Drug laws won't be on the fall ballot, but tobacco money will

Detroit Free Press ^ | September 11, 2002 | DAWSON BELL

[VA Advogado]

A carefully planned and well-financed campaign to overhaul Michigan's drug laws crashed Tuesday, as the state Supreme Court declined to place the issue before voters in November.

Without comment, the court upheld decisions issued last week by the Court of Appeals and a state elections panel to keep the drug question off the ballot.

[weikel]

Probably a good thing Finneran is a Dem but one probably more conservative then most of our electorate( hes certainly more conservative then Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank).

[E. Pluribus Unum]

These billionare foreign drug pushers need to find a new hobby.

You're right. The CIA should stick to trafficking illegal drugs. They shouldn't corrupt or political system like this.

[WyldKard]

Probably a good thing Finneran is a Dem but one probably more conservative then most of our electorate( hes certainly more conservative then Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank).

That still doesn't excuse his dictatorial actions. If the people are going to vote like idiots, thats their perogative. The moment we start "saving people from themselves", it becomes a socialist dictatorship. Yes, I know Taxachusetts is already a de facto socialist dictatorship, but we shouldn't encourage it to become de jure.

[verity]

"Let the people vote. Is that such a horrible idea?"

Yes, if they are on drugs! :~)

[weikel]

I will qualify my statment. I do not believe people have a right to vote themselves things that aren't theirs and I tend to think of right wing monarchies/dictatorships as good things because they keep the liberals among their populations in line thus protecting the productive citizens from the mob of looters. Democracy is good only when it makes good decisions( like the income tax repeal initive) but it has no inherent virtue over monarchy and in the end always leads to socialism. Without Finneran Taxachussetts would probably sink into another Dukasis disaster.

[weikel]

And as Heinlein says voting is always an exercise of force to impose your will on society. No its not people perogative to vote like idiots because they ruin the lives of non idiots.

[Kevin Curry]

Of course, when the good people of DC voted for medical marijuana TWICE . . .

. . . they proved that a sucker can be conned twice by the same grifter.

Arch-socialist George Soros wants to legalize dope. These are his initiatives. He is bankrolling them. Libertarians should ask themselves why. Hint: it has nothing to do with libertarianism and personal responsibility.

Legalizaing dope will not eliminate the horrific external costs associated with dope. It will merely repackage them and serve them up to taxpayers in another form. The "medicinal marijuana" con is one such repackaging. Before long we'll providing poor suffering dopers with supplemental social security and weed at taxpayer expense so they can spend their days stoned and voting for their socialist benefactors.

Soros has this figured out. Libertarians are in denial, too stupid, or uninformed about where this is all leading.

[JoeSixPack1]

Don't need a recount if there isn't any voting! No ballot stuffing. No hangin chads.
Clean, crisp ballot removal by those that know better.

(/sarcasm)

[Dane]

The campaign, largely financed by three wealthy businessmen including international financier George Soros(one of Hillary's best friends), spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to organize the effort

And the Libertarians will screech saying that drug validation is not a leftist issue when the proof is in the pudding or should I say bong.

[Dead Corpse]

Upside?

Tell that to Alberto

[wita]

Excellent point, obviously being ignored by those who can't see the forest for the trees. Being on the side of the Constitution on a legal/illegal drug thread, will bring instant condemnation through the use of that tired old accusation of "druggie". I know too many older individuals with a suitcase full of legal prescription drugs, that I wouldn't trust to vote, drive, interact with the human race, handle a gun, make a decision, and I venture to say, there are far more of them, than there are illegal drug users who are any worse.

[WyldKard]

Legalizaing dope will not eliminate the horrific external costs associated with dope.

Lets see:

No longer spending $20 billion dollars a year (more if you include state efforts)

Reduction in crime when dealers are no longer shooting each other up for territory

Fewer OD's from people using tainted or impure product

Reduction in FedGov power

Constitutional rights restored

Far MORE resources freed up to fight terrorism, murder, theft, etc...

Additional revenue streams from sales of regulated products like pot. (I personally don't want coke and heroin sold like booze and cigs...)

Money retained in-Nation, and not flowing out to foreign sources.

There are all horrible things...to socialists like you, I imagine.

It will merely repackage them and serve them up to taxpayers in another form. The "medicinal marijuana" con is one such repackaging. Before long we'll providing poor suffering dopers with supplemental social security and weed at taxpayer expense so they can spend their days stoned and voting for their socialist benefactors.

Oh please...do we provide free alcohol to alcoholics now? Free cigarettes and caffine to THOSE addicts? Your tinfoil cap is on too tightly, Kevin!

[Kevin Curry]

And as Heinlein says voting is always an exercise of force to impose your will on society.

Exactly. Which is why the doper brigade is anxious to attain offical recognition as a suffering victim group. Their votes will then join the votes of other official helpless-victim groups who have clear access into your wallet and mine to alleviate their suffering.

"My hair hurts. I've got a prescription for weed. Give me some weed, the best sh*t you got. Charge it to Medicaid. While you're filling the prescription, I'll go get some munchies with my food stamps."

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Arch-socialist George Soros wants to legalize dope. These are his initiatives. He is bankrolling them. Libertarians should ask themselves why. Hint: it has nothing to do with libertarianism and personal responsibility.

Arch statists Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Ho Chi Minh supported the criminalization of drugs. War on Drugs supporters should ask themselves why. Hint: it has nothing to do with eradicating drug abuse.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

And the Libertarians will screech saying that drug validation is not a leftist issue when the proof is in the pudding or should I say bong.

In your opinion, were Stalin, Mao, and Ho leftists?

[Kevin Curry]

If you really think legalizing dope will eliminate ONE government job, prison cell, or agency, you are really dense or malinformed. It will simply create ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy--the doper-coddling rehab bureaucracy--to overlay the current one.

[Dead Corpse]

Damn! Now you are against VOTING!?!

WTF is wrong with you Boy?

You also know damn well that libertarians want to dump the welfare state and remove the taxation power that feeds it.

How many times does it need to be said before it soaks into that fear riddled little brain of yours?

[wita]

You seem to have a pretty good understanding of your associates. I suggest you get out of that world and into the world of reality.

[Dane]

In your opinion, were Stalin, Mao, and Ho leftists?

And who had the pictures of the three above in their dorm rooms during Vietnam while smoking their joints.

Hillary, Abbie Hoffman, the weather underground, Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda etc. etc.

It was the dope smoking hippies who idolized Stalin, Mao, and Ho.

[WyldKard]

If you really think legalizing dope will eliminate ONE government job, prison cell, or agency, you are really dense or malinformed. It will simply create ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy--the doper-coddling rehab bureaucracy--to overlay the current one.

Like we have a boozer-coddling rehab bureacracy now?

With even just pot legalized, most of the wind would be taken out of the sails of groups like the DEA. Thats 700,000 people a year not being arrested for simple possession. It may not close jails, but it will fill those extra cells up with murders, rapists and thieves.

Any social problems that could possibly occur can easily be handled by the massive influx of cash that ending the War on Drugs would bring.

Hell, I don't understand how you people can support a FEDERAL War on Drugs. If you were just for State Level Prohibition, I would understand. I can only assume you have some sort of overriding personal self-interest in keeping the corruption going...very sad.