Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Economics 101 Tells Us That the War on Drugs is a Complete Failure: Prices Are Going Down, Not Up
Carpe Diem ^ | July 6, 2012 | Mark Perry

Posted on 07/06/2012 4:52:57 PM PDT by BfloGuy

From the New York Times article, "Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War the War on Peaceful Americans Who Voluntary Choose to Use Intoxicants Not Currently Approved of By U.S. Politicians and Government Officials":

"When policy makers in Washington worry about Mexico these days, they think in terms of a handful of numbers: Mexico’s 19,500 hectares devoted to poppy cultivation for heroin; its 17,500 hectares growing cannabis; the 95 percent of American cocaine imports brought by Mexican cartels through Mexico and Central America.

They are thinking about the wrong numbers. If there is one number that embodies the seemingly intractable challenge imposed by the illegal drug trade on the relationship between the United States and Mexico, it is $177.26. That is the retail price, according to Drug Enforcement Administration data, of one gram of pure cocaine from your typical local pusher. That is 74 percent cheaper than it was 30 years ago.

Prices match supply with demand. If the supply of an illicit drug were to fall, say because the Drug Enforcement Administration stopped it from reaching the nation’s shores, we should expect its price to go up.

That is not what happened with cocaine. Despite billions spent on measures from spraying coca fields high in the Andes to jailing local dealers in Miami or Washington, a gram of cocaine cost about 16 percent less last year than it did in 2001. The drop is similar for heroin and methamphetamine.

These numbers contain pretty much all you need to evaluate the Mexican and American governments’ “war” to eradicate illegal drugs from the streets of the United States. They would do well to heed its message. What it says is that the struggle on which they have spent billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of lives over the last four decades has failed.

Most important, conceived to eradicate the illegal drug market, the war on drugs cannot be won. Once they understand this, the Mexican and American governments may consider refocusing their strategies to take aim at what really matters: the health and security of their citizens, communities and nations."


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: constitution; drugs; drugwar; statesrights; tenthamendment; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last
To: heye2monn
You are no libertarian. Instead, you seem to be a control freak leftist.
101 posted on 07/09/2012 4:04:52 PM PDT by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.”

These are your words, not mine.

Having drug addicts live with personal responsibility and consequences of their freedom is something that is entirely constitutional, yet that is entirely absent discussions about legalizing drugs.

In other words, give me my drugs, and pay for my consequence. In other words “gimme gimme gimme”.

I think the legalize drugs crowd really just love their drugs, and have no special reverence for the Constitution.

If you love the Constitution, then with legalized drugs would come no drug treatment, real throw-away-the-key punishments for crime related to drug use, no “great society” programs, etc. This would, of course, have grave consequences for a great many people, should states legalize drugs (which they won’t do if we are truly going back to Constitutional principles).

So which parts of the Constitution do you want? Just the parts that allow you to get a fix for freedom? Or do you really want the freedom and liberty to choose so poorly you end up dead or in jail for life?


102 posted on 07/10/2012 2:37:37 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“As far as I know, employer testing is legal and unchallenged. Do you have reason to think otherwise?”

There are generally limits - and usually it is after an incident, or at the beginning of a project. Most employers are compelled to provide drug treatment to employees that test positive, give “second chances”, etc.

If you truly want the freedom to toke, you should willingly accept every consequence that comes about - including getting fired for testing positive for any substance, legal or illegal, that an employer wishes to make a condition of employment - including applying for government benefits, including applying for student loans or grants.

You want the great society AND legal drugs - you don’t truly care about what is and is not constitutional, in my opinion.


103 posted on 07/10/2012 2:45:11 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
while we don’t generally disagree on the merits of states rights, to me, you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them.

In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.

These are your words, not mine.

My words accurately express your position - and I'll be happy to keep both sets of words in each post so FReepers can judge for themselves.

Having drug addicts live with personal responsibility and consequences of their freedom is something that is entirely constitutional, yet that is entirely absent discussions about legalizing drugs.

And legalization of drugs is entirely absent from discussions about ending welfare. People tend to discuss one issue at a time - nothing nefarious there.

In other words, give me my drugs, and pay for my consequence.

Nonsense - there's no basis for concluding from one's silence on issue X while discussing issue Y that one holds any particular view about issue X.

If you love the Constitution, then with legalized drugs would come no drug treatment,

I fully support an end to federal funding of drug treatment.

real throw-away-the-key punishments for crime related to drug use,

The Constitution is silent on that point. I think real crimes with actual victims (murder, theft, etc.) should be punished without regard to the lawbreaker's drunkness, druggedness, or lack of same - 'I was drunk/drugged' should be neither a mitigating nor an aggravating factor.

no “great society” programs, etc.

