[tpaine]

If memory serves, this letter may have been posted at FR in the past, but it deserves a repost.

[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[anobjectivist]

I have known this for a while. If you make narcotics legal, the price will become so low and the manufacturing of these drugs will become such a part of america that "drug countries" and a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist.

What historically seems to be the easiest way to make a product go up in value? Make it illegal. And with the money there and with the presence of organization, crime goes up and the number of solutions goes down.

[Jeff Gordon]

It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans.

[tpaine]

Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments.
Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition.
We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.
__________________________________

The logical core of the article. --- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.

[Sparta]

The drug war, the bi-partisian threat to our liberty. Guns and Ammo had a good series of articles about how the forfeiture laws(a result of our wonderful drug war) were being used to justify the confiscation of firearms from homes.

[robertpaulsen]

Learn something every day. On the one hand, we have an amendment which specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and that amendment is under assault by the gun grabbers. I understand.

According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

So, how can the author "connect" the two? He can't.

Also, note how the author thinks he's the next Federalist with the Amicus Populi signature. What a swell-headed buffoon.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[ActionNewsBill]

Good post. After reading this, I cannot understand how someone can claim to be pro-second Amendment and pro-drug war at the same time.

[citizenK]

This is a good editorial piece that nicely connects the erosion of American liberties and dissolution of the Bill of Rights to the on-going drug wars. Those on this thread that cannot, or refuse to, see the connection between the drug wars and the general loss of freedoms in this country (including, but not limited to the assualt on 2nd Ammendment rights) are completely sold on the propaganda techniques of both the drug warriors and the gun grabbers, and which, incidently, makes up a large part of the argument forwarded by the author of the posted letter.

Perhaps not everyone has seen this recent ad - but it shows two teenage type boys in the family den getting stoned (smoking a bong) and handling a firearm. One of the boys comments that the gun is not loaded, then blam - the gun goes off and the editing implies that the one stoner shot the other dead. This ad represents a blatant example of the propaganda as discussed by the author where the government connects the issue of drugs and guns in a single advertisement, and plays on both the drug and gun fears to which your average American is now conditioned.

I would like to affirm tpaine's assessment that the drug wars are socialist in nature and are an abomination to our Constitutional form of government. Many people who support the drug wars think they are supporting conservative values, when in fact they are supporting the degradation of our Constitution and an elusive if not totally ficticious concept of a compelling societal interest that equates to socialist collectivism. Thinking people need to come to understand why this view is erroneous, and need to realize that recognition of the socialism that enters our backdoor via the drug wars does not mean that one need support the abuse of drugs in our society. is that drug abuse by some in our society (let's face it, there are about 2% of the population or so who would inhale gas fumes from your car if that's all that was available) is far more tolerable than government abuse of the Constitution. The question remains whether or not you want to live in a free society, or a society that only claims to be free.

[thisiskubrick]

[antaresequity]

Thanks for the post...

[Squantos]

Wonder if my SUV supports terrorism yet ?

[Ken H]

Here's a related thread that illustrates the downside of a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that many defend-- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821460/posts

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list ping

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[First Amendment]

Dear tpaine, how 'bout this one for a start? (Sorry I couldn't accept your invitation until tonight - no internet all day today, and now I have a cut finger so it's really hard to type.) According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

Please expain in simple layman's language why drug use and traffic should not be regulated and/or outlawed.

I guess to be fair, I should outline my position, which is quite different than the established one. Actually I did post it on this thread earlier, but here are the essentials:

1.No selling of drugs, or, to be fair, liquor. Heavy punishment, should include public corporal punishment such as caning, since jail time is not a deterrant, is expensive, and public caning (for instance) is much more humane and rational.

2. People should be allowed to grow marijuana (and poppies for opium if they can or want to) and use it themselves freely. Also brew their own liquor freely and use it themselves.

[Joe Brower]

An oldie but goodie, and worthy of close study.

[wingnutx]

Amen.