No longer 'Just Say No': Bush says quit drugs and fight terrorism

AP | 12/14/01

[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.''

[Alan Chapman]

We elect representatives to represent the will of the people.

We do not elect rulers. We elect people to do certain jobs in government such as protecting people and property. When government destroys people and property then it is acting in direct contradiction to its intended purpose.

There is no collective right to violate an individual for personal satisfaction or convenience. That is what distinguishes a Democracy from a Republic. The only morally justifiable use of force is in defense of oneself or in retaliation in response to having force initiated against oneself.

[Alan Chapman]

The individual has rights as long as those rights do not interfere with the rights of others. A society is built of many individuals, not just one person.

It is not possible for rights to conflict. If an act by an individual creates an imposition on another without consent then it is not a right.

Societies do not posses rights. Rights belong to individuals. Belonging to a society does not engender rights which did not previously exist.

[185JHP]

The jailing of users has a lot to do with feeding the maw of the criminal justice system. We could do better by fining them ($20,000.00 for an ounce or more). Also community service - put 'em in a uniform and teach 'em a useful skill - "Our Federal Building has the cleanest restrooms in town!" It'd be the most honest work some of the dopers had ever done.

[Alan Chapman]

That is like pedophiles saying the War on Pedophilia is destroying the Right of Free Speech.

Child porn violates rights. Children do not posses the intellectual and emotional development necessary to comprehend the consequences of consent to sex.

[jwalsh07]

But I'm angry with the lack of concern for the constitution that led to our situation, that led to the government's failure to protect us, that is being answered with even more diminishing of our freedoms.

This is the conundrum NC, in a free society like ours, it is impossible for the government to protect all of its citzens 24/7 from enemies foreign and/or domestic which is why the second amendment exists.

Right now the left is mounting an anti-gun campaign across the country and to my way of thinking that is the biggest danger of them all.

I respect your love of the constitution and freedom but I just think that the gratutitous bashing of Bush and Ashcroft by some folks here is laughable.

[Alan Chapman]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question from two days ago. First you respond with a non sequitur answer. Then when asked again you don't answer at all. Not the sort of behavior one would expect from a well-travelled and educated man.

You stated your opposition to drugs based on the potential danger posed to yourself by drug addicts driving cars on public roads. Do you favor alcohol prohibition for the same reasons or do you make a special exception for booze?

[jejones]

Now, now, southern rock; Dane is only saying that marijuana is a sufficient condition for becoming a babbling idiot, not a necessary condition. His and the other drug warriors' state may well have some other cause.