I fully support an end to such programs.

This would, of course, have grave consequences for a great many people, should states legalize drugs (which they won’t do if we are truly going back to Constitutional principles).

How do Constitutional principles stand in the way of states legalizing drugs? The Constitution says it's each state's decision to make since no authority over the matter is granted to the federal government.

So which parts of the Constitution do you want?

All of it - and the more the better. I'd never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate.

do you really want the freedom and liberty to choose so poorly you end up dead

Yes. Do you want to return to Prohibition of the potentially fatal drug alcohol?

or in jail for life?

Not sure what you're trying to ask - if one ends up in jail, it should be only for doing something one has no legitimate liberty to do.

104 posted on 07/10/2012 9:26:00 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
As far as I know, employer testing is legal and unchallenged. Do you have reason to think otherwise?

There are generally limits - and usually it is after an incident, or at the beginning of a project.

Do you have evidence, beyond your by-definition limited personal experience, for these claims?

Most employers are compelled to provide drug treatment to employees that test positive, give “second chances”, etc.

Compelled by what statute?

If you truly want the freedom to toke, you should willingly accept every consequence that comes about - including getting fired for testing positive for any substance, legal or illegal, that an employer wishes to make a condition of employment -

I fully support that.

including applying for government benefits, including applying for student loans or grants.

So if government denies benefits or loans to tobacco or alcohol users, that's OK with you? What about readers of Marxist literature?

You want the great society

You want to lie about me because you can't refute my actual position.

105 posted on 07/10/2012 9:33:43 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“Do you have evidence, beyond your by-definition limited personal experience, for these claims? “

If you got out more and did actual work, you’d know this to be true.

“Compelled by what statute? “

Lawsuits for wrongful termination, among other things. Again, if you had done something that actually resulted in you employing people doing actual work, you’d know this.

“You want to lie about me because you can’t refute my actual position.”

Do you always immediately go to MAX WHINE when someone disagrees with you?


106 posted on 07/10/2012 1:44:59 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“My words accurately express your position”

Whatever you say, Kreskin.

“And legalization of drugs is entirely absent from discussions about ending welfare. People tend to discuss one issue at a time - nothing nefarious there.”

So personal responsibility is so far from drug legalization in your opinion, that they aren’t even worthy of discussion together? Gotcha.

“Nonsense - there’s no basis for concluding from one’s silence on issue X while discussing issue Y that one holds any particular view about issue X. “

Except when X = Y.

“I fully support an end to federal funding of drug treatment. “

Ok, great. We agree on something.

“All of it - and the more the better. I’d never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate. “

I advocate to the contrary. The “legalize” crowd wants to pick and choose. They want their drugs now AND their disability checks from Uncle Sam.


107 posted on 07/10/2012 1:52:07 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Do you have evidence, beyond your by-definition limited personal experience, for these claims?

If you got out more and did actual work, you’d know this to be true.

I've been steadily employed for 22 years and I don't know it to be true.

Guess what, blowhard? Your personal experiences don't support claims about what is "generally" or "usually" true for "most."

[text posted but most recently omitted by RFEngineer:] You want the great society

You want to lie about me because you can’t refute my actual position.

Do you always immediately go to MAX WHINE when someone disagrees with you?

No, I point it out when someone lies about me. And when they try to hide the evidence.

Lies, personal attacks, invalid generalizations ... yup, it's a Drug Warrior.

108 posted on 07/10/2012 1:54:30 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
[underlined text omitted by RFEngineer:] while we don’t generally disagree on the merits of states rights, to me, you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them.

In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.

These are your words, not mine.

My words accurately express your position - and I'll be happy to keep both sets of words in each post so FReepers can judge for themselves.

Whatever you say, Kreskin.

I've restored the text you omitted, so that FReepers can judge for themselves.

And legalization of drugs is entirely absent from discussions about ending welfare. People tend to discuss one issue at a time - nothing nefarious there.

So personal responsibility is so far from drug legalization in your opinion, that they aren’t even worthy of discussion together?

I never said nor implied that. Your feeble straw man argument is duly noted for the record. One may certainly discuss them together - and one may discuss them separately without implying anything about one's position on either one.

Nonsense - there’s no basis for concluding from one’s silence on issue X while discussing issue Y that one holds any particular view about issue X.

Except when X = Y.

In this case it doesn't: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs.

All of it - and the more the better. I’d never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate.

I advocate to the contrary.

False - you said, "you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them."

