[Moby Grape]

I will tone down a bit the verbal volley and say that you are correct that the name calling is to be laid at the feet of both sides...I, in my few exchanges, have not accussed the anti-WOD crowd of being "druggies", etc. My name-calling assertion was actually meant to point to the labeling (neo-this, and neo-that, etc).


After years of long winded posts, disertations, essays, and the like, the anti-WOD crowd had not made any significant headway. Many at FR find them to be arrogant and almost cult-like in their constant, unrelenting absorbtion with one subject. They never miss an opportunity to turn any subject into an anti-WOD rant. They have posted for YEARS thousands of words in essays, etc, yet when folks like me disagree, there is the usual labeling and arrogant dismissive attitude....those who disagree either, are "Bushies" with blind GOP loyalties, or unenlightened hand-in-the-sand types who just haven't read the Constitution and do not understand the danger posed to freedoms by a police search for drugs.

There is often the belief among the anti-WOD folks that they just haven't gotten their message out, and if they had, everyone would agree (thus the endless posts of long winded essays). It is the same mindset of the liberals...."We are right..we just didn't get our message out." (Evidence of just this is to be seen in POST # 98 to me from BVW)

Your message is out...you will just have to accept that people who HAVE read the Constituion, the writtings of the Founders, and have read the long winded disertations of the anti-WOD soldiers just disagree. We do not believe we live in a police state. We support the police in their efforts to stop the death, destruction, crime and heartbreak caused by drugs. We oppose the legalization of drugs. Period.

We also tire of the endless preaching of the anti-WOD folk...that is why when the anti-WOD warriors crank up the rants on the "Prayer for Rush" type threads, there are the calls for you guys to just "give it a rest". We have heard it...again...and again....and again....and again.

Just pray for Rush, and give it a rest.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Just pray for Rush, and give it a rest.

Here's an idea: stay off threads you don't find rewarding, and leave the rest of us to decide when we need to "give it a rest."

[Gianni]

those who disagree either, are "Bushies" with blind GOP loyalties, or unenlightened hand-in-the-sand types who just haven't read the Constitution and do not understand the danger posed to freedoms by a police search for drugs.

Broad brushing occurs on both sides, and it's always unfortunate.

There is often the belief among the anti-WOD folks that they just haven't gotten their message out, and if they had, everyone would agree

I think there are multiple messages that anti's are trying to get out. One by the hard-cores who believe that the government has no authority to regulate personal drug use - that fourth amendment protections extend to their own bodies (oh the humanity!). Others (like me) believe that we abrogate certain rights through a vehicle like the Constitution and that whether or not we agree with the WOD, we should all agree that it requires proper authority (i.e. a clear delegation of that power in some governing document).

people who HAVE read the Constituion, the writtings of the Founders, and have read the long winded disertations of the anti-WOD soldiers just disagree. We do not believe we live in a police state. We support the police in their efforts to stop the death, destruction, crime and heartbreak caused by drugs.

The Founders concerned themselves with protection of their newfound freedom. I can't remember any rhetoric in any of the mentioned documents relating to protecting people from death, destruction, crime, and heartbreak associated with actions of their own doing. Obviously they would have been preoccupied with insuring that they formed a government free form the excesses of the English monarchy, which may be one reason. In any event, I don't think it's too much to ask that people who seek power first seek proper authority.

[jmc813]

"I'm in favor of ending the war on drugs at the federal level." - Jim Robinson, 05/03/2003

"if we didn't arrest so many drug users, maybe the prisons wouldn't be so full" - Jim Robinson, 8/27/2003

[Ken H]

you will just have to accept that people who HAVE read the Constituion, the writtings of the Founders, and have read the long winded disertations of the anti-WOD soldiers just disagree.

I accept that you've read the Constitution. As you know, the Constitution requires that the Federal government must have a power granted to it to exercise that power.

Where, in your reading and understanding of the Constitution, does it grant to the Federal government the power to wage a WOD?

[MrLeRoy]

We support the police in their efforts to stop the death, destruction, crime and heartbreak caused by drugs.

Efforts that have had no demonstrable effect other than to create new deaths, destructions, and heartbreaks.

[MrLeRoy]

After years of long winded posts, disertations, essays, and the like, the anti-WOD crowd had not made any significant headway.

Provide evidence for your claim.