Posted on 06/06/2006 4:32:38 AM PDT by LowCountryJoe
Meanwhile, politicians puff sanctimoniously about ``cleaning the streets" and ``ridding the projects of drug dealers
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It has been suggested that the decline in crime is directly connected to the availability of abortion to the low income unwed mothers.
I agree with the analysis.
The main reason to legalize drugs is to take the profit out of selling them. The next good reason is to reduce the crimes committed by users trying to get enough money for a fix. The biggest benefit will be derived from taking the whipping post away from law enforcement.
:)Easy Does It:)
Agreed, and if you are 'legally intoxicated', how can they charge you with a crime? ;-)
After seeing today's news coverage, I am dumbfounded.
Why all the pity for these people? Some, after being 'sescued' by the EMTs once, went out and bought and injected more. WTF?!?!?!
Let 'em go. Why save them so they can just perpetuate their habit and repeat their crimes while we/society pick up the tab and wait to be victimized again?
Sescued is the new spelling for Rescued. ;-)
This country goes way back with alcohol. It's part of our culture -- drugs are not. Actually, drugs became part of the counterculture in the 1950's and 60's.
There is no "intent to affect your mood and / or perception of reality" in the person who drinks alcohol as part of a religious ceremony, or drinks a "toast" to the newlyweds, or has a glass of wine to enhance a meal, or a cold beer to cool off on a hot day, or have a cocktail at a dinner party. There are hundreds of examples just like that.
Yes, some abuse alcohol. Some drink to get drunk or get high. And I place them in the same category as drug users.
On the statement that people take drugs just "to relax" or "mellow out", my response is this. If that is indeed the reason, then recreational drug users are risking their jobs, their freedom, possibly their family and home, their standing in the community, financial losses ... just "to relax"? I find that hard to believe. That they would risk so much for so little.
They would continue to sell every drug not legalized, and would continue to sell pot and cocaine to the underaged. They are not going to go out and get real jobs. You're dreamin'.
You're equating FReepers with drug users? That's a stretch.
Well, I think you're confusing behavior that is "normal" with behavior that "is the norm". Doing drugs is not the norm. Those who do drugs are in the minority. That was the point being made.
If you want to say that FReepers are also in the minority of all internet users, fine.
It's the continuing agenda of the media shills for the liberal left -- pointing out these problems, situations and atrocities and trying to guilt us all into feeling sorry for the supposed "victims." Of course, in between it all, the message is that it's "Bush's fault." And we are all to blame too because we don't do enough. Sorry, I'll save my sympathies and what little extra money I may have for those who truly deserve it. Bad enough that my tax dollars are being wasted to subsidize the incompetent, ungrateful, lazybut slobs who continue to practice bad behavior and then, when things go bad, look to the rest of us for help again and again and again.
One of my co-workers has a small cousin, age 6, who needs a bone marrow transplant. Insurance only covers a small amount of the expense and the parents' savings have been wiped out. Under the circumstances, if I can give something to help that small child and her family, I will. But I will not keep throwing money at some bum who will then shoot it up his arm.
Good idea, then all the druggies can overdose. Then we would need fewer police and the hospital emergency rooms would not be so crowded. Of course the money that the dealers spend on large ticket items would put a hurt to many companies. /sarc
Then we would need fewer police and the hospital emergency rooms would not be so crowded.
****
Or if nothing else, the police and emergency people could help those truly in need. The whole time this local story about the overdoses aired, I kept thinking, what a waste of manpower and resources. Certainly, the emergency personnel could have been helping people truly in need, instead of spending their valuable time scraping these lowlifes off the sidewalk.
I don't know that I said we would reduce the number of overdoses. What I was envisioning, however, was cutting the cord between these lazy scumbags and the rest of us. In fighting this so-called war on drugs, we have spent bazillions of taxpayer dollars and have seen no benefit whatsoever. The irresponsible continue to drain the responsible. But as was pointed out to me, we would probably wind up doing as other countries have done. By legalizing drugs, we would still be spending money on the lowlifes by giving them clean needles, setting up clinics where they could get free drugs safely and all that. So we probably wouldn't see much in the way of savings for the taxpayers. Resources would continue to be wasted on these deadbeats one way or the other. That's too bad.
You are totally clueless.
Howdy, shipmate.
Do you listen to Quinn?...just heard on a news break on 104.7 that the motto out there on the street with these heroin druggies is "get high or die trying" guess a few of them have done just that.
***
I didn't get to catch him this morning, although I usually do get to hear at least the first half hour. Slogan just about says it all. :(
We, as a government "of the people", have a right to impose a level of control in our society. It is done through the democratic process.
I know the druggies don't like that, but that's just tough.
We who support a free republic "don't like that" bold 'democratic' bit much either..
The majority does not rule in a constitutional republic.
Indirectly, the majority does rule. It's a representative republic.
The point is; representative 'rule-making' is limited by our Constitution.
The tyranny of majority rule is not compatible with due process of law.
The representatives "represent" a certain view of the people, who "hopefully" voted for a person who best respresents their views.
Both the people, and their representatives, are bound to support & defend our Constitution as the supreme law.
Don't know what you are inferring but I didn't "bold" the word democratic.
Of course you didn't. - I did, - as an example of how 'democratic' drug warrior principles are replacing those of our republic.
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.