Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No longer 'Just Say No': Bush says quit drugs and fight terrorism
AP | 12/14/01

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.''


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-207 next last
To: All
Remarks by President Bush in Signing Drug-Free Communities Act Reauthorization Bill
81 posted on 12/14/2001 11:31:16 AM PST by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: What about Bob?
"The LP is a JOKE."

Yes, it is. And it is a bad one. The drug legalizers have robbed it of any possible validity in the future.

82 posted on 12/14/2001 11:32:59 AM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: general_re
This is a very interesting poll. Thanks for pointing it out.

Let's say for the sake of argument that this is a reliable poll. How is possible that more than two-thirds of the people still oppose marijuana legalization, when every reliable poll I'm aware of shows that at least 40 percent and possibly as much as 50 percent of the population has at least tried marijuana. Is it plausible that such a large proportion of people would do this and still want illegality? Is it a "guilty pleasure" kind of thing?

83 posted on 12/14/2001 11:33:37 AM PST by jeffyraven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
"Does the phrase "tyranny of the majority" mean anything to you? If not, read the Federalist Papers pronto. "

It means that a small and vocal minority wants to impose its will on the majority of the people.

84 posted on 12/14/2001 11:35:16 AM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jeffyraven
when every reliable poll I'm aware of shows that at least 40 percent and possibly as much as 50 percent of the population has at least tried marijuana.

Tried marijuana is the optimal term there Jeffy. After people try it and see that marijuana makes them into babbling idiots, they see why it should not be legalised.

85 posted on 12/14/2001 11:38:15 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
It means that a small and vocal minority wants to impose its will on the majority of the people.

Absolutely incorrect. Tyranny of the majority, in the context of the Federalist Papers, means that we as a nation subscribe to a set of core beliefs and values, and that even the rule of a majority does not change these core beliefs and values. That's why the Founders made the amendment process so complex and daunting.

Try thinking about it from a pro-2nd Amendment standpoint and it will make more sense.


86 posted on 12/14/2001 11:39:40 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dane
After people try it and see that marijuana makes them into babbling idiots, they see why it should not be legalised.

And alcohol makes one smart, strong, and sexy?

87 posted on 12/14/2001 11:40:42 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: FreedomIsSimple
On the other hand, sometimes I swear Dane is being paid by the drug cartels or the DEA. He's very good at twisting words and disrupting threads with flamebait comments to make a thread

LOL! You should really lay off the weed. You are becoming the poster child for the notion that marijuana induces paranoia.

88 posted on 12/14/2001 11:42:12 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
A core set of beliefs does not include the right to destroy a society because a minority of people believe that drugs should be legalized.
89 posted on 12/14/2001 11:43:28 AM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: M1991
Sorry that just works for the first one.
90 posted on 12/14/2001 11:43:28 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
"tyranny of the majority" means that a small and vocal minority wants to impose its will on the majority of the people.

no, it means that the majority can not take away the rights of the individual.

Read the Federalist Papers, my friend. This country was founded on Freedom and individual Liberty.

91 posted on 12/14/2001 11:43:48 AM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
And alcohol makes one smart, strong, and sexy?

Again for the zillionth time, alcohol has a better image than pot. Alcohol is ingrained into our western culture. Alcohol is used to celebrate joyous occasions(weddings etc.)When was the last wedding you went to where they passed the communal bong? Alcohol is synonmous with fine meals. Pot is synonomus with eating a carton of potato chips.

Alcohol is used by master chefs. Pot is used by Jeff Spicoli.

The list goes on and on.

92 posted on 12/14/2001 11:47:37 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Dane
LOL! You should really lay off the weed. You are becoming the poster child for the notion that marijuana induces paranoia.

As I've told you multiple times, Dane, I don't use drugs. Hence the words in my post "sometimes I believe". Thanks for displaying yet again your inability to argue an issue without resorting to libel.
93 posted on 12/14/2001 11:49:40 AM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
A core set of beliefs does not include the right to destroy a society because a minority of people believe that drugs should be legalized.

Our core set of political beliefs gives ultimate sovereignty to the individual---or at least the most sovereignty to the individual of any successful political system devised by man. Again, think of your original assessment in terms of the 2nd Amendment, and the concept of tyranny of the majority should become clearer to you.

