Posted on 06/04/2006 4:20:59 PM PDT by Lorianne
John Stossel thinks sweatshops are good for workers, while minimum wages hurt the poor.
Controversial? Sure. Just don't call him a Conservative.
"I'm a Libertarian," according to Stossel, the TV network consumer reporter turned staunch free-market defender. "I hold beliefs Conservatives abhor."
Speaking at a luncheon hosted by the conservative Fraser Institute think tank yesterday, Stossel made it clear his politics don't quite fall within the traditional left or right wing spectrum.
He takes no issue with gay marriage, for example, while he says sending troops to Iraq "wasn't a good idea." At the same time, lefties likely won't love his views on global warming - "Those environmental guys," Stossel said, "seem to be acting more like psychics than following the science."
But Stossel's contentious governments-are-bad preaching also extends to drug laws, which he says are causing harm.
You know, even if I don't agree with him on all topics, I do on some and I respect him for not trying to be what he's not. If he is honest about his opinions and beliefs and they line up more with a libertarian philosophy than a conservative one, well that's fine. Frankly, I would be worried if somebody else mirrored my personal beliefs exactly on every issue (my wife doesn't even do that, although she's real close).
If he said that, I would disagree with him. Nevertheless, for other reasons, I firmly agree that the WOD needs to be brought to a halt.
>>Decriminalizing the possession of drugs will do nothing to alleviate the problems associated with the abuse of drugs<<
True, but it will sure eliminate the problems associated with the WOD, just as ending prohibition eliminated the problems associated with prohibition.
FWIW, the worst drug I ever took was Marijuana, and the last time I tried it was in 1978. I am staunchly against the WOD and think it has literally harmed our culture as much as the Great Society has. Probably more.
You can't fool me. I saw Reefer Madness! I know just how bad those drugs are and what happens to everyone that takes them!
Oh, and </sarcasm>
Do you?
Link to where Stossel has said that getting rid of the illegality will get rid of the problems? Don't have one? Oh, so that's just a straw man you created?
Most opposed to the WOD mentality recognize there are still problems, but believe them less than those created by that mentality.
But you proceed with your straw men.
Isn't that the point? YOU claimed he did. Right here.
An important distinction here: There is crime related to alcohol (or drugs) directly, and there is crime related to the sales and distribution of same. Eliminating prohibition did nothing to stop crimes committed under the influence of alcohol. The Kennedy Clan springs to mind.
If society were much more harsh on these crimes, I'd be more sanguine about lifting prohibitions on other drugs. Imagine what Teddy and Son could do on a PCP bender or tweeking on meth.
Anyone who wants any substance can get it anytime they want. And more people use them than did before your famously "successful" war on the citizens who use drugs.
Not to mention, it has made the situation worse in myriad ways, including but not limited to, destroying liberty, trampling rights, corrupting the police and politicians, fostering an unhealthy disregard and disrespect for the law and the authorities, and enriching the lowest and most violent people in society.
I'm sure that "works for you", but it sure doesn't work in any real way.
It sucks worse than drug use, and the people who support it are hypocrites and they suck even worse.
Most of them are former or current users and dealers who won't admit their crimes while they advocate the imprisonment of those who have done precisely the same as them but had the misfortune to be caught.
UN-Apprehended drug criminals have no credibility when advocating for the WOD.
So ending the War on Drugs would see no increase in the number of users or the amount of drugs they use. That's what you want me to believe, right?
Well, that's ludicrous. You have no credibility, none, if that's what you sincerely believe.
Un-apprehended drug criminals have no credibility when advocating for authoritarian usurpations of citizen's rights.
Now you're backpedalling?
YOU stated that, today, "anyone who wants any substance can get it anytime they want". Therefore, legalizing drugs will make no difference whatsoever in people being able to get drugs. Drug use will stay the same.
That's what you're saying. Or are you now admitting that drug use will go up if we legalize it? Well then, that means the WOD is working to keep drug use down, now isn't it?
Look, when you figure out your position on this, get back to me.
Correct.
Therefore, legalizing drugs will make no difference whatsoever in people being able to get drugs. Drug use will stay the same.
OOPs, not even close. You might be accused of being dimwitted and jumping to a moronic conclusion, but since you knew it was wrong,,,You lied.
That's what you're saying.
No, you said that and tried to pretend I did. You lied.
Or are you now admitting that drug use will go up if we legalize it?
No. I never took a position on that, and it is irrelevant. YOUR goofy war didn't work. That was the point. I don't have to say that the opposite will work to prove your goofy war sucks and is a huge failure and causes harm as well.
Well then, that means the WOD is working to keep drug use down, now isn't it?
Of course not. You are purposely obtuse. (Hopefully, it would be sad to think you were naturally obtuse)
Look, when you figure out your position on this, get back to me.
I know my position and have stated it clearly. Your inability to understand or stop lying about it is a personal problem for you, not me.
Except for drugs, porn, prostitution ... Anyway, what's your point in making that observation?
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.