Drug War Casualties

The Agitator ^ | 6/8/2002 | Radley Balko

[Bob Mc]

"Really then why in opening of court sessions the phrase ..."

Man made contrivings. Has nothing to do with God given rights.

[Texasforever]

Man made contrivings. Has nothing to do with God given rights.

When Christ returns to rule over man then you may have a point. Right now though, man has to struggle along as best it can.

[Bob Mc]

"When Christ returns to rule over man then you may have a point. Right now though, man has to struggle along as best it can."

I agree whole heartedly. Man has to struggle best we can, and we need to learn to understand just exactly what are the rights God gave us, and what are man made wishes, wants, and desires. People often confuse their wants and desires with rights. For example some think they have a "right to a job", or a "right to a decent living wage". These are not God given rights, these are man made desires, just like the desires to shape our society.

[Texas Gal]

[Tauzero]

"Rights belong to individuals, not groups."

Bump to that.

[Bob Mc]

I'm sorry I dragged this post off topic.

I get a little frustrated when people use the word "right" to apply to all sorts of things having nothing to do with "God given - inalienable rights". Since this is a political forum, I felt the urge to correct this misunderstanding.

I don't believe I have a disagreement with ReaganMan or TexasForever about what society can do. I believe we are in disagreement over semantics of what a "right" is. Perhaps what they mean to say is "Society has the need, or desire, or overwhelming agreement on something, but it has no rights as enumerated in the BOR.

My frustration is because the word "right" is now days used to describe all kinds of man made wants and desires. I've heard such things on this forum as "I have a right to smoke free restaurant environment", or "I have a right to a decent neighborhood", and such things.

What they really should say is, they feel it is important and worthwhile for them to have such things, but they use the word "right". Unfortunately, the left liberal people use the word "right" in the same manner to assault us conservatives all the time. Such things as "homosexual rights", or "animal rights". I am disappointed when I see conservatives on this forum make the same mistake and continue to spread the misuse of the term "rights".

Sorry again to drag this post off topic, I'll stop now.

[Cultural Jihad]

Really, you had drifted into semantics and nit-picking hair-splitting. A society is composed of people, who have rights. To say that 'society has the right of self-preservation' is the same thing as saying 'people have a right to preserve their society.'

[ActionNewsBill]

Excuse me, but how can you not be outraged?

People like RaygunMan and the other WODers are never outraged by anything like this. In fact, I'm sure they approve of heavy handed draconian punishment for anyone who questions their holy war (or is it a "jihad"?) on drugs.

Not only do they wish to see this kind of system in place for drug users, (only the illegal kind, of course...don't you dare try to take away their six-pack or martini) but for anyone who even dares to disagree with their "superior morality". After all, they, and only they know what's best for us.

Most of them are mindless drones who worship every aspect of government.

After all, if you are against the war on drugs you must be a druggie. That's the extent of their logic.

[NC_Libertarian]

FMI

[Djarum]

In this case, the decrease in overall drug use, occured in direct relationship with the increase in anti-drug funding, for law enforcement activities and adherence to strict sentencing guidelines, by the criminal justice system. In other words, the correlation exists and is obvious.

You haven't established that the increase in enforcement caused a decrease in drug use: As a car sped up, a bird flying above slowed down. Was the bird influenced by the car or did it slow down for another reason?

[Reagan Man]

Its proper courtesy on FreeRepublic, if your going to mention a FReeper by name, to "PING" that individual to the thread. Otherwise it's like talking behind someones back. Very rude behavior.

Thanks.

PS- Hey ActionNewsBill, my screen name is "Reagan Man" and in the future, I would appreciate you calling me by my proper screen name. Theres no reason to revert to personal insults either.

[Cultural Jihad]

Personally, I don't think more than a small percentage of the self-avowed libertarians are actually drug users, and I resent the implication that they are all so, just as much as I resent the implication made by some that those who support prohibition at any level of government are either drug dealers or LEO's or statist worshippers. I have seen a handful of libertarians admit to their drug use, and they are usually the pretty cool ones who do not exhibit emotive problems.

[Reagan Man]

There were increases in funding for the national drug control policy throughout the 1970`s and this trend accelerated under President Reagan in the 1980`s. Local law enforcement agencies busted many drugs dealers and users/abusers. The criminal justice system put these dopers in jail, were they belonged and were they couldn't harm society. All the statistics I've seen, from SAMHSA, the DEA website, the Bureau of Jusice Statistics and several others, point to these facts as conclusive evidence that across the board reductions in drug use, were brought about through increases in law enforcement efforts and a pro-active court system that handed down proper sentencing to the drug criminals. Those are the facts.

[ActionNewsBill]

Personally, I don't think more than a small percentage of the self-avowed libertarians are actually drug users,

Sorry CJ....I'm not buying that line of malarkey. You have made your views perfectly clear in the past. Why are you changing your story now?

[ActionNewsBill]

PS- Hey ActionNewsBill, my screen name is "Reagan Man"

Gee, I guess I'd better start using my spell checker. I must be on drugs or something, right?

[Cultural Jihad]

Perhaps you can point to any instance otherwise.