Also, I don't mean to sound mean-spirited, but you really need to think about your concept of "the right to destroy a society" and decide for yourself if it really is a right, or just something you mislabeled a "right" in the same context of "the right to drive a car," "the right to live in a crime-free neighborhood," etc. And you really need to read the works of Publius.


94 posted on 12/14/2001 11:50:52 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jeffyraven
How is possible that more than two-thirds of the people still oppose marijuana legalization, when every reliable poll I'm aware of shows that at least 40 percent and possibly as much as 50 percent of the population has at least tried marijuana. Is it plausible that such a large proportion of people would do this and still want illegality? Is it a "guilty pleasure" kind of thing?

Well, first off, I have no particular reason to doubt the Gallup poll, although a margin of error of +/- 7% is a bit larger than I would expect.

In answer to you, that's really the key question, isn't it? I think the split between people who want full-blown legalization, and those who favor the decriminalization of small amounts of pot is part of the answer. I suspect that there's an immense amount of overlap between people who have tried pot and the people who favor decriminalization, although I'll try to find some studies this weekend that might help verify that.

But, there's probably also a huge difference in most people's minds between that and legalization. Consider the difference between the two, and it's not hard to see that you can hold both opinions simultaneously without being totally self-contradictory - it's entirely possible to be of the opinion that you don't really care if the kid across the street occasionally sparks a joint with his friends or if your neighbor and his wife like to do the same on weekends, while at the same time having some second thoughts about making it completely legal everywhere, warehoused by the ton and sold behind the counter at 7-11, much like beer and cigarettes are now.

If I had to take a sort of pop-psychology guess about it, I'd say that many people are comfortable with an attitude of "out of sight, out of mind", but that the stigma of it, and concern over the potential societal effects of widespread legalization, causes people to be wary of legalizing pot.

And, of course, that probably doesn't translate to how people feel about other drugs. I bet if you caught the most ardent proponents of continuing the war on drugs on a good day, many of them might very well be prepared to stipulate that there's little qualitative difference between pot and beer - which would not necessarily mean they would say the same about crack or heroin or meth.

95 posted on 12/14/2001 11:51:23 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Dane
what is your fascination with "Fast Times At Ridgemont High"?

image is nothing. The Constitution is everything.

or have we re-written the Constitution to limit OUR Freedom and not the power of Government?

did I not get the memo on the removal of Amendments 9 and 10?

96 posted on 12/14/2001 11:52:54 AM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
A core set of beliefs does not include the right to destroy a society because a minority of people believe that drugs should be legalized.

"A core set of beliefs does not include the right to destroy a society because a minority of people believe that peaceful users of unpopular substance should be imprisoned at taxpayer expense"

And make no mistake, Don, your beloved War on Drugs is destroying this country far more than drugs themselves ever could.
97 posted on 12/14/2001 11:53:09 AM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jeffyraven
Incidentally, you are aware it's far easier for kids to get illegal drugs than alcohol? Do you realize that's because alcohol is legal and controlled?

I'm aware of that. Also, in Massachusetts, with its Nazi-oriented Health Boards, its easier to get illegal drugs in the parking lots of convenience stores than it is to get cigarettes inside.

I've always had the suspicion that drugs are subtlely allowed as a way to keep kids from getting involved in real issues like demanding a better education and learning something and developing a future that breaks society's distinctions. And, for those who demand more, they're declared ADD and given Ritalin. We've become a society that doesn't really look for change, just satisfaction and pleasure.

Anyway if drugs were legal their strength would be controlled, they'd be taxed unbelievably, and a lot of bad guys would need different sources of revenue. Yeah, I know all of that. And I think I understand the issues. I just don't like what drugs do to the human spirit.

98 posted on 12/14/2001 11:59:43 AM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: grania
I just don't like what drugs do to the human spirit

As a staunch proponent of legalization, let me say I understand what you're saying. Yes, drugs are bad, yes they destroy the lives of individuals. But, please understand, prohibition DOESN'T WORK. We will NEVER rid our society of drugs, we can't keep them out of prisons for heaven's sake. The War is a waste of money and actually makes the drug problem much, much worse - all it does is increase cartel profits expodentially. These profits fund terrorists and corrupt our government. Drug dealers killing themselves and others in the streets, cartels buying off law enforcement or killing their opponents, ALL OF THIS stops with legalization.
99 posted on 12/14/2001 12:04:28 PM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-207 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson