Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A safer society? Legalize drugs
The Boston Globe ^ | June 6, 2006 | Bill Fried

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 ...


TOPICS: Gardening
KEYWORDS: drugskilledbelushi; govwatch; knowyourleroy; leroyknowshisrights; libertarians; longlivemrleroy; longtokemrleroy; mrleroybait; nokingbutmrleroy; warondrugs; wheresmrleroy; which1ofuismrleroy; wod; woddiecrushonleroy; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321 next last
To: robertpaulsen
Sub-culture perhaps, due to the Chinese immigrants.

Smoking opium was a legal taxed commodity in taverns in every seaport long before there were any Chinese in America. The opium tax applied to opium imported for smoking. The medicinal concoctions made at home were never taxed.

Yeah, fell from favor because it was starting to spead into our culture. You making my case for me.

LOL...You have no case.
It fell from favor as cocaine wine became popular. Cocaine wine was so popular that it was even endorsed by the Pope!


261 posted on 06/08/2006 9:07:53 AM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Anti-constitutional state enactments affect all of citizens of the USA.

The Texas sodomy law was deemed an "anti-constitutional state enactment" -- were you affected by that?

Not personally, but we all will be, because the USSC is finally facing the fact that no level of government has ever been delegated the constitutional power to ignore our basic freedoms to a private life, liberty, or property.

How bout you rob? Were you affected? Do you have some special problem with such 'laws'?

262 posted on 06/08/2006 9:13:07 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious

LOL

I may be heartless, but I can't get worked up about these people dying and especially those who took more of the drug and those who are still taking them even after all of the news about the drug being lethal.

We still have a right to be stupid and these people are zealously pursuing that right.


263 posted on 06/08/2006 2:45:55 PM PDT by Badray (CFR my ass. There's not too much money in politics. There's too much money in government hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

You're welcome and the invitation is an open one. For almost 7 years it's been the first Wednesday same time, same place.


264 posted on 06/08/2006 2:48:03 PM PDT by Badray (CFR my ass. There's not too much money in politics. There's too much money in government hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9
I have had this debate many times and certain questions never get answered to my satisfaction. Do we legalize all drugs? Do they get regulated by the feds? Are there going to be strength and purity standards? If there are going to be strength and purity standards, won't another black market open making stronger drugs?

I start thinking about this and the thought crosses my mind that all the FDA has to do is make sure that no lethal additives are put into them ... everything else (including OD possibliities) should be totally unregulated. You die on drugs ... no insurance payouts, no liability, NOTHING that a lawyer can profit by.

265 posted on 06/08/2006 2:57:04 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (You go to Heaven for the climate; Hell for the company and conversation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoftballMominVA
But drug use is not normal now.

What exactly do you think theobromine, nicotine, caffeine and ethanol are?

Websters: DRUG

A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.

How many people eat chocolate, smoke, drink alcohol or drink coffee/tea? They are technically drug users.

266 posted on 06/08/2006 3:02:14 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (You go to Heaven for the climate; Hell for the company and conversation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
In a perfect world you would be correct. I am sure some supreme court would find some right to collect on a drug death by some bastardization of the constitution.
267 posted on 06/08/2006 6:21:46 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9
I am sure some supreme court would find some right to collect on a drug death by some bastardization of the constitution

Actually Congress could craft the rule to exclude the courts from ever ruling on it's Constituionality by excluding it's jurisdiction from their review.

Or something like that ... Congress does have a trump card that it can play against the Courts if they ever decide to use it.

268 posted on 06/08/2006 6:24:44 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (You go to Heaven for the climate; Hell for the company and conversation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

The Tom Daschle rule.


269 posted on 06/08/2006 6:37:59 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Badray

Well it isn't right or fair that these people are dying just b/c they probably didn't hear the news about all the others dying. There should be funding so that we can drive around downtown to give warnings, clean needles, televisions and cell phones (to better their communications). We just can't sit by and let people die; rights are being infringed upon!.../S (notice the S is big)

; )Have a great weekend.


270 posted on 06/09/2006 11:56:33 AM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious

Maybe we can give them a new pager every time they sell the old one for another fix while we're at it, and notify them whenever we find a 'hot' load.

Then they needn't worry at all.


271 posted on 06/09/2006 10:09:28 PM PDT by Badray (CFR my ass. There's not too much money in politics. There's too much money in government hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
In the UK, a registered addict could go to a 'chemist' and get the fixings of heroin or his opiate of choice. Yet the black-market price for heroin was the same as the USA. Because of the mindset of dopers (something to the effect of illegal is better)

More likely because not all users are registered addicts.

there will always be a huge black market for drugs

Wrong: the black market for the drug alcohol was decimated when that drug was relegalized.

272 posted on 06/10/2006 9:24:20 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I bet you would have said the same thing about alcohol during Prohibition. Legalize wine and we'll lessen the enrichment of criminals.

Not the same thing: wine and (say) beer are the same drug, whereas marijuana and (say) cocaine are not.

Hell, we legalized all alcohol and the criminals are still rich, aren't they?

Basic economics says they'd be more rich if the drug alcohol was still illegal.

273 posted on 06/10/2006 9:28:59 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I do see those numbers going down in just about every Soros paid-for, NORMAL- sponsored, and Drug Policy Alliance-written push-poll that has come out recently.

Have any other polls that say the opposite? (Or are the WOD-worshippers afraid to ask?)

274 posted on 06/10/2006 9:30:24 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine ... all have been part of the American culture. Recreational drugs such as marijuana, opium, heroin, and cocaine have not.

Which makes it plausible that banning the latter could succeed where banning alcohol did not ... but there's no actual evidence for that proposition. The ban on other drugs is enriching criminals and corrupting the law enforcement system as banning the drug alcohol did.

275 posted on 06/10/2006 9:37:05 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

"That a main source of difficulty is in the attitude of at least a very large number of respectable citizens in most of our large cities and in several states, is made more clear when the enforcement of the national prohibition act is compared with the enforcement of the laws as to narcotics. There is an enormous margin of profit in breaking the latter. The means of detecting transportation are more easily evaded than in the case of liquor. Yet there are no difficulties in the case of narcotics beyond those involved in the nature of the traffic because the laws against them are supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment." --Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws (1931) by the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement


276 posted on 06/10/2006 9:42:34 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
there are no difficulties in the case of narcotics beyond those involved in the nature of the traffic because the laws against them are supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment." --Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws (1931) by the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement

75 years later, the laws against marijuana are not "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment" ... and there certainly are "difficulties in the case of narcotics."

277 posted on 06/10/2006 9:55:58 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
75 years later, the laws against marijuana are not "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment"

Sure they are. In every state.

278 posted on 06/10/2006 10:40:24 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Only if by "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment" you mean "still on the books," Humpty Dumpty.
279 posted on 06/10/2006 12:13:59 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

No, dopers are a tiny minority.


280 posted on 06/10/2006 1:13:32 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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