Posted on 10/05/2007 7:17:45 AM PDT by cryptical
It isn't. So much for the doper position.
And assassins that miss their target should go free. By doper logic at least.
Ah, so you pose it as the doper vs @sshole debate, huh?
Sorry, I’m not a doper but you’re fitting the other role royally.
Beer accounts for more traffic deaths and on the job injuries than does marijuana.
There was once a time when marijuana was legal and a time when beer was illegal.
It is pretty hard to make the case that one should be legal and the other one not.
In reality, you have a hard time making the case that it is government’s role to ban or legalize anything a free man should consume.
Or else quit pretending that you’re an advocate for freedom.
Thank god for people like me who can help educate people like you on the difference between someone driving while impaired and an assassin attempting murder. That is Drug Warrior logic at work, isn’t it?
I’ll bet that you’re also the type that can’t differentiate between spanking and beating a child.
Your type needs and craves a strong government to keep you line.
My type is self governing.
Admittedly, self government requires more common sense, more maturity, and more self control that does being governed or ruled.
As you demonstrate, self government isn’t for everyone.
Try doper = @sshole.
Go ahead.
Quite true.
-- Some time ago FR's socialistic prohibitionists [Mojave and his sycophant among them] tried to defend drug and gun prohibition on the thread cited below..
They were abject failures, and embarrassed themselves:
FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts?q=1&;page=3020
Since I’m not a doper I guess you earned both titles.
Really sad that you seem to think that those who advocate individual freedom and responsibility must abuse drugs.
Says a lot for your disregard for freedom and responsibility.
Nope. I think that those contend that uncontrolled drug abuse defines what freedom must be are dishonest and irrational.
The War on Drugs is working!
Self government defines freedom.
Each instance of the govenrment telling a citizen what they can or cannot read, eat, drink, grow or possess is another encroachment on individual freedom.
It is not government’s role, ESPECIALLY the federal government, to “allow” citizens to carry large sums of cash, self medicate, carry weapons, read books of questionable redeeming social value, associate with whomever one chooses, or retain privacy in one’s life.
Of course. That is the basis of a free society. Anything else is totalitarianism.
Like DWI.
Ridiculous hyperbole. Driving while under the influence of a mind-altering substance has obvious implications that directly impinge on the rights of others.
Totalitarians and fascists seek to regulate intent. Drugs are proscribed because the user might try to drive a car or sell them to children. The rational solution to that is to make the penalties for the behavior that does impinge on others' rights swift, harsh, and consistent. It is rational to have laws preventing the sale of drugs (including alcohol) to children. Such action impinges on the rights of parents to raise their offspring. It is rational to have laws with harsh penalties for driving while intoxicated. Such behavior carries a demonstrably high risk, approaching even a certainty, of injury and death for other drivers, thereby impinging on their right to live.
And finally, drug laws are about control. The fundamental basis for them is that one group of people is engaging in activity that another group of people find objectionable. Once a system is in place that allows such control, tyranny is the inevitable result.
NCSteve: I see, so what, exactly makes alcohol different than any other drug?
Ooh! Ooh! I know!
*ahem* robertpaulsen uses alcohol and doesn't use the other drugs.
Why is it some bureaucrat's business if I decide to carry around my life savings in a suitcase and I travel outside of the country?
Where is that power delegated to the federal government?
I agree. If the person driving while intoxicated injures another or their property, make the penalty swift, harsh, and consistent.
"It is rational to have laws with harsh penalties for driving while intoxicated"
Because of what may happen? You want to take away a person's property and their freedom because of something they might do? And here you're complaining about our asset forfeiture laws. Look at you!
If you're comfortable with that (and you obviously are), then why are you objecting to penalizing drug users for something they might do? A little hypocritical, huh?
"The fundamental basis for them is that one group of people is engaging in activity that another group of people find objectionable. Once a system is in place that allows such control, tyranny is the inevitable result."
Tyranny? How does tyranny result when one group of people objects to another group of people. Tyranny results when one man (a dictator) objects to the actions of a group of people.
You've decribed a democracy.
It isn't, if your life savings is under $10K. Over $10K, they want to make sure you aren't laundering money. If that bothers you, USE A BANK"
Way to sidestep and avoid the question. :thumbsup:
Sidestep what?
Please, show me the post where I said anything about asset forfeiture laws. As well, this has nothing to do with what a person might do. The language we use has meaning, assigning arbitrary meaning to what is said is a pointless exercise. There is a demonstrably high risk that a person who drives while intoxicated will cause property loss, injury, or death, just as there is a demonstrably high risk that someone who fires a pistol randomly into a crowd will kill someone. The rational solution is to make swift, harsh and consistent penalties for these two acts. The irrational solution is to blame the guns or the drugs and make laws prohibiting them.
Tyranny? How does tyranny result when one group of people objects to another group of people.
I said no such thing. I said it results when the objection occurs and one of the groups enforces its will on the other. Important distinction.
Tyranny results when one man (a dictator) objects to the actions of a group of people.
Incorrect. Tyranny results when any person or group of persons enforces their will on the populace by force or coercion. The Soviet Union practiced tyranny on a regular basis. The tyranny was imposed on the populace by the communist party. There was no dictator, there was an oligarchy.
You've decribed a democracy.
See above. If you don't believe a democracy can practice tyranny, you have a lot of reading to do. In point of fact, a democracy will always result in tyranny. Recall that i suggested you do a google search on "tyranny of the majority." I will make that suggestion once again.
Then I must have you confused with someone else. I'll just go ahead and put you down as supporting the current asset forfeiture laws.
"There is a demonstrably high risk that a person who drives while intoxicated will cause ..."
Fine. Then we both agree with the concept that laws may be written which prohibit activities that don't harm others. We simply disagree on where that line should be drawn.
"The Soviet Union practiced tyranny on a regular basis."
And you equate that with voters telling their representatives to pass legislation regulating some recreational drugs? Just a little hysterical, maybe?
"If you don't believe a democracy can practice tyranny"
Who cares? We don't have a democracy. All I said was you described one.
The closest we have to a pure democracy is the referendum. I'm guessing you oppose those since it represents "mob rule" which is essentially "tyranny of the majority".
Which means you oppose the medical marijuana laws passed in 10 states by referendum. To be consistent.
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.