The “legalize” crowd wants to pick and choose. They want their drugs now AND their disability checks from Uncle Sam.

Then go argue with them. I want all Constitutional limits obeyed - unlike you.

109 posted on 07/10/2012 2:07:38 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“Lies, personal attacks, invalid generalizations ... yup, it’s a Drug Warrior.”

Exaggerations, hypersensitivity, and more whining about perceived unfairness.....a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain.

What was it? a bad batch of ecstacy? Pesticide in your hookah?

“I’ve been steadily employed for 22 years and I don’t know it to be true. “

Congratulations. Try being an employer. That’s when you have to be an adult and worry about people like you failing a piss-test, and having to coddle you with “counseling” instead of firing you like you deserve.


110 posted on 07/10/2012 2:14:32 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“In this case it doesn’t: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs. “

Pay attention stoner!

X = Personal Responsibility for ones legalized drug use
Y = Legalizing Drugs

They must go hand-in-hand, because they are the same argument.


111 posted on 07/10/2012 2:19:25 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
In this case it doesn’t: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs.

Pay attention stoner!

X = Personal Responsibility for ones legalized drug use

So you don't think personal responsibility for one's legalized drug use means ending welfare? Don't drink and post.

112 posted on 07/10/2012 2:24:51 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Lies, personal attacks, invalid generalizations ... yup, it’s a Drug Warrior.

whining about perceived unfairness

Where did I do that? Looks like another of your lies.

.....a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain.

What was it? a bad batch of ecstacy? Pesticide in your hookah?

And more personal attacks. Keep making my case for me.

113 posted on 07/10/2012 2:28:06 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“So you don’t think personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use means ending welfare? Don’t drink and post.”

I’m keeping it simple for you, since you aren’t tracking too well.


114 posted on 07/10/2012 2:30:31 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
So you don’t think personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use means ending welfare? Don’t drink and post.

I’m keeping it simple for you, since you aren’t tracking too well.

So now you'd have us believe that "personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use" is simpler than "ending welfare"? Dance, clown, dance.

115 posted on 07/10/2012 2:34:05 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“And more personal attacks. Keep making my case for me. “

I already want you to have your drugs, if your state wants you to be able to have them. I just don’t think they’ll want you to have them if the users in and the lawmakers of a state actually have to live with the consequences.

I was just asking you a question, it wasn’t a personal attack. Have you ever used ecstacy? I’ve seen it affect other people like you are affected. It’s sad, really.


116 posted on 07/10/2012 2:37:36 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“So now you’d have us believe that “personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use” is simpler than “ending welfare”? Dance, clown, dance.”

Simpler? No, it’s more complicated. See what I mean? You just aren’t tracking too well. It was ecstacy, wasn’t it?


117 posted on 07/10/2012 2:40:07 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
I already want you to have your drugs, if your state wants you to be able to have them. I just don’t think they’ll want you to have them if the users in and the lawmakers of a state actually have to live with the consequences.

So you no longer hold that "you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them"?

I was just asking you a question, it wasn’t a personal attack.

"a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain." is not a question.

Have you ever used ecstacy?

No.

118 posted on 07/10/2012 2:44:36 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
In this case it doesn’t: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs.

Pay attention stoner!

X = Personal Responsibility for ones legalized drug use

So you don't think personal responsibility for one's legalized drug use means ending welfare?

I’m keeping it simple for you, since you aren’t tracking too well.

So now you'd have us believe that "personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use" is simpler than "ending welfare"? Dance, clown, dance.

Simpler? No, it’s more complicated.

I referred to "ending welfare" (see above) and you then addressed "personal responsibility for one's legalized drug use" which you explained as "keeping it simple for" me. Now you've reversed yourself. Don't drink and post.

119 posted on 07/10/2012 2:48:47 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“So you no longer hold that “you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them”? “

Read it again. It might seem complicated to you, but it’s actually in complete congruence with your own stated position on the Constitution. However, if like many stoners, you are doomed to not be able to follow a concept from beginning to end, you could misunderstand that statement. You have done exactly that.

“”a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain.” is not a question. “

You are right. That was a statement of fact.

When I said “What was it? a bad batch of ecstacy? Pesticide in your hookah?” You’ll note is actually 3 questions.

You can count the number of question marks to be sure (and I only used one question mark per question - to keep it easy for you)

You must have missed them.

“No.”

So why can’t you track the conversation properly? I was really counting on it being ecstacy, but I suppose it could be any number of things. Which was it?


