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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320, 321 next last
To: investigateworld
So You do want us to continue the support system for dopers?Which part of "I'm against us having to pay for their living/medical expenses" did you not understand?
301
posted on
06/17/2006 5:44:08 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.)
To: Mojave
simple irrelevant
facts that you can't and won't needn't
address.There, now that's correct.
302
posted on
06/17/2006 5:46:16 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.)
To: Know your rights
irrelevant factsFacts are irrelevant to the dope cult.
303
posted on
06/17/2006 6:33:28 PM PDT
by
Mojave
To: Know your rights
Go back and read your post #298.
What? Because I don't want to pay for the survival of dopers I'm now a hypocrite? Just because I think a guy who busts his butt in construction all day should be able to kick back with a beer? (or two or twenty) If I'm following your thinking, because the above scenario is legal, a subject should be able to do a couple of lines of cocaine?
Just have a bit of difficulty following your reasoning.
And I admit, having seen some beautiful young ladies get hooked on meth, then turned into sh*t dipped in misery does color my thought process.
If you know the doper world, then you know it's based on predatory behavior. These maggots are always looking for some sweet young thing to get hooked, then support their (the collective "their") habits.
To: Mojave
Your facts are irrelevant to any post on this thread.
305
posted on
06/17/2006 6:40:47 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.)
To: investigateworld
Which part of "I'm against us having to pay for their living/medical expenses" did you not understand?Go back and read your post #298.
I understood my post; it's you who seems to be having trouble.
Just because I think a guy who busts his butt in construction all day should be able to kick back with a beer? (or two or twenty)
Quit evading the subject ... I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about the guy who you and I have to support because of his alcohol abuse. Why isn't your continued support for the legality of the drug alcohol conditional on your not having to support its abusers, since you take that position with regard to other drugs?
having seen some beautiful young ladies get hooked on meth
Never seen anyone get hooked on alcohol? I have ... it's not pretty.
306
posted on
06/17/2006 6:47:00 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.)
To: Know your rights
You wrote: "Why isn't your continued support for the legality of the drug alcohol conditional on your not having to support its abusers, since you take that position with regard to other drugs?"
Where did I ever say I wanted to support any "substance abuser"?
Again, my position is remove all support (tax payer funded) and let the Darwin Effect proceed.
To: investigateworld
my position is remove all support (tax payer funded)Mine too. Is is also your position that some drugs should be illegal until all taxpayer funded support is removed, but other drugs (such as alcohol) should be legal even though all taxpayer funded support hasn't been removed?
308
posted on
06/17/2006 7:00:03 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.)
To: Know your rights
(Scratching old head) OK I'll try again
My position is remove all funding for all substance abusers, IE: Food stamps, Section eight housing and so forth.
Many of these folks would do some really dumb stuff just to get in jail, so we'd have to call in a certain Arizona Sheriff as director of inmate housing. All medical limited to basic life saving, no transplants and the like.
Once these concepts are in place, then remove all laws concerning usage, possession etc. Sales or transferring of course would be subject to a relative defending the intended recipient. (Family member or designated representative able to terminate said sales staff)
Guaranteed it would be ugly for a few months... Of course the existing government would be totally against it. Laws concerning booze would remain in place of course. The Nanny State folks would say, "But we're at where we were in the 1880s. Waaaaahhhh".
My response "SO?"
To: investigateworld
My position is remove all funding for all substance abusers[...] Once these concepts are in place, then remove all laws concerning usage, possession etc.So you think the drug alcohol should be banned until all funding is removed for alcohol abusers? If not, why are you making an exception for that drug?
310
posted on
06/19/2006 3:18:13 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.)
To: Know your rights
I thought the thread was about drugs, such a cocaine, heroin, meth and the like. We've already tried banning alcohol ... how far did we get with that?
And I know many functioning alcoholics (I'm a retired cop remember?)
But once one goes into the drug slide, the need for a higher buzz overcomes everything.
I've been clear what I think would work. What would your solution be?
To: investigateworld
I thought the thread was about drugsIt is. Alcohol is a drug.
We've already tried banning alcohol ... how far did we get with that?
Not much less far than we've gotten with banning other drugs.
312
posted on
06/19/2006 3:29:08 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.)
To: Know your rights
To: investigateworld
The same as the solution to the ills of Prohibition: relegalize.
314
posted on
06/19/2006 3:47:01 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.)
To: Know your rights
Sounds like we're moving towards the same sheet of music. I know this sounds like a hard *ss, but I would tolerate that only as long one could protect the younger members of their family via taking steps so no one would temp them to use said drugs. Remember, the druggie world is a collection of predators.
AND
No taxpayer support system for the addicts.
To: investigateworld
the druggie world is a collection of predators.If that's any less true for alcohol than for other drugs (and I don't know that it is), it's most likely because of the illegality and the consequent economic motivation to create more users (so one can sell to them and use the profits for one's own drugs).
No taxpayer support system for the addicts.
So you think the drug alcohol should be banned until all funding is removed for alcohol abusers? If not, why are you making an exception for that drug?
316
posted on
06/21/2006 1:54:29 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.)
To: Know your rights
I give up ... I quit... You've beaten me down, nothing should be legal...
Just ban everything ... Happy Now?
To: investigateworld
nothing should be legal... Just ban everything ... Happy Now?To the extent that I've finally outed you, yes.
318
posted on
06/21/2006 2:21:44 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.)
To: Know your rights
You've done nothing of the sort. You never answered my question, : "What do you propose?"
I've been clear where my thinking is, and you?
To: investigateworld
You've done nothing of the sort.Sure I have: you admitted your ban-happy prejudices.
You never answered my question, : "What do you propose?"
Wrong again.
320
posted on
06/27/2006 4:23:28 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.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320, 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson