Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tpaine

Hey, it's not like your side of the debate wants to just keep the state out of it. No, you will be the first to demand the state come and protect you from outraged citizens and those who wish to exercise their right of self-defense against any depradations, harm or threat associated with your actions.


40 posted on 08/29/2006 5:26:46 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah
Hey, it's not like your side of the debate wants to just keep the state out of it.

That is exactly how our country worked up until prohibitionists/socialists gained control early in the 20th century.

No, you will be the first to demand the state come and protect you from outraged citizens and those who wish to exercise their right of self-defense against any depradations, harm or threat associated with your actions.

You erroneously claim that 'substance abusers' actions are harming/threaten you, when in fact the threat/harm is the result of the 'war' that your prohibition caused.

Your claim: "---- I get to take action directly to make sure you cannot harm me or mine as a consequence. [of smoking dope] ---"; is unsupported by historical reality.
How did the 'legal] dope smokers of the 19th century threaten or harm anyone?

54 posted on 08/29/2006 7:03:45 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson