Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
You never speed? You always come to a full stop at every stop sign?
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Communicating with voters doesn't impair their ability to choose their representative.
There most certainly is a conflict. Last time I checked the Constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms is limited to ones personal property or to public properties... in fact, I believe it says "Shall not be infringed"
So taken at face value this "right" grants gun bearing at all times and in all places, which of course is NOT reality... but does this mean the second ammendment is invalid? If you as an individual have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, then how can ones inalienable right to private property trump it? Oh wait, that's right, these two rights collide and private property rights do trump the second ammendment rights of a person.
The right to a freedom of religion also while explicitely stated does not exist without conflict or limits... some religions 'require' their followers to always carry knives, yet obviously this conflicts with not only private property rights, but also general security issues. And again, Private property rights win this battle every time.
You are indeed ignorant, and that's not name calling, that's just what the word means, of history and law if you believe that rights do not come into conflict, and when they do moral, legal and history define which rights supercede in those incidents others.
(1) I don't believe your number. The cost is enhanced by illegality, certainly, but not 30-fold.
(2) The transportation is meaningless. If we were to farm poppies for heroin in the US instead of buying heroin from poppies grown in the Golden Triangle, we would be paying American farmworker wages instead of Cambodian peasant wages, which is at least a factor of 10.
And remember that the price of a pack of cigarettes is eight times the wholesale cost of the US-grown tobacco it contains - almost all of that due to taxes.
If drugs are legalized they will be subject to just as onerous tax burdens as tobacco and alcohol.
If you honestly believe that with legalized drugs a pack of cigarettes would cost $5, a six pack of beer would cost $4, and a hit of crank would cost a nickel, you need to focus.
Retailers will charge what the market will bear and people will be more willing to pay up for crack than for bottled water.
Oh I agree. But that doesn't change how things stand.
When someonme is completely out of ideas and arguments, they resort to comparing their interlocutor with Hitler.
You are pathetic.
Untrue. Your idea of face value is bizarre. You must be ignorant of it's true meaning. No court or even law professor has ever made the case you just laid out.
which of course is NOT reality...
Not one thing you have said has any bearing whatsoever on reality.
No conflict exists,,,except in your mind,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Certainly it does.
If a canidate is funded my an outside group, and not by those they represent, then they are not beholden nor representative of them. They are beholden to the money that allowed them to most often distort and smear the other canidate.
If a candidate has a warchest of 10 million dollars that came from people and entities which cannot vote for him, do you honestly believe this person is being sponsored or will be beholden to his electorate? Of course he won't. History shows they won't. They are beholden to the national activist organizations that don't care one iota about the electorate but only their national or even international goals.
The classic example of this is the unfunded mandate. There is no way even one unfunded mandate could ever become law if politicians truly were answerable to their constituencies. They know however they at the end of the day aren't. You would not have local politicians voting for national laws that are at direct odds with their local needs. Like the congressman who represents heavy logging voting to stop logging to save the "spotted owl". Things like this would not happen, and could not happen.. but since this congressman knows his reelection depends on DNC money or envirowacko money more than it does representing his people at all times, he will sell his people out for the larger national goals of an organization that cares nothing for the folks he is there representing.
I know it will never happen, as I said, too many people on the right and the left have way too much vested in the way things are to ever do anything radical, or put serious trust in the people.. sure they may talk abotu it, but when it comes down to it, they largely won't do it.
But no, I don't believe that growing a little extra for personal use would have any discernable effect on market pricing on a national level. And I certainly don't expect the Fed's to knock on my door for having a personal garden (ie. not farming) that I wish to grow some wheat (or any other crop). Their deal may have been with farmers of wheat, corn, tomatoes, peppers, or whatever else, but that should certainly have no bearing on my backyard garden.
"You never speed? You always come to a full stop at every stop sign?"
Stop playing Dan Rather. Read the whole paragraph. I also said if I did chose to break a law I would not bitch that the law was unfair. I have received 2 speeding tickets in 28 years of driving. And guess what? I really was speeding so I paid my fine.
Do we have a new phrase here? "Playing Dan Rather" - I kind of like it, tho' not it being applied to me. My mistake. I did misread what you said.
