Carroll: Tancredo's next crusade?

The Denver Post ^ | 04/05/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT | Vincent Carroll

[ChrisInAR]

What do you talk about at lunch with Tom Tancredo? I thought I knew, but to my surprise (and relief), we spent much of the hour discussing the wisdom of legalizing drugs rather than rehashing our disagreements over illegal immigrants.

"The status quo isn't working," Tancredo says, meaning the war on drugs has failed — spectacularly. And while that's hardly a novel insight, most people who reach it don't take the next step of questioning the drug war itself.

[bamahead]

"The status quo isn't working," Tancredo says, meaning the war on drugs has failed — spectacularly ... why not let individual states decide, he asks, and then enforce their own drug laws? Aren't states supposed to be this nation's "laboratories of democracy"?



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[RatsDawg]

BINGO! Thats why I have thrown Tommy Boy under the bus as well.

[jmc813]

Pot heads, or boozers causing accidents.
Both drugs and booze are mind altering.

Would you support alcohol prohibition? And why do you post in meter?

[cripplecreek]

I haven’t exactly thrown him under the bus but I certainly disagree with him on this issue and the bank bailout. I just think the pro legalization conservatives should be very carefull of who they align themselves with.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/soros-infiltrates-conservative-movement/

[Eagle Eye]

Of course, if you are currently doped up, you can hold off until you sober up sometime after noon tomorrow.

Wow, that didn't take long for you to run out of logic and start tossing insults, did it?

How can you be so anti marijuana without being at least equally anti alcohol?

Seems that you are another inconsistent (unprincipled) Conservative who just enjoys the idea or limiting others' liberies.

[ConservativeMind]

Not at all.

Are you for allowing sex with animals, allowing people to devise chemical or radiological weapons, or for allowing people to go blindfolded into shopping malls and randomly firing?

If not, then you are against other people’s liberties, too. Otherwise, you’d let such people do those things until they have hurt another and then punish them.

[Eagle Eye]

Legalization is not the solution to illegal drug use, its a surrender to it.

Marijuana and cocaine weren't always illegal.

We only have an illegal drug problem beause we made them illegal, as what happened with booze.

Should the federal government be regulating citizens' vices?

[Eagle Eye]

Are you for allowing sex with animals, allowing people to devise chemical or radiological weapons, or for allowing people to go blindfolded into shopping malls and randomly firing?

Please come up with adult arguemnts that aren't moronic.

[ConservativeMind]

I notice you have no way of defending “liberty” as you define it.

Please come up with a consistent argument.

[Eagle Eye]

First off you are inconsitent if you do not also advocate a return to banning alcohol, a substance much more harmful than pot.

Second, you seem unable to grasp the notion of consenting adults pursuing activities that do not inherently infring on the rights of others.

Third, you seem to be the type to want to regulate vices...not all sins are criminal and not all crimes are sins!

Vices involving consenting adults don’t infringe on others’ rights.

The idea that someone will safely manufacture WMD’s next door to me or in my neighborhood is too ludicrous to discuss. Animal sex has nothing to do with this other than seeming to be something that draws your interests...and murdering other people ...if you have to have me tell you how wrong that is then you really are too dense to be on this forum.

[ConservativeMind]

First of all, you can’t defend your position. All you can do is attack mine.

Second, alcohol is specifically allowed because of the Constitution and the Amendment that did so. It was illegal for a period of time, as you may recall. When we get a Constitutional amendment to allow drugs, then maybe your argument might make sense.

Third, vices between a consenting adult and his/her animal also don’t infringe on other people’s rights.

Fourth, I am not sure how one can have a vice of something illegal. Can you explain that to me? I have no problems with people having vices. I have a problem with people having illegal vices and their wanting to make such a vice completely legal, when, in fact, NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has done so.

You are the self-described libertarian. So, tell us what other liberties you think we shouldn’t have while insisting some currently illegal actions should be “liberties.”

[dcwusmc]

“Drugs are bad for you.” Undoubtedly. Most things are, if nut used properly. SO WHAT? Is it YOUR business that your next door neighbor smokes a joint in the privacy of his own home? (Hint: the CORRECT answer is “NO.”) Do you want your kids smoking pot? If not, raise them up in a manner that when they get older and out on their own, they will not be TEMPTED to do so. That’s YOUR responsibility, not government’s.

I am 61 years old, never smoked a joint, never been tempted to. Won’t, even when it’s re-legalized. I barely have a drink of the mind-altering DRUG, alcohol, anymore. Maybe every other month or so. But it’s NONE OF MY BUSINESS (nor YOUR business) what my neighbor does, as long as it doesn’t get out in the streets. You are hopeless busybodies, sticking your noses in where one day they’ll get cut off for you.

