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 ...
Ohhhh, I think you're stretching it a bit. (But I suspect you know that!)
And I suspect that a hefty percentage of people who promote "liberties" even tho' it's obvious that those particular liberties are a bane on society are actually motivated by their own selfishness.
And I say that's a completely different approach to legalization than legalizing it at all levels of government. Your "decision" approach opens the possibility of some states deciding not to legalize.
Would you propose an amendment, similar in wording to Section 2 of the 21st amendment?
But not for banning it, right? So why should marijuana be banned rather than regulated?
I haven't heard anyone propose to close off that possiblity. Has anyone, or is your "rift" a strawman?
Would you propose an amendment, similar in wording to Section 2 of the 21st amendment?
I would propose no amendment, as federal regulation of intrastate drug trade violates the current language of the Constitution.
Correct... Regulating does not necessarily = banning.
But if it'll set your mind at ease, I think we've let certain things go too far already, and I doubt the situation can be fixed. (no pun intended)
Perhaps (although I'm more optimistic), but as conservatives we should tell the truth even if we don't think it'll do any good. The war on drugs is wrong, has failed, and needs to end (as Prohibition did).
I think it's an excellent argument for banning alcohol. In fact, I'd be willing to bet serious money that it was used to justify Prohibition.
The fact that Prohibition failed indicates that the majority didn't agree with the argument. The fact that marijuana prohibition is succeeding indicates that the majority agree.
But the argument itself is sound.
British troops would search for tea after the Boston happening and this was one of the reasons for the amendment requiring a warrant. The people you are arguing with are lack compassion and respect for the constitution
One solution is to sell drugs in the drug store to adults with a prescription. This won't happen for the same reason Mississippi was legally dry--the Baptists and the Bootleggers were in control. Now the laws are price supports for the Christian Right and the people who pull the strings on the planet. Daddy Bush danced to those strings as much as any Afgnan warlord.
In healthier cultures entheogenic agents are used within the family and by healers. The present Drug War is designed to keep youth from associating these experiences with family or a wise man/woman. This experience "vaccinates" the child so he does not associate the experience with his peers. The indigenous people in Peru aren't crack-heads
(1) British troops did not search for tea. It was quite clear that the tea was destroyed as a message.
(2) The requirement of a warrant was standard practice in British common law going back for centuries. If anything prompted its inclusion as an amendment, it was the Framers' appreciation for Blackstone.
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.