Find where I've done that.
that all cops are criminals,
Find where I've said that.
and our "rights" are being taken from us because there are laws against drug use,
Find where I've said that (hint, there might have been a few times where I've said that, but I certainly can't remember them).
However, be sure to count the "neo" labels (in the various forms), the "Bushie" labels, the "Rhino" labels, along with the assertions that those who believe the idea of legalizing drugs to be both immoral and politically stupid
I could see the RINO label being a problem, but if WODders don't like being called "neoconservatives" then they should consider adopting a different philosophy. Do you also want me to count use of the word "person?" This might be a more difficult task if you want me to actually dig to see if a label like "Bushie" is misapplied; it should not be counted as an insult when used with reference to a genuine Bushie.
to be thick of skull, unable to understand the deep thinkers and the true partriot platoons at FR
Not sure where that comes from either. Most anti-wod people around here don't paint themselves as deep thinkers as it's really childsplay to figure out that prohibition generates a black market and a criminal supply line. As far as being true patriots, an inability to abide by the constitution does not necessarily exempt one from that class.
"those who believe the idea of legalizing drugs to be immoral .. unable to understand the deep thinkers and the true partriot platoons at FR" Nor do you know history.
Here, for your and dennisw's edification is some history:
The Addiction Doctor
History of Drug Laws
The Harrison Narcotic Act[excerpt]
Even so, the process of passing and enacting the Harrison Act was difficult. Trade organizations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Pharmaceutical Association, were concerned about the infringement of the federal government into the practice of doctors and pharmacists. Manufacturers of patent medications were concerned about loss of sales and profits. The Treasury Department, which would be responsible for promulgating the Act, questioned its enforceability. Many legislators were of the opinion that a federal law overseeing what was usually considered a matter for state governments would eventually be ruled unconstitutional. Many of these concerns were subordinated to the growing fear of widespread drug addiction, especially among minority groups. Hamilton Wright embarked on a crusade to convince professional organizations, law enforcement bodies and legislators that restriction of prescribing, sales and possession of drugs was imperative. Much of the debate centered on racial issues. Cocaine was believed to make the Southern Black male impervious to bullets, and to generally encourage rebellion against laws designed to restrict the rights of African Americans. Opium was believed to be used by Chinese men to seduce women into white slavery. Marijuana was believed to make Mexican migrants bold enough to challenge oppressive working conditions. Every attempt was made to link drugs to specific minority groups. By race-baiting, popular support for narcotic legislation grew.
The Harrison Act was passed in 1914. Originally, it was meant to be a registration law: doctors, pharmacists and vendors would submit paperwork on all drug transactions. But the Treasury Department quickly used violations of the law to shut down legitimate practices as well as dope clinics and illicit drug stores. The Harrison Act contained no specific wording about the prescription of narcotics by doctors in the treatment of drug addiction. The Treasury Department assumed that any prescription for a narcotic given to a drug addict by a physician or pharmacist – even in the course of medical treatment for addiction - constituted conspiracy to violate the Harrison Act. Restricting the practice of medicine was not the original intent of the Harrison Act, but following two 5-4 Supreme Court decisions (U.S. vs. Jin Fuey Moy, 1916 and U.S. v. Doremus, 1919) the court held that the federal government could assume that a physician’s prescription of a narcotic for the comfort or maintenance of an addict was a violation of the “good faith” practice of medicine, and therefore a criminal violation. Thousands of arrests were made – of physicians, pharmacists and addicts.
The War on Drugs had begun.