A follow up on David Brooks’ piece on the inadvisability of marijuana legalization. Â Perhaps you’ll recall that Brooks told a very personal tale of his own adolescent adventure with marijuana. Â TL;DR: marijuana should remain illegal (also because of nature and the arts). A charitable reading of this argument would go thusly: Brooks himself continues to pull tubes, with the consequence being that his arguments are terrible, so don’t legalize marijuana, lest you end up a bumbling fool like David Brooks. Â He kind of says as much:
I think we gave it up, first, because we each had had a few embarrassing incidents. Stoned people do stupid things (thatâ€™s basically the point). I smoked one day during lunch and then had to give a presentation in English class. I stumbled through it, incapable of putting together simple phrases, feeling like a total loser. It is still one of those embarrassing memories that pop up unbidden at 4 in the morning.
I’m still embarrassed for him. Â In any case, rushing to his defense is the allegedlyÂ unstoned Reihan Salam, of the National Review (via Lawyers, Guns, and Money). Â His argument is the perfect iron man.
The column has prompted an ungenerous and largely uncomprehending response from people who are attacking David as a hypocrite, and worse. But youâ€™ll notice, if you know how to read, that Brooks isnâ€™t endorsing draconian legal penalties for marijuana use. Rather, he is suggesting that legalization as such might not be the best way forward. Though I imagine I donâ€™t agree with Brooks in every respect on this issue, I think his bottom line is correct. The goal of marijuana regulation, and the goal of alcohol regulation and casino regulation and the regulation various other vices, ought to be striking a balance between protecting individual freedom while also protecting vulnerable people from making choices that can irreparably damage their lives and the lives of those closest to them.
This fellow has just made up an entirely different argument: Brooks did not argue for regulation of marijuana. Â Nor, in fact, does his column even suggest this. Â Nor would any sane (non stoned libertarian) argue for unregulated legalization. Â Just for reference, here’s how the obviously stoned David Brooks characterizes legalization:
We now have a couple states â€” Colorado and Washington â€” that have gone into the business of effectively encouraging drug use. By making weed legal, they are creating a situation in which the price will drop substantially. One RAND study suggests that prices could plummet by up to 90 percent, before taxes and such. As prices drop and legal fears go away, usage is bound to increase. This is simple economics, and it is confirmed by much research. Colorado and Washington, in other words, are producing more users.
Yet, according to Salam, Brooks is not arguing against legalization. Â So this is a beautiful example of argument defense by complete replacement: when the argument you need to defend really sucks, no matter: replace it with a completely different argument, then accuse your opponents of straw manning. Â It’s a double fallacy.
Question for the readership then: must the iron man always involve a straw man? Â Seems like it might. Â In strengthening an argument beyond what it deserves, I distort the critics’ view of the argument as weak.