Posted on 11/08/2005 5:26:36 PM PST by JTN
ping
Rant, that's a good word for what you guys do. I also like whine and screed.
Liberal drug policies apparently have a downside, I take it.
What a pity. Liberal drug policies were supposed to usher in a libertarian paradise of harmony, happiness, low crime, and low taxes.
Do you ever make an actual argument, or are you just interested in making snarky comments.
Rather than bother responding to your straw man, I'll only point out that cannabis is still illegal in the UK.
????
Did you read the article? It makes its case reasonably and patiently. What drama and trite slogans are you talking about?
War on drugs
War on drugs
War on drugs
War on drugs
War on drugs
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
It's pretty much the same as all the other thousands of pot threads posted on FR. At least it came from a site that identifies itself as a rant. I do appreciate honesty.
If people are concerned about the potency of substances, all the better to regulate them. During the alcohol prohibition years, the United States had very little low-potency beer around. Most of it was alcohol that was 70 or 80 or 90 per cent hard liquor.There. Now we have a place to start.Why? Because Al Capone wanted to stock those trucks with 80 per cent booze, not 80 per cent water. When you regulate something legally, its potency and its dangers go down. When you drive a drug underground and criminalize it, it is much more likely to be transformed into a more potent substance.
...
You might ask why the drug prohibition policy is crumbling despite vast subsidies. That's like asking why socialist dictators have crumbled. You had a system that ultimately did not stand for human rights, did not recognize the power of supply and demand, and tried to suppress global commodities markets rather than regulate them.
...
One of the good things this Bush administration did was commission some outside reports to look at the effectiveness of the government programmes in a wide range if areas.
The report found that not one of the federal drugs war programmes were being effective. Not a single one.
BTW, the article is originally from the Scotsman, and I found it, as I said in comment #1, "Via Drug War Rant".
That's all the pro-drug warriors do. No logic, substance, or facts...just the usual Libertarians-are-dopers and other obligatory knee-jerk responses.
I do know that I would say all, but far too many.
The report found that not one of the federal drugs war programmes were being effective. Not a single one.
That would be a good topic for a non-rant article. Of course, it still uses the "drug war" phrase, which is almost exclusively used by drug addicts and their non-addict allies.
The report found that not one of the federal drugs war programmes were being effective. Not a single one.
The main thing that the war against cannabis does is prop up the price to the point that it is worth smuggling. That doesn't seem like it should be desired by our government. - Oh well.
The "drug war rant site is excellent information. I'll visit it again.
Genesis 1:29-31
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
So what?
Like I said, it's not a phrase that's used by people on my side. You never noticed that?
It's Nixon's phrase, and still I ask, so what?
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.