The origins of the war on some drugs are interesting (and I KNOW you’ve been made aware of them), because there was not one WHIT of evidence that regulation was desirable for “medical reasons.” It was and yet is all about control over the lives of others by miserable jack- and jenny asses like you. If you truly believe that drugs are bad for people, PREACH IT FROM THE STREET CORNERS. I’ll come along and hold your coats. BUT GET THE GOVERNMENT BACK OUT OF IT. The war on some drugs (but not others) has torn up our constitution to the point that we now have an undocumented moron living at 1600, getting ready to slide the knife in for the coup de grace. Thanks a LOT, drug warriors.

[Eagle Eye]

First of all, you can’t defend your position. All you can do is attack mine.

Certainly can and quite easily. Starting with some "Golden Rule" philosophy.

Alcohol was made illegal with a Constitutional Amendment. Back then they knew that they needed an Amendment to do that, and it then makes reason that without a similar amendment the WOD is not Constitutional as was Alochol Prohibition.

You make a GRAVE ERROR in thinking that the Constitution grants rights to individuals; it lists some rights of individuals and states, but restricts the fedgov, NOT the individual.

Third, vices between a consenting adult and his/her animal also don’t infringe on other people’s rights.

It seems you are making the case for beastility, not me. I thought that it didn't need to be stated that it should be two HUMAN adults!! But if you wanna screw your own goat on your own property out of view of the rest of us, I won't lift a finger to stop you!

Fourth, I am not sure how one can have a vice of something illegal. Can you explain that to me? I have no problems with people having vices. I have a problem with people having illegal vices and their wanting to make such a vice completely legal, when, in fact, NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has done so.

To call gambling, drinking, smoking, carousing, etc vices is quite accurate. Some are legal some are restricted and regulated, some are taxed. Why should the US government be involved at all in vices?

Remember, pot was once legal while alcohol was illegal. This isn't a moral issue or else you have to admit that morals fluxuate.

You are the self-described libertarian. So, tell us what other liberties you think we shouldn’t have while insisting some currently illegal actions should be “liberties

You claim to have libertarian leanings but I don't find any truth to that statement at all.

IMO, liberty means that adults do as they please as long as it doesn't inhereintly infringe on the rights of others, doesn't involve fraud, initiation of force, or coersion.

The Consitution does not restrict individuals; it restricts government.

Government should not be in the business of enforcing religious views of one group onto others (Blue Laws, religously caused dry counties, etc)

Freedom is too much for most to handle; most can't handle their own and don't want others to have it either.

There is absolutely no reason that I or the government should be involved in what you read or don't read, what you may or may not ingest or inhale, what you watch on TV, listen to on the radio, etc.

So why would you care what others do in similar categories?

[ConservativeMind]

There is no country in the world that has fully legalized marijuana use. So, any argument you make in favor of making it legal is strictly theory. You are here arguing that something which is currently illegal will make the crime associated with it, lessen. This has never been done with marijuana, so we are to take your esteemed word that this is the right thing to do.

This argument that “what my neighbor does, as long as it doesn’t get out in the streets,” is fine. However, if you believe this as your sole criteria, you therefore believe bestiality in your own home is okay, that people should be allowed to create and use chemical and radiological weapons (as long as it stays on their property), and that shooting from one’s property with a blindfold is fine, again, as long as it never hurts another.

I don’t think you are that consistent, so, please, tell us why some behaviors our society deems “bad” should be legalized, while other behaviors our society claims are bad should categorically remain illegal.

Gosh, if we legalized rape, rape statistics would immediately drop to zero (you know, it’s no longer “illegal”). Interesting stance, there, huh?

[ConservativeMind]

Unfortunately for you, you have made your own GRAVE ERROR. All of the Amendments are considered the Constitution. Without a doubt, rights can be taken away by the Constitution through Amendments. Alcohol was just one example. A Constitutional amendment against abortion would do the same, taking a deemed "right" away from people who currently "enjoy" it.

You are the one saying that whatever one does, as long as they don't hurt another, should be fine. You are also the one who claims this shouldn't be fine. Get your thinking straight. As you say, “...why would you care what others do...” in creating chemical bombs for fun, as long as you are never a victim of them?

It's funny, but you didn't describe how someone can have a vice with something illegal. I'll help you here: Maybe it is because they did something illegal and can't stop it anymore. Do you really think legalizing something that creates a vice so bad that it makes people continue to break the law is a good idea? Get real.

In reality, you are against truly against some liberties that never used to have a law against them (bomb-making, etc.) while being for something that is currently illegal and without positive merit.

[dcwusmc]

“When we get a Constitutional amendment to allow drugs...”

