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, despite Senator Schumer's fervent wishes, the right to bear arms is federally guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
There was no 11th Amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and smoke crack.
No, they're about on a par with each other; only the drug dealer takes a little longer to murder his clientele.
By this argument, Microsoft Word ought to be prohibited, since the user's freedom to switch to other software decreases every time he creates another document in the closed MS Word format.
All this is true, generally.
But the subject under discussion is the Rockefeller drug laws.
Liberals hate them not because they want unregulated drug use - liberals hate them because they impose serious jail sentences on drug dealers.
"ANY theft, burglary, robbery, carjacking, embezzlement, etc with ANY connection to drugs MUST be punishable be DEATH, with no appeals, no delays."
Why not just move to Saudi Arabia? They do that there.
Well, that's one of the few good things about that government.
But, I believe that the original quote was a negotiation over what conditions should also occur if drugs are legalized.
The 10th Amendment makes it none of the federal government's business.
I see. Does natural law equal what 51% of those enfranchised with the vote say it is?
If it can be shown that fraud occurred in the transaction, the perpetrator of that fraud should be dealt with.
BTW, tobacco falls under the same definition you just gave. Are you in favor of making it illegal as well?
How about the alcohol and tobacco dealers (many of whose customers' lives are shortened by their products)?
There is a difference between the trivial "freedom not to have to reformat one's text files" and the inability to get through the day without excruciating pain unless one obtains a hit of crack.
"That's only morally wrong but pragmatically stupid -- "
Agreed - Increase the penalties for anyone who steals my car or holds me up at knifepoint.
I'm still waiting for your response to this:
"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?"
As you can see on my profile page, I'm from Massachusetts; I live in a socialist paradise on Earth. I do not know of any liberal politician in Massachusetts who hates drug laws to such an extent that he or she advocates their repeal. I think you speculate way too much.
If there's one thing Dems and Pubs agree on, it's that drug laws are here to stay.
The same old bad penny keeps on resurfacing.
Rights are not granted by the constitution or governments. They need not be enumerated to exist.
The ninth amendment explains this. Not confers it, explains it.
I know many tobacco users.
None of them have ever been arrested for breaking into someone's apartment, or mugging someone on the street, or carjacking someone or beating up their own elderly parents in order to get money to buy cigarettes.
I have known people addicted to caffeine, to nicotine and to cocaine. The first two groups are inconvenienced by their addiction, the latter group (and often their families and loved ones) are destroyed by it.
Tell that to the hundreds of hungry kids (who have no choice in the matter) whose parents are out stealing and murdering for their next fix.
You have that exactly right. Soros is sinister to the core.
You've got it exactly backwards. The fed isn't empowered to do anything not explicity prohibited by the Constitution, such as ban drugs. Quite the opposite, it holds only delegated, enumerated powers:
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Drug prohibition is not a delegated power, thus the fed is prohibited from doing so. The interstate commerce clause is purposely misused, as it has been by big government liberals for ages, to turn the design of the Republic on its head, giving the fed almost unlimited powers.
Also, the people's rights are not limited to those enumerated by the Bill of Rights:
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The founders had extensive arguments over this. Many didn't want to ratify the Bill of Rights precisely because it would lead to an interpretation such as yours.
Known any alcohol addicts?
Good idea. And eliminate penalties for most drug laws.
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.