Yes, they are atrocious.
What the drug warriors fail to recognize is the power of the non-voters. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not vote. The majority of them feel the war on drugs is not working and is wrong. They do not vote because they see both parties as virtually the same. They are ripe for a populist candidate like George Soros.
Any candidate who can bring out the non-voters will win by a landslide. Worked for Hitler and every other populist since Caeser.
The War On Drugs does not protect us, it endangers us!
I figured that Dan Rather will be used for many little digs. I just had to try and float that one out there and see what happened. No Real serious offense intended ;-)
You are advocating that the governemnt can tell us EXACTLY what substances we can or cannot eat, drink, smoke, or inhale. There are few decisions more personal than these. Those are the type decisions that our parents made for us when we were younger. Hence, the term "Nanny State" when describing a government which attempts to be our 'parents'. Therefore, it is not 'namecalling' to say you are an advocate of said state. It is an accurate description. Deal with it.
Second point: you have a habit of calling an argument a 'straw man' when it scores hits on your main points. To wit, your infered argument that is permissible to ban drugs because the users of drugs 'commit crimes in order to get more'. I refer you to your post 109, where you state that you have known alcohol addicted individuals who did not commit violent crimes to get more so alcohol need not be banned. I further point to post 113 as another point to my argument.
Three, simple analysis is often the best way to analyze a simple problem. Complex analysis often leads to gray areas that cause more problems than they solve.
Four: 'All free will is delimited by reality'. No kidding? Fancy way of saying 'Sh*t happens'!!! And all things we consume alter our brain chemistry in some way.
Five: See 'straw man' above. You like that term, don't you? I pointed out that your arguments can be used to ban just about anything. I did not say that YOU personally were advocating such (at this time), so your counterpoint is irrelevant.
As for the rapist/drug dealer finding happiness in doing what they do, those crimes directly involve another person in the commision of the crime. Smoking crank does not directly involve another person (unless they pass the pipe). It is up to the teen as to whether or not they partake of the free sample given. There are further laws limiting what intoxicating substances a person may or may not give a minor.
Lastly, 'draconian' is accepted today as a word meaning cruel or severe. To take it as its original meaning of capital punishment just to be juvenile is, well, juvenile. The history lesson, BTW, was quite unneeded.
"Substances that exist solely to be abused should be banned. Others should merely be regulated, as alcohol is.
I'm not sure the former can work; "
I'm not sure the former exist....
No conflict exists?
Again, religion says carry a knife at all times.. private property owner says not on my property.... Private property wins.
Rights do come into conflict and based on morality, legal precident and history one wins.
23-fold, to be exact: "The 6-inch by 4-inch white brick of pure Southeast Asian heroin (described as a unit in the opening paragraphs and priced at $3,000 at the refinery) generally is sold in New York City at a wholesale price of $70,000." - http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/intel/01004-intellbrief.pdf
If we were to farm poppies for heroin in the US
(I'm not sure that's even possible.)
instead of buying heroin from poppies grown in the Golden Triangle, we would be paying American farmworker wages instead of Cambodian peasant wages, which is at least a factor of 10.
So in a free market manufacturers wouldn't use domestic poppies.
And remember that the price of a pack of cigarettes is eight times the wholesale cost of the US-grown tobacco it contains - almost all of that due to taxes.
If drugs are legalized they will be subject to just as onerous tax burdens as tobacco and alcohol.
Even if we chose to do that (and it is a choice, not a matter of cosmic inevitability), in the worst-case scenario price and thus crime is still reduced, and money that used to go into criminals' hands now goes to the occasionally useful work of the government. Still sounds like a win-win to me.
You're assuming that the druggie will take the same amount of drugs as they do today. This is not true. They will take more. Since it will be easier to get drugs, they will take more than the simple change in price - their drug-addled excuses for a brain will drive them to get more and more wherever and whenever possible.
So, no, robbery, rape, and murder will go up because the drugs are freely available and the drug-zombies will take more and more and more until their untimely demise. But they will have destroyed thousands of other people in the meantime.
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.