Posted on 10/14/2005 5:22:59 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
Wasting? A 60% drop in the number of people who use drugs is a waste?
How many billions of dollars would those would-be dopers have cost us over the decades?
The federal WOD represents about .5% of the federal budget. If you're going after waste, you've got bigger and better targets -- like the social service and health care dollars we're currently spending on drug users.
> How many billions of dollars would those would-be dopers have cost us over the decades?
How many billions have booze and smokes cost us? You want to make smokers and drinkers criminals too?
> The federal WOD represents about .5% of the federal budget. If you're going after waste, you've got bigger and better targets -- like the social service and health care dollars we're currently spending on drug users.
This is money we would not have to spend on 'em if we weren't busily locking them up and turning whole segments of our nation into cesspits of crime. Again, go back to Prohibition: that stroke of astonishing stupidity allowed organized crime to grow like mad. The WOD has done the same.
If money is your concern... legalize 'em. And tax 'em. Do to pot and coke and Extacy and whatnot what Utah did with hard booze.
Besides the total cost of the WOD is not bound up jsut in tax dollars, but in reduced recognition of human rights and the growth of the police state. It has allowed the ATF to grow into a monster.
You want to add recreational drug users to the ranks of smokers and drinkers?
"This is money we would not have to spend on 'em if we weren't busily locking them up and turning whole segments of our nation into cesspits of crime."
Well, if we weren't locking them up, then we'd be locking up the "real" criminals instead, right? Where's the savings?
"Again, go back to Prohibition: that stroke of astonishing stupidity allowed organized crime to grow like mad."
Uh-huh. And when Prohibition went away, so did organized crime? Oh, but it'll be different this time I suppose. Yeah, right.
"If money is your concern... legalize 'em. And tax 'em. Do to pot and coke and Extacy and whatnot what Utah did with hard booze."
Money is not my concern. It does, however, seem to be yours.
If you want to equate a state's handling of booze with recreational drugs, then turn the drug legalization decision over to the states the same way we did with alcohol -- by constitutional amendment.
"but in reduced recognition of human rights"
Oh, please. How about the WOD representing an increased recognition of human dignity?
Bingo!
He fled to Canada for the wrong reason - he should have said he loathed the military and was afraid he was going to get called back into the military - they would have welcomed him with open arms and maybe had a holiday in his honor.
How in hell did this parachutist contract cancer?
These episodic chapters, created by sycophants, of this fool's life is unescapable claptrap!
That is the medically correct procedure. Sometimes folks go over the edge and convince their care-givers that they're still in pain and need morphine. It's sad.
#66-Agree!!!!
> You want to add recreational drug users to the ranks of smokers and drinkers?
They're already there.
> Well, if we weren't locking them up, then we'd be locking up the "real" criminals instead, right?
If we weren't locking up schmoes for having a joint, then we'd be locking up fewer people.
>>"Again, go back to Prohibition: that stroke of astonishing stupidity allowed organized crime to grow like mad."
> Uh-huh. And when Prohibition went away, so did organized crime?
No, it didn't. It went into other drugs. Largely because Prohibition didn't exactly go away, now, did it?
> If you want to equate a state's handling of booze with recreational drugs, then turn the drug legalization decision over to the states the same way we did with alcohol -- by constitutional amendment.
Nope. Try again. There were *two* ammendments, the second one repealing the first stupid one.
> How about the WOD representing an increased recognition of human dignity?
No resemblence to reality there. You do not "recognize human dignity" by arbitrarily deciding that one drug is legal and another isn't.
> You want to add recreational drug users to the ranks of smokers and drinkers?
They're already there.
> Well, if we weren't locking them up, then we'd be locking up the "real" criminals instead, right?
If we weren't locking up schmoes for having a joint, then we'd be locking up fewer people.
>>"Again, go back to Prohibition: that stroke of astonishing stupidity allowed organized crime to grow like mad."
> Uh-huh. And when Prohibition went away, so did organized crime?
No, it didn't. It went into other drugs. Largely because Prohibition didn't exactly go away, now, did it?
> If you want to equate a state's handling of booze with recreational drugs, then turn the drug legalization decision over to the states the same way we did with alcohol -- by constitutional amendment.
Nope. Try again. There were *two* ammendments, the second one repealing the first stupid one.
> How about the WOD representing an increased recognition of human dignity?
No resemblence to reality there. You do not "recognize human dignity" by arbitrarily deciding that one drug is legal and another isn't.
Allow me, then, to rephrase. You want to add the increased number of recreational drug users due to legalization to the ranks of smokers and drinkers?
"If we weren't locking up schmoes for having a joint, then we'd be locking up fewer people."
That's not what I'm told by the pro-drug legalizers. They tell me that, by freeing up these "non-violent" drug offenders, we'll then have room for the "real" criminals. You guys need to get your story straight.
"Largely because Prohibition didn't exactly go away"
Ah, so that's your excuse, huh? And I suppose years from now, if drugs are legalized, you'll say that the gangs are still around because the WOD didn't exactly go away.
