Posted on 04/20/2010 9:37:34 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Face it, to wipe out all drugs, we would have to invade and conquer Mexico and many other countries and declare martial law, then fight a decades long war in those places.
We should have outright annexed mexico the last time we had to go in there. They have no reason to exist as an independant country (since they attacked us). I'd have no problem with taking out the drug cartels.
There's a phrase for that - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
Nukes make all things possible. The question is do we have the public will to solve the problem. Unfortunately we do not.
Easy thing to change. Rape etc used to be a capital offense. Do we have the public will to solve the problem?
Your question was not addressed to me, but I will hazard the guess that we pay through all the social programs that support people who abuse themselves in any way - drugs, diet, stupid hikers who get lost and require search and rescue, etc.
My two-pronged approach to mitigating (not solving) our drug problem:
1) Legalize soft drugs, and regulate hard drugs with appropriate restrictions.
2) End the nanny/welfare state, so we don't have to pay for other people's bad choices.
Got to run errands now. I will be back in a couple of hours to see if this thread still has any legs.
You think so, eh. Read this:
Iran has executed more than 10,000 narcotics traffickers in the last decade;
http://www.payvand.com/news/04/mar/1012.html
______________________________________
Iran has the highest proportion of heroin addicts in the world and a growing Aids problem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm
I think that the Obama Healthcare plan will eventually force into that position. For that and many other reasons, I think that Obamacare stinks.
Is there any nanny state provision you'll not support, since "you can't have freedom in a welfare state"?
Boy are you out in left field in lack of comprehension my position, Ken! I've never said that I agree with any of this welfare state crap or that I am against drug legalization. What I have said is that I understand the opposition to some extent -- and the only way for drug use to really be victimless is for us to break the economic chains that bind one person's behavior to another person's wallet.
I think that the Obama Healthcare plan will eventually force into that position. For that and many other reasons, I think that Obamacare stinks.
Is there any nanny state provision you'll not support, since "you can't have freedom in a welfare state"?
Boy are you out in left field in lack of comprehension my position, Ken! I've never said that I agree with any of this welfare state crap or that I am against drug legalization. What I have said is that I understand the opposition to some extent -- and the only way for drug use to really be victimless is for us to break the economic chains that bind one person's behavior to another person's wallet.
How do I pay what?
How are you paying for someone who eats too much salt? What is the impact to your life? Second hand sodium? Someone is too fat to go to work?
Not all that easy. Either a Constitutional amendment or finding a new majority on the SC. I would guess either is unlikely.
Let me ask this. Do you think national drug prohibition by fedgov under the Commerce Clause is in keeping with its original understanding?
If not, then do you support continuing the policy until the economic chains between one person's behavior and another person's wallet are unbound?
No.
If not, then do you support continuing the policy until the economic chains between one person's behavior and another person's wallet are unbound?
No, but I do think that until those welfare state chains are broken, the opposition will continue to have an argument that does hold some weight of logic.
Shall we wait until the welfare state is ended, and THEN oppose or abolish nanny state laws?
HOW are your tax dollars paying for their unhealthy behaviors?
Someone who is an undependable burnout slob may be on welfare but come clean on the over salted diet guy or gal.
Is it because you are paying 3 years into Obamacare for one year of medical coverage? That isn’t the fault of the salt.
Yes, we will destroy the world to save it.
Anyone on Medicaid or Medicare who needs medical care as as a result of unhealthy behavior has a claim on my tax dollars.
Someone who is an undependable burnout slob may be on welfare but come clean on the over salted diet guy or gal.
Those under a private plan will not have a claim on my tax dollars, unless they get drunk and crash their SUV into a car full of Medicaid recipients. Doesn't mean we should resume alcohol prohibition.
Political Hack feels sorry for Drug Abuser and decides to play Santa Claus with Forgotten Man's tax money by using it to financially support Drug Abuser.
Political Hack is happy and he feels good about himself because he has shown his "mercy" to Drug Abuser and his political power toward Forgotten Man.
Drug abuser is happy and feels good about himself because he is free to do as he wishes and be financially supported.
But Forgotten man is not free, he is chained to supporting drug abuser's lifestyle by Political Hack's actions, whether he wants to be or not.
Does Drug Abuser's freedom trump Forgotten Man's freedom? Is it fair that one man's (Drug Abuser's) freedom is paid for by taking another man's (Forgotten Man's) freedom away by force of law (Political Hack's legislation)? I think that the answer to any reasonable person looking at both of these questions, is "No!"
So how do you keep the personal freedom of everyone intact?
You allow both Drug Abuser and Forgotten Man to act individually according to their own consciences and wills, and let them individually deal with the consequences of their actions. In short, you restrain Political Hack's ability to use force of law to chain Drug Abuser to Forgotten Man.
Forgotten Man is only named that because he is the one whose freedom no one considers. By unchaining from Drug Abuser, he is a "Forgotten Man" no longer.
You think so, eh. Read this: Iran has executed more than 10,000 narcotics traffickers in the last decade;
That's only 1000 a year. I'd expect to get at least 1000 a month. Sorry dude, but I have you passing that nickel bag over and receiveing money for it. Got it right here on video. Boom. One down, 999 to go..
How many more nickel bags will get sold on that street?
Take out two or three hundred thousand dealers and who will be left to push drugs?
Iran has the highest proportion of heroin addicts in the world and a growing Aids problem.
The second half of the problem. Iran has a different issue though as the whole country is a hellhole due to their government and religious system. If an iranian can't blow himself up as a martyr there's really no reason to not waste your life on drugs.
The AIDS problem just reinforces one of the troubles with drugs. People will do anything to get them once addicted.
A drunk driver will also have insurance for the car and carry a liability for the damage he does.
It’s why Barack Hussein Obama’s own analogy to someone getting hit by a car and going to state for care was wrong.
But both are doable.
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.