Posted on 10/06/2003 12:05:21 PM PDT by Bob J
No. Would you?
Since these activities are already legal, I would much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by these activities, rather than trying to make them illegal.
I believe they tried that once with alcohol, only to reverse themselves 13 short years later.
Why would you not also much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, rather than trying to keep (some) drugs illegal?
I would vote to keep the financial burden placed on you, only because you support it's legalization. But I doubt that piece of legislation would pass constitutional muster.
Now, if you're asking if I'd much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, then the answer is yes I would.
Why can't I do that, yet keep those drugs illegal? Why must I also vote to make them legal?
Let me summarize. I would be more inclined to hear your argument for drug legalization if I didn't have to support the drug user. Not that I would necessarily agree with legalization, but I would be more receptive to hearing about all the positive effects of across the board drug legalization.
Why can't I do that, yet keep those drugs illegal?
You can---but why would you?
I would be more inclined to hear your argument for drug legalization if I didn't have to support the drug user.
Are you likewise less inclined to support alcohol's legality because you have to support the alcohol user?
Did you think that my only objection to legalizing drugs was the fact that they are a financial burden on the rest of us?
This question has been answered my me in numerous other posts over the years. That's where you'll find my answer.
Have any reasons that I haven't already shown to be invalid in other threads?
I must, since I'm still against the legalization of drugs.
BTW, it's not necessary to invalidate my reason -- we agree, for example, that there is a financial burden placed on us by recreational drug users.
But just because you point out that a similar burden exists for alcohol and overeating doesn't make me slap my forehead and proclaim that it's not fair that drugs aren't similarly burdening me.
Or did you think that your arguments were so clever and compelling that I'd stupidly vote to legalize drugs despite the fact that it would cost me more money?
Is this an example of you invalidating one of my objections? No wonder I'm still against drugs.
I agree.
But you can't unleash legal drugs on a nanny state like ours without expecting to increase costs to the taxpayer. As Ann Coulter states in an excellent piece, "It's not as if we live in the perfect Libertarian state of nature, with the tiny exception of those pesky drug laws."
This country of ours has a ways to go in the areas of personal responsibility, tort reform, and the dismantling of our socialist-leaning government before I'm comfortable with supporting a relaxation of our current drug laws.
I'm a better critic than creator. But I've got some ideas I'll put together.
Took 40 years to get here -- probably another 40 to get where we should be.
I must, since I'm still against the legalization of drugs.
Non sequitur.
But just because you point out that a similar burden exists for alcohol and overeating doesn't make me slap my forehead and proclaim that it's not fair that drugs aren't similarly burdening me.
Straw man. My point was simply to note that you don't really believe your that-which-costs-me-money-should-be-banned argument---so why should anyone else?
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.