Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: lugsoul
If you want a response from me, you gotta post from me. It's easy.

But since this thread has awakened the usual pro-job nutcases I can make no promises.
603 posted on 07/09/2003 2:06:49 PM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies ]


To: presidio9
Whoops - okay, here it is: Presidio9 - a serious question:

1) Do you believe that intoxicating substances which, when abused, cause societal problems and cause problems for persons in close proximity to abusers should be outlawed and that their use should be subject to criminal penalties?

2) If so, do you believe that such criminal penalties should be limited to those substances presently illegal, or should additional substances which meet the standard in #1 be added to the prohibition list (i.e. ecstacy in the 80s)?

3) If the former, why?

4) If the latter, can you think of anything not currently on the list that should be?

5) BONUS: Can you name an illegal intoxicating substance of which use was eradicated by making the substance illegal and aggresively pursuing criminal convictions of those who possessed it? How about substantially reduced?

Double bonus - what is a pro-job nut?

607 posted on 07/09/2003 2:09:49 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson