Posted on 02/23/2006 7:56:18 AM PST by JTN
Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon's ambitious "global war against drugs" would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition.
To be sure, Mr. Friedman wasn't the only critic. William Buckley's National Review declared a decade ago that the U.S. had "lost" the drug war, bolstering its case with testimony from the likes of Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif. But today discussion of the war's depressing cost-benefit ratio is being mainly conducted in the blogosphere, where the tone is predominantly libertarian. In the broader polity, support for the great Nixon crusade remains sufficiently strong to discourage effective counterattacks.
In broaching this subject, I offer the usual disclaimer. One beer before dinner is sufficient to my mind-bending needs. I've never sampled any of the no-no stuff and have no desire to do so. So let's proceed to discuss this emotion-laden issue as objectively as possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
LOL. You'll have your answer soon enough and we both know what it will be.
You can't reason with a fool.
He was quoting Alexander Hamilton while trying to hide the authorship? What a breathtakingly craven act of hypocrisy! I'm almost tempted to read the post.
Nah.
I can make a strong case that you are a woman posing as a man.
I can make a strong case that you are a woman posing as a man.
If you didn't get that, my point is that you shouldn't talk about what you can do. You should do it. Otherwise, you become the 5 year old kid that says "I can do that, I just don't want to, so there!"
You're spluttering.
On this forum, I have made a much stronger case for the statement that we are winning that he can for "losing", and I'm not the deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal.
We can get to that number only by becoming another Singapore. I prefer the Land of the Free.
Why do you equate murder to drug use?
I do the opposite ... I contrast them.
Then learn to accept the "contrast".
"I do the opposite ... I contrast them."
Equate/contrast ... for what purpose?
?
Equate/contrast ... for what purpose?
To show that 'neither anti-murder laws nor anti-marijuana laws have eliminated the targeted activity' is far from the whole truth.
So now you're interested in the "whole truth"? This is now important to you? Mr. 41%?
You are a piece of work.
So now you're interested in the "whole truth"? This is now important to you? Mr. 41%?
Some whole truths are more relevant than their subsets while others are not.
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.