'Demon drug' propaganda doesn't cut it anymore

The Providence Journal ^ | May 10, 2006 | Froma Harrop

[tpaine]

"-- Weasel Award --"
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629808/replies?c=284


Troll award for paulsen.

[William Terrell]

A 1998 poll. Find another organization find completely different results. I don't see the actual questions asked, the demographic, sample size, the method. The study did say it was the result of 47 polls between 1978 and 1997, the greatest period during which even talking about doubt that drug policies should be looked at was taboo.

Now, even prominent republicans are raising the question. Considering the vector for legalization of cannabis, you would have to show me the results now. I don't use polls positive or negative; I use commonsense and history.

The war on drugs has been pissing people off for decades. Each year more decide that getting rid of the war is a good thing.

My impromptu analyzes of FR drug threads indicate many who argue against federal drug policy and few who argue in favor.

You have to do better than that.

[tpaine]

paulsen weasels:

The War on Drugs is a totally different issue -- hell, there are aspects of it that even I don't like. A survey on the WOD means nothing. I want a survey that asks, "Should all drugs be legal for adults"? You can do even do it on FR and I doubt you'd get 5% -- if people were honest.

Terrell:

You've seen the drug threads I've analyzed pro-con. You've seen the FR poll about the feds using 1-8-3 to prohibit drugs. Only 5%? Hardly.

Don't remind our two 'warriors' of the thrashing they took on that Commerce Clause 'poll' thread. They'll throw another hissy fit.

[Mojave]

A 1998 poll. Find another organization find completely different results.

Do it, smoke blower.

[robertpaulsen]

"Wouldn't you think the war on drugs has to do with not legalizing all drugs? Not legal=war on drugs. No war on drugs=legal. Right?"

Not necessarily. There are those who wish to keep drugs illegal but do not like what the WOD has done to constitutional protections such as no-knock and asset forfeiture, for example. Then there are those who want to keep the WOD for hard drugs but make soft drugs legal. And all variations in between.

"How about a survey that asks, "Should drugs now regulated by the federal scheduling system be regulated instead by the states?"

How? By a constitutional amendment similiar in wording to Section 2 of the 21st amendment? Or just by waving a magic wand and forcing the states to do it this way? Big difference, amigo.

Besides, you've talking about a method. I'm talking about an attitude.

"You've seen the FR poll about the feds using 1-8-3 to prohibit drugs."

IIRC, that poll covered drugs and guns.

Yes, I saw the poll. My conclusion was that there is a dearth of constitutional scholars on this forum. How are those who think that the 2nd amendment protects their inalienable right to own a M249 SAW supposed to feel about 1-8-3 being used to regulate ownership?

[Mojave]

You've seen the FR poll about the feds using 1-8-3 to prohibit drugs.

You left out the gun spin. In any case, this article is pissing about:

"The war on pot fills our jails. America arrests 755,000 people every year for marijuana infractions -- the vast majority for possession, not dealing."

99%+ of pot possession arrests are made by the states, not the fed.

[Know your rights]

Anyone who covets possession and use of recreational drugs are the recreational drug worshipers in my book.

Where is your evidence that pro-legalizers covet possession and use of recreational drugs?

As far as which Freepers might be in that category, I do think the ones that continually ping people to drug threads with the statue of liberty graphic

How does pinging others to a thread imply coveting possession and use of recreational drugs?

I just don't buy there is no use interest by people who continually obsess about legalization on such threads.

What you "don't buy" doesn't count for squat in the forum of reasoned debate.

[A CA Guy]

Where is your evidence that pro-legalizers covet possession and use of recreational drugs?

Easy enough, they are one note Charlies and almost never participate in anything else in FR. They are part of the pro-recreational drug movement and that seems to be also part of the Libertarian platform.

How does pinging others to a thread imply coveting possession and use of recreational drugs?

Because almost all those pings are to only drug threads. What would you give as the percentage of those pings to drug threads, in excess of 90% right?

What you "don't buy" doesn't count for squat in the forum of reasoned debate.

I don't see debate, I see pushing drugs. They need their drugs and that is about it as I've seen it.

[Know your rights]

Where is your evidence that pro-legalizers covet possession and use of recreational drugs?

Easy enough, they are one note Charlies and almost never participate in anything else in FR.

That's not evidence that they covet possession and use of recreational drugs. Do you have any evidence for that claim of yours?

How does pinging others to a thread imply coveting possession and use of recreational drugs?

Because almost all those pings are to only drug threads.

How does that imply coveting possession and use of recreational drugs?

What you "don't buy" doesn't count for squat in the forum of reasoned debate.

I don't see debate

You choose not to see it ... much less to even try to participate. Probably because you have no actual arguments to support your position.

[Know your rights]

Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, or are you once again making up "facts" as you go along?

I notice you never responded to this. Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?

[A CA Guy]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1642891/posts?page=85#85

[A CA Guy]

Libertarians on open boders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_immigration

[Know your rights]

Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1642891/posts?page=85#85

I don't support open borders.

[Know your rights]

Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_immigration

No mention there of any FReepers.

[A CA Guy]

Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?

We know the libertarian platform is for open borders.
We know the libertarians are pro-drugs.

To get them talking open borders and drugs at one time would be impossible and like YOU most of the libertarians talk nothing but drugs all the time.

As an example, check out this famed banned tool called MrLeRoy who suggested heroin being legalized because if adults could buy it legally he said the sellers would probably have no interest in going after the children anymore...
Check it out, the guy was out of his rocker.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/897243/posts?page=22#22

[Hacksaw]

As an example, check out this famed banned tool called MrLeRoy who suggested heroin being legalized because if adults could buy it legally he said the sellers would probably have no interest in going after the children anymore... Check it out, the guy was out of his rocker.

I'm sure Know Your Leroy's... ooops I mean Know Your Rights is familiar with MrLeRoy.

[Chena]

Placemarker for when I have time to sit back and enjoy the show. BTW, I highly doubt that the good Lord would call marijuana a "demon drug". I think he'd prefer it be categorized as just another one of His medicinal herbs.

[A CA Guy]

Did MrLeRoy also average 493 or so drug posts out of every 500?

[Doctor Stochastic]

But we've made Afghanistan peaceful enough to grow poppies profitably.

[William Terrell]

Is it necessary to call me names? Why should I waste my time. You have been on many of these threads where numerous such references have been posted.

The fact is the vector against the war on drugs is against the feds involvement. Twenty years ago, no one would have spoke out about it. Now there are articles galore, including criticism by well know known conservatives.

You are one of a vast minority that still holds to insane policy on FR.

People with your mindset are rapidly growing extinct. The only thing that keeps it going is the lobby of rich drug dealers to keep the price up.

"Extinct", my friend. Look it up.