Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmericanDave; Straight Vermonter
"The Constitution does not give the Federal Gov’t the right to regulate drug use."

Hey, does that Constitution thing give the Federal Government the right to regulate uranium enrichment? Just checking.

I understand the libertarian argument, and some of it is persuasive. And, a compelling case can be made for the legalization of some drugs, or at least a decriminalization.

Heroine, OTOH, is heroine. It's not a weed that used to grow naturally in the country. It's a wildly dangerous drug that is HIGHLY processed in a manner that is itself highly dangerous and toxic. And, virtually all of the heroine sold in this country is IMPORTED - the federal government CLEARLY has a right to say what is and what is not importable, do they not?

To say what Paul said in this country is IDIOTIC, and that alone should disqualify you from the White House. I doubt even most Democrats want to legalize heroine.

15 posted on 05/05/2011 10:19:21 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: OldDeckHand; mnehring

Just to be clear would pot, mushrooms, mescaline or other “native” drugs be OK?


55 posted on 05/05/2011 11:31:17 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: OldDeckHand
Hey, does that Constitution thing give the Federal Government the right to regulate uranium enrichment?

No.

Unless you care to quote the passage.

The idea that government thinks it can ban an element or plant or chemical that God created is only possible because of the innate stupidity of the American public. (Mainly Republicans in these cases.)

I propose a ban on sunlight. It causes cancer. And you can burn ants with it, if you use a magnifying glass.

The commies were smart. They knew we'd do ourselves in from within, by the "Do-Gooders".

Maybe we can keep civilization next time. Ah well.

57 posted on 05/05/2011 11:43:31 PM PDT by EvasiveManuever (Shakespeare got it wrong. Not the lawyers... journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: OldDeckHand
It's a wildly dangerous drug that is HIGHLY processed in a manner that is itself highly dangerous and toxic.

Is it armed with Assault Weapons? With extended clips?

Do you have any idea how many things are processed (highly, at that) in manners that are highly dangerous and toxic??

Many of them are in your grocery store.

Or are you just saying this, because you think the Rubes will buy it if you CAPITALIZE SCARY WORDS?

BOO!

And I'd like a heroine or two, if you don't mind. They're my type.

62 posted on 05/05/2011 11:46:29 PM PDT by EvasiveManuever (Shakespeare got it wrong. Not the lawyers... journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: OldDeckHand

Firstly, heroin legalization at the federal level doesn’t mean that heroin would be legal at the state level.

A drug taskforce (swat) officer that I am friends with even admitted to that real problem with hard drugs is the crime that it produces. People will steal to get their fix. Well stealing is illegal already, and in conjunction with drugs the penalty could be heightened. The drug use itself only damages the person that is doing the drugs, and the state should not be their nanny.

The only change you get in Ron Paul’s proposal is the elimination of federal agencies and wasteful spending.


117 posted on 05/06/2011 7:39:00 AM PDT by ssolid71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: OldDeckHand
Lips that touch Ron Paul's ass will never touch mine!

Cheers!

181 posted on 05/07/2011 9:00:39 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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