THERE is the root of your problem. We do not need a Constitutional amendment to “allow” the People to do something. The Constitution is a limit on the authority of the GOVERNMENT’S authority. YOU are laboring under the misapprehension that We, the People, need governmental permission to do ANYTHING. You have drunk the Koolaid of big government, of Woodrow Wilson, of FDR, of LBJ, of Bush I and II, of Clinton and Obambi. No wonder your mind is such a skull full of mush.

We, the People, can do ANYTHING we like that does not constitute an infringement on the EQUAL rights of others, that does not INITIATE any form of aggressive action against others. GOVERNMENT must live under the bonds of the Constitution. READ IT AND WEEP. Read the other writings of the Founders. Get your head out of your butt and you might even be able to see and to smell fresh air, rather than what you’re used to.

[ConservativeMind]

So we do have the God-given right to create bombs, marry and have sex with an animal, and even drive drunk (as long as we don't veer toward someone)?

Amendments are as much a part of our Constitution as the original Constitution wording. They “amend” the wording and intent of the original document. Some Amendments take away what might have been legal, while others don't.

So, we've always had same-sex marriage and the other things mentioned above? I mean, if the Constitution allows it, it should have been pretty common after 225+ years, right?

[Eagle Eye]

Unfortunately for you, you have made your own GRAVE ERROR. All of the Amendments are considered the Constitution. Without a doubt, rights can be taken away by the Constitution through Amendments. Alcohol was just one example.

The only example and it was a mistake that got corrected.

You are the one saying that whatever one does, as long as they don't hurt another, should be fine. You are also the one who claims this shouldn't be fine.

Yes...no, you are mistaken.

It's funny, but you didn't describe how someone can have a vice with something illegal.

Yeah, gambling is illegal in some places, as is drinking or purchasing liquor in some places...pot would be a vice. So?

Just looks to me that you can't answer for your own inconsistencies and busy body attitude and now are trying to project your problems with freedom onto me.

Sorry, won't work.

In reality, you are against truly against some liberties that never used to have a law against them (bomb-making, etc.) while being for something that is currently illegal and without positive merit.

No, you are inventing silly ideas that you can then attack, in doing so you may seem smart compared to yourself but you are the only one that thinks so.

Maybe you should try to stay FOCUSED and not bring in your thots on beastiality and bombs. Just a thot.

[dcwusmc]

What IS your fixation with bestiality? Personally, I find it distasteful, but if you can get your animal to voluntarily consent, then be my guest. (or not.) Maybe you don’t wait for that consent. I guess PETA might want to talk to you, in that case.

I DO NOT CARE ONE WHIT about other countries and what they allow or not. Are you one of those like that SCOTUS justice who thinks we need to take other nations’ laws into account when we judge our OWN laws? Sure sounds like it to me. And pot was NOT ALWAYS illegal in this country. Up to the time when Harry Anslinger demonized pot by associating its use with Mexicans and Black Jazz Musicians who just wanted to have sex with white women, there never was a bit of MEDICAL problem with it. In fact there were, as I understand it, numerous MEDICAL USES for hemp, listed in the pharmacopoeia of the day.

And I am nothing if not CONSISTENT. If your action initiates any form of aggression against another, then it may rightly be regulated or prohibited (your murderous proclivities and fixation with rape and involuntary sex are covered under this... INCLUDING having sex with children). If NO ONE but you and your VOLUNTARY associates are involved, HAVE AT IT. Of course, you do need to get the ASPCA to approve your animal sex partners, but hey, that would be a snap for YOU!

And as for your other strawmen, I won’t even bother. When you learn how to make a focused response in a debate, you’ll find you do a LOT better.

[bamahead]

... that people should be allowed to create and use chemical and radiological weapons (as long as it stays on their property) ...

With the same strawman argument you used here, once could also justify that reloading brass on one's on property should also be prohibited. After all, you're dealing with dangerous chemicals, explosives, and materials.

So where does common sense stop and liberalism begin? Right there.

The fact is that if someone chooses to use marijuana in their home, recreationally, it harms no one but the person who makes that choice, unless that person goes out and does something stupid while high. But- there are some who want to use the police power of Gov't (ie: the DEA) to tell you what you can do in your own home, because they don't particularly like the behavior or the potential that you may do something stupid while high.

If someone chooses to reload brass in their home, it harms no one, unless that same person takes said reload and goes on a killing spree. There are some who want to use the police power of Gov't (ie: the BATFE, FBI, etc) to tell you what you can do in your own home, because they don't particularly like the behavior or the potential that you might go out on a killing spree.

Using Gov't as the all powerful regulator of the behavior of personal choices that certain groups may not approve of isn't something I'd expect from someone with a 'ConservativeMind'.