Posted on 12/13/2001 3:32:50 AM PST by CrossCheck
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
On Oct. 25, six weeks after the worst terrorist atrocities in our history, the United States was bombing Afghanistan, Colin Powell was discussing a post-Taliban government, investigators were grappling with anthrax in the mail, and federal agents were . . . well, they were going after pot smokers in California. If John Ashcroft had been around during the Chicago fire, he would have been handcuffing jaywalkers.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I see, so if a crack user moves in next door, it is mine and my neighbors responsibility to move then? As well as the user's children. They are to somehow, leave and go live on the street? I see, things are all clear now!
I smoked my share of weed in high school, and even one hit got me stoned. Perhaps not for long, but stoned. BTW I support full legalization of pot, since being stoned poses no threat to your neighbors. Coke, I never knew ANYONE that could snort a line and not get high. Percoset, I don't know, but I doubt there is a medium as with alcohol.
and Texaggie79 will know this because he will be using his binoculars to peer into his neighbor's bedroom windows to check...
You rascally totalitarians can't seem to get out of other's bedrooms. What is it about you that compels you in this way???
It IS irrational.
Because it would have been political suicide. But like I stated before of the two parties that made drug legalisation one of their main platforms in 2000, the very leftist Green party got the great majority of the vote.
Anyway, I find that a little crack with lunch really mellows me out for the afternoon. But seriously, I think one can credibly argue that pot, in small doses, doesn't significantly impede functioning or judgement to the extent of making people irresponsible or out of control. Of course, as with all of these substances, there's a certain subjectivity (in tolerance and means of dealing with certain forms of intoxication) that makes it difficult to draw a broad conclusion.
Other drugs are certainly more intoxicating, but (to once again bring up a stock argument on these threads) the risks you speak of are not by any means inevitable byproducts of their use. Therefore, considering both the extent to which drug-related crime can be attributed to the black market (inflated prices, unsavory people) and the many people who can use these drugs without robbing, raping or murdering anyone, why shouldn't they be treated like alcohol, in the sense that a drunk who commits a crime under the influence is still responsible for putting himself in that state, and is punished for the harm he inflicts rather than for the act of becoming intoxicated?
The distinction is in that the majority of parents that drink, do so responsibly, and with no ill affect to their family; handling money irresponsibly is simply a trait, not an effect of using a substance; multiple sex partners.... (I have been known to consider laws against adultery for married couples with children. Even Uriel has mentioned it. It is, after all in the civil commandments of the lord. however) engaging in such activities does not prevent you from acting responsible around your kids, family, or neighbors.
Perhaps you should take heed from yourself and stop calling Dane an "idiot" (your words).
He obviously is an idiot. Do you really think differently? In fact when I called him an idiot it was not directly to him nor was it in refutation of one of him silly little arguments. I did not use the ad homenem as an argument. See the difference?
You guys hate when this is brought up but I must. State sodomy laws. That is all that need to be said. Fully supported by our founders. You, sir, have been shot down.
Ok, I see, because the Founding Fathers were homophobes, that means they would not support the inalienable rights of people to do with their own property, their bodies as they please. You're going to have to put together the logical extension of that thought before I'll admit to being "shot down". As to the Founding Father's homophobia, let see your source. :-)
As do I, but your defense of HARD drugs means that you also support the individuals right to put at risk those around him/her.
No I don't support anyone putting anyone at risk. That is an iniation of force against the natural rights of another, and should therefore be punished. However, the intrusion of the government into the right to property of the individual who has not iniated force against another is itself an iniation of force against the law abiding individual. You put forth that those who do drugs, always harm others. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and you cannot show that every time a person uses drugs that they iniated force against someone else's natural rights. Prosecute those who are not responsible and leave alone those who are. Simple as that. A good example is alcohol. We let those who do not bother other people drink, but if you drink and drive, you go to jail.
God tells us that the government is here to punish those that do evil.
Yes.
consuming hard drugs violates the rights of those around you.
You have yet to show how this happens in every circumstance.
Biblical Law does, however, specify the Death Penalty for all crimes against Person listed above, and anywhere from double- to quadruple-restitution (to be accomplished by forced labor if necessary) for all Property Crimes specified above.
Rather than attempting to devise a patchwork Prohibition of our own imagining -- "leaning upon our own understanding" rather than trusting the Law of God -- we ought to reform our laws to be consistent with Biblical Principle (including a robust application of Capital Punishment for all crimes of malicious violence).
