I feel it’s a rather pointless exercise debating libertines on the subject, as pro/anti-WOD threads pop up all the time on FR, and they just tend to serve the purpose of clogging up JimRob’s bandwith, and nobody ever changes their mind.
You view it in terms of personal liberty, I view it in terms of public safety. It does not serve the purpose of the general public to start down the slippery slope of full abolition of laws that are specifically designed to protect the citizenry against harmful and deadly substances.
And for the record, I do not smoke, nor do I drink.
“I feel it’s a rather pointless exercise debating libertines on the subject, as pro/anti-WOD threads pop up all the time on FR, and they just tend to serve the purpose of clogging up JimRob’s bandwith, and nobody ever changes their mind.”
There are those who’re committed to their position, and those who’re open to persuasion. I’m quite sure the clarity, correctness and intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of our positions are obvious to those reading.
Anyone who’s a fan of “limited government” must see the WoD as a slippery slope to a police state that could make the old Soviet Union look mild by comparison - technology you know. Already, in the name of the WoD, we have confiscation of personal property, dog searches on traffic stops, “no knock” raids in the wee hours by paramilitary units, mandatory testing for much of the population and widespread surveillance of American citizens who may or may not be involved. And of course all of this enforcement leads to the high profits associated with successfully selling illegal drugs.
The fact is that the War on Some Drugs’ bad effects on society far outweigh the good, particularly in the case of marijuana “enforcement”.
“And for the record, I do not smoke, nor do I drink.”
Color me unsurprised. For the record, do you favor abolition of tobacco and alcohol?
I’m always curious why those who don’t do something feel the need to coerce others into making the same decision.
Me, I still think we need to ban sailboats. They’re dangerous, expensive, cause the Coast Guard no end of grief, and there’s a nasty halo effect on the family in many cases.
“You view it in terms of personal liberty, I view it in terms of public safety. It does not serve the purpose of the general public to start down the slippery slope of full abolition of laws that are specifically designed to protect the citizenry against harmful and deadly substances.”
I didn’t respond to this earlier, but I see I missed one point. It would not be “abolition” of these ill-considered laws, it would be “repeal”. The country got along quite nicely without them for over 100 years.