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 ...
Again, I said nothing of the kind.
I merely pointed out that people's motivations for drinking alcohol are highly varied, while only a tiny minority, if any, of cannabis users enjoy cannabis without getting high.
What first part -- about banks? What are you talking about?
Congress is not allowed to regulate strictly intrastate commerce. You cannot give me one example where they are. It is a non-issue. Let it go.
Well taste is a pretty subjective thing. I still don't think you'll have much luck convincing people that alcohol drinkers don't care about the buzz. If someone invented an alcohol substitute that tasted exactly the same, but didn't provide the "buzz", I seriously doubt we'd see a wholsale shutdown of breweries and distilleries.
The part that says it would be void because it would also regulate intrastate commerce. The part that says the exact opposite of what you're trying to tell me. The part you don't want to consider.
"I merely pointed out that people's motivations for drinking alcohol are highly varied, while only a tiny minority, if any, of cannabis users enjoy cannabis without getting high."
My question to you is this:
What makes their motivations for doing to themselves what they want YOUR business?
I used to smoke cigarettes. The nicotine in the cigarette had a calming effect, especially when I was angry. Was it your business that I smoked heavily in my home office? No. You are applying your own personal standards to what everyone else should be like. That is a big no-no in this country. You can't legislate morality, no matter how hard you try.
I have no idea.
Are they regulating this mystery substance now at the interstate level? Are exceptions made for small growers, like yourself? Are you an active participant in a federal government program involving this mystery substance? Are you receiving a federal grant to grow this mystery substance?
How am I supposed to answer your question?
Not the issue, and you know it. For someone who wanted an "honest debate" you don't seem to be very interested in having one.
Historically, people's motivations for raising hemp have been highly varied, too. I don't see any substantial point in the argument.
Which is different from the current situation w.r.t. illegal drugs how? It seems all you've shown is that if drug legalization is handled as poorly as possible, we'll be no better or worse off than with drug criminalization.
Of course, we have your iron-clad assurance that this won't happen with drugs.
Where did I say that? You wouldn't be lying, would you?
In what way does that differ from a ban?
By how one judges success.
So how do you propose to judge the success of making the possession and/or sales of some drugs illegal? Is there any evidence that fewer people possess or sell them as a result of these laws?
I mentioned it to negate your claim that "money that used to go into criminals' hands now goes to the occasionally useful work of the government."
It wouldn't -- therefore your reason to legalize is a non-starter.
So that small minority of drinkers who drink only for taste ... they're the only reason not to ban alcohol? Nobody has the natural God-given right to get so much as a mild buzz free of government interference?
I have no idea.
Are they regulating this mystery substance now at the interstate level? Are exceptions made for small growers, like yourself? Are you an active participant in a federal government program involving this mystery substance? Are you receiving a federal grant to grow this mystery substance?
How am I supposed to answer your question?
Figured as much. Do you honestly believe that the framers would have had such a hard time answering such a simple question? I seriously doubt they would.
It wouldn't
It might possibly not; that falls short of negating my claim.
So it's your claim that NYC currently derives no revenue from the cigarette tax?
"LOL! Actually, KY has brought much pleasure into my life (chivalry prevents me from going into details)."
KY? Gays why! Sorry, that struck me as funny. You think I can pitch it to the KY folk as an advertising slogan? Are they Johnson and Johnson? Thats kinda funny too it true....Johnson X 2=KY. OK, back to the issues.
Works for us straights, too.
You betcha.
That's why they only offered the constitution as a framework.
Less than yesterday. More than tomorrow.
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.