The drug war vs. the war on terror

Chicago Tribune ^ | December 13, 2001 | Steve Chapman

[CrossCheck]

On Oct. 25, six weeks after the worst terrorist atrocities in our history, the United States was bombing Afghanistan, Colin Powell was discussing a post-Taliban government, investigators were grappling with anthrax in the mail, and federal agents were . . . well, they were going after pot smokers in California. If John Ashcroft had been around during the Chicago fire, he would have been handcuffing jaywalkers.

[alpowolf]

I understand what you're saying but I don't want him and his pals to be able to do a Goebbels on us: they keep repeating the same lie until it is accepted as truth.

[Texaggie79]

Why is it morally wrong to take drugs??

It is morally wrong to put those around you at physical, financial, and psychological risk.

[Dane]

I think lurkers quickly figure out that Dane and company are not representative of FreeRepublic. See post 62, by jeffyraven, who joined specifically to rebut such nonsense.

Wow one person a trend makes. These threads have the same people over and over again. Same old, same old everyday. Someone posts a pro-drug thread by some leftist writer, the same old Libertarians fawn all over it, and I just bring out facts and Libertarians curse me to high heaven.

[Texaggie79]

Also since morality can only come from God. It is spiritually immoral to be intoxicated. However, that should have no bearing on law.

[Britton J Wingfield]

I have no problem with Jack booted thugs when they're used against the right people.

Sooner or later, everyone ends up on the list of "the right people."

Support these thugs, and the next administration's thugs may have a different hit list, but legel precedent for thuggery. Ask Janet Reno.

[Dakmar]

...and I just bring out facts

So now you're a comedy writer, too?

[Polonius]

It is morally wrong to put those around you at physical, financial, and psychological risk.

There are many other activities that pose these same risks, so why are drugs a special case? These potential negative consequences are far from universal; what sets use of certain substances apart? Is it perhaps that they are seemingly easier to regulate than other potentially self-destructive activities?

[Texaggie79]

Because REAL patriots spend their time defending hard drug users. How proud the founders must be of you. To fight for the right to smoke crack. I'm sure our Heavenly Father is as proud as well.

Please teach me to be as patriotic as you!!! PLEASE!!!!

[lodwick]

bttt

[jeffyraven]

Dane, come on. I didn't join this forum to cause problems, but who are you trying to fool? I can't even guess how many of your posts I've read (easily into the three digits by this point), and I'm still waiting for you to bring forth your first fact.

[JohnGalt]

I'm confused...why would the state, whom you seem to think is a just steward for maintaing order in society, let 4,5,6, 22x drunk driving offenders off the hook?

Oh, things would be different if you were in charge?

See my earlier posts.

[Dakmar]

It is spiritually immoral to be intoxicated.

Umm, I think Jesus turned water into an intoxicant at one point. Why would he do such an immoral thing?

[alpowolf]

Your "validation" argument comes from the false notion that morality comes from the law, when in fact the opposite is true.

If morality came from strict laws the People's Republic of China would be a far more moral nation than the USA. They treat drug users (as well as the rest of their citizens) quite severely by comparison. Of course they have a growing drug problem. By your standard they are paragons of morality. (I think your standard sucks.)

[Texaggie79]

Is it perhaps that they are seemingly easier to regulate than other potentially self-destructive activities?

Destroy yourself all you want buddy. My concern is when you snort your coke and put OTHERS at risk. Hard drugs take away your ability to act responsibly, to reason, and to be able to choose to stop using the substance. You have no right to do this on public property, nor your own, because there is no way to fence in the possible effects and inevitable effects.

[fod]

It is morally wrong to put those around you at physical, financial, and psychological risk.

Then ban recreational driving

[realpatriot71]

I personally think its clear to anyone who reads his silly, fallacy filled, inane banter, that he cannot make a single decent argument. He's an absolute embarassment to the drug warriors. I personally feel we do not need to respond. He obviously invalidates himself. I personally feel it wastes my time to respond to him, but if you guys want to, I won't care too much. It was just an idea.

Peace

[Texaggie79]

Umm, I think Jesus turned water into an intoxicant at one point.

I never said the substances themselves are immoral. The act of being intoxicated by them are. Jesus never drank to intoxication.

[Texaggie79]

Then ban recreational driving

While sober, people are quite capable of driving responsibly.

[steve50]

"It is morally wrong to put those around you at physical, financial, and psychological risk."

Well, there goes guns, state lotteries, tobacco, alcohol and don't dare disagree with anybody, you could damage them psychologically by challenging their belief system.

[Dane]

Dane, come on. I didn't join this forum to cause problems, but who are you trying to fool? I can't even guess how many of your posts I've read (easily into the three digits by this point), and I'm still waiting for you to bring forth your first fact.

Wow I have a "fan". Glad that I make your day. Anyway I state facts such as that places that legalise drugs(Holland) are very socialist.

Also that the Green party got 6 times more the vote than the Libertarians in 2000, even though both political parties wanted to legalise drugs.

Also I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that when Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or give me death", he meant that to be able to do drugs anywhere at anytime as many Libertarians state.