Let me do a Boolean logic transformation on this phrase:
As you know the KLA, al-Qaeda and all the Muslim extremist groups are financed by drug money.
You would be correct to say, ‘if no one used drugs they wouldn’t be getting the finances.’
You would also be correct to say, ‘if drugs were legalized the money from drugs would dry up.’
BZZZZZT! Wrong, as usual.
And by identical "logic", anyone who opposes laws against hate speech supports racism.
I wonder how your Boolean logic would apply to me. I am vehemently against the WOD as an anti-Constitutional endeavor. However, I also strongly favor flooding the drug market with lethally poisonous 'look-alike' drugs to kill the druggies.
It is exactly this kind of lying BS that is killing FR.
Sorry, but I have to take issue with your "boolean" logic[?]
Mass inability to separate legal concepts from morals and personal preference is the only explanation I can provide for those who allow rights to be trampled as long as it's in the name of our favorite cause.
The simple rule to remember is that if another's rights can become meaningless to enforce your ideas then your rights can just as quickly be made meaningless to enforce my ideas on you.
Not all of course, but many of the actions taken in the name of first the "War on drugs" and now the "War on Terror" are just plain wrong and unconstitutional. The fact that we allow these actions to stand doesn't make it right.
anti-"War On Drugs" ==> "pro-drugs"
You obviously failed Logic 101.