|
But...but...I thought they were all "God's children"! |
|
Posted on 12/22/2008 7:37:20 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Link only per FR copyright and linking policy
|
But...but...I thought they were all "God's children"! |
|
fyi
That has a nice little ring to it. Sort of like substituting the word "undocumented" for "illegal".
sw
How about, "just say no"?
It seems corny but there isn't a lot of money in it if there is no demand except among that small portion of the population that has addictive personalities. The alternative is to legalize it, regulate it and tax it.
“But...but...I thought they were all “God’s children”!”
That does bring up an interesting question. Did the great maverick mean that all Mexicans, or all people of the world are God’s children, or just the one’s who make into the US illegally?
Hearing anything at all from Juan McCain is now one of life’s most unwelcome events. Actually, that’s been the case for years.
I'll second that.
The foxes have taken over guarding the hen house.
Used to be a solution to that. The result of which was fox furs for the ladies & plenty of eggs.
How's about a bounty on these vermin?
“How’s about a bounty on these vermin?”
The way our immigration “enforcement” has gone for years, and other government fiascoes, including the current financial crisis, it’s a wonder that DC isn’t surrounded by enraged citizens with sniper rifles. Our bought and paid for politicians have done enormous damage to this country, just how much isn’t clear yet.
So popular is the 7.62-caliber ammunition for AK-47 assault rifles that one store in this border city [US side of the border] stacks shoebox-sized cases several feet high down half a row in the hunting section.
Employees like Francisco Rodriguez, who works in the guns and ammo section of Academy Sports and Outdoors, tell stories about men piling shopping carts high with the $74 cases of 7.62-caliber rounds, as well as clearing shelves of 9 mm rounds and other ammunition for assault-style rifles.
“To Senator McCain (D-MX):
RE: traffickers whose violence can “easily spill over to our side,” McCain says.
Can, Senator? There is a war going on, Senator, and you don’t even realize it.”
_________________
Thanks, I just read that line and about fell over. What a clueless dolt he is.
The alternative is probably the much better route. Funny how we lasted from 1789 to 1914 before we “had” to start outlawing the use of these “recreational” substances. To hear the drug warriors tell it, we shouldn’t have lasted six months, since many of the Founders cultivated cannabis and, presumably, smoked or otherwise ingested it for relaxation. Then, of course, there was morphine and its derivatives. But no, let’s keep on with a failed policy (which, depending on their goal, may NOT be failed... IF the goal is to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights!) and keep headed in the same direction we’ve been going for the past number of decades, until the Constitution-as-toilet-paper is totally used up and gone for good.
As long as we are going to be in jeopardy of life & limb from foreign invaders coming over our borders, as well as our old enemies the Ruski's & the Chicoms, we may be well served to start collecting the pelts of our domestic enemies before we are all enslaved.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
Now that my sons are older they are less susceptible to peer pressure and it really doesn't matter to me. As a parent, when my children were young, the idea of this stuff being legal terrified me. The problem being it becoming an accepted behavior.
That is not the case today.
“Criminally-inclined” addicts were quite rare. In fact, if you look at the history of the war on some drugs, you will find that it was entirely RACIALLY motivated... certain drugs were associated with certain ethnic groups, then demonized by declaring that white women were debauched by the group’s men while under the influence of that drug. It was shamelessly scandalous. The doctors of the time were adamantly AGAINST such governmental meddling. However, pandering to the (artificially generated) fears of the masses won the day.
As for the second part of your post, I agree, and we do need to dismantle the welfare state, at the EARLIEST possible moment!
Social drinking is fully legal for anyone of age. However, due entirely (it would appear) to social pressures, the use of alcohol is losing its luster. In many ways, the same with tobacco use, though there are some unfortunate governmental prohibitions involved here. So the use of ANY intoxicants can be minimized through social and peer pressure without government involvement... which over the long haul works far and away better than what we have now.
Then, if you are into tin-foil hats, there is anti-hemp conspiracy on the part of Hearst, who was invested in pulp wood and supporting technology:
“Hearst also sympathized with Harry J. Anslinger in his war against marijuana. Jack Herer and others argue that Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests and a vast number of paper mills designed to manufacture paper from wood pulp) in the early 1930s was threatened by hemp, which: 1) like wood pulp, could also be used to manufacture paper[9] and 2) also had an advantage over wood pulp, because it could be regrown yearly as well.[9] Between 1936 and 1937, Hearst associated marijuana with hemp in his newspapers[10] and published many of the stories that Anslinger fabricated.[10] Hearst would indeed play a major part in aiding the anti-marijuana movement, which eventually led to its prohibition in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,[11] a law which also outlawed hemp. Other commentators[12] have subsequently pointed out that Jack Herer and others have missed that the Hearst chain was one of the biggest buyers of newsprint in the U.S. The Hearst chain had, as buyers of newsprint, a strong interest in a low price for newsprint; If anyone could produce large amounts of cheap newsprint from a new crop it would lower Hearst's purchasing cost for newsprint. The conclusion of this reasoning is that Hearst had no relevant financial interest in a ban on the cultivation of hemp.[12] This at first seems like a fair refutation in that he did not smear the image of hemp because he was actually interested in the consumer. However, these premises skew the point to where the conclusion is not acceptable upon these premises alone. Upon further thought it is more obvious that if the premise that Hearst truly had an interest in lower cost of newsprint, that he would have infact used hemp to produce it himself, as it is much more cost-effective. Hearst was criticized in John Steinbeck's masterpiece The Grapes of Wrath because he did not use his vast, fertile land for farming.”
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.
