Posted on 12/14/2001 10:15:53 AM PST by Native American Female Vet
No longer 'Just Say No': Bush says quit drugs and fight terrorism
By Associated Press, 12/14/2001 13:52
WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush said Friday that drug users aid terrorists who get their money from global trafficking in narcotics. ''If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terrorism,'' he said.
Bush offered a new argument in the fight against drugs while signing a bill to expand a federal anti-drug program over the next five years.
''Drug abuse threatens everything, everything that is best about our country,'' he said. ''It breaks the bond between parent and child. It turns productive citizens into addicts. It transforms schools into places of violence and chaos. It makes playgrounds into crime scenes. It supports gangs at home.''
''And abroad, it's important for Americans to know that trafficking of drugs finances the world of terror, sustaining terrorists,'' the president said. The administration has linked the al-Qaida network in Afghanistan to heroin trafficking. The terrorist group, led by Osama bin Laden, is suspected in the Sept. 11 attacks on America.
The bill signed by Bush expands the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, which helps community groups reduce illegal drugs. The program's budget is about $50 million, and would almost double in five years under the bill.
''Over time, drugs rob men, women and children of their dignity and of their character,'' Bush said.
''Illegal drugs are the enemies of ambition and hope and when we fight against drugs we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans.''
They don't? Sure they do. How does a guy sitting in his home smoking weed violate your rights? For that matter, how does a guy sitting in a coffeeshop where weedsmoking is permitted violate your rights?How does a guy drinking a beer in a restaurant violate your rights?
No! You will be tarred and feathered, and if what you say is strikingly true, you will have your post removed!
Is this GOPRepublic or FreeRepublic?
Survey says...... GOPRepublic.
Is the purpose of this web site to advance Republicans or constitutional government?
Republicans. See answer one.
Seems like I just had this same argument with Texaggie79, just the other day. Except in our argument, it was crack. Im sure you remember, because it ended with tex saying that he would shoot someone standing in their yard smoking crack, even if it were legal. Funny thing is, Tex doesn't think that someone smoking weed in their house violates his rights, but Don Myers does - and they are both pro-WOD. They are both the "my rights are violated when I say they are" type. Of course, this concept is not based upon any logic or reason, just emotions and silliness.
Who said anything about driving on public highways? You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions. We were talking about a guy sitting at home, smoking weed. How does he violate your rights? If you can't answer that simple question, your theory doesn't have much merit, now does it . . .PS, the Gateway Theory is total hogwash. Even Harry Anslinger, the man who kicked this whole drug war off, never believed the Gateway Theory. You're going to have to do better than that.
Sadly, I think you are right. However, truth shall win out eventually. I do believe Constitutional principles have been shoved to the back once again (rather forcefully, no less) with the arrival of Ashcroft.
So a person who has used "illegal drugs" at some point in their life have no right to use public resouces that they paid for too? Surely you do not mean "while high", like "while drunk", because no one has EVER said that one has the right to drive impaired.
When kids get started on weed and migrate upward to other drugs, it violates everyone's rights.
You have a right to have someone not do something? And when they do it, everyone's rights are violated? Ooooookkkkkk!
So we just won't make another mind altering drug legal. Sorry.
Who is this "we"? You know, this country is made up of people who do not share your views - but oh, they don't have rights, do they? Just people that share your views have rights?
I know. Both are probably the first to cite the old "liberals feel, conservatives think" saw, too. The sole reason I participate in anti-drug and anti-homosexual threads is to watch "conservatives" completely abandon conservative theory to support whatever prejudices they have.When it's the 1st or 2nd amendment they're pro-liberty conservatives. When it's weed or gays they're totalitarians.
When someone with a gun starts shooting up a McDonalds, it violates my rights.
Prohibit alcohol, and guns, and cars, and sharp corners on furniture.
I think the 1st amendmant is falling out of favor lately. Ashcroft all but accused people critical of the government of being traitors recently.
Yup!
I was thinking more of the religion clause, but your point is noted and well-taken.For a kick, spend some time on democraticunderground.com. Over there, they're fully convinced that this country's going to hell in a handbasket, war on terrorism be damned. But they think the impetus for change will come from the determined left. BS I say. If indeed a revolution's coming, I'm fully convinced it will be a rightist revolution.
Wasn't it the wood pulp paper people that pushed for hemp to be illegal?
We still get hemp for crafts from Canada.
I wanted to say that.
Thats simply not true and you should retract it. You are aping the lefty editorial boards and you are smarter tan that.
What Ashcroft said was that people who pit Americans against immigrants are aiding our enemies. Do you disagree that when the leftists divide the country by appealing to race or class they are being unAmerican?
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.