Posted on 11/22/2006 7:35:17 AM PST by Dick Bachert
Atlanta police went to a home on Neal Street in Atlanta last evening to execute a search warrant. When they kicked the door in the only occupant of the home, a 92-year-old woman, started shooting. She hit all three police officers. One in the thigh, one in the arm and another in the shoulder. All police officers will be OK. The woman will not. She was shot and killed by the police.
I'm not blaming the cops here. Not at all. They had a valid search warrant, and they say they were at the right address. Shots were fired, three cops hit, and they returned fire. A 92-year-old woman who was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood that she had burglar bars on every door and window, is now dead.
The blame lies on this idiotic drug war we're waging. We have all the studies we need, all of the comprehensive data is in. We can do a much more effective job of reducing drug use in this country if we'll just take a portion of this money we spend for law enforcement and spend it on treatment programs. A Rand study showed that we can reduce illicit drug usage in this country a specified amount through treatment programs at about 10% of the cost of reducing drug usage by that same amount through criminalization and law enforcement.
There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated. We think they're stupid and ignorant for getting mixed up with those drugs in the first place. And you know what? We're right? But look at the messages we send to our children every single day with cigarettes, alcohol, and an endless stream of drug ads on television and in magazines. Drug culture? You bet we have.
"Pardon me, where did that right exist? I must have missed it. Is it like, "the right not to be offended?"
Then you missed the part about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's government's job (as defined by the people) to set the conditions under which these are possible.
Cockeyed opinion. -- We the people defined the government's job in our Constitution, -- which also protects our rights to life, liberty, or property.. -- There can be no right to "not be offended". Every one can be offended over most anything.
False argument. I'm offended by the fact that I can't smoke a cigarette in a bar, but more than willing to admit that it does offend others and maybe presents a health risk to non-smokers.
You make our point. -- Your "false argument" bit is nonsensical.
In the grand scheme of things, while it's inconvenient to interrupt my merry-making to go outside and light up, no one has taken my cigarettes away.
Numerous 'legislators' are busy trying to do exactly that. -- Belmont, Ca is voting next month to ban ALL smoking in the city, even in private homes. -- Prohibitionists claim they have the power to do so. Do you? -- Are you willing to compromise with those who advocate that a majority rules?
It's a trade-off I'm willing to make because I wasn't raised to be a selfish slob, nor educated to believe that being one was simply a matter of exercising a "right". It's called compromise and it's a fact of life. I'm willing to make that compromise, are you?
No.
-- if thine eye results in unbearable and unreasonable costs to society and human suffering, in contravention to the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", then pluck it out. At what point did prgamatism die a silent death? When did having consideration for others and recognizing the potential consequences of your actions cease being a requirement for civil society? The argument is that society allows this or that evil but not this particular evil is irrelevant: society, by consensus, has decided which forms of evil it's willing to put up with and which ones it is not, and it empowers government to regulate both. That's one of the byproducts (and engines) of civilization...and compromise.
All the laws about concerning this issue (WOD) are not the dictates of a rampant government, but the result of an elected legislature, acting upon the concerns of it's citizens, creating and enforcing laws on behalf of those same citizens. You may not like it, but it is legal, it is constitutional and until the general public says otherwise, necessary.
That the war [prohibition] on drugs is an unconstitutional act of Congress ~is~ the issue here.
Majority rule [the general public] does not have the 'say' on such matters unless & until the Constitution is amended as per Article V.
Nice Scalia quote in your tagline.
Hypocritical is a better word. Confused is even better.
Scalia believes in original meaning (what the terms meant when they were ratified) which stands in opposition to interpretivist theories like original intent.
Let us leave it at that.
What's funny is I found it reading a Scalia lecture. --- One of FR's majority rule devotees claimed that in it Scalia approved of majority rule.
Isn't Scalia the one, who found a "drug exemption to the fourth amendment?"
My money says that you'd just get yourself killed.
I joined the Army... got lots of experience...
Answered by he who must not be named:
Hypocritical is a better word.
Confused is even better.
Scalia believes in original meaning (what the terms meant when they were ratified) which stands in opposition to interpretivist theories like original intent.
Hmmm, we aren't supposed to be posting "-- to or about --" each other, as per your post a month or so ago to the admin moderator.
Have you decided to end that? -- Fine with me, as I think it's an infantile game.
Experienced soldiers die. Life is not a Dirty Harry movie, but I'll leave you to your fantasies.
Sorry to intrude on a private spat.
Scalias lectures are capable of being interpreted most any way you like.
They do not fear it either...
Bull$hit... your average pimp does not seek out new whores or new johns either??? Bull$hit...
SFD watches to much television, anyone with a reasonable amount of grey matter knows the first statement is dead on correct.
Even my earlier point, that RP and I disagree, does not mean that I think his voice should be silenced - just that we do not see eye-to-eye.
One more time and he'll be off this forum for good. I have a very nice library of posts to reference.
Correct. And as long as you don't post lies about me, there's no need to change anything.
I agree, I do not think his voice [or anyone elses] should be silenced..
I was told [by a mod], -- do not post "-- to or about --" that individual at ~his~ request.
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.