Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen

No, you don't get it. The poster made the correct claim that with the end of alcohol prohibition the gangs related to the illegal production of, smuggling, and control of the distribution of illegal alcohol went away.

They did.
Phantom Lord

______________________________________


Legalizing a drug will not make gang violence go away.
Legalizing alcohol only moved the gangs into drugs.
Legalizing marijuana will not make the gang violence go away. They'll continue to deal hard drugs.

Legalize all recreational drugs and the gangs will deal prescription drugs, export drugs, and sell to minors. Violence remains.
591 bumpkinbob

______________________________________


Bob advocates total prohibition of ALL mind altering substances.

And is too dense to realize how his position violates our Constitutional principles.


615 posted on 07/14/2004 5:05:23 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine

The problem tpaine, is that we as a nation are SO far down the proverbial "slippery slope" of obsessive nannystatism, that the common folks pretty much expect big brother to restrict, legislate, tax, regulate, outlaw, prosecute or otherwise inject the federal gun barrell into every aspect of EVERY personal freedom...

for the good of the children, or for the establishment of their utopian theocracy....
the people expect it.

and the rightytightyreligious ones, are demanding it of this administration... one that was barely elected by a few hundred votes and that stands in jeopardy as we speak.

If and when President Bush fails to win reelection, it will be the anger of the religious right that causes the defeat, not the power of the left. They will stay home because Bush did not fully institute their "judeo-christian" state.

I am not a "legalizer of drugs" proponent, but I cannot see how another open ended war on (whatever) is going to do anything to curb the size of intrusive government or the ever increasing growth of the "for your own good" nannystatism we are seeing advocated by alleged "conservatives" of the theocratic bent.

I used to think they MIGHT be conservative somewhere in their hearts. They are not. They want government to stick it's nose in every body oriface we have... to make sure we are not sinning against their "theocratic" imperatives.

It's actually quite dangerous.
and we are already sliding down the slope...not to a theocracy, but a tyrannical hellhole where government has become GOD... and must be worshipped and obeyed as such... or else.

I say lets win the war on terror, and use the money now designated primarily for the war against drug addicted americans... to win the war against the people that actually intend to kill us... instead of attacking the already weak americans as if THEY are the big threat to national security.

the common defense against terrorists commiting acts of war against the usa , is a constitutional obligation for the US gov. I have yet to find any text in the constitution at all, that delegates the responsibility for fighting a drug war that has as its primary targets, American Citizens...

help me out if you have found the text that supports this "responsibility" as a delegated power of the Feds.


676 posted on 07/14/2004 11:03:53 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (the madridification of our election is now officially underway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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