Using Marijuana May Not Raise the Risk of Using Harder Drugs (but look at alternative explanation)

RAND's Drug Policy Research Center ^ | December 2, 2002 | RAND's Drug Policy Research Center

[unspun]

You can see how I word it, in the thread (don't have it up, yet).

[MrLeRoy]

And using the same pretext of natural law, I'd cite A.Lincoln, that no one has the right to do what is wrong.

How does Lincoln's claim derive from natural law?

That's why we have republican government, not government by tribunal.

What does that have to do with having (or not) the right to do wrong?

[A CA Guy]

My "pre-conceptions" as you call them have come to me lately after years of reading Libertarians views, their hearts desires are unmasked everywhere and it wasn't pretty.

[MrLeRoy]

My "pre-conceptions" as you call them have come to me lately after years of reading Libertarians views

You determined that many of them were drug users by reading their views in favor of legalizing drugs? Spare us your stupid lies.

[tacticalogic]

My "pre-conceptions" as you call them have come to me lately after years of reading Libertarians views, their hearts desires are unmasked everywhere and it wasn't pretty.

If everyone who is in favor of legalization were a Libertarian, you might have a valid argument.

[A CA Guy]

Wouldn't a Drug Warrior be one for drugs?

I am pro drug law enforcement to reduce damage done by the idiots who would get themselves in trouble and others in danger with illegal drugs.
The politics of anarchy which Libertarians want to push on common sense America won't fly Mr.LR

Just say NO to illegal drugs and their growth which destroys the Spirit of people.
Libertarians are mostly Pro-Addict Warriors by the way here at FR Mr.LR, aren't they? Not something to be proud of.

[MrLeRoy]

Wouldn't a Drug Warrior be one for drugs?

No, it's one who conducts or supports the War On (Some) Drugs.

The politics of anarchy which Libertarians want to push

Libertarians are not anarchists.

Libertarians are mostly Pro-Addict Warriors by the way here at FR Mr.LR, aren't they?

I have never seen a "pro-addict" post on FR.

[unspun]

-self evident truths.

-such things are for a free people to make careful, respectful, constitutional decisions about, not for a tribunal interpreting a strict set of rules to protect the most possible liberties.

[MrLeRoy]

a tribunal interpreting a strict set of rules to protect the most possible liberties

Who here has called for such a tribunal?

[jodorowsky]

Who here has called for such a tribunal?

No kidding, that is so unrealistic. Everybody knows you need an iron-willed Extraordinary Powers Commission and a massive program of political hygiene before the tribunals can be implemented. Read Locke.

[unspun]

That is effectively what Libertarianism does. It restricts government to a tribunal in theory, where the ideal is personal liberty.

[MrLeRoy]

That is effectively what Libertarianism does. It restricts government to a tribunal in theory

That's preposterous.

[headsonpikes]

Yeah, Mr. Guy...put me down as a 'Pro-Addict Warrior'.

I believe addicts have the same legal status as yourself.

Be very careful when you set out to strip rights from those you consider 'unclean'.

You may well be next, no matter how abject your attitude towards authority.

Hitler started filling the camps with the addicts and queers, not the Jews.

I'm not sure why I even bother responding to your parrotting of slogans; it's not as if you have any belief in your own God-given powers of reason.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Do you think they should have supported it with Scriture, rather than claiming their justification was self-evident? Why do you suppose they acted as they did? You don't suppose it was because there actually is no Scriptural support, do you?

[tacticalogic]

Do you think they should have supported it with Scriture, rather than claiming their justification was self-evident? Why do you suppose they acted as they did? You don't suppose it was because there actually is no Scriptural support, do you?

No, I don't think they should have. They were establishing a secular government, and their experience with English rule had taught them to avoid government based on theology. As far there not being any scripture to support it, I guess it depends on your interpretation.

Render unto God what is God's. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

If Ceasar is due an ass kicking, then God wants us to give it to him.

[Hebrews 11:6]

If Ceasar is due an ass kicking, then God wants us to give it to him.

LOL

[Mike4Freedom]

That in no way seems a conservative trait.

Well, that depends on your definition of "conservative". I always thought that modern conservatives wanted, first and foremost, to restore the constitution. That would shut down all sorts of social spending and control exerted by the Federal government. This would come from strict enforcement of the Bill of Rights, specifically the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth forbids the Feds from doing anything not specifically listed in Article 1/Section 8 or added by amendment. That does more than say no Federal input to welfare, education, SS, and so on. It also means no Federal control of drugs. Just like it once meant no Federal control of alcohol without a specific amendment to change the list.

So you see, the Libertarians are more conservative than you on this issue.

[unspun]

A late response, with something I've just run across....

---

American Enterprise "Is America Turning A Corner?" (conservative social values)Issue: Jan, 1999, "A New Era of Civic Virtue Is Dawning," Stephen Moore

Over the past five to ten years a remarkable cultural turnabout has occurred. With few exceptions, the same social statistics that deteriorated in the 1960s, '70s, and early '80s, have improved, or at least plateaued.

Since 1990, the abortion rate has dropped, illegitimate births have declined, welfare use has fallen precipitously, as has crime. It's virtually impossible to pick up a newspaper and not hear a story of social improvement. A few 1998 examples:

* "The government's survey of drug use finds that in 1996 only 18.3 percent of teens between 12 and 17 had smoked in the past month, the lowest since 1985." --Washington Post

---

And I've seen it posted how national drug policies have been a terrible flop. Hm.

[unspun]

Of course, the Scriptures also testify that God's testimony is self evident (Romans 1&2).

Also, be careful who's getting kicked! In America, Caesar is us folk!

[rb22982]

Just because something skyrockets during a period of sex, drugs and rock and roll, and then drops some off its peak doesnt prove that locking people up suddenly worked after 70 years of failing to reduce use. Also welfare use dropped do to 1) the booming 90s economy and 2) welfare reform. Nothing to do with the drug war,and illegitmate sex has to do with 1) 60s and 70s are over 2) people use birth control much more frequently now.