120 posted on 07/10/2012 2:53:47 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“I referred to “ending welfare” (see above) and you then addressed “personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use” which you explained as “keeping it simple for” me. Now you’ve reversed yourself. Don’t drink and post. “

No...it’s a complex expression.

“personal responsibility” is a more complex concept than “ending welfare”.

“Personal responsibility” includes ending welfare for the consequences of ones personal lifestyle choice, but it also includes other things, like being a good citizen and not burdening normal people with, for instance, your whining.


121 posted on 07/10/2012 2:57:08 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
I already want you to have your drugs, if your state wants you to be able to have them. I just don’t think they’ll want you to have them if the users in and the lawmakers of a state actually have to live with the consequences.

So you no longer hold that "you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them"?

Read it again. It might seem complicated to you, but it’s actually in complete congruence with your own stated position on the Constitution.

Wrong as usual - my stated position is this:

"I’d never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate. [...] I want all Constitutional limits obeyed - unlike you."

I was just asking you a question, it wasn’t a personal attack.

"a sign of brain damage to the reasoning center of the brain." is not a question.

You are right.

So there's your personal attack. Glad you finally own up to it.

122 posted on 07/11/2012 7:48:23 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
I referred to “ending welfare” (see above) and you then addressed “personal responsibility for one’s legalized drug use” which you explained as “keeping it simple for” me. Now you’ve reversed yourself. Don’t drink and post.

No...it’s a complex expression.

“personal responsibility” is a more complex concept than “ending welfare”.

So when you said that you were referring to this more complex concept in order to “keep it simple," you were babbling like a cretin.

“Personal responsibility” includes ending welfare for the consequences of ones personal lifestyle choice, but it also includes other things, like being a good citizen and not burdening normal people with, for instance, your whining.

I'll cease to burden you with my posts when you get on board with removing the feds from intrastate drug policy, without holding that Constitutional limit hostage to other limits as you've been doing.

123 posted on 07/11/2012 9:33:29 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

I totally agree with you.


124 posted on 07/14/2012 8:16:37 AM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

Being opposed to Cocaine Slurpees in Seven-Eleven makes me a control freak leftist?


125 posted on 07/14/2012 1:06:00 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Yeah I guess you’re right. It is a disturbing vision. The single-minded destruction of a peaceful neighborhood by the sale of Cocaine Slurpees at Seven-Eleven.


126 posted on 07/14/2012 1:11:48 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

Disturbing images tend to evoke emotional resposes, and are often used to coerce people into making knee-jerk decisions without consideration of unintended consequences. It stops working as soon as you understand you’re being manipulated.


127 posted on 07/15/2012 1:18:31 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Once again we agree. Drugs tend to evoke emotional responses, and are often used to coerce people into making knee-jerk decisions without consideration of unintended consequences. Drugs stop working as soon as you stop selling them en masse to teenagers at Seven Eleven.


128 posted on 07/16/2012 4:24:03 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
You do understand people go to see Reefer Madness to laugh at the actors, right?
129 posted on 07/16/2012 4:29:16 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

This whole thread reminded me of the good old days when we debated the War on Drugs with our buddy Roscoe.


130 posted on 07/17/2012 7:40:21 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

Haven’t seen Roscoe/Mojave for awhile now. Can’t say I miss him, or his buddy Robert Paulsen. There’s something about being a career federal bureaucrat that messes with your head.


131 posted on 07/17/2012 7:56:19 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Robert Paulsen was a total classic. Something there is about drugs that turns a certain class of people into hand wringing little old ladies.


132 posted on 07/17/2012 8:04:24 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

RP was a control freak. He loved the war on guns as much as he did the war on drugs.


133 posted on 07/17/2012 8:14:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Yes, that movie has been particularly popular among drunk 20-year olds. Obama’s kind of voter.


134 posted on 07/17/2012 2:57:01 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

They thought they were going to warn people about the dangers of marijuana, and they ended up turning it into a big joke. They decided they didn’t need to be objective. They were too smart, and everyone else was too stupid for that.


135 posted on 07/17/2012 3:04:17 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Most folks beleive keeping drugs illegal doesn’t stop anybody from getting them, but also believe that far more people would use them if legalized.
##################

They believe that nonsense because the prohibitionists tell them that.

My father was a senior in high school when alcohol prohibition ended. He and his friends were disappointed on December 5, 1933 when they could no longer buy beer or booze.

He said prior to repeal, he and his friends could buy all the alcohol they could afford, any time they wanted, because the bootleggers were going to be arrested if caught selling to them or an adult, so they sold to anyone with the money. Once it was legal no one wanted to risk his business selling to kids.

