The word radical generally refers to a person or group that wants to make drastic and fundamental (that is, radical) changes to society. Derived from the Latin word for "root", in this way it illustrates just how fundamental such change is called for. Classic examples that you oldsters reading this may recall from back in the day include Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. But is Twenty-One Debunked really such a radical group like some may think it is?
Is it really radical to want all legal adults above the age of majority (18) to have the same rights that people over 21 currently enjoy, including (but not limited to) the right to use, possess, share, and purchase otherwise-legal psychoactive substances?Is it really radical to believe that alcohol should be legal for all adults, period, like it is in nearly every single non-Muslim country in the world (and even some moderate Muslim countries too)?
Is it really radical to believe that cannabis, which is objectively safer overall than alcohol and tobacco and less addictive than coffee, should be re-legalized (it was not always illegal, only for a tiny fraction of history) for both recreational and medical use, fairly taxed, and regulated no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco (and legally sold and/or used in many if not most of the same places as well)?
Is it really radical to believe that, when it is legalized, the legal age limit for cannabis should not be any higher than the legal age of majority (18), nor any higher than for the more dangerous and addictive already-legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?
Is it really radical to believe that, for as long as tobacco remains legal and readily available, those over the age of majority (18) should retain the right to decide for themselves whether or not to choose pleasure over longevity and indulge in this (albeit dangerous and deadly) substance?
Is it really radical to not want to punish the many (such as an entire demographic group) for the actions of the few? And to prefer to hold individuals fully and solely accountable for their own misbehavior?
Is it really radical to believe that drinking establishments, and especially "social hosts" at private residences, should NOT be held vicariously liable for what their adult guests or customers do after leaving the premises following participation in voluntary intoxication on the premises? And that personal responsibility for individuals should still be a thing?
Is it really radical to believe that, as John Stuart Mill believed, that individuals are fully sovereign over their own bodies and minds, at least as far as consenting adults are concerned?
Is it really radical to believe that our own bodies are NOT property of the state or any other entity besides ourselves, regardless of what the state or entity may claim or choose to provide us with?
Is it really radical to believe that adults should NOT have to be baby-sat?
Is it really radical to believe that if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar?
Is it really radical to believe in logical consistency and common sense rather than arbitrary legality?
Is it really radical to favor personal autonomy rather than paternalism?
Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government does NOT get to force or coerce states to raise their own legal age limits for alcohol (or any other legal substance) higher than their own legal ages of majority?
Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government should have far LESS (if any) latitude in terms of micro-managing authority over We the People than the state and local governments do, and when in doubt should really stay in their own lane?
Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government does NOT get to force or coerce states to raise their own legal age limits for alcohol (or any other legal substance) higher than their own legal ages of majority?
Is it really radical to believe that under a system of federalism, the federal government should have far LESS (if any) latitude in terms of micro-managing authority over We the People than the state and local governments do, and when in doubt should really stay in their own lane?
Is it really radical to still believe in the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land?
Is it really radical to believe in liberty and justice for all?
Because if you think that these ideas are somehow radical, well, we've got news for you: they are actually quite conservative and in line with both international and historical norms, even in our very own country before 1984 if you can believe that. This shows just how far the Overton window has shifted both rightward and in the authoritarian direction, and just how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.
As Five Finger Death Punch would say, it's stranger than fiction, how we've decayed...
Because if you think that these ideas are somehow radical, well, we've got news for you: they are actually quite conservative and in line with both international and historical norms, even in our very own country before 1984 if you can believe that. This shows just how far the Overton window has shifted both rightward and in the authoritarian direction, and just how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.
As Five Finger Death Punch would say, it's stranger than fiction, how we've decayed...
