Posted on 02/11/2020 7:49:42 PM PST by karpov
In 1969, the height of the Sixties’ cultural revolution, Pew found that only 12 percent of Americans supported the legalization of pot. Fifty years later, 67 percent of voters support it. Virtually every candidate on the Democratic presidential slate backs some form of marijuana legalization. Even the Trump administration has left states to manage their own business on the matter. This year, at least one candidate supports going further and decriminalizing all drugs.
On Sunday, Fox News’ Chris Wallace pushed Iowa caucus winner Pete Buttigieg to explain his support for the “decriminalization” of all narcotics.
First, he asked Buttigieg whether laws act as a deterrent to those willing trying “meth and heroin” for the first time. Buttigieg dissembled, and never answered the question. One supposes, “this is America, Chris, and if someone wants to freebase it’s none of my business,” is still tad bit too libertarian for the average American voter.
...
Yet when Wallace pushed Buttigieg to clarify what decriminalization might entail, he couldn’t provide any specifics, declaring that we shouldn’t worry about the “legal niceties” but rather about the failures of the drug war.
Well, the difference between a felony, a misdemeanor, or no punishment at all isn’t a legal nicety, it’s the distinction between criminalization and decriminalization, as anyone with a criminal record will tell you.
Specifics are going to be important. Most Americans have had at last some interaction with pot, which, though it might make us useless or stupid, won’t kill us. When you start talking about meth and heroin, average Americans probably start picturing drug supermarkets on Main Street, kids shooting up behind 7/11s, and resultant criminality.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
We have more than enough “Lotus Eaters” on the dole already. We don’t need any more.
“I don’t mind idiots destroying their own lives with drugs, but too often they destroy the lives of their children, too.”
Also, as things stand now I help pay their medical and rehabilitation expenses.
Legalizing prostitution, drugs, etc., sends a message that they’re ok. That’s a major reason I don’t want them legalized.
Alcohol is something that is easily detectable... but the legal framework for alcohol abuse will not work with drugs.
How do you readily detect the drug users and how do you regulate drug users driving vehicles, which is to say what are the timeframe restrictions between usage and driving. That same question then applied to school attendance, or work.
People taking drugs immediately before work or on the job are an endangerment to everyone in the workplace. And what of productivity?
Legalization of drugs is a one-way ticket to Government Health Care.
Read that again - Government Health Care.
Exactly,
INSANITY!
Tulsi is for decriminalizing both. I saw her on Hannity and her constant avoidance of answering that question made it obvious.
I have seven low end rentals in a rural county. Last year I had to evict two middle income families because the WIFE got involved in drugs (meth I think) and ended up in jail. The houses were a wreck. I spent $15,000 on one and $10,000 on the other. The children in both cases were neglected despite a husband trying his best to take care of the kids and his wife’s habit. In these cases prison was the only chance for these families and the best possible path forward as the husbands were in denial and enabling the behavior to keep their marriages together.
One of these families I really felt sorry for the man as he tried so hard. But I have mortgages to pay and I had to get them out before the wife set the house on fire or overfilled a tub for eight hours. (That happened to another landlord I know.)
In both cases the kids were turned over to relatives who were, I gather, desperate to get the kids away from the situation.
The husband above told my helper, “I am really sorry, “Donna” is f@cking crazy.”
Sanctuary for pimps hoes and John’s as long as they pay their taxes
Thanks for your story. I wonder if there should be stricter drug laws for parents of minor children. One can argue that a childless person has the right to destroy his or her life, but parents have responsibilities.
Yup. The only drug mentioned in the Constitution that I have found is alcohol, and that was added and removed through the amendment process. There are still a lot of drug warriors here on FR. It's not a popular position to take here.
The only legitimate action the government should be able to take regarding drugs would be questions regarding purity and truth in labeling, as both could be considered fraud.
How many addicts has prison cured?
I’m saying let’s not add to the problem.
Exactly.
So do alcoholics. Do you want to bring back Prohibition?
I’m saying let’s not add to the problem.
Why, in your view, shouldn't we subtract from the problem by bringing back Prohibition?
Ditto for alcohol abusers and overeaters. Should the government therefore ban alcohol and regulate individuals' caloric intake? I say no.
Legalizing prostitution, drugs, etc., sends a message that they’re ok. That’s a major reason I don’t want them legalized.
It's legal for me to tell my wife she's ugly. Does that send a message that it's OK? Should it be made illegal? I say no.
Don’t be a dumbass. Decriminalizing drugs is the same as sending a message that it’s okay.
Don’t be a dumbass. Decriminalizing drugs is the same as sending a message that it’s okay.
Nonresponsive.
It's legal for me to tell my wife she's ugly. Does that send a message that it's OK? Should it be made illegal? I say no.
Stupid questions do not require a sensible answer.
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.