Posted on 02/06/2009 9:15:57 AM PST by bassmaner
“Drug laws aren’t coming from the left, the left loves drugs.”
There are 4 quadrants in the political spectrum: left, right, authortatian, non-authoritarian.
The authoritarian left and authoritarian right give us drug laws for different reasons.
“They’re the only one’s who want to micro manage your life.”
Alas, nanny-staters on the right want to micro manage our lives, too.
” How is it that keeping current drug laws is micro-managing every aspect of your life.”
Well, I pay taxes for it. It creates a police state and powers that liberals like Obama abuse to their ends.
“Oh, I see. Every aspect of your life is focused around pot.”
No, no portion of my life is focused around pot. I have never used pot, nor intend to use pot.
What does happen, however, is: (1) my inability to move money easily to facillitate normal, legal, business transactions and (2) I paid about $538,000 in income tax last year, about 1/2 of which went to the stupid drug war.
“nanny-staters on the right”
They’re a myth.
“nanny-staters on the right”
They’re a myth.
You’re kidding, Right?
HA...Soros has been after legalizing dope for years, and how did Bama get his funding. Now that bomber English professor and the Bama have been working on the in*just*us, prison population being alllll wrong. I expect you to have lots of company when Bama gets reelected.
You think nanny-staters from the right are a myth?
So who brought us Prohibition, seat-belt laws, and drug laws?
Always follow the money.
So who brought us Prohibition, seat-belt laws, and drug laws?"
Vote for me, I'm tough on crime.
He should be arrested and serve time like anyone else!
Well, like I said. Let’s straiten some things out before we start making pot legal. Legalizing it now would be national suicide.
Actually Prohibition and drug laws *did* come from the Left (ie. the “Progressives” of the early 20th century): a fact that today’s WODdies conveniently ignore. There may have been a religious component at the time as well, but it was the Left that actually did the dirty work of putting government guns behind the bans.
A fly in the ointment for your consideration:
In my opinion, this isn't about nanny-staters or micro-managing our lives. It's about judgment, and the individual liberty to vote your judgment. In my case, I consider drug use to be destructive -- to the individual and to the culture both small and large. When I vote to prohibit drugs, I do so not to micro-manage your life, but because to sanction such a destructive agent seems to me foolhardy.
I also consider such small things as tailgating and graffiti to be destructive. But when I vote to prohibit them, I do so (again) not to micro-manage your driving and freedom of expression, but because I recognize destructive elements in them.
I’m tough on crime, too.
Idiots hurting themselves, however, should be their own problem.
I don’t want to pay tax money in a futile effort to save morons from themselves.
No.
It was a power grab by the "Progressives" of the era: one of the first building blocks of the leviathan state that has its boot on the country's neck today.
Ever hear of laudanum?? Coca Cola??? Which did really have cocaine in it when it was introduced.
“I dare say the Folks that through one side of their mouth preach the glories of smaller Government, yet out of the other side of the mouth preach the glories of the Drug War and it’s outlandish excesses might want to review whether they are or they are not “Conservative””
Fine just make the private execution of drug users legal and end the government involvement.
“tailgating and graffiti to be destructive”
Graffiti is destruction of other people’s property.
Tailgaiting (really, reckless driving) is an activity that directly causes danger to others.
People want to ruin their lives in the privacy of their homes? Their problem. (And there is NOTHING we can do -— on the state level -— to stop them.)
It’s a waste of money, time, resources, and freedom to try.
“$538,000 in income tax last year”
That’s a lot of money. Congratulations on your wealth. I don’t think there should be any federal income tax. The government is too big. If you want to drop all the federal programs including the Narcs, I’m with you. But making dope legal would be a bad idea right now unless we also make stoning dope heads legal. Stoning stoners...
Come on, Soros doesn't care one way or another about legalizing drugs. That's all for show. Now that his boy is where he wants him, it's all about increasing the power of the leviathan state. What better way to project that power than through the force of arms of a politicized law enforcement community?
Besides, those that consume mind-altering substances are more likely to be apathetic and not care about the 'revolutionary fervor' that The One (according to his missus) demands: "Barack won't let you go back to your old ways of thinking" (M. Obama).
Spend much time in Iran lately? Sounds like you'd be right at home there.
Yeah, it might not have been a good idea at the time. But probably not a good idea now to lift the ban. I think we should stop giving money to the corrupt government though. I need to clarify something. I don’t think the federal government was ever intended to be a vehicle for banning substances. That’s a state issue, or a community issue.
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.