Posted on 10/05/2007 7:17:45 AM PDT by cryptical
"If true, it's a lousy way to do it. If people stopped doing recreational drugs, the state would have no power."
They'd just pull an ATF, and figure out something else to regulate.
Bingo.
As difficult as it may be for you since you are a self-described 'maroon',please re-read the article and try to comprehend the obvious point it's making.
As difficult as it may be for you since you are a self-described 'maroon', please re-read the article and try to comprehend the obvious point it's making.
"Legalizing drugs, as they use to be in this country, would cause no higher incident of drug use than we have now"
I disagree. As would any rational person.
You articulate your position a lot better when you don't feel the need to insult other posters.
That's a Lib tactic for defending the indefensible - certainly you don't need to stoop to it.
What kind of intoxicant are you on today, legal or illegal?
Are you saying that meth, heroin, and cocaine are as readily available to the average American as a sixpack of Bud? Personally, I wouldn't know where to begin looking for heroin that wouldn't kill me.
What proof do you have that YOU are rational? A rational person would know that rational people disagree often and that on any subject people would disagree. So now, have you proved yourself irrational? Or sloppy? Or, both? Since most social statistics are junk on either side, have been junk numbers, and I doubt will get any better because we are dealing with the entire spectrum of humanity, I feel it can only be said that we don't know the true numbers one way or the other. Statements either way are gratuitous assertions.
You really believe what you just wrote? That making drugs legal will magically end crime from drugs. You think addicts will quit stealing because now they have to get their drugs from a different source? You think kids won’t get drugs from people who can buy from another source.
You are really way off in this fantasy belief. Drug addiction hurts more than just the addict.
The current way may not be the best way but what you wrote is pure fantasy.
No, more so. You can get drugs delivered 24/7. Heroin is cheaper than a 6 pack.
Pot wasn't illegal during the depression.
The jazz music of that time is full of pot references in songs such as Reefer Man, The Jumpin' Jive etc by Cab Calloway and his contemporaries such as Don Redman and Louis Armstrong.
I'll take that one:
Caffeine (tea)
Nicotine (Commit Lozenge)
Loratadine (generic Claritin)
Come get me Bloomberg!!
Thats why we need to keep it illegal. All those jazz men seducing our white women!
Just the fat ones.
Just because you don't know where to look, Robert, doesn't mean these things aren't readily available. It just means you don't know where to look.
And you're nuts if you think out of sight equals out of mind. Once you find your way in---yes, it's just as easy as going to the store for a six-pack of Bud.
They can and they do all the time. Boats, cars, houses, cash. No trial. No criminal prosecution. You have to sue in order to get them back, and that rarely works. You are an idiot if you didn’t know this.
“Am I making too much sense?”
No. No danger of any sense creeping into your posts.
The author of this article disagrees. He says these drug users are committing crimes to get the money to feed their habit.
Now what do you say?
"Let me see a show of hands of people who support throwing pot smokers and drug addicts in prison with mandatory minimums and sentences that equal those of rapists and child molesters."
Almost everyone in prison on a drug conviction is there because they were either dealing drugs or trafficking in them. A pot smoker in state prison? Puh-leeze.
"Let me see a show of hands of all those who want the drug trade controlled by the Central and South American cartels and street gangs, as it is now."
I see. People dying from meth sold by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals would be better.
"Let me see a show of hands of all those who want the drug trade to continue to be a lucrative, unregulated black market that increases the power of the state."
And you think the power of the state is reduced if the state regulates, licenses and enforces the manufacture, distribution and sales of drugs and taxes the hell out of them?
That being three meals a day and free healthcare in a hospital? Free psychiatric care plus room and board? Welfare, foodstamps and subidized housing?
I don't think drug users deserve that.
“Yes, they can seize assets. They can’t keep them without a trial, so I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.”
They can and they do all the time. Boats, cars, houses, cash. No trial. No criminal prosecution. You have to sue in order to get them back, and that rarely works. You are an idiot if you didn’t know this.
monday's right (although the personal attack was unwarranted).
If you're going to defend civil forfeiture laws, robertpaulsen, you might do well to learn how they actually work. The burden of proof is often placed upon those whose property has been seized to demonstrate that it ought to be returned.
It is a perversion of the justice system.
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.