Posted on 04/18/2002 5:43:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
Didn't the Communist party decide not to run against clinton's reelection because he was doing better than they could have done?
Then there are the many people, Rush and Hannity included, who point out that Bush is still going strong on the Democratic agenda.
One wonders if the Communists will field a candidate in 2004.
Is this some kind of fantasy for you or something?
It sounds a bit uncomfortable.
Did you do that in the Army?
I never did.
First, you are all over the place.
Second, you are proving my point for me. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, a stance taken in favor of legalization and/or decriminalization leaves the door wide open for you to be attacked. What's the name of this game? Politics.
It shocks me to no end how conservatives and libertarians insist on applying the rules of basketball to baseball. It doesn't work. For an upstart political party, leading off with legalization/decriminalization was, and still is, foolish. Now, before you and others start frothing at the mouth, pay close attention at what I'm saying, for you will no doubt demonize me for my words here. Your stance against the WOD is commendable. Let me say that again so that there is no misunderstanding; Your stance against the WOD is commendable.
Got it?
I hope so.
Moving forward, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by attacking the WOD in the name of legalization/decriminalization. Both Pubs and RATS will decapitate you if you keep at it in its name. It is terribly easy for both Pubs and RATS to scare the hell out of the public concerning drug use. And there's a kernel of truth in their attack, for drugs destroy. My sister is GONE! Heroin and cocaine. She's a shell of her former self. Legalizaton/decriminalization has nothing to do with this, just her use of those drugs. That's the image that will be used against you time and time again if you keep going at it like you are now.
So, what is there to do? You flank the issue. You attack the tentacles of the WOD such as federal snooping into personal bank accounts, the amount of money spent at one time that triggers an investigation, the amount of money carried on the person that feds think is too much, no-knock raids and violations of the IV Amendment, etc. All of these monstrosities are the fruit of the poisoned tree. They can also be attacked sans legalization talk.
That would be a good start. If and when these goals are achieved, you can then make the case for legalization/decriminalization by explaining how the WOD was the culprit in the gross violations of our Constitutional rights, growth of the several States' and federal government, the cost of waging the WOD in terms of money and lives, etc.
It should be a step-by-step process, not one fell swoop. Did socialists invade our Congress in the name of socialism? No. In fact, even the Progressive Caucus shuns the term "socialist," yet what they are really about is socialism. Only Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) goes by the title "socialist." Most here understand that. So, if the goals of an unpopular system can still be achieved under a different name, can the same be done as L[l]ibertarians and the WOD issue?
Think about that.
As a believing Christian, I am rather ambivalent towards drug use. I think marijuana should be legalized right now, and those serving sentences for marijuana use or distrubution should be released now. I have a hard time with the criminalizing of a plant that grows naturally and its natural properties can make you high. That's absurd. That's a totally different issue than processed drugs such as crack. On the other side, I absolutely loathe hard narcs. Having said that (and besides personal autonomy, there's really no upside to drug use), I'm willing to let the use of hard narcs be decided ultimately between the user and Christ. I'll stay out of it, but I will call you a complete moron is you use them. A person can reserve the right to use them, while I reserve the right to call that person an idiot.
Fair enough?
If you believe legalization of drugs--from marijuana on up--would have no consequences for anyone but the drug user, YOU are the moron. You will pay and pay through the nose for the bone-brained destructive indulgence of the doper brigade.
I wouldn't CARE if it were only YOU who were paying. Unfortunately, your pro-dope foolishness threatens to stick me with a bigger tax bill as well.
When Jesus Christ said you should be as wise as a serpent, he meant it figureatively. He didn't mean you should strive to have a brain the size of a peanut--let alone that you should glory in it.
Back up, cuddin'! I am not "pro-dope." I'm not a libertarian, I don't advocate drugs' uses, and I most certainly believe that there is absolutely no "upside" to the use of drugs, even marijuana.
My point is simply this: Tobacco, which grows naturally, is legal; Marijuana, which grows naturally, shouldn't be illegal. In fact, marijuana causes fewer problems than alcohol does. But in the name of being consistent, it's hypocritical for tobacco to be legal while marijuana remains illegal. The differences between these naturally occurring plants and hard narcs is that hard narcs are synthesized, although their ingredients may be from natural sources. Nevertheless, you have to purposefully modify cocaine's ingredients to snort it or smoke it.
I don't advocate the use of ANY mind-altering substance. I strongly submit that the uses of mind-altering substances is the height of both folly and foolishness. So calling me "pro-dope" is a serious error. Drug use, and its legalization, are really an esoteric philosophy in my mine. It falls under the categories of freedom and liberty. It also falls under the tenant that if a person truly owns his or her body, then freedom and liberty dictate that what one does with his or her personally owned body and property can't be infringed upon by law. And just because a bad law can still be constitutional, liberty in destroying oneself is a bad personal policy.
I argue it in theory only. I freely admit that this is a theory of mine. But when it comes down to brass tacks, and if I had my say on whether or not hard narcs should be legal, I would have to vote in the negative. I, too, look at the broad consequences (if you knew where I grew up you'd really understand where I'm coming from) of drug use. It does nothing for society.
Okay, your choice, but I feel I must remind you ... most of these jerks want to pi$$ you off. They want you to get mad and react just as you have. Many of them are just like rushbo has termed 'seminar callers'. Make your choice, but know that many of the JBTs are plants and the rest are just stupid people venting their spleen.
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.