This being the interview of course, not the OP!
I see it all the time - in everyday interactions, on DU, in serious discussions. The silly idea that people can only support policies or changes that benefit themselves directly. It's a poisonous and depressing assumption that reflects poorly on the one making the assumption and the one about whom it is made. I'm no paragon here - I've been guilty of it myself, and neither am I some noble altruistic crusader who seeks only to help his fellows. I have never indulged in marijuana in any way, and have no intent to do so. Not from prudery but from lack of interest. I'm also for legalization. Not just because people should be free to do whatever does not harm or unduly risk harm to others, but because it would free up hugely expensive enforcement resources and generate a ton of tax revenue to the public purse. I am not naive enough to suggest it would reduce crime at the serious and violent distributor level, as those top level criminals will simply switch to other contraband, but properly regulated it would simply be another personal vice industry.
I wonder why the assumption is so automatic that those in favor of policy X, be it legalized drugs, sanity instead of hysteria about driving after a few beers, legal prostitution or whatever are those who toke up a storm, drive shitfaced every night and troll the street corners looking for teenage hookers. It only seems to apply to the "personal vice" issues though. Nobody assumes death penalty opponents are all serial killers, or pacifists are all soldiers hiding from the front lines. Why is it that those who want rational approaches to booze, sex or drugs are assumed to be addicted to them?
= new reply since forum marked as read
