Drug laws won't be on the fall ballot, but tobacco money will

Detroit Free Press ^ | September 11, 2002 | DAWSON BELL

[VA Advogado]

A carefully planned and well-financed campaign to overhaul Michigan's drug laws crashed Tuesday, as the state Supreme Court declined to place the issue before voters in November.

Without comment, the court upheld decisions issued last week by the Court of Appeals and a state elections panel to keep the drug question off the ballot.

[tdadams]

You are despicable slime. I'm serious. I don't know of anyone other than Saddam and Osama who are so worthy of contempt and scorn than you. You and the disgusting comments you post here are absolutely sickening.

You are the poster child for all the left wing liberals who want to paint conservatives as idiotic, hate-filled, maniacal fanatics. You're simply a disgusting person. I hope someday you grow up.

[VA Advogado]

You are the poster child for all the left wing liberals

Why? I'm not the one that hates cops, hillary.

[WyldKard]

So you and your fellow anti-Freepers are acting voluntarily.

Here's an Anti-WOD post from well known "Anti-Freeper" Jim Robinson:

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. " Jim Robinson, 5/9/01 155

Of course, we all know the owner of this site is just run by a druggie socialist who wants to destroy the world...at least he is according to you folks. I wonder why you keep posting on a site run by someone you would consider a "druggie socialist"...

[Roscoe]

"A carefully planned and well-financed campaign to overhaul Michigan's drug laws crashed Tuesday, as the state Supreme Court declined to place the issue before voters in November."

[MrLeRoy]

They're perfectly relevant in a discussion of which items SHOULD be legal.

No, the question is what things ARE illegal.

Whose question is that, and why are they asking questions whose answers are blindingly obvious?

Drugs are and should stay that way.

You deny that the question is "which items SHOULD be legal" and then say "drugs should stay [illegal]." Nice work---your lack of logic eminently qualifies you as a Drug War bootlicker.

[jjm2111]

I'm with the Libertarians on this one. The "War on Drugs" has cost too many Constitutional freedoms and does nothing to diminish drug use. The government stops maybe 10% of the incoming illegal drugs.

Prohibition 2 is not working and is doing more harm than good.

[jjm2111]

Why are you so enamored with monarchy?

[WyldKard]

"A carefully planned and well-financed campaign to overhaul Michigan's drug laws crashed Tuesday, as the state Supreme Court declined to place the issue before voters in November."

....because of an accidental technicality in the language of the proposal. It called for a Section 24 to be added to the State Constitution, but there was already a Section 24. This legal technicality was the only reason the issue was rejected for consideration.

Interesting how you chose to completely gloss over that topic. Of course, telling the whole story is anathema to New Dealer Socialists like yourself.

[Roscoe]

but there was already a Section 24.

What would have happened to it?

[WyldKard]

What would have happened to it?

They weren't saying they wanted to replace Section 24 (which I believe was a completely unrelated section). They wanted to add a completely new section to the Constitution of Michigan, a Section 24. But there already was a section 24. It was an incredibly stupid legal technicality, but it's unfortunately valid.

I know you want to spin this as some great Socialist trumph, but it wasn't. The judges made the correct, albiet unfortunate call. It was an incredibly minor thing to reject the proposal over, but I'm sure that the folks will do their homework and be more careful the next time they submit the proposal. It wasn't the judges making any sort of "NO! We must save the people from themselves!" kind of morality play. It was them saying "Oops, you made a technical error. Try again!"

[Roscoe]

Yes, the judges made the correct call.

[MrLeRoy]

Hey, VA Advogado's home page says, "This account has been banned."

[AUgrad]

I can think of no other individual more deserving.

[headsonpikes]

Actually, his head exploded and took down the DEA server, ;^)

[WyldKard]

Yes, the judges made the correct call.

Yes..they did. But not for the reasons you wish they did..

[WyldKard]

Sad, but not terribly surprising. Most of these Pro-WODies have the mental maturity of a 10 year old. Sooner or later, one of them slips up to the point where the A.M. doesn't feel like dealing with them anymore, and shows them the door, I suppose.

Now we have to deal with the others bleating "Censorship! Censorship! Free Republic has been taken over by the druggies! Wah wah wah!"

Oh well..

[Roscoe]

But not for the reasons you wish they did..

Wrong.

[Roscoe]

Now we have to deal with the others bleating "Censorship! Censorship! Free Republic has been taken over by the druggies! Wah wah wah!"

Where's that happening?

[WyldKard]

Wrong.

Right.

The onus is on you to prove that the Judges had an alterior motive...

[Roscoe]

The onus is on you to prove that the Judges had an alterior motive...

Backwards. They didn't.