"Well, you're heart is in the right place, but I recommend a 'suicide'."
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 ...
"Well, you're heart is in the right place, but I recommend a 'suicide'."
You can't get more "local" than each person deciding who or what to vote for.
This cannot be a good development.
Advancing ideas is always a good idea even if the ideas themselves are not. People can be trusted to get what they want,,,,or deserve.
I thought you were interested in discussing the merits of repealing the Rockerfeller laws. What happened, did I ask a question for which you have no good answer? Remind me again please, why did we need to amend the Constitution for alcohol prohibition?
But you'll fully support having those same people pay taxes to fund John Walters engaging in "hyperbole" that supports your view of the subject.
Tin Foil time. It's a vast left wing conspiracy.
Now there's a catchy title for a pot smoking organization. Who couldn't love that.
So what's the DA gonna do? Not prosecute drug crimes? He doesn't change the law, it's the senate and assembly.
It was necessary because Prohibition was a nationwide ban - until that time the several states reserved the right to make decisions about alcohol availability.
The several states could ban alcohol if they wanted to, just as the states today can ban crack if they want to.
As it stands the Federal government has no power to prohibit drugs unless they cross state borders or the national borders. But the individual states certainly retain that right under the Tenth Amendment to internally legislate.
New York is one of six states whose state constitutions are silent on the RKBA.
Anyone who disagrees with you on the meaning of tyranny is a joker? That's pretty funny, so maybe you are a joker. That is, one who tells jokes. LOL
oligarchist soros attacks again...
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?
You lie! If you were tired you wouldn't participate. You live for these threads, its where you, personally, get achieve the maximum division, as well as embarrassing those of us who revere the Constitution.
No, but his office is a bully pulpit, and the voters didn't like what the incumbent was preaching.
That's one form. I'm glad you are enjoying it. It seems like a good form.
But it's not the only kind.
You believe in theoretical freedom - I believe in the actual article.
The kind of "freedom" where one group of people with guns tells other people what they can and cannot ingest? That's actual freedom?
Is it really that simple? Could an individual state legislate to ban a certain religion for example?
Could an individual legislate to ban a free press?
New York is one of six states whose state constitutions are silent on the RKBA.
What are the other five?
That seems sensible. The only problem is that it does not conform to reality. The ban on some drugs is also a nationwide prohibition, and, as is evidenced by the Federal interference in medical-marijuana laws passed by several states, the states apparently do not, according to the current regime, have the right to choose whether or not to ban the drugs in question. All the states have the right to do, apparently, is to make state drug laws more harsh than federal laws.
So do you feel that the Federal government is out of place in telling the states what to do on this issue? Do you then agree that a federal Drug Czar is a position for which there is no Constitutional justification?
Have you ever heard of a quaint little phrase that goes like this: "tyranny of the masses"?
All you have to do is follow that logic to its natural conclusion in order to federalize every aspect of human life.
Let's say a person is sick with a disease that is fatal if untreated, but a cure is available. Should the government be able to force him to spend his money on treatment, and to undergo that treatment?
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.