Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 10/05/2007 7:17:45 AM PDT by cryptical
Yes. That would be a reality of less state power. Maybe law enforcement could then be put to solving cold case murders. That would be nice. Even regular murders. I think some cities like Philadelphia have less than 50 percent conviction rates for murder. It might be well lower. I'd rather have cops in suits, working murders than busting street wretches. But, those are my priorities. Others may differ.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Neither do I. Agreed. (It doesn’t work anyways)
Your assertion is that drugs are NOT cheap? So only the middle class and wealthy can afford narcotics, right? Then it must not be a problem in low income neighborhoods. Thanks for clearing that up.
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.
Glad to know that pot possession never leads to prison time. You're full of interesting facts!
I see. People dying from meth sold by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals would be better.
It is a proven FACT that the potency of heroin was exponentially less before the beginning of the drug war. Drug prohibition has itself led to the increased potency responsible for ODs.
If you are comfortable with violent, foreign cartels controlling the industry, then no amount of facts or reason will change your mind.
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?
Yes, absolutely! Are you serious about this question?
Do the taxing and regulation of alcohol and tobacco infringe upon your Constitutional rights to the same effect that the drug war does? Does the fact that your state regulates the sale and taxation of alcohol allow law enforcement to increase their search and seizure capabilities? Do we see our prisons filling up with people circumventing alcohol and cigarette laws?
If you think we would NOT be a freer society with a decrease in federal drug enforcement, you have no absolutely no critical thinking ability.
Upon what are you basing your conclusion that the WOD is working?
meanwhile CA is about to ban smoking in one’s own apartment. prohibition, widely successful, lives on.
Did you write Warner Brothers and tell them that about Bugs Bunny who used the exact same phrase?
And your point, Captain Obvious, is?
The drug laws and enforcement regime are set up pretty much the way the big players in the industry want it, as in most regulated sectors of the economy.
Why would the principles of political economy change for one, and only one, industry?
They don’t, of course.
I do not see how any thinking person with a conscience could possibly approve of the current prosecution of the War On Drugs, in either conception or execution. The WOD has brutalized American life, and with no redeeming “unintended consequences” whatsoever visible to my possibly untrained eye, although there must be some - with all that horse-sh*t, there surely has to be a pony somewhere!
In the late 70's, drug use was double what it is today -- and drugs were illegal. Other than wishful thinking, have you any real reason to believe drug use would decrease?
"The sky's the limit for the amount of bad and destructive behaviors you can start cracking down on"
Hmmmm. So you're telling the American people that they cannot decide how they will live and function as a society. That they have no choice, no "freedom" if you will, to decide the best environment in which to raise their children. Your freedom, your rights, your choices trump theirs.
After all, this IS about you, right?
That's your story - I suggest you stick with it.
No, didn't you bother to read the article? The author is suggesting that criticisms of the war on some drugs which point out that it is resposible for increased police corruption, the disentigtation of the family particularly in urban areas, the abrogation of individual liberties, among other things, are correct; demonstrably so.
What a maroon!
I'll put you in the column of those who think drug use would not increase if drugs were legal. It's a short column, but still quite a few kooks names.
Need I remind you that it was the Libertarian author of his article who claimed drugs were expensive and that addicts were forced to rob and prostitute to afford them. He's the one who said legalization would solve that problem.
So who's correct? Is heroin and coke cheap today or not?
Drug use per capita, or the amount of narcotics flowing into the US? What stat are you quoting here?
So you're telling the American people that they cannot decide how they will live and function as a society. That they have no choice, no "freedom" if you will, to decide the best environment in which to raise their children.
So that's what this is about; you're doing it "for the children".
You'll be right at home in the Clinton administration.
I wasn't aware that it was a "War on Drugs That Could Kill You".
Was there ever any doubt?
Yep, until you can demonstrate that there are hoards of people who want to do drugs but have decided to hold off because it's illegal. I find that people who want to use drugs do so reguardless of their legality right now.
Well, let's see. We have one Libertarian (the author) citing another Libertarian (Milton Friedman) in support of the notion that all drugs should be legal. Gosh. You could have knocked me over with a feather, me being in such a state of shock that a Libertarian would ever suggest such a thing.
I think I got the obvious point.
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.