?Protecting? the public from drugs

Montana Standard ^

[CWOJackson]

Well, the wife and I are going out for Sushi so you play nice with them. See you later and thanks for the pictures; I can actually say that I found something worthwhile and interesting on one of leroys dope threads for once.

[ellery]

Oh, how I wish we could have a reasoned discussion about this issue. Reasonable people can disagree on this -- it's pretty unquestionable that both drugs and the war on drugs are destructive. Principled people can come down on either side of this issue without being dopers or statists. Kumbayaaaaaaaa...... /self-righteous rant

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Have a good meal. Later!

[KEVLAR]

Me too, but I don't think the ones labeled 'statist' are capable of being reasonable.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Re Post #107 ... things are looking up

Yup, that pic has that effect on me.

[NCPAC]

You've nailed it with your statement regarding "statist(s)."

For the record: I've never smoked marijuana, though I twice had it in brownies, once knowingly and once unknowingly. Years ago I did take amphetamines (Candy of the Gods), and have reaped the results: High blood pressure and a mild stroke due to same. Therefore, I know that unprescribed drug use is destructive to the individual just as the War on Drugs is destructive to the nation.

The bottom line, though, can be found by answering the following question with a simple "yes" or "no": In an allegedly free country should an individual be allowed to ingest what he or she desires as long as he or she is not in any manner harming another individual? Sociology be damned, it really comes down to a matter of level of personal freedom Americans are allowed, or may be expected, to enjoy.

[KEVLAR]

To your question - YES
The war on drugs has changed the nature of our law enforcement IMO. The result from what I can see is a general distrust of LE by the public. When our police are reduced to fishing for any violation simply to increase revenues and add to their arrest/citation tally, they are no longer "keeping the peace".

[NCPAC]

Bingo! In my not so humble opinion, the only correct answer that anyone who claims to believe in individual freedom can possibly provide to my question is "Yes." Any other answer and the respondent does not believe in individual freedom. It really is as simple as that.

[jmc813]

Oh, how I wish we could have a reasoned discussion about this issue.

Seek out a thread with robertpaulsen holding down the fort for the pro-WOD gang. He's intelligent, civil, and actually makes good arguments for his side. Jackson and Axel are admitted trolls on these threads. I gave up trying to have intelligent WOD discussions with them long ago.

[pageonetoo]

I gave up trying to have intelligent WOD discussions with them long ago....

Prerequisite: intelligence!

Get some troll-be-gone, sprinkle on all parts, then say a prayer. Stay away from kitchen sinks, with stoves nearby! Ignore crotchety ole' bigots!

[CWOJackson]

There's nothing "intelligent" about the desire to legalize dope.

[jmc813]

Is there anything intelligent about raising concerns about the Constitutionality of certain drug laws?

[CWOJackson]

"Prerequisite: intelligence!"

Attempting to discuss something way outside your realm of understanding. Nothing new there.

[CWOJackson]

Those concerns are shared by a very small fringe of people. So?

[Conservative til I die]

For example, on Dec. 8, the House of Representatives passed a bill that gives the White House drug czar’s office $145,000,000 of taxpayer money to run anti-marijuana propaganda ads.

Wow, what a great use of taxpayer funds. The government needs to spend $145,000,000 to tell us pot is bad for you? Hell, I work in marketing. Give me 1/10 that and I'll disseminate that message to everybody.

What a joke. Guess I should bite my tongue, since it's my party that passes this bill, blind partisanship being what it is and all.

[Conservative til I die]

There's nothing "intelligent" about the desire to legalize dope.

That's debateable. Which is the point of course, of these threads. It's too bad you decide to not even show up for the debate.

Since you've obviously made up your mind, have shown you can't be swayed, and have made it clear you're not interested in debating, why do you even bother?

And yes, this is a rhetorical question, because I know what your follow-up will be like.

[CWOJackson]

"That's debateable. Which is the point of course, of these threads."

And that would be the reason why these end up in the smokey backroom where they belong.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

And that would be the reason why these end up in the smokey backroom where they belong.

You ensure they go there on purpose. Come on---you might as well give yourself a big round of applause. It's what you do best on Free Republic: ensure anti-Drug War threads get pushed to the back.

[jmc813]

Those concerns are shared by a very small fringe of people.

Such as the owner of this forum.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Jackson and Axel are admitted trolls on these threads. I gave up trying to have intelligent WOD discussions with them long ago.

Is this from you jmc? About me? I thought you liked me, well, well, the truth does come out.

Oh well!