He and his friends had less money because the depression was in full bloom and the price of alcohol went up after repeal. On the rare occasion they could get some the price limited how much they could buy.

He and his friends felt like they got shafted by repeal. But so did many adults who lacked the income to pay the higher prices.


136 posted on 07/17/2012 3:56:55 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Smart? College kids are the smartest people in the world. They are cool.

Obama, the one-time cocaine user, is cool. Old fogey McCain is not. Easy Rider was cool. Reefer Madness was not cool. Hot ashes will not hurt the throat and lungs of the cool. Addiction will never happen to the cool.

The young and the cool will live forever.


137 posted on 07/18/2012 4:27:30 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
The really smart ones were the Founders. They gave us "a republic, if you can keep it".

The nice thing about a republic is that it doesn't require you to have "one size fits all" solutions to problems.

Looking around my community, I see people more given to thoughtful consideration of all the evidence followed by quiet deliberate action than to knee-jerk decisions and desperate histrionics. As a consequence, they seem to need considerably less government than you require.

Now having a republic means that you can have yours without inflicting it on the rest of us. Can you live with that, or are you going to be one we're going to have to fight in order to keep it?

138 posted on 07/18/2012 5:18:50 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Fight? I will fight when your libertarian friends try to sell my kids a Cocaine Slurpee. I will fight needle parks in my neighborhood. I will fight the gangs that will inevitably thrive in the quasi-legal shadows of legal drugs (see Netherlands).

I will fight any libertarian who sticks a needle in my child’s arm

Yes, I will fight. I will not live with that.


139 posted on 07/19/2012 4:10:08 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

I agree with you. I really don’t care what old folks do to themselves, but it is imperative that kids be protected from this stuff. People who furnish kids with drugs (or alcohol for that matter) should be locked up for a long time.

It’s hard enough for kids to be kids these days. They don’t need people poisoning their growing brains.


140 posted on 07/19/2012 4:14:58 PM PDT by Tau Food (Tom Hoefling for President - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
You will fight, or you will sell out the republic for promises that federal bureaucrats will do it for you?

The "drug war" is an invention of the federal government. All they want from you is to pay your taxes, do what you're told, and don't ask questions. Once you give it to them, you don't have anything to say about it. It's not your turf anymore, it's theirs.

141 posted on 07/19/2012 4:25:54 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Cocaine Slurpees will be an invention of Seven-Eleven coming near you. That will happen once drugs are marketed everywhere for the lowest possible price.

As for your bureaucrats, they may be be obtuse and power-hungry, but we do need police to keep the streets safe. Streets will not be safe with your libertarian addicts wandering around and vicious gangs lurking in the shadows.


142 posted on 07/23/2012 6:48:02 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Yep. You’re right.


143 posted on 07/23/2012 6:49:41 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
As for your bureaucrats, they may be be obtuse and power-hungry, but we do need police to keep the streets safe.

If you learn the difference between a policeman and a career beltway bureaucrat you might be able to form more coherent arguments.

144 posted on 07/23/2012 7:05:34 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
Cocaine Slurpees will be an invention of Seven-Eleven coming near you.

It's nearly a mile to the nearest neighbor, who the hell would build a Seven-Eleven near me? If we had one and they started selling Cocaine Slurpees, we'd probably just burn it down. I don't know where you live, but I think it's messing with your head.

145 posted on 07/23/2012 7:10:52 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Cocaine Slurpees would be a nice little profit center. Seven-Eleven could afford to build more stores, develop more teenage customers.

Seven-Eleven could offer straight from the fountain a delicious brown-and-white heroin/cocaine concoction beyond all libertarian dreams.


146 posted on 07/24/2012 5:03:31 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

And you’d sell us all into into slavery for the promise of salvation from demon Cocaine Slurpee, wouldn’t you?


147 posted on 07/24/2012 5:09:45 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

If you think laws against heroin are the equivalent of slavery, you are a seriously ill person.


148 posted on 07/25/2012 4:01:13 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

Mebbe some bright eyes over at the NYT will be able to someday document the “convenient” loss of Constitutional freedoms in parallel with the expansion of the drug war.

So far Freedom has been the only issue constrained by the so called drug war.


149 posted on 07/25/2012 4:06:19 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
The end doesn't justify your means.

The DEA was an active and willing participant in Fast and Furious, and they knew they were doing it to manufacture evidence of an "iron river of guns" flowing into Mexico that would be used to justify more gun control laws.

I'm not willing to be collateral damage because you're scared stupid of imaginary Cocaine Slurpees to the point that you're blind to the unintended consequences.

150 posted on 07/26/2012 5:12:54 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson