Skip to comments.
Buckley v. the D.E.A.
NY Times ^
| February 28, 2008
| John Tierney
Posted on 02/29/2008 7:17:28 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
The National Review article that the excerpts came from is
here.
1
posted on
02/29/2008 7:17:30 PM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem; traviskicks
I totally agree with Buckley on this. I don’t see how any conservative who believes in limited government and individual rights could possibly approve of the failed “War On Drugs”.
2
posted on
02/29/2008 7:22:45 PM PST
by
KoRn
(CTHULHU '08 - I won't settle for a lesser evil any longer!)
To: KoRn
I totally agree with Buckley on this. I dont see how any conservative who believes in limited government and individual rights could possibly approve of the failed War On Drugs. I think there needs to be a clear line drawn between legalization and decriminalization.
If something is completely legal, that generally implies that one may do it regardless of whether it bothers other people.
If something is regarded as a serious crime, then it is appropriate for the government to track down the perpetrators even in the absence of specific complaints.
I would suggest that most drug offenses should occupy a middle ground. Police shouldn't try to track down people who are using drugs without bothering other people, but they should be allowed to act against those who do bother others.
3
posted on
02/29/2008 7:37:07 PM PST
by
supercat
To: supercat
" I would suggest that most drug offenses should occupy a middle ground. Police shouldn't try to track down people who are using drugs without bothering other people, but they should be allowed to act against those who do bother others."I agree. It would be sufficient if it were regarded by the law in the same way as liquor.
4
posted on
02/29/2008 7:39:48 PM PST
by
KoRn
(CTHULHU '08 - I won't settle for a lesser evil any longer!)
To: neverdem
5
posted on
02/29/2008 7:42:07 PM PST
by
BGHater
($2300 is the limit of your Free Speech.)
To: neverdem
Wait a second. Doesn’t this opinion label Buckley as an insane libertarian and an enemy of all that is good and decent in society?
At least that what some of the “deep thinkers” on the fr say. How does this square with his status as one of the greatest conservatives ever? Maybe some people are a lot dumber than they think.
As HL Mencken said, “The sort of man who wants his ideas to be forced on others is usually the sort of man whose ideas are idiotic.”
6
posted on
02/29/2008 7:45:59 PM PST
by
Seruzawa
(A skeleton walks into a bar and asks for a beer and a mop.)
To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
7
posted on
02/29/2008 7:46:02 PM PST
by
neverdem
(I have to hope for a brokered GOP Convention. It can't get any worse.)
To: KoRn
I think early on the conservatives were in favor of the War on Drugs, but more recently Buckley and many other prominent conservatives (Rush Limbaugh, for example) have created a course reversal for conservatives.
It's getting harder to justify all the time.
8
posted on
02/29/2008 7:50:38 PM PST
by
tear gas
(Because of the 22nd Amendment, we are losing President. Bush. Can we afford to lose him now?)
To: Seruzawa
WFB was Libertarian or Conservative at times.
9
posted on
02/29/2008 7:54:56 PM PST
by
BGHater
($2300 is the limit of your Free Speech.)
To: supercat
Well, in that case no drug laws are needed, because there are already laws against bothering other people. (And if you do criminally bother others, it shouldn’t matter under the law whether you are on drugs or not.)
10
posted on
02/29/2008 8:00:36 PM PST
by
coloradan
(The US is becoming a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
To: tear gas; Squantos
On a sports forum, a poster claiming(I have my doubts)to be a SWAT team leader, wrote about how he likes busting in at 3 or 4AM
,forcing everyone to the ground and shoving the warrant under their face.
11
posted on
02/29/2008 8:05:16 PM PST
by
razorback-bert
(Eco-wackos make love by candlelight, it is the only light they have.)
To: BGHater
Thanks for the link, but the audio on youtube is too muted for me with three volume controls on max.
12
posted on
02/29/2008 8:17:46 PM PST
by
neverdem
(I have to hope for a brokered GOP Convention. It can't get any worse.)
To: razorback-bert
Ya can tap dance in a mine field only sooooo long before fate teaches ya a permanent lesson !
That so called SWAT weenie just hasn’t had his lunch handed too him........yet !
Stay safe Bert !
13
posted on
02/29/2008 8:23:24 PM PST
by
Squantos
(Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
To: coloradan
Well, in that case no drug laws are needed, because there are already laws against bothering other people. (And if you do criminally bother others, it shouldnt matter under the law whether you are on drugs or not.) I would see nothing wrong with a law against e.g. shooting heroin in a public place. Even if people doing so were otherwise peaceful, if passersby were bothered that should justify police action. Absent such a law, I would see no basis for the police to take any action against someone peacefully shooting dope no matter how many people it offended.
14
posted on
02/29/2008 8:27:23 PM PST
by
supercat
To: razorback-bert
On a sports forum, a poster claiming(I have my doubts)to be a SWAT team leader, wrote about how he likes busting in at 3 or 4AM ,forcing everyone to the ground and shoving the warrant under their face. Hey, if he at least brings the warrant with him that's better than some.
15
posted on
02/29/2008 8:28:24 PM PST
by
supercat
To: Seruzawa
“Wait a second. Doesnt this opinion label Buckley as an insane libertarian and an enemy of all that is good and decent in society?”
Well, to be fair, there are some insane libertarians out there; not the typical sort, but the extreme anarcho-capitalist variety.
16
posted on
02/29/2008 8:54:20 PM PST
by
eclecticEel
(oh well, Hunter 2012 anyone?)
To: Seruzawa
How does this square with his status as one of the greatest conservatives ever?
Easy, “conservative” defines the role of Government interference in a country’s people. As the stats released today mention about 1 in 100 people are in lock-up throughout the US. That is not “conservative” government.
17
posted on
02/29/2008 8:58:10 PM PST
by
SFC Chromey
(We are at war with Islamofascists inside and outside our borders, now ACT LIKE IT!)
To: neverdem
That quote clearly shows how much conservatism has changed since his time.
It now embraces government as the tool for all problems, just like the libs.
To: supercat
I would suggest that most drug offenses should occupy a middle ground. Police shouldn't try to track down people who are using drugs without bothering other people, but they should be allowed to act against those who do bother others. You need to define "bothering other people". Property rights generally determine whether any particular behavior is sufficiently "bothersome" to warrant police action. You may "bother me" when you dress strangely, but that doesn't mean I should be able to have you arrested for dressing that way. The issue of what offensive behavior you can get away with in public will always be a problem as long as we have "public" (i.e government owned) property.
19
posted on
03/01/2008 12:06:49 AM PST
by
ravinson
To: neverdem
Thanks for the ping and post. I disagree with Buckley on this topic.
RIP Mr. Buckley.
20
posted on
03/01/2008 6:15:03 AM PST
by
PGalt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson