Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[Cultural Jihad]

(Libertarian Princess delivers righteous kick to face of oppressive pig
as she guards her barrel of monkeys)

[NC_Libertarian]

Why was the first one pulled?

[Roscoe]

The policeman probably initiated force by asking who started the fire.

[tpaine]

'Cultural Jihad' - The tantrum that nevers ends.

---------------------------------------

Good grief roscoe! --- Finally, - we agree!

[MadameAxe]

barrel of monkeys

Bzzzt. We're more fun.

[Cultural Jihad]

Why was the first one pulled?

Probably because the purpose of FreeRepublic is not for the advocacy of drug legalization for the spoiled and jaded.

[tpaine]

CJ probably complained of being abused. He's special.

[Roscoe]

Isn't the right to smoke crack and slam heroin in the Constitution? In a penumbra or sumpin?

[ThinkDifferent]

Probably because the purpose of FreeRepublic is not for the advocacy of drug legalization for the spoiled and jaded.

I thought the purpose of FreeRepublic was to advocate limited and Constitutional government, with which the WOD is entirely inconsistent.

[tpaine]

Why was the first one pulled?

Probably because the purpose of FreeRepublic is not for the advocacy of drug legalization for the spoiled and jaded.

--- Wrong again, cultist. FR is dedicated, in part, to exposing how our government is abusing our constitution. The 'drug war' is a massive part of that unconstitutional activity, and is thus a legitimate topic.

[Cultural Jihad]

Isn't the right to smoke crack and slam heroin in the Constitution? In a penumbra or sumpin?

Well, the Declaration talks about the inalienable rights to an early death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering, according to the Hussein's Libertarian-Baathist Party.

[ThinkDifferent]

Actually, crack and heroin are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Alcohol is, in two amendments. Think about it.

[Cultural Jihad]

FR is dedicated, in part, to exposing how our government is abusing our constitution.

While that is not in contention, the fact is all we see from the libertarian ideologues here are moral-liberal arguments for allowing people to destroy themselves. That is a far, far cry from what, say, the Constitution Party advocates, since they are not moral-liberal ideologues as the LP members are.

[Roscoe]

And alcohol has been subject to state and municipal regulation for how many centuries? Think about it.

[ThinkDifferent]

And alcohol has been subject to state and municipal regulation for how many centuries?

Thank you for proving my point. If states want to ban narcotics, they can. Barring a Constitutional amendment, the feds can't.

[Roscoe]

They hate our borders, they hate our immigration laws, they hate our taxes, the hate our tariffs; and they expect people to buy their claim to love the Constitution which provides for such things.

[Roscoe]

States have no history of pre-emptive regulation of crack and heroin. Your house of cards argument just came tumbling down.

[MadameAxe]

moral-liberal arguments for allowing people to destroy themselves.

Your destruction is hypothetical. The devastation caused by the WOsD is not.

[MadameAxe]

Have you ever considered moving away from the most communist state in the nation? I don't know how CA Freepers can stand it.

[Dane]

Shall we bump this to Dane,.... Maybe they'll finally come to their senses?

I've made a New Year's resolution to stop trying to reason with a brick wall(i.e the Libertarian drugs are freedom crowd).