Drug Czar on Anti-Marijuana Crusade

In each person's life internal authority takes precedence over external authority.

TANSTAAFL

141 posted on 09/21/2002 5:32:37 PM PDT by Roscoe

142 posted on 09/21/2002 5:32:55 PM PDT by KDD

To: scholar; Libloather

We were, until libloather showed up and he (she?) dragged the
discussion down several notches because he (she?) can't think first!
before posting. The thread is on the record. The juxtaposition is there
for any person that cares to read it.

143 posted on 09/21/2002 5:33:21 PM PDT by Zon

Gave my response at 126.

144 posted on 09/21/2002 5:34:30 PM PDT by Zon

Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz, Reagan's former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, conservative economist Milton Friedman, and columnist and editor of the National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr., all sharply departed from the administration's anti-drug cant by arguing the brief for decriminalization of drugs. At the height of the war on drugs rhetoric, these orthodox conservatives apparently intentionally diverted the course of the drug war rhetoric by proposing the opposite extreme of what the Bush administration was promoting. What could prompt a handful of GOP party loyalists to not only depart from lip-syncing the party line. but also to voice an opinion 180 degrees opposite of the Bush administration's declared policies? Was there something about the war on drugs that bothered them, that would lead them to propose something radically different?

145 posted on 09/21/2002 5:38:19 PM PDT by KDD

All intoxicants ultimately produce results nearly opposite to that which their users seek...every lawful means at our disposal should be used to rid society of the producers, distributors and users of intoxicants.

146 posted on 09/21/2002 5:38:50 PM PDT by northislander

TANSTAAFL

Sorry, I don't understand your gibberish.

147 posted on 09/21/2002 5:41:49 PM PDT by Zon

To: Libloather
How petty you are.
142 posted on 9/21/02 8:32 PM Eastern by KDD

I couldn't have said it better myself. A truly sad person when that's all they have.

If marijuana makes you stupid what does that say about someone who declares war on it, inanimate object that it is, and is losing?

148 posted on 09/21/2002 5:44:00 PM PDT by Zon

Sorry, I don't understand your gibberish.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Free Lunchers find the concept difficult.

149 posted on 09/21/2002 5:44:10 PM PDT by Roscoe

by arguing the brief

Where's this alleged brief?

150 posted on 09/21/2002 5:45:12 PM PDT by Roscoe

The position paper is in one of the past issues of National Review. Do your own search.

151 posted on 09/21/2002 5:53:24 PM PDT by KDD

To: northislander

All intoxicants ultimately produce results nearly opposite to that which their users seek...every lawful means at our disposal should be used to rid society of the producers, distributors and users of intoxicants.

The boys over at Anheuser-Busch Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. (makers of Maxwell House coffee) want to have a chat with you.

You're a newbie poster here so I'll take it easy on you. Please try to be less ambiguous in the future. Unless of course you really meant what you said.

Myself, I don't do drugs, not even alcohol or caffeine.

152 posted on 09/21/2002 5:57:42 PM PDT by Zon

My my, isn't this rich!

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Continuing the issue at hand being discussed... Then why do you have such a penchant for trying to get a free lunch off of quoting other people's words rather than using your own words.

Free Lunchers find the concept difficult.

Speaking of yourself obviously.

153 posted on 09/21/2002 6:03:13 PM PDT by Zon

The position paper is in one of the past issues of National Review.

If you say so.

154 posted on 09/21/2002 6:14:16 PM PDT by Roscoe

"Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." -- Edmund Burke

Societal benefits aren't a free lunch.

TANSTAAFL

155 posted on 09/21/2002 6:16:09 PM PDT by Roscoe

OF THE LIMITS TO THE AUTHORITY OF SOCIETY OVER THE INDIVIDUAL Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavor to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do.

The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion.

But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.

It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine, to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other's con- duct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. But disinterested benevo- lence can find other instruments to persuade people to their good, than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort.

I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social. It is equally the business of education to cultivate both. But even education works by conviction and persuasion as well as by compulsion, and it is by the former only that, when the period of education is past, the self-regarding virtues should be inculcated. Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be forever stimulating each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations.

But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being, the interest which any other person, except in cases of strong personal attachment, can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has; the interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and altogether indirect: while, with respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else. The interference of society to overrule his judgment and purposes in what only regards himself, must be grounded on general presumptions; which may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases, by persons no better acquainted with the circumstances of such cases than those are who look at them merely from with-out. In this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper field of action.

In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person's own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise. Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others; but he, himself, is the final judge. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.
JS Mill

Societal benefits aren't a free lunch.

Nor are they to be a force-fed morality.

156 posted on 09/21/2002 6:43:39 PM PDT by KDD

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

So you want to playing dueling quotations?

157 posted on 09/21/2002 6:52:06 PM PDT by KDD

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

158 posted on 09/21/2002 6:56:17 PM PDT by KDD

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." --Thomas Jefferson

You're free to leave society anytime you wish.

TANSTAAFL

159 posted on 09/21/2002 6:57:21 PM PDT by Roscoe

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson

Illicit drugs are illegal for thee and me.

160 posted on 09/21/2002 6:59:45 PM PDT by Roscoe

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794