Skip to comments.
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS (This Is Gettin' Scary)
New York Post ^
| September 16, 2004
| KENNETH LOVETT
Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 501-514 next last
To: green iguana
We're trying to ban various other drugs now. In case you didn't notice it, this ban isn't working either.We're trying to ban murder, rape, and robbery now. Those bans aren't working either - consider how busy the criminal courts are with such cases. Should we abandon those bans too?
281
posted on
09/16/2004 12:13:00 PM PDT
by
Chemist_Geek
("Drill, R&D, and conserve" should be our watchwords! Energy independence for America!)
To: HamiltonJay
No conflict exists?
Again, religion says carry a knife at all times.. No religion says you must go on other's private property.
private property owner says not on my property.... Private property wins.
There is no right to go on anyone else's private property. It always wins. No matter who convoluted and bizarre you make these childish scenarios, they do not prove your point.
Rights do come into conflict and based on morality, legal precedent and history one wins.
No conflict exists
282
posted on
09/16/2004 12:17:13 PM PDT
by
Protagoras
(Free speech is fundamental to a free society)
To: MPJackal
If there was a movement and subsiquint movement to ban or restrict alcohal, I would not lose any sleep over it.Wow, you're a glutton for punishment, considering the abject failure and dreadful side-effects of our last attempt to ban alcohol.
So in your mind it is OK for non-parrents to be stoned out of their minds?
It's none of government's business.
How about a crack baby?
Ever hear of fetal alcohol syndrome? Is it a good reason to ban alcohol? I say no.
And are crack babies a good reason to ban crack even for those who can't get pregnant, like f'rinstance men?
Ever tried to help an OD victim.
ODing is exactly the self-harm that's none of government's business.
Look at Ricky Williams [...] His decision has an impact on every one of his teammates. [...] Let us not forget the multitude of fans that he screwed.
So government should restrict his choices for their benefit? That's textbook socialism.
Not to mention the owners and employees of the Dolphins. They stand to lose millions. [...] It might also be mentioned that Rickey is also failing to live up to his contract.
So let them pursue their legal options. It's immoral to ban a substance for everyone because it leads some people to violate contracts.
283
posted on
09/16/2004 12:18:53 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: HamiltonJay
If a canidate is funded my an outside groupOK. What about advertising directly without coordinating with the campaign?
284
posted on
09/16/2004 12:20:27 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: Chemist_Geek
We're trying to ban murder, rape, and robbery now. Those bans aren't working either - consider how busy the criminal courts are with such cases. Should we abandon those bans too?Does the USSC striking down the VAWA mean that rape and domestic violence are now legal and condoned by the government?
285
posted on
09/16/2004 12:21:24 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Know your rights
Outside interference in local elections sure wasn't a problem when the Drug Czar was running around doing it, was it?
286
posted on
09/16/2004 12:21:47 PM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: Chemist_Geek
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.Maybe, or maybe not ... but certainly not 23 times more (and drug criminalization boosts prices by at least that much, as I have shown). So the net effect is less money spent on the user's drugs.
287
posted on
09/16/2004 12:23:56 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: green iguana
"In case you didn't notice it, this ban isn't working either."Well, we're not really banning recreational drugs -- we're just making the possession and/or sales of them illegal.
And that is working just fine.
To: Chemist_Geek
We're trying to ban murder, rape, and robbery now. Those bans aren't working either 63% of murder cases are solved (FBI stats); what percentage of drug sales do you think law enforcement even finds out about?
289
posted on
09/16/2004 12:27:25 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: Wolfie
Outside interference in local elections sure wasn't a problem when the Drug Czar was running around doing it, was it?I guess it's OK when government spends our money to influence our vote, but not when individuals spend their own money.
290
posted on
09/16/2004 12:29:19 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: robertpaulsen
Well, we're not really banning recreational drugs -- we're just making the possession and/or sales of them illegal.In what way does that differ from a ban?
And that is working just fine.
How so?
291
posted on
09/16/2004 12:30:59 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
If we were to farm poppies for heroin in the US (I'm not sure that's even possible.)
It's very possible. They may have gotten rid of them by now, but the last time I was at Monticello the garden had a nice crop.
To: tacticalogic
"For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen), which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes."I agree with the above statement. Congress does not have the power to regulate strictly intrastate commerce.
But, the courts have ruled that IF Congress is regulating interstate commerce, and IF intrastate commerce has a substantial effect on their regulatory efforts, THEN AND ONLY THEN may Congress regulate the intrastate trade.
Now, that makes perfect sense to me. Without that power, Congress' efforts to regulate interstate trade would be wasted.
To: Chemist_Geek
We're trying to ban murder, rape, and robbery now. Apples and oranges. I was comparing a prohibition of a drug to a prohibition of other drugs, not to a prohibition of violent crime.
294
posted on
09/16/2004 12:35:18 PM PDT
by
green iguana
(Mind you the prohibition of drugs leads to violent crime, but that's another story.)
To: robertpaulsen
So, in other words, it is your view that a state can make medical marijuana legal? (Not being flip, it is an honest question)
295
posted on
09/16/2004 12:35:53 PM PDT
by
ex 98C MI Dude
(Proud Member of the Reagan Republicans)
To: Know your rights
"ODing is exactly the self-harm that's none of government's business."
As I stated before. It does not affect that person only. It affects family, friends, the medical community, the tax payers that will have to pay for some of the resulting health issues. We live in a society with laws and norms like it or not. For a society to function, the members of that society have to conform to some extent. If they do not, there will be consequences of some sort. In this case, some drugs are illegal. Involvement will have consequences. That is life.
"So government should restrict his choices for their benefit? That's textbook socialism."
It is still a government of the people (to some extent). As of today this society wants some drugs restricted. The judicial system is just enforcing the will of society.
Bottom line is many drugs create a burden to society and need to be restricted.
296
posted on
09/16/2004 12:37:55 PM PDT
by
MPJackal
("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
To: robertpaulsen
And that is working just fine. Come again? In what fantasyland do you live?
To: wideawake
Substances that exist solely to be abused should be banned. Others should merely be regulated, as alcohol is.Which substances do you think fall into the latter category?
?
298
posted on
09/16/2004 12:39:37 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: wideawake
"If drugs are legalized they will be subject to just as onerous tax burdens as tobacco and alcohol."Legal marijuana at the "coffee" shops in Amsterdam is about the same price as illegal marijuana in the U.S.
Legal medical marijuana in Canada (really horrible stuff) is about the same price as illegal marijuana in the U.S.
Legal medical marijuana in California ... need I go on?
Needless to say, that marijuana is not even taxed. Add federal, state, local, city, county, etc. and you'll be lucky to pay the same amount.
It's not about price.
To: wideawake
"If freedom ought not include the freedom to risk addiction, it seems clear that it also ought not include the freedom to risk death, so skydiving, rock climbing, etc. are right out.
"And since some currently illegal drugs (e.g., marijuana) are less addictive than alcohol, you'll doubtless be calling for either the legalization of those drugs or the criminalization of alcohol. Right?"
300
posted on
09/16/2004 12:41:18 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 ... 501-514 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