7:40 PM

      Undercover? Well, not-so-undercover?

      Delete
  2. Outside The Box8:14 PM

    Seems like good civil disobedience to me. The more we act as if it is perfectly normal to have, buy, sell, and use drugs, the closer we get to ending prohibition (I'm assuming most of your readers are "libertarian" enough to at least see the sense in that). Sneaking around as if it really is a "bad thing" just reinforces the next generation of overlords who decide our laws to think that there's something wrong with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:25 PM

      OK, Outside, two things:

      1) Favoring ending prohibition is not the same as wanting drug use "normalized." Just to give one example, I don't think acting rudely should be illegal, but I certainly don't want people to act as if it is perfectly normal!

      2) Normalizing lawbreaking can have consequences that exceed the goal of changing one particular law. (That is not to say civil disobedience is *always* wrong, just that it always has risks of this sort.)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more