Posted on 09/24/2001 12:49:15 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
Afghanistan is the largest producer and exporter of opium in the World. The trade is run by the Taliban and Al Queda. Osama is it's head. It is very likely that Osama is a user, and may be an addict. I agree with you. We shouldn't be "seeking justice" on these people! The drugs are to blame! The need hugs and warm cocoa! Barney for U.N. Attorney General!! Osama needs our true kindness! We need to find a way to help him!!
Go A.J. Go!!!
I disagree with your disagreement. Even though most people support the prohibition of drugs, we still have things like no-knock raids and asset forfeiture. Those are the only measures that can do anything at all against a black market, and then only around the edges, so long as the demand is there.
Happens.
Nor does pot or mushrooms according to you. But somehow heroin does. You get goofier by the post. Go attend to your hall monitor duties or burger flipping or whatever goofy kids like you should be doing while they are posting inane comments on freerepublic.
That is a lie, again. Please cite where I did that. Damn I hate liars.
You do however defend your use of pot and mushrooms. You are an illegal drug user who has had his mind so warped by his drug usage that he thinks he can condemn people who use drugs that he doesn't approve of while defending his favorites and advocating their legalisation.
You have obviously been using more than you admit to.
I don't know about that--first, jail (aside from the @$$-rapage and assuming you can stay away from the worse influences) can be a fine place to work on disciplining the desires, even if it is not so used by most.
The intended thrust of my statement was not that prohibition implied a disdain for fellow men, but that the statement of Tex's that "I don't care if people harm themselves" used to support legalization implied a lack of concern for one's fellow man. I'd be careful about putting words in DG's mouth about drugs, too. He might disagree with you on that one.
But prison is where the worst influences are concentrated. In any event, the likelyhood of getting raped is more than enough to counter any potential positives.
The intended thrust of my statement was not that prohibition implied a disdain for fellow men, but that the statement of Tex's that "I don't care if people harm themselves" used to support legalization implied a lack of concern for one's fellow man.
Did your section get the little rant about following the line of argument? Tex said that preventing drugs from being in stores was reason enough to ban them. ThomesJefferson replied that the low quality control of the black market made that a negative, and then Tex said he didn't care what the impurities might do. In other words, he was actually saying it in support of prohibition.
I'd be careful about putting words in DG's mouth about drugs, too. He might disagree with you on that one.
I'd bet money that he disagrees with me on legalization (although there's a very small chance I would lose), but I don't think he would disagree about the ultimate source of the problem of people abusing drugs.
The demand side is a problem that is just too great to solve with the resources available, so I feel that we should, to the greatest extent possible, cut off the supply at the source. I know that some drugs will always be available, but the resulting cut in the supply just might let this country get a handle on the demand side as well.
If the US can go after terrorists of the bombing kind, why can't we go after the terrorist of the drug kind?
True, our "penitentaries" do little to make one have a better character. But there are those Caliban types who respond to nothing other than force.
Out of context, yes, I know. The point stands, however. I know Tex's positon as he makes it out, and I'm not as sure as he is that one can argue for prohibition while accepting the grounds that people have the right to harm themselves, but that drugs harm others.
Shoudn't you be studying?
But my point was looking at what he said in context. It may be that his position is untenable, but it is the position he holds and you can't act as if his argument was for legalization. I also think his position doesn't work (obviously, because otherwise I'd agree with him).
You seem to be getting at the point that people don't have the right to harm themselves or, to put the same thing in a different form that gets to the actual point of contention, what the government has legitimate authority to do, that people do have a right to use force to prevent others from harming themselves. The problem here is that force itself is or is the threat of harm. Saying you can do harm to prevent harm is a little odd. You might answer that you'll do less harm than he would do to himself, but that's not your decision to make. Even if it's true, you're still initiating the use of force.
On prisons, the more I think about it, the more astonishingly cruel the whole idea seems. Aside from the conditions in them, there's the fact of taking away large chunks of people's lives. Even if they did work as intended, that would be a high price to pay, but except for a very few cases, they don't. This may be nonsense, but some sort of corporal punishment combined with restitution for the victims may actually be a gentler system of justice, not to mention less expensive. Or maybe not.
Shoudn't you be studying?
At the time you posted that, I was studying. Or burning popcorn.
My roommate burned a lot of incense, and it still didn't get the smell out. I could still smell the burnt popcorn this morning when I came back from the test. But after I burned the popcorn, I studied.
I think that the war of drugs is illegitimate to begin with. That sort of thing is simply not one of the just functions of government.
If the US declares such drugs "a clear and present danger" to the nation, would you support military action in those countrys where the drugs are grown and refined prior to shipment to the US?
Foreigners have the same property rights as Americans, and those rights, whether the government respects them or not, include the right to use your property to make unpopular intoxicants, the right to own unpopular intoxicants, and the right to use unpopular intoxicants.
If the US can go after terrorists of the bombing kind, why can't we go after the terrorist of the drug kind?
Drug dealers aren't terrorists. They're part of the proud tradition of black marketeering.
Interesting take on this. I disagree however, that the drug cartels are not "terrorists".
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.