Posted on 01/25/2013 8:05:16 AM PST by The_Freemason
I have a serious question for the "conservatives" on here. Why do you assume the GOP is conservative and why do you continue to support them? In he past 10 years the GOP has done nothing to prove they are a conservative alternative to the leftist democrats. They crow about fiscal restraint but GWB pushed the national debt to 10 trillion( don't throw out the Obama raised it 16, we know and it's not an answer). He started wars without congressional approval, gave us the TSA, Patriot act, warrantless wiretaps, drones flying over the country. Expanded medicare the list goes on. The current GOP is on the same bandwagon but does the same as the D's do. The GOP complains that the D's want a nanny state but they are no less intrusive. It's just that they want to control and determine your morals and values. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, Please.
The GOP claims to be for smaller gov't and personal freedom but I haven't seen either. If you truly believe in these ideals, IMHO the GOP is lying to you. I have been a Libertarian member for years. Only the LP actually believes in the idea of leaving you alone to live your life as YOU see fit. The LP would cut the budget into balance TODAY not 10 years from now (aka NEVER).
Maybe if more "conservatives" would stop worrying about what I ingest, who I marry and the like and examine what their party represents there could be a sea change in the country with 2 true competing visions for America. One based on free people, free minds and free markets and one based on planned markets, less freedom.
Ok, discuss amongst yourselves.
IT IS A STATEMENT THAT BEHAVIOR NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.
How hard is that to understand?
Apparently as hard as ‘Shall not be infringed” is to a politician.
The existence or nonexistence of drugs has no bearing.
The addictive behavior will still exist.
BEHAVIOR will STILL EXIST.
Plain enough for a child to understand it.
“My reason for supporting drug legalization is that the illegality of drugs hyperinflates drug profits and channels those profits into criminal hands -without demonstrably helping users, improving their lives, or fixing the underlying issue.”
Yes, that does equal “It’s too hard”.
Who pays for boozers' care when they overdose, or tobacco users' care when they get cancer? Should we ban alcohol and tobacco?
In a perfect Libertarian world they would have to pay higher premiums for their “lifestyle choice.” But in reality they want everyone else to share in the cost through premiums.
If you don't like your insurer's pricing policies, the conservative answer is to replace your insurer - not expand government to ban non-rights-violating acts.
I believe the solution is to have as small and unobtrusive government as constitutionally possible. Tobacco, booze, whoring, drugs or whatever behavior not withstanding, my question was what do Libertarians think should be done with the wretches that suffer the consequences of their own behavior.
I'm not a libertarian - but it seems clear to me that a small and unobtrusive government (which libertarians also favor) would not interfere in pricing or service under voluntary contracts such as insurance policies, and that someone suffering the uninsured consequences of their own behavior would be left to voluntary charity.
If you still maintain that "Legalizing drugs is just insane" my questions above still stand, and stand in need of answers.
Who exactly wants that and in exactly what words did they say so? (JustSayNoToNannies)
Doesn't look like you'll be getting an honest answer, either.
Actually, yes.
He answered that himself.
“Wrong - that takes government change in ceasing to exercise power. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2981786/posts?page=157#157
He’s appealing ot government to act as government and legalize drugs with authority he says they don’t have.
Rather plain.
Too bad you didn’t see it.
Only if government first declared it illegal - and even in that case, a government rescindment of a law is not an exercise of power but a ceasing to exercise power.
Your position is “Government has no authority, so I’ll appeal to them.”
No, my position is "Government has no authority to ban X, so I’ll appeal to them to cease exercising power in a way they have no authority to do." That's completely logical.
“a government rescindment of a law is not an exercise of power but a ceasing to exercise power.”
That’s still an exercise of power and authority.
Again, why appeal to an authority you don’t recognize?
My friend who just got her license from WA state to grow marijuana tried to tell me that marijuana is now more expensive than heroin and that growing your own is the only way to go. Of course her son is a heroin addict.
My friend who just got her license from WA state to grow marijuana tried to tell me that marijuana is now more expensive than heroin and that growing your own is the only way to go. Of course her son is a heroin addict.
My friend who just got her license from WA state to grow marijuana tried to tell me that marijuana is now more expensive than heroin and that growing your own is the only way to go. Of course her son is a heroin addict.
Will you answer that question, or continue to feebly dodge it?
The existence or nonexistence of drugs has no bearing. The addictive behavior will still exist.
The highness or lowness of tax rates also has no bearing on whether the addictive behavior will still exist - does that mean you have no preference between high or low taxes?
Will you answer the question, or continue to feebly dodge it?
That’s still an exercise of power
Just wrong.
THE ADDCITIVE BEHAVIOR WILL STILL EXIST.
How hard is that to understand?
The underlying behavior would still be there.
Giving someone who is allergic to aspirin and aspirin is not an act of mercy but an act of evil that could kill them.
Addicted personalities are not helped by giving them drugs.
You work to remove the addictive impulses.
You remove the impulse, the point about drug legality becomes moot for them.
Again, I heavily doubt you will understand any of that.
First of all, conservatives don’t care so much about your personal choices, but rather what the public endorsement of those choices means to the future generations.
Let’s start with Gay marriage - couldn’t care less about your choice of a life partner, but don’t try to tell me how I should view that choice and what I should teach my children about homosexuality. It’s none of your business. Keep it out of the schools.
Second, about legalization of marijuana. The experts know so much more about marijuana than they did 20 years ago, but they are not getting the word out. What they know is that marijuana causes attention deficit, loss of reasoning power and worst of all increases the risk the psychosis. They know that adult brains can recover from these symptoms if the person abstains from marijuana for 4-8 weeks, but immature brains of adolescents do not recover. So, while the smoker may no longer feel the endorphin high of the marijuana, the attention deficit and other affects may continue. Now, adults may decide to use marijuana responsibly, but what kind of message does legalizing it send to the teenagers? I’ve been wondering how many of the young mass shooters were heavy marijuana users in their teenage years?
In short, I don’t care who you marry, I don’t even care if you choose to kill your own unborn babies, or what kind of drugs you choose to ingest, just don’t expect to receive my approval and stay out of the schools with your ideas and your drugs and don’t ask me to pay for your abortions.
No, not wrong.
To rescind something is still an exercise of power.
It is an edict of authority to remove something by one’s authority.
You’ve now misquoted “JustSayNoToNannies’” post three times after linking to the post yourself so everyone on the board could see what she actually said.
Once could be a mistake. Three times is clearly a lie. Lying three times to a room full of people who can see the actual quote for themselves, indicates a liar not quite in touch with reality and its consequences.
Are you under the influence of something, or is this your usual behavior?
No, not misquoted.
To appeal to government power that one does not recognize is illogical and contradictory.
No misquoting in that.
So your preferred drug policy is to leave them illegal and cure every addict? That's comical right there - but I also need to point out that many drug users are not addicted, so legality is not moot for them.
Wrong no matter how often you repeat it.
She's not telling you the truth.
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.