Replies

Frankly, I would like to see the welfare state abolished before drugs are legalized.
If the welfare state is jettisoned first and then drugs leagalized, those who choose to ruin their lives with drugs will do so without some agency there to rehabilitate(translation:substitute their heroin with methodone.) them and they would have to either straighten themselves out or starve.

>>>Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home...

Both the government and the people it represents, have every right to tell you, you can't snort cocaine. Period. The laws of the land are clear when it comes to the trafficking, purchase, possession and ingestion of those substances the people have declared harmful and illicit.

I see since our last discussion, you've revealed your true "libertarian" colors. Okay. This is a hot button issue. In the last Pew Center Research Report from August 2001, 86% of American's, do not agree with the following statement, "People should be allowed to take any drug they want so long as they don't hurt someone else." You have a whole lot of convincing to do. I'd get started asap.

"If you have 10 pounds of plutonium, for instance, that
violates the rights of your neighbors. If you have 10 pounds of cocaine, that does not violate anybody’s rights."

Could you explain the part about the plutonium please? (Before any readers jump to conclusions, I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I just want to see the logic behind the assertion.)

IMO, the Federal government is overstepping its bounds in the drug war, as well as other domestic policies.

The Tenth Amendment is quite clear that States are to exercise powers that are not delegated to the Federal government.

State governments should deal with education, welfare policies, violent crime, and vices.

That's the way it was when the Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution, and remained so during their lifetimes.

One of the missions of Free Republic is to start moving the country in that direction.

Evidence exists that smoking is worse for your health than alcohol, as well.

I know what your saying, and I, too, an totally against Big Brother invading a private person's home. However, we had a lot of teens die in twisted pieces of metal in southern Maine this summer from drinking and driving. Smoking is worse for your health? I wished that all those teens would have done WAS smoke! They would still be with us today.

The Surgeon Generals outgoing report states that OBESITY has over taken smoking for health problems and health care.

Aside from saying that, I do NOT want Big Government in my home!

I think it reckless for anyone to assume that ALL drugs should be freely available without any controls at all. As a libertarian who sees the present laws as harmful, not only to those who use drugs but to the society at large, I also see the need for some curbs to be in place.
The same umbrella that covers prescription drugs and acohol could easily be adapted to include those now considered "illicit." "Normalizing" a product makes it less attractive to those seeking an edgy thrill. Many of those who drank escesive amounts of moonshine during the alcohol prohibition normalized or stopped their usage once the thrill of illegality was removed. When you can drop into the local pub for a pint, what's the big deal? Sure, some people abuse alcohol and some always will, but they aren't the same group as the thrill-seekers. This is demonstrated by the excesses of newly-of-age college students and those just under the legal age. They booze their brains out because it's edgy. Thirty year olds don't usually exhibit the same behavior. The same will be seen with drug use. Sensible regulation will solve the major issues, and that will naturally include severe penalties for anyone driving under the influence of any substance.