Posted on 12/07/2004 7:52:20 AM PST by dead
In the areas of economics and national security the nation has become more conservative. Socially, the nation is becoming less and less puritan.
For example, the percentage of women that stay single into their 30s is now 4 times what it was 25 years ago. The true test of the GOP will be to attract the fiscal conservatives that value national defense but reject rabid puritan ideology.
And what basis would we have? Well, what basis do we have to lock tax evaders up in prison? The government sets the laws and, as long as they are not unconstitutional, then their opinions as a body are the only basis we need. I know, I know . . . you could argue "cruel and unusual punishment". Probably a good argument too. However, if the will of the people was strong enough, nothing in the Constitution isn't amendable.
Well, someone said something while ago about punishing the rape victim rather than the rapist. That would be a prime example of something I would not like to see implemented in our judicial system. </insert major understatement emphasis>
Reduction in supply? So we can have an increase in the number of users forcing up the price because of a reduction in supply and that's a success?
Reduction in demand? So we can have an increase in the number of users, but the total amount they consume drops, and that's a success?
Geez, if I used the above as proof of success, you'd (rightfully) laugh me off this board.
How about: The percentage of those 12 and older using drugs has dropped/remained flat? That seems like a good measure of success.
No it hasn't. By whom?
The important question is, "Do you support their statement that the WOD has increased drug usage by a large amount?
That's not the question, but I'm happy to answer. It's a good case, and plausible.
Of course not.
Do you talk to yourself all the time like that? You might want to see a mental health care professional about that.
That's why you phrased the statement that way: "An excellent case has been made by many".
No, I phrased it that way because i don't have their names handy. So you are wrong again.
Yeah, many goofballs.
Actually, they are way smarter than you.
This question is from the guy who says the WOD isn't working?
It's not, and you have failed to prove it in any way.
Well then, I say we go to whatever lengths we need until you acknowledge that the WOD is indeed working.
It's not, and it never will. They are working on the wrong side of the equation, but you don't get it. You're "hooked on violence".
Unless, of course, you secretly don't want it to work.
It's inane. It's not even a War on Drugs, it's a war on the citizens who ingest substances not approved of by the government. It can't work.
Now I happen to think that the WOD is working.
You keep saying that, but never can prove it. And cannot refute any of the things I have said.
Marijuana use will fall once we get rid of the stupid state medical marijuana laws,
That's the most laughable thing you have said, and that says a lot because your posts are hilarious. It would be speculation in any case.
raise the penalties for users,
How about death? That will do it.
and get serious about clamping down on marijuana use.
Why would anyone want to do that?
In other words, go back to the policies of the 90's.
How about go back to the policies of the 1890s, that was a better set of policies. It left people alone.
Not with marijuana, that's for sure. But, as I said, isn't that what you wanted? Isn't that what you've been promoting? Then deal with the increase in marijuana usage. Or will you say that correlation does not equal causation, your favorite?
"I was thinking we had become more conservative in our attitude since 1999."
What's conservative about going easy on drugs, crime, and criminals? Last I looked, that's liberal thinking.
Oops! Better take that back, you might find out that the trade started skyrocketing at the moment the drug war started. The day the government put the profit motive of dealing it impossible for criminals to resist.
Well, what basis do we have to lock tax evaders up in prison?
You talked about death, now you switch it to jail for tax evaders. Go figure.
The government sets the laws and, as long as they are not unconstitutional, then their opinions as a body are the only basis we need.
The federal laws ARE unconstitutional.
I know, I know . . . you could argue "cruel and unusual punishment". Probably a good argument too.
You bet, thats why you brought it up.
However, if the will of the people was strong enough, nothing in the Constitution isn't amendable.
Yep, they did that in the first prohibition, it didn't work then either.
You lost me there. I thought reduction in drug supply was one of the goals of the WOD. Drug supply has increased.
Reduction in demand? So we can have an increase in the number of users, but the total amount they consume drops, and that's a success?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Where's that bunny with the pancake?
Geez, if I used the above as proof of success, you'd (rightfully) laugh me off this board.
I thought the point of elevating the WOD to the cabinet level was to reduce supply and demand. Maybe not?
But that's pretty much it, right?
LOL I have a sneaky feeling I would disagree with 99% of the Iranian judicial system. Don't hold me to that as I've never read their code, but I have a feeling it's rather harsh in most cases.
Respectfully, it's exactly that harshness that everyone is praising in this thread.
Are you sure you are on the right forum? Please make the case that they are constitutional or that you don't think that the constitution is important. Or drift back to a different website where people think it's old fashioned. I can recommend a few liberal sites.
What are some ill effects of this increased mj use since 1999? I thought crime was dropping and the economy was improving.
Or will you say that correlation does not equal causation, your favorite?
I ask again: Does robertpaulsen think correlation equals causation?
What's conservative about going easy on drugs, crime, and criminals?
You want a Federal War on rape, theft, and murder?
Last I looked, that's liberal thinking.
Supporting big Federal government programs which are expensive and don't work is the liberal position, IMO.
I think it's capable to be conservative and believe that federal law supersedes state law. And, would we really want the states to be in charge? As Dennis Miller (who will be one of our era's greatest political philosophers when historians look upon us) used to say, "The states can't pave f***ing roads!"
I see it did not take long for the anti-drug zealots to praise Iran for this one.
You guys have some seriously messed up ideas about drugs.
Not really a "zealot" by any means. I would even suggest that we shouldn't put the blame on the users as much as the traffickers. It's all about supply and demand. Without a supply, the junkies can demand all they want . . . they just ain't getting any. : )
Cite the part of the constitution which says so. I cite the tenth amendment.
And, would we really want the states to be in charge?
Yes.
As Dennis Miller (who will be one of our era's greatest political philosophers when historians look upon us) used to say, "The states can't pave f***ing roads!"
He was wrong. And he's a liberal.
Are you familiar with Dennis Miller? Or do you just accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being a liberal?
You are hoplessly nieve. Also, you clearly do not understand econmics.
If there is demand, then there will be supply. Where supply and demand meet, you get price. If you artificially limit the suppy, the price goes up. That means ever MORE profit for the supplier. Which means ever more people willing to supply.
One question you should be asking yourself is: "Has the relative price of an illegal drug (pick one)gone up as a result of increased efforts to undermine the suppy?"
The answer is no. Next question: Why not?
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.