Denver DEA Rep: Don't Legalize It

The Daily Camera ^ | August 27, 2006

[tacticalogic]

Do you think it was legal for Janet Reno to come to Missouri to help support the campaign to defeat the CCW Initiative? Do you think HCI's rhetoric about "Libertarians and gun nuts" made it good?

[Moonman62]

I belong to a political party that actually takes on the responsibility and accountability of governing, unlike the Libertarians. We were able to get Reno out of office.

[steve-b]

I belong to a political party that actually takes on the responsibility and accountability of governing

LOL! You mean the one that spends like drunken sailors on bridges to nowhere? Oh, yeah, that REAL responsible!

[tacticalogic]

I belong to a political party that actually takes on the responsibility and accountability of governing, unlike the Libertarians. We were able to get Reno out of office.

If you can't or won't answer the question, don't waste my time with self-aggrandizing evasions.

[Moonman62]

I still criticize my party, but someone has to run the government in the meantime.

[tacticalogic]

I belong to a political party that actually takes on the responsibility and accountability of governing, unlike the Libertarians.

From the article:

"I'm not sure that this doesn't slide through the cracks in the Hatch Act," Bickers said. "The Hatch Act isn't about political activity — it's about partisan political activity. Since this is a ballot initiative, and there's no party affiliation attached to it, that part of the Hatch Act probably wouldn't be violated."

If you want to maintain that this is really about Republicans and Libertarians, then it is partisan politics, and they are clearly in violation of the law.

[Moonman62]

Since the Libertarians are more a circus act than a political party, I'd say you wouldn't have much of a case.

[tacticalogic]

So you've chosen to join a political party that decides for itself who is and isn't a legitimate political party, and is a law unto itself? How predictable.

[Moonman62]

No, that's my personal opinion. Any party that over the last thirty years has done progressively worse, and is now below half a per cent in the presidential elections is a joke, especially when they do so much repetitive spam on the internet about drugs. If it weren't for the entertainment value, you Libertarians would be worthless.

[tacticalogic]

Now, who said I was a Libertarian? For that matter, where is the Libertarian Party mentioned anywhere in this article? Is there some reason you don't want this thread to stay on topic?

[Moonman62]

If it quacks like a Libertarian, it's probably a Libertarian.

So if you want to get back on topic, who else could be sponsoring the referendum other than Libertarians and drug addicts? Latin American communists have also been known to support drug legalization in the United States. Could they be in on it too?

[tacticalogic]

How does speculating on who might be supporting it have any bearing on the DEA getting involved in it directly?

[robertpaulsen]

"Our federalist system is based on the notion that states can establish their own laws without federal interference."

Well yeah, provided that state law doesn't conflict with federal law -- which this state law certainly does. You jerk.

[tacticalogic]

Well yeah, provided that state law doesn't conflict with federal law -- which this state law certainly does. You jerk.

The New Deal as self-evident truth, back up by personal insults. How original - not.

[robertpaulsen]

If I arrest you for driving drunk, am I not exercising my pre-emptive right of "self-protection"?

[dirtboy]

If I arrest you for driving drunk, am I not exercising my pre-emptive right of "self-protection"?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with someone thinking they could shoot me for drinking in my home (which I do), or smoking weed in my home (which I don't do).

[robertpaulsen]

So sometimes it is OK for society to exercise its pre-emptive right of "self-protection", contrary to your statement in post #58? Well, the laws against drugs are just that.

As to shooting you for any reason, I haven't seen anyone propose that.

[dirtboy]

So sometimes it is OK for society to exercise its pre-emptive right of "self-protection", contrary to your statement in post #58?

Nice job of lifting it out of context (typical). The poster was saying he had the right to kill me premptively. That's far different than a citizen's arrest out in public.

[robertpaulsen]

"That has members of Safer Colorado, the group supporting the marijuana legalization measure, crying foul."

Crying foul?! Oh, that's rich!

During the City of Denver marijuana legalization campaign (I-100), this was the same group that sponsored billboards showing a woman with a black eye and a man standing behind her, presumably her abuser. The message below said, "Reduce family and community violence in Denver. Vote Yes on I-100."

(The theory being that if men smoked marijuana instead of drinking alcohol, domestic violence would drop. Not that there is one single study that shows alcohol drinkers would switch to marijuana. Nowhere did the billboard mention that I-100 legalized marijuana.)

"Crying foul" indeed.

[robertpaulsen]

Speaking of psychiatric disorders, keep in mind that they're the group that wants to "be free" by becoming addicted to drugs.

Some freedom, huh?