Posted on 10/25/2004 8:41:19 AM PDT by Dr. Free Market
When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a "minor party" candidate who cannot possibly win, just to "get the word out" and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical "Battle Ground" states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.
(Excerpt) Read more at bidinotto.journalspace.com ...
You're right. Alcoholics do far more damage to this country than do coke lovers. There are thousands more folks driving under the influence of alcohol than under the influence of cocaine. Yet this country made a decision that the lives destroyed by alcohol were not worth the cost of keeping it illegal.
You're right.
Thank you.
It got rid of all those related to the illegal alcohol industry. Now we've got them for the illegal drug industry. Do you know that 70% of crime is drug related?
You don't need a government license to have children. Why do you feel you need one to get married?
The fact that we still have gang crime is proof positive that ending prohibition did not end gang crime.
Gangs went into drugs. Again, 70% of crime is drug related, not alcohol related. Look, I don't approve of anyone doing drugs but after 40 years of fighting the supply side of the problem at a cost of billions of $, we have no positive results to show for it. It's time to admit that drug prohibition isn't working and look into trying another approach.
Ah,legalize cocaine and all the drug gangs will become law-abiding, productive citizens and the jails will be empty and our kids drug free ...
I reiterate ... after 40 years of fighting the supply side of the problem at a cost of billions of $, we have no positive results to show for it. It's time to admit that drug prohibition isn't working and look into trying another approach.
Refute this.
"I reiterate ... after 40 years of fighting the supply side of the problem at a cost of billions of $, we have no positive results to show for it. It's time to admit that drug prohibition isn't working and look into trying another approach."
What form would that new approach take?
Legalize it to remove the crime, or throw the buyers into rehab.
Will this not remove a crime statistic but increase the associated problems that develop in any community as a result of drugs?
Will this not remove a crime statistic but increase the associated problems that develop in any community as a result of drugs?
ROTFLMAO,,good one. The crazy strawman arguments never stop,,,,,LOL
You'll have what you have with alcohol now.
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.