MWUUHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Um... I mean thank you.
(It's "he", by the way.)
I was just trying to take the statist argument to its loony conclusion: Kill the children to save them. Or as Rush puts it, illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
Like you, I'm shocked by some of what I read here. I always thought that a true conservative would never approve of a finger wagging nanny state. We've all seen this nation's various flirtations with such well intended meddling. The end result is always more government, less freedom, and the original problem left unsolved. (But with the nanny demanding more and more resources anyway.)
The Jihad on Drugs is no exception. Taxes are taken from us, our freedoms are curtailed, and our lives endangered; but, we receive no benefit. Narcotics are still available and we are still exposed to whatever hazards they bear on their own. Only now, with this jihad, we get still more risk thrown in with no return on our investment. We get a bigger government, a bigger boot on our necks, and more empty promises of how it will finally work this time. That isn't my definition of conservatism.
well said my friend...dittos
PS
Your sincere post deserves more than dittos but it is late here for the ole man. My glass is near empty and the ice has melted. I'll catch you on the rebound.
goodnite all