"There were *two* ammendments, the second one repealing the first stupid one."
So? That doesn't mean than any future amendment requires two amendments!
"You do not "recognize human dignity" by arbitrarily deciding that one drug is legal and another isn't."
No you don't (and it's not arbitrary). You recognize human dignity by ostracizing those who engage in behaviors contrary to community standards.
> You want to add the increased number of recreational drug users due to legalization to the ranks of smokers and drinkers?
You want to fill the prisons with people guilty of nothing more than smoking a joint?
Me, I'm a conservative. The way I see it, the role of the government is to let people do whatever stupid thing they want to do so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If I felt otherwise, I'd be tempted to think that outlawing smokes and booze would be appropriate "for their own good."
> You guys need to get your story straight.
Perhaps you should listen to more than just one person. The arguement you've given here is one I've never heard anyone else give before.
> You recognize human dignity by ostracizing those who engage in behaviors contrary to community standards.
Lock up the smokers and drinkers, yes?
Fill the prisons? Nothing more than smoking a joint? You're pretty funny.
Most of those in prison on drug charges are scumbag drug dealers and drug traffickers. They can rot there for the rest of their lives, as far as I care.
"Lock up the smokers and drinkers, yes?"
I believe I used the term "ostracize". And why do you insist on placing drinkers and smokers in the same category as illegal drug users. All the same to you? You don't see any difference? One size fits all?
> Most of those in prison on drug charges are scumbag drug dealers and drug traffickers.
And woudl they be there if the drugs were legal?
> I believe I used the term "ostracize".
In the context of lockign people up, yes.
> And why do you insist on placing drinkers and smokers in the same category as illegal drug users.
Because there's no true difference.
>You don't see any difference?
No functional ones, no. I've never seen anyone smoke pot and suddenly turn into a rampaging killing machine, for instance. Certainly not like someone who's got a drunk on. I've seen a hell of a lot more trouble come from beer than pot, and most of the crime associated with the other drugs is bound up in the distribution of it.
> One size fits all?
Yep. It's called the "Constitution." The only thing I see in there about controlling what drugs a person chooses to take has been repealed. What someone chooses to do to themselves is their own business. If someone wants to get stoned or take acid or whatever... fine. But if you take it on the road, we have DUI laws that can handle that just fine.
Probably. They'd be there for dealing or trafficking something else. What? You think they'd go out and get a real job?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Certainly not like someone who's got a drunk on."
Since you're proposing the legalization of all drugs, let's not limit the discussion to pot. Those on PCP are not dangerous? A large number of crimes are committed by people on illegal drugs. A large number of crime are committed by people to buy drugs, and that wouldn't change unless you're going to give drugs away.
An attempt to ban alcohol failed, and there's been no attempt to ban tobacco. These products are part of our culture, and people have zero interest in legally changing the status quo. Yet you want to lump them in with cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. I don't think so.
> Those on PCP are not dangerous?
How about those on beer? Far more people killed by way of beer than PCP.
And yet, you want to let drunken social paraihs beat their wives and children to death and spill buckets of blood on the highways.
Either the laws should be consistent, or you should accept taht you prefer hypocrisy.
So let's legalize PCP so they can catch up, huh?
"Either the laws should be consistent, or you should accept taht you prefer hypocrisy."
They are. Some drugs are legal, some are legal but available by prescription, and some are illegal.
The same philosophy applies to porn, guns, speech, gambling ... just about everything.
>"Far more people killed by way of beer than PCP."
> So let's legalize PCP so they can catch up, huh?
What makes you think they would? Would *you* give up beer for PCP if it was made legal? Do the existing laws somehow keep dustheads from driving?
And if schmoes on PCP driving around smashing into things is reason enough to ban PCP... then ban beer.
> The same philosophy applies to porn, guns, speech, gambling ... just about everything.
Uhhh... no. I can say whatever the hell I like in the privacy of my own home. And I take it you like the idea of a Gun Prohibition? Maybe keep some legal (muskets and the like), make some available by prescription (pistols for politicians) and make soem illegal ("assault weapons"... who needs 'em?).
And as for gambling... well, there perhaps we agree. States run their own gambling systems. Perhaps you can pick up your dope along with your Lotto cards. At least then the dopers will be paying their taxes.
They wouldn't? You know that?
"Would *you* give up beer for PCP if it was made legal?"
Nope, and I'm sure most wouldn't. Which means we'll have problems with both, right? Yeah, that sounds like a plan.
"I can say whatever the hell I like in the privacy of my own home."
There you go. Now you grasp the concept. The first amendment allows for speech in the home that would be illegal elsewhere.
"And I take it you like the idea of a Gun Prohibition?"
You take it? What did I say that makes you "take it"? You don't have a clue -- you'd just love to turn this into a personal issue because you can't debate the facts.
I'm done with you, lightweight. Come back when you mature.
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.