BUMP
Drunk, stoned, or sober, if you harm someone you pay, if you kill someone though your negligence you go to prison, if you willfully murder you get the chair. Easy to understand, simple to administer.
Well put. Unfortunately it can impede short term memory function and this is too bad otherwise it would be my drug of choice. I choose not to use it because I need all my faculties...all the time. Now, when I retire I do not want any rascally totalitarians telling me what I can and cannot put into my body.
Must've been some good stuff !
My memory of college mj experiences says different.
BTW I support full legalization of pot, since being stoned poses no threat to your neighbors.
Agreed.
Coke, I never knew ANYONE that could snort a line and not get high.
Not sure, but I've heard different.
Percoset, I don't know, but I doubt there is a medium as with alcohol.
My friend (who killed himself w/ booze) used to eat one every once in awhile and claimed it induced only a mild relaxation.
That's a cop-out. If it was such a major plank of their agenda, and if Clinton enjoyed such a huge popular leftist mandate, it stands to reason they'd be apoplectic if Clinton didn't push for marijuana reform laws. Besides, wasn't Clinton our first "weed" president? Since legalization under Clinton not only didn't happen, but never even came close to happening, I think your assessment that decriminalization is a main leftist plank is a weak one.I'm sure you realize, too, that men like Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh were rabidly anti-drug. I'm pretty sure those guys were leftists.
However legalizing the hard drugs would be like saying it is ok for me to stand on my property and aim a gun at anyone outside of it.
With alcohol, yes, we punish those that commit crimes while on it, but the ratio of crimes committed and damage done to others by someone on alcohol compared to the amount of people that use alcohol is very very very small. With hard drugs, it is MUCH higher. Legalization will make drugs more available, more pure, cheaper, and the users will have no fear of arrest, therefor use will skyrocket and harm to nonusers will as well. Hard drug legalization would destroy our country. And the cry for Government help will increase 10 fold. Can you imagine, with all the addicts, the outcry for liberal government policies to help them? You legalize drugs and you have socialism next.
``Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness. ''
- George Washington
Ack!
For the moment, put aside physical or sexual abuse. Children know when they are being abused. They are afraid sometimes to tell, but they know they are being abused. Children who are abused often come forward, many are discovered. This is a horrible crime, and thankfully it is rare and most cases are discovered.
What other behaviors should parents be monitored for? For how many other things will children be directed to monitor their parents for the government? What precedents will this set?
If you wish to move, then do so. That person that moved in next door has no right to buy property where ever he wants? Your neighbor has no right to sell property to whoever he wants to - just who YOU want him to?
Your rights to live where ou want END AT YOUR PROPERTY LINE! Why do you get to decide who lives on property you don't own? Like I said, when that perosn who "smokes crack" coems on your property, then use YOUR RIGHTS to remove him. I, as well as EVERY LIBERTARIAN will support you on this!
I think we're nearer to the heart of the issue now. You say that the majority of alcohol users are responsible. The assumption is that, conversely, the majority of drug users are irresponsible. However, is this borne out by the facts? I would argue that to determine whether this is true you would have to compare the total population of drug users (which I think we can all agree is larger than we know) to the percentage that commits other crimes (robbery, domestic violence, etc.). If the comparison yields numbers equal to or higher than that found in alcohol users, the argument that drugs are simply too dangerous to permit may have some merit.
I don't have the stats at my fingertips, and I don't even know that accurate data exists to make this comparison. My point is simply that our information about drug users, especially in the mainstream news media, focuses on those users who do commit other crimes and otherwise make an utter mess of their lives. Is this because they truly represent the majority of drug users, or is it because they're the ones getting caught on account of their stupid, self-destructive behavior?
Wow, what an irrefutable argument, back with so many facts. < /sarcasm>
because the Founding Fathers were homophobes
Hold the phone. That is a Liberal term. Your liberal colors are starting to show. If you are really going to try to explain the state sodomy laws as a result of homophobia, I see no point in arguing with you. That is pure ignorance.
You were shot down, because they obviously did not support the right to do ANYTHING with your body on your property.
You have yet to show how this happens in every circumstance.
I'm pretty sure that if it was legal to keep private nukes in your basement that there would be a great many that would never ultimately harm those around it. That doesn't change the risk factor.
My goal is to stop hard drugs from being sold, not go into people's houses and arrest them for use.
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.